New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-03-09
FISCAL DEBATE In HOUSE.
DIR. BALFOUR SUSTAINED.
Premier and Dir. Chamberlain Derry
Protection Pollen.

London March S-winston Churchill led to-
night what probably the last full dress
debate of the session ION the fiscal question in
the House of Commons. The debate on a
resolution that in the opinion of the House per-
manent unity of the British Empire could not
be secured through a system of preferential
duties based on protective taxation of food.
The galleries were crowded. and there were few
empty places on either side of the House. The
motion aimed to force the Unionist free
fooders into the Opposition lobby and divide the
House, not on party lines but on the Chamber
lain fiscal policy.
From the outset the motion doomed TO
defeat. and avowedly the Opposition had no
expectation of defeating the government. 1t was
a political move intended to demonstrate TO the
country the strength of Mr.. Chamberlain's fol-
lowing
Mr.. Churchill devoted himself exclusively to
Mr.. Chamberlain's fiscal policy In fact. In the
course of his speech he announced that he was
not attacking the government. but aiming
the entire force of his blow at Mr. Chamberlain.
Mr.. LyttIeton. the Colonial Secretary. said
vote for Mr.. Churchilrs motion would not ben
eft any one. colonial conference would be
held in 1906. 1t was foolish. he said to discuss
distractions. The government proposed first to
find what the colonies wanted and then discuss
the question of their wishes, Until the confer
ence should be held. the government did not
intend to be hampered by previously imposed
conditions, such that in the resolution He.
therefore moved that the question be not now
put. in order to defeat tricky manOuvre"
Lord George Hamilton regretted that the gov
eminent had moved the previous question, be-
cause it showed that it was afraid of discussion.
He said that he supported Mr.. ChurchiIls mo-
ton because it represented his own views
Joseph Chamberlain followed. He said he had
been twitted with lack of moral courage because
he had not submitted his fiscal proposals to dis
cussion by the House, but he hated useless dis
cusson. The question ultimately would have to
be settled by the country, and he declined TO
waste the time OF the House. because the result
would be utterly barren Mr.. Churchilrs was a
legitimate party manouvre to put out the gov
eminent. He was surprised that any "Unionist
free food fish should be caught in the net" Mr..
Chamberlain said he was not protectionist, but
he declined TO vote for the motion.
Premier Balfour followed. He said he was
unalterably attached to the principles of free
trade. and would never be responsible for a
protective policy He desired however, that a
perfectly free conference should be held on
colonial relations. He said that the carrying
of the Churchill motion would create a false
impression in the country and the colonies Mr.
Balfour insisted that the motion was not an at
tack on Mr.. Chamberlain. but on the govern
ment
H. H. Asquith, in winding up the debate, &C
cused the Premier of policy of evasion and
procrastination, and said that Mr.. Chamberlain,
the missionary of a new creed. when his doc
trine was challenged, covered behind the pre-
vious question
The House divided, and Mr.. Lyttelton's mo-
ton carried. 3O2 to 260. thus defeating Mr.
Churehilrs resolution.
The result greeted with loud cheering by
the Ministerialists.
Lord George Hamilton. G. ]. Goschen r. F
Cavendish. Sir John Gorst A. r. d. Elliot
Thomas Gibson Bowles and four other Unionists
voted against the government. Several Unionist
free fooders, including Lord Hugh Cecil, alb
stained. The Irish Nationalist voted with the
Opposition.