The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-06-11
BALPOUR PUTS IN A DEFENCE.
TELLS THE HOUSE THAT MINIS
TERSNEEDN'T ALWAYS AGREE.

question Of Fiscal changes Must he STUDIED
THOSE Who Remain in the Cabinet
Responsible for the Common Action
Corn Tax Amendment Voted Down.
Special Gable Dsspaseh to The SUN.
LONDON June iO.-Prime Minister Bal,
four replied In the House OF Commons
to-day to the arguments and criticisms Of
his opponents in yesterdays discussion Of
fscal matters. He made an interesting
speech which occupied an hour, half Of
which was devoted to replying to Mr.. Chap
lin. who represents the opposition to the
repeal OF the Corn tax, and the remainder
to answering the charges made against the
Government and himself in the course OF
the debate.
He defended the imposition Of the corn
duty In 1902 and it's withdrawal in 1908.
He declared that it was a perfectly legiti-
mate tax. 1t had not had any materially
protective effect, and was 40 innocuous that
neither the free trader nor social reformer
had the smallest reason to complain.
Answering those who ask IF the tax ia
desirable why ia it removed" Mr. Bal
four said: we put it on because we wanted
money, and took it off because we ceased
10 WANT money. ne htIIlltitu 'hnt 'i'Sip
was one phase OF the tax OF which he had
not fully appreciated the consequences
He was not aware how great the tax was
on raw material used by the farmer.
II was clear, however, that the House
did not care farthing about Mr.. Chap
Inns amendment or even about the budget
itself What they were interested In were
the Cabinet relations and the fiscal policy.
In regard to the former. what was required
from a Cabinet was common action and
common responsibility, not uniformity Of
speech or opinion
He instanced important divisions OF
opinion in Mr. Gladstone's Cabin cts in
1895 and 1892 and Lord Rosebery's Cabinet
in 1894, but there was uniformity Of act ion
and responsibility. Mr., Gladstone. when
taunted with the deep differences shown
in the speeches OF is colleagues, held
and rightly held, that that did n OF matter
80 long as there was common action. Mr.
Bafour added:
Nobody supposes that in every Cabinet
everybody agrees TO every measure to
the same extent, but II a member Of the
Cabinet thinks that the difference between
himself and his colleagues is not sufficient
to justify his resignation, he il responsible
for the common action Of the Govern
ment. ministerial cheers
That is true, sound, Constitutional doc
trine. and you will not improve Constitu-
tional tradition II you endeavor to draw
Minister into the bonds OF mere discipline,
and certainly am not going TO exercise
an authority over my colleagues which I
should never have submitted 10 myself
Ministerial chsen.l
Continuing, Mr.. Bakour said he had
hsen blamed for not making q specifc
declaration upon certain great fecal, colo
NAL and international problerns raised In
phatioally dissented from the view that he
was under any obligation Of duty to do 90;
indeed. he should consider it dereliction OF
duty II, on tho present occasion. he made
such a pronounoement.
He did not belong to that happy. self
confident band who thought q fiscal sys-
tenn established fifty years ago under con-
ditions profoundly different from those
now existing must remain unmodified for
all time. and he regarded as among the
most dangerous enemies of fiscal reform
those Who are merely traditional standard
bearers in a controversy. which, in his
opinion, had been worn out long ago and
had passed away.
In his opinion, no tax on food would be
ever imposed in this country without the
full consent alike OF the workers In town and
country, but it was no proclamation to e1-
anime the traditional system Of not taxing
food. They were confronted by three
great phenomena, namely, a huge tariff
wall against Great Britain. the enormous
growth Of trusts working behind those
- A. L. h.. fnr
closer fiscal union.
These phenomena cou Id not he ignored.
They were erninently worthy Of the coun-
try's consideration, and were eminently
dficult It was inevitable that great
changes would have to be contemplated
and sometimes tried in the progress of the
nation. What ought the Ministers to do in
such circumstances?
The present considerations, with unfore-
seen colonial complications. we're entirely
new and therefore, the most careful con-
sideration and discussion were imperative,
1t would be folly and rashness to interfere
with the great system which had been in
operation 20 many years without the most
complete examination.
The opposition seemed to think that the
Prime Minister ought to have settled con-
Nctions on every point whlcn can De raised
in the future He hoped the country would
never have such a Prime Minister. He
himself was not trained to have settled
conviction regarding this momentous
question, and 1t would be breach OF his
duty to the country II he professed such
conviction where 1t did not exist.
Mr. Balfours speech was cheered en-
Enthusiastically by his supporters.
Before the Premers spe ech Sir Charles
Dixie. Radical. denied that the United
States and Germany had achieved pros
p-rity under protection. He declared that
The United States had been retarded in
stead of advanced by this policy.
The Right Hon. Herbert Asquith. Adj
vanced Liberal, and Home Secretary under
lord Rosebery's Ministry, declared that
the abandonment of the Corn tax was an