The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-05-31
Are the British UniOnists Committed
to Protection?

to Pr0teC1On
We pointed out the other day that 1t
was difficult to reconcile the removal OF
the registration fee on grain by the
British Chancellor of the Exchequer
with Mr.. CHAMBERLA1N's advocacy OF
such a duty on imported breadstuffs as
would permit the concession to colonial
products of a preference amounting 70
at least shilling per quarter. on
Thursday in the House of Commons Sir
CHARLES dixie directed attention to the
inconsistency, and the result was some
remarkable admissions on the part OF
Mr.. A. j. BALfOUR and of Mr. CHAMBER
LAIN. The Premier recognizes the i'm
possibility of siding both with the Cham
cellor of the Exchequer and the Colonial
secretary, and he has made up his mind
to cooperate with the latter
Mr.. BALFoUR declared that the plan OF
reverting to a protectionist tarih on
grain for the purpose Of giving a sub
stantial preference to the colonies was
not started by Mr. CHAMBERLAIN as a
policy of his own and without consulta-
ton with his colleagues. On the con-
trary, he (Mr. BALPoUR) was in agree
ment with the Colonial Secretary, and ne
was convinced that, unless some such
scheme was carried out, the hope of Civ
ing greater cohesion TO the British En-
pire must be renounced. Mr.. CHAMBER
LAIN, who followed the Premier, ex-
pressed surprise at the sensation pro-
duccd by his speech in Birmingham.
Upon the subject there discussed by
him, there was, he says, absolutely no
difference of opinion between himself
and Mr.. BALFoUR. He went on to
acknowledge that. unless there was a
closer fiscal relationship between the
United Kingdom and its self-governing
dependencies, no closer political union
would be attainable. At the same time,
he admitted that the Balfour Govern
ment was not authorized to deal with the
matter in the present Parliament, be-
cause the question Of protective and
preferential tariff on grain had not been
mooted at the last general election. For
the introduction of change so revolu-
tionary in the fiscal policy OF Great
Britain, q specific mandate from the
electors would be needed. 1t will be, he
said, for the voters OF tho United King
dom to decide whether they are willing
to pay higher price for loaf Of bread
in order to consolidate the British En-
pire. Mr.. CHAMBERLAIN manifestly be-
lieves that the voters can be persuaded
to answer the question in the affirma-
tive. With the hope OF winning over
the workingmen, he shrewdly proposes
to devote three-quarters or the whole
of the income acoruing from the tax on
breadst,lffs to an old-age pension scheme.
Never has the Colonial Secretary evinced
more astuteness than in this device. II
ANYTHING could induce the British work.
ineusap to tolerate tax on breadstuffs,
it would be the knowledge that the whole
proceeds of the tax would go to support
him in old age.
From the disclosures made on Thurs
day in the House Of Commons several
deductions may be drawn. 1t is evident
that the present Cabinet must be divided
on the momentous question now brought
into the foreground of discussion; OBJ
viously, if Mr.. RITCHIE had concurred
with Mr.. CHAMBERLAIN, he would not
have proposed the removal Of the regis
tration fee on grain and -four. 1t will be
observed that no answer was given to
Mr.. LABoUCHERE' s question whether the
views expressed by Mr.. CHAMBERLAIN
in the House were those of the Cabinet
as whole. Silence was equivalent to
an admission that Mr.. CHAMBERLAIN had
the approval of the Premier. but not Of
al! his colleagues. A Cabinet, however,
cannot long remain divided, and we may,
therefore, expect to see the Ralfour Gov
eminent reconstructed at an early date.
1t would not surprise us to see Mr.
RITCHIE resign the CHARACTERISTIC Of the
Fxchequer, and the proposed removal
of the registration fee abandoned. To
insist upon that feature Of the budget
would be ridiculous in view of the posi-
ton now publicly taken by the First
Minister. Not only should the Cabinet
b reconstructed on the principle of a
protectionist aud preferential tariff, but
an appeal to the electors for specific
mandate to introduce such tariff can
not he long postponed. 1t is by no
means certain that Il protectionist Cabi-
net could command majority in the
present House Of Commons, despite the
enormous preponderance possessed by
the Unionists in that body. A large Sec
ton OF the Unionists are free traders, as
were Lord SALISBURY and Sir MICHAEL
HIcKs-BEAcH, and, if they co6pcrated
with the Liberals and the Irish Nation
alists, they might upset the recon-
structed Balfour Government. In any
event. the numerical strength of the sup
porters of Mr.. BALFoUR and Mr. CHAM
HERLAIN would be 80 weakened that a
dissolution of Parliament would soon be
Indispensable.
Even II, through his promise to expend
in old-age pensions the proceeds of a
tax on breadstuffs, Mr.. CHAMBERLAIS
should succeed in obtaining a mandate
from the electors. it does not follow that
the plan would be carried out. The self
governing colonies would be called upon
to do a great deal more for the manu-
facturars of the mother country than they
hov,o vot ohnvrp l.