Evening Post. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1913. BRITISH EMIGRATION

Evening Post, Volume LXXXV, Issue 46, 24 February 1913, Page 6

Evening Post. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1913. BRITISH EMIGRATION

Tha question of immigration is ono of the most important that New 2ea- I land or any other Dominion has to consider, and it has very properly formed the subject of more than one interesting discussion at the Imperial Conference. But to the Conference it presents a twofold aspect, for what is for the Dominions the most desirable kind of immigration represents for the United Kingdom a problem in emigration which it cannot regard with unmixed satisfaction. As the United Kingdom is still tho dominant partner, it is, therefore, only proper that it is under the heading I "Emigration" that the discussions on the subject are to bo found in the official reports of the Imperial Conference. An important difference between the resolutions respectively arrived at by the Conferences 6f 1907 and 1911 is also due to the same cause. In 1907 the Conference affirmed "that it is desirable to encourage British emigrants to proceed to British colonies rather than foreign countries," and "that the Imperial Government be requested to cooperate with any colonies desiring immigrants in assisting suitable persons to emigrate." The first part of this resolution suits the interest of all the parties to the Imperial partnership. Tho Dominions, naturally, want immigrants of British stock if they can get them, and it is equally to the interest of Great Britain that if she must lose ''population it should go where it will still be under the same flag instead of being diverted to a foreign allegiance. But the second part of the 1907 resolution, which asks for the cooperation of the British Government in assisting suitable persons to emigrate, is not so obviously in the interests of Great Britain. 1 Why should her Government help to promote the emigration of persons who, being most suitable for the Dominions to get, are presumably the most suitable for her to retain ? The British point of view was put before the Imperial Conference of 1911 by Mr. John Burns, who, as President of the Local Government Board, is particularly concerned with the question of emigration. The result of hie representations was that, instead of reaffirming the resolution of 1907, the Conference resolved : "That the present policy of encouraging British emigrants to pro* ceed tc>> British Dominions rather than foreign countries be continued, and that full co-operation be accorded to any Dominion desiring immigrants. " The memorandum from Mr. Burns which resulted in the toning down of tho resolution to this vague form was an exceedingly interesting and valuable one. Tho gist of it was that the emigration from the United Kingdom had already reached a sufficiently high figure. In 1906 the number of emigrants was 194,671 5 in. 1910, it wae 233,944 \ and an increase of 29 per cent, during the first four months of 1911 over tho corresponding period of 1910 led him to estimate that the total for the year would not fall 6hort of / 200,000. "Now, we respectfully put it to this Conference." said Mr. Burns, "that with a diminishing birth rate and with an increasing emigration of fertile people, the Mother Country cannot safely go beyond 300,000 a year . . . 300,000 emigrants in 1911 means 60 per cent, of the natural increase of the population of the United Kingdom by births over deaths." As Germany has a population of 64,925,993 against 1 the United Kingdom's 45,211,888, a birth rat© of 879,113 to tho United Kingdom's 413,779, and for about ten years has actually made a net annual gain of imtni- ! grants over emigrants, there are certainly good reasons why the British Govern* ment should not desire to take active steps to increase tho present rate of emigration from tho United Kingdom. Mi*. Burns must have received' some slight consolation from the fact that his estimate for ihe emigration of 1911 proved to be excesMVo. Instead of 300,000 emi-. grants there were only 272,990. Before the Empire Dominions Trade Commission, which will open it© enquiry in New Zealand next Week, Mr. Burns estimated from the figures for the first eight months of last year that the total for the yeaT would be 267,000. Some of the details supplied by Mr. Burns are decidedly disquieting. Dui'ing Ihe ten years from 1901 to 1911 Ireland lost 336,000 peoplo by emigration as against a natural increase of 263,000 ; but the figures have improved towards the «nd of the period. The case of Scotland is in some respects more parlous, because theTo tho tendency is all in the wrong direction. "Scotland," says Mr. Burns, "had a natural increase of population by births over deaths of 51,791 in. 1910 : but the passengers leaving Scottish ports numbered fij.JJH in the samp year, that is, 3500 more than the natural increase of the population by Jiirthn over deaths." In 1911 this excess had more than doubled: and 191?. again doubled ihe figures of 1911, "Scotland for the first, time, 1 think for 100 years." paya Mr. Burns, "X showing an emigration fi-e., a net i emigration] considerably beyond its natural increase.'' Sot against this tho fact mentioned by tho same authority in his statement to tho Imperial Conference, viz., that there are 9000 to 10,000 Poles at work in the Scottish mines, and ono realises that the state of Scotland gives good ground for apprehension. Will anything short i?f tho revolutionary, land

policy which Mr. Lloyd George is believed to have in view stop the dendly drain from which Scotland is suffering? Tho^ more cheerful aspects of My. Bums' s figures cannot be conßido.vcl within tho limits of Ine present- atfidt.