The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-05-29
CHAMBERLAIN
and PROTECTION
His Birmingham Speech Leads to q
Debate in the House Of
Commons.
Premier Balfour, in Reply to Sir
Charles Dixie, Supports
Protection.
All London Is Discussing the Pros
posed Abandonment Of Free
Trade Policy.

LOnQOn, May Z9.-JOSepn SCnamDeria1ne
again proved himself the strong man OF
the cabinet. In a debate, which may
prove the most momentous of the pres
ent parliament, he has in a. frank and
bold speech further developed the policy
which will be universally regarded as an
entire reversal Of Great Britain's fiscal
position. .ssa
In addition to asking for a mandate to
tax food, he asks for power, to engage in
la tariff war with Germany on Canada
account, and to fight the American trusts.
How 1t Started
In the house of commons yesterday az
ternoon Charles Dixie. advanced Radical
member from Gloucestershire called at
tention to Mr.. Chamberlain's recent
speeches in regard to preferential tariff
between the colonies and the empire. Sri
Charles said he would like to know ifi
Mr.. Chamberlain, in advocating something
In the nature of a protective tariff. spoke
with the authority Of the financial de-
partment, or of the whole cabinet.
Mr.. Balfour, the prime minister, made
a long reply, in which he said that il
was not true that the plan had been
originated by Mr.. Chamberlain as policy
Of his own without consultation with his
colleagues. He added that he was In
agreement with the colonial secretary.
Sir Charles said that in regard to thss
preferential duties with Canals the bene-
atical. He had examined the speeches OF
the colonial secretary and the policy that
they foreshadowed. That policy, he de-
clared, had not been thought out and lie
presented to the country would be uni
versally condemned as It had been In the
times of their grandfathers and fathers.
Premier Balfonr said In reply that he
was not much in sympathy with the hon
Orable baronet. He deprecated waving
the somewhat ragged and moth eaten flag.
either on the side Of protection or Of free.
trade In a. controversy which was removed
as far as the poles were asunder from that
in which our fathers engaged forty or
fifty years ago.
The premier, continuing, asserted that,
the position OF the British islands is en-
! tirely different from what it was in 1916
or 1s47 It is different from what free
traders supposed it would be. They pre-
dtcted that free trade would become uni
versal, but they were wrong. England
was the only. free. trade country in the
world, and IL the present condition of
things continued, the premier said, the
time must come when the only neutral
market would be the Turkish empire, Brit
tshS protectorate crown colonies and India.
| This country would then q posi-
ton where Is would be obliged to import
an enormous proportion OF foodstuffs and
raw material, and would have to pay for
them by exports which they would find it
but the countries he had described.
| New Conditions.
The conditions which now prevailed, the
prime minister said, were never anticipat-
ed, and he would like to know whether
they were to be excluded from considera-
ton by the leaders Of thought in this
country. Canada, New Zealand, Australia
and India were parts Of the empire, and
| itswould be absurd for them to be treated
as separate aggregations because self-gov-
eminent has been given them.
! Mr.. Chamberlain said he had been sur
prised at the exceptional attention that
\ had been bestowed on his Birmingham
speech. In substance matter and other
wise it was not different than other
speeches that had been made at different
times by Lord Salisbury, Mr. Balfour and
himself. Attic he had not suggested I'm
entire reversal Of the British financial
system. yet undoubtedly a new mandate
would have to be given to the government
If the suggestion he had thrown out were
Ito be carried out in practical effect, and
this new mandate would involve consid i
erations Of the utmost Importance