IMPERIAL CONFERENCE

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1847, 31 July 1907, Page 62

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE

SOME OF THE DEBATES. (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, June 7. The famous Bluebook containing the vet batim report of the proceedings of the Imperial Conference was published this week. It is a voluminous, affair, running to 622 pages, and only one of the London dailies, the "Morning Post," ventured to quote at any length from its bewildering mass of "speeches. The "Post” gave seven oolumns of extracts, and even then only skimmed the surface of the Premiers' discussion on tariff reform and the secretariat. The hopelessness of giving anythirig like an adequate summary of the contents of the Bluebook in a single issue of the daily paper will be realised when 1 state that, of the chief subjects for discussion, the future constitution of the Conference covers some 70 pages, Imperial defence 85 pages, while preferential trade covers no less than 216 pages. ' To attempt any summary of these long debates, which have, moreover, already been summarised in the official reports issued at the time, would be superfluous. On the other hand, the reproduction in extenso of the chief speeches delivered in the course of the discussions, -or of any large sections of the discussions themselves, would require far more space than a daily paper could possibly spare. Under the circumstances, the "Times” and the "Telegraph” contented themselves with a brief paragraph announcing the issue of the Bluebook, and the rest of the papers merely printed half a column of random extracts, such as interchanges of remarks between Mr Winston Churchill and Mr Deakin or Sir William Lyne. I am afraid that so far as the general public are concerned the contents of this historic Bluebook'are effectually buried. A Bluebook is a literary tomb, and this particular tomb, so vast and forbidding in appearance, is hardly likely to prove a shrine to which the multitude will flock, and pay five shil-

lings for the privilege. Those who favoured the idea of keeping the Conx ference debates private could not have chosen a more effect than this of printing the. debates in a Bluebook a month after the Conference concluded its labours. It is only fair to the Home Government to observe that there is no evidence in the verbatim reports of their having "muzzled” the Conference, as some of the Tory papers so fiercely charged them with doing. The compromise whereby an official precis was issued to the press each evening was decided upon by the Conference itself, and apparently represented the feeling of the ' majority present. It is true v that Mr Deakin suggested, in the first instance, that either the press should be admitted or a verbatim report be handed to it at the close of each day's discussion; but for these proposals he obtained practically no support, the general feeling being, as Dr Jameson put it, "that people would be very well satisfied if they- got a short precis every day of some kind or another.” The reader may judge for himself how this conclusion was arrived at from the following brief dialogue - The Chairman: I understand, at any rate, that there is an agreement that we shall not have a verbatim report each day. Mr Deakin: I am in a hopeless minority. Dr Jameson: Another thing is, we cannot get it. Sir Wilfrid Laurier : I think the suggestion made on the last occasion, in the words of Mr Chamberlain, is the best one, and I see no reason to depart from it. The Chairman: This is an illustration of what was done at the Shipping Conference the other day (indicating a newspaper paragraph). Dr Jameson: I think a very short precis might very well be trusted to be given each day. Sir Wilfrid Laurier.: We might, perhaps, compromise upon that. The Chairman: That there is to be a precis ? Sir Wilfrid Laurier : Yes. Mr Deakin: It is very good of you, Sir Wilfrid, holding the views you do, to meet us so kindly in the matter. Thus the conclusion arrived at so far represented the general sense of the Conference that Mr Deakin acknowledged himself to be. "in a hopeless minority,” and thanked Sir Wilfrid Laurier for suggesting the compromise which was adopted. NO "COLD-SHOULDERING.” The Bluebook clears up the misunderstanding thereby the Home Government were supposed to have been charged by Mr Deakin with cold-shouldering the colonies at the Conference. The report shows that Mr Deakin, on the challenge of Mr Lloyd George, rebutted the allegation, that he had made any 6uch charge. The report goes on: — Mr Lloyd George: I am sure I am delighted to hear that. Mr Asquith: And I, too. Mr Deakin: If I had anything to say .on,that topic that would not have been the meeting or the place at which I should have said it. Mr Lloyd George: That is what I thought. It would have been better to gay it here, face to face. I am not quarrelling so much with what you said as with the interpretation placed upon it by certain journals. I am not sorry I have referred to it, because it has given Mr Deakin the opportunity of clearing up the matter. Mr Deakin: I have corrected it in several places already. It seemed that the colonies had been cold-shouldered by the Governments —not the Governi ment of this country—and the newspapers unfortunately omitted the "s.” Even so, his observation related to only one department of colonial administration—the department of emigration—-

which, he thinks, has beei neglected. This is a vei-y different thing from chargtlie present Government with giving the Colonial Premiers the cold-shoulder at the Conference. There were many interesting exchanges between the opposing factions in the debate on preferential trade. An amusing discussion as to the disappearance of American shipping is thus recorded. Mr Lloyd George opened it by saying: "Don’t forget that at one time the United States of America divided the trade of the Atlantic with us.” The discussion which arose is officially recorded as follows : Mr Deakin: Before the war? Mr Lloyd George: Before she became a high-tariff country. 1 know the war drove her undoubtedly into high tariffs and into bad ways. Mr Deakin: War destroyed her shipping. Mr Lloyd George: As Mr Deakin says, it destroyed her shipping. Mr Deakin: The Alabama helped to destroy her shipping. Mr Llovd George : The Alabama and McKinley between them destroyed her shipping. Mr Deakin: That is a matter of opinion as to McKinley. Mr Lloyd George : If I were interested in British shipping financially, I would say long may she (America) remain Protectionist ! THE "FETISH” OF FREETRADE On one occasion Dr Jameson interrupted Mr Asquith, to speak of the "fetish of Freetrade.” Thereupon the following conversation followed : Mr Asquith: You call it a fetish, but, for the reasons I have already given, 1 call it the principle deliberately adopted and approved by the people of this country, and which they regard, as we regard, as lying at the very foundation of our industrial prosperity. You can call it a fetish if you like—you can call anything a fetish—but with us it is a conviction, not based upon abstract argument, but upon solid experience of the economic conditions under which we live and move and have our being. I am not asking you to agree with it, any more than you ask me to agree with what I might call the fetish of Protection. I do not like to use such words. Mr Deakin: There was once a fetish of Protection. Mr Asquith: I do not ask you to agree with me, any more. than you ask me to agree with you. Mr Deakin: English Protection sixty years ago was a fetish, and nothing else. Mr Asquith: People then did not think so. It is just the difference when times move. It may be, in time, you will persuade the people of Great Britain that Freetrade is a fetish. Mr Deakin: We think it is so now.

Mr Asquith : Go and' persuade the people of that—if you can persuade them —and we will have another Colonial Conference, and we will see what happens. But you have first to persuade the people. I do not like these questions of terminology, which are apt to generate heat, but never conduce to light. We may be an absolute set of lunatics, wandering in twilight and darkness —fiscal twilight—and the time may come when we shall have a rude awakening. We may 'think, on the other hand, that Freetrade within the Empire will be recognised as an ideal which all the various communities of the Empire ought to aid in constructing. , "You think, no doubt, that our economic system belongs to the age of the dodo,” was another of Mr Asquith’s remarks.

Mr Dealcin’s first speech on Preference occupied (with interruptions) 34 pages, and he spoke at length several times Later. Mr Lloyd George's speech occupies 38 pages, but it is not really a speech, but a series of answers to the innumerable questions and interruptions of the Premiers. PLAIN-SPEAKING ON THE NEW HEBRIDES. • There was some plain speaking, the Bluebook shows, by Mr Deakin in the discussion on the New Hebrides, when he complained that Australia’s anxiety to help the settlers was not mentioned by Mr Churchill in a reply in Parliament to a question directed against the Commonwealth tariff. Mr Churchill said that the authority for his statement was the High Commissioner in the New Hebrides. Mr Deakin said that his Government immediately challenged the “unintentional misrepresentation of a gentleman recently appointed.” Mr Churchill gave the effect of the report in question, and said that if he had known what Australia was doing ,he would have stated it. Mr Deakin: Of.course you would, but the statement which was made was wrong, and that which you are now repeating is wrong again. Mr Deakin later spoke of "ridiculous insinuations of those behind the political responsible heads who committed these oversights,” and of "such slanders” telling against Australia. Mr Winston Churchill: I should be very sorry if the answer I gave in any way appeared detrimental to the interests of the Dominion affected, and was at the particular time contrary to the fact.

Mr Deakin: It has been detrimental. These answers are also cabled out, and our people cannot understand how it happens. It has had a very bad effect here, because it is one of a strain of the same sort of misrepresentations. I take it that what we are entitled to expect on these matters is that somebody in a great office like this should be kept sufficiently well informed of our ordinary public matters so as to be able to put accurate answers if. -O the hands of Ministers. In the official precis of the Conference issued on the night of the above debate the subject was not even mentioned. There was also an interesting protest from Mr Deakin against the word "tax” for a duty. He interrupted Mr Lloyd George on one occasion : Mr Deakin: Will you be good enough to take me as registering a formal objection whenever the word "tax” is used instead of "duty?” I tried to

explain that duties are not always taxes. Mr Lloyd George:’ I do hot wish to use words giving offence. Mr Deakin: They do not give offence, but they imply something which is not necessarily implied in our proposals for duties, and certainly not implied in all of them. Mr Lloyd George: I will use the words you are most accustomed to here, but, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer points out, the word I use corresponds with the facts from our point of view. Mr Deakin : It may or may not apply. Mr Lloyd George: However, I do not want to use the word if I can possibly use another word to which common consent can be given. Mr Deakin: A duty is not necessarily a tax upon the consumer.