IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Timaru Herald, Volume XC, Issue 13277, 4 May 1907, Page 5

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

REPORTS OF THE- DEBATES. FOR AND AGAINST PREFERENCE. United Press Association—Per Electric - Telegraph—Copvright. . LONDON, May 2." _ The Premiers are .incensed at the ludicrous inadequacy and inaccuracy of the precis of the discussions. The. Press evince extraordinary interest, and clamour for further'publicity. \ Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman hinted' in .the House, of Commons,.'that- full 'reports would be published after the Conference. He said that certainly no preferential treatment, would be extended to one subject over another. So far as the Government were concerned, they hoped that every syllable would be published. The Premiers are receiving many hundreds of tariff reform resolutions from all over the country. The Free Trade Leagues declare that they could do the- same if they chose. ' . . . Mr Ramsay Mac Donald, M.P., who recently -visited Australia, in a letter to the " Times," ridicules the puny benefit which Australian preference conce'desi Britain. Headds, that if Britain, accepts it, she: -will penalize' Canada, New Zealand and ; India, as if they were. foreign States. FISCAL PREFERENCE REFUSED. ' A POINT BLANK STATEMENT. LONDON, May 2. Dr Jameson, in a clever speech, endorsed every word that Mr Deakin had said. The colonies were ripe for action, arid all awaiting the British Government's decision. ' 'The colonies -had not- asked Britain to sacrifice her fiscal principles, but' asked, her to. chang-ei the methods she had adopted, and to practise the principle of preference if only by reducing existing duties. He dwelt on the great advantage to ; South Africa if the duties on . tobacco and wine were reduced. He emphasised the fact that two- territories in South Africa, absolutely under the control of the British Government had been directed to adhere to the Customs Union in South Africa, which gave preference to the Motherland. _ He hoped that this indicated the possibility of another advance:. He mentioned that a minority of the Cape Parlia-ment-were opposed to further preference, and; possibly they were opposed even to-a continuance of the present-- preference, unless Britain was prepared to give reciprocity to some -small extent. ■ ill- iMoore -.(Natal)-, urged the .experimental reduction of ; the duty on tobacco. Mr Asquith, Chancellor of the Exchequer, point blank refused any fiscal preference, but indicated: vaguely a possibility of assisting steam . lines ; and. .cables. Mr Deakin asked ifiMr Asquith meant to exclude consideratioii of Mr Hofmeyer's and Sir George . Sydenhp.m Clarke's schemes, which involved neither protection nor free trade. _. . Mr Asqtdth asked for time to consider the question. ,' „ ' - j Sir W. J. Lyne dissented from Mr Asquith, and said that from the foundation to i'-s summit lis pronouncement was calculated to lessen itha sympathies of the colonies. He resented Mr Asguith's attempts to belittle the value of the preferences at present conceded. . FROM, AN INDIAN STANDPOINT'. / ! LONDON, May 3. Mr Mackay, on behalf of India, regretted being at variance with the views of the autonomous colonies. Though the Indian Government had tried to regard preference from, an Imperial as well as an Indian, standpoint, under the existing system India enjoyed a highly advantageous position. Her extei-nal seaborne trade had increased 66 per cent, during a decade, and. segno of her customers were- the protected countries of Europe' without whose markets she ivould be unable to dispose of her produce. If India. ..kept outside preference foreigners might'treat with her separately, but otherwise they might retaliate, hurting Indian trade. India had nothing to gain by the Empire adopting a. system, of tariffs discriminating against foreign manufactured products and foodstuffs. The risks of the sacrifices -involved were too,great for India to accept. Any preference granted to the United Kingdom by the autonomous colonies oua-ht also to- be granted to India, , >,IR. BOTHA'S VIEW.

Mr Botha said that lie .personally favoured preference, but had riot been long enough in office to get a mandate.- The Transvaal, therefore, adhered to the resolution of 1902, though Newfoundland desired to co-operate in a policy*,, (if preference. THE CHANCELLOR'S REPLY. Mr Asquith acknowledged the ability and clearness 'with which the colonial case had been presented. He complimentMr Deakin on his•' able exposition, and gladiy noticed thatc nothing had been said which was calculated to weaken the sense of Imperial unity or the determination to cement that unity. He dwelt on the great advantage of discussing such subjects face to face. Sir Wilfrid Laurier'bad often emphasized that ,-tiie basis* of unity must be'the : right of each member of "the Empire, to first regard! its own interests. Mr Asquith sa.id that ilie essential characteristic of' Empire jvas in combined loyal attachment to each other, with the ccmpletest freedom for . self-go-vernment, British statesmen had never forgotten the lesson of American Independence ,and would not attempt tp again force a fiscal policy .on a reluctant possession. The colonies had been granted full fiscal, independence, and had even used it to build up tariff walls against the Motherland. If the colonies desired to foster industries by protective tariSs their action would not evoke remonstrance or" criticism from him. Some of the colonies had given preference to the Motherland, but they did not admit the Motherland's manufactures to compete'on equal terms- with those of the local producers. Doubtless the colonies held that this was vital to their interests; Similarly, the British Government held that free trade was vital io British interests, oven more so than in Peel's day. Britain had a population of forty-four millions bearing an enormous debt, also the cost of linpeiial diplomacy and defence. This population was dependent for food' and raw materials on external sources of supply. Britain maintained her supremacy owing to her special productive activity.. The profits obtained from the biggest open market m the world were enormous, and the earnings of the shipping were all based on keeping food and raw materials on the same basis, and as nearly as possible at the same price. Free trade was no shibboleth, but a principle of vital national interest. After an elaborate tariff reform campaign, theißritisli people had declared in' favour ofjfree trade by a majority unexampled in me. The British Government- were unable to accept any infringement of that policy, even by the adoption of Dr Jameson's idea- of experimental reductions on tobacco and wine. Replying to Mr Deakin's complaint that the colonies were excluded from foreign markets by hostile tariff's, Mr Asquith declared that they particularly everywlierei enjoyed the most favoured nation treatment, and stood in a better position in the protected markets than did thenaLions under the protective system. Next to India and Ceylon, Germany was the best market abroad for the products of the United Kingdom. Though the volume) of British trade had largely increased proportionally as between the colonies, that of foreign countries 1 remained practically constant. In examining preference Mr Asquith admitted that South Africa had been very liberal, but it was too early to judge the "effect- on British trade. Ca-

nada's tariff benefited trade rather by stopping a decrease than by an actual increase. The. Canadian manufacturers regain protected. Taking an average on all goods, dutiable and free, the ad vo-]crc-m rate for United Kingdom goods.was 19 per cent., and that- of the United States .13 per cent-. • Mr: Asquith said that the Australian.. -proposal only applied 8 per cent, to the United Kingdom's pro'ductis. and the maximum profit to ' the British importer would not exceed: £100,000.. Mr Deakin and . Sir. W. «T. Lyne interjected : " That' is only' an instalment." Mr Asquith: "Perhaps; so; but- I am dealing with facts." Mr Asquith went oh to say that, preference; would only be given to goods in British ships manned by white labour. This was a serious consideration, involving the policy of the British Government, and he must deprecate it. He bad not intended to criticise; he only wished to show the difficulties in the way of offering n preferential tariff,' advantageous :to -Britain,.'where there 'was a- system of protection. In a free "trade country, where the duties were levied for revenue only, the difficulties were much greater. Mr Ascjuith complimented Sir J. G. Ward on his able and powerful adv.ocacy of preference, and thought that some tof his suggestions were valuable. Mr Asquith remarked that New Zealand's preference covered only 20 per cent-, of the import trade, besides she had not lowered! .her duties, but had raised them against foreigners. Britain at- present offered the freest possible market-, and preferential tariffs • would involve giving less to other people and nob more to the colonies'; they would-, involve the setting : up of a system of. new duties, which would infringe- the root and principles of free trade. On aquestion of principle 'there, was no possibility of such compromises. Some ,ofthe colonies had .suggested that '-Britain should consider on what preference must be given-rr-if given at all. • 1n1905 •Britain imported from the colonies 5£ millions of articles, wholly or partly, manufactured; 52-£ millions of raw -materials ; 27| millions in. food, drink, and tobacco. ; Preference to be valuable must, be; in respect to the raw materials; if such- were granted tli-e very citadel- of free trade would be attacked, the. sources of supply would be restricted', and prices would be raised. The- Government and the' people of' England accepted that- view, 'therefore, they were unable to accept the principle cf preferential trade by tariff preference. The discussion would throw a light oh other methods of improving inter-imperial trade; and he especially referred to Sir J. G: Ward's suggestion for an improvement in the means of communication, especially the . steamer services, an increase in the number of commercial agents in the colonies, the desirability of removing or reducing the Suez canal dues, and establishing a fast mail line to Australasia via Canada, On all these matters the British Government were fully ready to consider and co-operate in any practicable proposal.' In- concluding Mr Asquith said (this more 1 earnestly) tihat he had felt it necessary to j enunciate a. general policy which- was nob in accord with the views of the colonies. The Conference generally considered that Mr Asquith had' delivered an exceptionally clear, cogent and powerful speech from the standpoint •of abstract ' freetrade. COMMENT BY SIR J. (!. WARD. . : LONDON,; May 3. Sir J:, G. Ward'says that he is not surprised at the Government's general attitude, nor does he challenge Britain's right to adhere to whatever policy is considered belt suited to her in tha circumstances. He had, however, hoped that* the Government might have seen; their way to give preference on a, few special' articles like wheat-, moat, and dairy produce, since active colonial competition would have kept: prices a& low as now. He thought that such a policy of specialising would be quite consistent with free trade. While disappointed that nothing had been done in the direction of preference, he-' was- pleased with the- prospect of lower 'Suez' Canal charges, and the provision for a mail-ser-vice which would place Australia within fifteen days and New Zealand twenty, days of London. Those were benefits of considerable importance.