The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1903-06-10


by its decision to revoke the corn tax
which savored of protection
II ask the house seriously to consider
what this country has to gain by Civ
ing up its position of being country
of cheap imports" said the speaker. 4
am sure that the more the people in
quire into the subject the more they
viii find it is essential to prosperity Oh
the country this country should re-
main cheap country and they viii be
convinced the basis on which our imam
clal and commercial system mas Deen
conducted since the days of Sir ROBERT
Peel should not lightly be dismissed as
of no account.
This direct attack on Mr. Chamber
lain by member Of the government
who Id is believed must have spoken
With authority, ELECTED loud cheers, and
is considered even more important tnan
Mr. Ritchie's denunciation as lndlcatlilS
that the majority in the cabinet l.
0VerW helmingly opposed to any system
of preferential trade.
The debate was adjourned after
severe criticism Of Premier Balfour
Before facing the situation. which
largely place them at the mercy of tce
Liberal and the Irish votes, the nela-
bers Of the government attended an
Important cabinet meeting at which ali
the members were present except Ger
aid Balfour, president Of the board Of
trade, who is Ill. Henry Chaplin, NJ II,
FORMER lllElnDtI Oh the EDAlu u it / tNHtA4@
ture. and the malcontent Unionlsts
were actively engaged early in the day
in Westminster in rallying the sup
pOrters of Chaplin's amendment to the
budget. which declares the removal Of
the tax on grain involves needless
and Injurious disturbance of trade and
a serious loss of revenue. without sub
stantial relief for the consumer and
that If any taxes are removed it should
be those levied on tea and other articles
Of general consumption
Mr.. Ritchie having formally moved
the second reading of the budget bin
MIR. Chaplin. who was received with
cheers arose to move his amendment
and proceeded warmly to attack the
chancellor of the eXchequer to whose
inaptitude he said they owed their
peallng the grain duty. Mr.. Chaplin
said, Mr.. Richie had made a mistake
and had DreciDitated a movement fo-
which neither his party nor the caun-
try was prepared. For a moment he
appeared to have prevailed over Mr.
Chamberlain, but his triumph would be
short-hved- Mr. Chaplin blamed thu
government for yielding to Mr.. Richie
saying the ministers had thrown away
weapon which would have helped
them to carry out the new fiscal policy
70 which Mr.. Balfour and Mr.. Chamber
lain We're committed
MT Chaplin referred to the extraordi-
nary position in which the followers of
INC government had been placed by the
lndecison Of the ministers. 1t was useless
re salI 10 seek guidance o. leadership
from them. He concluded with forrnallv
moving his amendment on which he said
he meant to divide the house Tho ~
ton was seconded and Sir Michael Hicks
Beach followed. He commenced with saw
ms lnat MS views of the general finance
ent from the view held by Mr. Chaplin.
Sir Michael. continuing said his colleagues
W. peIiectIy aware that the grain du-
l4ea We're unpopular when ne had inauSl-
rated 1T, but it had been a success ana he
had heard the proposal to repeal the duty
VITA surprise ana regret lie considered
mat the duty was necessary because Of the
growth of the expenditure against which
he had protested Had his protests beea
received with general sympathy By his col
leagues ne would not be speaking from
oSnch above the gangway, Il was impos-
reduce expenditures without the hearty
and continuous support of the premier
eNpended on the army He earnestly ap-
pealed TO the premier to assure the house
that he was determine to stop the increase
In the normal expenditure.
Sir Michael said he was opposed to Mr.
Chaplin's amendment although he sympa-
thized with the latters objection to The
repeal OF the grain duty but he believed
the alternative policy to be a great evil.
Having to choose between two evils he
would choose the lesser and " ould support
the budget bill. Referring to the suggest
ed preferential tariff the former chancellor
one in approaching the splendid work of
Mr. Chamberlain. No colonial secretary
had ever done so much to bind the colories
10 the mQJnerland or so much to make the
colonies feel their position and duties as
Part of the empire He wished however.
to know what Mr. Chamberlafnfs opinion
was of the united cabinet The renea1 If
the grain duty appeared to the speaker 20
be a direct oar to the opinion of preference
principle. He therefore concluded the
opinion of the cabinet as a whole with the
same regard to these principles as when
colonial preference in regard to wines, SUI
gar and grain and he was convinced the
matter could not last long in their present
A continuance Of the prenAers attitude
of suspended judgment was impossible 1t
was not fair to the members Of the party
whose constituents wanted informa ton
The question was dividing the unionists
and making the opDositions a happv fam
ly- Mr.. Chamberlain's proposals would do
more to disunite than to unite the empire
and if he persisted I'm them they would de
made general reply, read carefully pre-
pared statement. The government. he said,
thought there should be an inquiry into
the manner OF preferential tariffs, but he
would be surprised if the inquiry showed
amy practical means of atrXing out and
out free trade and added that with his
present knowledge. he could not be a party
tn policy which he believed would be
detrimental to the interest Of both Great
Britain and her colonies and he believed
that the inquiry from which he would not
shrink would confirm his present views.
AR. Etchie justified the remission of the
grain taN and conceded that mlllers and
farmers had not been benefited by it, In
his opinion the premier had paid the tax,
hao pressed most heavily on the poorest
classes. Although he was precluded by the
speakers ruling from discussing prefercn-
tai tariffs, he might say in behalf OF him
self and colleagues what he and they
thought. The members Of the government
who had spoken ON the subject had smoke,
for themselves ana not for the government.
All thus far had been suggested was that
the matter should be discussed and In
quired into.
Mr.. Richie said he thought in COM
mon with an his colleagues that such an
inquiry was emirently desira Bile from cV-
cry point Of view and he concluded by
saying: Grain duty was properly imposed
as the result of a great national enler-
gency and had been properly removed
when the prospects were brighter. III de-
MED that there had been any inconsistency
and while he regretted that the govern
ment had wounded the feeling eff some of
its supporters he believed its action would
be indorsed by the country 1t was the
foreign and not the British farmers who
had gained by the tax
Mr.. Rftchie's outspolSen Reputation of
AR Chambcrlain's policy caused an inn