The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-10-21
Replies to Mr.. Cham berlain.

Reptile. to Mr.. Cham berlain.
Since Mr.. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN OPP
ened his fiscal campaign at Glasgow on
Oct. 8, Sir HENRY CAMPBELIABANNER-
MAN, Sir II. Fl. FOWLER, Mr.. c. r, RIT-
CHE, lately Chancellor of the E1chequer,
and Lord RosEBERY, have been heard
in reply. The opponents Of the late
Colonial Secretary do not all take the
same ground, but the collective effect
of their speeches should be, apparently,
to cast grave doubt on the soundness
of the arguments put forward in behalf
of the proposed preferential tariff.
Sir Fl. Fl. FOWLER and Lord ROBBERY
dispute Mr.. CHAMBERLAIN fundamen-
tai assumption that free trade has proved
a failure in Great Britain, because it's
commercial competitors are protection
ist countries They draw from the off,
cial statistics the opposite conclusion,
namely, that Great Britain has not only
enjoyed unparalleled prosperity during
the last thirty years, but that she is pros
porous now, and likely to remain 30.
Why risk certainty, asks Lord ROSE
Berry, in the hope of securing doubtful
advantages, especially as the free trade
system, once renowned, could only with
extreme difficulty be resumed2 What
are the material, as distinguished from
the sentimental, advantages that Eng
llshmen could hope to gain from a pref
erential tariff?
Mr.. CHAMBERLAIN said at Glasgow that
while the Colonies could not be expected
to stife industries that had grown up
under a protectonist regime, they
would, no doubt, agree not to establish
any new industries, and would grant
British manufactures q preference, as
compared with those coming from
foreign countries. The economic his
tory of Canada and Australia does not
warrant the belief that those Colonies,
in return for the concession Of q pref
erence to their food products In tho
British market, will refrain from Great
ing any native industries that may be
prosecuted with profit. Moreover, the
purpose which Canadian and Australian
manufacturers keep steadily before their
yes is the requirement OF a monopoly
uf their native markets; and they will
make no concession to their British
rivals that seems likely to Illustrate
that aim. In other words, the economic
interests of the Colonies, except so
far as they are producers of food staples,
are essentially irreconcilable with those
Of Great Britain, and the attempt to
reconcile them would cause an amount
Of friction that would tend ultimately,
as Lord RosRBEAY foresees, to dislocate,
If not dissolve, the Empire.
This is one Of the reasons why Prof.
A. V. DICEY, who, like Lord RosEBERY,
Is an imperialist, opposes a preferen-
tial tariff. Mr.. CHAMBERLAIN's plan,
If adopted, would involve constant
haggling, wherein the immediate or
apparent interest Of England would
be set against the immediate or APP
parent interest Of a colony, and wherein
each party must, from the nature Of the
case, try to get as much and give az
little "a he can. Especially would the
workingmen of England be likely TO
show themselves very e1acting when it
came to bargain between the mother
country and the colony. They would
soon perceive what, as yet, they hardly
realize. that pretty nearly the whole
cost Of maintaining the British Empire
falls on the taxpayers OF the United
Kingdom. II a preference is to be given
to the foodstuffs Of the Colonies, these
may be called upon TO contribute to the
funds which go to the maintenance Of
peace throughout the Empire
1t will be remembered that, in order
TO allay the alarm caused by the pro-
posal to levy taxes on wheat and flour,
and thus to raise the price Of bread,
Mr.. CHAMBERLAIN declared at Sheffield
that the weekly food bill of the artisan
or agricultural laborer would not be in
creased, but actually lowered; because,
If his plans were carried out, the duties
on sugar, tea, coffee and cocoa would
be RENTED, or materially reduced.
Touching this projected Offset to a tax
on breadstuffs, Sir HENRY CAMPBELL
BANNERMAN has pointed out that the
British people are, in any event, entitled
| to remission or reduction Of the duties
on sugar. tea, coffee and cocoa, so far,
| at least, as these were imposed to meet
tho cost OF the South African War, for
which Mr. CHAMBERLAIN was responsible.
As regards the international conse-
quences Of accepting even Mr. BALFoUR's
halfway scheme, the policy Of retalia-
ton, Lord RosEBERY predicted that
such programme would land the En-