THE CONFERENCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13485, 11 May 1907, Page 5

THE CONFERENCE.

THE IMPERIAL FUND, MR. DEAKIN'S PROPOSAL. CO-OPERATION FOR PACIFIC "--PURPOSES. V MR. GEORGE'S CAUSTIC \\ ~ REPLY. . By Telegraph.—Press Association.— Copyright. . ~ ■ London, May 9. At the Imperial Conference yesterday Mr. Lloyd George tried to block Mr, Deakin's Imperial Fund resolution. He said" it was a matter for the Treasury only, and Mr. Asqmth had Reclined to attend the Coherence to discuss the subject. (Received May 10, 11.45 p.m.) -, " London, May 10. Mr. Deakin's motion for the raising of an Imperial developmental fund from a one per cent, surtax on imports was further considered. Mr. Deakin explained that the Imperial fund resolution had been tabled as a general affirmation rather than as, a precise proposal. It was designed to promote consideration of any other methods which, ' besides preferential trade, could be employed consistently with the development of trade and intercommunication. He said that a one per cent, duty was a mere indication rather than a proposal, but it would serve the ; basis for argument. He quite recognised the difficulty in bridging 1 the several Legislatures and in securing harmony regarding the definite disposal of the funds. Even now no co-operation was possible without the consent of the Legislatures. He desired to discuss the best means of providing a method whereby the ' necessity" of Imperial co-operation for pacific purposes could be kept constantly before the people and Parliaments, so that, as required, there, could be an examination of all ; promising schemes for promoting .the .prosperity of the King's dominions. He admitted that the proposal had been originated by Mr. Hofmeyr and modified by Sir George Sydenham Clarke, who held that the fund ought not to be purely for defence purposes. It suggested the means and the motive of co-opera-tion and threw the responsibility for rejecting the scheme upon those declining to act in common. " UNBUSINESSLIKE, ; UNFAIR, UNJUST." Mr. , Lloyd George said Mr. Deakin's proposal differed from Mr. Hofmeyr's and Sir George Clarke's, since Imperial defence was the essential point in their schemes, owing to the Motherland's large expenditure on the navy; and t-hte small colonial . contributions. Obviously more could be 'said in favour of a scheme for applying a fund partly for purposes of defence instead of solely for purposes of improving intercommunication. . Personally he thought the proposal unbusinesslike, unfair, unjust, and inequitable, and contrasted the United Kingdom's approximate; contribution of £3,500,000 with Australia's £100,000, New Zealand's £20,000, Canada's £400,000, Newfoundland's, £5000, Cape • Colony's . J £40,000, ; and Natal's £25,000—a ■. total of £590,000 for v all the autonomous colonies. Thus the United Kingdom was asked to provide £7 10s for every pound paid by all the autonomous colonies together. It was unfair also to ask Canada to pay fourfold as much as Australia. It would be .thoroughly unsatisfactory to create a fund first and then consider how to spend it. ' Mr. Deakin interjected that there would be no compulsion upon the Legislatures, who would be perfectly at liberty to control their own contribution. The impulse of a common Imperial fund would be more valuable than haphazard arrangements between a few members of the Empire. He characterised Mr. George's speech as "a preposterous pretence," and suggested" the adjournment of the discussion. NEW ZEALAND PREMIER'S 'CRITICISM. Sir Joseph Ward expressed doubts as to the wisdom of the policy it implied. He preferred the necessary amount being voted by the Parliaments on the Estimates to commencing a surtax of one per cent., which meant increasing it considerably within a limited period. One per cent, would produce only £20,000 a year in New Zealand, and if New Zealand were called upon to join with England and Canada for the purposes of. mail service development, reduction of cables, and concessions in canal charges, it would mean two and a-half or even five per cent. He disliked a system which had, in his opinion, many disadvantages. Sir Wilfrid Laurier was hostile, and said he was reluctant to interfere with the Canadian tariff. Whatever schemes they wanted him to support he would do so by means of a specific appropriation. He hoped before the Conference ended to submit a, definite scheme of mail communication. , Mr. Deakin explained that his resolution provided an alternative which possibly Sir Joseph Ward had overlooked. \; Mr. Moore (Natal) complained that Great Britain had refused preference, and was not prepared to''accept any substitute. Mr. Deakin's scheme might not be the best, but the Home GoVernment ought at least to explain its intentions. \ Dr. Jameson argued that something like what Mr. Deakin suggested must be done, or the Conference would be barren of all practical commercial results. - Sir Robert Bond (Newfoundland) opposed the resolution. MR. DEAKIN'S CHALLENGE. Mr. Deakin replied with considerable warmth. He said Mr. George and Mr. Churchill .had dealt only with the. accessories of. the proposal. Unless the Government was pre-

pared to submit positive proposals of some kind, they had failed to fulfil the anticipations they themselves had created. He challenged them to speak out freely as to whether they meant to do anything or nothing. MR. GEORGE'S REPLY. Mr. George replied that Mr. Asquith had only, undertaken to consider a definite plan if all approved of it. The Government- did not desire to assume a purely negative attitude ; therefore he proposed an amended resolution, " That this Conference recommends, in order to develop the trade . and commerce and means of communication and transport, within the Empire, that itis desirable that some means be devised for the systematic consultation between the representatives of the various parts of the Empire for the purpose of considering co-operative projects for the general purpose of fostering the industrial forces of the Empire, and promote growth and unity." Sir Wilfrid Laurier dissented from the amendment. Mr. Deakin said he attached no importance to a particular resolution so long as the Government proceeded with actual projects. He asked if the secretariate would deal with this matter. Lord Elgin replied that there would not be time to decide the future of the secretariate before the proposed steps would be taken. The precis states the resolution was not put to the vote, Mr. Deakin saying the discussion would «ee resumed on Tuesday.