COUNCIL OF EMPIRE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 14691, 27 May 1911, Page 7

COUNCIL OF EMPIRE.

SIR JOSEPH WARD'S SCHEME.

DISCUSSED AT IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

UNANIMOUS OPPOSITION.

WITHDRAWAL OF THE PROPOSAL.

By Telegraph.—Press Association.—Copyright.

(Received May 26, 11 p.m.)

London, May 26. The Imperial Conference sat all day yesterday, Mr. Asquith presiding, while Mr. Lewis Harcourt (Secretary for the Colonies) was also present.

Sir Joseph Ward made a lengthy speech in outlining his proposals for the establishment of a Council of State for the Empire. He said that New Zealand looked forward to substantially increasing her naval contribution, and was surely entitled to some voice on the question of peace or war. He suggested that the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and Newfoundland should elect an Imperial House of Representatives for defence, with one representative for every 200,000 of population elected for five years, with an Upper Council of 12 members, giving equal representation to each part. SHARING THE BURDEN. The fact that two of the greatest Dominions had already embarked on naval policies, emphasised the need for an Imperial Council to co-ordi-nate and harmonise naval defence. Independent policies would not make for the strongest position in maintaining Imperial ties. He preferred to. call the body, which he suggested should be created, an Imperial Parliament of Defcnce, as defence was the vitally paramount question, even more important to Britain than to the Dominions Oversea. 1

The naval burden was increasing, and the day for partnership had arrived. The question was on what basis should the partnership rest. It could not rest on the present relationship, where the partners were without a voice in the management. For the protection of British ships, goods, and people on the seas, Canada's and Australia's local provisions, however good, were inadequate, and Imperial organisation was necessary on the lines he had suggested.

IMPERIAL PARTNERSHIP. National divergence in regard 00 naval defence would increase as the Dominions grew to full stature, unless British statesmen promoted partnership with representation. The Council would only deal with matters of Imperial concern, and it was essential that its framework should be as elastic as efficiency and durability demanded. 'There would be no interference by one portion of the Empire with another in regard to local land forces. Proper naval unity would secure the peace of tne world for generations.

Mr. Fisher asked whether the Council would have the power of coercion by legislative Act.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier said that he understood that the Council would have power to vote the contributions which would have to be fixed for the different Dominions, and he seriously objected to that.

Sir Joseph Ward replied that he wanted uniformity, but wanted to preserve the whole of the oversea interests.

Mr. Asquith said that apparently the Council was to have power to impose contributions and policy upon dissentient communities.

remainder would provide docks and naval yards in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa.

Mr. Asquith asked what would be the position of the British Government when they conducted negotiations with . foreign Powers. If it came to the point of rupture should the matter be held over for the decision of this proposed new body 1 ?

Sir Joseph Ward said that the executive would be responsible. The Defence Parliament, in which Britain had greater representation than the Dominions, was entitled to a voice on the question of peace or war.

"AN IMPRACTICABLE SCHEME."

Sir Wilfrid Laurier said that the resolution favoured a council advisory to the Imperial authority, but Sir Joseph Ward's arguments favoured' something different—a legislative body with power 'to create expenditure, but no responsibility for providing revenue. Such a scheme was indefensible and impracticable.

Mr. Fisher said that the plan was impracticable and would violate every prinpiple of responsible government, and the very basis of British government. The systems of defence adopted by New Zealand and Canada could be better discussed on another occasion. Australia relied on the British Government generally to safeguard the whole of the naval interests of the Empire, and the Commonwealth would defend Australia by its own naval and military forces. He would not say that there was no possibility of an Advisory Council to deal with matters arising from time to time, and communicating with representatives on the spot, but that was a question involving the whole reconstruction of the Empire, and could not be considered or decided off-hand.

Mr. Botha declared that the scheme would become meddlesome, and interfere with the domestic concerns of the various parts, and occasion friction and worries. He sympathised with the underlying motive. The scheme of representation, however, was practically valueless. MR. ASQUITH'S OPPOSITION. Mr. Asquith read the memorial recently presented to him by members of the House of Commons, urging that practical steps should be taken to associate the Dominions in a more permanent manner with the conduct of Imperial affairs, by means of an Advisory Council in touch with Imperial public opinion. Proceeding Mr. Asquith said Sir Joseph Ward's scheme would impair, if not altogether destroy the authority of the Imperial Government in the conduct of its foreign policy ; the conclusion of treaties, and the maintenance of peace or the declaration of war. The responsibility of government to Parliament in these matters could not be shared. The proposal would -.impose on the Dominions a policy from which one or more might dissent, and it would involve expenditure and taxation of the people of the Dominion's, of which they might not approve. Speaking on behalf of the British Government he could not assent to a proposal so opposed to the fundamental principles on which the Empire had been built, and was carried on.

Sir Joseph Ward said that in the face of the unanimous opposition he accepted the position with equanimity, and would withdraw his motion.

COMPOSITION OF THE COUNCIL. Sir Joseph Ward, continuing, said that, under his schcme Britain would have 220 members in the proposed Imperial House of Representatives, Canada 37, Australia 25, South Africa seven, New Zealand six, and Newfoundland two, while the Imperial Council would consist of two members from each.

Mr. Asquith remarked: In a Council of 12 Britain would have two representatives and the Dominions 10."

Sir Joseph Ward said that the Council would be mainly consultative and advisory. The executive would consist of not more than 15, of whom there would be not more than one from the Senate. The Defence Parliament would deal exclusively with matters common to the Empire, including peace or war, treaties, foreign relations generally, Imperial defence, and the provision of revenue for these purposes. For the first .10 years the Parliament would have no power of taxation, but the amount payable by the Dominions would be taken as a debt by them and afterwards amounts would be provided as the Dominions agreed upon.

BIG NAVAL LOAN. The proposal presupposed the autonomy of the national divisions of the United Kingdom, placing them on the same footing as the Overseas Dominions. If £50,000,000 were borrowed on that basis at six per cent., including three per cent, for sinking fund, 25 Dreadnoughts could be built to protect the Dominions and British trade routes. On the basis of 13,000,000 whites the Overseas Dominions would be taxed 10s per head. Three millions would pay interest and sinking fund on the construction of the vessels, and the

A CONSULTATIVE BODY.

VICTORIAN PREMIER'S VIEW.

London, May 25.

Mr. Murray (Premier of Victoria), interviewed, said he thought Sir Joseph Ward's Imperial Council ought to be simply a consultative body. Replying to a suggestion that such an Imperial Council would be useful for co-ordinating the efforts of the different parts of the Empire in matters of defence, he believed that the Imperial Committee of Defence was quite able to co-ordinate, and he did not think that Britain's naval advisers required to be told by Australia what to do with the British navy.

MESSAGE FROM THE KING.

LOYALTY OF THE DOMINIONS.

London, May 25.

The King, in a message thanking the Imperial Conference for its assurances of loyalty, says that he is keenly interested in their deliberations. He trusts that the Prime Ministers will convey fib the peoples of the Dominions His Majesty's deep regard for their welfare and prosperity.

NEW ZEALAND'S DEFENCES.

A TRIBUTE TO KITCHENER. London, May 25. Sir Joseph Ward, referring in the course of his speech at the Colonial Institute banquet to New Zealand's universal military training scheme,

paid a tribute; to Lord Kitchener, without whose assistance and influence it would never have been possible. He hoped that by and .by they would have the inexpressible pleasure of again receiving Lord Kitchener in New Zealand. (Cheers.)

Whatever contribution New Zealand had given towards the navy to the support of the Empire as a whole was not due to the Dominion's limited resources preventing the establishment of a. local navy, but to the belief of the great majority in the principle of one King, one Empire, one navy owned by the whole Empire for the protection of all.