REJECTED

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 20 June 1924, Page 5

REJECTED

, PREFERENCE PBOPOSALS. DECISION BY COMMONS. .CLOSE VOTING. BY CABLE—PRESS ASSOCIATION—COPYRIGHT LONDON, June 18. The House of Commons rejected the first four of the preference resolutions, which proposed Imperial preference without imposing any new charge on the foreigner. The remaining resolutions were then withdrawn by Sir P. Lloyd-Greame (Conservative),- who had moved them in the name of Mr Stanley Baldwin (Leader of the Conservative Party). The resolution in favour of Empiregrown wines was negatived by 285 votes to 268; that in favour of sugar by 283 votes to 263; that in favour of Empire dried fruits by 278 votes to 272; and that in favour of tobacco by 284 votes to 271. On the resumption of the debate, the Premier (Mr Ramsay MacDonald) announced that he would vote against all the resolutions. He said the first Your innocent looking resolutions were a preliminary declaration in favour of a full programme of Imperial preference. Mr Baldwin said the European, Japanese and American markets were closed rigidly against Britain. The only countries with which Britain could make treaties offering prospects of improving our trade were the Dominions. He expressed the opinion that the defeat of the resolutions would not be a breach of faith because Parliament was supreme in these matters, but it would be a stupid act. Was it not possible, he asked, to enter into an ar-ranof'-ment with the Dominions whereby the enormous quantity of foodstuffs Britain required might be obtained solely from the Dominions at. cost price and distributed with the least possible margin of profit? If the resolutions as a whole were defeated, added Mr Baldwin, it would gravely imperil the future of the Empire. Mr H. H. Asquith (Leader of the Liberal Party) said the resolutions were an attenuated, emasculated, anaemic, even an apocryphal version of the full-blooded gospel of Imperial preference. What a conception of Empire must people have, he exclaimed, who believe the reaction of the resolution dealing with fruits and honey would imperil stability.

The Prime Minister (Mr Eamsay MacDonald) declared that he did not believe that Australians and Canadians wanted Britain to change her fiscal system. Preference in Australia meant keeping up the tariff wall, but lowering it slightly in Britain’s favour against the foreigner. While grateful to Australia and Canada for taking down one or two bricks in the wall, we ought not to come to a fallacious conclusion. The Dominions intended Imperial preference as the first step to free trade within the Empire. It had been suggested, continued Mr MacDonald, that, the Government was encouraging trade with foreign countries like Eussia and discouraging trade with onr own kith and kin. That was untrue. None could feel very happy in discussing these preference resolutions, and he was not happy. He was much afraid that what was said might be misrepresented in the Dominions. He referred at length to the schemes of assisting emigration to Australia, for which the Government was finding large sums. The British Government was trying in these ways to bring the Dominions nearer to the Motherland. . Mr 11. A. L. Fisher (Liberal) said Imperial preference on a grand scale was impracticable, but he did not like to turn down the whole -work of the Imperial Conference. He intended, therefore, to support the first three resolutions. Mr Church (Labour) said he intended supporting the first four resolutions in deference to the wishes of the Dominions. Mr Lloyd George (Liberal), who was absent, paired in support of the first four resolutions for increasing the prefernce on Empire goods on the existing duties on figs, raisins, plums, currants, tobadco and wine, and establishing preference on Empire sugar at Ml per. lb. for ten years. The Daily Express says that excitement during the closing scenes was intense. Many thought preference had just iron, and there was a gasp of surprise when the figures were announced. “Three cheers for the little Englanders, ” shouted someone. The Daily Telegraph says among the Unionists alone was there unanimity, for 250 voted out of a possible of 257. Mr W. B. Campion, who lias already applied for the “Chiltem Hundreds,” was therefore unable to vote. It is estimated that between twenty and thirty Labourites favoured the four resolutions and voted accordingly. The rest abstained. The Daily Chronicle, commenting on Mr MacDonald’s speech, points out that it is hot and cold. He seemed to fear being misunderstood in the Dominions and added: “I will not be happy in resisting these proposals, but I must.” The intervention of all the party leaders, except Mr Lloyd George, partially atoned for the "dullness of the opening days of the debate. There were many comments on Mr Lloyd George’s absence, but it was announced that he had an engagement and had paired in favour of the first four resolutions, but against the rest. The main jioint in Mr Baldwin’s speech was an appeal to separate the resolutions into two categories and to agree on the first four imposing no new duties, but Mr Asquith rejected the appeal in the opening phrases of his speech, confessing frankly that he could not flog himself into excitement over any resolutions. The, most teljing passage in Mr Asquith’s speech was the following analysis of the ten resolutions: “Three of them deal with dried fruits, three with apples, honey and lime-juice (laughter), and one with various forms of canned peaches (laughter).” Mr Asquith said: “When I read them in all their pompous array on the order paper, I am reminded of the Bagdad vendor who perambulated the streets of Bagdad, shouting: ‘ln the name of the prophet, figs.’ ” (Loud Liberal and Socialist laughter). Mr Asquith, continuing, said that Mr Baldwin said the rejection of the resolutions would imppril the Empire. If this were true, what a conception the people must have of the stability of the Empire. Later in the debate it was evident, that, apart from Mr Lloyd George, the Liberal leader did not carry all his party with him. Mr 11. A. L. Fisher (ex-Minister of Education) said Imperial preference on a grand scale was a practical impossibility, but he proposed to vote for the resolutions which imposed no new duty.

Major Church XEabour) advanced similar arguments to Mr Fisher’s. The Bev. Campbell Stephen (Labour) promised Mr Baldwin the support of all Labourites if he would give an assurance, that his Empire policy would be one of natioual buying and marketing of all. surplus colonial produce to the exclusion of the parasitic middleman. Captain W. Brass (Conservative) said that, although a free trader, he proposed to vote for the first four resolutions. Ho thought we should -make a gesture to the Dominions to help the Empire settlement schemes. Mr. 11. H. .Spencer (Liberal) said he had served as a “Tommy” in the Australian force, but had never heard his fellows base their loyalty to the Empire upon Imperial preference. Mr Spencer, who is a Bradford woollen manufacturer, continued .that he had a new suit made of Australian wool in order to enforce the argument that, when he endeavoured to sell some of tile doth, he would find that Holland and Denmark had a tariff thereon of o per cent., Switzerland (5 jier cent., Sweden and France 10 per cent.; but Australia had a tariff of ISO per cent, on the cloth made from its own wool. The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Plijlip Snowden) declared that the Budget made the greatest reduction in food taxes ever known, and did so intending ultimately to abolish them altogether, but if the preference resolutions were adopted they must say good-bye to the remission of food taxes during their Parliamentary career. Mr Austin Chamberlain (Conservative), in winding up the debate, contrasted the attitude of the Treasurv Bench. Mr J. H. Thomas (Colonial Secretary) felt he was doing an ungracious thing and did not like the lash. Mr MacDonald felt it necessary, but ungracious. Mr Snowden did a disagreeable thing and loved it. The controversy, however, was emerging from the party stage, and support was no longer confined to tlie Unionist benches. Amid Opposition cheers, he demanded to know whether the Oovernmeut would dare to fnc-e the consequences if the Dominions to-morrow sent an ultimatum that every preference would be removed if there was no response. The divisions followed and were greed ed with cheers and countercheers. Mr Baldwin’s abandonment of the remaining resolutions evoked Labour cries of “Oh!” and an unanswered question from Captain W. Bonn: ‘‘Are we to understand all these resolutions are shams?” The House speedily rose.