PREFERENCE TO THE DOMINIONS.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, Issue 18084, 19 June 1924, Page 7

PREFERENCE TO THE DOMINIONS.

Appeal to the House of Commons. non-party vote desired. By Cab'e—Pross Association— Copyright. LONDON, June ItThe Dominions, uanery oi tne House of commons and tne label al ana Labour benches were early lined 101 urn imperial rreierenee Ueoate. rtir x'. LiovU ureaine Dormer Jriesideni 01 the Loara or Trade) moved the nrst of ten resolutions, ot winch notice ima been given m tne name ot ill Baldwin. , , j lie hrst four of these proposed imperial prelerence without imposing any new onarge on the toreiguer, "hue tile remainder did impose such a charge. c . \\ mle there is small chance oi -iio Opposition carrying the last six iesolulions, there is a chance ot their carrying the iirst four, if their appeal lor a non-party debate succeeds. The Opposition in this connection look to BO Labour members of the British Commonwealth Labour Party, to give a lead to their party. r lne first resolution proposes that Imperial figs, raisins, plums and currants should be imported duty free. Sir P. Lloyd Greame pointed out that the resolutions comprised the whole preference proposals of Die Imperial Economic Conference .-*. He quoted the opinion of the Dominions Premiers at the Conference in favour of preference, and urged that the House should not go back on the considered view of the Conference. Mr J. H. Thomas (Secretary, of State for the Colonies) said that while the resolutions would be left to a free vote of the House, and the Government would accept the verdict, the Government themselves proposed to vote against the resolutions. He announced that the Government had reconsidered the earlier decision with regal'd to the economic committee, and was prepared, if the Dominions desired, to consider the question, not on the lines of the committee as proposed, but perhaps an ad hoc body, something like the Shipping Board. The Domin ions would be consulted regarding that aspect.

POINTS IN THE DEBATE. NEW IDEAS BADLY NEEDED. By Cable—Press Association—Copyright. Received 7.35 p.m., June 18. LONDON, June IS. There were numerous Australian references in the preference debate. Sir P. Lloyd Graeme quoted Mr Bruce’s statement that Empire development was dependent on men, money and market, but said it was idle to expect Australia to go ahead in big developments unless she could see her way to market what she produced. Unless export trade increased the unemployment problem could not he solved. Sir John Simon, in the chief speech, from the Liberal standpoint, said there was all the difference in the world between the preference _we Were urged to grant the Dominions and that they granted us, as. theirs was preference in an’already protected market, while ours meant the abandonment of the principle whereupon our trade was built up. Instead of promoting Imperial unity, preference would he likely to create acute discord. Mr Page Croft said that our trade with Australia was stagnating, hut with preference had increased from £20,000,000 a year to £3'4,000,000 between 1905 and 1913. Now British trade was 64 per cent, of Australian imports. Sir James Seely, though a Liberal, unexpectedly made a definite .pronouncement in favour of preference. He asked what possible harm could come through any reduction of the duty on dried fruits. Mr T. Johnston (Labourite) said if Britain told Greece she would exclude all products grown under sweated conditions of labour, that would be the finest preference they could give Australia. The “Daily Chronicle’s Parliamentary correspondent summing up the debate, says:—lt is definitely dull, but the heavy artillery will open tonight. Mr Lloyd George was not present. The discussion badly needed the lively switching on of new ideas. Perhaps the debate on Wednesday Avill supply the need. In the debate Mr Thomas said it was worth considering whether it would not help Imperial unity and encourage confidence, to invite not only the Dominion Prime Ministers, but responsible leaders of the opposition to Imperial Conferences. He knew the latter were reluctant, hut the opinion he had consulted showed the conviction that some such change was absolutely necessary in order to make the conference--, more effective and more real. It would only lead to disaster to continue with Conferences, only to find, when :hev ended, that nothing whatever had been done. This would lead to an agitation against Conferences disastrous to everybody. ACTUATED BY SELF-INTEREST. Reuter's Telegrams. Received 10.20 p.m., June 18. LONDON, June 17. In the course of the preference debate, Mr Thomas quoted Mr W. M. Hughes as saying: “If Britain asked for high preference, Australia would not give it unless satisfied it would be a good thing for Australia.” He said he could quote numerous speeches of that kind, showing that the Dominions were compelled to do as we did, and view these questions from the standpoint of the interests of their own people. Mr Thomas deprecated the recent tendency to make the general question of Empire development a party issue. He said it would he a mistake to assume that the Dominions’ assistance in the war was due to any material consideration.

LEADS TO GRAFT. Reuter’s Telegrams. Received 12.35 p.m., June 19. LONDON, June 18. In the preference debate, Colonel Wedgewood, said the Labour Party seriottsiy believed the lines whereon they proposed to proceed were more likely to secure permanent unity of the Empire than the Conservative policy. On Colonel Wedgewood suggesting that protection in many colonies and foreign countries led to corruption and graft, Captain Cowen asked the speaker whether Colonel Wedgewood had the right to make this insinuation against the Dominion Parliamentarians.

The speaker replied he had heard nothing personal. . Colonel Wedgewood said he certainly made no personal charges whatever. The debate was adjourned.