The Tariff Proposals.

Woodville Examiner, Volume XXI, Issue 3572, 1 July 1903, Page 4

The Tariff Proposals.

MR CHAMBERLAIN IN REPLY.

London, June 29. Mr Chamberlain reciprocated Mr Balfour’s compliihent with u generous protestation of Mr Balfour’s loyalty and fidelity. He paid a glowing tribute to the colonies for rallying to the idea' of a common obligation to the Empire, despite indifference, slights, sneers, and opposition in the past. There were many methods of promoting diver unity. Nevertheless, they must consult and follow the wishes and interests of the colonies, remembering that the success of any Imperial union depended on the cordial support tendered from all pans. He, in a certain sense, as representative of the colonies, was bound to ask for an inquiry in pursuance of their suggestion that closer unity would moat profitably be reached by commercial union through preferential tariffs. This was no party question; preferential tariff was the only system capable of keeping the Empire together. He suggested that whether the exports of British manufactures to the colonies did not exceed those to all the protected states of Europe aud America together—a group of exports that were continually rapidly decreasing in quantity and profitable character —would it not be wiser to cultivate the trade of ten million kinsmen, taking from us £lO per head, rather than lose the opportunity for the sake of attempting to conciliate 300 million foreigners taking a few shillings’ worth per bead ? He added: The inquiry will also comprise the condition of the relative progress of protected countries regarding the policy of retaliation, or, as Mr Balfour had better described it, the policy of negotiation. If, having something to bargain with, we fail m our negotiations, we reserve to Britain her vast production instead of tolerating the ruin of the iron and textile industries by the importation of goods manufactured in protected States and sold here below cost price. He described a» monstrous the accusation that the Unionist party intended to impose greater burdens on the poor. The cry of a. “ dear loaf” he declared to be an imposture. Even if the price of that particular article were raised by tariff Jjjthere would be compensations in other directions, and the cost of living would not be increased in the slightest degree. He urged an impartial inquiry in relation to the inintereata of the majority of the population. The spteohea were cheerful throughout. The Standard, commenting on the speeches, asks if the colonies will so far waive the policy of protecting local industries as to open a remunerative market to British goods? Ind adds that probably it will be|harder to convert some of the colonies than to obtain the assent of some of the constituencies to Mr Chamberlain’s scheme. A DEMONSTRATION' AGAINST THEM. , London, June 29. Twenty thousand people attended a demonstration at Edinburgh when a resolution was carried that taxing food aud raw material would impoverish the people, diminish trade, and t endanger foreign relations. Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman wrote that the entire scheme would collapse unless food were taxed. They should win its advocates to that fact, and let the people make the choice.

Mr Asquith, a meeting at Boston, said : “ Let ns by all means always keep our minds open to new f-iets and new arrangements without revealing that our political childhood is beginning over again with the alphabet and the multiplication table.” The reckless launching of Mr Chamberlain’s scheme was a most serious blow at the Empire’s unity, bringing fiscally and politically, instead of peace, a sword. Mr Ohamberlainincidentally made it clear that the workers and electors themselves would hereafter declare whether the revenue available under the scheme would be applied ultimately to old age pensions or immediate redactions in tea, sugar, or tobacco. Pensions were no essential feature iu the reform of the fiscal policy. Some newspapers recommend the public to await the result of the economic inquiry and the presentation of a precise and intelligible scheme.

Mr Chamberlain iu a letter thanking the East Birmingham Conservatives, stated that he would be the last man to promote this discussion if he supposed that the scheme would in any circumstances injure the masses of the population. Sir W. Vernon Harcourt, speaking at Mai wood, declared that the secret of Mr Chamberlain’s political temperament was, apparently, a spirit of retaliation. It was risky to retaliate not on Germany alone while pretending it was no burden on the people least able to bear it.