“ A LOST OPPORTUNITY ”

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21196, 29 November 1930, Page 13

“ A LOST OPPORTUNITY ”

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE. AN ECHO IN PARLIAMENT. ' CENSURE MOTION MOVED. (United Press Association.)

(By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.)

LONDON, November 27. {Received Nov. 28, at 5.5 p.m.) In the House of Commons, Mr Stanley Baldwin, in submitting his censure motion, expressed regret that the Government had had neither vision nor courage enough to carry forward the proposals which were outlined at the Imperial Conference! The Empire to-day was the only part of the world where our trade could be expanded, and this was possible only by the negotiation of treaties. He believed that eventually the Empire would become one economic unit, goods being produced and manufactured in the most convenient part. If steps were not taken towards Empire economic unity it would be dangerous, as, failing arrangements with Britain, the dominions and colonies would make them with foreign countries. Mr Baldwin -recognised that it ■ would require great courage for the Government to set aside old prejudices and traditions, and if any section of the Government had the courage it would split the party, but it would have won a higher reputation in Britain than was otherwise likely in the members’ lifetime. When the Government let the Dyestuffs Act go it was 'acclaimed in Germany, and when it failed to negotiate with the dominions it was honoured everywhere except in the Empire. "The judgment of the present House is probably against us,” said' Mr Baldwin, “hut, we shall appeal to the country, where the cause for which we are fighting will be endorsed by the majority of the people.” TARIFF PREFERENCES. THE GOVERNMENT’S ATTITUDE. \ ■ (British -Official . Wireless.) , RUGBY, November 27. (Received Noy. 28, at 5.5 p.m.) Mr Baldwin, in moving his vote of censure in the House of Commons, said" that the Imperial Conference, offered a great opportunity and the speeches of the Secretary for Dominion Affairs had raised high hopes, but the offer of Mr Bennett, the Canadian Prime Minister, was sidetracked and the Government had 'nothing definite' to submit regarding alternatives to tariff preferences. . Mr Thomas, in replying, said that if any proposals had been made that would help British trade and give employment it would‘have been the Government’s duty to accept them, but they‘ were asked to. put a tax -on foodstuffs and in return Canada was prepared to increase preference, but not’to remove any tax. He expressed deep appreciation of the spirit 'in which preferences were given by the dominions, but, if they were reduced to bargains, he, was certain they would have disastrous results. Thd Government heartily affirmed the principle that Imperial preference was of.great value, and in respect to existing -tariff preferences it had met legitimate doubts' by giving some guarantee of their continuity without bargaining of any kind. Reviewing other features of the conference’s work, he said it enlarged the scope of the Economic Committed and endeavoured to-bring about new security for the Empire. Though unfortunately the latter proposal: had failed, he believed that .the policy would mature. at some future date. The Conference also- gave close consideration to the quota scheme, while the schemes for bulk purchase and import ; which were examined, were being further explored in a desire to; achieve something practical. He repudiated the suggestion that the dominions were disappointed with'the results of the' conference, at which they had consolidated the existing position and opened the. way for consideration of all economic problems which would help the. trade of the Empire. , The motion asks the House of Commons to censure the-Government for not having formulated effective proposals on Empire trade at the recent conference. THE MOTION DEFEATED. INCIDENT DURING DIVISION. LONDON, November 27. (Received Nov. 28, at 10 pan.) < A protest 'was made when Mr Thomas referred to the offer made by Canada as “humbug.” He said that the Government was being censured for not doing what Mr Baldwin, himself could not have done if he had) 1 been in' office without breaking his pledges against food taxes; which- he made at the last election. ■ :/ ;• . Sir Herbert'Samuel (Lab.) said that Empire trade had greatly developed in' the past generation. During last year the Empire brought £324,000,000 worth of our goods, but foreigners bought' £405,000,000. , Germany bought more than Canada, Holland more than New Zealand, South America more than Australia, while France equalled South Africa’s purchases. . The , Liberals' thought that the Government should be edmmended rather than censured for the course it adopted at the Imperial Conference.: ' ■ Snowden said: “I do not flatter myself that my own interventions at the Imperial Conference decided its issues. The attitude of the Government regarding all the problems was that of a United Government, which does not change with every change of the moon. The opportunity we are supposed to have missed was the opportunity of taxing the food of the people and endangering a large part of foreign trade.” ' Referring to Mr Thomas’s use of the word “humbug” in regard to Mr Bennett’s proposals, Mr Snowden said he had looked up the meaning of the word in Murray’s dictionary and found that “this word is much in .vogue with people of taste and fashion” —(laughter). Mr Snowden said that during the fortnight before he left Canada Mr Bennett was engaged in preparations for the conference. He was also engaged in arranging for large additions to the duties on British imports and a certain Australian, Minister who was recently in London, though he was not a delegate to the conference, said, “Our purpose is to bring your factories to Australia.”—(More laughter.) Air Snowden added that the dominions wanted all the sacrifice to be made by Britain. The censure motion was defeated by 290 to 234. During the division a Labour member walked across the floor and slapped Earl Winttrton across the face with an order paper. Earl Winterton took no notice, and the. Speaker said he did not see the incident. Mr C. J. Simons, a Labour member, later rose and admitted the offence, and expressed his sincere apology, amid cheers from all parts of the House. COMMENT BY THE TIMES. '■ ■ . 9 A DISAPPOINTING DEBATE. LONDON, November 28; (Received Nov. 29, at 1 a.tn.) The Times describes the debate as disappointing and unilluminating. It says it was hoped that the Government spokesmen would state more fully what tjip