The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-03-25
The Preferential Tariff Issue In Eng
land.


Ostensibly for the purpose Of facili-
tating the acceptance Of the budget the
British Cabinet decided on Tuesday that
hereafter the Balfour Government would
not call upon its partisans to vote down
resolutions intended by the Opposition
to commit the Government to a definite
pronouncement on the fiscal question
raised by Mr.. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN.
It is not surprising, therefore, that on
Wednesday night an anti-protectionist
resolution, moved by Mr.. j. S. AIMS
WORTH, a Liberal, and seconj sd by Mr..
r. F. CAvENDIsH, Free Trade Unionist,
should have been carried by vote Of
254 to ?. The onesided outcome Of the
discussion showed, OF course, that most
Of the Ministerialists. including not only
Mr.. BALFoURs thick and thin adherents
but also Mr.. CHAMBKRLAIE's followers,
had adopted the Premier's advice and
refrained from taking any part in the
debate or in the ensuing division. 1t APP
pears, however that the Ainsworth
motion was supported not only by all
the Liberals present and by fifty Nation
alists, but also by Sir MICHAEL HICKS
BEACH, Lord GEoRGB HAMILTON, Sir
JOHN GoRsT and nineteen other Free
Trade unionists.
The Ainsworth resolution denied the
expectancy Of accepting even in its least
Objectionable form Mr.. CHAMBERLAIN
proposal to lay basis for granting a
preference TO colonial products by inn
posing a small duty on imports from
foreign countries. II made no allusion
to the project, originally advocated by
the member from West Birmingham,
Of taxing foreign food staples, but
confined itself to setting forth that, in
the opinion Of the House, even the i'm
position Of a general duty on all mana
tdctured goods imported from abroad,
though such duty should not exceed 10
per cent. on an average, and should vary
according TO the amount Of labor ex-
pended on such goods, would be injurious
10 the commercial interests Of the United
Kingdom.
Both the mover and the seconder Of
the resolution declared in the course Of
the debate that a vote in the affirmative
would be tantamount to complete dis
crediting Of Mr.. CHAMBERLAIN fiscal
scheme, and they might have added that
it would involve q Republication Of Mr..
BALFoUR's retRlistory programme. After
the result Of the division was announced
Lord HUGH CECIL, who may be regarded
as the leader of the Conservative Free
Traders, expressed the belief that here
after the country would not take the So
called tariff reformers seriously. How
could the constituencies, he asked be
expected to rally TO those who shrank
from defending their own cause? He con-
strued the vote as proving that the pro-
tectionist movement, which had only been
galvanized into life, was dying.
It IL obvious, indeed, that Mr.. CHAM
BKRLAIN must have acquiesced in Mr..
BAIFoUB' mode OF dealing with the Aims
worth motion. Was his acquiescence
simply due to a wish 70 avert a defeat Of
the Government before the desired APP
preparations should have made, or is it
correctly interpreted as a reluctant sub
mission to a counsel Of despair? I'M
doubleday successive by-elections have
seemed to disinterested onlookers 10
sound the lnell Of Mr.. CHANBERLAIN's
hopes; but he has steadily treasured his
followers by telling them that at the
outset rebuds were TO DO expected; that
q temporary return Of tho Liberals 10
power on the Free Trade issue was in
evitable; but that the sooner their i'm
potence TO govern the country was
demonstrated the better for the ulti-
mate triumph Of the cause OF tariff
reform.
Nothing is known TO have happened
that should swerve Mr.. CHAMBERLAIN
from the inheKible attitude that he has
| hitherto maintained. He is still master
Of the Liberal Unionist Association, and
probably can WELD as much influence a.
the Premier himself on the Conservative
] orEaniE0ti9p also. ave observe no aian