EMPIRE TRADE IN BRITAIN.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, Issue 18084, 20 June 1924, Page 7

EMPIRE TRADE IN BRITAIN.

Demand for Preference. NARROW DEFEAT OF TEST RESOLUTION. By Cable —Press Association —Copyright. (Received 5.5 p.m.,J™ 19 •) LONDON, June 18. In the House of Commons, a resolution in favour ol admitting Empiredried fruits free was defeated: For the motion *l* Against ... ... .. : ••••■• ••• ~ On resumption ot the debate All Ramsay Macdonald announced that he would vote against all the resolutions. Me said the first four innocent-looking resolutions, were a preliminary declaration in favour of a full programme ol Imperial preference.

BRITAIN’S FOOD. AN INTERESTING PROPOSAL. By Cnb’e —Press Association —Copyright. (Received 5.5 p.m., June 19.) LONDON, June 18. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, An Philip Snowden, stated in the House of Commons that the Government would earnestly consider Mr Baldwin’s proposal that the whole Australian food production should bo sent to Britain and distributed by the Government at cost price.

CLOSING STAGES OF DEBATE

MR ASQUITH’S SNEERS AT doaiinions. By Cable —Press Association —Copyright. Received 7.35 p.m., June 19. LONDON, June 19. The intervention of all party leaders, except Mr Lloyd George, partially atoned for the dullness of the opening day’s debate. There were many comments on Air Lloyd George’s absence, but it was announced h§ had an engagement. He paired in favour of the first four resolutions, and against the restThe main point in Air Baldwin’s speech was an appeal to separate the resolutions into two categories, and agree to the first four as imposing no new duties, but Mr Asquith rejected the appeal in the opening phrases of his speech, confessing frankly that he could not flog himself into any excitement over any resolutions.

LIBERAL LEADER’S SARCASM. The most telling passage in his speech was the following analysis of the ten resolutions: “Three of them deal wth dried fruits; three- with apples, honey and lime-juice—-(laughter); one with various forms of canned peaches.” (Laughter.) Mr Asquith said: “When I read the resolutions in all their pompous array on the order paper, I was reminded of the Bagdad vendor, who perambulated the streets of Bagdad, shouting: “In the name of the prophet figs.” (Loud Liberal and Socialist laughter.)

Mr Asquith continued that Mr Baldwin had said the rejection of the resolutions would imperil the Empire. If this were true, what conception people must have of the stability of the Empire. Later in the debate is was evident that apart from Mr Lloyd George, the Liberal leader did not carry all his party with him. Dr Fisher (former Alinister of Education), said that Imperial preference on a grand scale was a practical impossibility, but he proposed to vote for the resolutions which imposed no new duty.

Major Church (Labourite), advanc ed similar arguments to Dr Fisher’s. Mr Campbell Stephen promised Mr Baldwin the support of all the Labourites, if he would give an assurance that his Empire policy would be one of national buying, and the marketing of all surplus colonial produce to the exclusion of parasitic middlemen.

Captain Brass said that although a Free Trader, he proposed to vote for the first four resolutions. He thought “we should make a gesture to the Dominions to help Empire settlement schemes.”

Mr H. Spencer said he had served as a Tommy in the Australian Force, but had never heard his fellows base loyalty to the Empire upon Imperial preference. Mr Spencer, who is a Bradford woollen manufacturer, continued that he had a new suit made of Australian botany wool, in order to enforce his argument that when he endeavoured to sell some of his cloth, he found Holland and Denmark had a tariff thereon of 5 per centum, Switzerland 6 per cent., Sweden and France 10 per cent., but Australia had 30 per cent, on cloth made from their own wool.

Mr Snowden declared that the Budget made the greatest reduction in food taxes ever known. It did so intending ultimately to abolish them altogether, but if the preference resolutions were adopted, they must say goodbye to the remission of food taxes during their Parliamentary career.

MR CHAMBERLAIN’S CHALLENGE Mr Chamberlain, winding up the debate, contrasted the attitude of the Treasury Bench. Mr Thomas felt he was doing an ungracious thing, and he did not like the lash. Mr MacDonald felt it necessary, but ungracious. -Air Snowden did a disagreeable thing, and loved it. The controversy, however, was emerging' from the party stage. Support was no longer confined to the Unionist benches. Amid Opposition cheers, Mr Chamberlain demanded to know would the Government dare face the consequences if tlie Dominions to-morrow sent an ultimatum that every preference would be removed if there was no response. The divisions followed, and were greeted with cheers and counter cheers. Mr Baldwin’s abandonment of the remaining resolutions evoked Labour cries of “Oh,” and an unanswered question from Captain Benn: “Are we to understand that all these resolutions are shams?” The House speedily rose.

“ blew hot AND COLD.” CRITICISING MR MACDONALD’S ATTITUDE. ; ;i i,l c —Press Association —Copyright. Received 8.10 p.m., June 19. LONDON, June 19. The “Daily Express” says the excitement during the closing scenes was intense. Many thought preference had just won. There was a gasp of surprise when

the figures were announced. “Threo cheers for the Little Englanders,” shouted someone. The “Daily Telegraph” says among the Unionists alone was there unanimity; 260 voted of a possible 257. Mr Campion had already applied for the Chlltern Hundreds and therefore was unable to vote. It is estimated that between twenty and thirty Labourites favoured four resolutions and voted accordingly. The rest abstained. The “Daily Chronicle,” comment ing on Mr Macdonald’s speech, points out that he blew hot and cold, and seemed to fear to be misunderstood in the Dominions, when he added, “I shall not be happy in resisting these proposals; but I must.”

DEFEAT OF FOUR RESOLUTIONS STAUNCH APPEAL FALLS ON DEAF EARS.

Received 8.35 p.m., June 19. “Sun” Cables. LONDON, June 18. In the House of Commons the first four preference resolutions were defeated. The remainder were withdrawn. That in favour of Empiregrown wines was negatived by 285 votes to 268; sugar by 28 3 votes to 263; tobacco by 284 votes to 2 71. Mr Baldwin, resuming the debate, said the European, Japanese and American markets were closed rigidly against Britain. The only countries wherewith they could make treaties offering prospects of improving our trade, are the Dominions. He expressed the opinion that the defeat of the resolutions would not be a breach of faith, because Parliament was supreme in these matters, but it would be a stupid act. Was it not possible to enter into an arrangement with the Dominions whereby the enormous quantity of foodstuffs Britain required might be obtained solely from the Dominions, at cost price, and distributed with the least possible margin of profit? If the resolutions, as a whole, were defeated, it would gravely imperil the future of the Empire. Mr Asquith said the resolutions were attenuated, emasculated and anaemic, even an apocryphal version of the full-blooded gospel of Imperial preference. What conception of Empire must people have who believe the rejection of a resolution dealing with fruits and honey would imperil stability. Mr MacDonald declared he did not believe the Australians and Canadians wanted Britain to change the fiscal system. Preference to Australia meant keeping up a tariff wall, but lowering it slightly in Britain’s favour against the foreigner. While grateful to Australia and Canada for taking down one or two bricks in the wall, we ought not to come to a fallacious conclusion. The Dominions intended Imperial preference as the first step to free trade within the Empire. It had been suggested that the Government was encouraging trade with foreign countries like Russia, while discouraging trade with their own kith and kin. That was untrue. None could feel very happy in discussing these preference resolutions. He was not happy. He was much afraid what was said might be misrepresented n the Dominions. Ho referred at length to the schemes for assisting emigration to Australia, for which in finding large sums, the British Government was trying to bring the Dominions nearer the Motherland. , Mr Hal Fisher said that Imperial preference on a grand scale was impracticable, but he did not like to turn down the whole work of the Imperial Conference. He intended to support the first three resolutions. Mr Church (Labourite), said he intended supporting the first four, in deference to the wishes of the Dominions. Mr Lloyd George was absent. He paired in support of the first four resolutions, increasing preference on Empire goods, on existing duties on figs, raisins, plums, currants, tobacco and -wine, also establishing preference for Empire sugar, by a halfpenny a pound for a decade.