IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 10963, 4 May 1907, Page 1

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

I'KEFERENTIAL TRADE DISCUSSION. (Press Assn.— By Telegraph.— Copyright. • LONDON,. May 3. Sir J. L. Mackay, on Jtfhalf bl India regretted bdtjgr.it variance with the uu tenomous coioujas, though the Indian Go vernment tried to regard preierenge fron: an Imperial as well as an. Indian stand point. Under the existing system Indi. enjoyed a* highly advantageous position. Her external sea-borne trade inoreasdd 6( l>er cent, m a decade. Some pf her besl customers were protected oountries m Europe, -without market she woulc be unable to dispose of heirT'produce:" Ii India kept outside preiei*«riCe, foreigners might treat with her separately, but otherwise they might retaliate, hurting Indian trade. India liad nothing to gain by the Etaipire adopting a system of tariffs discrbjuliatifig, .against foreign manufactured products 'and, foodstuffs, • ''sacrifices invbly^- wdtewtoo.gr^at^fornffi'dia to _i><_ipt. Any 'ptefereriefe' granted to the vUnited 'Kingdom' by .,.ti\e autono.jnjQU^ coloiudsTblig^t ako to be' granted ito India... T--''' " >T*7... General Botha said hfcpeifjonally favored preference, but.he.was"nbt long enough m office to get a >h>andate itom the Tr_n_2 val. He therefore adhered 'to the resolu- . ;.,;T:-'' ■■ ■' : ' "'Sic; Pi "BOnd adhered to the resolution of 1902, though Newfoundland desired to co-operate m the policy of preference. Mr Ascjuith acknowledged the? ability and clearness m which the colonial case had b_en preseftted, and complimented Mr Deakin on his able exposition. He noticed that nothing was said calculated to weaken the sfnse of Imperial union, or any determination to sliaxe the unity. He dwelt o. tile great advantage of discussing such subjects face to face. Sir Wilfrid Laurier had often emphasized tluit the basis of unity must be the right of each member of the Empire to first regard its own interest. Tlie essential characteristic of the Empire was its combined loyal attachment! to each other with the completest freedom and self-government. British statesmen had never forgotten the lesson of American independence, and would not attempt again to force a fiscal policy on a reluctant possession. The colonies were granted full fiscal independence and even used it to build up tariff walls against the Motherland. H the' colonies desired to foster industries by protective tariffs tlieir action would not evoke remonstrance or criticism from him. Some had given preference to the Mbtlier-. land, but did not admit the Motherland's manufactures to compete on equal terms with local producers. Doubtless tlie colonies held that it was vital to their interests not to do so. Similarly the British Government, held freetnide vital to the British interest, even / more so than m Sir Robert Peel's day. "We have," he sqjd, "a population of .4,000,000 bearing an enormous debt also the cost of Imperial diplomacy and defence. Tlie population is dependent for food and raw materials on external sources of supply. Britain maintains her supremacy owing to her special productive activity. The profits obtained froni the biggest open market m the world are enormous." • ' All was based on keeping food and raw materials on the same basis and as nearly as possible at the some price. '■ Freetrade was-, no shibboleth, but a principle <_l ,vital national interest. After 'an elaborate tariff reform campaign the British >people had declared m favor of freetrade, by a majority of unexampled size. The British Government was unable to accept any infringement of that policy even oy adopting Dr. Jameson's idea of experimental reduction on tdbaftco and wine. In reply to Mr Deakin's complaint of being excluded from foreign markets by hostile tariffs, Mr Asquith declared that they practically everywhere enjoyed most favored nation treatment. They 6tood m abetter position m protected markets than did nations under a protective system. Next to India and Ceylon, Germany was the best market abroad for the products of t] v e v United Kingdom. Though the volum. of British trade had! largely increased proportionally as between the colonies ana foreign countries, it remained practically constant. Examining preference he admitted that South Africa was very, liberal, but it was too early to judge of the effect on British trade. The Canada-, tariff benefited British trade rather by stopping a decrease than by an actual increase. Canadian manufacturers remain protected. Taking an average on all goods dutiable, free mid ad valorem, tlie rate for the United Kingdom on goods was 19 per cent, and the United States 13 per cent, iii* Asquith said the Australian proposal only apiilied to 8 per cent, of the United Kingdom's products. The maximum profit to the British importer would not exceed £100,000. Mr Deakin and Sir W. Lvne interjected, "That is only an instalment." iir Asquith . "Perhaps so, but I am dealing with facts." ' Preference was only given to goods m British .ships with white labor. This was a serious consideration, involving the policy of the British Government. He had not intended to criticise, and only wished to show'the-difficul-ties m the way of a preferential tariff. It would be advantageous m a country where they had a system of protection, but m a freetrade country. - .ere duties were levied for revenue only .''c difficulty was much greater, iir Asquith <.i>nipiimented' Sir Joseph Wa.d's ablt and powerful advocacy of pref ere ice. He tliought come of his suggesti ms v.i'uable. Mr A_. quith remarked taut the New Zealand preference covered rnly JM .'|.er cent of the import trade besides uuioivered duties t but raised them against foreigners. , Britain at present offered the freest possible market. Preferential uuff.s involved giving less to other people and not more to the colonies they involve, setting up a system of new duties which infringe the principles of freetrade. On the question of pruiciple there was no possibility of sucti con_promise as 6ome suggested, iir Asquith proceded to consider on what preference must be given if it was given at all. In 1905 Britain imported from the colonies £5,500,000 of articles wholly or partly manufactured, £32|800,000 worth of raw material and £27,250,000 of drink and tobacco. Preference to be valuable mu.t be m respect of raw materials. If such were granted the very citadel of freetrade wa6 attacked. The sources of supply would be restricted, and tlie prices raised. The Government and people of England accepted that view. They' were therefore unable to accept the principle of preferential trade by tariff preference. Tlie discussion liad tlirown light on other methods of improving inter-Imperial trade. He especially referred to Sir Joseph Ward's suggestions for the improvement of means of communication, especially as to steamer services, the increase of the number of commercial agents mi the colonies, the desirability of removing or reducing Hie Suez (Amal dues, and the establishing of a fast mail line to Australasia via Canada. All these matters tbe British Government was fully ready to consider, and to co-operate m any practical proposal ; considering these more earnestly, he felt it necessary to state, because tlieir general policy was not m accord with the views of the colonies. The Conference generally considered' Mr Asquith delivered .-yi exceptionally clear, cogent, and powerful speech from the standjxmit of abstract freetrade. Sir Joseph Ward says he is not surprised at the Government's general attitude, nor did he challenge Britain's fright to adhere to whatever policy she considered btst suited to her circumstances, but he had hoped the Government might have seen its way to give preference m a few special articles like wheat, meat, and tfairy produce, .since active colonial competition would keep prices as low as now. He tliought such a policy of specialising was quite consistent with freetrade. While disappointed that nothing was done m the directioi of preference, ue was pleased at the prospect of the Suez Canal charges and providing a mail service which would place Australia within fifteen days of Lon. don and New Zealand within twenty being considered of importance. Tlie Times says iir Asquith's statement was depressing.* The colonial Premiers' statements were full of hope and construe tive imagination, suggesting that fight and determination would mould the future to tlieir ends. They contemplated a progressive Empire, united by steadily increasing ties, iir Asquith, m reply, was only able to ofl'.r on the essential point rigid adherence to the old position. It is true lie promises attention to communication on the economic standpoint. Tliis subject is a small and political standpoint, far smaller compared with preference. He pleads thafl. liis hands are tied. Are they tied against more than a protectionist tariff or preference, based on corn duty? Have the electorates even denied or affirmed the principle of preference? iir AsquitTfs attitude is the attitude of an extreme fiscal Puritan. The Daily News says iir Asquith anil Sir J. L. Mackay's case is unanswerable. The peoule of the Motherland liave determined that their prime necessities sliall never again be taxed— a verdict whence there is no appeal. The Standard challenges the Government to submit the question of reciprocal preference to a referendum. The leaders of the Imperial element of the nation must now show the colonial Premiere that tlieir message has not been m vain.