Papers Past | Parliamentary Papers | Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives | 1911 Session I | IMPERIAL CONFERENCE, 1911 (MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS...

Image
Text
Research info
Title and Usage info

I—A. 4.

A.—4,

1911. NEW ZEALAND.

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE, 1911 (MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE).

Presented to both Houses of the General Assembly by Command of His Excellency,

X.— 4

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

The Agenda for the Conference of 1911 will be found in [Cd. 5513]. The precis of the proceedings of the Conference is published in [Cd. 5741]. The preliminary correspondence will be found in [Cd. 5273] and papers in [Cd. 5746-1] .and [Cd. 5746-2].

Date. Subject. Page. [ay 23 Opening Meeting. Address by the President, and Replies of the Dominion Prime Ministers Address to the King Publicity of Proceedings Imperial Council 21 28 28 36 lay 25 Imperial Council Organization of the Colonial Office 46 75 rune 1 Declaration of London 97 fane 2 (a) Declaration of London (6) Commercial Relations and British Shipping (c) Navigation Law (d) Labour Exchanges and Emigration (e) Enforcement of Arbitration Awards (/) Uniformity in Law of Copyright, Patents, Trade Marks, Companies,.. (g) Coinage, Weights and Measures (h) International Exhibitions 125 134 144 153 160 162 165 170 fane 8 Proposed Standing Committee of the Conference .. .. .. Interchange of Civil Servants .. .. 173 194 9 (a) Emigration .. (6) Reciprocal Legislation as to Destitute and Deserted Persons 198 206 fane 12 (a) Imperial Court of Appeal (6) Law of Conspiracy 214 244 une 13 (a) Naturalisation (6) Uniformity in Law of Accident Compensation (c) Undesirable Aliens .. , (d) King's Birthday Celebration 249 271 273 274 une 15 (a) Cheapening of Cable Rates (6) Nationalization of Atlantic Cable .. (c) Wireless Telegraphy .. (d) Universal Penny Postage (e) Imperial Postal Orders Arbitration Awards (Committee) 281 291 307 315 323 326 une 16 (a) Commercial Treaties .. (6) Co-operation in Commercial Relations and Appointment of Royal Commission (c) All-red Mail Route .. (d) Income Tax and Estate Duty .. (e) Decimal Coinage (/) Shipping Conferences and Rebates 333 339 344 358 367 372 une 19 (a) Position of British Indians in Dominions (6) Legislative Powers in respect of Merchant Shipping (c) Uniformity in Law of Alien Immigration and Exclusion .. ., (d) Enforcement of Judgments, Orders of Courts of Justice .. (e) Suez Canal Dues 394 400 424 424 425 'une 20 (a) Publication of Proceedings and Papers .. (6) Reciprocal Visits and holding of a Conference in Dominions (c) Concluding Speeches 431 432 435

A.—4

INDEX.

Agenda Papers, pp. 3-14. All-red Mail Route, pp. 344-357. Appeals, pp. 214-244, 431. Final Court of Appeal, pp. 214, 215, 224-226, 240, 242-244. Judicial Committee of Privy Council— Constitution, pp. 216-218. -240-241. Number of Appeals to, pp. 216-217, 233. Method of delivering judgment, pp. 215, 219220, 227-228, 232, 431. Judicial Committee and House,of Lords.relative positions of, pp. 216, 218-219, 221, 228, 2292o\), JiOD. from Dominions— South African, p 230 Australian, pp. 221-222. Canadian, pp. 232-233. Statistics of Appeals, pp. 216-217, 233. . , . , j , , t _~,._* t «„ Arbitration Awards, mutual enforcement of, pp. 160-162, 326-332, 424-425. .. QC Asiatic Question, pp. 51, 86. Bishop, Mr., sympathy with, in bereavement, p. 153. British Indians, position of, in Dominions, pp. 86, 394-399, 407-412. See also under Merchant Shipping (Coloured Seamen). Gable Communication, cheapening of cable rates, pp. 281-291. Nationalization of Atlantic cable, pp. 291-307. Coinage (uniform system of), pp. 165-170, 3673 7 2. Colonial Office, organization of, pp. 75-95. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, question of placing Dominion matters under, pp. 80, 91, 94-95, 177, 194. Commercial Relations, Eoyal Commission as to resources and trade development in the Empire, pp. 339-344. Commercial Treaties. See Treaties. Conspiracy against Laws of other parts of the Empire, question of prevention of, pp. 244-246. Copyright, pp. 162-163. Declaration of London, pp. 34, 97-134. Defence (Naval and Military), pp. 23, 33, 53, 95, 14:0, 2i\2i 9 &ivy 4:OZ. Destitute and Deserted Wives and Children, reciprocal legislation as to, pp. 206-212

Emigration, pp. 198-205. Comparative statistics for Dominions and foreign countries, pp. 199-202. Dominions laws as to admission of emigrants, pp. 198-199, 204-205. Emigrants' Information Office, work of, and constitution of Managing Committee, pp. 198, 200-201, 202, 203-204. Estate Duties > double ment of ' ™- 364 - 367 - His Majesty the King, address to, and message in reply, pp. 21, 28, 80. , Cmf suggestion for standing Comconnectiol f pp 77 _ 79> 8 82 _94, 17H—1QS Future meeti of Conferences in Dominions, Meetings in Committee, pp. 33, 36, 187, 326- „„„ 8 " ConferenceS; pp 3? 358> High Commissioners, position of, on Standing Committee, pp . 7 7-88, 92-93. Secretariat, pp 77, 81, 165, 183, 187, 189, 193, 438, 439, 441. Imperial Council, discussion as to proposal for, PP- 36-V75. objects and effect of, pp. 37, 56, 71. to be established by legislation, p. 52. power to fix naval contribution, pp. 54, 68. an Imperial Parliament of Defence, p. 56. representation on, p. 57. ultimate substitute for existing Imperial Parliament, p. 60. powers of Executive, p. 65. memorial of Members of House of Commons, p. 71. naval defence policy, pp. 48, 51, 53. land defence policy, p. 50. We nt of m r J rr Interchange and visits of Civil Servants, pp. 194-196. International Agreements, prior consultation of Dominions as to, pp. 89-90, 97-100, 113-116, 120, 125, 129-132. International Exhibitions, pp. 170-171. Judgments and Orders of Courts of Justice, mutual enforcement of, pp. 160-162, 326-332, 424-425. King's Birthday, celebration of, p. 274-279. Exchanges and pp . 153-160. Mail Communication between United Kingdom and Dominions, pp. 344-357.

A.—4

Merchant Shipping : — Australian Laws, pp. 136, 151. British shipping, support of, pp. 134-137, 139141, 143. Coloured seamen on, pp. 135-138, 140-142, 399-412, 417-419. Uniformity in treatment of, pp. 147-148, 150151. Shipping combines and rebates, pp. 372-392. Legislative powers of Dominions as to, pp. 144- 'I . .146, 149-153, 406, 424. Metric System, pp. 165-170. Naturalisation (Imperial), pp. 191-192, 249-271. Navigation Law. See Merchant Shipping. Penny Postage, International, pp. 315-323. Population in the, Dominions, p. 38. Postal Order Scheme (Imperial), pp. 323-325. Proceedings, order. of, pp. 32-36. publicity of,pp. 28-32. : '"'" publication of, p. 431. Resolutions of Conference, pp. 15-19.

Stamp Duty on Colonial Bonds, p. 367. Suez Canal Dues, reduction of, pp. 25, 93, 186, 2l2, 425-429. ■■ Treaties, position of Dominions in respect to, pp. 90, - 116, 135-140, 142, 143, 333-339. Undesirable Aliens, final disposal of when expelled, pp. 273-274. Uniformity of Laws as to — Accident Compensation, pp. 271-273. Copyright, Patents, Trade-Marks, Companies, pp. 162-165. Immigration and Aliens' exclusion, p. 424. Union of South Africa, congratulations on anniversary, p. 173. Visits of Ministers, reciprocal, pp. 432-435. , of Civil Servants, pp. 195, 196. Weights and Measures, pp. 165-170. ;.:-■.. Wireless Telegraphy, general discussion and scheme for extension of, in the Empire, pp. 307-315.

A.-4

' , \ AGENDA.

TUESDAY, MAY 23rd.—PLACE OF MEETING : FOREIGN OFFICE, 11 A.M.

OPENING ADDRESS AND REPLIES. QUESTION OF PUBLICITY OF PROCEEDINGS. QUESTION OF AGENDA AND DAYS FOR MEETINGS. IMPERIAL COUNCIL. ORGANIZATION OF COLONIAL OFFICE. RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND : (1) Publication of Proceedings. That the Conference be open to the Press except when the subjects are confidential. RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OFpEW ZEALAND : (2) Imperial Representation of Oversea Dominions with a View to furthering imperial sentiment, solidarity, and interest. That the Empire has now reached a stage of Imperial Development which renders it expedient that there should be an Imperial Council of State, with representatives from all the constituent parts of the Empire, whether self-governing or not, in theory and in fact advisory to the Imperial Government on all questions affecting the interests of His Majesty's Dominions oversea. RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND : (3) Reconstitution of the Colonial Office, &c. 1. That it is essential that the Department of the Dominions be separated from that of the Crown Colonies, and that each Department be placed under a separate Permanent Under-Secretary. 2. That, in order to give due effect to modern Imperial development, it has now become advisable to change the title of Secretary of State for the Colonies to that of " Secretary of State for Imperial Affairs." 3. That the staff of the Secretariat be incorporated with the Dominions Department under the new Under-Secretary, and that all questions relating to the self-governing Dominions be referred to that Department: the High Commissioners to be informed of matters affecting the Dominions, with a view to their Governments expressing their opinion on the same. 4. That the High Commissioners be invited to attend meetings of the Committee of Defence when questions on Naval or Military Imperial defence affecting the oversea Dominions are under discussion. 5. That the High Commissioners be invited to consult with the Foreign Minister on matters of foreign industrial, commercial, and social affairs in which the oversea Dominions are interested, and inform their respective Governments. 6. That the High Commissioners should become the sole channel of communication between the Imperial and Dominion Governments, Governors-General and Governors on all occasions—being given identical and simultaneous information.

resolution of the government of new zealand : (1) Publication of Proceedings. That the Conference be open to the Press except when the subjects are confidential. RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OFpEW ZEALAND : (2) Imperial Representation of Oversea Dominions with a View to furthering imperial sentiment, solidarity, and interest. That the Empire has now reached a stage of Imperial Development which renders it expedient that there should be an Imperial Council of State, with representatives from all the constituent parts of the Empire, whether self-governing or not, in theory and in fact advisory to the Imperial. Government on all questions affecting the interests of His Majesty's Dominions oversea. RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND : (3) Reconstitution of the Colonial Office, &c. 1. That it is essential that the Department of the Dominions be separated from that of the Crown Colonies, and that each Department be placed under a separate Permanent Under-Secretary. 2. That, in order to give due effect to modern Imperial development, it has now become advisable to change the title of Secretary of State for the Colonies to that of " Secretary of State for Imperial Affairs." 3. That the staff of the Secretariat be incorporated with the Dominions Department under the new Under-Secretary, and that all questions relating to the self-governing Dominions be referred to that Department: the High Commissioners to be informed of matters affecting the Dominions, with a view to their Governments expressing their opinion on the same. 4. That the High Commissioners be invited to attend meetings of the Committee of Defence when questions on Naval or Military Imperial defence affecting the oversea Dominions are under discussion. 5. That the High Commissioners be invited to consult with the Foreign Minister on matters of foreign industrial, commercial, and social affairs in which the oversea Dominions are interested, and inform their respective Governments. 6. That the High Commissioners should become the sole channel of communication between the Imperial and Dominion Governments, Governors-General and Governors on all occasions—being given identical and simultaneous information.

A.-^L

RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA : (1) That it is desirable that all matters relating to self-governing Dominions, as well as permanent Secretariat of the Imperial Conference, be placed directly under the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Papers :—[Cd. 3523] (Proceedings of Colonial Conference of 1907) and Memorandum as to publicity of proceedings (No. 1 in volume* of Memoranda.)

THURSDAY, MAY 25th.—PLACE OF MEETING : FOREIGN OFFICE, 11 A.M. IMPERIAL COUNCIL. ORGANIZATION OF COLONIAL OFFICE. INTERCHANGE OF CIVIL SERVANTS.

RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND : (2) Imperial Representation of Oversea Dominions with a View to furthering imperial sentiment, solidarity, and interest. That the Empire has now reached a stage of Imperial development which renders it expedient that there should be an Imperial Council of State, with representatives from all the self-governing parts of the Empire, in theory and in fact advisory to the Imperial Government on all questions affecting the interests of His Majesty's Dominions oversea. RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND : (3) Reconstitution of the Colonial Office, &c. 1. That it is essential that the Department of the Dominions be separated from that of the Crown Colonies, and that each Department be placed under a separate Permanent Under-Secretary. 2. That, in order to give due effect to modern Imperial development, it has now become advisable to change the title of Secretary of State for the Colonies to that of " Secretary of State for Imperial Affairs." 3. That the staff of the Secretariat be incorporated with the Dominions Department under the new Under-Secretary, and that all questions relating to the self-governing Dominions be referred to that Department: the High Commissioners to- be informed of matters affecting the Dominions, with a view to their Governments expressing their opinion on the same. 4. That the High Commissioners be invited to attend meetings of the Committee of Defence when questions on Naval or Military Imperial defence affecting the oversea Dominions are under discussion. 5. That the High Commissioners be invited to consult with the Foreign Minister on matters or foreign industrial, commercial, and social affairs in which the oversea Dominions are interested, and inform their respective Governments. 6. That the High Commissioners should become the sole channel of communication between Imperial and Dominion Governments, GovernorsGeneral, and Governors on all occasions—being given identical and simultaneous information. RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OFITHE UNION OF|SOUTH|AFRICA : (1) That it is desirable that all matters relating to self-governing Dominions, as well as permanent Secretariat of the Imperial Conference, be placed directly under the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

* N o te. —The papers contained in this volume of Memoranda are being published in a separate Parliamentary Paper, except such papers as have been treated as confidential.

A.—4

RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND : 4. Interchange of Civil Servants :— That it is in the interests of the Imperial Government, and also of the Governments of the oversea Dominions, that an interchange of selected officers of the respective Civil Services should take place from time to time, with a view to the acquirement of better knowledge for both services with regard to questions that may arise affecting the respective Governments. Papers :—[Cd. 3523] (Proceedings of Colonial Conference of 1907) and Memorandum as to interchange of Civil Servants (No. 2 in volume of Memoranda).

THURSDAY, JUNE Ist—PLACE OF MEETING: FOREIGN OFFICE, 11 A.M. DECLARATION OF LONDON.

RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA : (6) Declaration of London. That it is regretted that the Dominions were not consulted prior to the acceptance by the British delegates of the terms of the Declaration of London : that it is not desirable that Great Britain should adopt the inclusion in Article 24 of foodstuffs, in view of the fact that so large a part of the trade of the Empire is in those articles : that it is not desirable that Great Britain should adopt the provisions of Articles 48-54, permitting the destruction of neutral vessels. Papers :— [Cd. 4554.] [Cd. 5418.] House of Lords Debates, 8 March, 9 March, 13 March, Memorandum (29) in volume of Conference Memoranda and Papers, two notes by Lord Desart circulated to Members May 26.

FRIDAY, JUNE 2nd.—PLACE OF MEETING : FOREIGN OFFICE, 11 A.M. COMMERCIAL RELATIONS. COMMERCIAL RELATIONS AND BRITISH SHIPPING. NAVIGATION LAW.

RESOLUTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA : 1. Commercial Relations. That this Conference, recognising the importance of promoting fuller development of commercial intercourse within the Empire, strongly urges that every effort should be made to bring about co-operation in commercial relations and matters of mutual interest. 2. Commercial Relations and British Shipping. That it is advisable in the interests both of the United Kingdom and of the British Dominions beyond the seas that efforts in favour of British manufactured goods and British shipping should be supported as far as is practicable.

A.-4

3. Navigation Law. That it is desirable that the attention of the Governments of the United Kingdom and of the Colonies should be called to the present state of the navigation laws in the Empire and in other countries, with a view to secure uniformity of treatment to British shipping; to prevent unfair competition with British ships by foreign subsidised ships; to secure to British ships equal trading advantages with foreign ships; to secure the employment of British seamen on British ships; and to raise the status and improve the conditions of seamen employed on such ships. SOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND : j 13. Shipping. That the self-governing oversea Dominions have now reached a stage of development when they should be entrusted with wider legislative powers in respect to British and foreign shipping. Papers : —Memoranda. (3), a — c, (4), and (5) in volume of Conference Memoranda.

Subjects which it is suggested might be referred for discussion to a Committee of the Conference : —Labour Exchanges, Enforcement of Arbitration Awards, Uniformity in Copyright, Patents and Trade Marks, and Company Law, Weights and Measures, International Exhibitions. RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM Labour Exchanges. That the Governments of the various Dominions should consider, in concert with the Imperial Government, the possibility and the best method of utilising the machinery of the national system of Labour Exchanges established in the United Kingdom by the Labour Exchanges Act, 1909, in connection with the notification of vacancies for employment and applications of persons for employment as between the Dominions and the United Kingdom. RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM : Enforcement of Arbitration Awards. That the Imperial Government should consider, in concert with the Dominion Governments, whether, and to what extent and under what conditions, it is practicable and desirable to make mutual arrangement,? with a view to the enforcement in one part of. the Empire of Commercial Arbitration Awards given in another part. RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND : 12. Uniformity of Laws. That it is in the best interests of the Empire that there should be more uniformity throughout its centres and dependencies in the law of copyright, patents, trade marks, companies. resolution of the government of the commonwealth of australia : 4. Uniformity of Company, Trade Mark, and Patent Law. That it is desirable, so far as circumstances permit, to secure and maintain uniformity in the company, trade mark, and patent laws of the Empire.

A.—4

RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA : 1.0. Coinage and Measures. That with a view to facilitating trade and commerce throughout the Empire the question of the advisableness of recommending a reform of the present units of weights, measures, and coins ought to engage the earnest attention of this Conference. RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM : International Exhibitions. That in view of the International Conference to be held at Berlin in 1912 with a view to the regulation of the conditions under which International Exhibitions should receive support, it is desirable that the Imperial and Dominion Governments shall consider the matter in conjunction, so as to arrange, if possible, for concerted, action upon this subject. Papers : —Memoranda, despatches, and papers (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), in volume of Conference Memoranda. THURSDAY, JUNE Bth.—PLACE OF MEETING : FOREIGN OFFICE, 11 A.M. PROPOSAL FOR STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE. INTERCHANGE OF CIVIL SERVANTS. Consideration of Memorandum by the Secretary of State for the Colonies on a Standing Committee of the Imperial Conference. RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OFfNEW ZEALAND : 4. Interchange of Civil Servants :— That it is in the interests of the Imperial Government, and also of the Governments of the oversea Dominions, that an interchange of selected officers of the respective Civil Services should take place from time to time, with a view to the acquirement of better knowledge for both services with regard to questions that may arise affecting the respective Governments. Papers : —[Cd. 3523] (Proceedings of Colonial Conference of 1907) and Memorandum as to interchange of Civil Servants (No. 2 in volume of Memoranda); Summary* of Discussion at Conference of 1907 and action taken; Mr. ITarcourt's Memorandum* of 26th May, 1911.

FRIDAY, JUNE 9th. — PLACE OF MEETING : FOREIGN OFFICE, 11 A.M. EMIGRATION. RECIPROCITY IN THE LAW AS TO DESTITUTE PERSONS.

RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA : (7) Emigration. That the Resolution of the Conference of 1907, which was in the following terms, be reaffirmed : — "That it is desirable to encourage British emigrants to proceed to British Colonies rather than foreign countries."

* Published in separate Parliamentary Paper.

2—A. 4.

A.—4

" That the Imperial Government be requested to co-operate with any Colonies desiring immigrants in assisting suitable persons to emigrate"; That the Secretary of State for the Colonies be requested to nominate representatives of the Dominions to the Committee of the Emigrants' Information Office. RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND : 1 (14) Reciprocity Destitute Persons Act. That in order to relieve both wives and children and the poor relief burdens of the United Kingdom and her Dependencies, reciprocal provisions should be made throughout the constituent parts of the Empire with respect to destitute and deserted persons. Papers : —Memorandum* by the President of the Local Government Board. Memorandum of the history and functions of the Emigrants' Information Office "([CM. 3407], 1907). Memoranda, &c, numbered (17) in volume of Conference Memoranda. MONDAY, JUNE 12th.—PLACE OF MEETING : FOREIGN OFFICE, 11 A.M. IMPERIAL COURT OF APPEAL. LAW OF CONSPIRACY. RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA : (11) Imperial Appeal Court. That it is desirable that the judicial functions in regard to the Dominions now exercised by Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should be vested in an Imperial Appeal Court, which should also be the final Court of Appeal for Great Britain and Ireland. RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND : (11) Imperial Court of Appeal. That it has now become evident, considering the growth of population, the diversity of laws enacted, and the differing public policies affecting legal interpretation in His Majesty's oversea Dominions, that no Imperial Court of Appeal can be satisfactory which does not include judicial representatives of these oversea Dominions. RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA : (8) The Law of Conspiracy. That the members of this Conference recommend to their respective Governments the desirableness of submitting measures to Parliament for the prevention of acts of conspiracy to defeat or evade the laws of any other part of the Empire; that the Imperial Government make similar representations to the Governments of India and the Crown Colonies. Papers : —Memorandum No. 18 in volume of Conference Memoranda; Despatach from Governor-General of the Commonwealth, No. ]9, in same volume.

* Published in separate Parliamentary Paper,

A A

TUESDAY, JUNE 13th.—PLACE OF MEETING: FOREIGN OFFICE, 11 A.M.

NATURALISATION. UNIFORMITY IN ACCIDENT COMPENSATION LAW. EXPULSION OF UNDESIRABLE ALIENS.

RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA : (5) Naturalisation. That tills Conference is in favour of the creation of a system which, while not limiting the right of a Dominion to legislate with regard to local naturalisation, will permit the issue to persons fulfilling prescribed conditions of certificates of naturalisation effective throughout the Empire, and refers to a subsidiary Conference the question of the best means to attain this end. RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND : (12) Uniformity of Laws. That it is in the best interests of the Empire that there should be more uniformity throughout its centres and dependencies in the law of . . , Naturalisation. RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA : (5) That it is desirable to review the principles underlying the draft -Bill for Imperial Naturalisation before its details are discussed further. RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND : (12) Uniformity of Laws. " That it is in the best interests of the Empire that there should be more uniformity throughout its centres and dependencies in the law of . Accident Compensation." RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM : That where aliens are deported under the law of any Dominion to a part of the United Kingdom it is desirable that some system should be devised whereby the Dominion may effectively co-operate in the measures necessary in the United Kingdom for the final disposal of such aliens. Papers :—Report of Inter-departmental Committee and despatches as to Imperial Naturalisation (No. 20 in volume of Memoranda). Memorandum as to Uniformity and Reciprocity in respect of Workmen's Compensation (No. 21 in volume). Memorandum as to Deportation of Undesirable Aliens from the Self-governing Dominions (No. 23 in volume).

A.—4

THURSDAY, JUNE 15th.—PLACE OF MEETING : FOREIGN OFFICE, 11 A.M. CHEAPENING OF CABLE^ATES. STATE-OWNED ATLANTIC CABLE. STATE-OWNED TELEGRAPH LINE ACROSS CANADA. STATE-OWNED BRITISH WIRELESS TELEGRAPH STATIONS. UNIVERSAL PENNY POSTAGE. IMPERIAL POSTAL ORDER SCHEME.

RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT ZEALAND : 8. Cheapening of Cable Rates. That in view of the social and commercial advantages which would result from increased facilities for intercommunication between her dependencies and Great Britain, it is desirable that all possible means be taken to secure a reduction in cable rates throughout the Empire. RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OFgTHE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA : 9. Nationalization of the Atlantic Cable. That this Conference strongly recommends the nationalization of the Atlantic cable in order to cheapen and render more effective telegraphic communication between Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand by thus acquiring complete control of all the telegraphic and cable lines along the " all-red route." RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF|NEW ZEALAND : 6. State-owned Atlantic Cable. That in order to secure a measure of unity in the cable and telegraph services within the Empire, the scheme of telegraph cables be extended by the laying of a State-owned cable between England and Canada, and that the powers of the Pacific Cable Board be extended to enable the Board to lay and control such cable. resolutions of the government zealand : 7. State-owned Telegraph Lines across Canada. That in order to facilitate the handling of the traffic, and to secure entire control over the route in which it is engaged, the powers of the Pacific Cable Board be extended to enable the Board to erect a land line across Canada. 9. Development of Telephone Communications within the Empire. That the great importance of wireless telegraphy for social, commercial, and defensive purposes renders it desirable that the scheme of wireless telegraphy approved at the Conference held at Melbourne in December, 1909, be extended, as far as practicable, throughout the Empire, with the ultimate object of establishing a chain of British State-owned wireless stations, which, in emergency, would enable the Empire to be to a great extent independent of submarine cables. 5. Universal Penny Postage. That in view of the social, political, and commercial advantages to accrue from a system of international penny postage, this Conference recommends to His Majesty's Government the advisability of approaching the Governments of other States known to be favourable to the scheme, with a view to united action being taken at the next meeting of the Congress of the Universal" Postal Union.

A.—4

RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM : Imperial Postal Order Scheme. That it is desirable to complete the Imperial Postal Order scheme by its extension to Australia and its full adoption by Canada, so that the British Postal Order shall be obtainable and payable in all parts of the Empire, and thus afford a ready and economical means of remitting small sums not only between the United Kingdom and other parts of the Empire, but between each part and every other. Papers : —Memoranda* 24-28 in volume of Conference Memoranda. Confidential Memorandum* as to Wireless Telegraphy.

FRIDAY, JUNE 16th. —PLACE OF MEETING: FOEEIGN OFFICE, 11 A.M. TREATIES. COMMERCIAL RELATIONS. COMMERCIAL RELATIONS AND BRITISH SHIPPING. ALL-RED ROUTE. TRADE AND POSTAL COMMUNICATIONS AND SHIPPING CONFERENCES. DOUBLE INCOME TAX. DOUBLE ESTATE DUTIES. STAMP DUTY ON COLONIAL BONDS. UNIFORMITY IN CURRENCY AND COINAGE LAWS.

RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA : That His Majesty's Government be requested to open negotiations with the several Foreign Governments having treaties which apply to the oversea Dominions with a view to securing liberty for any of those Dominions which may so desire to withdraw from the operation of the Treaty without impairing the Treaty in respect of the rest of the Empire. RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF|THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA : 1. Commercial Relations. That this Conference, recognising the importance of promoting fuller development of commercial intercourse within the Empire, strongly urges that every effort should be made to bring about co-operation in commercial relations and matters of mutual interest. 2. Commercial Relations and British Shipping. That it is advisable in the interests both of the United Kingdom and of the British Dominions beyond the seas that efforts in favour of British manufactured goods and British shipping should be supported as far as it is practicable. RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT ZEALAND : 10. All-red Mail Route between England, Australia, and New Zealand, via Canada. That in the interests of the Empire it is desirable that Great Britain should be connected with Canada, and, through Canada, with Australia and New Zealand, by the best mail service available.

* These memoranda have been treated as confidential papers, and are not published.

A.—4

That, for the purpose of carrying the above desideratum into effect, a mail service be established on the Pacific between Vancouver, Fiji, Auckland, and Sydney by first-class steamers of not less than 10,000 tons, and capable of performing the voyage at an average speed of 16 knots. That in addition to this a fast service be established between Canada and Great Britain, the necessary financial support required for both purposes to be contributed by Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in equitable proportions. • RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF NEWFOUNDLAND : Eesolved, That it is the opinion of this Conference that the most certain means of developing trade within the Empire is by connecting the various parts of the Empire by rapid mail communication, travel, and transportation. That the needs of the North American portion of the British Empire can best be served by connecting Great Britain and Canada, via Newfoundland, by the best service available within reasonable cost. That for the purpose of establishing a line of steamers to this end, the Governments of Great Britain, Canada, and Newfoundland should contribute an annual subsidy based on, in proportion to, and having regard to, the population, wealth, trade, and interests of their respective countries. RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF|THE UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA : (2) That, concerted action be taken by all Governments of the Empire to promote better Trade and Postal Communications between Great Britain and the overseas Dominions, and in particular to discourage Shipping Conferences or combines for the control of freight rates between the various portions of the Empire. RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND : 15. Income Tax. That it is inequitable that persons resident in tlie United Kingdom who, under the laws of a self-governing dependency, pay an income or other tax to the Government of such dependency in respect of income or profits derived from the dependency should have to pay a further tax in respect of the same income or profits to the United Kingdom; and therefore it is most desirable that Imperial legislation should be introduced to remove the disability. RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OFpHE UNION OFjSOUTH AFRICA : (6) That it is desirable that an understanding be arrived at between the Imperial and the Colonial Governments whereby the Imperial Exchequer in claiming payment for Income Tax and Death Duties should allow a deduction for payments fairly claimed for these purposes in the Colonies. RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND : 16. Stamp Duty on Colonial Bonds. That in order to encourage investment in the bonds of oversea Dominions it is desirable that debentures or other securities issued in the United Kingdom by, or on account of, the Governments of the self-govern ing dependencies should be exempted from stamp duty. RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OFJjTHE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA : 10. Coinage. That with a view to facilitating trade and commerce throughout the Empire, the question of the advisableness of recommending a reform of the present units of coins ought to engage the earnest attention of this Conference.

A.—4

RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND : 12. Uniformity of Laws. That it is in the best interests of the Empire that there should be more uniformity throughout its centres and dependencies in the law of . . . . currency and coinage. Papers. Trade and Shipping Statistics Nos. (3), (4), and (5). Memoranda and papers 12, 14, 15, 16, 31, 32, 33, in Volume of Conference Memoranda already circulated. Miscellaneous Statistics, re Shipping and Trade.*

MONDAY, JUNE 19th. — PLACE OF MEETING: FOREIGN OFFICE, 11 A.M. POSITION OF BRITISH INDIANS IN THE DOMINIONS. MERCHANT SHIPPING AND NAVIGATION LAWS. UNIFORMITY INJIMMIGRATION AND ALIENS EXCLUSION LAW. COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION AWARDS.

resolution of the government of new zealand : 13. Shipping. That the self-governing oversea Dominions have now reached a stage of development when they should be entrusted with wider legislative powers in respect to British and foreign shipping. resolution of the government of new zealand : 12. Uniformity of Laws. That it is in the best interests of the Empire that there should be more uniformity throughoiit its centres and dependencies in the law of . . . . immigration, aliens exclusion. RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM : That the Imperial Government should consider in concert with the Dominion Governments whether, and to what extent, and under what conditions, it is practicable and desirable to make mutual arrangements with a view to the enforcement in one part of the Empire of commercial arbitration awards given in another part. Papers. — Telegram No. (30) in Volume of Conference Memoranda. Memorandum as to position of British Indians in the Dominions. Petition from Hindu Residents in British Columbia, Memorandixm No. (22) and Memorandum No. (7).

* Published in separate Parliamentary Paper.

A.—4

TUESDAY, JUNE 20th.— PLACE OF MEETING: FOREIGN OFFICE, 11 A.M.

REPORT OF A COMMITTEE CONVENED TO DISCUSS MILITARY DEFENCE.

RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA : (a) That in the opinion of this Conference it is desirable that Ministers of the United Kingdom and the Dominions should between Conferences exchange reciprocal visits, so as to make themselves personally acquainted with all the self-governing parts of the Empire. (b) That the Government of the United Kingdom take into consideration the possibility of holding the next meeting of the Conference in one of the oversea Dominions. Question of publication of proceedings.

A.—4

RESOLUTIONS. The following Resolutions were unanimously agreed to by the Conference, except where otherwise stated. I. Consultation of Dominions as to International Agreements affecting them. That this Conference after hearing the Secretary of State for Foreign June 2. Affairs cordially welcomes the proposals of the Imperial Government, viz., Rl32 ' (a) that the Dominions shall be afforded an opportunity of consultation when framing the instructions to be given to British delegates at future meetings of the Hague Conference, and that Conventions affecting the Dominions provisionally assented to at that Conference shall be circulated among the Dominion Governments for their consideration before any such Convention is signed; (b) that a similar procedure, where time and opportunity and the subject-matter permit, shall, as far as possible, be used when preparing instructions for the negotiations of other International Agreements affecting the Dominions. 11. Declaration of London. [The Commonwealth of Australia abstained from voting. .l That the Conference, after full consideration and debate, approves the June 2 - ratification of the Declaration of London. 111. British Shipping. That it is desirable that the attention of the Governments of the United June 2. Kingdom and of the Dominions should be drawn to the desirability of taking all P ' ls3 ' practical steps to secure uniformity of treatment to British shipping, to prevent unfair competition with British ships by foreign subsidised ships, to secure to British ships equal trading advantages with foreign ships, to promote the employment of British seamen on British ships, and to raise the status and improve the conditions of seamen employed on such ships, IV. Uniformity in Law of Copyright, Patents, Trade Marks, and Companies. That it is in the best interests of the Empire that there should be more Junes uniformity throughout its centres and dependencies in the law of copyright, ' 165, patents, trade marks, companies. V. International Exhibitions. That, in view of the International Conference to be held at Berlin in 1912 June 2. with a view to the regulation of the conditions under which international exhi- p " I7L bitions should receive support, it is desirable that the Imperial and Dominion Governments shall consider the matter in conjunction, so as to arrange, if possible, for concerted action upon this subject.

3—A. 4.

A.—4

VI. Visits of Civil Servants. That it is in the interests of the Imperial Government, and also of the Governments of the oversea Dominions, that visits of selected officers of the respective Civil Services should take place from time to time, with a view to the acquirement of better knowledge for both services with regard to questions affecting the respective Governments. VII. Emigration. Having heard the interesting and explanatory statement from Mr. Burns, resolved, That the present policy of encouraging British emigrants to proceed to British Dominions rather than foreign countries be continued, and that full co-operation be accorded to any Dominion desiring immigrants. VIII. Provision for Desertf;d Wives and Children. That, in order to secure justice and protection for wives and children who have been deserted by their legal guardians either in the United Kingdom or any of the Dominions, reciprocal legal provisions should be adopted in the constituent parts of the Empire in the interests of such destitute and deserted persons. IX Court of Appeal. That, having heard the views of the Lord Chancellor and Lord Haldane, the Conference recommends that the proposals of the Government of the United Kingdom be embodied in a communication to be sent to the Dominions as early as possible. X. Naturalisation. That the Conference approves the scheme of Imperial citizenship, based on the following five propositions : — (1) Imperial nationality should be world-wide and uniform, each Dominion being left free to grant local nationality on such terms as its Legislature thinks fit. (2) The Mother Country finds it necessary to maintain five years as the qualifying period. This is a safeguard to the Dominions as well as to her, but five years anywhere in the Empire should be as good as five years in the United Kingdom. (3) The grant of Imperial nationality is in every case discretionary, and this discretion should be exercised by those responsible in the area in which the applicant has spent the last twelve months. (4) The Imperial Act should be so framed as to enable each selfgoverning Dominion to adopt it. (5) Nothing now proposed would affect the validity and effectiveness of local laws regulating immigration and the like or differentiating between classes of British subjects. XL Uniformity in Law of Accident Compensation. That it is in the best interests of the Empire that there should be more uniformity throughout its centres and dependencies in the law of accident compensation,

June 8. P. 196.

June 9. P. 205.

June 9. P. 2)2.

June 12. P. 243.

June 13. P. 271.

June 13. P. 273.

A.-4

XII. Deportation of Aliens. That, where aliens are deported under the law of any Dominion from one part of the Empire to another, it is desirable that some system should be devised whereby the Government concerned may effectively co-operate in the measures necessary for the final disposal of such aliens. XIII. Birthday of His Majesty the King. That it is desirable that the 3rd June, the Birthday of His Most Gracious Majesty King George V., shall in each succeeding year be duly honoured and celebrated throughout the British Empire, and that such measures be taken by legislation or otherwise as may be deemed necessary to give full effect to this resolution. XIV. Cheaper Cable Rates. That, in view of the social and commercial advantages which would result from increased facilities for intercommunication between her dependencies and Great Britain, it is desirable that all possible means be taken to secure a reduction in cable rates throughout the Empire. XV. State-owned Atlantic Cable. That, in the event of considerable reductions in trans-Atlantic Cable rates not being effected in the near future, it is desirable that the laying of a Stateowned cable between England and Canada be considered by a subsidiary Conference. XVI. State-owned Wireless Telegraph-stations. That the great importance of wireless telegraphy for social, commercial, and defensive purposes renders it desirable that a chain of British State-owned wireless stations should be established within the Empire. XVII. Universal Penny Postage. That, in view of the social and political advantages and the material commercial advantages to accrue from a system of international penny postage, this Conference recommends to His Majesty's Government the advisability, if and when a suitable opportunity occurs, of approaching the Governments of other States, members of the Universal Postal Union, in order to obtain further reductions of postage rates, with a view to a more general, and, if possible, a universal, adoption of the penny rate. XVIII. Imperial Postal Order Scheme. That it is desirable to complete the Imperial Postal Order scheme by its extension to Australia and its full adoption by Canada, so that the British Postal Order shall be obtainable and payable in all parts of the Empire, and thus afford a ready and economical means of remitting small sums, not only between the United Kingdom and other parts of the Empire, but between each part and every other.

June 13 P. 274.

June 13. P. 276.

June 15. P. 290.

June 15. P. 307.

June IS. P. 315.

June 15. P. 323.

June 15. P. 325.

k.~4

XIX. Commercial Treaties. That His Majesty's Government be requested to open negotiations with the several Foreign Governments having commercial treaties which apply to the overseas Dominions, with a view to securing liberty for any of those Dominions which may so desire to withdraw from the operation of the Treaty without impairing the Treaty in respect of the rest of the Empire. XX. Royal Commission as to Natural Resources and Improvement of Trade of the Empire. That His Majesty should be approached with a view to the appointment of a Royal Commission representing the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Newfoundland, with a view of investigating and reporting upon the natural resources of each part of the Empire represented at this Conference, the development attained and attainable, and the facilities for production, manufacture, and distribution; the trade of each part with the others and with the outside world, the food and raw material requirements of each and the sources thereof available, to what extent, if any, the trade between each of the different parts has been affected by existing legislation in each, either beneficially or otherwise, and by what methods consistent with the existing fiscal policy of each part the trade of each part with the others may be improved and extended. XXI. Mail Communication. That in the interests of the Empire it is desirable that Great Britain should be connected with Canada and Newfoundland and through Canada with Australia and New Zealand by the best mail-service available. XXII Trade and Postal Communications and Shipping Conferences or Combines. That concerted action be taken by all Governments of the Empire to promote better Trade and Postal Communications between Great Britain and the overseas Dominions, and in particular to discourage Shipping Conferences or combines for the control of freight rates between the various portions of the Empire, in so far as the operations of such Conferences are prejudicial to trade. XXIII. Wider Powers of Legislation as to Merchant Shipping. (The Governments of the Dominions of Canada and New Zealand only were in favour of this Resolution, the Governments of the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Union of South Africa, and Newfoundland!! abstaining.) That the self-governing overseas Dominions have now reached a stage of development when they should be entrusted with wider legislative powers in respect of British and Foreign shipping. XXIV. Uniformity of Law as to Alien Immigration Exclusion. That it is in the best interests of the Empire that there should be more uniformity throughout its centres and dependencies in the law of alien immigration exclusion, and that it is therefore desirable that it should be referred to the Royal Commission recommended by the Imperial Conference.

June 16. P. 339.

June 16. P. 344.

June 16. P. 357.

June 16, P. 392.

June 19. P. 424.

A.—4

XXV. Mutual Enforcement of Judgments and Orders of Courts of Justice, including Judgments and Orders as to Commercial Arbitration Awards. That the Imperial Government should consider in concert with the Dominion Governments whether, and to what extent, and under what conditions, it is practicable and desirable to make mutual arrangements with a view to the enforcement in one part of the Empire of judgments and orders of the Courts of Justice in another part, including judgments or orders for the enforcement of Commercial Arbitration Awards. XXVI. Suez Canal Dues. That this Conference is of opinion that the dues levied upon shipping for using the Suez Canal constitute a heavy charge and tend to retard the trade within the Empire, and with other countries, and invites the Government of the United Kingdom to continue to use their influence for the purpose of obtaining a substantial reduction of the present charges. XXVII. Mutual Visits of Ministers and Question of holding Meetings and Conferences in the Overseas Dominions. (a) That in the opinion of this Conference it is desirable that Ministers of the United Kingdom and the Dominions should between Conferences exchange reciprocal visits, so as to make themselves personally acquainted with all the self-governing parts of the Empire. (b) That the Government of the United Kingdom take into consideration the possibility of holding a meeting of the Conference or a subsidiary conference in one of the overseas Dominions. XXVIII. The members of the Conference representing the overseas Dominions desire, before they separate, to convey to the Prime Minister and to the Secretary of State for the Colonies their warm and sincere appreciation of the manner in which they have prepared, assisted in, and presided over the labours of the Conference, as well as of the many courtesies which they have received from them; they desire also to put on record the deep sense of gratitude which they feel for the generous hospitality which has been extended to them by the Government and people of the United Kingdom.

June 19. P. 332 and p. 425.

June 19. P. 420.

June 20. P. 436.

A.—4

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE, 1911.

FIRST DAY. Tuesday, 23rd May, 1911.

The Imperial Conference met at the Foreign Office at 11 a.m.

Present : The Eight Honourable H. H. ASQUITH, K.C., M.P. (President of the Conference). The Right Honourable L. Harcotjrt, M.P.., Secretary of State for the Colonies. Canada. The Right Honourable Sir Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G., Prime Minister of the Dominion. The Honourable Sir F. W. Borden, K.C.M.G., Minister of Militia and Defence. The Honourable L. P. Brodeur, K.C., Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Australia. The Honourable A. Fisher, Prime Minister of the Commonwealth. The Honourable E. L. Batchelor, Minister of External Affairs. The Honourable G. F. Pearce, Minister of Defence. New Zealand. The Right Honourable Sir Joseph G. Ward, K.C.M.G., Prime Minister of the Dominion. The Honourable J. G. Findlay, K.C., LL.I)., Attorney-General and Minister of Justice. Union of South Africa. General The Right Honourable L. Botha, Prime Minister of the Union. The Honourable F. S. Malan, Minister of Education. The Honourable Sir David de Villiers Graaff, Bart., Minister of Public Works, Posts and Telegraphs. Newfoundland. The Honourable Sir E. P. Morris, K.C., Prime Minister. The Honourable R. Watson, Colonial Secretary. Mr. H. W. Just, C.8., C.M.G., Secretary to the Conference. Mr. W. A. Robinson, Senior Assistant Secretary. Mr. A. B. Keith, Junior Assistant Secretary.

A.—4

23 May, 1911.] Opening Address and Replies. [Ist Day.

There were also present : Lord Lucas, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies; Sir Francis Hopwood, G.C.M.G., X.C.8., Permanent Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies; Sir C. P. Lucas, K.C.M.G., C.8., Assistant L T nder-Secretary of State for the Colonies; Rear-Admiral Sir Charles Ottley, K.C.M.G.. M.V.0., Secretary to the Committee of Imperial Defence; Mr. Atlee A. Hunt, C.M.G., Secretary to the Department of External Affairs, Commonwealth of Australia; Commander S. A. Pethebridge, Secretary to the Department of Defence, Commonwealth of Australia; Mr. J. R. Leisk, Secretary for Finance, Union of South Africa; and Private Secretaries to the Members of the Conference.

The PRESIDENT : Gentlemen, Colleagues, I offer you, in the name of His Majesty's Government, a most grateful and cordial welcome, and I express at the outset of our proceedings a hope which you will all share, that the deliberations of this, the first Imperial Conference, may conduce, in the language of the prayer which we are accustomed to offer for the High Court of Parliament, to the " safety, honour, and welfare of our Sovereign and His Dominions." Four years have passed since some of us who are here to-day took part in the Colonial Conference of 1907. Even in such a relatively short lapse of time notable gaps have been created by the calls of mortality and the accidents of political fortune. The name of my lamented predecessor, Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman, who opened the Conference of that year, will always be associated in the history of the Empire with the grant of full self-government to the Transvaal and the Orange River Colonies, with the result that we have with us at this table to-day not (as then) the representatives of separate South African States, but the Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa. And barely a year ago our beloved and illustrious Sovereign, King Edwaxd VII, to whom in 1907 we owed and gave a whole-hearted allegiance, was suddenly taken from the Empire which he served so faithfully and loved so well, leaving behind him the best inheritance which any Monarch can bequeath to his successors—the memory of great purposes worthily pursued, and the example of a life which was directed and dominated by a tireless sense of duty, and an unquenchable devotion to the peoples committed to his charge. You will join with me, I am sure, in offering, as our first corporate act, our homage to King George V, and the assurance of our fervent hope and firm belief that in his reign the British Crown will continue with untarnished lustre to be the centre and the symbol of our Imperial unity. It is, indeed, a happy coincidence that the time fixed for our deliberations will enable the foremost statesmen of the self-governing Dominions and Colonies to take a personal part in the solemnities, shared in spirit and sympathy by the whole Empire, which will attend the Coronation of the King and Queen. It is natural, and I hope not inopportune, that on such an occasion I should invite you to survey with me, for a few moments, the stage of development which we have now reached in the evolution of that unique political organism which is called the British Empire. lam not going to trouble you with statistics of area, population, production, interchange, interesting and impressive as the figures might be made,

A.—4

Ist Day.] Opening Address and Replies. [23 May, 1911,

The PRESIDENT—cow*. There have been in the past Empires which (like our own) were widespread, populous, rich in material wealth, the prolific breeding-ground of art and science and literature. But this Empire of ours is distinguished from them all by special and dominating characteristics. From the external point of view it is made up of countries which are not geographically conterminous or even contiguous, which present every variety of climate, soil, people, and religion, and, even in those communities which have attained to complete self-govern-ment, and which are represented in this room to-day, does not draw its unifying and cohesive force solely from identity of race or of language. Yet you have here a political organization which, by its mere existence, rules out the possibility of war between populations numbering something like a third of the human race. There is, as there must be amongst communities so differently situated and circumstanced, a vast variety of constitutional methods, and of social and political institutions and ideals. But to speak for a moment for that part of the Empire which is represented here to-day, what is it that we have in common, which amidst every diversity of external and material conditions, makes us and keeps us one? There are two things in the self-governing British Empire which are unique in the history of great political aggregations. The first is the reign of Law : wherever the King's writ runs it is the smybol and messenger not of an arbitrary authority, but of rights shared by every citizen, and capable of being asserted and made effective by the tribunals of the land. The second is the combination of local autonomy—absolute, unfettered, complete—with loyalty to a common head, co-operation, spontaneous and unforced, for common interests and purposes, and, I may add, a common trusteeship, whether it be in India or in the Crown Colonies, or in the Protectorates, or within our own borders, of the interests and fortunes of fellow-subjects who have not yet attained, or perhaps in some cases may never attain, to the full stature of self-government. These general considerations, Gentlemen, familiar as they are to all of you, may not be wholly out of place when we are contemplating in advance the work which is set before this Imperial Conference. In the early Victorian era there were two rough-and-ready solutions for what was regarded, with some impatience, by the British statesmen of that day as the " Colonial problem." The one was centralisation—the government, that is, except in trivial matters, of all the outlying parts of the Empire from an office in Downing Street. The other was disintegration—the acquiescence in, perhaps the encouragement of, a process of successive " hivings off" by which, without the hazards or embitterments of coercion, each community, as it grew to political manhood, would follow the example of the American Colonies, and start an independent and sovereign existence of its own. After 70 years' experience of Imperial evolution, it may be said with confidence that neither of these theories commands the faintest support to-day, either at home or in any part of our self-governing Empire. We were saved from their adoption—some people would say by the favour of Providence—or (to adopt a more nattering hypothesis) by the political instinct of our race. And just in proportion as centralisation was seen to be increasingly absurd, so has "disintegration been felt to be increasingly impossible. Whether in this United Kingdom, or in any one of the great communities which you represent, we each of us are, and we each of us intend to remain, master in our own household. This is, here at home and throughout the Dominions, the life-blood of our polity. It is the articulus stantis aut cad'entis Tmperii. It is none the less true that we are, and intend to remain, units indeed, but units in a greater unity. And it is the primary object and governing purpose of these periodical Conferences tha.t we may take free counsel together in the matters which concern us all. Let me select one or two illustrations from the Agenda which have been suggested for our deliberations here. There are, first of all, proposals put forward from responsible quarters which aim at some closer form of political union as between the component members of the Empire, and which, with that object, would develop existing,, or devise new, machinery, in the shape of an Advisory Council, or in some other form. I need not say that, in advance of the discussions which we are about to have, I pronounce no opinion on this class of proposals. I will only venture the observation, that I am. sure we shall not lose sight of the value of elasticity

A.—4

23 May, 1911] Opening Address and Replies. [Ist Day.

The PRESIDENT—con*. and flexibility in our Imperial organization, or of the importance of maintaining to the full, in the case of all of us, the principle of Ministerial responsibility to Parliament. Of a cognate character are the questions raised as to the future constitution of the Colonial Office, and in particular as to the segregation and concentration of the work appropriate to the Dominions from the other work of the Department. Under this head I trust that His Majesty's Government may be able to put forward suggestions, which will be acceptable in themselves, and prove fruitful in practice. I will refer to one other topic of even greater moment—that of Imperial Defence. Two years ago, in pursuance of the first Resolution of the Conference of 1907, we summoned here in London a subsidiary Conference to deal with the subject of Defence, over which I had the honour to preside. The results achieved—particularly in the inauguration of the policy of Dominion Fleets adopted by Canada and Australia—are of a far-reaching character. The recent visit of Lord Kitchener to Australia and New Zealand has given a further impetus to the spirit of self-reliance in matters of Defence in those two great Dominions. We adopt different systems in the raising and recruiting of our defensive forces in the different parts of the Empire. Everywhere and throughout, the object is not aggression, but the maintenance of peace, and the insurance against loss and destruction of the vast social and material interests of which we are trustees. It is in the highest degree desirable that we should take advantage of your presence here to take stock together of the possible risks and dangers to which we are or may be in common exposed; and to weigh carefully the adequacy and the reciprocal adaptiveness of the contributions we are respectively making to provide against them. I shall propose that (following the precedent created in 1909) these matters should be discussed in the Committee of Imperial Defence, with the assistance of the advice of its expert members, at meetings at which the Dominions will be represented by their Prime Ministers, and the Ministers directly concerned in naval and military defence. At the first of these meetings (which will, of course, like all of them, be of a confidential character) Sir Edward Grey will attend, and will speak to us on .the international situation, so far as it affects the Empire as a whole. Gentlemen, I have purposely, in this brief introduction to our proceedings, left out of account a large number—the largest number—of the topics which will be submitted for our consideration. There are sitting at this table to-day six Prime Ministers, all holding their commission from the same King, and all deriving their title to its exercise from the voice and vote of a free democracy. We are all of us, I suppose, in our own Parliaments party leaders, holding and using power by virtue of the confidence of a party majority. But each of us when he entered this room left his party prepossessions outside the door. For us to-day, and throughout this Conference, there is, I believe, one spirit and one purpose—to make the Empire, in all its activities, and throughout all its parts, a more complete and effective instrument for the furtherance of our corporate unity and strength along the old, well-trodden, but ever lengthening and widening road, of British liberty. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Mr. Asquith and Gentlemen—Those whose privilege it was to take part in the Conference that took pb.ee here four years ago have a very vivid remembrance of the very kind words which your illustrious predecessor in the high office you now fill, Sir, addressed to the representatives of the King's Governments in the Dominions beyond the seas. The warm words of welcome which you have just addressed to us exhibit the same spirit of kindness. There are evidences not a few, indeed there are evidences in abundance, that the words which you have spoken do not reflect alone the sentiments of the King's Government, but also the sentiments of the King's subjects in these Islands of whatever origin or creeds they may be. The only fitting return which I think can be made to this warmth of welcome, thus extended to us by the people of the-United Kingdom, is to assure you, Sir, and, through you, His Majesty the King and His Majesty's subjects, of the warm and everg rowing attachment, if I may say so, of the populations of the

4—A. 4.

A.—4

Is* Day.] Opening Address and Replies. [23 May, 1911.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER— cont. Dominions beyond the seas to the British Crown and the British institutions. At least I can say so for the Dominion from which I come, and I have no doubt •my colleagues from the other Dominions can say the same for their own people. Those who attended the Conference four years ago will also remember that when we met the feeling in this country was rather charged with doubt and misgiving lest the work of the Conference might be fruitless and barren of results. The event, I think I may say, properly showed that for these doubts and misgivings there was no foundation whatever. Ido not claim, no one does claim, I am sure, that the discussions which took place were in any way sensational, but I think we can claim that they were productive of material and even important results. The most important of these results was to substitute for the kind of ephemeral Colonial Conferences which had taken .place before, a real Imperial system of periodical Conferences between the Government of His Majesty the Kng in the United Kingdom and the Governments of His Majesty the Kingin the Dominions beyond the seas for the discussion of common interest to all. We are just met, as you said a moment ago, Sir, for the purpose of discussing such topics in the first of these Imperial Conferences. Perhaps I may say that of this Conference, as well as of the last, it will be said when it is reviewed, that the discussions were neither sensational nor dramatic, but conducive to good results. Indeed, it is already evident that these Conferences which have taken place from time to time, and which will now take place at regular periods, have already been productive of very important effects. They have brought together British subjects all over the world who probably but for these Conferences would never have met. They have brought more closely together the different Dominions of the British Crown, and made them feel more strongly the advantages of British connection. They have produced another result: they have shown us that whilst we are British subjects, who have interests which are common to all parts of the British Empire, there are between Dominions and Dominions and between the Dominions and the United Kingdom, differences of local interest which, unknown and ignored, tend to disintegration, but which, known and recognised, may be harmonised, and harmonised towards union. I have the happy privilege of representing here a country which has no grievances to set forth and very few suggestions to make. We are quite satisfied with out lot. We are happy and prosperous, but we recognise that there is always room for improvement, and we approach with an open mind the suggestions which shall be made by our colleagues for what they conceive to be the better interests of the British Empire. I have only one word to add, Sir, and it is to say that we shall be most anxious to second you in offering our homage to our new Sovereign, King George V. As to the sentiments which you have expressed a moment ago, perhaps it would be better not to anticipate them, but for my part, I heartily recognise the truth of the principle which you have laid down, that if there is one principle upon which the British Empire can live, and ought to live, it is Imperial unity based upon local autonomy. Mr. FISHER : Mr. Asquith, unlike my distinguished friend, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, I appear at these Conferences for the first time, and naturally with some trepidation in the presence of so many distinguished gentlemen. I wish to express my appreciation of the speech you have just made. Its sentiments express the views not only of the representatives here but, as Sir Wilfrid has said, of the whole of the people of the Dominions. I came to the Conference cheerfully and wholeheartedly because I have always been an advocate of Conferences/ I think they are good when they assemble here, but I think no loss, indeed I believe a gain, would accrue if they could be held outside the United Kingdom. Ido not speak now of the Imperial Conference as it is named and constituted. I hope the time is not far distant when Conferences of the representatives of the United Kingdom and of the Dominions beyond the seas will

A.—4

23 May, 1911.] Opening Address and Replies. [Ist Day.

Mr. FISHER— cont. not only meet in London but at the centres of other Dominions also. Nothing in my opinion has tended to develop Imperial feeling in the best sense of that term like the improvement of intercommunication, the speed and comfort of transport, and the principle of representatives meeting together and discussing the affairs of their countries. I hope I shall not be travelling beyond the subjects which call for observation to-day if I earnestly appeal to the President to take some strong steps to remedy a grave abuse affecting the commerce of the Empire and other countries; I allude to the exorbitant charges made upon shipping using the Suez Canal. I should like also to say that I believe it would forward the interests of the Dominions and of the Mother Country if you, in the exercise of that great authority which you possess, could more expeditiously give to the Dominions the benefit of the Trade Eeports that come to you through your officials in every part of the world. Should you do so we should be able to utilise them more effectively. I think by that means also we shall be able to bring our interests and our associations closer together. You said in your address that the genius of the British race rather than a dispensation of Providence had developed the unity of the peoples of the Empire. I think that is a fine sentiment boldly stated. The other point that impressed me was that greater freedom had led to closer unity. It had done much to assure peace in the world, and might do more to prevent war. That is a great achievement. I hope the limits of such an organization have not yet been reached. With regard to Defence, speaking for the Commonwealth, our object is to protect the liberties of our people, and assure the safety of our country. Aggression is not our aim. Anything we can do to help maintain an honoured name and free institutions shall be done cheerfully. We particularly desire the Commonwealth to be closely associated with the Government of the United Kingdom in all they may do to promote the cause of International Arbitration, and help preserve the peace of the world. I wish to convey through you to His Majesty the King, on behalf of the people of the Commonwealth, our gratitude and loyalty, and hope that we shall ever remain true and faithful subjects. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Mr. Asquith, I desire to say how very highly I, as one of the representatives of New Zealand, appreciate the cordial welcome you were good enough to extend to us on our assembling here. I remember so well the circumstance to which you alluded that took place four years ago, and I also recollect the distinguished gentleman who filled the high and honourable position which you now occupy. I well remember, too, the speech delivered by him upon that occasion, and how reassuring it was to the whole of us Colonial representatives to find that the head of the British Government was anxious to do what he could to help on what we people in a minor way were endeavouring to do in the oversea Possessions, and were anxious to co-operate with the British Government in giving effect to here. During the course of your speech, Sir, I have heard of nothing with greater pleasure than your reference to the great work, the Empire work, initiated by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. I' want in a humble way to add my personal testimony to what I believe has been one of the greatest achievements of the century from the historical point of view of the British Empire in the bringing together of the divided States of South Africa into one whole. It is a work that has done an immense amount of good for that country, and has impressed upon the British people all over the world the fact that probably no other people in the world than those of Great Britain, and perhaps no other Parliament in the world than the Mother of Parliaments, would have carried out what was looked upon by some as a very risky proposal to give effect to. It

A.—4

Ist Day.] Opening Address and Replies. [23 May, 1911

Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. showed the wisdom of those responsible, and in the result it certainly, from my standpoint, helps to make me feel very cheerful as to what may be the outcome of the deliberations of this Conference on some of the important matters which later on will come up for consideration. lam one of those who believe that the difficulties that have faced the British statesmen in the old land and the younger British statesmen in the younger lands are to be overcome, and I trust that even although we may differ upon material points in discussing these matters, we may be able to apply some of those splendid characteristics which in the past have been the means of accomplishing so much, to the important work which will come before us upon this occasion. I desire to say, Mr. Asquith, that in New Zealand we recognise fully that in the matter of governing our own country, we have always been allowed by the British Authorities to do practically what our people desired, and practically what we liked, with the reservation that is usually exercised, and rightly so, as to the consent of the King to any important alterations that might be contemplated affecting British subjects in other portions of the Empire, or concerning the constitution of our country itself. With those reservations we have been in the happy position of always being allowed to do what we liked. I wish to emphasize the point, referred to so eloquently by you, that we to the fullest possible extent recognise the principle of being daughters in your house and mistress in our own, and I am in full accord with the sentiments expressed by you as to the necessity of elasticity and flexibility in connection with any matters that may be attained as the outcome of this Conference, or by any legislation that may be necessary with a view to promoting any of the matters which we may finally decide desirable to bring about. I am in entire accord with you and the other representatives at this Conference in saying that above all things we require to preserve our local autonomy; but I do believe—and later on I propose to elaborate a little more that pomt—that the preservation of our local autonomy and the elasticity and flexibility to which you have alluded can be maintained, but that it is essential for us to make a step forward, and an important step forward, if we want to prevent that to which you have also alluded, and which I believe to be a danger at the present moment—namely, the future disintegration of any portion of the British Possessions. Tdo not propose on this occasion—it would be the wrong time for one to do so—to do more than merely allude to that. I also wish, as the other two gentlemen who represent Canada and Australia have done, to give expression to the homage of the people of New Zealand to His Majesty King George V., and to say for them how earnestly we wish him long life and happiness in the important and high position he occupies. The belief that he will have a great career is strongly impressed upon the whole of us, if I may be allowed to say so, by the excellent way in which His Majesty has conducted the high and difficult duties attached to his office since he has assumed it, a post made more difficult from the fact that his great predecessor, Edward VII., rose to so high a standard in his continual endeavour to bind all portions of the Empire together, and worked so successfully to promote the peace of the world. • I can only again thank you, Mr. Asquith, for the very cordial welcome you have extended to us, and express the hope that the outcome of this Conference's work will be for the good of the Empire as a whole. General BOTHA : Gentlemen, I also have listened to the opening remarks of our respected Chairman with the greatest pleasure, and I wish to thank him most sincerely for his cordial words of welcome. On behalf of South Africa I must again express the deep sorrow of our people on the death of our late beloved King Edward VII. From the people whom I represent I bring the most loyal greetings and dutiful homage to our King George V.

A.—4,

23 May, 1911.] Opening Address and Replies. [Ist Day.

General BOTHA— cont. I have been deeply touched by the words of our Chairman about our late good friend Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. In him South Africa has lost a good friend, whose memory we shall always cherish. Since we assembled last a most important event has taken place in the history of the British Empire, the Union of the South African Colonies. On the last occasion South Africa was here represented by three Governments, while one Colony was not represented at all. To-day my colleagues and I have the honour to be present on behalf of the whole Union--the youngest nation in the row of nations under the British flag. We are grateful to be able to assure you that in that country where up till then there was so much discord, and where so many tears and so much blood had flowed in the past, concord and harmony now reign. Both sections of the population have worked together to attain that much-desired union, and we may say to-day that our first Parliament has proved that we were ripe for union. We have not only united countries, but also hearts. We are to-day in South Africa inspired with new hope and new courage, and we look forward to the future with the greatest confidence. All in South Africa now work together loyally for the development of our part of the British Empire, and the biiilding-up of a healthy and strong young nation of which the Empire will be proud. My colleagues and I are proud to be able to say that we represent all sections of our population, who will follow the proceedings of this important Conference with the greatest interest. Sir EDWARD MORRIS : Mr. Premier, I am in entire accord with what has been said by those who represent the other, and greater, Dominions, and I am sure that we are all to be congratulated in having the privilege of taking part in a Conference presided over by the Premier of England, and I congratulate you, Sir, on the very fine Imperial spirit and sentiment that permeates the whole of that address. It was not my privilege or advantage to be present at any of the other Colonial Conferences that have been held during the last few years. I was present at the Conference referred to by you a moment ago, in relation to the defence of the Empire. I took part in the whole of the deliberations of that Conference, and I can only hope that the spirit of unity that prevailed at the deliberations of that Conference will characterise the present one. lam quite certain it will, because I feel that every one here, no matter whether it be those who represent the great Dominions, or those who represent the smaller ones, is actuated by what was so well expressed by you—namely, that when they come in here they leave party outside; and, although there may be great party resolutions, involving large fiscal and other questions in this country and in the Dominions, here there is no question, except it be the one to advance in every possible way the interests of the Empire as a whole. I should not suppose there would be any difference upon that point, and if there appears to be a difference it can only mean that "we differ as to the means by which that can be accomplished. I desire also to tender, on behalf of Newfoundland, an expression of loyalty, through you, to His Majesty the King; and I am quite satisfied—as has been so very well expressed by the others—that the evidence which His Majesty has already given, in relation to ruling over this great Empire, will be more than sustained as the years go on. I was particularly struck with one of the principles laid down by you in your address, and that is the characteristic of the British law, as it may be termed in the Empire—that is, the Reign of Law. I suppose there is no other country in the world that has established such a record, or whose record is so unique as that of the British Government, whether it be in the Motherland or in the Colonies, " Law and Order " is respected everywhere, and I am sure that anything that can be done by this Conference by resolution, or by suggestion in any way, to further perfect that will meet with the approval of those whom we represent.

A.—4.

Is* Day.} Opening Address and Replies. [23 May, 1911. Sir EDWARD MORRlS—eon*. I thank you, on behalf of Newfoundland, for allowing me the privilege of making these few remarks. Address to the King. The PRESIDENT : I think, Gentlemen, after what has been said, we should all agree that we ought now, before we proceed with the business of the Conference, to express in formal terms the sentiment to which some of us have already given utterance —our homage and loyalty to the King; and I will ask Sir Wilfrid Laurier if he will be good enough to move a resolution in that sense. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Mr. Asquith, I would suggest something like this, if agreeable, and it could be put in shape by Mr. Just: " The Imperial Conference, at their first meeting, as their first act, desire to present their humble duty to your Majesty, and to assure you of the devoted loyalty of all the portions of your Majesty's Empire here represented." Mr. FISHER : I have pleasure in seconding that. The PRESIDENT : Ido not think it could be better put than that: " The Imperial Conference, at their first meeting, as their first act, desire to present their humble duty to your Majesty, and to assure you of the devoted loyalty of all the portions of your Majesty's Empire here represented." I assume that is carried unanimously. We will make a record of it. Publicity of Proceedings. " That the Conference be open to the Press except when subjects are confidential." Now, Gentlemen, the first item of business which has to be considered, which necessarily precedes everything else, is the proposed resolution of the Government of New Zealand, that the Conference be open to the Press except when the subjects are confidential. Sir Joseph Ward, will you let us have your views about that 1 Sir JOSEPH WARD : Mr. President, in moving the resolution that the Conference be open to the Press except when the subjects are confidential, I may say that a great deal of the valuable discussion that took place at previous Conferences did not realise its effect because the full report of the proceedings was not published. I make the reservation, of course, that there was a good deal of work done at those Conferences which could not in any case have been published, and I have no doubt that will apply to the present Conference as well. There must be many confidential matters that come up for consideration that ought not to be published. My own idea was that a similar course of procedure might be adopted to what is followed by Parliamentary Committees when taking evidence, either in this country or in some of the oversea countries—that is to say, that when a matter of an important nature crops up the room should be cleared. That is the usual course in parliamentary practice, and I think it might with advantage be applied to such a Conference as this. I should be exceedingly sorry, so far as I am concerned, to suggest that anything should be done that might militate against the free and full discussion of any important matter the value of which to the respective members would be lessened unless they were able to talk with complete freedom; but I look at the matter from the standpoint of what took place at the last Conference. I know that for quite a time the people in New Zealand heard next to nothing of what was going on at that Conference. The Australian representative was in a better position, from the fact that the authorities who controlled the Press cable-service to Australia were in Australia, and not unnaturally published what was regarded as being of the greatest importance to the Australian readers. From the New Zealand standpoint it may not have been considered that their representative's views were of such great importance to them, but the Australian part was published very fully, while matters of material importance to the people of New Zealand were almost forgotten, and made so subsidiary to the interests of the Press of the Australian Continent as to make the reports from a,New Zealand point of view of little value. That was unfair to the people in New Zealand, because they have a right to know what their representa-

A.—4

-23 May, 1911.] Publicity of Proceedings. [Ist Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. tive is doing at these Conferences as well as, of course, the people in the other portions of the oversea Dominions have the right to know what is going on so far as their representatives are concerned; and it was that difficulty that arose and that caused a good deal of friction for a time in New Zealand itself. lam anxious, as the representative of that country, to prevent a repetition of that state of affairs, and to see that a proper knowledge of what is taking place at this Conference is afforded through the Press of New Zealand for the information of the public there. The proceedings of this Conference from day to day should be reported. I want it to be perfectly understood that I am not reflecting on any of the official staff or on the men connected with the Press organizations. It is to the system I am referring, which, in my opinion, was responsible for the situation to which I have just alluded. I think that we might with very great advantage, so far as my judgment goes, allow the general work of the Conference to be open to the Press, except the more important portions which may be regarded as confidential; those we should deal with in Committee, and no public record should be taken of the proceedings in such matters. Sir, I move the resolution, notice of which I have given. Sir WILFRID LAURIER: Mr. Asquith, the subject which is now brought forward to the attention of the Conference by my friend Sir Joseph Ward engaged at some length the attention of the last Conference. Opinions were divided upon this point, but finally the majority came to the conclusion that it would not be advisable to have the Press admitted to the sittings of this Conference, and the resolution which was finally carried was that a record should be taken of what is said here, and a precis given to the Press every day. I may observe to Sir Joseph Ward that the people of New Zealand, so far as the proceedings of this Conference took place from day to day, were as well informed as the people of London, or the people of Australia, or the people of Canada. Perhaps in Australia or in Canada they may have had a little more information, because there were enterprising journalists, newspaper men, who undertook to comment and to get what information they could, and sent it to their respective papers, both in the capital here in London and the respective Dominions to which they belonged. The rule, as adopted, worked fairly well. lam sorry I did not then agree with Sir Joseph Ward. Like all rules, it was not carried quite unanimously; the words used by Sir Joseph Ward show that it was not carried with unanimity, but I think, on the whole, the majority was satisfied with the result. For my part, I would see very great objections on broad principles to have the Press admitted, because it would be practically admitting the public to these Conferences. The moment the Press is here the whole public-is admitted, and the discussion which takes place—l was going to use the word negotiations, and I think that would not be out of place—the deliberations, at all events —would, I am afraid, if the public were admitted from day to day, fall immediately into the domain, I will not say of party politics, but at all events of public discussion. If these Conferences are to have any good result (and I am sure they will) we are all agreed as to this point. I think it better that we should keep to this Conference the character of a Conference —that is to say, of deliberation, discussion, negotiation, trying to get a unanimous conclusion upon all the questions which are debated. We are all one here, and Mr. Asquith very properly said that when we cross this threshold we leave party politics behind. We leave all party spirit behind. As British subjects we are discussing Imperial questions, and we cannot hope that upon each subject, as on any other subject, we can be unanimous. There must be differences of opinion, and the object of this Conference is, upon all these questions, to try to come to a unanimous conclusion. If we are, therefore, to reach this goal which would inspire us upon all questions that come forward, I think we must do as is done in all these matters, preserve the secrecy of these deliberations, and give not the differences of opinion which may exist here, but the unanimous conclusion which is reached, and for these reasons, for my own part, if Sir Joseph Ward presses his motion to a conclusion, I should have to vote against it. Mr. FISHER : Mr. Asquith, I have a great deal of sympathy with the point that the Press should hear all the debates, although there are many sub-

A.—4

1** Day. Publicity of Proceedings. [23 May, 1911. Mr. FISHEE— cont. jects coming before this Conference which it would be out of place and unreasonable to permit discussion upon openly. One of the weaknesses of this proposal is, that if this Conference is open to the Press, except when the subjects are confidential, the subjects are all known to the Press, and immediately you reach a confidential and critical one, some one will have to move that it is one not fit for public discussion. That will emphasize it, and may give it undue prominence. I have hopes, if it is my great privilege to be here at another Conference, that it should be possible so to arrange the Agenda that certain subjects that are to be discussed might be separated altogether from general subjects and be discussed in open conference, apart altogether from the more serious subjects that we will have to deal with in secret. By that means some useful work may be done here without offending in any way or lessening the power of this Conference for good. I understood from Sir Wilfrid that there was some idea of a precis of considerable length being issued from day to day. The PRESIDENT : Perhaps I might mention here that Mr. Harcourt has procured the services of a trained summary writer, who will attend here and will be prepared to give, at the conclusion of the day, matter, roughly speaking, which will occupy a column, or something like a column, of the " Times "; and it is proposed that members of the Conference shall have an opportunity of seeing this in the afternoon (it will not appear until the next morning), and, of course, making any corrections which they think necessary. I think that really meets the full requirements of the case. Mr. FISHER : I think that is a great improvement on what was done previously. With reference to the important matter mentioned by Sir Joseph Ward, that there was some difficulty in his people getting any information at all four years ago, while the Australians got it, I am afraid we are under a grave disadvantage in our part of the world in the information that reaches us about events happening on this side of the world. That is a matter which will arise later on, and be discussed on another motion. General BOTHA : Mr. President, I am sorry to say that I cannot see my way to support this resolution. T consider that we would be taking a very wrong step indeed in admitting the Press to our proceedings. Our discussions must necessarily be to a large extent of a confidential and conversational nature, and they should remain so, in my opinion, if we expect to attain any satisfactory results. Although I am as much as any one in favour of the greatest publicity, I do feel that there are occasions when such a course is most inexpedient. In South Africa, at the time when our National Convention began its deliberations, the same question, of course, had to be settled, and we decided that the discussion should be carried on absolutely with closed doors. During more than four months questions of the greatest importance to every part of the country were discussed in the National Convention, and I may say that practically nothing transpired outside of what took place within. I think it is most unlikely that if we had adopted any other policy we should ever have attained the Union which we enjoy to-day. T think our difficulties would be increased enormously. Of course, I do not maintain that the objections against publicity are so strong in the case of this Conference as they were on the occasion of our National Convention. T do feel, however, that it is most inadvisable for us to admit the Press; and I think that the public can have no reasonable cause for complaint if we follow the procedure which was adopted at the last Conference. My opinion is that everything should be recorded that takes place; that a precis of the proceedings be issued daily to the Press after revision by the members of the Conference of the portions which concern them, and that towards the end of the Conference we should decide when and how far publicity should be given to our discussions.

A.--4.

23 May, 1911.] Publicity of Proceedings. [Ist Day. Sir EDWARD MORRIS : Mr. President, I would like to say that, whilst I can quite appreciate the motive of Sir Joseph Ward and sympathise with him for many reasons, at the same time I think that to have this Conference open to the Press would make it almost impossible to have a full and free and frank discussion. Ido not think it would be in the interests of the Empire for many reasons, because many matters would have to be disclosed with all the reasons why, and in relation to all the subjects that would come up; and it is well to remember that there are many persons who would be admitted who are not in sympathy with the work of the Conference. On the other hand, many of them would be interested in defeating it. I think that nearly all can be given to the Press in the way indicated; but to have a system by which the Press would be excluded from time to time would have the effect of creating alarm, as if there were some very important reasons why they should be excluded; and you would have a discussion going on that might not lead to any good. I think, on the whole, the system that has been followed in the past, referred to by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, will probably meet all the case and accommodate Sir Joseph Ward too. The PRESIDENT : After those expressions of opinion probably Sir Joseph Ward would not be disposed to press his proposal to a division. I quite appreciate the reasons which have induced him to bring it forward, but I think the argument the other way is overwhelming in its force. This Conference is not, of course, in the nature of a public meeting. Its whole value would be destroyed if we could not with perfect freedom and with complete confidence express our vieAvs upon each and all of +he topics which successively arise; and I myself see enormous and indeed insuperable difficulties in trying to discriminate in advance between topics which ought to be regarded as confidential and of supreme importance, and those which could be fairly treated as belonging to a different category. I think we should find ourselves constantly in very serious difficulties; and, as has been pointed out by more than one of the speakers, the moment the Press is excluded its curiosity, as we all know, becomes intense, and we might have all sorts of the most alarming pictures drawn of fictitious conflicts going on within the secrecy of these four walls, simply because the Press is not admitted to our proceedings. I think, on the whole, we should do much better to follow the precedent of 'he last Conference, although I agree that the precis which was then submitted was not always quite adequate; but Mr. Harcourt has taken steps which will secure that on this occasion the public will hear from day to day all that the members of the Conference think it right they should be told. I therefore suggest to Sir Joseph' that he should not press his proposal to a division. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Mr. Asquith. in view of the expressions of opinion from the gentlemen around me, it would be foolish to press the motion with a view to having myself recorded as being: the sole sup Dorter of it, and I recognise that the proper thing to do is to withdraw the motion. I merely wish to remark, with all due deference to mv friend Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that if the people of New Zealand had received the same information as was sent elsewhere on the last occasion, T would have had no fault to find; the difficulty was that it was regarded as being of much greater importance to cable out information that suited the readers of a great number of papers in the great Australian Commonwealth rather than what was applicable to New Zealand as a separate country. It is a matter of no special consequence to any one else, and, although I may have made mistakes at the last Conference, and may make mistakes here, the people of New Zealand are at least entitled to know what their representative is doing. For some time after the commencement of the last Conference, though I took part in all the important discussions at the time, mv existence was not known as far as New Zealand was concerned. I think if that had occurred to Sir Wilfrid T aurier m Canada, or to General Botha in South Africa, they probably would feel that their people had the right to know

5—A. 4.

A.—4

Ist Day. Publicity of Proceedings. [23 May, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD—core*. what it was they were trying to represent at this Conference : and I felt exactly that way when I ascertained that the exigencies of the situation, peculiar as they were, were governed by the fact that the Australian readers only wanted information regarding their own representative, and were not at all concerned as to what I was doing. Still, the people across the water in New Zealand were just as much concerned as to what I was trying to do, either making mistakes or otherwise, as the people of Australia or Canada or South Africa were concerned in the expressions of opinion to which their representatives were giving utterance. It is not upon the score of vanity that I refer to what took place at the last Conference so far as I was concerned, because T want to assure the Conference that I am not a vain man; but I want to know that the people in the country I have the honour to represent shall have a proper opportunity of knowing what is going on at a Conference such as this is. I believe it would be the very much stronger course to have the Conference open to the Press, and to allow the Press either to report or not, as the case may be, the views of any of us in connection with the work of the Conference. I want to make that clear. Ido not think I have let anything fall myself which would suggest otherwise; but I am in full accord with Mr. Asquith in stating that the moment we come to this Conference—in fact, the moment we leave our shores, New Zealand or any other country—we cease to be party politicians. I want it fully understood, as far as I am concerned, that I am here to represent every class of people and opinion in New Zealand, and I should be sorry if in any sense whatever there was an attempt to make anything in the shape of capital out of anything I should say at this Conference, because we are here upon the bigger and broader grounds of trying to do good for the Empire as a whole. I simply want to say, in view of the expression of opinion to which all the other members of the Conference have given utterance, that I withdraw the motion. Agenda and Days for Meetings. The PRESIDENT : Gentlemen, if you will be kind enough now to take in your hands the paper which is headed " Imperial Conference—Provisional Agenda," this is merely a scheme of business which is submitted to you for consideration. It maps out both time and subject, and, to some extent, the method of procedure of practically the whole Conference. I might just perhaps call your attention, without expressing any opinion upon them, to the different points. The hour of meeting is fixed at 11 o'clock in the morning, with the exception of Monday the 29th, when we propose to have an afternoon sitting. There is a levee in the morning of that day, which Ministers, or some of them, may desire to attend, and therefore it is unfortunately necessary to have a meeting on the afternoon of Monday, otherwise 11 a.m. is fixed for the meetings, with no afternoon meetings. Sometimes we may be obliged to sit on in the afternoon, and I expect we shall have to sometimes. Mr. FISHER : I understood you to say the sittings would be in the morning, with no afternoon sittings. The PRESIDENT : It is not safe to assume that there would be no sittings in the afternoon, and I have no doubt we shall have to si,t in the afternoon sometimes. The days of meeting suggested are Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday. The reason we have given up Wednesday is that Wednesday is our weekly day for the meeting of the Cabinet; our Cabinet always meets on Wednesday morning, and I am afraid it Avill be almost impossible, without great dislocation of public business here, and very great inconvenience too to my colleagues of both Houses, to alter the day of meeting of the Cabinet, and I should hope that the members of the Conference would make it convenient to allow us to have Wednesday morning for our own domestic purposes. That would give you Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday for the meetings of the Conference, and I expect that nobody would want to sit on Saturday. What do you say to that ?

A.—4

23 May, 1911.] Agenda and Days for Meetings. [Ist Day. Mr. FISHER : I am prepared to go right on; I think that is enough. General BOTHA : Hear, hear. The PRESIDENT : You will observe, as regards the subjects put down for Friday next and Monday and Tuesday next, it is suggested, as I said in my opening remarks, that it would be more convenient to have the discussion of them at the Committee of Imperial Defence, the reasons being that we should there have the presence of all our great experts, military and naval, both Sir Arthur Wilson from the Admiralty Mr. FISHER : But you have passed over the questions, under Tuesday, of the Imperial Council and the Organization of the Colonial Office. The PRESIDENT : lam coming back to that. lam only dealing with the dates of the sittings just now. I suppose we are all agreed that it would be better that these military and naval defence matters should be discussed at the Committee of Imperial Defence. (Agreed.) There are some subjects which are so technical, and also which for the most part do not cover a very wide range, that it is thought it might be more convenient that they should be discussed by committees of the Conference. It would be almost a waste of time to bring the whole Conference to bear upon them. You will see on Thursday, June Ist, there are some of these Board of Trade subjects—Labour Exchanges; the Enforcement of Arbitration Awards; Weights and Measures; International Exhibitions, and so on. They are not unimportant, but they are very much committee points, and I think the Conference would probably agree that it would be a saving in time and labotir if they were relegated to a committee. I think the same may probably be said of these matters —they are highly technical, although they are highly important—which are put under the headings of the Treasury : Double Income Tax; Double Estate Duty; and Stamp Duty on Colonial Bonds. Both New Zealand and South Africa are interested in those, I think; South Africa I know is. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, of course, will attend the discussion of those matters, with the Secretary of the Treasury, and I think probably, as they are highly technical, they might be more conveniently dealt with in committee. Possibly the same observations might apply, if you turn over the page, to certain of what I will call Home Office Questions, particularly uniformity in Accident Compensation, Immigration, and Aliens Exclusion law. Those, I think, are mainly topics suggested by New Zealand, Sir Joseph, and if for any reason you think they should be discussed in plenary conference Sir WILFRID LAURIER : May I interject a word ? What advantage would there be in having these matters discussed in committee before being referred to here ? Would it not be better to have them first mooted here and afterwards dealt with in committee ? The PRESIDENT : If you please. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes, for instance, immigration and the exclusion of aliens are very important. The PRESIDENT : That probably would be the more convenient way—to bring them in the first instance before the Conference, and if we find it necessary, we can refer them to committees. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : I suppose some of them could be disposed of immediately at the Conference.

A.—4,

Ist Day.] Agenda and i> ays for Meetings. [23 May, 1911. The PRESIDENT : Then we will proceed on that basis. Then we come back, Mr. Fisher, to the question you were raising—the order in which the subjects of discussion should be taken. The suggestion here is that we should begin to-day the Imperial Council and the Organization of the Colonial Office, and continue that subject, which is a very large one, on Thursday. Mr. FISHER : Perhaps Sir Wilfrid wants to say something on that point first? Sir WILFRID LAURIER : No. Mr. FISHER : I think the Declaration of London raises a more important question. It raises the point that the Dominions should be fully informed of treaty negotiations before they are signed or declared. I thought it would be more convenient if, before it was submitted to a committee, the Conference should discuss it. The PRESIDENT : It was never intended to submit that to a committee. Mr. FISHER : That is right. The PRESIDENT : I should have thought that that aspect of the Declaration of London, apart from the merits of the Declaration itself, the question of communicaMon or non-communication, could be used by way of illustration in the discussion on the Imperial Council. That is independent of the merits of the Declaration itself; it is a question merely of procedure. All the arguments drawn from the Declaration of London would be quite relevant for discussion on this topic. The Declaration itself raises several questions of policy which are quite independent. Mr. FISHER : We do not intend to press the question of policy unduly. If that question could be discussed and a method of getting over that difficulty discovered, we should be very glad indeed. The PRESIDENT : I think that would be clearly relevant. Mr. FISHER : At any rate, we should like it to get a little earlier attention. We feel that the question raised is more important. The PRESIDENT : That is the principle of the means of communication. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : If I may say so, Mr. Fisher, I think the Agenda proposal is perhaps the most logical. The first is to discuss the Imperial Council, that is to say, the relations of the Dominions beyond the seas with the Imperial Government here. In my estimation there is no more important question before the Conference that we have to discuss; and then I think the Declaration of London might be taken up, because the Declaration of London is a very technical subject in itself, and might be better discussed, perhaps, when we have decided what we should do here with regard to the Imperial Council. In deference to your wishes, for my part, Mr. Fisher, I would be very happy if you were to take it up immediately after that preliminary question. Mr. FISHER : That would suit me. We feel that it involves a principle of the very gravest kind, not that a solution cannot be found for that difficulty; but to leave it to the last item would be practically shelving it altogether. Our desire is to get the matter before this Conference and find a solution, if possible, of our difficulty which has arisen, and will arise in the future, in our opinion.

A.—4

23 May, 1911.] Agenda and Days for Meetings. [Ist Day. The PRESIDENT : I should suggest that it should come on as Sir Wilfrid Laurier suggests —immediately after tne discussion on the Imperial Council. Mr. FISHER : We have no objection to its coming on after these important matters have been discussed. Mr. HARCOURT : You would like it taken really on Thursday, Ist June, the following sitting. Mr. FISHER : Yes. The PRESIDENT : I do not suppose anybody would object to that at all; it was not put there because it was regarded as unimportant. What we wanted was to secure the presence of the Foreign Secretary, as we are leaving that to him. Mr. FISHER : I quite appreciate that, but I thought it advisable to raise the point. The PRESIDENT : Quite right. — Mr. HARCOURT : I suppose it might be left open for the moment in order that I might consult the Foreign Secretary as to his being able to attend before that date % Mr. FISHER : On or about that date. The-PRESIDENT : Yes. Mr. HARCOURT : Before we leave the Agenda, I again repeat what I said to the members of the Conference yesterday, that it is proposed with their concurrence to send to the Press a verbatim and unrevised report of the speeches at the opening of the Conference to-day; and also, of course, the Vote of Homage to the King. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That does not refer to the debate on the question of the admission of the Press ? Mr. HARCOURT : No, we stop at that point; and then the summary begins. The PRESIDENT : If there is any other comment upon the Agenda, or any desire to transfer subjects from one place to another, this would be the best time to raise it. Mr. FISHER : Perhaps, Mr. Asquith, this would be a convenient time to raise a question that will arise sooner or later : whether the Ministers with the Prime Ministers will speak after the Prime Minister, or whether they will speak after the other Prime Ministers have spoken. That is one of those little details which had better be settled beforehand. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : I would say they should speak when the spirit moves them. The PRESIDENT : I think we should have a very free discussion. Mr. FISHER : I shall be delighted. The PRESIDENT : If anybody has anything to say at any stage, let him say it.

A.— 4

Ist Day.} Agenda and Days for Meetings. [23 May, 1911. Mr. FISHER ; Thank you. General BOTHA : How about the appointment of committees for the committee work ? The PRESIDENT : Sir Wilfrid suggests that we should postpone that, and that each of the subjects should, in the first instance, be mooted here and then the Conference will decide whether to refer it to a committee or not; because it is possible that we may find it can be disposed of at once. Sir WILFRID LAURIER: Any question it is suggested should be brought up here first, and then be referred to a committee if necessary. The PRESIDENT : When they are obviously technical, no doubt it would be the wisn of the Conference to refer them to a committee. Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF : In connection with the Death Duties, and so on, you would require some statistics. If a committee is set up immediately, or soon, they could go into the details and get information; otherwise if we come to the discussion here on the 9th June, or on the Bth, our time might be unnecessarily occupied. Mr. HARCOURT : That was the object of suggesting committees now which would meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the permanent head of the Treasury to go into technical points. Is it the wish of the Conference that the Dominions raising these particular questions should be put into communication with the Treasury over these matters at once ? General BOTHA : Yes. Mr. HARCOURT : And equally the other matters, I suppose, which are under the Board of Trade for June Ist and 2nd. General BOTHA : Yes, that will satisfy us. The PRESIDENT : It would be a great saving of time if we could thresh them out informally with the Departments in advance. That would prepare the ground. Mr. HARCOURT : It is possible that in the discussions some of them might become eliminated and need not come before the Conference. The PRESIDENT : If that is approved, we now come to the resolution in the name of the Government of New Zealand with regard to the Imperial Council. Imperial Council. " That the Empire has now reached a stage of Imperial development which renders it expedient that there should be an Imperial Council of State, with Representatives from all the constituent parts of the Empire whether self-governing or not, in theory and in fact advisory to the Imperial Government on all questions affecting the interests of His Majesty's Dominions oversea." Sir JOSEPH WARD : Mr. Asquith, I wish to ask the permission of the Conference to amend the motion, by striking out the words "or not" after " selfgoverning "in the last line but one. I want the motion to read : " That the

A.—4

23 May, 1911.] Imperial Council. [Ist Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. Empire has now reached a stage of Imperial development which renders it expedient that there should be an Imperial Council of State, with representatives from all the constituent parts of the Empire"—l desire that the words " whether self-governing or not " come out. Mr. FISHER : The words " whether or not." Sir JOSEPH WARD : I want to put " self-governing " in before " parts," and to strike out the words " whether self-governing or not." So that it will read " with representatives from all the constituent self-governing parts of the Empire in theory and in fact advisory to the Imperial Government on all questions affecting the interests of His Majesty's Dominions oversea." The PRESIDENT : " From all the constituent self-governing parts of the Empire." Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes. Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF : You want "self-governing" before " parts " ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes. The PRESIDENT : You do not want that word " constituent "—" from all the self-governing parts of the Empire." Sir JOSEPH WARD : Perhaps that would be better. The PRESIDENT : The effect of it is to omit from the scope of your proposed motion what we call the Crown Colonies and India. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That is so. Mr. Asquith and Gentlemen, in submitting this resolution to the Conference I would like to say that I am not going to pause for a moment to consider whether England or her Colonies should attempt to devise a scheme. The matter is of too intense importance to stand over on any such ground as that; but I want to remind the Conference of the fact that a former Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, invited suggestions from the oversea Dominions, with a view to evolving some scheme that might be satisfactory to the Empire as a whole in connection with the subject I have now the honour to deal with. It is the duty of every part of the Empire to assist in devising some method for closer unity, and it is not necessary for me, as I have already said, to make the least apology for endeavouring to do my best to suggest lines which, if properly shaped, would in my opinion effect the purpose of a greater Imperial solidarity. Now, what I propose to ask the Conference to deal with is : Ist, Imperial Unity; 2nd, Organized Imperial Defence; 3rd, the Equitable Distribution of the Burdens of Defence throughout the Empire; and, 4th, the representation of self-governing oversea Dominions in an Imperial Parliament of Defence for the purpose of determining Peace or War, Contributions to Imperial Defence, Foreign Policy so far as it affects the Empire, International Treaties so far as they affect the Empire, and such other Imperial matters as may by agreement be transferred to such Parliament. I feel persuaded that it is recognised by every representative at this Conference that to-day there is need for better organization, and I propose to make it as clear as I can that the necessity for greater organization to enable such matters as I have just indicated to be dealt with by the Conference can be borne

A—.4

Ist Day.] Imperial Council. [23 May, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. out by facts. It cannot be denied that in some respects there is a trend, particularly in the settlement of some of our countries and in the extraction of people from this Old Country, which has tended to weaken the Old Land and, while giving strength to the newer land so far as numbers are concerned, to' do nothing to increase the Imperial unity to which I have just referred. We want to prevent this in the future in connection with the various outstanding portions of the British Empire. The growth of the oversea Dominions is in some respects so remarkable that it calls for the very greatest consideration on the part of the representative men both from those countries and in the older country, in order to prevent the difficulties arising in the years to come which then would be almost impossible of settlement, but which, if taken early in our development, may be prevented from arising. These cannot at the present moment be called acute, because our populations to some extent are limited. Now, it is an underestimate when I say that in the oversea Dominions there are to-day 13 millions of white people. There are in all probability about 15 millions, but I prefer not to in any way overstate the position; and I want to call attention to the enormous importance to the United Kingdom of the policy of exporting people to those countries to-day. Scotland has increased its population less in the last 10 years than New Zealand has, and some 50,000 Scotsmen are leaving the Clyde within the next four months to settle in some of the oversea Dominions. The territory represented by my friend Sir Wilfrid Laurier is increasing its population at the present time by about 650,000 per annum. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Quite that amount. Mr. FISHER : What does it do with them ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : At present I am referring to the increased population from the United States of America and elsewhere; I speak subject to correction by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, but from the information I was able to obtain, the natural increase of Canada appears to be 250,000 per annum, and, as far as I can judge, the figures show that those coming from all outside quarters number about 400,000, which makes 650,000. The PRESIDENT : Is that right ? Sir WILFRID LAURIER : I counted the immigration as 400,000. Sir JOSEPH WARD : The immigration is 400,000 and the natural increase 250,000. You will see the point of the argument I propose to place before the Conference presently. That is an annual increase, at the present rate, of 650,000. The population of Canada at present I put down at 8,000,000; it is probably more, and if the present rate of increase continues for the next 25 years I am not very wide of the mark when I affirm that in 25 years from now Canada will have upwards of 30 millions of people. In fact, I think, judging from the figures I have investigated, it would be nearer 40 millions than 30 millions This I base upon the assumption, which I have a reasonable right to expect that the drawing power of Canada at present of people from outside representing in round figures 400,000 a year, is likely to go on for many years t< come I hope from the Canadian point of view it will be so, and that the natural increase will not be less than the 250,000 per annum which it is at the present time. Under these circumstances I consider lam pretty right in assuming that in 25 years from now Canada will have at least 30 millions of people. ; , . I make this statement for the purpose of showing where the oversea countries are going to get to in 25 years from now. I need not go into any details concerning any of the other great oversea Dominions, Australia or bouth Atncu

A—4

23 May, 1911.] Imperial Council. [Is* Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. or New Zealand. The proportion of increase there, by comparison with Canada, which is situated so close to this Old Country, cannot be expected to be so great; but within the next 25 years—l am certain there is no practical man sitting at this table will contradict the statement—that the combined populations of the oversea Dominions will be very much greater than the population of the United Kingdom and Ireland, which I put down at 45 millions. Then if the calculation that I make regarding Canada is correct, and I support it with all sincerity—one of the problems that the people who are controlling the destinies of the British Empire will have to consider before, many years go by is the expansion of those oversea countries into powerful nations, all preserving their local autonomy, all interested in seeing that their people are governed to suit the requirements of the people within their own territory, but all very deeply concerned in keeping together and entering into co-operation with the whole Empire, by means of some loose form of federation in the general interests of all parts of it. Because after all (and Mr. Asquith, in the course of his admirable speech earlier to-day, made a similar statement in better language than I can use) at the present moment it is sentiment that is keeping the whole of us together. There can be no doubt in the wide world that it is sentiment and sentiment alone, and a very fine sentiment it is; but if we remember that all the countries are drawing what I may term a cosmopolitan population to them from places outside British territory, we have to realise the fact that in the oversea countries the tendency of this very cosmopolitan character, so far as population is concerned, is to present in all parts of the British Empire in the years to come a problem of a very serious nature. There is certainly to-day a tendency for people of a different tongue to ours to emigrate to the attractive oversea Dominions. , The experience of the United States of America ought to impress upon us the tremendous change that can take place in a country in a comparatively short period of years according to the class and nationality of its imraigrants_ It is only 50 years since America had less than half its present population. In 1848 the American population was almost wholly Anglo-American and to-day over 50 per cent is of foreign birth or extraction. New York itself to-day possesses 80 per cent of foreign element, and Chicago possesses 66 per cent, of foreign element. Now, 50 years in the history of the United States of America is not a very long time. The PRESIDENT : By " foreign element" you do not mean people born abroad, you mean either born abroad or descended from those born abroad. Sir JOSEPH WAED : That is so; but I want to emphasize the fact that in the case of those born in the country, even although their parents and grandparents may have been foreigners, there is an element of attachment to their native country, which must be considered when you are, dealing with a matter of this kind lam pointing out, however, that the history of the Imited States goes to prove that questions of great racial interest must arise m connection with the development of the oversea Dominions in the course of the next 25 years, unless our growth and development, or our environment, or our circumstances are so essentially different from what they were in the United States of America years ago as to preclude the possibility of a problem such as I am indicating arising for the men of both the Old Country and the newer countries m the years to come I feel, as the result of studying the matter and reading the history of the different countries, that the statesmen will have to deal with this problem in the years to come as assuredly as we are sitting round this table. P But sparsely populated countries of to-day (I refer to the oversea Docannot be measured by anybody on the score of their present populations If a country is to be measured upon the score of its population, oirthe score of its numbers, then, as a matter of fact, we ought to put China before every other country of the world, because the Chinese population estimated by those qualified to give an estimate at between 450 millions and 500 millions.

htjw 6 —A.. 4.

A.—4

Ist Day.} Imperial Council. [23 May, 1911. The PRESIDENT : That is not true, is it ? There are not as many Chinamen as that, are there ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : That is the last estimate I was furnished with. The PRESIDENT : I understood the general opinion now was that all those estimates were very much exaggerated, and that the tendency was rather to diminish all the Chinese totals. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That may be so, Mr. Asquith, but the last estimate I received was from one of the Chinese representatives,who in conversation with me a short time ago told me that they estimated their population at between 450 and 500 millions, and that was within the last six months. I have, however, for the purposes of my argument no objection whatever to reducing the numbers by 100 millions, or even more if necessary. It is the oversea Dominions to which I am alluding particularly, and I want it to be understood that I am specially referring to New Zealand. In making allusion to the other oversea Dominions, I am sure there are no representatives here who will do otherwise than recognise that in speaking of a matter of this kind one may without in any way derogating from the work they have to perform, make allusions in a general discussion upon this matter to any of the British Dominions without in any way attempting to put oneself in the position of speaking for any other country than one's own. But in dealing with this general question of the population in the oversea Dominions, I want to re-emphasize the fact that to-day our populations in all those countries are very small. If, with 13 millions of white people in countries that are so huge, so capacious, which present such fields for the settlement of people in the years to come, we were to deal with the matter upon the basis of the population of to-day, we would be misleading ourselves, and we would not be in a position to estimate whether it is right or necessary, either now or in the years to come, to have some different organization for the protection of the general interests of the whole of them in matters that are of Imperial concern, or of Empire concern. We have to judge of the position partly on a population basis. We have also necessarily to take into consideration the intelligence of the people who occupy the territories; and we also have to be guided by the areas available for expansion. Now, Australia to-day is the size of Europe, nearly; and South Africa is nearly as great. Canada is much larger than the United States of America. And all these areas are governed by men who are inspired with the very strongest British instincts and with a great desire to see their countries carried on in the general interests of the people whom they represent; but all the time with an attachment to the Empire as a whole. We are all in that happy position. lam speaking from the standpoint of those here representing , British countries with British sentiments, with British ambitions, and with the desire to see the future, as they evolve from their present state, as far as population and defence are concerned, strengthened and not weakened owing to the absence of some organized system of co-operation upon Imperial matters. lam anxious to see some system in operation that will enable all over-ridine important Imperial questions to be dealt with in the general interests of all without interfering locally with any of the ambitions or wishes of our free people. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : May I interrupt you ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Certainly. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : I did not catch exactly what argument you are endeavouring to draw from the fact that in Canada as well as the United States of America the population will be recruited from foreign elements. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I did not say exactly that. Ido not apply the argument specially to Canada, but to all the oversea Dominions. W T hat I say is

A—4

23 May, 1911.] Imperial Council. [Ist Day. Sir JOSEPH WARB—cont. that the tendency with all of us is to have a proportion of people with a tongue different to our own, drawn from other countries on account of the attractiveness of our countries for settlement purposes; and as the years go on none of us can tell what proportion it may be or to what extent it may minimise our desire to see that our countries are maintained as strong and as vigorous as they are now. I think that applies to all of us. Sir WILFRID LAUEJER : I understand you think that the character of the population should be an Imperial question. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I am not, of course, in any way reflecting upon any other nationalities outside our own, quite the contrary; but what lam trying to convey is this : that to-day, when we all are strong on the point of British territory, and have the great majority of the people in our countries British, what is now possible in the way of organization will, in 25 years from now, or even 10 years, be more difficult of accomplishment than it is to-day. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : But if I understand you aright you say that the country would be flooded by those outside people, and so become less British than it is to-day, and possessed of a different spirit. Sir JOSEPH WARD : If a majority got into our countries it would be so. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : I do not admit that conclusion at all; but I only wanted to understand your argument, and I understand it now. Sir JOSEPH WARD : My opinion is that if a majority or a very large proportion of these foreign people get in, it will have a weakening tendency. I was referring to the area, to the size, of the different oversea Dominions. I have already pointed out that we do not measure a country by its population, and I was pointing out the areas of Canada, South Africa, and Australia that are available for the purposes of settlement. Practically within a century the population of the United States of America, which has been drawn from all parts of the world, has grown to over 90 millions of people. Since 1848 it has increased by about 50 millions; and to-day the LTnited States of America may in round figures be said to possess about 100 millions of people. Speaking in a general sense, but subject to the greater knowledge of the gentlemen who represent the other countries, I should say that the prospective possibilities of the Dominion of Canada for settlement purposes are not less than those of the United States of America, and that it also is capable of holding 100 millions of people in the future. To use the expressive words which I once saw published as having been spoken by Sir Wilfrid Laurier : " This is the Canadian century —the last one was the American century." In saying that, he was referring to the flow of immigration to the respective countries and to the benefits which naturally follow increased population. Now, I also say that Australia is capable of holding 100 millions of people. But considering its comparatively small population to-day it may be a great number of years before even the position that the great Dominion of Canada has attained to now is reached by Australia. Notwithstanding its huge areas and the possibilities of settlement in the future it must be some time before the population of the Commonwealth reaches 100 millions. I believe, however, as the result of examination, and the result of contrast with other countries, that Australia is capable of holding 100 millions of people, and I think, too, I am right in saying that South Africa is as capable of holding 100 millions of people as either of the two other countries. I judge very largely upon a close analysis of information which I have regarding these countries, and I believe it is not an exaggerated view to take that those three Dominions to which I have just referred—the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of

A.—4

Ist Day.] Imperial Council. [23 May, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD— -cont. Australia, and the Union of South Africa—are capable of holding three hundred millions of people, and by comparison with some of the other overcrowded countries to carry them with greater comfort; and certainly there is room, judging by their areas, for a population of the number to which I have just alluded. The Dominion of New Zealand is, in the opinion of many well-qualified men, and I hold the opinion myself, capable of carrying forty millions of people with comparative ease and with comparative comfort, judged by what it can produce, what it can supply, and the general favourable climatic conditions of the country. But I want to take the opportunity of saying, and I believe no statesman here in this country or in any other country will dispute the view I put forward now, that class and character of a population is of far greater importance to our Empire than material matters of money or property or things of that kind; that we are more concerned with the settlement of our respective countries in a proper way than we possibly could be expected to be with matters of the material kind to which I have just referred. In my opinion unless the question of emigration and immigration is treated Imperially, and the most anxious care is taken to keep our people within our own Empire, we will to some extent dissipate our national strength in the future if we spread the best of our population among other and in some cases alien countries, and draw our supply of immigrants for the oversea Dominions from foreign sources. I believe that what is required to prevent this is a well-devised scheme of emigration and immigration and that it is necessary for all portions of the Empire—that is, the United Kingdom and Ireland and the self-governing Dominions —to have some properly constituted authority with sufficient powers to enable them to carry on a work of this kind. At present, with the loose and the almost unrelated sections of the British Nations which we know as the Empire, the loss of population from the United Kingdom to one or the other of the Dominions is almost as great as if it went to a foreign country. I wish to try to point out what is passing through my mind upon this point, because, in my opinion, it has a very important bearing upon the extraction of the large numbers of people from the older country and their settling in our own countries. For instance, if there is a transfer from the United Kingdom to any of the oversea Dominions, it means a loss of population which cannot be made to share any of the burdens of the Empire. Once a proportion of the population from Scotland or Ireland or England, as the case may be, passes beyond the shores of the United Kingdom, and is placed in any of the oversea Dominions, they cease in any way whatever to be liable as contributors, as they were before they left this country, to the financial requirements of the Empire. Mr. PEARCE : Not of the Empire ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : I will deal with that later on. Take the case of the millions who have left the Eastern States of America, and have gone, say, 4,000 miles westward. Although they are possibly under laws as different from the laws they left as it is possible to imagine, after going that 4,000 miles from the East to the West, in that territory they still remain citizens of the United States, and they still remain contributors to whatever is required within the area of the United States. Although numbers of those people have travelled in that 4,000 miles as great a distance as from here to New York, or from here to Canada, or from here perhaps to some other countries, they continue their liability in the shape of contributions to the Federal National burdens, and those people are available immediately for the maintenance and defence of their Union. In my opinion the development of an Imperial Emigration system can only be successfully carried out if there is, as a pre-essential, an Imperial Federal Scheme under the administration of an Imperial Council. I recognise the enormous difficulties that are standing in the way of a proposal of the kind I am endeavouring to sketch to the Members of this Conference; but, speaking in perhaps a descriptive way, I may say that there are to-day hearts throbbing all over the Empire for closer attachment to the Motherland. I know that I can speak for my own country, and speak deliberately for it, and say that that is the

A.-hL

23 May, 1911.] Imperial Council. [Ist Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD—cont. case there, and that we New-Zealanders recognise that the great silken thread which binds us all together is based on sentiment; they all recognise the tremendous importance of that, and so do L But, in my opinion, that is not sufficient. I want to call attention to what the position in Germany was not so many years ago, quite within the knowledge of everybody around this table. When they had their separate militant States existing there, that country was not nearly as strong as it is to-day. The federation of the States has really created the Fatherland, and it has made Germany a great Power compared to what it was before. Tn my opinion, too, the same thing applies to the United States of America; it applies to the great Dominion of Canada; it applies to the Commonwealth of Australia. They are all immensely stronger as the result of federation. It certainly applies to the United States of America, and we have examples in those countries where, while preserving the rights of the individual States and the full control of the legislation that exists in them, we find them very much more powerful through co-operation : there is more cohesion and more strength, from any point of view you like to name, than was the case before that alteration Avas brought about. The difficulties surrounding a proposition of the kind I recognise, and I want, in trying to deal with an important matter like this, first to look at the difficulties and see if they are insuperable. I fully realise that the proposition I am about to make may be open to the most destructive criticism from the point of view of those who do not see eye to eye with me regarding them. The PRESIDENT : If I may interrupt you for a moment, am I not right in saying that the instances you have just given us are instances of continuous territory surrounded by what I might call a ring fence ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes. Of course they are all continuous areas undivided hj oceans. The PRESIDENT : Germany and the United States of America. Sir JOSEPH WARD : They are instances of continuous territory surrounded by, figuratively, a ring fence; but I want to point out, Mr. Asquith, with all deference to you, that there is no parallel in the world for the position that the British Empire occupies to-day; there is no place where British territory divided by thousands of miles of sea is the area in which alterations have been made, nor, as far as I am aware, is there any precedent that can be used as a parallel for those oversea countries whose existence to a very large extent is part and parcel of the great Old World itself, and whose circumstances are chiefly dependent upon questions of Imperial defence and their relations to foreign policy, which affect them most vitally, although they have no voice within. There is no parallel to the position which the British Empire occupies to-day. I was endeavouring to explain regarding what these countries had done: that though they are landed territories, their federation, beyond all question, materially strengthens the whole of them. The difference between them and us is that we are British territory with independent government, with independent people of the same race and with the same aspirations, but our position is such that we are divided by great distances of ocean. Unless, however, we do something in the direction of having co-operation in times of peace, particularly with a view to our protection in times of war, unless we recognise the tremendous responsibilities devolving upon us in those respects, then a comparison with any of the landed territories has perhaps no special bearing on the point, and my argument loses its application, but I hold the mere fact of our comprising both sea and land does not get over the fact that we are still one Empire. Here I want to recall the circumstances in connection with the meeting of the representatives of the 13 States of America who for months met in the different States and finally overcame their difficulties. Those difficulties were, in my opinion, greater than those that confront us to-day. They devised a scheme of federation or co-opera-

A.^L

-Ist Day. .] Imperial Council. [23 May, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. tion which welded the 13 colonies into one nation, and it laid the basis of a commonwealth which has grown in unity of population until to-day its population is about double, if not more than double, that of the United Kingdom. The difficulties that confronted them were so great, the differences due to racial and other reasons were so perplexing, that such heroic souls as Franklin began to feel the task hopeless. These were the men who, having almost exhausted patience and human ingenuity, were finally able to bring about a system of cooperation which, though it has faults in constitution no doubt, as is the case with most of the countries which have a constitution —the Old Country has not got one, so it is all right in that respect —yet those faults, whatever they may be, can be looked upon as minor ones, because there is this case of stupendous difficulties overcome by men driven to such a state that the suggestion was made that the great purpose they had in view could only be effected by an appeal to Heaven. At all events they got over the difficulty, and we have the experience of the period of years to which 1 have just referred to show that what was looked upon as an almost insuperable task—the devising of a scheme to bring union about— was successfully accomplished, with the result that under that union one of the most powerful countries in the world exists to-day without any serious trouble having been caused to the individual portions of it. The transference of people from one portion of the Old World to other portions of it, the drawing away of people from the Old Country, though of benefitto those who get the support of people from here, has a side to it which might be said to disturb any spirit of complacency. One can recall the fact that in 1894 one of the leading nations in Europe exported 26 out of every 10,000 of her men, but by 1907 she had succeeded in stopping that and in keeping her population upon her own soil to such an extent that she then exported but four out of every 10,000 of her men. During that same period in 1894 this Old Country exported nine only, as against the 26, out of every 10,000 men; but in 1907 these figures had risen in Great Britain to what 1 call the alarming number of 40 out of every 10,000. These figures impress me to such an extent that I would point out that between 1903 and 1907 the increase of men leaving England for other countries, largely foreign, was 61 per cent. If we had a proper system of Imperial emigration and immigration I believe a large proportion of that 61 per cent, that went away from this country would, in the great majority of cases, have gone to British countries. I use the two terms " emigration " and " immigration " because there is such a thing as emigration from one of the oversea Dominions to another, and there is thus an exchange of people between the different Dominions. Mr. BATCHELOR : Most of them went to the United States. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes, the great majority of them went to the United States; some of them went to Mexico, and so on. I cannot possibly finish what I wish to say upon this subject by half past one. The PRESIDENT : Would this be a convenient point for you to break off ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes. Adjourned till Thursday next, at 11.0 o'clock.

A.—4

SECOND DAY. Thursday, 25th May, 1911. The Imperial Conference met at the Foreign Office at 11 a.m. Present : The Right Honourable H. H. ASQUITH, K.C., M.P., President of the Conference. The Right Honourable L. Harcourt, M.P., Secretary of State for the Colonies. Canada. The Right Honourable Sir Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G., Prime Minister of the Dominion. The Right Honourable Sir F. W. Borden, K.C.M.G., Minister of Militia and Defence. The Honourable L. P. Brodeur, K.C., Minister of Marine and Fisheries. A- ustralia. The Honourable A. Fisher, Prime Minister of the Commonwealth. The Honourable E. L. Batchelor, Minister of External Affairs. The Honourable G. F. Pearce, Minister of Defence. New Zealand. The Right Honourable Sir Joseph G. Ward, K.C.M.G., Prime Minister of the Dominion. The Honourable J .G. Findlay, K.C., LL.D., Attorney-General and Minister of Justice. Union of South Africa. General the Right Honourable L. Botha, Prime Minister of the Union. The Honourable F. S. Malan, Minister of Education. The Honourable Sir David de Villiers Graaff, Bart,, Minister of Public Works, Posts and Telegraphs. Newfoundland. The Honourable Sir E. P. Morris, K.C., Prime Minister. The Plonourable R. Watson, Colonial Secretary. Mr. H. W. Just, C.8., C.M.G., Secretary to the Conference. Mr. W. A. Robinson, Senior Assistant Secretary. Mr. A. B. Keith, Junior Assistant Secretary

A.—4.

2nd Day.] Imperial Council. [25 May, 1911. There were also present : Lord Lucas, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies; Sir Francis Hopwood, G.C.M.G., X.C.8., Permanent Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies; Sir C. P. Lucas, K.C.M.G., C.8., Assistant Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies; Rear-Admiral Sir Charles Ottley, K.C.M.G., M.V.0., Secretary to the Committee of Imperial Defence; Mr. Atlee A. Hunt, C.M.G., Secretary to the Department of External Affairs, Commonwealth of Australia; Commander S. A. Pethebridge, Secretary to the Department of Defence, Commonwealth of Australia; Mr. J. R. Leisk, Secretary for Finance, Union of South Africa; and Private Secretaries to the Members of the Conference.

Imperial Council. " That the Empire has now reached a stage of Imperial development which renders it expedient that there should be an Imperial Council of State, with Representatives from all the self-governing parts of the Empire, in theory and in fact advisory to the Imperial Government on all questions affecting the interests of His Majesty's Dominions oversea." The PRESIDENT : Will you resume your remarks now, Sir Joseph ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Mr. Asquith, the adjournment on Tuesday interrupted the introductory remarks which I felt it necessary to submit in explanation and justification of the more definite proposals that I intend to make. I would like to summarise what I have already said. I have endeavoured to impress upon the Conference the enormous changes in the relationship between the self-governing oversea Dominions and the Mother Country, which have been conseqiient upon the rapid growth and the extension of the Dominions; and in this connection I also impress the obvious fact that the rapidity of that growth and extension, already seen, will continue at an even accelerated speed in the future, These changes, I submit, demand a change in the Imperial relationship heretofore existing between the United Kingdom and her self-governing dependencies. The people of these dependencies are not yet citizens of the Empire. This full franchise as yet has not been conferred, and the whole question is—is not the time now ripe for the consideration of conferring it 1 The question becomes urgent and emphatic when we remember that at least two of the greatest of these Dominions have in some measure already embarked upon a naval policy of their own—a course to which the Motherland has offered no objection. I, as representing New Zealand, of course, do not, and could not, offer any objection, though I am entitled to discuss and criticise the course taken, in order to emphasize the need of some Imperial Council properly accredited to co-ordinate and harmonise these policies of naval defence, and of the still greater question of naval supremacy. Does the Conference fully appreciate what has happened so quietly, because the relations between the Motherland and Canada have been so harmonious? Canada has, in recent years, grown into a strong nation—no longer in a state of tutelage, sheltering behind the protection of the Motherland. Canada, feeling that she has passed through infancy to full manhood as a nation, has originated and made law a naval scheme for the creation and maintenance of a local navy, a navy not only to be maintained and controlled by the Canadian Government, but a navy which is not to participate in an Imperial war unless Canada herself approves of that war. Under the existing system, the rest of the Empire, consequently, might be at war, and the Canadian Navy withheld from it, and inactive. But I want to impress the fact that the Empire cannot be at war and Canada at peace at the

A.—4

25 May, 1911.] Imperial Council. [2nd Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD—cont. same time. Any war to which the statesmen of the United Kingdom commit the Empire involves Canada, as well as New Zealand, and all other portions of the Empire, and from the point of view of international law Canada is as much a part of the Empire as England. I would ask the Conference to look facts broadly and candidly in the face, and if independent naval policies, such as I have referred to, are to continue on the part of the oversea Dominions, I express the sincerest conviction of my mind when I say that this does not make for a strong position in connection with the Imperial ties being maintained and upon which, in my opinion, the whole Empire's material interests now rest. I have explicitly called the scheme I propose to outline an Imperial Parliament of Defence. Defence is above all other questions the one in which every part and subject of the Empire is vitally concerned. The PRESIDENT : Just a moment. The words used in your Resolution are, "An Imperial Council of State "; you spoke just now of an Imperial Parliament of Defence. Ido not find any such phrase in the resolution. Sir JOSEPH WABD : I do not mind what the name is —an Imperial Council of State or an Imperial Parliament of Defence, or a Defence Council. The PEESIDENT : They are practically synonymous, you think ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes. Perhaps I ought to use the term Imperial Council of State. Defence is above all other questions the one in which every part and subject of the Empire is vitally concerned. It is the great vital topic which can be treated only by a proper Council of State. lam going to assume that this is obvious, and I will not occupy the time of the Conference by arguing the matter. But I want to express my firm conviction that the course both Canada and Australia have taken is one which the present relationship between them and the Motherland almost compels them to take. If Canada were to contribute to the Imperial Navy the very large sum she has provided on her estimates for a building programme, a naval college and annual maintenance, amounting to some millions of pounds sterling—if she were to contribute this or any other great sum yearly to an Imperial Navy, and the question of war or peace arises, she would find herself with no more voice, under the present system, in determining whether the Empire should go to war or not than if she were the smallest dependency of a Foreign Power. Consequently, under the existing system and on these assumptions, Canada would not only witness herself being committed to all the perils of warfare, but' she would witness the ships and armaments created out of her great contributions devoted, without her consent or approval, without the right to a voice at all, to the perils of belligerency. I have taken Canada merely as an illustration; but under the existing system every other oversea Dominion would be in precisely the same situation. New Zealand is, at present, content to make an unconditional annual contribution of money to the Imperial Navy. As time proceeds, and as our means increase, we look forward to substantially increasing this aid; but what I desire to impress at this moment is the point that if the whole of the oversea Dominions are to place themselves under tribute to the Imperial Treasury for the creation and maintenance of an Empire Navy, they surely are entitled to some voice—proportioned, it may be, to their size and contribution—in such a vital question as peace or war. Consequently, it seems to me that the question of an Imperial Council of State, or Defence, more vitally concerns the United Kingdom than it does the oversea Dependencies; Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand can, and cheerfully will, if necessary (of course, I am speaking entirely on behalf of New Zealand), go on under the existing system providing for their own defence in the way which seems best to them; but can the United Kingdom survey such a course with complacency under the growing burdens which the maintenance of her naval supremacy imposes ?

7—A. 4.

A.—4

2nd Day.'} Imperial Council. [25 May, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. In this great concern of Imperial Defence must there not be some kind of partnership between all parts of our great Empire? I hope it will not be regarded in any way as rudeness for me to say that England, witnessing as she has, and does, the magnificent growth in strength, wealth, and numbers of these oversea Dominions, will not forget that she does not, as in the earliest days of their existence, possess them—they are no longer Crown Colonies. They create with her an Empire, and, allowing for power and numbers, they belong to that Empire just as she does. It is a family group of free nations, England is the first among the free nations, and, consequently, changes during the last threequarters of a century, in my opinion, demand that the old relation of " mother to infants " should cease. The day for partnership in true Imperial affairs has arrived, and the question which now emerges is, upon what basis is that partnership to rest ? It certainly cannot rest upon the present relationship. No partnership deserves the name which does not give to the partners at least some voice in the most vital of the partnership concerns; and what I am endeavouring to bring out is : how is that voice to«be heard and how is it to be made effective ? I desire to avoid any minor controversial questions at this time; but I am entitled to express, as I do now, my profound conviction that if there had existed some true Imperial Council of State in which defence could be dealt with—l attach no importance to the name, whether it is an Imperial Council of State or an Imperial Parliament of Defence or an Imperial Council—the separate naval policies of the two great Dominions to which I have already referred would be to-day, if not non-existent, at least more completely harmonised and made integral with the Imperial Navy. In other words, had such a Council existed, I am satisfied that for the expenditure these two great countries have committed themselves to more efficient protection would have been given by means of an Imperial scheme than by those which have been devised. I trust that the members of the Conference will realise—and I want to avoid dogmatism in this matter —that I am expressing my personal opinion, as I have a right to do, and I feel quite sure that the representatives of none of the other Dominions, even those to which I am referring, will take exception to what I believe to be my duty in a matter of this kind, for naturally it is done in a strictly Imperial sense, and without in any way whatever reflecting upon the loyalty of those great countries. I cannot avoid keeping before me the whole time, in connection with this important question of defence, the difficulties of regulating and controlling it. I recognise to the fullest possible extent the all-important question of the protection of the commodities and of the ships that cross the seas between the respective countries; and the more I have thought over this important matter from time to time and since I had the honour of first coming to this Conference, the more I realise the tremendous responsibility devolving upon all portions of the oversea Dominions in connection with the protection of British ships, British goods, and British people travelling over the seas great distances between the respective portions of the Dominions. To a very material extent, in my opinion, the local protection, however good it may be, for the separate portions of the Dominions concerned is not sufficient, is not adequate, and does not meet the condition of protecting the conveyance of oversea products to anything like the extent that it ought to do. For these reasons I recognise how difficult it is in a matter of this kind to expect any of the representatives of the oversea Dominions to re-discuss a line of policy which has already been assented to by them. My own view of the matter is that we should have an impartial and effective organization created which would allow all portions of our British Empire to review what is necessary for the self-preservation of themselves and the protection of all portions of it on sea as well as on land; and, in my opinion, that can only be brought about by some organization created with the good will, not of the representatives at this Conference alone, but finally of the people in the respective countries concerned. I emphasize this because nothing that is suggested by me, or nothing that is carried by this Conference, can be put into actual effect (so far as New Zealand is

A.—4

25 May, 1911.] Imperial Council. [2nd Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. concerned I speak absolutely) without ratification by Parliament, and without, in turn, Parliament recognising that that ratification has to be endorsed in the ordinary way by the people at the elections which take place from time to time. Now, in connection with the arguments that I am placing before the Conference upon this question of an Imperial Council of State, I consider that the different roads that the respective portions of the Dominions have taken regarding what they conceive to be best from their respective standpoints in the matter of naval defence—l would rather call them lines of national divergence—must, in my opinion, diverge more and more as these oversea Dominions develop to their full stature, unless British statesmen will set themselves to promote an Imperial partnership and some system of Imperial representation upon which, to my mind, such true partnership can alone subsist. If there is any spirit of reluctance on the part of the Motherland, the oversea Dominions—or, at least, New Zealand, for which I speak—will certainly not desire to obtrude themselves with this or similar proposals; but if we recognise that the hands of the Mother Country are stretched out to us inviting a closer grasp by us, that closer grasp will follow and the deep and genuine spirit of closer union will dissolve the difficulties and rise superior to all the obstacles in the way of an articulate and organized unity. What is first wanted is the will; the way, lam satisfied, can be found. If the United Kingdom desires an Imperial partnership, and it meets with the concurrence of the oversea Dominions, then I believe it is the proper function of the Conference, with the eminent statesmen of the Motherland here at this table, to join with myself and those who think with me in encouraging and assisting to devise a workable scheme. Mr. Asquith in his opening speech spoke eloquently of the development of our Empire along the broad ways of British liberty, and in this connection emphasized the elasticity and flexibility which marked our constitution and our institutions. I recognise as fully, I hope, as he how true those words are. A rigid constitution does not suit the genius of our people, but a rigid constitution is one thing and the entire absence of any definite Imperial system is another. I recognise that there must be given up by the constituent self-governing parts of the Empire to any central Imperial Council only such power as is absolutely necessary to deal with questions essentially Imperial in their nature —questions which cannot be dealt with satisfactorily or at all unless through collective deliberative action, and I would make the framework of the Imperial Parliament of Defence or Imperial Council of State as elastic as is consistent with efficiency and durability; but I am impressed with the belief that some such framework we must have. Mr. Asquith rightly preferred to ascribe the majestic development of the Empire rather to the genius of our nation than to the favour of Providence. I admit that there is a Divinity that shapes national destinies; but that Divinity can be profoundly assisted by the intelligent thought, foresight, and ingenuity of wise statesmanship, and I believe there never was a time in our history when a more splendid field has opened to that statesmanship than the present. If we admit that the fate of the oversea Dominions, so far as living under the British Flag is concerned, is dependent upon Britain's supremacy on the seas, then we must admit that the defence of the Pacific (and in connection with the defence of the Pacific, I include Australia and New Zealand in that term) is as important as the defence of the Atlantic Possessions or of the Motherland itself. lam not mixing up in any sense whatever, in the proposals which lam about to submit to the Conference, anything in connection with the land forces of the respective portions of the Empire; because I recognise Mr. FISHER : May I interrupt ? I understood by the earlier part of your speech that co-operation in every way was involved. Sir JOSEPH WARD : No; uniformity of system in every possible way in connection with the land forces I believe to be desirable, but I am not suggesting, in connection with the defence of the Empire, that there should be any interference by any one portion of it with any other in the matter of the system or of the methods of control of the local land forces.

A.—4

2nd Day.] Imperial Council. [25 May, 1911. The PRESIDENT : Is that to be excluded from the jurisdiction of the proposed Imperial Council 1 Mr. FISHER : It must be under those words. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That, I believe, should be left entirely with the Governments of the respective portions of the Dominions, who should make their land forces efficient in every possible way. The PRESIDENT : That would still be a local matter. Sir JOSEPH WARD : It would still be a local matter, because my belief is that in the event of a war arising, upon the sea particularly, every portion of the British Dominions is concerned for the protection of each of the other portions of the Dominions, and as part and parcel of the scheme of defence in all parts of the British Empire will, I have no doubt, in their respective administrations carry out the requisite conditions for making effective land forces. The protection of the interior of the respective portions of the Dominions is not, from the point of view of co-operation, by any means so important as the all-important question of naval defence of the sea routes of the Empire with its difficulties in many respects much greater than those of the land defence system. For instance, I take it that the Commonwealth of Australia, or the Dominion of Canada, or the Union of South Africa, or New Zealand itself, will in their respective Governments carry out upon land that scheme which they believe to be best calculated to support and protect their respective possessions and to support the first line of defence—namely, the Empire British Navy. In order to make the point clear, in New Zealand we will shortly be able to turn out 80,000 trained men in addition to those men who from time to time form part of the ordinary reserve forces—not in the strict sense of the term a reserve force, but men who, while following their ordinary avocations, have qualified themselves to take part for the purposes of effective land defence. We expect to have a mobile land force of fully 80,000 men very shortly, and we hope to have for overseas work a very considerable number—s,ooo to 10,000 trained men—only to go outside of New Zealand voluntarily. So that from the point of view of protection of our own country, we ought to be able to make it impossible for a foreign foe, if one should ever attempt it, to land on our shores. That is one of the matters we are able to carry out without the co-operation of any other portion of the British Dominions or of the British Empire. But we are not able to do more than give our support in such a way as we think best in the matter of the Empire Navy; we are only able to do our individual part, and we may at any time under the present system, as I have already said, be drawn into war or certainly the results of the war without consultation, without our people having a voice in it, whether we like it or not. We are immediately concerned in the results of any war upon the sea that may take place between Great Britain and any other country; we are concerned just as much as Great Britain is, although our interests are not as great. So, in my opinion, is every other portion of the British Empire; and it is with the object of co-ordination and co-operation and having a voice, even although in a minority, upon an Imperial Council of State, that I have ventured to put forward this resolution. It is with the object of allowing our people in our countries, who recognise their responsibilities and are prepared to accept them under existing conditions, to have some representation upon the Imperial Council. It is from the point of view of our people having no voice at present and there being no representative body appointed which can voice the sentiments of the Government of the day or of the people of New Zealand, that I am urging that it is necessary that we should effect some change as against the present system, which has done very well up to now, but which with the evolution, with the growth, and with the development that is going on in various portions of the British Empire, does not, in my opinion, meet the present position as it should do.

A.—4

25 May, 1911.] Imperial Council. [2nd Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. I want to take this opportunity of alluding —and doing it without offence to the people who are in the East —to the policy of New Zealand in connection with the Asiatic questions. I would like to dispel any wrong impression as to the reason why the policy of New Zealand is averse to admitting Asiatics, even including those who beiong to a nation in alliance with Great Britain. The basis of the policy of New Zealand is, that all the rights of citizenship are conferred upon every adult within our shores. We are entirely governed by our own people; we have spent millions of money up to date in educating them and, to a very large extent, at the State expense, to enable them to discharge the duties of citizenship; and why we object to allowing a large number of Asiatics into our country is because, in the first place, we believe them to be entirely unfitted for the duties of our citizenship. As regards one great Eastern nation, we know in our country, and I presume it is within the knowledge of every man here, that the people of these nations are under obligations, enforced by oath, in the event of war arising, to take the side of their parent land even against the country they have made their home. Now, in connection with this all-important matter of an Imperial State Council, I want again to emphasize the fact that, underlying the proposals I am submitting, I place the defence of the Empire as of the first consequence to all parts of it. That is why from the point of view of New Zealand I for one look forward with very great hope to the possibility, without in any way derogating from what any of the representatives of the oversea Dominions in the past have done, of naval co-ordination and co-operation, and of having a larger and more powerful oversea Navy than exists at present, with a view to preventing eventualities in the future; and also with the more important view, perhaps, of making for the peace of the whole world. In the country I represent we regard this Asiatic question as of intense importance. We realise the fact that we are not very far away from these Eastern countries, and we also recognise that there is tremendous room in our countries, unless we are excessively careful, for the introduction of many millions of people whom we would not desire to have within our territory at all. In suggesting for the consideration of this Conference an alteration which I know is difficult to bring about, and which I realise and want to say at once cannot be done in a hurry, I do not believe myself that we can have the full benefit of a great Empire naval system under existing conditions. I recognise the very powerful condition of the British Navy; but I believe out in our own seas (and I say this in the presence of the representative of the Australian Commonwealth) that the system Australia is carrying out is not by any means the strongest one nor the cheapest one, and consequently not the most effective one, that can be established for the benefit of their country. Mr. FISHER : Which system do you mean, the new one or the old one? Sir JOSEPH WARD : I mean the new one, the sea one; I am not dealing at present with the land one, which I believe to be as fine as possible. My belief is that if we could only get rid of the present method of disjointed action, if we could have some recognised system to which we were all agreed, if we could lay down a comprehensive system for the purpose of defence, some of the minor difficulties which stand in the way of the respective countries, and some of the major difficulties also which stand in their way, could be overcome and a much more effective system brought into operation than at the present time exists. I believe myself that if we had a system by which the whole of our countries gave a per capita contribution towards the cost of naval defence (and again I say I do not refer to land defence at all) we should meet all the local conditions in the different countries by having ships built there, by having naval docks built there, by having everything excepting the armament of ships provided in our respective countries. I believe we could do it far more effectively by giving a per capita contribution, and so help to protect our own countries and the oversea routes, which is not being done at present, and which, in my opinion, cannot be done by the present method. If we could arrive at a decision to adopt a per capita contribution from the respective countries the outcome would be a British

A—4

2nd Day.] Imperial Council. [25 May, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. Navy so powerful that the world would stand at peace probably for generations to come. Surely it is a matter worthy of the greatest consideration on the part of a Conference such as this to bring about, if it is possible to do so, such a consummation ? Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Will you permit me an interruption here 1 Sir JOSEPH WARD : Certainly. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Would this be in conjunction with your Imperial Council? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Are the two things not quite apart, and could you not give contributions to-day without having an Imperial Council 1 Ido not see the relevancy of it to the idea you are expounding. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I suggest that the Imperial Council is the only way of providing that the voices of the different countries may be heard through their constitutionally elected representatives. The Imperial Council is the only way, I will not say to go back upon the policy of any of the Dominions, but it is the only way in which, in my opinion, a uniform system of co-ordination and cooperation can be achieved. That is my view. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : But that is quite independent of the policy of contributions. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I hope to show presently exactly what my proposal is. Mr. BATCHELOR : You would have legislative power ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : It would require legislative power to enable it to carry out its functions. The PRESIDENT: That is very important, Is it proposed that'this Council should have legislative powers ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : I intend to explain presently what I think it should have. The PRESIDENT : Mr. Batchelor asked the question, and I understood you to say yes. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes, I propose that it should be created by legislation. The PRESIDENT : Created by legislation, yes; but to have legislative power is a different thing. Sir JOSEPH WARD : And that its powers should be denned by legislation. Mr. FISHER : I understand you to say that it would have legislative powers as a constitutional body.

A.^4

25 May, 1911.] Imperial Council. [2nd Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Perhaps it would be more convenient if you would wait until I explain what it is I suggest should be done. The PRESIDENT : While we are on the point that Sir Wilfrid Laurier put, which I should like you to give us a little further explanation about, the proposition which I understand you are making contemplates, when the Imperial Council is brought into existence, the establishment of a policy of what is called naval contributions on the part of all the different parts of the Empire. That would involve, would it not, the reversal of the new departure, as I might call it, which has taken place, certainly in Australia and Canada, of having separate local navies of their own? You contemplate that as a desirable possibility ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : I contemplate that the power should be given to the Imperial Council, which would, of course, include representatives from Canada and Australia, of providing uniformity of system as far as the sea defences of the Empire are concerned. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : That would mean that the Council would fix the policy of Canada. The PRESIDENT : It would impose a system. It is important that we should have that clearly in our minds. Mr. FISHER : Would it have the power of coercion by a legislative Act or otherwise—that is the point. The PRESIDENT : We shall come to that presently. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I wish to make some further observations in connection with the defence of the Empire, and then I propose to show what I believe to be the way in which the different parts of the Empire should proceed in order to establish a system of government in connection with defence matters that would conduce to the best interests of the whole. Mr. PEARCE : May I say this before you proceed ? I understand that there is to be a meeting to discuss the question of naval co-operation ? The PRESIDENT : To-morrow. Mr. PEARCE : I would point out to Sir Joseph Ward that the remarks which he is now making will call for a reply, certainly from the representatives of Canada and Australia, because he is attacking the principle of a local navy, and in some way he is connecting it with an Imperial Council. I understand the interpolation by Sir Wilfrid Laurier was to get an understanding as to whether that was a condition on the Council; and I think we should have some assurance upon that point, otherwise we shall be compelled to defend the policy we are putting forward, and this seems not to be the time to defend it. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I want to say at once that I am here, as I presume the other delegates are, for the purpose of freely discussing all matters affecting the Empire as a whole. Ido not suppose for a moment that Mr. Pearce suggests that I am going to defer my observations upon matters of Imperial consequence to the portion of the world I represent until we get where I recognise secrecy is necessary upon some matters. lam fully cognisant of the fact that anything I am saying here is subject to criticism, perhaps of the most destructive character, from any other representative at this Conference; but that is no reason whatever for its being suggested that I should not address to the Conference any line of argument which I consider necessary,

2nd Day.} Imperial Council. [25 May, 1911. Mr. PEARCE : I think it necessary, in fairness to us, that we should know if that is put forward by you as a condition of the Council. Sir JOSEPH WARD : By the time I have finished I will have endeavoured to make myself as clear as I possibly can, and, of course, I quite recognise that what I am saying calls for a reply from other representatives here. I also recognise that, perhaps, the views I entertain may not be in accord with those of any other member of the Conference. But you will also realise that, even though he should stand alone, the fact should not deter one from expressing his sincere opinions upon matters which he considers to be of sufficient importance for every member of the Conference to discuss. I must say, Mr. Asquith, that I am not attacking—l want to make that quite clear —either the Dominion of Canada or the Commonwealth of Australia. Quite the contrary. I recognise that the responsibility for the policy of those countries rests entirely with the Governments of the respective countries. I am trying, what I admit to be a difficult task, to point out how I believe the whole strength of the naval protection across the seas, irrespective of the seacoast of all our countries, could be made very much stronger, and how the protection of all parts of the Empire could be made better by abandoning the present divided system. And my belief is that the only way in which that change could be brought about is by the creation of some authorized Council of Defence or Council of State, with the representatives of Great Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and Newfoundland upon it, and giving them the necessary powers to deal with the question of naval defence, and of naval defence only, and the right to be consulted, before they are committed to a war policy which may be necessary in the best interests of the Empire as a whole. The overseas Dominions are bound to be in a minority of such a Council, I recognise; but it is because to-day the people are not consulted, and cannot be consulted under the existing system, that T am putting forward this proposition. I recollect Sir Wilfrid Laurier himself on one occasion stating that Canada would have no voice in a matter of the kind, and that for that reason he took exception to proposals to have but one British Navy. I think that is a strong position to take up, and it is one I take up myself. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : The point of my observation was that you are advocating the creation of an Imperial Council. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : You are advocating at the same time contributions. Ido not see the relevancy of your argument towards the object which you have in view in addressing the Conference as to the Imperial Council. Contributions can be given today if any of the Dominions choose to do so. You have done it; other parties have refused to do so. Therefore Ido not see the relevancy of it, except it also involves that this Imperial Council which you propose would have the power to fix the contribution, to which, for my part, I would very seriously object. Sir JOSEPH WARD : In reply to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Mr. Asquith, the point I want to make clear is this : it is quite true that any one of the oversea Dominions to-day may give a contribution, but they may withhold it; and it is quite true that in the event of any portion of the British Empire being drawn into a war, that one portion of the Empire might say, " I am not going to take part in it," and they need not give a contribution, although under international law I think they could not avoid having the responsibility of being a belligerent put upon them. What I want to bring about is a uniformity of system for the preservation of the whole of our oversea interests. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : That is to say, the Imperial Council could compel us. Sir JOSEPH WARD : We should fix a basis upon which a contribution should be levied for sea defence in the general interests of the whole.

A—4

Imperial Council. [2nd Day. The PEESIDENT : Your suggestion is that the Imperial Council, unless it is to be a mere academic thing, is to have the power of imposing that obligation ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Quite so. The PEESIDENT : Even on a dissentient Dominion ? Sir JOSEPH WAED : Mr. Asquith, at the present moment if England went to war all the oversea Dominions are directly affected by the results, and that could happen without the slightest reference to either an assenting or a dissenting Dominion. The PEESIDENT : We cannot get a contribution to the Navy without the assent of the Dominion. Sir JOSEPH WAED : But you can involve them in war. The PEESIDENT : That is another matter. lam speaking now of the naval contribution. Canada has never given us a naval contribution. Sir JOSEPH WAED : I know that is so. The PEESIDENT : And we have never attempted to exact one from her. Of course, we know our business better than that. I only want to understand, and I think the members of the Conference want to understand, what the length and breath of the proposal is. Is it that, so far as regards what you call the uniform naval system, it should be in the power of this new body to impose in inviturn, against a particular Dominion, a policy of contribution to which that Dominion would not voluntarily assent ? General BOTHA • And fix the amount ? The PEESIDENT : And fix the amount. Mr. FISHEE : By a benevolent revolution, I suppose? Sir JOSEPH WAED : As a matter of fact, if the proposal is to establish an ineffective nominal Council which is going to hold out to the eye the prospect of doing something of interest to the Empire as a whole, if we are not to establish something that has got some power to do good to the Empire as a whole, it is far better to drop the whole thing. That is my opinion; we have to consider whether the time has not arrived, in the general interests of Great Britain and the whole of our oversea Possessions, when we should not have some uniformity of system of contribution, or whether it is to be left to the voluntary decision of those oversea countries whose requirements for protection by the British Navy are becoming greater every year. If we are not to have some effective system, then, as far as my judgment goes, all the efforts to bring about coordination and co-operation are to a very large extent in vain and a drifting apart must inevitably ensue. I want to say again, and to emphasize it, that I am not foolish enough not to recognise that the proposals I am making are surrounded with very great difficulties. I realise that from the start; but that does not deter on© from making them, if he believes something in the direction he is advocating is desirable and that it may, in the future at all events, be brought into operation. For that reason my opinion is that there ought to be established an Imperial Council or an Imperial Parliament of Defence, in the interests—— Sir WILFEID LAUEIEE : There is a difference between a Council and a Parliament. What do you propose, a Parliament or a Council ? I want a, proper definition of what you mean, because you have proposed neither so far.

B—A. 4.

A.—4

2nd Day.] Imperial Council. [25 May, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WAED : I prefer to call it a Parliament of Defence. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Very well. The PRESIDENT : That is a very different proposition to the one in your resolution. Your resolution is "An Imperial Council of State " —nothing about defence-—"advisory to the Imperial Government." It is limited, as I understand the resolution, to giving advice. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : When it is started it is to be a Parliament; who is going to elect that Parliament ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : I will presently explain it. The PRESIDENT : All I say is that that is not the resolution in any of those particulars. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I would point out that the resolution is " with representatives from all the self-governing parts of the Empire." Sir WILFRID LAURIER : But you say " Council." Is it a Council, or is it a Parliament ? It is important we should know exactly what is the proposal. Sir JOSEPH WARD • I prefer to call it a Parliament. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Very good, then; now we understand what you mean. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I prefer to call it a Parliament, although I admit there is a good deal in the name. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : There is everything in the name. Mr. FISHER : Would it not be as well to amend your resolution on those lines ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : No, Ido not propose to amend it; if it is necessary afterwards I should have no objection. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : You propose a Council in your resolution, but you advocate a Parliament. Sir JOSEPH WARD : You can call it a Council if you like. The PRESIDENT : We want to know what you call it. Sir JOSEPH WARD : It is a Parliament of Defence that I am suggesting. I have no objection to its being called by any suitable name. I think perhaps at this juncture I will state my proposal—and then later on I will deal with one or two of the matters I was going to refer to just now. I indicated in my opening remarks on Tuesday that I would ask the Conference to deal with Imperial unity; organized Imperial Defence; equitable distribution of the burdens of defence throughout the Empire; representation of self-governing oversea Dominions in an Imperial Parliament of Defence for the purpose of determining peace or war; contributions to Imperial Defence; foreign policy so far as it affects the Empire; International treaties so far as they affect the Empire; and such other Imperial matters as may by agree-

A.—4

-25 May, 1911.] Imperial Council. [2nd Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. ment be transferred to such Parliament. I suggested that the principles of the scheme should be : (1) That Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and Newfoundland elect to an Imperial House of Representatives for Naval Defence, one representative for each 200,000 of their respective populations; that is (approximately), Canada 37, Australia 25, South Africa 7, New Zealand 6, Newfoundland 2. That is a total of 77. Mr. MALAN : You have only taken the European population, then ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Entirely so, the white population. Mr. MALAN : Why % The PRESIDENT : You do not make any allowance for the coloured population ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : I understood that when you were framing the South African Constitution you refused to give the coloured population there the right to vote. Speaking generally, you could hardly expect, in connection with an important proposal such as this, that a departure should be made so different to what has been carried out in South Africa, and, speaking generally, in some other countries too. However, that is a matter that can be discussed perhaps in connection with the proposals. lam dealing with the white population, and the white population only. (2) That the mode of electing the representatives be left in each case to the determination of each of the oversea Dominions. Mr. BATCHELOR : Sir Joseph, how would the Imperial Government be represented upon that ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Perhaps if you will allow me to proceed I can explain; I must take these points in their sequence : (3) That the United Kingdom elect representatives on the same basis —that is, one for every 200,000 of the population —that is, say, 220 members. That the total members of this Imperial House of Representatives thus The PRESIDENT : What would that add up to? Sir JOSEPH WARD : 300. (4) That the term for which they are elected be five years. (5) That the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and Newfoundland each elect two representatives to be members of an Imperial Council of Defence, thus providing a Council of 12. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Out of that representation ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : No, I am dealing with the Senate, which is to be elected for such term and in such manner as each of these divisions of the Empire shall determine. The PRESIDENT : With a Council of 12 the United Kingdom would have two ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes. The PRESIDENT : And the Dominions are to have 10. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That is the same principle as exists in all Federal Governments.

A.--4.

2nd Day.] Impeeial Council. [25 May, 1911. The PRESIDENT : You treat them as separate States ? Sir JOSEPH WAED : Perhaps if you would allow me, I might go on to the functions of this Council. That the functions of this Council are to be limited and to be mainly consultative and revisory. (7) An Executive to consist •of not more than 15, of whom not more than one be chosen from the members of the Senate. That there be transferred to this Imperial Parliament of Defence exclusively : — ia) Those matters common to the whole Empire—that is, all those in which every part of it is alike interested. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Will that be concerning defence only, or everything ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : It is to deal with defence in times of peace and war —that is, Imperial Defence. Mr. PEARCE: Shipping? Sir JOSEPH WARD : No. Mr. FISHER : I understood you to call it an Imperial Parliament of Defence; that is one of the difficulties we meet with. This is going to deal with general subjects, and the difficulty of it is that you stated definitely just now that it would be an Imperial Parliament of Defence. Sir JOSEPH WARD : So far as the name is concerned, that is so. After you have heard what I suggest, if the name is in any way anomalous to the proposals contained in it, I have not the slightest objection to changing it. There is no trouble about the name so far as I am concerned; but I want to try and indicate what I believe would be a good thing if it could be carried out. Mr. FISHER : I am very sorry to interrupt you, but the point is this : this is a select body from Members of Parliament called specially to deal with defence, I understand, and now you are trenching on to other subjects besides defence. Sir JOSEPH WARD : No. Mr. FISHER : I beg your pardon. Sir JOSEPH WARD : (a) Only in regard to those matters common to the whole Empire—that is, all those in which every part of it is alike interested. I am dealing with naval defence, (b) Those matters which can be satisfactorily undertaken only by the Empire as a whole. Including :—(1) Peace and war treaties and foreign relations generally. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Does that treat with commerce ? The PRESIDENT : It is not defence. Sir JOSEPH WARD : It is all bearing on defence. Mr. FISHER : I do not understand it in that light. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I will try to make it as clear as I can. The PRESIDENT : It is to have exclusive control over the Empire as a whole in all questions involving peace or war. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That is so, with England reigning supreme upon it,

A.—4

25 May, 1911.] Imperial Council. [2nd Day. The PRESIDENT : The new body is to have that exclusive power of treaties and foreign relations too. Sir JOSEPH WARD : (1) Peace and war treaties and foreign relations generally. (2) Imperial Defence and the providing of the revenues for the foregoing purposes and for the general support of this Imperial proposal. For the first 10 years after the first election of this Parliament it shall have no power of taxation, but the amount payable by each of the oversea Dominions represented as its proportion of the revenue required for the purposes I have indicated shall be deemed to be a debt due by each Dominion and shall be raised and paid by that Dominion to the Exchequer of the Imperial Parliament of Defence, (b) At the expiration of 10 years such amount shall be raised and paid in such manner as the respective Dominions agree to. (c) This Imperial Parliament to determine the amount to be contributed by the overseas Dominions for the following purposes : (1) Imperial Defence, (2) War. The amount to be contributed by the oversea Dominions, estimated per capita of population, not to exceed 50 per cent, of the amount (estimated per capita of population) contributed by the United Kingdom for these purposes; but for all other purposes the contributions shall be on an equal per capita basis. This is dealing entirely with defence, and with the Imperial relations, and with the relations that are closely allied with defence of those matters which may bring the whole Empire into a war. Mr. PEARCE : Would you mind repeating the proportions ? I did not catch your figures as to the proportion they should contribute. Mr. FISHER : The United Kingdom twice the amount of the oversea Dominions. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That is so; the amount to be so contributed for Imperial Defence and War shall, estimated per capita of population, not exceed 50 per cent, of the amount (estimated per capita of population) contributed by the United Kingdom for these purposes; but for all other purposes the contributions shall be on an equal per capita basis. And the reason for that must be obvious : at present the British interests are so very much greater than those of the outlying Possessions that it is only a fair proposition to concede that there should be a difference as between them, and I believe the difference suggested here is not an unfair one. In submitting this matter I have not interfered—and I do not propose now, except so far as to indicate what is passing through my mind, to interfere in any way in connection with the politics of the Homeland. I have not done so at any time, and in anything I am stating here I am stating it only from the point of view that I believe that circumstances in the future will call for it as being required to enable the great work of Empire to be carried on successfully. What I am indicating here presupposes in the United Kingdom a completed system of local autonomy for the national divisions of the Kingdom, each, including England, having its own Parliament The PRESIDENT : What we call Home Rule all round. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes. Of course, lam not discussing the pros and cons of it, but what I am suggesting here presupposes that a system of that kind will be brought into being; and if I may be allowed to say so, in my opinion, as one who is perhaps entitled to express his opinion in connection with a matter of this kind, it appears to me to be a necessity in connection with the development that has taken place both in the Old World and in its relationship to the outlying portions of it, and to other important countries too, that such a system should be brought into being. Presupposing that that alteration should be made, as an outcome of that alteration necessarily there would be a tremendous change made in the Old Country in connection with the present Imperial Parliament. As I have said, what I am suggesting presupposes developments taking place in the Old Land in that respect.

A.^

2nd Day.] Imperial Council. [25 May, 1911. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : You propose a new Parliament to be elected by all the Dominions ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : For defence only. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : That can be done without any alteration of the present constitution of the United Kingdom. I cannot see the logic of your position. You propose a new Parliament on top of what we have already? Sir JOSEPH WARD : No. In my opinion, Sir Wilfrid, with all due deference to you, any proposal of this kind presupposes an alteration in the Homeland to a federal system, and in connection with that federal system there must of necessity be a change in the numbers of the great Houses that represent Great Britain and Ireland at the present time. In other words,' if there are Created in different portions of the British Isles separate Parliaments for local government, it stands to reason some alteration would take place in the larger ones that exist for the whole of Great Britain at the present time. I believe, in connection with federation for naval defence purposes of the oversea Dominions, that it is necessary to presuppose an alteration in the United Kingdom itself on some such lines as I have described. The PRESIDENT : I do not want to interrupt you, but for the sake of making it clear as you go along I want to see how we stand. We in the United Kingdom will have to consider how it would affect us. You presuppose what is called Home Rule all round here—that is to say, the delegation to local bodies of all local concerns in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes. The PRESIDENT : Is your new Imperial Parliament of Defence (I merely ask for information) then to step into the shoes of the old Imperial Parliament ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes- at any rate, ultimately. The PRESIDENT : It is to exist side by side with it ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : If desired, but I want to develop a true Imperial Parliament. The PRESIDENT : But side by side with it 1 Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes, if you want it for the purposes I have named. The PRESIDENT : The old Imperial Parliament will still go on, under your scheme, representing the different constituent elements in the United Kingdom. Sir JOSEPH WARD : If you had separate Parliaments existing for Scotland, England, Wales, and Ireland on their own account, to a very considerable extent you would alter the position of the old Imperial Parliament, and it might be merged ultimately, at least, into the new one. The PRESIDENT : We should relieve it of a good deal of business which at present it transacts. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Besides the point I am making, in presupposing that the United Kingdom establishes Home Rule all round, as you call it-—I have called it creating separate Parliaments for local government. The PRESIDENT : I use the popular expression.

A.—l

25 May, 1911.] Imperial Council. [2nd Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I call it creating Parliaments for the different nationalities in the Kingdom, and if you did that, I apprehend you must make a material alteration in the Imperial Parliament consequent on a change of that kind. lam not demanding the taking away of any of the powers of the present Imperial Parliament, although I think it should be merged in the new one for the Empire, or of any of the powers of the oversea Dominions' Parliaments. I am suggesting that in Naval Defence matters for the Empire as a whole, if the people in New Zealand (I will deal with New Zealand alone) are to take their responsibilities, which they are doing now to some extent, in connection with the general defence of the Empire, including the protection of New Zealand, they are entitled to some representation on some body that has got the power of saying when New Zealand should go into war, although we recognise that the British representatives would settle it every time, because they would be in the majority. We to-day, however, have no voice of any sort or kind, and I am suggesting that some body should be created upon which the people of New Zealand and all the other Dominions could be represented. It is possible that the proposals lam making may not fit in with the existing conditions; but I believe they ought to be capable of being put into shape with a view to help all portions of the Empire. lam suggesting an Imperial Parliament of Defence, as I call it, for the purpose of helping to make the defence of the Empire as a whole stronger than it is to-day. I want to make it absolutely invulnerable for all parts of the British Empire. What I am trying to do does presuppose that there is a completed system of local autonomy for the national divisions of the United Kingdom, and then all portions of the Empire would be in a similar position from the point of view of their local Governments as far as the local autonomy is concerned. That, this local autonomy fully established, a true Imperial Parliament, which at first could be limited to foreign policies, defence, and peace or war, should be set up, the local Governments to have the powers they have now. Mr. BEODEUR : Except with regard to Naval Defence. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Except with regard to Naval Defence, that is so. Mr. BRODEUR : As to Naval Defence, you do not want to recognise the local autonomy of the different parts of the Empire ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : No. In the matter of oversea Naval Defence my argument is that there is no portion of the British Possessions at the present time—certainly, as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, it applies lessto them than to any other portion of the British Possessions —which can deal with the matter of oversea defences effectively without the co-operation and good will of all parts of the Empire. What I want to see brought about is some system to enable that to be done. I call it an Imperial Parliament of Defence. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN : Naval Defence, I think you mean. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Naval Defence, as I have already stated. The PRESIDENT : It is not to deal with military matters, I think you told us before. Mr. FISHER : But it is to deal with treaties, I understand. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Certainly treaties, because they necessarily affect defence. Mr. FISHER : That is a very important item. Sir JOSEPH WARD : The question of treaties, as a matter of fact, has a very large bearing on the possibility of troubles affecting all portions of the Empire.

A.—4

2nd Day.] Imperial Council. [25 May, 1911. Mr. FISHER : It is as big as the other. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes, it is. At all events, I am submitting this proposal because I am impressed with the fact that to-day in reality the oversea Dominions are helpless. I have no hesitation in saying in the presence of other representatives here that I am certain they are all prepared to accept their responsibilities in connection with defence matters; but, as a matter of fact, they are all helpless, and they know nothing. I speak for New Zealand, and though we take our part quite willingly, we know nothing whatever as to the possibilities of troubles arising that we are bound to be drawn into. But as British countries, with people of various nationalities in them, we have come to a point when a change is necessary if we are to have our people with us in taking our part in connection with the general defence of the Empire. We must have some alteration of the present disjointed so-called system. That is what lam trying to arrive at, and what I am hopeful that something may be done in connection with. I recognise to the full the truth of what Mr. James Bryce, the British Ambassador in America, says upon this point of central control as against divided control in distant portions of the Empire. He says that: " The great principle applicable "-—— The PRESIDENT : What are you quoting from—his book ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes. " The great principle applicable in every branch and art of government is that the more power that is given to the units which compose an empire, be these units large or small, and the less that is given to a central or Imperial authority, so much the fuller will be the liberty and so much greater the energy of the individuals who compose the people as a whole." I agree with those sentiments absolutely, and, apart altogether from any of the proposals I make to this Conference, that is the spirit that underlies the proposals I am making; the motive I have endeavoured, however imperfectly, to explain to the members of the Conference. Now, I want just to say one word upon what I believe, if we had a properly constituted authority, our respective Dominions, as far as the people are concerned, would be favourable to —namely, what might be done in the matter of general Naval Defence, without loss of local dignity to any Dominion, without any loss of prestige, and still would, I believe, be of superior advantage to the individual portions of the Empire, especially to the Old World, and would go towards making the peace of the world assured. I spoke of the absence of uniformity of system by which a contribution could be made for naval purposes. I know what is being done in Canada, I know what is being done in Australia, and I recognise the enormous amount the Old Country is doing quite irrespective of all our Dominions in every possible way. I recognise, too, the large share the British taxpayer has taken in contributing towards the general support of the oversea Dominions as far as Naval Defence is concerned, and what they have done so magnificently and cheerfully in the past. I believe we ought, as far as the white people in our respective countries are concerned, to have a uniform system of contribution—and I want to make that clear —for Naval Defence. Upon the basis of 13 millions of white people (and there are more than that—l am not overstating it) in the British Dominions, if we were to give for Naval Defence 10s. per capita we would provide 6,500,000 Z. a year, and if our annual amount of 6,500,000£. was put into the purchase of battleships (I call them Dreadnoughts for the purposes of my argument) at 2,000, 0001. each, there could be provided for out of the annual contribution three Dreadnoughts per annum. But, as a matter of practice, I think I ought to say, Mr. Asquith, that, although it may be done occasionally, the building of battleships is not generally provided for out of revenue. The PRESIDENT : We do it here, you know. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Not always. Mr. FISHER : Our proposal is always revenue, and no other policy will ever be tolerated.

A.—4.

25 May, 1911.] Imperial Council. [2nd Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I am going to state what my opinion is, because I am of the opinion that at times considerable sums are used other than out of revenue for the purpose of providing armaments. The PRESIDENT : As to the battleships and munitions of war, we have done such things, I agree; but our normal practice is to provide for the construction of ships entirely out of revenue. Sir JOSEPH WARD : However, for the purposes of my argument, three Dreadnoughts certainly could be provided for yearly out of the annual revenue. But supposing, in order to place them in a position of supreme invulnerability and of absolute safety from every point of view, by co-operating with the British Navy, all these oversea Dominions, instead of waiting for a period of 20 years with a gradual expenditure only of a very considerable sum of money yearly, decided as a matter of policy to at once borrow the necessary money to equip their territories with a practically impregnable naval defence system; this could be done out of the a year upon the basis I have suggested. I conceive that by this means such a position could be simply and efficiently arrived at within five years from. now. Twenty-five Dreadnoughts at 2,000,000 Z. each would amount to 50 million sterling, and the annual per capita contribution would, upon a basis of 6 per cent., including 3 per cent, for sinking fund, insure that every one of them would be paid for in 15 years. In Australia, for instance —I am saying this, as my friend Mr. Fisher will recognise, with all respect Mr. FISHER : Yes, I quite admit that. Sir JOSEPH WARD : In Australia, for instance, with all its Eastern possibilities, instead of having a minimised or ineffective fleet to meet the requirements of the great Commonwealth for protective purposes, ample protection would be afforded in a comparatively short period. To build up their own navy will take many years, with an enormous burden, in proportion to its population, in the interval placed on the people of the Commonwealth, but if a proposal of the kind I am suggesting (if any voluntary system which is suggested can be brought about, well and good, but I do not believe it can) were given effect to, what would the position be in Australia, in Canadaj in New Zealand, South Africa, and Newfoundland ? Why, by making provision for the repayment of those 25 Dreadnoughts, if the vessels could be supplied within five years from now, every point of those Possessions would be in a position for defensive purposes absolutely unsurpassed by any other part of the world. Mr. FISHER : But, Sir Joseph, if you will allow me to interrupt, you would have no fleet at all at the end of 15 years. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Why? Mr. FISHER : Because it would be scrap-iron then, and you would only have paid for it. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I do not agree with you, Mr. Fisher, because I want to point out that if you provide for depreciation at the rate of 3 per cent., which I am suggesting on the establishment of the fleet Mr. FISHER : Fifteen years? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes, and if any vessel went out altogether at that period you would have replaced her out of sinking funds that had accumulated, because you would be providing for depreciation all the time. According to your argument, your railways ought to have been scrap-iron 25 years ago. Mr. FISHER : No.

9—A. 4.

A.--4

2nd Day.} Imperial Council. [25 May, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Your Houses of Parliament ought to have been out of existence 25 years ago, if that argument is a sound one. Mr. FISHER : You cannot keep a fighting ship in permanent repair; the Admiralty will tell you that. Sir JOSEPH WARD : As a matter of fact they are kept in repair now. Even on the 10s. per capita basis I am suggesting the utilisation of only half the amount that would be given per annum for the purpose of providing the interest and sinking fund, and warships that would be up to date could be built in your own country with great promptitude compared to what is being done now, and this would make for early protective efficiency without having the uncertainty that an inadequate fleet must create if its building up is extended over a long period of years. Mr. FISHER : I only say that I think it is a faulty calculation. Sir JOSEPH WARD : In my opinion, where you are providing for the full redemption of debt in a period of years, the argument my friend Mr. Fisher is putting forward is not a sound one, because the same principle applies to replacements. If you provide a sinking fund for the complete restoration of anything within a given period, there can be no such thing as. it being out of existence at the end of the time, otherwise no railway system would exist after a period of years has passed by. They would all disappear. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Railways are producing revenue, and they are therefore replaced all the time; but warships do not produce any revenue. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Railways are built out of capital borrowed, and not out of revenue, but out of that revenue there should be a sinking fund established, and continual repair on the railways should be effected out of revenue also. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Yes, out of revenues of the railway. There is no possible comparison between the two things. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I do not agree, because the 10s. per capita that I suggest takes the place of the ordinary revenue received from any commercial department such as railways. Howpver, I want to place on record my view on this matter, and to say that in mv opinion a position of enormous strength, with at least three of the most powerful battleships, could be provided for Australia; that six of them could be provided for Canada for dealing- with both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts; that three of thpm could be provided for South Africa, if South Africa required them, although I know they are in a similar position to New Zealand in the matter of their naval defences; two could be provided for New Zealand, and one for Newfoundland, and all the subsidiary vessels that make up fleet units could be provided for all those countries. In addition, ten Dreadnoughts could be added promptly to the British Navy, and all this could be done entirely by the oversea Dominions out of the proposal which I am speaking of at the present moment. Mr. BATCHELOR : That policy could be adopted now, could it not? Sir JOSEPH WARD : If you could tell me, Mr. Batchelor, what machinery there is in existence to enable all of the oversea countries and the Motherland to adopt a uniform policy in the matter of naval defence to make an invulnerable Empire Navy, no suggestion of mine is necessary; because at the present time we do not act together—for instance. Sir Wilfrid Laurier holds a pronounced view in one direction, and I do not hold the same view with him: the Commonwealth of Australia holds a different view; if it comes to individual attempts to act on the part of the respective countries, then how could we possibly act together ?

A—4

25 May, 1911.] Imperial Council. [2nd Day. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : We must have a body above us to force us to be good boys and pay our share while the superior body spent it. Sir JOSEPH WARD : If the people of our respective countries were empowered to elect representatives to a corporate body for the preservation of their interests round their own coasts and the sea routes—if that is called a superior body to the people themselves, then I admit that your argument is right. But what I am suggesting is that the same people who create the individual Parliaments should elect their representatives and have a voice in the matter of their protection, and also upon the point of going to war or otherwise; that they should have a voice in the creation of a system which is going to be really of value to them. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : That is a very different position. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That is what I am suggesting, and I know the difficulties surrounding it; I apprehend the difficulties fully, but I suggest this as one way, and if any other gentleman at this Conference can suggest as good or a better way, I would be only too happy to support it. But at present I say this—with all respect to every portion of the British Dominions—individually, though we are involved when Great Britain has a fight for the supremacy of the seas, we have no voice at all —we are helpless. The PRESIDENT : I should like, if I may, to ask you this question : You say this proposed body is to have a voice—l suppose you mean a decisive voice— in the question of peace or war. How is that to be worked out practically ? Are we to have a debate on the question of whether or not the Empire shall go to war, at which everybody is to spe&k, with a division, and so on—3oo members ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : I have not suggested anything of that sort. The PRESIDENT : That is your suggestion—the only suggestion before the Conference. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I have not suggested anything of the kind, with all due deference. The PRESIDENT : Then I do not understand it. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I have suggested an executive of 15, and if there was an executive of 15 I apprehend that they would accept the full responsibility of doing whatever they thought proper as representing the Imperial Council of Defence. The PRESIDENT : Is the executive of 15 to be elected by or responsible to the parliamentary body ? Sir JOSEPH W T ARD : Entirely so. The PRESIDENT : Then they are the ultimate arbiters ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes. The 15 members of the executive, or whatever the number of the executive might be fixed at, would be representative of all portions of the British Empire, even although no man outside of Great Britain was on the executive. Then if the people of the several portion's of the Empire selected representatives they would have no right to complain, as they have today, that they have no voice, even although I recognise that they would be in a minority under the new system. They have no voice or say at present in connection with matters in which they are deeply concerned, and I do not suggest a one-sided proposal, because I advocate the oversea Dominions contributing 10s. per capita.

A.—4,

2nd Day.} Imperial Council [25 May, "l9ll. The PRESIDENT ; What is to be the position of the Imperial Government ? Where does it come in ? Are they to conduct negotiations with Foreign Powers up to the point when there is a possibility of a rupture, and then is your executive to come in to determine whether or not we are to go to war ? Sir JOSEPBL WARD : They would have 220 members from Great Britain. The PRESIDENT : lam speaking of the executive. The British Cabinet, at present, is responsible for the conduct of our relations with foreign countries. We carry on, of course, with all the secrecy that diplomacy requires, these negotiations in the interests of the Empire as a whole. We get to a point, or we might conceivably get to a point, in which it was a question whether or not there should be a rupture between us and a great Foreign Power. At present the Cabinet decides that on its own responsibility. Parliament dismisses them if they are not satisfied that they have acted rightly. What I want to know from you is—so as to understand the proposition—whether it amounts to this : that at that point, the negotiations having been conducted up to that point by the British Cabinet, it is then to hand over the determination of the question of peace or war to your new executive, responsible to the Parliament of Defence ? I do not ask in any hostile spirit; I only want to know if that is the proposal. Sir JOSEPH WARD : My answer to that, Mr. Asquith, is that the executive suggested in this would be an executive representing in the same proportions the British people as are now represented. by the British public in the Imperial Parliament. There would, of course, be a preponderance of British representatives upon that body which would carry on everything you are suggesting with the same secrecy. The PRESIDENT : How then would you be better off than now ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Because now we have no voice or say. The PRESIDENT : Your voice, as you say, would always be overruled; you say it is an essential factor of the arrangement that the British should always be in a vast preponderance. . Sir JOSEPH WARD : That does not get over the fact that none of the British Dominions are represented directly or indirectly at the present time. The PRESIDENT : I wanted to see what the effect would be. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I think the people of the oversea Dominions are entitled to representation in connection with such far-reaching matters. I recognise that representation does not mean control—very far from it; if it meant control I should say that your view of the matter was absolutely unanswerable. The control still remains with the British people. .. . The PRESIDENT : lam not putting any view in opposition; I only asked you the question. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I know. In matters of naval defence I believe sincerely the whole position could be made impregnable as far as the oversea Dominions are concerned, providing for them all the advantages they get by having anything in the shape of local navies. The whole of the building operations could be carried out without any difficulty, naval construction yards could be provided in the several Dominions by a per capita contribution such as I have named. By this means the distant countries might certainly hope to have, not an imaginative local navy that in all human probability would not be able to do what they required in times of atress, but they would have one that could beyond all question do what was necessary, and which, added to the present British Navy, would make it so powerful as to make the peace of the world absolutely assured. In other words, there would be all the advantages that now accrue, only greater in my opinion, to the local places. The building programme in the

A.-4

25 May, 1911.] Imperial Council. [2nd Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. Dominions themselves to which they attach importance could be provided, with this material difference: that they would have effective and efficient naval strength at an early period, instead of, to put it mildly, an inadequate and uncertain strength being built up over a long period of years. I have no hesitation whatever in saying with regard to this important question of the Declaration of London (I am not going to discuss it now, of course) that if we had the position regarding the protection of the sea routes properly provided for at points from Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand, the Declaration of London, in my opinion, would be a matter of absolutely no consequence at all; because, after all, the whole thing comes back to the superiority of the British Navy in protecting the different parts of the sea routes of the world, to keep the routes open so as to enable the requisite foodsupplies to come to this Old Country. The whole matter is a very important one; the protecting of the widespread and far-reaching interests of the British Empire is worth working for, and I say quite frankly that, even after discussion here, if this should not meet with the acceptation of any single member of the Conference, I will still continue to hold the view that the present position is not right, that an important alteration is necessary. I think lam further right in expressing the opinion that, as the years go on, the voice of the great democracies in the oversea Dominions will not be stopped from advocating that where they are expected, and rightly so, to share in the responsibilities of the troubles that may ensue connected with any war affecting the stability of the British Empire, they are entitled, as a matter of right, not as a matter of appeal, to have some say, even although they be in a minority, upon some properly constituted body that is going to decide the question as to whether there is to be peace or war. My opinion is that they ought to have some representation, and that it ought to be upon a basis that will meet with the general approval of the people of Great Britain and the oversea Dominions. I will not discuss the matter any further, Mr. Asquith, excepting to say that I knoAV that no scheme for bringing about Imperial unity, that no scheme for establishing a system of organized Imperial Defence, that no scheme for the equitable distribution of the burdens of defence throughout the Empire, and that no scheme for the representation of the self-governing oversea Dominions in an Imperial Council or Parliament of Defence, or for the purpose of dealing with the matters I have suggested, can be brought about in a hurry. I recognise that the proposals I have made are far from perfect, but I believe as certainly as that we men are sitting round this Conference table, that the future will call for an alteration, in the direction at least of what lam suggesting. The growth of these oversea Dominions on attaining the proportions they will within a limited period of years from now, will be such that with the kindliest feeling, with the deepest ties of affection to the Old World, the people who are free, independent, and recognise all the values of British institutions, and who value to the full the tremendous protection they have received as the outcome of the payments of the British taxpayers to the coffers of the British Treasury in the general interests of the people in the Old Land as well as the people in the distant portions of the Empire—l say, notwithstanding all that you will find that the strength of those rising oversea democracies in future will be such that their peoples will call for representation, they will call for a voice in determining the all-important question of peace or war, how they are to bear their proportions, and how they are effectually to help in establishing a system of naval defence that will go "for maintaining the solidarity of the Empire as a whole, and in reality will go for bringing about and continuing that which every civilised community desires, the peace of the world. I beg to move the resolution. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Mr. Asquith, the resolution which has been moved by Sir Joseph Ward may be repeated again so that we may understand exactly where we are : " That the Empire has now reached a stage of Imperial development which renders it expedient that there should be an Imperial Council of State with representatives from all the self-governing parts of the Empire, in theory and in fact advisory to the Imperial Government on all questions affecting the interests of His Majesty's Dominions Oversea."

A.- 4

2nd Day.] Imperial Council. [25 May, 1911. Sir WILFEID LAURIER—con*. Sir Joseph Ward will forgive me for saying at the outset that the argument which he has addressed to us is not in any way germane to the resolution which he has moved. The argument which he addressed to us is not for the creation of a Council advisory to the Imperial authorities; it is for an entirely different matter. I was not, I may say at once, very favourably disposed towards the resolution as it was moved, but that can be set aside. What Sir Joseph Ward has proposed is not an Advisory Council; it is a legislative body to be elected by the people of the United Kingdom and the Dominions beyond the seas—a legislative body, I say, with power to create expenditure and no power to create revenue. Now, if there is one system which I think is indefensible it is the creation of a body which should have the power to expend at its own sweet will without having the responsibility of providing for the revenue to carry on the expenditure. That seems to me at once to dispose of the matter. This body suggested by Sir Joseph Ward would have the power to sit, I suppose, here in London—or Ottawa, or Wellington, or in Melbourne, for the matter of that, it does not matter —and in its wisdom to say, " Well, this year the British Empire should spend 2,000,000/., 5,000,000/., 20,000,000/. for defence, to be apportioned so-much to the United Kingdom, so-much to Canada, so-much to Australia, so-much to New Zealand, so-much to South Africa, and so-much to Newfoundland "; and then, as I understand the proposal of Sir Joseph Ward, this would be remitted to the respective Governments concerned, and all the Governments would be dumb agents to carry out these resolutions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would simply have to provide so-much; in Canada we would have to provide somuch, in order that various munitions of war might be purchased, and so in Australia, and so in South Africa, and so in Newfoundland. I must say, with all respect and due deference to Sir Joseph Ward, the proposal seems to me to be absolutely impracticable. Mr. FISHER : Mr. Asquith, I think the remark of Sir Joseph towards the close of his speech affects the situation, and hardly calls for very serious discussion round this Conference table. He said he felt that this was a scheme far in advance of anything that could be expected at the present moment, and that, although all the members might be seriously against the proposal, he was still egotistical enough to think that it was a sound scheme to be submitted to the Conference. I must say I think we must congratulate him on his courage in bringing forward such a scheme. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I did not say that, but, of course, that does not matter. Mr. FISHER : I want to be correct, but Sir Wilfrid has really expressed my own view. I think it is not a practical scheme, if he will allow me to put it in that brief way, at the present moment. I would, like to say in general "terms that I do not think that there is anything the matter with the Empire at the present time except as relating to subsidiary causes that may be easily removed by Conferences such as these. We have ever-extending oversea Dominions. I had the great honour and pleasure towards the end of last year of being present at the creation of a new Dominion in South Africa. That is hardly what we should expect from a system of responsible government which had failed or was breaking down. Changes will always be necessary while progress is made. If we were to take the path Sir Joseph Ward invites us to take, I am of opinion we should retrace our steps early and hurriedly. That is by the way. lam apprehensive of the broad statements made by Sir Joseph about the effectiveness of the two systems of naval defence —the one adopted by his own country, New Zealand, and the other adopted by Canada and Australia. Ido not propose to deal with that question at all. lam looking forward to the opportunity to be available to my honourable colleague, the Minister of Defence, to deal comprehensively with that question. This is not a sitting of the Conference where it could be properly done; the subject is really not before us as a defence matter, although the greater part of Sir Joseph Ward's speech, I think, was founded on the question of a better system of naval defence.

A.—4

25 May, 1911.] Imperial Council. [2nd Day. Mr. FISHER—con*. We rely—l think I can say for the Commonwealth of Australia—on the wisdom of His Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom safeguarding all the interests of the Empire as regards the Navy. We rely on the powers given to the Commonwealth under the Commonwealth Constitution to deal with Naval and Military Defence of that portion of the Empire in our own way, in co-opera-tion as far as we can with the Mother Country, both for the preservation of our own immediate country and the preservation of the centre of the Empire and all the other parts of it. I cannot, speaking on behalf of the Commonwealth, support the proposition as put forward. I can say with Sir Wilfrid that even as it appears on the notice paper it would not have been concurred in by myself and my colleagues, the Ministers of the Commonwealth, nor do I believe by the people of the Commonwealth. But lam not going to say that there are not possibilities of having an Advisory Council of some kind associated with the Imperial Government, who would be able to be in close touch with them at all times, especially in times of crisis and emergency, so that certain communications might be made by them to representatives on the spot directly responsible to the Governments of the Dominions, and we should be informed. On those lines I think something might be done. There are so many matters of grave importance involving the whole re-constitution of the political government of the Empire that it is too great a ✓ question to be considered immediately and to be decided off-hand. Therefore, with great reluctance, and expressing my appreciation of the pains that Sir Joseph has taken to put his views before this Conference, I cannot think that it would be wise for us to adopt such a proposal at the present time. General BOTHA : Mr. President, I have listened with the greatest interest to the speech which has been delivered by my friend the Prime Minister of New Zealand, and, although I highly appreciate the spirit in which he has brought forward his proposal, I am sorry to say that I cannot agree with him. I am sure that every one of us is equally anxious to knit the various parts of the British Empire together as closely as possible, and that any practical scheme to attain this object would receive our most cordial support, and our Imperial Conferences are held with that object. We must not, however, look upon these Conferences as affording, in the first place, an opportunity for the passing , of a number of resolutions which will be carried into effect throughout the Empire—if we do this I am afraid that we shall be disappointed—l look upon these Conferences with very different views. I consider that they are of the greatest possible value in periodically bringing together the Governments of the Empire and enabling them to discuss matters of common interest. Even if we were not formally to pass a single resolution, I should be very far from saying that our Conference had been a failure. We would all return to the several parts of the Empire having heard each other's views on most important questions, and we would all be able to work towards the attainment of one common ideal. These Conferences have already been of the greatest value, and I am convinced that they are in a great measure responsible for the greater unity of the Empire which we have undoubtedly already attained since they were first organized. These Conferences are undoubtedly an important, step in the right direction, but I have grave doubts whether an Imperial Council such as proposed would bring us nearer to our object. I have asked myself whether this proposal which has been brought forward is a practical one. No one can feel more than I do, that as often as the British Government has to deal with matters which may affect a particular part of the Empire, it is essential that the particular Dominion concerned should have an opportunity of being heard and of expressing its views. After the most careful consideration, however, I have come to the conclusion that this object cannot satisfactorily be attained through an Imperial Council such as proposed in this resolution. How is such a Council to be appointed? Who will decide what matters must come before it ? What authority is to be vested in it ? To what representative body is such a Council to be responsible ? These are only a few of the questions which crop up immediately, and it seems to me that no satis-

A.-^t

2nd Day.] Imperial Council. [25 May, 1911. General BOTHA— cont. factory reply can be given to them. If any real authority is to be vested in such an Imperial Council, I feel convinced that the self-governing powers of the various parts of the Empire must necessarily be encroached upon, and that would be a proposition which I am certain no Parliament in any part of the Empire will entertain for one moment. If no real authority is to be given to such a Council, I fear very much that it would only become a meddlesome body which will continually endeavour to interfere with the domestic concerns of the various parts of the Empire, and cause nothing but unpleasantness and friction —in fact, the very opposite of what we desire. I feel certain that, with the political genius which characterises the British race a solution of this difficult problem will ultimately be evolved. It may be that the time will arrive when a body will come into existence upon which the various parts of the Empire are represented by men elected by the people of the Empire, and it may be that in years to come these Imperial Conferences which we are holding to-day will be looked upon as a link in a long chain of evolution of such a body. But that day has not arrived yet, and we must not try to force the pace unduly. If our Imperial Conferences are not quite as satisfactory as we might wish them to be, then let us do our best to make them more so. But what are we asked to do now 1 It would probably mean, I submit, the creation of some body in which would be centralised authority over the Empire. Now, this would, in my mind, be a step entirely antagonistic to the policy of Great Britain, which has been so successful in the past and which has undoubtedly made the Empire what it is to-day. It is the policy of decentralisation which has made the Empire—the poAver granted to its various peoples to govern themselves. It is the liberty which these peoples have enjoyed and enjoy under the British flag which has bound them to the Mother Country. That is the strongest tie between the Mother Country and the Dominions, and I am sure that any scheme which does not fully recognise this could only bring disappointment and disallusionment. I fear that the premature creation of such an Imperial Council as is suggested would, rather than bring the different parts of the Empire closer together, tend to make the connection onerous and unpleasant to the Dominions. Let us beware of such a result. Decentralisation and liberty have done wonders. Let us be very careful before we in the slightest manner depart from that policy. It is co-operation, and always better co-operation, between the various parts of the Empire which we want, and that is what we must always strive for. I have very seriously considered this proposal, but I cannot come to any other conclusion than that the objections against such a scheme are far weightier than any benefits which may arise therefrom, and T regret, therefore, that I shall not be able to record my vote in favour of it. Sir EDWARD MORRIS : Mr. Asquith, I desire to say that I also have listened with the very greatest interest to the very interesting and able address of Sir Joseph Ward, and I am in entire sympathy with the underlying motive or suggestion running through his remarks, but I am quite convinced that the proposal would not in any way effect what he desires. I quite appreciate and agree with the suggestion arising out of your question that the effect of such a Council, legislative body, or Parliament as is now T proposed would be to supersede the functions of the Imperial Government, and that the two bodies could not existtogether. The idea, I think, that Sir Joseph Ward has is that some remedy should be proposed in order to give the great Dominions that he and his colleagues represent some say in, or some Advisory Council, or representatives in relation to the larger questions of Imperial Government. It seems to me that the only way that could ever be accomplished would be to have some representation in the Imperial Parliament, but that as regards the dealing with large questions like war and treaties and navies, that is to remain at least for a very long while in the hands of the Imperial Government, who are largely responsible, and who have to bear the great proportion of the expenditure. Any scheme of representation, no matter what you may call it—Parliament or Council—of the oversea Dominions must have so very small a representation

A.-4

25 May, 1911] Imperial Council. [2nd Day. Sir EDWARD MORRlS —cont. that it would be practically of no value. You have in the first place to consider that you have an Empire representing something like 500 millions of people. We know when you give them a fair representation on that Council the oversea Dominions, as they are termed, will have but a very small say in the matter. I, of course, make this statement with the very highest respect for Sir Joseph Ward, and remembering, of course, the very large interests he represents as compared with the interests I represent. The PRESIDENT : I should inform the Conference, for I promised to do so, that I received some weeks ago a memorial signed by a very large number of the Members of the Imperial House of Commons —I think something like three hundred, belonging to various parties in the State (it was not at all confined to one body)—which was in these terms : " We, the undersigned Members of Parliament, representing various political parties, are of the opinion that the time has arrived to take practical steps to associate the oversea Dominions in a more practical manner with the conduct of Imperial affairs, if possible, by means of an established representative council of an advisory character in touch with public opinion throughout the Empire." I promised to communicate that resolution to the Conference, and at the same time I informed the gentlemen who were srood enough, on behalf of the signatories, to present it to me, that while His Majesty's Government had the strongest sympathy with any practical step for bringing into closer communication the Imperial and oversea Governments, yet when it came to anything in the nature of the settin?-up of new political or constitutional machinery, a condition precedent must be that the chancrp, had the unanimous consent of the Dominions themselves, and the gentlemen who represented the memorialists concurred, or appeared to me to concur, in that view. At the same time I think it only riffht and proper that the Conference should be aware that such a memorial was presented. Does it not also show how much easier a thins , it is to express an abstract aspiration for something , in the nature of closer political union than to translate that aspiration into practical terms \ Sir Joseph Ward, in a speech the ability and interest of which we all acknowledge, which must and undoubtedly did represent the expenditure of a great deal of time and thought, has presented us with a concrete proposition, but it is a proposition which not a single representative of any of the other Dominions, nor I as representing for the time being , the Tmperial Government, could possibly assent to. For what does Sir Joseph Ward's proposal come to? I might describe the effect of it without going- into details in a couple of sentences. It would impair, if not altogether destroy, the authority of the Government of the United Kingdom in such grave matters as the conduct of foreign policy, the conclusion of treaties, the declaration and maintenance of peace, or the declaration of war. and, indeed, all those relations with Foreign Powers, necessarily of the most delicate character, which are now in the hands of the Imperial Government, subject to its responsibility to the Imperial Parliament. That authority cannot be shared, and the co-existence side by side with the Cabinet of the United Kingdom of this proposed body—it does not matter by what name you call it for the, moment —clothed with the functions and the iurisdiction which Sir Joseph Ward proposed to invest it with, would, in our judgment, be absolutely fatal to our present system of responsible government. That is from the Imperial point of view. Now, from the point of view of the Dominions. I cannot do better than repeat in my own words what was said by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. So far as the Dominions are concerned, this new machine could impose upon the Dominions by the voice of a body in which they would be in a standing- minority (that is part of the oaseV in a small minority indeed, a policy of which they mierht all disapprove, of which some of them at any rate Dossiblv and probably would disapprove, a policy which would in most cases, involve expenditure, and an expenditure which would have to be met by the imposition on a dissentient community of taxation by its own Government. We cannot, with the traditions and the history of the British Empire behind us, either from the point of view of the United Kingdom, or from the point of view of our self-governing Dominions, assent for a moment to proposals which are so fatal to th<* very fundamental conditions on which our Empire has been built up and carried on. Therefore, with the highest possible respect, as

10—A 4

A.—4,

2nd Day.] Imperial Council. [25 May, 1911. The PRESIDENT -cont. we all have for the skill and ability with which Sir Joseph Ward has presented his case, and a great deal of sympathy with many of the objects he has in view, I think we must agree that on its merits this proposal is not a practical one, and that, even if it were so, even if it could be shown to be so, the fact that it not only does not receive the unanimous consent of all the representatives of the Dominions, but is repudiated by them all except Sir Joseph Ward himself, is for the purposes of this Conference a fatal and, indeed, an insuperable objection to its adoption. I do not know whether you would like to say anything further, Sir Joseph. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes, I desire to deal with some points, Mr. Asquith. I want to direct attention to the fact that there is apparently misapprehension in your own mind, and I also assume in the minds of others, as to this power which is said to have been suggested by me to impose unlimited taxation and responsibilities on the oversea Dominions. I not only did not do that, but I want to remind the Conference of the fact that I suggested that it should be half of what might be imposed on the Mother Country. That is a material difference to the impression which seems to have been conveyed, that T was suggesting that a door should be opened by which unlimited responsibility should be placed on the oversea Dominions. I did not do that, and I want to make that quite clear. Now, I also recognise the undeniable rip;ht of the other representatives at the Conference to entertain the views to which they have given utterance and to which naturally I take no exception, as I have a profound respect for the individual representatives of the various oversea Dominions, and for the Prime Minister of the British Government, but I do not want to have go on record an inference that I have been suggesting the proposal which Sir Wilfrid Laurier imagined I had made—that I provided for no power to create revenue. lam under the impression that Sir Wilfrid Laurier could not have heard what I stated, otherwise he would not have ascribed to me a statement of that kind, because T not only did not make it, but I did suggest what would require to be done in the first 10 years in the matter of revenue; I did suggest that the power should be left to the individual Dominions as to what they should do after the end of the 10 years, and I did point out in connection with the proposed establishment of an Imperial Parliament of Defence that, among other things, we should alleviate the direct burden upon the Dominions that have elected to establish a local navy. I did point out we could reduce the amount they were individually contributing by having the system of a charge per capita over the white population of the respective oversea Dominions, and t do not quite appreciate the idea from my point of view of its being supposed that in dealing with a proposal of this kind I forgot the very important question of revenue. If I had forgotten it I should very reluctantly against myself be compelled to say that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was quite correct in stating that where revenue was left out in connection with a proposal for expenditure any such scheme would be impracticable; but as I did not leave that question out, as T made it as far as T could quite clear that there must be an obligation on the part of those concerned to provide revenue, and as I suggested the way (which, of course, might be improved upon) in which it should be done, I want at once, at all events, to correct the impression which might be assumed from Sir Wilfrid Laurier's statement that I had forgotten that important aspect of the matter. I think it is only fair to myself that T should make that statement, because I did not forget it. Now, may I also say to my friend Mr. Fisher, the representative of Australia, that in the course of his remarks he gave utterance to an expression that I most heartily and warmly support—that the Commonwealth Government relied upon the British Government for the protection of all parts of the British Empire so far as the Navy was concerned, the Australian Commonwealth doing its part locally. I have the feeling - , as the representative of one of the oversea Dominions, that where the British people or the British Government make provision for the protection of all British interests in all parts of the world, including oversea routes from Australia and elsewhere, as a matter of common practical defence, instead of bavins; a divided system where the British authorities protect those interests all over the world as Mr. Fisher has said, and

A.—4

25 May, 1911.] Imperial Council. [2nd Day. Sir JOSEPH WASD—cont. rightly said, I have a very strong opinion that where the British taxpayers are paying so much out we ought to have some means of bringing about a co-ordina-tion for defence purposes in all parts of the British Empire with a view to doing what is fair to the British taxpayers as well as what is fair to ourselves. I am in absolute accord with that statement, that it is upon the British Government and upon the British people that we in the oversea Dominions to-day, every one of us, are dependent for our maintenance as portions of the British Empire, and I say that with all respect to the other oversea Dominions who have taken a different course, because the protection of the local British interests that they are involved in does not cease round their own coasts either in Australia or Canada or South Africa or New Zealand. These interests extend far beyond their own coasts, and in my judgment what Mr. Fisher said is correct, that it is the British Government who are carrying out the whole of the responsibilities beyond that limited area, that the divided system which we have in operation does not and cannot protect the ocean routes in which all the oversea Dominions are so much concerned. Now, may I also be allowed to absolutely repudiate the inference applied to me that T have suggested doing something to bring down the British Government? Mr. FISHER : Not the Government; I said the system of government that has grown up and been so successful in bringing new countries within the Empire will in future, I believe, bring in others. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes, but what I want to say is this, Mr. Asquith, and I say it with all respect to the members of this Conference, that in my judgment there is no proper recognition of the change that is taking place in the oversea Dominions. This is not a question of the oversea Dominions seeking in any way to weaken the great old British Constitution which has done so much for all of us; it is a suggestion for their active co-operation with a view to strengthening for naval defence purposes all portions of the British Empire that are growing with such rapidity that, in my opinion, and I say it advisedly, they cannot provide within a reasonable time requisite defences for oversea purposes for themselves; it requires the co-operation of all parts with the support of the British Government to enable that to be brought about. That is the whole object I had in view all through in submitting these proposals. I heartily approve of General Botha's view regarding decentralisation and liberty being practically synonymous terms as far as the oversea Dominions are concerned, and, speaking as a New-Zealander, I do not know anything that we could do to strengthen naval defence that would in any way interfere with the decentralisation that exists within our respective parts, and certainly I am not proposing anything in any way to weaken the liberty of any of the people within any portion of the British Dominions. I would be exceedingly sorry to do anything of the kind. lam working from the standpoint--I recognise it is a different view r to the whole of the members of the Conference who have spoken— of having the recognition of the people in our respective Dominions by a voice in connection with matters that are of Imperial concern to them, that are always decided as in the past without their knowledge or vote or without concurrence. Nor have I derogated from anything the British Government has done in that respect in the past, because I think they have always done the best for the Empire as a whole : but the difference between the position to-day and in the past, in my opinion, is that a tremendous growth is going on and will go on in all the oversea Dominions, and that they ought to receive recognition at the hands of the British Government. lam talking in an impersonal sense, not of the present British Government but the British Government, and they ought to receive at its hands a recognition of the fact that they have evolved from comparatively weak positions individually to a very full growth, as young nations. The fact remains. The consequences or results of any great naval war that the British Government might be called upon to take part in in the future directly or indirectly affects every portion of the British Dominions, and without consultation they have done, and will be called upon to take, a share in whatever is going on, although

A.—4

2nd Day.] Imperial Council. 125 May, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD -cont. they have no voice and no recognition. I fully recognise that the British authorities at any time of the kind would always do what they believed to be right for Great Britain and the oversea Dominions, but if the fact of their being in a minority upon the Executive Council is to be put forth as a reason for not urging a proposal of the kind, because they would be outvoted by the British authorities, personally I do not quite see its force. I prefer to have a voice individually even where I am in a minority of one, and have been opposed by the whole of the others; I prefer to have that voice and to recognise that my country spoke through me for what it was worth rather than not have a voice at all. The PRESIDENT : You are enjoying that experience now. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I am enjoying it in a practical sense, and I recognise that perhaps might be the position upon such a body as I have suggested. Now, I also want to say —I thought I did say so in the course of my remarks, but I may not have done so —with reference to the reply made by Mr. Asquith to those gentlemen to whom he referred to-day, that the unanimous consent of the Dominions themselves would be necessary before those countries would have a representation in connection with matters of vital importance to them and affecting them, that I recognise the practical side of the view taken by Mr. Asquith in that respect, and that nothing that is done by me at this Conference so far as New Zealand is concerned will be put into operation without the Parliament of the country itself approving of it. I also wish to express the opinion that I am not at all sure that it is to be expected at either this Conference or future Conferences that matters of moment to any portion of the overseas Dominions should come from the overseas Dominions' representatives themselves. I have no doubt that the British Government through the distinguished gentleman at its head could make proposals bearing on this matter satisfactory to the British people and possibly satisfactory to the oversea Dominions which would give effect in practical form to what I have been endeavouring to achieve, and I should not like to see the limitation of proposals of that kind restricted to the unanimous approval of the whole of the oversea Dominions before their acceptance could be undertaken by the Conference itself. I want to express my appreciation of the cordiality of the criticism, although adverse to the proposals, that have been made by the Conference, and like all British subjects, I accept the decision of the majority with perfect equanimity. Mr. BATCHELOR : I would like to suggest to Sir Joseph that the form in which he has brought this matter forward renders it necessary for us now in voting on the resolution to vote on a resolution which is put without discussion. This resolution which you have here, of course, has not been discussed at all; it is quite a different proposition. The proposition here is totally different from the one, I think, which has been discussed up to the present. That was an Advisory Council on all questions as against an Imperial Parliament of Defence; so that we are really, in rejecting this resolution, rejecting it wholly without discussion. The PRESIDENT : It was pointed out by Sir Wilfrid Laurier that that was so. Ido not know whether Sir Joseph Ward wishes to have a division on the resolution as it stands, or whether he thinks the discussion has served its purpose. Sir JOSEPH WARD : If I understand my friend Mr. Batchelor is prepared to support this resolution as it stands The PRESIDENT : He did not say that. Mr. BATCHELOR : I would like to hear some discussion upon it. Sir EDAVARD MORRIS : It appears to me the debate will show that clearly.

A—4

25 May, 1911.] Imperial Council. \2nd Day. Mr. FISHER : He would like to say he has not heard anything about it. The PRESIDENT : After all, we have been discussing a concrete proposal put forward by Sir Joseph Ward, which we must assume is the manner in which he interprets his resolution. Sir JOSEPH WARD : To make my own position clear, I do not want on the matter of the wording of the resolution, as against what I have been urging in the course of the speech I have made, to put anybody in a wrong position. In view of the expression of opinion of the members of the Conference against the resolution, I think it would be less embarrassing for the whole of them, and certainly quite in accord with my own desire, that I should ask that the resolution, having been discussed, should be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT : I think that is much the better course, and I am sure the Conference would agree with that. After a short adjournment. Reconstitution of the Colonial Office. New Zealand :— " 1. That it is essential that the Department of the Dominions be separated from that of the Crown Colonies, and that each Department be placed under a separate Permanent Under-Secretary. " 2. That, in order to give due effect to modern Imperial development, it has now become advisable to change the title of Secretary of State for the Colonies to that of' Secretary of State for Imperial Affairs.' " 3. That the staff of the Secretariat be incorporated with the Dominions Department under the new Under-Secretary, and that all questions, relating to the self-governing Dominions be referred to that Department; the High Commissioners to be informed of matters affecting the Dominions, with a view to their Governments expressing their opinion on the same. " 4. That the High Commissioners be invited to attend meetings of the Committee of Defence when questions on naval or military Imperial defence affecting the oversea Dominions are under discussion. " 5. That the High Commissioners be invited to consult with the Foreign Minister on matters of foreign, industrial, commercial, and social affairs in which the oversea Dominions are interested, and inform their respective Governments. " 6. That the High Commissioners should become the sole channel of communication between Imperial and Dominion Governments, Governors-General, and Governors on all occasions—being given identical and simultaneous information." Union of South Africa :— " That it is desirable that all matters relating to self-governing Dominions, as well as permanent Secretariat of the Imperial Conference, be placed directly under the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom." The PRESIDENT : The next item on the Agenda is a series of resolutions proposed by the Government of New Zealand on the reconstitution of the Colonial Office and cognate matters. Ido not know whether it would suit Sir Joseph Ward's convenience, and it might perhaps abbreviate and concentrate the discussion, if before he speaks to these resolutions he would allow Mr. Harcourt, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, to put forward certain suggestions of our own with regard to these matters.

A.-4

2nd Day.] Reconstitution of the Colonial Office. [25 May, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I shall be exceedingly pleased. Mr. HARCOURT : Gentlemen, we have been made aware of the desire for closer co-operation and more continuous knowledge of the action of the Colonial Department between one Conference and another, and of all the subjects which are properly cognate to Conference work, and we have endeavoured to meet many of the points which are raised by Sir Joseph Ward's resolution, which is divided into six sections :— (1) That it is essential that the Department of the Dominions be separated of the Crown Colonies, and that each Department be placed under a separate Permanent Under-Secretary. (2) That in order to give due effect to modern Imperial development it has now become advisable to change the title of Secretary of State for the Colonies to that of Secretary of State for Imperial Affairs. (3) That the staff of the Secretariat be incorporated with the Dominions Department under the new Under-Secretary and that all questions relating to the self-governing Dominions be referred to that Department; the High Commissioners to be informed of matters affecting the Dominions, with a view to their Governments expressing their opinion on the same. (4) That the High Commissioners be invited to attend meetings of the Committee of Defence when questions on naval or military Imperial defence affecting the oversea Dominions are under discussion. (5) That the High Commissioners be invited to consult with the Foreign Ministers on matters of foreign, industrial, commercial, and social affairs in which the oversea Dominions are interested, and inform their respective Governments. (6) That the High Commissioners should become the sole channel of communication between Imperial and Dominion Governments, Governors-General, and Governors on all occasions — being given identical and simultaneous information. I will deal specially with No. 1 and No. 3. On No. 4 the Prime Minister will have something to say when we meet in the Committee on Imperial Defence, and he will have some proposals to put forward, so we will, if you do not mind, omit No. 4 to-day. As to No's. 5 and 6, I will either leave them over, or merely as a preface say that we should see very great difficulty about that direct communication, because it cuts across the theory of Ministerial responsibility, and of course you place the Governors-General of the Dominions and the Secretary of State here in a very difficult position, if they were outside the ordinary course of communication between the Governments of the Dominions and the Home Government. I will not deal more particularly with that at this moment, but we may come back to it if Sir Joseph Ward wishes. As to No. 1, what I may call the bifurcation of the Colonial Office, the division of the departments in the Colonial Office is already complete below the Permanent Under-Secretary; that is to say, we have two Assistant Under-Secre-taries, one for the Dominions and one for the Crown Colonies, with a full department under each. It is necessary, of course, that we should have a third department in the Colonial Office. It would be wasteful to divide what we call the General Department, which includes the legal branch, the registry, the library, the accounts branch, the copying branch, the printing and other work of the general branch, which deals with honours, and representatives at functions like the Coronation and so on, which are common, of course, to Dominions and Crown Colonies. But except for the Under-Secretary of State we have now a complete division. The suggestion here is that there should be two permanent Under-Secretaries of State, one for the Dominions and one for the Crown Colonies. lam prepared, on behalf of the Government, if strongly pressed by the Conference, to accept such a change. But I should like to put before the Conference some points which I think show the disadvantage which would accrue internally here to the Office, and externally to the Dominions themselves. Internally, as you will understand, the difficulty of conducting an Office with

k.-A

25 May, 1911.] Reconstitution of the Colonial Office. [2nd Day. Mr. HARCOURT— cont. two co-equal permanent heads is very great. In fact, in any case, there must be some man who is responsible for the final control of the Office, and, therefore, even with those two Under Secretaries, one must be constituted by some method or other the superior, for the general control of the Colonial Office as a whole. There is another disadvantage of separating the Office so completely in the permanent part of it. Then the only person who will have common knowledge of the work in the Dominions and the Crown Colonies at the same time will be the political head, who is liable to change at any moment, and carries his memory and knowledge of the two sides of the Office away with him, leaving only the two permanent officials separated absolutely in duty and interest and with no common knowledge of the work of the two sides of the Office. There is, I think, another side affecting the Dominions specially. If they are looking to the interest of the Under Secretary who has to deal with Dominion work, many of them, I think, would feel that it is not to their advantage or his, that he should be wholly divorced from knowledge of the proceedings in the Crown Colonies, Protectorates, and other places which are contiguous to those Dominions. I cannot think that Australia and New Zealand would really like that their Under Secretary at the Colonial Office should have no knowledge of the work in and of the control over the Pacific and the islands which are situated in it. Ido not think it would be for the convenience of South Africa that the Under Secretary dealing with the Union Government should know nothing of what was being done in the Protectorates or in Rhodesia, or even in Nyasaland. I am not sure that it would be to the advantage of Canada that their Under Secretary should know nothing of the movements which might be taking place in the West Indies, which are their neighbours. Those are the two kinds of objection which occur to me to the separation. But as I say, if the Conference really press it and see any advantage to themselves and to their Dominions from such a separation, we are willing to accept it and to carry it out, though with some inconvenience, no doubt, in the Office, which I will say no more about. Then I come to No. 3. I will not deal with it exactly in the words which are upon the paper, but I would like to make this suggestion : We have now a Secretariat which maintains a certain amount of correspondence with the Dominions, and has knowledge of the work which is going on, and carries out either the resolutions of recent past Conferences or prepares resolutions for the one which is approaching. I think the Secretariat has done admirable work in that respect under Mr. Just, and T am grateful for some words which Sir Wilfrid Lanrier used in the Canadian Parliament a short time ago on that subject. I quite understand the desire to extend the Secretariat, and the continuity of the work to make it a little more formal, but still to leave it a good deal of flexibility. We are prepared, if it would meet your wishes, to set up a Standing Committee of the Imperial Conference. You micht call it a sub-conference if you like, but T prefer to call it a Standing Committee of the Imperial Conference, which would contain the Secretary of State, the Parliamentary Under Secretary, the Permanent Under Secretary—T am assuming for a moment you are not bifurcating the Colonial Office, because if you do bifurcate it it would contain only the Under Secretary for the Dominions —to whom should be joined the High Commissioners of all the Dominions or any representative in their place whom the Dominions liked to appoint for that purpose. In the case of Newfoundland, not having a Hisrh Commissioner, there would be a special appointment, And some responsible person in the Dominions Department should be appointed secretary to that Committee. That Committee would then, under the presidency of the Secretary of State, meet at intervals which may be as frequent as necessary to consider the carrying out of any resolutions which we may have come to at these Conferences, any proposals for the new Conference which is to take place, and any snbsidiarv matters which seem to arise out of them, or any cognate matters which may be properly referred to it. It is important, I think, to say that such a Committee must be absolutely advisory and not executive. It would be a Standing Committee of the Conference which would be advisory, of course, of the Secretary of State and informative of all members of the Conference, or rather of all Dominions constituting the Conference. The communications by the Dominions Governments to that Com-

A.—4.

2nd Day.] Reconstitution of the Colonial Office. [25 May, 1911. Mr. HARCOURT— cont. mittee would naturally reach it through the Governor-General and the Secretary of State, but would, no doubt, be also made at the same time to the High • Commissioners with such instructions as the Dominions wished to give them. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Do you say the information would be given to the High Commissioners to enable them to make representation to their representatives on the Committee 1 Mr. HARCOURT : No, to the representatives of the Dominions. The Dominions would, of course, instruct the High Commissioners as they wished. The PRESIDENT : It provides for the case where a particular Dominion did not choose its High Commissioner, but some other person, to represent it on the Committee. Mr. HARCOURT : I think it would add to the flexibility and to the value of such a Committee if the Secretary of State had the power to summon to any of its meetings either the political or the permanent heads of other Government Departments here on any questions specially affecting them of which they had the best technical knowledge, and which might be raised at a special meeting of this Committee. Of course, it would be perhaps necessary for you, gentlemen, to define a little more clearly what is the status which you wish your High Commissioners to occupy here, because it is possible you might wish to have a special representative on this Committee and not always to be represented by your High Commissioners. It is really a matter for your definition of the status which you wish them to occupy in relation to these matters. We should equally be glad to accept, of course, special representatives, so long as there was not a very frequent change, because a very frequent change of individuals does not lead to continuity of knowledge or of work. I do not know that I need say more as to the particular limitations or powers of that Committee. I think it would be a pity, if the Dominions agreed to the constitution of such a body, to tie it down too closely; but it is quite obvioTis that people outside and people inside ought not to derive, even from the earliest moment, any idea that it was to be an executive or legislative body, but only to be a Committee for purely consultative and advisory purposes. It is proposed merely to meet what we view to be a general desire of the Dominions to be in closer touch, through their own representatives, with the Home Government. Mr. FISHER : Or to have more efficient and quicker means of communication. The PRESIDENT : Roth from you to us, and from us to you. Mr. FISHER : Yes. Mr. HARCOURT : It is no real change of our relations, but a strengthening of the unity of the Imperial Conference, which we are all happy to feel has come to stay as a permanent institution, and to make it more continuously useful both to the Dominions and ourselves. Mr. BATCHELOR : Would that Advisory Committee make a joint recommendation ? Mr. HARCOURT : They would consider Conference questions, either past or to come, and would no doubt advise the Secretary of State, who is a member of it. They might arrive at decisions, but have no power to enforce those decisions. Those decisions would be communicated to the Dominion Governments by the Secretary of State through the Governor-General, and by the High Commissioners themselves to their own Governments, and would be a matter for future correspondence or for a subsidiary Conference here. Sir EDWARD MORRIS : There is just one question I would like to ask. Once that Committee were constituted, how would their decision be carried out? Would it be communicated jointly to the Governor-General and to the Government ?

A.—4

25 May, 1911.] Reconstitution of the Colonial Office. [2nd Day. Mr. HARCOURT : It would be my duty to communicate to the GovernorGeneral. It would be the duty of the High Commissioner to communicate under the instructions of his own Government to them. The PRESIDENT : Of course, it would be ad referendum. The Governments must determine : just like the resolutions of this Conference, they have no executive authority. Mr. HARCOURT : We are assuming this Committee would be dealing with certain questions which the Conference and the Dominions are anxious to see carried to a conclusion. This will be a sort of Committee which will carry to a conclusion those resolutions, and recommend the best method of carrying them out. Mr. MALAN : Has the necessity for such a Committee been felt by the Imperial Government or by the Colonial Office here ? Mr. HARCOURT : No, I cannot say that. This is suggested in order to meet what we thought was a want felt by the Dominion Governments. Of course, my communications are very full with the Dominion Governments through the Governors-General, and my knowledge of every movement there is very full by my personal communications with the High Commissioners, and I may say since I came into office, besides seeing the High Commissioners at any moment on any special siibject, I have arranged to meet the High Commissioners of all the Dominions once every month, even though there may be no questions calling for special communication, so that we may talk over all matters they might wish to raise even without wishing to ask for an interview specially. Mr. MALAN : I have seen the Reorganization White Paper* which has been distributed, giving the arrangement as it was given by Lord Elgin and communicated to the different Governments in September, 1907, giving the three departments of the Colonial Office now under the Permanent Under Secretary —namely, the Dominion Department, the Crown Colonies Department, and the General Department —and there are four Secretaries appointed under that. I must say, as far as the Union of South Africa is concerned, and I think General Botha will agree with me —I am speaking now more especially as the Minister of the Cape before the Union — that we found that arrangement worked very satisfactorily. Mr. HARCOURT : You are dealing with question No. 1, the question of bifurcation—that is, you do not feel you desire any further bifurcation ? General BOTHA : No, we do not. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : As the representative of New Zealand has put forward a proposition, it would be advisable to hear him now, and I should, for my part, be happy to hear his views. Dr. FINDLAY : Do I understand it to be suggested that this Committee would have the function and jurisdiction to deal with the minor questions appearing on this Agenda Paper ? Mr. HARCOURT : They would, subject to the desire of the Dominion Governments, be qualified to deal with all Conference questions. Dr. FINDLAY : They would be all brought forward between the different Conferences. Mr. HARCOURT : Yes, they would; but I think I ought to say, on important questions as to which there was any doubt as to the desirability of the Committee dealing with them, I should feel bound to consult the Dominion Governments through the Governors - General before such a matter was submitted.

*See [Cd. 3795].

11—A. 4.

A.—4

2nd Day.] Eeconstitution of the Colonial Office. [25 May, 1911. The PRESIDENT : Perhaps I may say I have received a message from the King, which ought to be communicated without delay, T think, to the Conference, in these terms : " His Majesty the King desires to thank the Imperial Conference for their assurance of the devoted loyalty of all portions of the Empire represented at the Conference. The King is well aware of the affectionate feelings of his subjects to his Throne and Person, and he has received the resolution with particular pleasure, being, as it is, the first act of the Imperial Conference at its first meeting. The King was delighted to welcome the Prime Ministers on their arriving to join the Conference. He is keenly interested in its deliberations, and he trusts the Prime Minister will convey to the peoples of their respective Dominions an expression of His Majesty's deep regard for their welfare and a hope for the continued prosperity of their lands." Mr. HARCOURT : I will send that to the Press this afternoon. The PRESIDENT : Now, Sir Joseph, we should like to hear your views. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I would like to explain why I felt it necessary to give notice of this motion, and I want to state for the information of those who, perhaps, may have forgotten what took place at the last Conference, in 1907, in relation to this first resolution, that Mr. Deakin at that Conference urged that the Dominions should deal direct with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The objection to this proposal, which was pointed out at the time, was that the Prime Minister had already infinitely too much to do. What would appear to affect this proposal is embodied in Resolutions Nos. 1, 2, and 3. For the purpose of dealing with the view put forward by Mr. Harcourt, I would rather like to deal with the three together. Now the main object of the resolutions that I have given notice of is to seek to obtain the creation of some form of organic machinery sufficiently representative of the self-governing Dominions to discuss and advise upon the various questions of growing importance which relate to those Dominions in relation to the Empire. Now I understand from Mr. Harcourt that, if strongly pressed, to use his own words, by the Conference, he is willing to accept the change suggested in Resolution No. 1. In deference to Mr. Harcourt's knowledge of his own Department, and in the absence of the necessary detail, without which one would not be presumptuous enough to set up his opinion against Mr. Harcourt's, I would not press for divided control if Mr. Harcourt states it is necessary to have single control as at present. I fully recognise that you must have one sufficiently superior officer, and I recognise the disabilities created by a political head being put in the position of a permanent officer. He is subject to change, and the new political head would be put in the position of a beginner. As far as the oversea Dominions are concerned, I see the disadvantage pointed out in that respect. The important aspect, to mv mind, is that pointed out by Mr. Deakin in 1907, and I think some different machinery is necessary. In the oversea Dominions we feel that upon very important matters, though without any fault whatever upon the part of the Colonial Office—and I want to bear out the South African representative's Bosition in that respect — frequently in our country, though well informed from the inside, we are not in a position to arrive at what I would call clear definite views in deciding matters in New Zealand that affect our own interests and affect the Empire as a whole. The proposal is to have a Standing Committee of the Secretary of State, the Political Under Secretary, and the Permanent Under Secretary, with the High Commissioners —a point upon which I wish to be quite clear—who in connection with that Standing Committee have no power. T infer that to be so though Mr. Harcourt did not say so. I infer they are there simply for the purpose of giving information to the Standing Committee. Mr. HARCOURT : No; I considered that we were all equal, and if it came to a vote we should all vote. We have no power of enforcing decisions, but we should be all equal there.

A.—4

25 May, 1911.] Beconstittjtion of the Colonial Office. [2nd Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I understand that it is to be an advisory committee as far as the Imperial Government is concerned, consisting of gentlemen including the High Commissioners or any other gentlemen the Governors might select, with a view to dealing with important matters which affect the oversea Dominions. I am not quite prepared to commit myself definitely, without a little consideration, to the proposal of the High Commissioners occupying that position. Necessarily the High Commissioners are under the direct authority of their respective Governments, and we are very often in our country in the position—l am —of asking for information quite outside the Colonial Office —not anything inimical, but anything that was going on between the Governments and the Colonial Office, and asking the High Commissioner to obtain certain information for the guidance of the Government of New Zealand, with a view to our arriving at a decision to be conveyed finally through the Governors to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I just foresee the possibility of the High Commissioners being placed in a somewhat embarrassing position. If they are upon a Committee upon which they have to vote, their independence, as far as the Government is concerned, would not be interfered with, but it would, I think, diminish their position as a channel we want to work through from time to time to obtain information for our guidance. Upon that point I would like proper time for consideration, because, so far as I know, the men whom we send here as High Commissioners are good men, representing all the countries, and, without some consideration, I should not like to place them in an invidious position. Mr. HARCOURT : I only suggested the High Commissioners because they are the only people I could very well suggest; but I particularly said, "or any other representatives whom the Dominions might like to suggest." Mr. FISHER : Yes, you said that. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That is so; but I am dealing with that particular idea as it occurred to me. I think that the proposal is a step in the right direction, and I hail it with a very great deal of pleasure from that standpoint, and without in any way reflecting upon the work of the Colonial Office, because my experience has been that the work done by the Secretariat created after the last Conference in 1907 has been done excellently. I know nothing to the contrary. Everything I know is really of a very favourable character. Regarding the proposal made for the High Commissioners being the channels of communication, I recognise what Mr. Harconrt says; but I want to point out what occurs in practice —and I speak subject to the local knowledge of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who are here. The Governors in our country take the place of the King; they are his representatives. We are not infrequently in the position of having a double channel of communication —the Governor is advised upon a matter, the High Commissioner is advised upon a matter. We receive frequently a duplication of the information. In the Old Country I understand that all that information comes to the King from the administrative head of the Government —a copy of everything of importance goes to him. The PRESIDENT : Not always through the head of the Government. For instance, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs every day sends despatches and letters to the King in the first instance. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes, but it does not go direct to the King from any one outside the British Government \ The PRESIDENT : No, certainly not. Sir JOSEPH WARD : In our country experience has shown me, at all events, that we frequently have a duplication of the work. We all lead pretty busy lives, and it is only with a view to having what I call the most effective

A.—4

2nd Day.} Reconstitution of the Colonial Office. [25 May, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. machinery that I desire to have established in our country as the outcome of this resolution a system similar to what you have between the King and the British Government. lam unable at the moment to see, although it has occurred to me you with your knowledge of detail here might be able to see, except in the case of a secret note or anything of that kind requiring to be sent to the Governor or Governor-General, where the disability would arise if those communications were sent out through the High Commissioner. The point in my mind when I gave notice of this resolution was to see that anything you wanted to convey to the Government came to the High Commissioners, so that it would be received instanter by the Government and conveyed instanter to the Governor. If the action of the Government could be taken only subsequent to the Governor himself receiving the despatches, everything would go on in the ordinary way. I propose that entirely from the view of facilitating the work between the Home Government and the Dominions. Mr. FISHER : That is No. 6 % Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes. Mr. Harcourt referred to it in his remarks. The reason that prompted me in putting that resolution was not with an idea of finding fault with the existing conditions, or suggesting a change merely for the sake of having a change made, but with a view of expedition of business between the Home Authorities and the oversea Dominion Governments, without displacing the Governor or doing anything to affect the channel of communication that the Secretary for the Colonies is in the habit of sending information through. Mr. PEARCE : As regards No. 6, you do not mean that the High Commissioner should be the sole channel of communication to the Governor-General ? Mr. HARCOURT : The Governors-General are cut out. Mr. FISHER : Would Sir Joseph Ward say what the words of his resolution mean? Sir JOSEPH WARD : That the High Commissioner should become the sole channel of communication between the Imperial Government and the Dominion Government. Mr. HARCOURT : That is really the end. The rest is an explanation. The PRESIDENT : Literally read, that would seem to cut off all communication between the Secretary of State and the Governor. Mr. FISHER : Yes, this wording makes it rather difficult. If it is punctuated differently it is all right. Sir JOSEPH WARD :I do not mean that. I mean matters which require to come to the Government. All I am anxious to insure is that there should not be two different channels, and that we should have the opportunity of sending on to the Governor everything that comes to us that affects the Government. All matters of communication which the Secretary of State requires to make, on which consultation between the Governor and the Government would be necessary, would remain as at present. I only suggest this for the purpose of getting a better method of conducting our business between the two. Mr. Harcourt suggested that the Secretary of State should have power to summon the political or permanent head of any other Department—that is, to the Committee. Mr. HARCOURT : Yes. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That is the Government head of the Home Department?

A.—4

25 May, 1911.] Reconstitution of the Colonial Office. [2nd Day. Mr. HARCOLTRT : Yes, the political or permanent. Say on the question of emigration, it might be desirable to have the President or the Secretary of the Local Government Board, or, on questions of naturalisation, the Home Office. Dr. FINDLAY : As a member of the Committee ? Mr. HARCOURT : I really do not contemplate that Committee ever coming to a vote, and therefore I have not considered the question. A Committee which had to come to a vote on these matters, which were purely advisory, would not be very valuable. Certainly its votes, or a matter which was defeated by vote, would not lead to an effective result. Therefore I do not contemplate it from that point of view. The PRESIDENT : It would be very desirable to have the Foreign Secretary there at times. Mr. HARCOURT : Very. The PRESIDENT : That is just the sort of information they want to have, and at present they do not get. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I think that is a very important point. The PRESIDENT : As you were speaking this morning about treaties, it might be very useful to have a body to which the Foreign Secretary could be summoned to explain exactly what the position was. Sir JOSEPH WARD : It would be very valuable indeed. What was it you said with regard to the status of the High Commissioners ? ' Mr. HARCOURT : It was really leading up to what you have now said. I thought it might be possible that some of the Dominions might not wish their High Commissioner to be necessarily an ex offtcio member of this Standing Committee of the Imperial Conference. Ido not know precisely what view you take of the status of your High Commissioners—l am not talking of the individuals but of the office —whether you wish to regard them as representing the Government for all purposes here, or more in the nature of commercial agents of high standing. There are various views which may be taken by different Dominions. If you are going to accept the idea of the High Commissioners being ex officio members of this Committee as representatives of the Dominions, then you have to decide that that is really the status you wish your Commissioners to hold in this country. Dr. FINDLAY : I suppose there would be no objection to associating somebody with the High Commissioner ? Mr. HARCOURT : I think it would be a pity if you, by association, made the Committee unwieldy, because we know very well committees, when they have got past a certain number, have at once passed their usefulness. The PRESIDENT : Really, the suggestion as to the High Commissioners put forward by His Majesty's Government is merely tentative and for consideration, because you know a great deal better than we do, and we want to know your views, as to the position you desire your High Commissioners to occupy. We have no opinion one way or the other. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : The whole object of this motion is, as I understand the motions that go before it, to provide a means of communication between the Imperial Government and the autonomous Governments of the Empire. Such a means of communication already exists, and, for my part, I must say that we are quite satisfied with the present system. The Colonial Office has been reorganized some three years ago, and I repeat what I said in Parliament, that in its present form it has given to us, at all events in Canada, ample satisfaction. As to whether it would be advisable to further bisect the

A. 4

2nd Day.] Reconstitution of the Colonial Office. [25 May, 1911. Sir WILFRID LAURIER—core*. present organization or put it on a different political standing, though I and my colleagues are satisfied with what exists, we would not oiler any objection if the other members of the Conference are disposed to press that point. The matter is not, according to our judgment, one which we feel strongly upon, but is one upon which we should defer to the wishes of our colleagues if they thought it preferable to press it forward. There is no difficulty with regard to that. One difficulty, however, and a serious one, arises in regard to the Committee which it is proposed to organize. What will be the position of that Committee ? As I understand, it will have submitted to it matters which affect one particular Dominion, and as to which perhaps there may be a difference of opinion between the Home Government and the Government of the Dominion. Is such division of opinion to be submitted to that Committee to advise upon, and is it to carry a proposition as to the solution of it by vote ? If so, this would seem to me a very cumbrous system and a very unsatisfactory one. I will give a case in point. Questions may arise between the autonomous Governments and the Imperial Government upon some matter as to which there may be some difference of opinion. That difference of opinion had much better be settled between the Home Government and the Government interested than referred to another body, which would not be responsible to anybody. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That same objection applies to the meeting of a Conference like this. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : No, we are representatives here, and we are not dealing with actual questions which we have to decide, but simply offering suggestions. But take a case in point: Some years ago we had in Canada a very important question—namely, the settlement of the boundary between part of His Majesty's Dominion of Canada and the United States in Alaska. It was a delicate and difficult question, and we had correspondence going on for weeks and months between the Dominion Government and the Imperial Government. We, of course, had to have the assent of the Imperial Government, because, though we were the most interested, they were interested also, as we were a part of the British Empire. We contended the boundaries were at a certain point; the United States contended they were at another point. We had to come to a solution, and we decided to refer it to arbitration. So far there was no difficulty, because we should all agree that arbitration is the best manner of settling any such differences as may arise. But when we came to consider the composition of the tribunal, if- I may say so without breaking any secret, we had differences with the Imperial Government which, by correspondence we settled. Suppose there had been such a Committee as is now suggested in existence at that time, and that Committee had been seised of the question and had suggested a solution which, perhaps, was not agreeable either to the Imperial Government or the Dominion Government, or if satisfactory to the one, not satisfactory to the other. I do not see that the Committee would be of the least advantage over the present system by which we should settle such a question —as we did settle it then —by "mutual correspondence. I fail to see in what way any question which may arise could be solved in any manner at all better than we have at this moment. Ido not know that I would press the point much further than that, but I do not see any advantage in a Committee of this kind to discuss and determine matters of this nature, which are altogether of the purview of the Dominion Government interested and the Imperial Government. If there had been in the past any example where the solutions had not been satisfactory, or if there had been a grievance of any kind which had not been met, I could understand this remedy being suggested, but, so far as I am aware, no grievances of any kind have not been remedied —if any existed. Now, with regard to the status of the High Commissioners. Their status is one which is somewhat delicate, because the whole of the constitution is something new, which has never existed in the world before, for which we have no precedent, and which we have to create ourselves. The relations between the Imperial Authorities here and the Dominion Governments are themselves peculiar, as the Conference in which we are engaged is peculiar. The High Commissioner is, first of all, a representative of the autonomous Government,

25 May, 1911.] Reconstitution of the Colonial Office. [2nd Day. Sir. WILFRID LAURIER— cont. not only with the Government of Great Britain, but with the whole British people. The High Commissioners stand all the time for their respective Governments before the British people. They are not only ambassadors —their position in one respect is far larger; but in a technical sense, with regard to the Imperial Government, they are in the position of ambassadors —they are in the position of confidential agents. We communicate direct with the Imperial Government —that is to say, the Governor-General communicates direct with the Imperial Government —but I am sure there are constantly occasions when a despatch is sent to the High Commissioner asking him to press the matter on and to see the Secretary of State for the Colonies and represent to him the views of the particular Dominion Government. We know that besides the official despatch there is the confidential talk, in which more meaning is conveyed than in a despatch. The High Commissioners are expected to come —or, at least, many of them do come—to the Secretary of State for the Colonies to represent that the Dominion Government has sent a despatch to him on some particular question, but he wishes to press forward this or that consideration which is not included in the despatch. Therefore I think the High Commissioners serve a very useful purpose, and for my part I do not think the present arrangement can be improved; but, as I said a moment ago, if you all thought it would be better to further bisect the present Department, I am content to go with you, though I feel content with the position of things as they are. The PRESIDENT : I should like to interpose, in view of what Sir Wilfrid Laurier has said, to say that in our view, putting forward our suggestion of the Standing Committee for your consideration, we did not intend that any question should come before the Standing Committee which is not of common interest to the whole Empire. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That is my view. The PRESIDENT : Such a class of question as Sir Wilfrid Laurier has referred to—that is to say, questions arising between the United Kingdom on the one side and one of the Dominions on the other —would scarcely, in our view, come before such a Committee. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : I would like to have a concrete case which would come before them. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I would point out that Sir Wilfrid Laurier and myself are looking at the proposal from an entirely different standpoint. As I understand the suggestion made by Mr. Harcourt regarding this permanent Committee, it is to deal with Imperial matters. To use his own words, it is to deal with any resolution arrived at by the Conference., or prepare work for a future Conference. I should not myself be an advocate for questions as between the Dominion Government and the Home Government going to that Committee, because I think it would be embarrassing, and, in addition, I think the present system so satisfactory that, as Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, we could hardly improve upon it. For that reason I take it that any matter which that Committee would deal with would be of a nature quite outside a question of that kind. The PRESIDENT : Yes. Sir Wilfrid Laurier has asked for a concrete case. I might take any of the subjects which are on the agenda here for this Conference. Take such a matter, for instance, as emigration and immigration. There are certain aspects of that which affect the whole Empire. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Yes, but in what respect could such a Committee confer and determine about it ? They could not determine upon legislation.

A.—4

2nd Day.] Reconstitution of the Colonial Office. [25 May, 191 h Sir JOSEPH WARD : They could make recommendations. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : I would be very chary for my part of having a recommendation which would be suitable to one section and not suitable to another. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Then you need not act upon that. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : But if you have a recommendation sent to you and you do not act upon it, you give a weapon at once to somebody to attack you upon it. There is such a position in Canada. Ido not know that there is one in New Zealand, but I woufd not like a Committee to pass and send to us a resolution which we could not act on. Take a concrete case. Take the Asiatic question : there is no more difficult question than that to deal with. The Home Government has views upon this question which perhaps we do not entertain. They have difficulties in India which they must take cognisance of, but we have difficulties in our countries also. You have questions of this kind debated by this Committee, and they pass a resolution and send it to you and me and Mr. Fisher, calling for either administrative or legislative action which" for my part I would not like to take, perhaps, or it might be suitable to you and not suitable to another. I do not see clearly what good point could be served. I see very clearly what adverse point might be made. The PRESIDENT : Those are very wide considerations. All I wanted to make clear is that we do not propose that a question which only arises between the United Kingdom and one' Dominion would, under any circumstances, come within the cognisance of this Committee. Dr. FINDLAY : Mr. Harcourt pointed out that, unless there was unanimity, the recommendation would not have any effect. I suggest that with regard to certain matters on the present agenda paper unanimity might be arrived at by such a Committee as suggested, and thus save the work of- the whole Conference. Mr. BRODEUR : That is under the organization arranged at the last Conference, which provided for a subsidiary Conference. The PRESIDENT : And we had one last year. Mr. HARCOURT : This is more in the nature of a continued subsidiary Conference on Conference matters. Mr. FISHER : These recommendations seem to cover two points—a more efficient arrangement of business by the Secretary of State's Office with regard to the overseas Dominions, and the status of the High Commissioners of the Dominions, who represent their Governments in London. The duties and functions of a High Commissioner, so far as they relate to the Government of the United Kingdom, are very much of a dual kind, and no one can say where they begin and end. My own view is that a High Commissioner is a useful officer here. Canada is more fortunate than Australia in regard to distance. We are far away, and although we have the same means of communication by wire, it is a very much longer time before the Governments there can see despatches with the details of any matters of importance. Our High Commissioners are a much more convenient channel. If we more fully inform them, they can, as the representatives of the Dominions here, discuss all the matters of detail which you would not like to put in a despatch for record and reference, and inform the responsible Ministers of the United Kingdom as to the views of the Governments of the overseas Dominions on any particular matter.

A,—4

25 May, 1911.] Reconstitution of the Colonial Office. [2nd Day Mr. FISHER —cont. The Government of the Commonwealth view the functions of the Hi°-h Commissioners in the very broadest sense, and I think, perhaps, they will be the most useful channel through which we can communicate our views in detail and inform the Government of the United Kingdom, who have the care of all parts of the Empire, what we really have in our minds. Regarding the point raised by Mr. Harcourt as to a Committee being constituted by the High Commissioners of the Dominions, or other persons duly appointed by the Dominions, to meet as a Council, or, rather, deliberative body, and take' a vote, even on matters of common concern, I have the greatest doubt. Mr. HARCOURT • I never contemplated a vote. It was quite new to me. Mr. FISHER : Another thing I should like to ask is whether the Government contemplate keeping a record of these consultative deliberations. I doubt the wisdom of even having a record of them. What we have in our minds is that you shall have a person with you in close consultation, who will be more directly in touch with the Governments of the Dominions, and who can be a more speedy means of communication between you and us, without in any way making it in such an official way as to be binding directly on His Majesty's Government here and the Governments of the Dominions. The PRESIDENT : The High Commissioner does it now. Mr. FISHER ; Yes; but it is practically extending the functions of the High Commissioner to a, consultative authority, not only to go to you at the request of the Government on an important matter, but who may be invited by the Government here to consult on any matter that they think of sufficient moment, and that calls for immediate consideration. A question was asked, were there any matters where such an arrangement would be more efficient than the present one? I think the question raised on the Agenda by Australia, as to the wisdom of the Declaration of London being approved of without any of the Dominions knowing anything about it, is an instance. lam sure that the Governments of the United Kingdom and the overseas Dominions are more or less interested in that. That is only one point that has arisen. I will not discuss the merits of it. Other points are bound to arise with growing Dominions and the growing power of the Government. I agree with Sir Wilfrid that this consultative body, whatever function may be recommended to it by this Conference, should not have any power to minimise the present autonomous powers of the oversea Dominions, and it shall certainly not minimise the power which rests with the Government here. The other point remains that official communications through the representatives of His Majesty id the oversea Dominions, the Governors-General, and the Governors, must on the very merits of the matters and the channel through which they pass be stricter in their language and very official. I was wondering whether it would not be better that this body, if it is consultative, should not rather come under the Foreign Office than under the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Sir Wilfrid was rather in doubt on that point. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : I am in doubt upon the whole point. Mr. FISHER : I know; but I would respectfully submit to the President and Members of this Conference that these recognised nations undoubtedly will feel themselves more and more, as time passes, desirous of entering into the spirit of the policy that governs the Empire. They will desire to act their own part; and just as we ask higher powers for the High Commissioners, so will they increase as the power of the Dominions increases; and they may desire to talk not only with the Government of the United Kingdom, but in time, perhaps, with representatives elsewhere. But that is not a matter for the moment, but for the future. A question might be suggested as regards another

12—A. 4.

A.—4

2nd Day.] Reconstitution of the Colonial Office. [25 May, 1911. Mr. FISHER— cont. local matter. It was raised by Sir Joseph Ward to-day, as to the control of the Pacific. Certain of the islands of the Pacific are under the direct control of the Imperial Government. The interest that they have in looking after them .is common with us, but we are, of course, more nearly affected by anything that may be done than even the Mother Country is. That is a matter where we might be able to make representations through the High Commissioner, or it might be through a Minister of the Dominion who was at a particular time here on other business or on a particular question. Without making it a question of contest between the two Governments, long before we disagreed on any point you would have the matter fully considered and sifted by personal discussion by men well informed on both sides, and if there was a difference it could be brought down to the exact point where the difference arose, and could be more easily settled. Mr. Asquith has said that we are here representing the views, to the best of our opinion, of the Dominions. At the same time, all our decisions are subject not only to the consideration of the Government, but also to the consideration and approval of our own Parliaments, and therefore it carries us no farther than that —a stern, deliberate opinion of the members of this Conference that such a channel might very well be approved and experimented with. Of course, the whole Constitution, under which we so happily meet together to-day, has been developed on those lines. Therefore, while I agree with much of what Sir Wilfrid Laurier said as to the whole Constitution having worked very well until now, at the same time he represents a great Dominion which has not hesitated from time to time to make innovations and suggestions. I think he might very well give us the lead in this matter in endeavouring to, at any rate, give the High Commissioners or other persons, by resolution of this Conference, some definite and distinct authoritative power to enter into these negotiations and discuss them as an officer of his Dominion, responsible to the Government of the Dominion, with His Majesty's Minister for Foreign Affairs, say, or the Prime Minister. In my short experience of inner official life lam apprehensive of the difficulty of denning what should go through the representatives of the King and what should go through the High Commissioner. AH matters strictly official seem to belong to the one, and all new matters requiring urgent discussion and immediate decision, I think, may very well be recommended through the High Commissioners. Perhaps my colleagues would like to say a word on this question. It is a matter we feel strongly about, and I should be glad if they may be allowed to express their views on it. The PRESIDENT : Certainly. Whilst I have listened with great interest to what you have said, I do not know whether I am drawing a proper inference or not, that you do not look with very much favour on the constitution of this Committee. You have not said a word in its favour. Mr. FISHER : I think I pointed out that I did not desire that this advisory Committee should be a deliberative body. Certainly Ido not desire that it should have any record. The PRESIDENT : But do you think it will serve any useful purpose? Mr. FISHER : Yes. I think that a consultation here by representatives of the Dominions is a very effective means of discovering the ideas and views of the Governments, which you have not time to discover, because you cannot visit the Dominions and go to the Governments themselves. The High Commissioners are nearly always men who have recently come from oversea Dominions, and are more in touch with the views and affairs which immediately concern them. The PRESIDENT : I only wanted to know whether you smiled or frowned or were absolutely indifferent to the idea of the Committee, or think it would do any good.

A.—4.

25 May, 1911.] Re constitution of the Colonial Office. [2nd Day. Mr. FISHER : If the Committee is a Committee to interfere by vote and embarrass the Dominions I am not in favour. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I am against the Committee voting, at any rate. The PRESIDENT : I do not think anybody suggested it should take a vote. Mr. FISHER : And I am against any record. The PRESIDENT : Why are you so averse to a record ? Mr. HARCOURT : It would not be published. The PRESIDENT : The only body I know of which keeps no minutes of its proceedings is the Cabinet. Ido not know whether it is so with you. Mr. FISHER : We do not, The PRESIDENT : But it is the immemorial tradition of the British Cabinet to have no record of any sort or kind. Mr. FISHER : I think he was a very wise man who advised that. The PRESIDENT : There is not a board of directors of any company that does not keep a sort of agenda or minute book. Mr. FISHER : The Prime Minister said the High Commissioners at present have access at any time, but would there be any harm in their having consultative access ? The PRESIDENT : I suppose it is consultative. Mr. HARCOURT : They have that consultative access now. They come to me sometimes every week, and we discuss every detail of things in which their Governments are interested. The PRESIDENT : The question is, is it in addition worth while having the High Commissioners assembled with these other officials and talking things at large 1 Mr. FISHER : You have adopted the principle of this already. You only want it confirmed. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Let me give a case in point. lam sure it exists to-day, even in the present condition of things. Apparently in Australia they have given a great deal of importance to the Declaration of London. The Declaration of London is simply an agreement between the Powers which has not yet come into force. If you, Mr. Fisher, instructed your High Commissioner to represent to His Majesty's Government your objections to this agreement, Sir George Reid would come here and see somebody on this subject, or the Foreign Secretary, and put forward his objections. His objections would be weighed by the Cabinet. The Declaration of London is simply a proposed Treaty with certain Powers. It has yet to be passed. The PRESIDENT : It is not yet ratified.

A..—4

2nd Day.} Reconstitution of the Colonial Office. [25 May, 1911. Sir WILFRID LAURIER :It is not yet ratified. Therefore all the objections you have to the Declaration of London could be stated by Sir George Reid on a suggestion of yours. Mr. FISHER : No. if you will allow me to say so, that is perhaps the weakest argument you could bring forward. We, rightly or wrongly, hold the view that it would be wise — indeed, that it would be an advantage — if the Government before they entered into a treaty involving the interests not only of the United Kingdom, but of all the Dominions, made the Dominions acquainted with what was in their minds and what they were proposing to do, and not wait for opinions until after they had entered into negotiation and practically completed a treaty with a dozen or twenty other Governments, some of them small and unimportant, who certainly knew all about what was going on in that negotiation, while we knew nothing until the matter was completed, and we have nothing to do but accept it or leave it. That is not a time when the Commissioner can go to the Government and say, " Here is a treaty; you should not ratify it," when it has already all the weight of the Government of the United Kingdom, acting in the best interests of all. We consider it ought not to have been done until we had known something about it and had an opportunity of representing our interests. That is where the High Commissioner should come in. If the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had communicated with the High Commissioner in a confidential way he could then have represented the views of the Dominion, in the most secret way, to the Government. By that means we would get over many difficulties which are now presented to us. The PRESIDENT : That goes to say that it might be done, and in your view ought to be done, at an earlier stage; but it is too late in the day to bring the High Commissioners in. Mr. BATCHELOR : In dealing with the Declaration of London I wish to point out that in August, 1909, the Australian Government made representations as to the feeling of the Commonwealth against being committed to the Declaration without consultation, but a reply came from the Secretary of State that it was then too late to make any alteration. That was the first intimation Australia had that certain arrangements were proposed to be concluded and had almost reached the stage of ratification. The Australian Government were prepared to put forward suggestions for certain alterations, but in view of the reply that it was too late they were not forwarded. However good or bad the suggestions might have been, or however they might have commended themselves to your Government, it was then too late. That was our position, and we felt that, under the circumstances, the Dominion Governments were not adequately considered. The PRESIDENT : I should like you to mention this point, if you will, when Sir Edward Grey is present, because I do not carry in my mind, as you may well imagine, all the details. No doubt you are perfectly accurate, but I should like you to make the point to him. 1 see your point, which is that you ought to have been taken into counsel, or had an opportunity of making your feelings felt at an earlier stage. Mr. FISHER : In the most secret and confidential way. The PRESIDENT : I quite understand. Mr. BATCHELOR : There is another point of view in addition to consultation with the Imperial Government, and that is the consultation that would be possible under the suggestion Mr. Harcourt has thrown out. If this Committee were to meet each other —the representatives of Canada and Australia and New Zealand —they would also better understand the difficulties which one or other of them might have in regard to some of these suggestions. At present the only way we can learn the view which Canada takes on any matter is by Canada communicating straight to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and it being sent on to our Government.

A.—4

25 May, 1911.] Reconstitution of the Colonial Office. [2nd Day. The PRESIDENT : That is an argument for a Committee. Mr. BATCHELOR : Yes, for a Committee. I am saying there are some reasons why this Committee would have some advantages, I am inclined to think. You have a monthly meeting of the High Commissioners now with Mr. Harcourt. Mr. HARCOURT : Not a meeting of all the High Commissioners together, but every month I see them individually, whether they wish to see me or not, if I may put it in that way. But between those meetings, which are a new feature, I see them at any moment when they wish to do so upon any definite point. Mr. BATCHELOR : The only advantage of the Committee would be that they would meet together. Mr. HARCOURT : With other people added. Mr. BATCHELOR : And consult. Sir JOSEPH WARD : But not upon the same points which they see Mr. Harcourt upon, which would not come up before the Committee. The PRESIDENT : The Declaration of London would, because that would apply to all. Mr. BATCHELOR : There is another question which concerns two of the Governments. I do not know that it is raised by either of the Governments directly, but the question is where the High Commissioner for the Pacific should reside —a matter on which there is more or less difference of opinion, I believe, or there is said to be, between the New Zealand Government and ourselves. Mr. HARCOURT : That is obviously not a Conference question, That would not come up. Mr. BATCHELOR : Not in any case ? Mr. HARCOURT : Not before a Standing Committee of the Conference. Mr. BATCHELOR : I suppose it would not. But there are several matters here which I think will very well come up, and when each Government had instructed its High Commissioner on certain principles and certain details of policy, there are still some other little matters which could very well be left to such a Committee. Mr. MALAN : It seems to me that there are distinct questions covered by the discussion here now, and it would be perhaps advisable to take these questions separately. The first question is under which Secretary of State the affairs of the Dominions should fall. They now fall under the Colonial Secretary. Mr. Fisher has thrown out the suggestion that they may come under the Foreign Minister. The South African Government has sent in a resolution which I think could be discussed in this connection—that it is desirable that all matters relating to the self-governing Dominions, as well as the permanent Secretariat of the Imperial Conference, should be kept under the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. As regards this I should say, Mr. President, that this resolution was sent in not on account of any dissatisfaction with the present arrangements, but rather with a view to raising the status of the Dominions, if I may so put it. If there are serious practical difficulties in the way of giving effect to the suggestion, seeing that it is not a very practical question, I do not know that we would press that very strongly.

A.—4

2nd Day.} Reconstitution of the Colonial Office. [25 May, 1911 Mr. MALAN — cont. The second point of the discussion is the question of the organization of the Colonial Office here. About that we also feel that the arrangements which have been made are satisfactory so far as we are concerned. If any alteration is to be made we think that it is a departmental question which could safely be left to the Minister in charge of that Department, and it is not so much a question for this Conference to go into. The third question which has been discussed here now is the question of the Committee, which would sit more or less continuously or be in existence continuously from one Conference to the other. As regards this Committee, we feel that there are very serious practical difficulties. Take the constitution of that Committee. It has been suggested that the High Commissioner or somebody else should be on this Committee. As far as the High Commissioners are concerned, we feel that they are not selected as political agents in the first instance, but very largely as business men. The High Commissioner for the Cape, for instance, has to buy a great deal of material for our Government — railway material and other material. It would interfere with the selection of the High Commissioner if you have to look not only at the qualifications which we now look to in the appointment, but to the additional one of his being a semipolitical officer to meet the Secretary of State here, together with representatives of the other Dominions, in conference, to discuss matters of high policy. Secondly, what question will go before this Committee, and who will decide it? I understand first of all that the resolutions that have been passed by the main Conference will go before this Committee for giving effect to them, and other subsidiary matters; but who is to decide which questions are of vital importance and which are not '. The President has said that no questions except those of general importance will go before this Committee—questions touching all the Dominions. Now, a question may touch all the Dominions at its initial stage, but as you go along a difference may arise with a particular Dominion. Take the example that has been taken as to the law of emigration : that is a question which touches all the Dominions, but when a draft Act has been put forward it is quite possible one Dominion may take objection to one clause and another Dominion to another clause, and there is that difference. If you submit that to a Committee are you prepared to override the opinion of your own Dominion Government by the advice of the others who may differ on other points but agree on this point? So that when you start you may have a question of general importance, but as you go along it may become only a dispute or difference of opinion between the Imperial Government and a particular Colony or Dominion, and then the argument raised by Sir Wilfrid Laurier very strongly applies. For these reasons we feel that we cannot improve on the present condition of affairs. You have in the Colonial Office a Secretariat dealing with questions touching the Dominions generally, and as time goes on if, in giving effect to the resolutions, any difficulty arises in connection with any particular Dominion, the High Commissioner is consulted on the spot, but he is then in communication with his Government, and acts on the instruction of his Government. We do not think it would serve the interest of the Conference or of the Dominions in particular by having any change made in this sort of way. Sir EDWARD MORRIS : The position we take up is that we are quite satisfied with the existing means of communication. The PRESIDENT : I may point out what I think you already understand —that in putting forward the suggestion His Majesty's Government did not in the least wish to press it upon the Conference unless it meets with general approval, and unless it is felt to satisfy a real want. lam bound to say that after listening to the discussion the conclusion I have come to is that, so far as the majority of the Dominions are concerned, they do not desire to have any substantial change in the matter of organization or in the present arrangements. I quite realise the importance of what Mr. Fisher has said as to the position of the High Commissioner, and as to his having opportunities of more

A.—4

25 May, 1911.] Eeconstitution of the Colonial Office. [2nd Day. The PRESIDENT— oowt. frequent and direct touch with the Secretary of State of the Imperial Government; but that does not really affect the question of the Committee, and when I ventured rather to press Mr. Fisher to give me a definite opinion about that Committee I could see he was not very much enamoured of it. Mr. FISHER : It is not usual to put heat into a matter which is purely a consultative matter, but I was asking Sir Joseph Ward whether it would not meet the view he holds and the view the Conference holds to say that the Government should co-operate and give access to the fligh Commissioner on matters that may concern the Dominion prior to a decision being come to wherever possible—something on the lines of a general recommendation. The PRESIDENT : That, of course, is a rather different point from the question of whether it is desirable that there should be such a Committee as has been suggested. Mr. FISHER ; I do not think Sir Joseph Ward, wishes to press for a Committee. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I hope the Conference will not abandon this proposed Committee. I want to make the position quite clear to the members of the Conference who are here from the overseas Dominions. This Committee, as I understand, has nothing whatever to do with the ordinary communication with any department of our States, or any communications through the Governors. We are here to-day sitting at this Conference. When this Conference is over, then with regard to any matters upon which resolutions are passed, or upon which strong views have been expressed, which are recorded in the proceedings, there is no connecting link in the shape of a bridge between this Conference and the time when we meet again four years from now. This Conference will have done its part all right, but there is nothing, as I say, in the shape of a bridge to carry its business on until we meet again. This proposed Committee would deal with resolutions arrived at by the Conference, and deal with proposals which may come up between the holding of this Conference and the next one. I therefore regard it as of very great importance that we should have this Standing Committee on the lines proposed by Mr. Harcourt, and T only make the reservation that I should like a little time for more consideration with regard to the question of whether the High Commissioner could with appropriateness act on such Committee; but I certainly think there should be a Committee. Keeping the point clear as to how the communications are to be made I would ask any members of the Conference to look at the records of the past Imperial Conference. If the record is looked at one cannot help being struck by the fact that some of the proposals we have assented to have not resulted in any practical good in the strict sense of the term.. Take the very matter which Mr. Fisher, alluded to on the first day of this Conference meeting here. There was no resolution passed at the Conference of 1907 upon the question of the Suez Canal dues, but strong representations were made, both by Mr. Deakin and myself, upon that particular point. Tarn not saying that the absence of any action is a matter that the British Government have not complete justification for, but I do say that between 1907 and now, if we had the oppovtunity of putting forward through a Committee any matter that had been dealt with at the past Conference it could have been considered and discussed with the British Government, and some preparatory information probably made available for use at this present Conference upon the same matter. I look upon this suggestion as very important. We should have through the agency of this Standing Committee a bridge between two Conferences. If I understand the position°correctly there is no such point coining before this suggested Committee as, for instance, any individual representation upon the matter of the Declaration of London. Ido not see how that would be remitted to such a Committee for consideration at all. I for one should object to it. I think such a matter requires to be dealt with between the respective Government and the British Government and it is not a matter to be relegated for consideration by the High Commissioner on behalf of his Government. Mr. PEARCE : Do not you think the High Commissioner would be a ready means of finding out what the Colonies thought on a question ?

A.—4

2nd Day.] Reconstitution of the Colonial Office. [25 May, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That is a different point. I hope this proposed Committee will not be dropped. I look upon it as a step in the right direction, but I should, in principle, object to that Committee voting on any matter, because the whole essence of the proceedings of such a Committee would be unanimity of decision: otherwise one Dominion could refuse to act, and then the whole spirit of co-operation would disappear. Such a Committee, however, is what I want. Mr. FISHER : What about a record being made ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : I think they ought to have a record of their proceedings. Mr. FISHER : A record of all that has been said ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : I do not think that is necessary, but certainly a record of resolutions. Mr. FISHER : I do not want a record of what is said. Mr. HARCOURT : A record, if any, would be only minutes of the meetings. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I do hope we shall not abandon the setting up of such a Committee, because it is the only bridge we shall have between the Conferences. Mr. FISHER : Could we pass this matter by in the meantime, and try to draft some resolution in words which will meet the wishes of the Conference in the matter ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : I should be quite agreeable to that, of course, if Mr. Harcourt concurs. It is a matter which requires a little consideration, and I am ready to meet the suggestion which has been made, that we should postpone it until to-morrow. The PRESIDENT : To-morrow we are otherwise engaged, but it can be postponed until a later day. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes, I think that would be better. The PRESIDENT ; If you think there is any probability of agreement upon the subject. Mr. FISHER : It is only postponed for the purpose of drafting a proposal. We should not re-discuss it. Mr. PEARCE : Might I make the suggestion that the Secretary of State for the Colonies should put his proposals in print and let us see them ? The PRESIDENT : Yes, if you like we will circulate a memorandum. I think that a most reasonable suggestion. Mr. HARCOURT : Yes, I will do that, " That it is desirable that all matters relating to self-governing Dominions as well as permanent Secretariat of the Imperial Conference, be placed directly under the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom." The PRESIDENT : Before passing from the subject, I should like to say a word in regard to a proposal made on the Agenda Paper in the name of the Union of South Africa—that the matters relating to the self-governing Domin-

A.—4

-25 May, 1911.] Reconstitution of the Colonial Office. [2nd Day. The PRESIDENT— cont. ions should be put directly under the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. I earnestly hope that that suggestion will not be pressed. I do not know whether you realise that the office of Prime Minister in the United Kingdom is not a sinecure. I would doubt very much whether there are many people in the world who have more things on their shoulders, and I really could not, nor could anybody holding my office, conscientiously deal with what is suggested. I should be only a figurehead, and it would be a fraud to represent the Prime Minister as really honestly dealing with the work of the Dominions Department. I have some figures here which are rather instructive. For the year 1910 the correspondence of the Dominions division of the Colonial Office shows : Despatches received, 6,043; sent out, 6,028. Domestic letters received, 5,310; sent out, 6,501. That is 23,882. Besides those there is a share belonging to the Dominions Department of other papers, giving a total of 27,000. lam told of those at least 1,000 had to be seen by the Secretary of State. I could not do that work, and it is no good pretending I could, nor could any one in my position. Therefore I hope that this particular resolution will not be pushed forward. It is not from any disposition to shirk it, or indisposition to take upon myself any necessary duties, but because it could not be done; and I expect all my fellow Prime Ministers would agree with me in that. Mr. HARCOURT : Sir Joseph Ward has asked me to say a word on his second resolution, in which he suggests a change of title for the Secretary of State. I think " The Secretary of State for Imperial Affairs," would obviously be unsuitable for any office which did not include India. It would indeed be an assumption which would be impossible. The only change I can imagine is that he should be called " The Secretary of State for Dominions, Crown Colonies, and other Possessions," and that is not a very handy title. Unless there is any serious objection to the old word " Colony " you will find that the English people, without attaching any derogatory meaning to the word " Colony," have an affection for the old title. A change could only be made by Act of Parliament, and it could not be made ad hoc, but there would have to be amendments in other Acts to bring them under the new title. Sir JOSEPH WARD :I do not want to press it. Ido not want to have a handle to your name which is too difficult for people to transcribe. The PRESIDENT : I think the best plan would be for us to circulate a short memorandum explaining the suggestion of the Standing Committee—not a proposal, because we are not proposing it in any way—and then on a later day we can come to a final decision on the subject. Mr. HARCOURT : The other resolutions as to interchange of civil servants we can conveniently leave for a day when we have some spare time, because I shall be prepared to deal with it at any time when the discussion has been shorter than expected, and we can thus relieve the agenda for to-day. To-morrow the Conference, by its own wish and at the invitation of the Prime Minister, will meet the Committee of Imperial Defence at No. 2, Whitehall Gardens, where there will be sittings on three days. Those sittings will be confined to the actual members of the Conference who sit at this table. Mr. FISHER : I was going to ask a question on that point. My two colleagues are directly interested in the matter of defence. Mr. HARCOURT : All those who are here. The PRESIDENT : All the Ministers at the table. Adjourned to Thursday next at 11 o'clock.

13—A. 4.

A.—4.

THIRD DAY. Thursday, Ist June, 1911. The Imperial Conference met at the Foreign Office at 11 a.m. present : The Right Honourable H. H. ASQUITH, K.C., M.P., President of the Conference. The Right Honourable L. Harcoitrt, M.P., Secretary of State for the Colonies. The Right Honourable Sir Edward Grey, M.P., Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. T. McKinnon Wood, Esq., M.P., Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Canada. The Right Honourable Sir Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G., Prime Minister of the Dominion. The Honourable L. P. Brodeur, K.C., Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Australia. The Honourable A. Fisher, Prime Minister of the Commonwealth. The Honourable E. L. Batchelor, Minister of External Affairs. The Honourable G. F. Pearce, Minister of Defence. New Zealand. The Right Honourable Sir Joseph G. Ward, K.C.M.G., Prime Minister of the Dominion. The Honourable J. G. Findlay, K.C., LL.D., Attorney-General and Minister of Justice. Union of South Africa. General the Right Honourable L. Botha, Prime Minister of the Union. The Honourable F. S. Malan, Minister of Education. The Honourable Sir David de Villiers Graaff, Bart., Minister of Public Works, Posts and Telegraphs. Newfoundland. The Honourable Sir E. P. Morris, K.C., Prime Minister. The Honourable R. Watson, Colonial Secretary. Mr. H. W. Just, C.8., C.M.G., Secretary to the Conference. Mr. W. A. Robinson, Senior Assistant Secretary. Mr. A. B. Keith, D.C.L., Junior Assistant Secretary.

A.—4.

1 June, 1911.] Declaration of London. [3rd Day. There were also present : Lord Lucas, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Colonies; Sir Francis Hopwood, G.C.M.G., R.C.8., Permanent Under Secretary of State for the Colonies; Sir C. P. Lucas, K.C.M.G., C.8., Assistant Under Secretary of State for the Colonies; Mr. J. S. Eisley, Legal Adviser, Colonial Office; Sir Eyre Crowe, K.C.M.G., C.8., Foreign Office; Mr. C. J. B. Hurst, C.8., Assistant Legal Adviser, Foreign Office; Rear-Admiral Sir Charles Ottley, K.C.M.G., M.V.0., Secretary to the Committee of Imperial Defence; Mr. Atlee A. Hunt, C.M.G., Secretary to the Department of External Affairs, Commonwealth of Australia; Commander S. A. Pethebridge, Secretary to the Department of Defence, Commonwealth of Australia; Mr. J. R. Leisk, Secretary for Finance, Union of South Afric.a; and Private Secretaries to Members of the Conference.

Declaration of London. " That it is regretted that the Dominions were a not consulted prior to jhe acceptance by the British Delegates of the terms of the Declaration of London : that it is not desirable Great Britain should adopt the inclusion in Article 24 of foodstuffs in view of the fact that so large a part of the trade of the Empire is in those articles : that it is not desirable that Great Britain should adopt the provisions of Articles 48 to 54 permitting the destruction of neutral vessels." Mr. FISHER : I should like, before moving this resolution, to say that 1 should like my honourable colleague, the Minister for External Affairs, Mr. Batchelor, to be associated with me in this discussion. I shall state very briefly indeed the principles underlying this objection, if you may call it so, and leave it to my honourable friend to discuss it in detail, if the Conference thinks it advisable to go into it seriously. We in the Commonwealth are strongly in favour of international courts or associations as conferences, or any body at all, that will help to settle disputes arising amongst the self-governing communities. That is a principle we strongly adhere to, and anything the Mother Country may do to bring about these settlements or to establish these courts to lead to settlements will have our hearty support. As regards this particular item, the Declaration of London, I think I had better first read our resolution : " That it is regretted that the Dominions were not consulted prior to the acceptance by the British delegates of the terms of the Declaration of London; that it is not desirable that Great Britain should adopt the inclusion in Article 24 of foodstuffs, in view of the fact that so large a part of the trade of the Empire is in those articles : that it is not desirable that Great Britain should adopt the provisions of Articles 48-54 permitting the destruction of neutral vessels." The first part of it, ending with the words " Declaration of London," is a part to which we attach great importance. Hitherto the Dominions have not, as far as my knowledge goes, been consulted prior to negotiations being entered into by the Mother Country with other countries, as regards treaties or anything that led up to a treaty or a declaration of this kind. I hold strongly the view—with great deference to the opinions of His Majesty's Ministers in the United Kingdom—that that is a weak link in

A.—4

3rd Day.} Declaration of London. [1 June, 1911. Mr. FISHEE—co»f the chain of our common interests. Since we are now a family of nations, has not the time arrived for the oversea Dominions to be informed, and whenever possible consulted, as to the best means of promoting the interests of all concerned, when the Mother Country has decided to open negotiations with foreign Powers in regard to matters which involve the interests of the Dominions ? We do not desire in any way to restrict the final arbitrary powers of the Mother Country; that is not our desire at all, but we do think and we shall press upon you, Mr. Asquith, as representing the centre of the Empire, the Government of the United Kingdom, which has in many matters the management of the whole of the affairs of the Empire, that it would be advisable for you wherever possible, at any rate in important matters which concern us, such as this, to take us into your confidence prior to committing us. You will see, therefore, that we hold that it is not sufficient for you even to make a good treaty affecting us and then to tell us after it has. been made. The fact that this Declaration of London has been taken exception to has given a most suitable opportunity to discuss this matter. What would have happened, may I ask you, if this Declaration had not been made by you and all the other Powers concerned at a time just prior to the meeting of this Conference ? Supposing it had been immediately after a Conference, there would then have been four years of discontent, misunderstanding, and, I have no doubt, a little asperity between the Dominions and the Mother Country. It is fortunate, I think, that this opportunity has been given to us almost immediately after the question arose. As to the details, the second part of the resolution is important enough. We felt at the time that Article 24 was hardly defensible and that Articles 48 to 54 would seriously damage the prestige of the British people and Governments, but that is a matter we do not wish to dogmatise upon at the present moment. I leave it to my honourable colleague to give the reasons why we have taken exception to these. Ido hope and Ido ask that you, Sir, will give the most serious and favourable consideration to our proposal. At least I hope this Conference will carry the first part of it, and that is down to the words, " Declaration of London," and that if carried it shall have this meaning : that the Dominions shall be advised and consulted, not only diiring the course of a Treaty or the negotiation of a Declaration of any kind affecting us, but that you shall keep us acquainted with the views of the Mother Country. We shall then recognise this fact, to go back to my old statement, that we are a family of nations working in unity and amity under one Crown : and when you approach other countries you approach them, if not actually in the name of the Dominions, with the assurance and confidence that in all essential matters you represent their views. We have avoided raising party issues in bringing this question before the Conference. If the discussion leads to fuller information being given to the Dominions I venture the opinion that the step taken will never be regretted. Mr. BATCHELOR : Perhaps it will be convenient if I add a few words to what Mr. Fisher has said, because this matter has, more or less, I suppose, become a party question here in Britain. The PRESIDENT : I do not think it can be quite said to be a party question, but it has got into the arena of party politics. Mr. FISHER : Quite unconsciously, I suppose. Mr. BATCHELOR : We desire to give no support to any kind of party view on a matter of the kind, and we want to divorce ourselves altogether from any party interest, The questions involved in this Declaration of London, of course, are of such tremendous import that they affect the well-being of every citizen of the Empire. We feel in Australia that we are specially affected by any arrangements which may be made which will control the operations of the Navy when at war, or control the commerce of the Empire when other nations are at war, and I want to say right off that the issues are tremendous, and that there is a necessity for a full understanding of the whole position, for a very close study of the past history of naval campaigns, and a knowledge of the conditions

A.—4.

1 June, 1911.] Declaration of London. [3rd Day, Mr. BATCHELOE— cont. now obtaining and the probabilities in the event of further, naval campaigns-— a knowledge which can hardly be said to be possessed perhaps completely by any individual. Any one would hesitate before being dogmatic as to what would be the precise effect of this Declaration, and particularly of some of its provisions. We have taken up the view after the amount of* discussion that has been going on recently, and the fierce light which has been thrown on the whole subject by that discussion, that it is possible that something new may have been brought out, something that maj not have been considered perhaps fully by the negotiators and by the Government, or at any rate perhaps not considered so fully as it is now. Of course, I recognise this, that once the agreement was signed all information from an official source practically one would expect to be backing up and making the case strong for its ratification, because that is naturally the policy of the Government,, and it is the policy of the office. That brings one up to this point, that possibly it would have been an advantage if, before the signing of the agreement, some larger consideration could have been given—l will not say to other interests, but to the Dominions who are equally concerned, so that the way in which it strikes them, the way in which it affects them, may be in the hands of the negotiators. We are to-day approaching the consideration of this Declaration of London at too late a stage to alter the course of negotiations in any way, or at too late a stage to do anything. Ought the self-governing Dominions to be in that position ? The only opportunity we have of considering it is when it is too late to modify in any sense, or to suggest modification. We can, of course, urge on you that it should not be ratified, but that is taking a very extreme course, a course which nothing but the feeling that the safety of the Empire is in some way endangered by the provisions would justify us in taking. But ought we not to have had some opportunity of urging a modification possibly in some direction ? Sir Edward Grey said, I think, in answer to a question in the House of Commons —I forget who asked the question —that it was not practicable to consult the Dominions at the time or during the negotiations. Ido not know whether he actually used the words " diiring the negotiations " or not, but that was how it was reported, that he had said it was not practicable to consult the Dominions. I would like to ask why it was impracticable to consult the Dominions at some time or other before the signing of the Convention. It seems to me that it would not, as far as I can see, have been altogether impracticable. Take the case of Australia; we have a sea-borne commerce of about 130,000,000/. in and out —72,000,000/. export and 60,000,000/. import. Per head of population we have the greatest commerce of any country. In itself it is a very large amount. Many of the Powers which signed this Convention, or many of the Powers which were consulted —let me put it in that way—had a much less interest in it than we had. Under those circumstances, had we been independent, of course, we would have been consulted. Our interests in the whole matter as a maritime country wholly dependent on commerce for our imports and for our exports, practically for our life, are such that, had we been independent, we would have been consulted. We were not consulted. The first intimation we got was from the Blue Book after it had been fixed up. That is the first intimation we had that there was any such proposal which necessarily would affect us very considerably —the Blue 800k —after the whole matter had been fixed up. As soon as the attention of the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Deakin, was called to the signing of this Convention, he telegraphed to Colonel Foxton, w r ho was in England, in August, 1909 —nearly two years ago. Colonel Foxton was the honourable Minister attending the Council of Defence. This is Mr. Deakin's telegram : " Are Dominions to be consulted before ratification of Declaration of London by Imperial Government ? Inquire, and if ratification proposed represent strong feeling of Government of Commonwealth of Australia against being committed to Declaration without consultation on matter of greatest importance to Australia." Colonel Foxton replied on the 23rd : " Declaration of London, will make strong representations. Understand no likelihood of ratification during present session." Then on 24th September he telegraphed the text of a letter received from the Secretary of State for the Colonies : " Secretary of State for the Colonies has supplied me copy letters received from

A.—4.

100

'3rd Day.] Declaration of London. [1 June, 1911. Mr. BATCHELOR— cont. Foreign Office saying Declaration of London has been signed by ail Powers represented International Conference, and Imperial Government about to address non-signatory Powers with a view to their accession, legislation being prepared giving effect to Declaration and Convention for establishment of International Prize Courts. Hope to pass through Parliament after Christmas, also that as its terms are satisfactory to naval authorities, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs feels under circumstances of the case cannot advise His Majesty to withhold ratification as quite impossible to introduce amendments at this stage." Now that could hardly be considered a satisfactory position for us to be in. The first intimation we get is from a Blue Book after the whole thing has been concluded; a matter in which we are vitally concerned has been concluded without the slightest consultation with us in any shape or way. Modifications, as a matter of fact, were suggested by the Attorney-General in Australia, but were not sent on because of this intimation from the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. I want to say, therefore, that I think we are not asking anything unreasonable in asking that under such circumstances this sort of treaty or this sort of arrangement altering conditions, even if in the opinion of the naval authorities the alterations may be wholly in our favour, should be brought in good time to our notice, and it appears to us that we can with some confidence urge upon the Government that in the future under such circumstances or anything approaching such circumstances the self-governing Dominions should be given the opportunity of expressing the view they hold as to the way their interests are affected. Of course, there must be, as has been quoted pretty frequently, only one 'foreign policy in the Empire, and there must be one final authority. Ido not want to canvas that —I agree with that absolutely—but that does not preclude the possibility of some consultation, as far as practicable. We do not want to put forward any impracticable proposals, but where it is practicable we think the suggestion we make is only reasonable. This is a case where the negotiations were going on for some considerable time; it is just two years ago now since we first heard of the matter and it has not yet been ratified, and if so long a time can elapse between the signing and the ratification, possibly some time existed prior to the signing during^which we might have been consulted and have put forward some suggestions as to how it would affect us. Ido not want to say any more upon that point. As regards the proposals to which Australia has taken exception. Article 24 under which foodstuffs are conditional contraband, and Articles 48 to 54 with regard to the sinking of neutral vessels, and the other objection that has been taken in Australia, although there is no article dealing with it—that is, the conversion of merchantmen into vessels of war : I do not want to go into them, because all arguments for and against have been so tremendously threshed out and I am sure everybody is thoroughly conversant with them, and that I can throw no additional light on the subject. I want to say that I think we really hold the view as regards the foodstuffs that while on the whole the alteration made may be an advantage as against the conditions at present existing, still, when concluding a convention, when setting out rules where no rules previously existed, it would have been very much better if the terms had been somewhat less vague. For instance, what is " a contractor " ? What is " a matter of common knowledge " ? How are we to know at the other end of the world as to whether a trader usually supplies the Government ? The PRESIDENT : Which article are you on now? Mr. BATOHELOR : Article 34. The PRESIDENT : You do not object to the provision that food should be treated or can be treated as conditional contraband instead of being treated as absolute contraband 1

101

A.—4

1 June, 1911.] Declaration of London. [3rd Day. Mr. BATCHELOR : No, we are not objecting to that at all. The PRESIDENT : That is a distinct advance. Mr. BATCHELOR : I am not saying anything against that. The PRESIDENT : I only want to know your position. Mr. BATCHELOR : I do not want to say that these proposals are not an advance, certainly on that point it is an advance, over the present conditions, because there was nothing at all before. The PRESIDENT : You are on Article 34 ? Mr. BATCHELOR : Yes, and I am on the article which governs that Then, what is a fortified place ? What is a base for the armed forces of the enemy ? What is an enemy, and so on ? There are two or three things there that are very vague, and I would like to know whether it would not be possible to have some better definition, or whether it would not be possible to have some clearer understanding to what those things mean. I want to quote here what Sir Edward Grey in his Memorandum said to the negotiators : "It is essential to the interest of Great Britain that every effective measure necessary to protect the importation of food supplies and raw materials for peaceful industries should be accompanied by all the sanctions which the law of nations can supply." We agree with that absolutely—that it is essential in the interests of Great Britain, and also of Australia, that every effective measure necessary to protect the importation of food supplies and raw materials for peaceful industries should be accompanied by all the sanctions which the law of nations can supply. And what we draw attention to is the fact that the law of nations as proposed to be laid down here leaves it too indefinite. Then, as regards the sinking of neutrals, up to the present the right to sink neutrals has been denied by Great Britain. On this point Sir Edward Grey said in his Memorandum : "As regards the sinking of neutral prizes, which gave rise to so much feeling in this country during the Russo-Japanese War, Great Britain has always maintained that the right to destroy is confined to enemy vessels only, and this view is favoured by other Powers." Sir EDWARD GREY: That should have been "ever since"; the word " always " should come out, because some of the British authorities in the old days have laid down that it might be a meritorious act to destroy a neutral merchant vessel. Some legal authorities have laid that down, and I think we have exercised the right in the past, but I think that the extract quoted from the Instructions to the delegates is true as to recent years. After all, that is only our view which has been put forward, and other nations have taken an entirely different view. It has never been accepted by other nations generally. Mr. BATCHELOR : I will read the other words : " Great Britain has always maintained that the right to destroy is confined to enemy vessels only, and this view is favoured by other Powers. Concerning the right to destroy captured neutral vessels, the view hitherto taken by the greater Naval Powers has been that, in the event of it being impossible to bring in a vessel for adjudication, she must be released. You should urge the maintenance of the doctrine upon this subject which British prize courts have for at least 200 years held to be the law." That is exactly the view which the opponents to that particular provision in the Declaration have advanced; I do not think it could have been put clearer than by yourself there, and all I want to say is that it has been unfortunate that that has not been embodied in the Declaration as ready for signature. As regards Article 34, one must admit that something perhaps has been done; but formerly the position was this, or at present the position is this : that there is no law on the matter at all. The practice of the strongest Naval

A.—4,

102

3rd Day.] Declaration of London. [1 June, 1911. Mr. BATCHELOR— cont. Powers, according to Sir Edward Grey's Memorandum, has been to object to the sinking of neutral prizes. Under those circumstances in any war to-day any Government which goes in for sinking naval prizes has to remember that that is opposed, and strongly opposed, to the practice of the greater Naval Powers, and therefore the systematic sinking of naval prizes would be, one would judge, impossible to-day, because of the danger of offending the greatest Naval Powers. Sir EDWARD GEEY : It did not prove impossible in the last naval war, because it happened in the Russo-Japanese war. Mr. BATCHELOR : There were a few cases there, but had that continued to any great extent it might have been possible for some very strong protest to have been raised, Dr. FINDLAY : It was raised. Mr. BATCHELOR : But in a much stronger form than that. Sir EDWARD GREY : We were very much disappointed at the Hague Conference after the Russo-Japanese War to find how little general agreement there was amongst the Powers on this subject of the sinking of neutral vessels. We found that there was no general consensus of opinion against the right to sink them, and the result of the discussion of the matter at the Conference was to show that the international feeling against the sinking of neutral prizes was even weaker than we had expected. Mr. BATCHELOR : I can understand that that would account for the acceptance of a policy which in itself was strongly condemned by your Memorandum. What I was going to say was that if there is any such feeling it would be perilous to go in for any wholesale destruction of neutral prizes, because of the danger of offending Great Britain, which is much the strongest Naval Power, and America, who holds the same view I think. Sir EDWARD GREY : I think America does. Mr. BATCHELOR : Those are two very strong Naval Powers, which combined make a Naval Power of considerable strength. Under those circumstances, as I say at present, it would be somewhat perilous to offend those nations, but once we have laid it down in so-many words that, given certain conditions, naval prizes can be sunk, will not nations claim the right, are they not much more likely to claim the right, because it is an undoubted right, they absolutely possess the right, there is no fear of any reprisal from any source; they need not fear the British or American power in this matter, and they can sink, whenever it appears to be necessary to the success of the operation with which they are concerned, any prizes they may have. I put it with some hesitation, but it seems to me that under the circumstances we have got so little limitation with regard to the sinking of neutral prizes that the effect might be rather to increase than prevent destruction. Now there is a matter my colleague wants me to refer to, and that is that we ought to have a better definition of what is meant by the word " enemy " in Article 34—whether it means the people of the country or whether it means the enemy's Government. That is a matter on which I understand it has been stated by Sir Edward Grey that something ought to be done to obtain a clearer definition. Reverting to my former point, of course, the danger of the possibility of neutral prizes being sunk would affect the price of goods tremendously, both here and in Australia. It would affect us if it became difficult for neutrals, or if it became dangerous for neutrals, to engage in the carrying trade when we were at war, or if any other countries were at war when we were neutrals, and

103

A.—4

1 June, 1911.] Declaration of London. [3rd Day. Mr. BATCHELOR—co^. if there is the possibility of ships being sunk the underwriters will raise their charges, to the great detriment of trade. So that anything which does make it more difficult in that respect is likely to cause serious damage to trade. On the other question, as to the conversion of merchantmen on the high seas, I am well aware that the Government, through its representatives, did everything it could at the Conference to bring about some alteration in that respect. I think, all the same, I ought to echo the opinion of all of us that it is a great pity they were not successful in securing some limitation. Nothing, I think, would be more likely to cause apprehension in Australia or to cause greater danger to other portions of the Empire which lie at a considerable distance from where our naval supremacy is undoubted. Nothing would be likely to cause us so much difficulty or to do so much damage as that power of converting merchantmen into war vessels without any previous notice whatever —by merely hauling down one flag and putting up another. Until some international agreement has been arrived at in that respect undoubtedly the law of naval warfare is very largely chaotic, and T think that stands out above anything else as requiring some alteration. Mr. Pearce suggests to me that I should also refer to the question of the base in Article 34 I might just say that that, of course, wants a better definition. It appears to us practically to close up the United Kingdom altogether, and if something could be done by which to make it clearer it would be a very great advantage to all concerned. I do not want to take up any more time upon this- question, but I want to put it to the Government whether it might not be possible yet before this Declaration is ratified (it is signed already), and the whole matter is set aside for probably a considerable number of years, to try and get some alteration on one or two of these points that are most in dispute, or a little clearer definition at any rate. Tf a clearer definition were obtained, that in itself would be a considerable gain. Therefore, while we do not ask the Government to decline to ratify this Declaration if, in their opinion, on the whole the advantages are much greater than the disadvantages—and that is as I understand the position the Government take up, because the question must be looked at as a whole and not merely with regard to what you are not able to accomplish : if any alteration could be made on these points it would be a good thing for the Empire generally, because it would bring about a feeling of safety, a feeling of general contentment and satisfaction where the very greatest apprehension is now felt. For instance, one cannot help seeing that opinion amongst people who appear to be well qualified to judge is very much divided. We have eminent jurists and we have men whom we are accustomed to consider very great authorities as naval experts —a large number of admirals, we have men who have studied the constitutional question, taking up opposite sides on this question, and therefore, if anything could be done at this late stage to still further obtain some advantage, T think it would be well worth doing, and that it would redound to the credit of the Government. T may say, of course, that the principal point we urge is the point I touched upon first, in the first paragraph—that in the future, if at all practicable, the Dominion should be consulted on such matters. The PRESIDENT : I am sure the Conference is very much indebted to the representatives of Australia for the extremely lucid and moderate way in which they have put forward their criticisms; and, having regard to the very technical and complicated character of some of the aspects of this subject, I think it might tend to simplify and possibly abridge discussion if I ask Sir Edward Grey to interpose now and deal at once with the points which Mr. Fisher and Mr. Batchelor have put forward, and we will go on with the discussion afterwards. Will that suit you, Sir Joseph ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Certainly. Sir EDWARD GREY : I will try to meet the points which Mr. Fisher and Mr. Batchelor have raised, arid I would take first the points which have been raised on the merits of the Declaration which, I think, Mr. Fisher and

14—A. 4.

A.—4,

104

3rd Day.'] Declaration of London. [1 June, 1911. Sir EDWARD GEEY— cont. Mr. Batchelor would themselves like to have kept quite distinct from their first point, which is really a much broader and more important point—that of consultation not only with regard to the Declaration of London, but with regard to future Conventions of the same kind. Mr. FISHER : Yes, we separated them. Sir EDWARD GREY : I would like to deal with that point last, not because I think it the least important, but rather because' I think it the most important, and I would like, if I could, to remove what I think are one or two misapprehensions as to the merits of the Declaration, as, if they could be removed in the discussion at an early stage, they would cease to cumber the ground, and would enable us to deal more clearly and effectively with the larger point. I will, therefore, take what I call the smaller points of the merits first. Of course, it is quite true, as Mr. Batchelor has pointed out, that there are points in which in our own view the Declaration of I ondon might be made better than it is if we could get other Powers to agree to them, but the Declaration of London was the result of a long conference between representatives of the Powers, and represents the utmost agreement that could be obtained, and to reopen points which we discussed at the Conference and on which the provisions of the Declaration represent the utmost amount of agreement that could be obtained would be impracticable now. So that our choice is really between ratifying the Declaration practically as it stands or withdrawing from it altogether. There are one or two points, not of alteration, but of interpretation, such as that of whether-" enemy " in the particular case given means " enemy people" or "enemy Government," which we do intend to have cleared up, and the clearing-up of that point— i.e., that enemy means enemy Government and not enemy people—will be made a condition of our ratifying the Declaration; but that is not a case of altering, that is a case of simple interpretation. Now, I would like to explain why T think there has been so much opposition in this country to the Declaration oP London. Tt proceeded, in the first place, from two entirely separate sources. One was the people, of whom there are a certain number, who consider that we, being the strongest maritime Power, ought to allow no international restrictions whatever upon the use of our fleet in interfering either with enemy vessels or with neutrals in time of war, but ought to be free to make our own rules and to be independent of international rules altogether —that, having the power, we ought to make the rules. At this time of day, however strong our fleet was, considering the sort of solidarity there is in the public opinion of the world compared to what it was generations ago, it would be straining our power to attempt anything- of that kind; and, as a matter of fact, we abandoned that position not in the Declaration of London, but in the Declaration of Paris, which was made between fifty and sixty years ago; and one of the soiirces from which the Declaration of London is attacked consists of the people who have always thought the Declaration of Paris a mistake, and who would like to see it torn up.' It is too late to go back upon that. We have agreed that there should be international treaties on these subjects, and it is essential, if we are to be on. good terms with other Powers, that we should not refuse to become a party to any international arrangements whatever. The next source from which opposition comes is that of people who are building their arguments really on a false premise. The premise on which they build their arguments is this : that we have declared certain things to be in our view international law, and that therefore what we have declared to be international law has been hitherto the rule. It has never been the rule for any one else except ourselves; and, as a matter of fact, what this Declaration does is not to alter international law which previously by consent existed, but to introduce for the first time a certain amount of consent into international rules which had never existed before. Take, for instance, the question of foodstuffs. We might have contended that foodstuffs ought never to be contraband of war, or at most conditional contraband of war; and you might say that that is a rule which we have said is one that ought to be accepted, but it is not one that ever has been accepted-

105

A.—4

-1 June, 1911.] Declaration of London. [3rd Day. Sir EDWARD GREY— cont. Other Powers, and some of them comparatively recently, have claimed that food should be treated as absolute contraband of war, so that what really has hitherto existed has been chaos in the matter, and the result is this : that when two Powers have been at war we have never known for certain — the world has never known for certain—what the action of those two belligerents would be with regard to neutral merchant vessels, a subject in which we are more interested than anybody else because of the enormous amount of our merchant shipping. We have never known what their action would be. They have drawn up and issued their own rules, in doing it they have interpreted international law according to their own convenience and to what suited them best, and when we have not approved of their rules, or not approved of their practice when they interfered with our neutral merchant vessels, we have had to depend for redress upon decisions of prize courts, which were the prize courts of the enemy themselves. The prize court of a belligerent is never a satisfactory tribunal for a neutral to have to appeal to. It is, of course, the person against whom the claim is made—that is, the belligerent Power—being judge in his own cause. We felt that was so unsatisfactory, and some of the decisions given, by the Russian Prize Courts in the Russo-Japanese War were so unsatisfactory, that when I was first confronted with the situation when I came into office, especially with regard to the sinking of merchant vessels, of which two or three cases occurred in the course of the Russo-Japanese War, I felt we were face to face with a situation which ought not to be allowed to continue without some attempt to put it right. The sinking of ships had especially annoyed us from the fact that we could not get compensation from the Russian Prize Courts in all cases. We did obtain compensation in one or two cases, though not on the ground that it was illegal to sink the ships, but because they had been improperly interfered with —not on the.ground of principle, but merely in particular cases. When we came to the Hague Conference we found that there was by no means the consensus of opinion that might have been expected against the right of belligerents to sink neutral ships. So that we were confronted with this first of all: that international law was in a state of chaos and we could not depend on any international agreement, and also the decisions of the enemy's prize courts were unsatisfactory. That being so we agreed with others to promote a Prize Court Convention which would substitute in cases of this kind an International Prize Court as a Court of Appeal from the prize court of the belligerent, from which hitherto there had been no appeal. That obviously must be a considerable gain if we are neutrals. If a British merchant vessel is interfered with by a belligerent, we must in the future have a better chance of getting redress from an International Prize Court than we have from the prize court of the belligerent, which is all we had to look to before. But then, having settled that there was to be an International Prize Court, which we did settle at the Hague Conference, it followed from that that it was desirable that, as it had also been shown there was no agreement about international law on these points, there should be between nations an agreement drawn up as to what was the international law which the International Prize Court should administer. That is how the Declaration of London came into being. It did not arise out of nothing; it followed really on the decision of the Hague Conference that there should be an International Prize Court Convention. Now, I would like the Conference to know what we did before the Declaration of London. We had an Inter-Departmental Conference in which the Departments concerned were fully represented, and we drew up instructions to our Delegates, which instructions, of course, contained what we wished to obtain. Our Delegates contended for that at the Conference. They did not obtain all they wished, and you never do, of course, at an International Conference, but they obtained; in our opinion, certain advantages which were, as the result of the Conference, worth taking. I shall deal with the three points only which I think Mr. Batchelor has raised —how we stand with regard to food-supply in time of war, how we stand with-regard to the sinking of merchant vessels, and then whether the operations of our Navy—and, of course, the Dominion Navies too—would be crippled in time of war. ' I think those were the three points.

A.—4

106

3rd Day.] Declaration of London. [1 June, 1911. Sir EDWARD GREY— cont. Now let us see how we stand with regard to foodstuffs. Mr. Batchelor said, quite truly, that the provisions of the Declaration are rather vague, and that Article 34 leaves it rather vague what is a contractor. But Article 34 is not the article which determines whether food is or is not to be contraband of war. It determines only this : whether the onus of proof is to be on the captor or on the captain of the merchant ship interfered with. That is the only point determined by Article 34. I am informed that the general practice hitherto has been that in all cases when a belligerent captures a merchant vessel the burden of proof that the vessel does not carry contraband of war rests on the merchant vessel. That has been the general practice hitherto. The Declaration of London lays it down that the general practice, on the contrary, is to be that the onus of proof is to be not on the merchant vessel, but on the captor, and Article 34 makes an exception to that in saying that in certain cases, which are those contemplated by Article 34, the onus of proof is still to remain as it has heretofore been, on the merchant vessel. So that it does not settle really when food is to be contraband of war; it settles in what cases the onus of proof is to remain as it now is, on the merchant vessel. That gives Article 34 a very limited application. I quite admit that we say the terms could be made less vague, but you must remember the terms cut both ways, and that if the terms are vague when we are neutrals, and give, as you consider, an undue latitude to the belligerent or, when we are the belligerent, give an undue latitude to the Power who is our enemy, that same latitude is also, of course, allowed to the British fleet; and when terms are vague and when you are at war. the vagueness of the terms has generally heretofore been an advantage to the stronger fleet rather than to the inferior fleet. Mr. BATCHELOR : Would not your practice be to maintain the position that we take up with regard to these matters ? Sir EDWARD GREY : We should maintain the Declaration of London after it is ratified. Mr. BATCHELOR: Taking the fullest advantage of every liberty although we disagree with it. Sir EDWARD GREY : Whatever liberties we have agreed under the Declaration of London to concede to enemies, we should of course use for ourselves. It is not a one-sided Declaration, and whatever advantages or disadvantages it has extend equally to both. Mr. BATCHELOR: I quite understand that, but what lam putting is this : that we have contended that it is not a proper thing to convert merchantmen on the high seas into vessels of war; we have full liberty to do so, but it is quite possible that we would not take advantage of our liberty in view of the fact that we have always held that is practically an act of piracy. Sir EDWARD GREY : That is a point not touched by the Declaration of London. Mr. BATCHELOR : I put that forward as an illustration. • Sir EDWARD GREY : I do not think it is an illustration, because it is not affected by the Declaration of London at all. My whole point with regard to the conversion of merchantmen is that we remain exactly as we were, and whatever we do to-morrow with regard to the conversion of merchantmen is exactly what we should have done before the Declaration of London was passed, because it does not touch that point at all.

A.-4

107

1 June, 1911.] Declaration of London. [3rd Day. Mr. BATCHELOR : Then there is the sinking of neutrals. Sir EDWARD GREY : I will come to the point of the sinking of neutral vessels in a moment; I would like to deal with foodstuffs first. Even supposing the terms are vague they do not take the place of terms which were more definite. There were no terms at all before agreed upon, and at the present moment, with the Declaration of London unratified, if we were at war with a belligerent, there is nothing in the practice of some belligerents, at any rate, to prevent them from declaring all our ports bases of supply and all food coming to this country, whether destined for the enemy Government or not, to be contraband of war. The French took up that position in their war with China only a generation ago. The Germans, when appealed to, refused to dispute it. At the present moment if we were at war with a Power we might have all food declared contraband of war, whether destined for the enemy or not, simply because it is coming to the population of this country. Under the Declaration of London our enemy would, at any rate, have to make out his case that it was destined for the enemy Government before he interfered with it. Therefore the Declaration of London does not set the hands of a belligerent free to interfere with our food supplies; on the contrary, it hampers him very much in dealing with our food supplies, and he could only take the course which at the present moment no rule of international law prevents him from taking as regards declaring of food contraband of war by driving a coach and four through certain articles of the Declaration. It must hamper our enemy more than he was hampered before in declaring the food supply contraband. So that, as far as that is concerned, admitting that the terms are vague, admitting that there is some ambiguity, as undoubtedly there is, we are better off than we were before, because we are not substituting vague terms for definite terms, but we are putting vague terms, in so far as they are vague, in a place where there were no terms at all. . Mr. MALAN : Sir Edward, perhaps this would be the point to put in a question : What do you regard as the exact legal force of the General Report ? Sir EDWARD GREY : The " General Report" is the Report of the Conference, and our view is that it was accepted and became part of the conventional arrangement, in the sense of being an authoritative interpretation of the Declaration of London. That is one of the points which we shall make a condition of our ratification, that that view should be accepted by the other Powers. Mr. BATCHELOR : You propose to make that a condition? Sir EDWARD GREY : Yes, I propose to make that a condition. Then I would take the question of the sinking of vessels when we are neutrals. Mr. BRODEUR : Before you leave that point, Sir Edward, with regard to the question of food, supposing you were at war with a great Continental Power to-day before the Declaration of London is ratified, and that they seized food which was carried in a vessel, in that case it would be referred wholly and simply to the courts of that Power ? Sir EDWARD GREY : Yes. Mr. BRODEUR : As it is to-day, it would be referred to a court in which we would have some representatives under the Declaration of London. Sir EDWARD GREY : If we were at war with a great Continental Power, all merchant vessels belonging to that Power would be seized by us and all British merchant vessels under the British flag would be seized by the fleet of the Continental Power if we could not prevent them, which we, of course, would make it our object to do. The belligerents do not appeal to each other in prize courts.

A.-4

108

3rd Day.] Declaration of London. [1 June, 1911. Mr. BRODEUR : it would be in neutral vessels? Sir EDWARD GREY : Yes. Mr. BRODEUR : In such a case under the Declaration of London it would be referred to a court in which you would have some representatives ? Sir EDWARD GREY :On appeal, yes. 1 took the case of the RussoJapanese War, when there were several cases of our vessels, when we were neutral, being seized by the Russian Navy. The owners of our vessels have had to fight their cases before the Russian Prize Courts, composed purely of Russians, and to accept their decision, from which there is no appeal. Under the Prize Court Convention and the Declaration of London they would first of all have had to fight it before the Russian Prize Court, but, if we were not satisfied with the decision of the Russian Prize Court, the Russian Government would be bound, after ratifying those agreements, to admit the appeal and defend their case before the international court, on which we, as well as they, would be represented. The PRESIDENT : That is a clear gain for neutrals. Sir EDWARD GREY : That is a clear gain for neutrals; and as to belligerents, I can only say that it is better to have some rules than to have none at all if you want to secure that your food supply is not interfered with in time of war. At present there are none at all. Under the Declaration of London there will be certain rules, and, although they may not be entirely satisfactory, they are better than none. That is the point about food supplies. Now, as to the sinking of ships. The Russian Navy, as I have said, sank some of our ships when we were neutral. I was not in office, of course, when the Russo-Japanese War was going on : the previous Government was in office, but when I came into office the situation I found was that some of our ships had been sunk some months before in the war, and that we were claiming compensation. The Russian Government claimed the right to sink. We denied the right to sink. The PRESIDENT : I suppose you denied it on principle? Sir EDWARD GREY : We denied il on principle. I gather since I made those declarations that our own ground has not been so strong, whatever it may have been in recent years, because in past years I think our naval officers have sunk neutral vessels, and we have had some high legal authorities who have claimed that w T e should have the right to sink. The PRESIDENT : Lord Stowell. Dr. FINDLAY : In 1815. Sir EDWARD GREY : Yes. I was told that was our view at the time and I put it forward. Assuming that was our view T , my first thought was this —I never put it into official form: if another country is going to claim the right to sink neutral vessels and we say they ought not to be sunk, we had better be prepared, as soon as a British neutral merchant vessel is interfered with and sunk by a belligerent, to go to war about it and through our force prevent it, but then on reflection T thought : " That will not really be a remedy." We did not go to war with Russia in the Russo-Japanese War when she sank neutral merchant vessels, and the country never really will go to war because one or two merchant vessels are sunk; they will say : ' That is a case for the prize court; claim compensation, but do not interfere with the course of trade and everything else by making it a casus belli"; and in practice our course will be to protest, as was done in the case of.the Russo-Japanese War, and to bring

109

A—4

1 June, 1911.] Declaration of London. [3rd Day. Sir EDWARD GREY—con*. claims before the prize court and rely on getting compensation, and not on interfering by force. That would be the tendency. Then we found at the Hague Conference that there was no general consensus of opinion against the sinking of ships, and that we were not very likely to get general support for that view. Under the Declaration of London we tried to get a rule made that sinking should be entirely illegal. Mr. Batchelor quoted the United States Government in this connection, but the United States Government were not prepared to support us at the Naval Conference in going so far as that, and they were strongly in favour of the provisions of the Declaration of London being accepted with regard to the sinking of neutral merchant ships. So that the position in the first place with regard to sinking is that at the present moment we protest against any sinking. Other nations claim and exercise the right to sink when they are belligerents, and there being only their prize courts to appeal to, we do not get compensation. Under the Declaration of London the right which other Powers have claimed to sink neutral vessels will be restricted to certain conditions to which they have agreed, so that no Power can claim the absolute right which it has done before, and under the Prize Court Convention, if they do exercise this restricted right, there will be an appeal to the international tribunal. That puts us in a much better position. Mr. BATCHELOR : Of course, our position is much easier than other countries, as we have ports everywhere. Sir EDWARD GREY : Eor taking vessels into port? Mr. BATCHELOR : Yes. Sir EDWARD GREY :We secure our object if we capture them. We do not want to sink them. The PRESIDENT : It is not to the interest of a belligerent to sink in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred; on the contrary, it is his interest to take it into port and get the ship and the goods. That is what is often ignored in the discussion of this matter; it is against your interest and you only do it in the case of force majeure. Sir EDWARD GREY : To take Mr. Batchelor's point which he raised just now, of course we should take whatever steps it might be necessary for us to take under the provisions of the Declaration of London, whatever we may have said before about the sinking of vessels. When that is ratified we should claim equal liberty of action for our fleet in dealing with merchant vessels to that given to others by the Declaration. We may have expressed our views before as to what ought to be done, but when yon come to an international agreement, and other people claim certain liberties to themselves and you concede those liberties to them, of course you claim them for yourselves. Mr. FISHER : By doing so you do not abandon those views ? Sir EDWARD GREY : You do not abandon the right to try to get your views adopted at some future time if you like, and you ought to try it at another Conference, Mr. FISHER : You obey the law—you march in line. The PRESIDENT : You hope that it will be improved. Sir EDWARD GREY : So that what we have got with regard to the sinking of merchant vessels is first of all the right which is claimed by other nations restricted, and if that right is exercised at all we get a better prospect of redress by having an international tribunal to go to,

A.—4

110

3rd Day.} Declaration of London. [1 June, 1911 Sir EDWARD GREY—con*. Now, as to the third point, whether the operations of the British Fleet are likely to be unduly restricted when we are at war, I think what Mr. Batchelor had in his mind with regard to that was probably that we have given up the doctrine of continuous voyage to a certain extent. We have agreed under the Declaration of London that we would not seize goods which are conditional contraband when they are consigned to a neutral Power even though destined for an enemy, and heretofore we have claimed the right to seize those goods. Therefore that is a restriction upon our power of bringing pressure to bear upon our enemy when we are at war. I believe the Admiralty have never made use of the right; the right would not be of much use in practice or much good to them, because it is so easy to consign goods, even though they are destined for the enemy, to a neutral port in such a way that it is impossible when the captain of a man-of-war boards and searches the vessel to prove that they are destined for the enemy, so that the doctrine of continuous voyage would in practice be of very little use to us in time of war. Here again is another instance, in giving up the doctrine of continuous voyage with regard to conditional contraband, that it cuts both ways, and we ' gain in certain ways. Other Powers have given up the doctrine of continuous voyage too, and the result will be this : that if we found for a time there was difficulty in clearing the whole Atlantic Ocean of any of the roving cruisers of the enemy, it would be possible for goods coming here to be consigned to a neighbouring port, any neighbouring port in Europe of a Power with which we were at peace, and all we should have to do instead of keeping the whole of the Atlantic clear for neutral vessels would be to protect the passage across the Channel from some neutral port to one of our own. Of course, if the British Navy could not do that the war would be over, because we should be beaten. Mr. BATCHELOR : We have no neutral ports. Sir EDWARD GREY : You may riot gain in this particular, but you do not lose over this doctrine of continuous voyage, and when you come to South Africa, for instance, the questions of continuous voyage and neutral ports may be of real importance. Sir JOSEPH WARD : On that point would you mind informing the Conference, Sir Edward, what there is in the statement which is so generally made by people, including representatives from the oversea countries and published in the Press, that in time of war there would be no neutral ports in England at all ? Sir EDWARD GREY : I was dealing with the base of supplies where the terms are vague. That is going back to the other point. I will revert to it in a minute, but I had better finish the one point I was on about the continuous voyage. Certainly in South Africa it would have a very distinct bearing. I do not see that in Australia it could, because you have not got ports near you belonging to neutrals, and all your stuff comes direct, But you do not lose anything by this, and if the Dominion of Australia does not lose by this, there is no reason why other parts of the British Empire should not have the advantage which would accrue from making use of neutral ports in this way. Where articles are absolute contraband —arms, munitions of war—by the Declaration of London the doctrine of continuous voyage can be applied, and that is a distinct gain as far as the operations of our fleet are concerned, because there has been no unanimity hitherto with regard to the doctrine of continuous voyage, no rule which we could have relied upon being accepted by other Powers when we were at war. Sir Joseph Ward's point T really have dealt with before. People say the terms are so vague as to what is the base of supplies, that every port in the United Kingdom might be construed as a base of supplies. If you are going to say that every town from which there is a railway is to be a base of supplies, then of course every port in the world is to be construed as a base of supplies.

111

A.—4.

1 June, 1911.1 Declaration of London. [3rd Day. Sir EDWARD GREY— cont. I do not think that is a possible interpretation of the Declaration of London as it stands; but anyhow, under the Declaration of London, no Power could treat Liverpool or Bristol, say, as a base of supplies for the enemy, unless we had made an actual camp there, without really violating the definition of " base of supplies " as given in the Declaration of London. Mr. FISHER ; Is that admitted by others ? Sir EDWARD GREY : I think it would be felt by everybody who signed the Declaration of London, that if one Power did that, it would be a violation of the Declaration of London; but even supposing that extreme case occurred, at present a belligerent with whom we are at war need not trouble to declare anything as a base of supplies as regards food, but could simply say all food is contraband of war. So even admitting that extreme case, we are still no worse off than we were before. That is what I meant when I said even though these terms are vague they are not displacing terms more definite than those that are coming in, and if they do not occupy the ground very completely, they at any rate occupy ground on which there was nothing at all before to interfere with an enemy. Now I will come to the final point—as to consultation. Mr. BATCHELOR : Before leaving the minor points, it would be gratifying for us to hear an expression of opinion from you as to whether there is the least reasonable probability of agreement being come to with regard to conversion of merchantmen. That is a matter which concerns us very much. Sir EDWARD GREY : It was tried, and it failed. No agreement could be come to, and we remain there just as we were. We have not got our way over that, and the Declaration of London does not affect it; but if, as we consider, we gain certain advantages under the Declaration of London as it stands, that is no reason why we should withdraw from it because we have not got all we wanted. The PRESIDENT : Who were the main opponents of our view ? Who made it impossible to come to an agreement ? Sir EDWARD GREY : Germany was the chief opponent, and we were in a small minority. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Is there a definition of what is a "base," or is it left to general interpretation ? Sir EDWARD GREY : There is no definition. The word " base "is the only definition. Dr. FINDLAY: Surely it has a definite enough meaning in an International Prize Court. It has been defined more than once by our courts and by other courts. Sir EDWARD GREY: Yes. "Base" in itself is a definition. T think anybody would hold that it is monstrous to say that a purely mercantile port, simply because a line of railway goes from it to some 100 miles off where there is an armed camp, is a base. Base is something the main purpose of which is to serve the enemy's forces. Dr. FINDLAY : There would be no doubt as to what it means in my country, I know.

15—A. 4.

A;— 4

112

3rd Day.] Declaration of London. [1 June, 1911. Mr. BATCHELOR : Nearly all the foreign mail steamers, particularly the Germans, are heavily subsidised by the Government, and they are much the biggest steamers plying, and they are almost invariably manned by officers and men of the Naval Reserve, so that conversion is a very much bigger thing with us than it would be here. Sir EDWARD GREY : It is quite desirable to get it, but as it is not in the Declaration of London you can hardly use that as an argument against the Declaration of London, if the Declaration of London, as it stands, is satisfactory. Mr. BATCHELOR : But it is an argument for trying to bring about an alteration of condition. Sir EDWARD GREY : Yes, but you could not get that into the Declaration of London. You must try for it at another Conference. Having found ourselves in a minority on this point at the actual Conference which took place, it is no good raising it and trying to get it in the Declaration of London now. Mr. FISHER : You say we must appeal to the common-sense of the people of the world to bring the nations forward ? The PRESIDENT : To come round to our view. Sir EDWARD GREY : We have to try and educate them tc our view. The PRESIDENT : With reference to something Sir Edward Grey said, I do not think it has been sufficiently noted that Article 34 is merely commentary upon and interpretative of Article 33. Article 33 is the governing article, and nothing is liable to capture as conditional contraband unless it is shown — etabli —to be destined for the use of the armed forces or of a Government Department of the enemy. That is the proposition you have to prove, and unless you can prove that proposition it is not liable to capture. As Sir Edward Grey has pointed out, Article 34 merely says that in that process of proof there are certain rebuttable presumptions, one of which is, is the commodity in question consigned to a place serving as a base of the enemy ? It is all governed by that, and unless it can be brought within that in the judgment of the tribunal, it is not liable to capture. Sir EDWARD GREY : These articles have very limited application. The PRESIDENT : They are mere expositions. Sir EDWARD GREY : With regard to the abolition of continuous voyage, I think it would not help you to get the food supplies into Australia. Mr. PEARCE : It would be of no value to us for that purpose. Sir EDWARD GREY : No, I think it would not help you for that purpose. It might be of some value in getting goods out under a neutral flag, because you could consign them to a neutral port. It is inconceivable, of course, that as long as the British Fleet has command of the sea, there should be an enemy's fleet which is operating in waters near Australia; but supposing there were two or three cruisers not yet caught, but for a month or two Mr. BATCHELOR : For a while.

113

A.—4.

1 June, 1911.] Declaration of London. [3rd Day. Sir EDWARD GREY : For a while—working in Australian waters before you can deal with them with your Australian Navy even, and you wanted to use neutral vessels to send your goods, you would be able to consign those goods to some neutral port in Europe where the British Fleet had swept the seas, and they could be transferred from that neutral port to a British port. So it has a bearing when you come not to imports, but to exports. But, as a matter of fact, I think it must be borne in mind all through that this whole question of contraband and neutral vessels is not nearly so big as is thought, because we cannot in this country be supplied by the neutral flag alone. If we cannot keep the sea free and clear in time of war for the supplies coming under the British flag into this country, we cannot feed our population, and we shall be brought to our knees. Now, if we can keep the seas free and prevent interference with the British flag, we can prevent interference with a neutral flag. So that, whatever inconvenience there may be Avith regard to food coming under a neutral flag, they cannot be vital to the issues of a war, because if we can keep the sea free to the British flag, we can certainly prevent any but a very small amount of interference with the neutral flag. If we cannot keep it free for the British flag we cannot feed our population, and are not in a position to carry on the war. Sir JOSEPH WARD : An enormous amount, I think 90 per cent, of it, comes under the British flag and is carried in British bottoms. Sir EDWARD GREY : Yes, an enormous amount. Mr. BATCHELOR : In a war in which Britain was engaged the tendency would be that goods could be transferred into neutral bottoms not liable to capture. Sir EDWARD GREY : Yes; but there are not enough neutral bottoms to supply the necessities, because if the British merchant flag is driven off the sea there are not enough neutral bottoms to carry on the trade of the world and feed this country. Mr. PEARCE : Unless there is a transfer. Sir EDWARD GREY : But a transfer cannot be in too wholesome and sudden a way. Sir JOSEPH WARD : It cannot be done in the middle of a war. Sir EDWARD GREY : Over a length of time it can be done, but it cannot be done on a wholesale scale all at once. I want to prevent any misconception, that under the Declaration of London we are securing things which are going to make a difference to our safety in time of war. There is only one thing which will secure our safety in time of war, and that is the supremacy of the British Fleet. If it is maintained, then all those points really under the Declaration of London are of comparative insignificance to us when we are belligerents, and they are of great importance to us when we are neutrals, because we have a better chance of getting redress. Now, as to the point of consultation, I think you will have gathered from what I have already said that the Declaration of London arises out of the last Hague Conference. It was a subsidiary consequence of the last Hague Conference. I see lam reported to have said in one answer that it was not practicable to consult. I have forgotten the exact context of the answer, but no doubt I used those words. Mr. BATCHELOR : It was a newspaper report. I did not look up Hansard. Sir EDWARD GREY : Yes, I have a recollection of using those words; but as a matter of fact it was very difficult, or it would have been very difficult, after the Dominions had not been consulted about the Hague Conference and the

A.—4,

114

3rd Day.] Declaration of London. [1 June, 1911 Sir EDWARD GEEY— cont. Prize Court Convention, to bring them in suddenly with regard to the Declaration of London. Once the whole thing had been launched, and when there was no arrangement in existence for consultation with the Dominions, it would have been exceedingly difficult — perhaps " not practicable" is too strong a word, but difficult and exceedingly inconvenient—suddenly to set up a consultation with regard to the Declaration of London, when there had been none with regard to the Hague Conference. I would take even a larger point than Mr. Fisher took, though I rather understood him to imply it. The point should be not why were not the Dominions not consulted about the Declaration of London, but why were not they consulted with regard to the Hague Conference. If they had been consulted with regard to the programme of the Hague Conference it would follow as a matter of course that they would have been consulted with regard to the Declaration of London. Ido not know that I can give any answer to that point except they were not consulted about the Hague Conference which took place before that—a still earlier one. I agree, and the Government agrees entirely, that the Dominions ought to be consulted, and that they ought to be , consulted before the next Hague Conference takes place, about the whole programme of that next Conference; and then, of course, they would be consulted automatically with regard to everything that arises out of it. Mr. FISHER : I only wish to convey to this Conference and to the Government that we desire, as far as it is practicable to do so, not only to be consulted after things are done, but to be consulted while you have ideas in your minds and before you begin to carry them out and commit us to them. As regards this other point, we are only responsible for what we do here, and as it is necessary to begin at some point I shall be very glad if the Government are ready to begin now. Sir EDWARD GREY : I think what I am going to say will show that the Government not only thoroughly understand the scope of Mr. Fisher's point but also, in practice, could meet it. The procedure with regard to the next Hague Conference will, I presume, be the same as it was with regard to the last. There is, first of all, an international programme drawn up. That is the first thing. When that programme is drawn up it is received by the Government here, and it will be circulated to the Dominion Governments. It is drawn up some time in advance. What we do here ourselves is to have an inter-depart-mental conference which considers that programme, and considers what instructions should be given to the British delegates who are going to the Hague Conference, as to the line they should take on the different points. I think, obviously, the time for consultation to begin is when that inter-departmental conference, as we have called it hitherto, takes place, and that the Dominions should, in whatever way they found most convenient, which would be made known through Mr. Harcourt, or the Secretary of State for the Colonies, be represented at that inter-departmental conference, and so be present and be a party to drawing up the instructions which are to be given to the delegates at the Hague Conference. Then, of course, the delegates go to the Hague Conference to carry out the instructions. The Dominion Governments will then be parties to the instructions, but they, like the Government here, of course, have to leave considerable latitude to the delegates to carry out those instructions at the Conference. The delegates will carry out those instructions, but no doubt from time to time while the Conference is proceeding points arise, which have to be answered by telegraph sometimes, and I think then it would be impossible to have consultation on every point that arises, because there is no time, owing to the necessities of the case. As a matter of fact, during the last Hague Conference, theoretically the whole Cabinet ought to have been consulted here on points as they arose, but there was no time. Parliament is not always sitting, the Cabinet is separated, and some individual Minister here, unfortunately the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs generally, has to take the responsibility of dealing with points which arise from moment to moment.

115

A.—4

1 June, 1911.] Declaration of London. [3rd Day. Mr. FISHER : And then blame the Prime Minister. The PRESIDENT : As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister can generally be communicated with, but you cannot assemble the Cabinet. Sir EDAVARD GREY : Just in the same way as one individual Minister sometimes has to act and take responsibility without consulting the Cabinet, and the Prime Minister has to act without consulting the Cabinet on some things from the nature of the case when there is not time, so the Home Government when the Conference is going on would have to deal with the points without being able to consult the Dominions, simply because it is not physically possible to do so. Then there will be Conventions signed at the Hague Conference, and a considerable interval for ratification. Those Conventions will be circulated to the Dominion Governments, and they will have an opportunity of signifying whether they are satisfied with those Conventions or not. If they are not satisfied, and if those Conventions are not ratified, and if the matter is really of great importance, we must have, of course, something in the nature of a conference here, to which the Dominions who found themselves specially interested could name their own representative and send him to thresh the matter out; and the final decision, whatever it was, would be come to, I hope unanimously; but, anyhow, whatever the decision come to was, it would be after considerable consultation, and there could be no complaint again in future that there had not been consultation between the Dominions and the Home Government. It is possible that some Convention by the Hague Conference may be signed which the Home Government may approve of, and which one of the Dominions may object to and another may strongly approve of, and so forth; so we cannot be sure of unanimity; but we can be sure of consultation, and it is the intention of the Government in future —and I have described the process gone through in order to make it clear —not only to have consultation, but to make that consultation really a practical thing, which, as regards the proceedings of the Hague Conferences, and so forth, will be, and can be, carried out. In conclusion, I have only to say that I do hope the Conference will agree to the ratification of the Declaration of London, because some other Powers are very much attached to having the Declaration of London ratified. They look upon it as a step forward in international agreement and arbitration, and if at this time of day, after all that has passed, we were to withdraw from it and say we would not ratify it, it would be, as far as we are concerned, a great blow to the confidence of other Powers in regarding us as a Power which is prepared to forward arbitration. As we are anxious, especially with the United States, to co-operate in furthering arbitration, I think it is absolutely essential that we should go through with the Declaration of London. I think on the merits it is advantageous to us, though we have not got everything that we want, and, from the general point of view of arbitration, I think it would be the greatest disappointment to other nations, and really almost an incentive to them to go on with their arbitration arrangements and international arrangements of this kind without us, if we stood aside from this Declaration and were not to ratify it. Mr. FISHER : Do I understand you to limit this to matters which may be referred to the Hague Conference ? We wanted to go into other departments of your work. Sir EDWARD GREY : You mean into treaties generally. Mr. FISHER : Yes. Sir EDWARD GREY : Ido not intend to limit it to that. There are some cases of treaties where it is exceedingly difficult, owing to time, to have any such consultation. Mr. FISHER : We recognise all that, but I do not wish to be limited to the Hague Conference.

A.—4.

116

3rd Day.] Declaration of London. [1 June, 1911. Sir EDWARD GREY : I did not in the least mean it to be exclusive. Mr. FISHER : You only mentioned that one particularly. Sir EDWARD GREY : I was taking that as an instance where it is quite easy. There are cases where it is difficult, but in so far as it can be done we would do it. I will give you one instance now where we are engaged in certain negotiations. Mr. FISHER : 1 would rather not hear that. It is not restricted in your own mind merely to the Hague Conference? Sir EDWARD GREY : Certainly not. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : In the proposition which was moved by our colleagues from Australia, especially as commented upon by Mr. Fisher, certain principles were laid down which seemed to me to be very far reaching. If I understand him correctly, the proposition he laid down was that the Dominions should be consulted upon all treaties to be negotiated by His Majesty. There are two sorts of treaties between nations. First of all there are commercial treaties; and, secondly, there are treaties of amity, which are calculated to prevent causes of war, or to settle afterwards the effects of war. With regard to commercial treaties, His Majesty's Government has already adopted the practice of never including any of the Dominions beyond the seas except with their consent. That implies consultation prior or afterwards. Liberty is left to us to be included or not included in such a treaty as that, and I think that is very satisfactory. In Canada, I may say, we have gone further and claimed the liberty of negotiating our own treaties of commerce, and, so far, since the time we applied for this privilege, which was given to us, of course the negotiations have been carried on with the concurrence of the Foreign Office in conjunction with the Ambassador, but at all events our liberty was not restricted at all in that respect. Coming now to the other class of treaties, which I characterised as treaties of amity, it would seem to me that it would be fettering, in many instances, the Home Government —the Imperial authorities—very seriously, if any of the outside Dominions were to be consulted as to what they should do on a particular question. In many cases the nature of the treaty would be such that it would only interest one of the Dominions. If it interested them all the Imperial authorities would find themselves seriously embarrassed if they were to receive the advice of Australia in one way, the advice of New Zealand in another way, and the advice of Canada, perhaps, in a third way. Negotiations have to be carried on by certain diplomatic methods, and it is, I think, not always safe for the party negotiating to at once put all his cards on the table and let his opponent know exactly what he is after. I noticed particularly what was said by Mr. Fisher a moment ago, that the British Empire is a family of nations, which is perfectly true; but it must be recognised that in that family of nations by far the greater burden has to" be carried on the shoulders of the Government of the United Kingdom. The diplomatic part of the Government of the Empire has of necessity to be carried on by the Government of the United Kingdom, and that being so I think it would be too much to say that in all circumstances the Dominions beyond the seas are to be consulted as far as the diplomatic negotiations are concerned. That is what T understood Mr. Fisher to desire. Mr. FISHER : My last point was that it should be done whenever possible. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : I have no doubt that wherever possible the Government of the United Kingdom will do its duty. Mr. FISHER : And primarily when our interests were involved.

117

A.—4

1 June, 1911.] Declaration of London. [3rd Day. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Yes, but now let us apply this general doctrine to the Declaration of London. This is a thing which, in my humble judgment, ought to be left altogether to the responsibility of the Government of the United Kingdom, for this reason : This is a treaty which lays down certain rules of war as to in what manner war is to be carried on by the great Powers of Europe. In my humble judgment if you undertake to be consulted and to lay down a wish that your advice should be pursued as to the manner in which the war is to be carried on, it implies, of necessity, that you should take part in that war. How are you to give advice and insist upon the manner in which war is to be carried on, unless you are prepared to take the responsibility of going into the war ? Mr. FISHER : Do not we do that in a manner by coming here ? Sir WILFRID LAURIER : No, we come here to discuss certain questions; but there are questions which seem to me to be eminently in the domain of the United Kingdom. We may give advice if our advice is sought; but if your advice is sought, or if you tender it, I do not think the United Kingdom can undertake to carry out this advice unless you are prepared to back that advice with all your strength, and take part in the war and insist upon having the rules carried out according to the manner in which you think the war should be carried out. We have taken the position in Canada that we do not think we are bound to take part in every war, and that our fleet may not be called upon in all cases, and, therefore, for my part, I think it in better under such circumstances to leave the negotiations of these regulations as to the way in which the war is to be carried on to the chief partner of the family, the one who has to bear the burden in part on some occasions, and the whole burden on perhaps other occasions. 1 say this by way of general observation upon the first proposition which was made by Australia. Now coming to the Declaration of London itself, there is no such thing at present as international law. International law has simply been the opinion of some eminent men as to what should be the guidance of civilised nations. The first time of having any international law was, I think, in the Declaration of Paris in 1856, which followed the Crimean War, and this Declaration was very limited. Now you propose certain rules which are to be carried out by civilised nations in warfare, and you know exactly where you are. Therefore you have what you never had before —a tribunal which will finally settle the affairs between nation and nation as to the method of carrying on war. That is a step in advance, as I think we are all agreed, and I fully agree with what Mr. Fisher said in this respect. We are all in favour of arbitration, and therefore this is a first step between nations in the direction of arbitration. These rules may not be perfect, and we know, after what has been said by Sir Edward Grey, if he could have had his own way, in some respects these rules would have been different from what they are. We know that we cannot sit at a table—the very table where we are—and agree upon everything, and it is impossible to expect nations to agree upon everything, but there has been an immense step forward, and I think it is, on the whole, a very wise move. Now, take the Declaration of London as to foodstuffs carried in neutral ships. Up to the present time there has been no law upon this point, except what was the will of the nation who was the belligerent Power. But now you have certain rules. These rules seem to me to be extremely humane, and in the best interests of humanity. The rule as it is laid down is, that foodstuff is not to be contraband of war unless for the purpose of feeding the forces actually engaged in the war. Therefore the broad proposition is gained that foodstuff is not contraband of war unless the belligerent Power can show that it is destined for the forces engaged in the war. Now this seems to me to be eminently a wise rule, but it is stated, however —and that is a point of controversy —that there shall be a presumption under certain circumstances that these foodstuffs are for the purpose of feeding the forces of the enemy. The presumptions are two or three in number—that the destination is presumed to exist; that the food is for the purposes of the enemy if the goods are consigned to the enemy authorities— which is quite conceivable—

A.—4

118

3rd Day.] Declaration ok London. [1 June, 1911. Sir WILFRID LAXJUIER—cont. or to a contractor established in the enemy country who, as a matter of common knowledge, supplies articles of this kind to the enemy. The word " contractor " does not seem to be an apt translation of the word " commercant." The PRESIDENT : It has been commented on several times. Sir WILFRID LAURIER: I think it would be just as well to say " merchant" or " trader." The PRESIDENT : It is not an apt phrase. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : The next presumption arises : "If the goods which are consigned to a fortified place belonging to the enemy " —which is quite conceivable also —" or other place serving as a base for the armed forces of the enemy." The reviews and magazines in England have been full of comment upon the word " base." That is why I asked, is there a definition of the word " base "in the Declaration of London to be found ? We understand exactly what " base " is; it is to be found in all the books; it has been declared by judicial authority, and there can be no doubt upon that. Therefore the Declaration of London goes so far in favour of the neutrality of neutral vessels. The food carries the presumption that it is for the enemy; it is only a presumption; it can be rebutted by evidence, even if it is consigned to the enemy authorities. You would imagine that if food is consigned to the enemy authority it is not only presumptive, but absolute proof. The PRESIDENT : But it can be rebutted. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Still, in such a case there is opportunity for rebuttal, and the party aggrieved can go to the court and say : "No; though this food was conveyed to the enemy authority, still it was not destined for war purposes." I think the Declaration of London is humane in every respect, and, for my part, I think the duty of the Dominions is to stand by the Imperial authorities in this matter. Igo further. Sir Edward Grey is negotiating at the present time a Treaty of Arbitration between Great Britain and the United States, and since we have been in England we have learnt with great joy that France is likely to go into that arbitration treaty also. No greater step, I think, has been taken for the higher civilisation of mankind than the negotiation of that treaty; and we all agree here, that if Sir Edward Grey is able to negotiate for, and have such a treaty enacted, it would be one of the greatest honours of his career and the greatest act of this century. If you prevent this agreement being passed, you put a bar and a stop at once on that treaty; and the reason is overwhelming, therefore, why the hands of the Government should be strengthened by this Conference, as far as it can, being in favour of the ratification of the Declaration of London. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I regard this matter as one of commanding import-v ance, and so far as it is possible for a layman to master the situation, I have endeavoured to do so. I have discussed the legal points that may arise under the articles of the Declaration of London with my friend the Attorney-General of New Zealand. My colleague, Dr. Findlay, will state the conclusions that he has come to from the legal aspect, and although some of the points have already been touched upon, it would be a source of satisfaction to the country I am representing if Dr. Findlay's views upon the legal position were stated. I have also discussed the articles of the Declaration of London with a great many people who take a deep interest in the matter—professional men, merchants, shipowners, and others—and I find there is considerable diversity of opinion among them on the subject. I recognise, too, that there has been, on

119

A.—4

1 June, 1911.] Declaration of London. [3rd Day. Sir JOSEPH WASD—oont. the part of those opposed to the Declaration, a strong and persistent effort made to influence the opinions and judgment of the representatives of the oversea Dominions attending this Conference, and after weighing the views of those whose opinions I consider worthy of respect, and examining the matter carefully for myself, I have arrived at the conclusion that the Declaration of London now before us is better in the general interests of the British Empire, either as a neutral or as a belligerent, than the conditions existing at present. The chief thing that actuated me in arriving at a decision favourable to the proposed Declaration was the one material question : Will the food supplies for Great Britain be exposed to greater risks than at present ? After considering the matter as carefully as it was possible for me to do, I came to the conclusion that they would not be exposed to greater risks, but, on the contrary, there would be an improvement. Foodstuffs are to be recognised as conditional contraband, and their protection would be increased, because the captor has the responsibility of proving his case, and hitherto the responsibility has not been on the warship, but on the shipmaster or shipowner. Having come to that conclusion upon that point, the others that I looked into with the view to ascertaining our position in connection with the Declaration of London, though important, were not, to my mind, of such direct importance to Great Britain and the oversea Dominions as the one I have just referred to. For instance, I have a distinct recollection of what took place during the Russo-Japanese War, when a vessel from New Zealand called the " Knight Commander " was sunk by the Russians. The prize court was the tribunal of the country that sank the vessel, and they would not give a penny piece in connection with the sinking of that vessel. Now it seems to me the proposals made here—T know there is a very strong exception taken to them by some people whose opinions are entitled to consideration—to establish an international prize court to which an appeal could be made, would be of very great importance in a matter of that kind. This aspect of the matter concerns the Dominion of New Zealand and all the other oversea Dominions. Great Britain would have representation upon an international prize court. To my mind, the representation of the small Powers is a minor matter, because the court would consist of not less than 9 or more than 15 members, and upon that court there would be eight great Powers; so that the minor countries to which the exception is taken that they have a right to sit and vote where important oversea Dominions have no right of vote at all would, as far as the great countries are concerned, every time be in a minority. Out of 15 members the smaller countries to which exception is taken as to their having representation upon the international court would be, practically, every time in a minority. Naturally, lam anxious to see that the oversea Dominions should not be overlooked in connection with an important issue of this kind; but what weighs with me in considering this aspect of the matter is the fact that, generally speaking, there would not be more than two belligerents, and the balance of the representatives sitting upon the international court would be neutrals. If the assumption is that because the right is given to countries outside the United Kingdom to have representation upon an international court, every time a decision affected a ship or the cargo of a ship, or any other matters referred by way of appeal to the international court, the neutral members of that court, because they were in a majority as far as numbers were concerned over the British members, would give decisions against British interests, they would find themselves, in all probability, at some future time in a similar position. It is not reasonable to suppose that anything of that nature would actuate men in coming to a decision upon matters which affect two belligerents being tried by a court the members of which would be bound to be a majority of neutrals. Though I would naturally like to see Great Britain and the oversea Dominions having a larger representation upon such an international court, I do not think, after carefully considering the matter, that it is of such material consequence as has been represented to, and urged upon, me by people who are anxious and, T think, sincerely anxious in the matter, because opposition to it really implies that Britain should have a majority on such a court, and that is impossible. It does seem to me that when there is the substitution of a method by which cases

16—A. 4.

120

A.—4

3rd Day.} Declaration of London. [1 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD—c<m*. can be tried by an international court as against a system, which exists at this moment, of your opponent trying his own case, it is a most important advance. As far'as the oversea Dominions and Great Britain are concerned I look upon the whole question as being a matter of the supremacy of the British Navy and this is the crux of the whole position from the point 01 view of both the United Kingdom and the oversea Dominions. The preservation of the sea routes comes right into prominence from the standpoint of protecting our enormous interests What is important to us and to England is that all oversea routes should be fully protected. When I remember that 90 per cent, of the ships carrying foodstuffs to England are British owned and under the Bntish flag, I recogmse, with regard to this question of dealing with our sea routes, how enormously important the maintenance of an Empire Navy is, and how wideWilfrid Laurier-though I know he holds the view pretty strongly-as to the desirability, in the case of treaties, of our not havSg a say where possible where they affect the interests of any one of the oversea Dominions. I realise to the full that to-day without taking part v.the treaties in the event of anything untoward happening to the British Empire t would be vital to the oversea Dominions, and whether they were taking part by way of suggestion or having treaties referred to them which affect the oversea Dominions, I recognise that directly and indirectly they are involved in conSon with the general position of the maintenance of British supremacy It does appear to me that it would have been very much easier from the point of v°ew of the British Government itself, if it had been possible for the proposed rails of Vhis Declaration to have been submitted to the oversea Dominions; and if the oversea Dominions had gone into the matter fully and the opportunity had been given to the whole of the members of the overseas Governments who are entitled to be heard on a matter of this kind to consider these proposals, I believe bn- ago we should have come to the conclusion that the course which has been pursued here is the best in the general interests of the Empire. P Sir Edward Grey's suggestion that for the future, m connection with the Hague Coherence for instance, the opportunity for consideration is to be affo?ded-whkh implies that if an alteration is made in connection with the Declarationof London as we are dealing with it to-day, the opportunity would beAfforded to think would be of material importance to all the Governments "ncluding the British Government, so that we should be able to go into the Ster and excess our opinion in time before the final decision was arrived at Tftillv Xsnise the force of the point put forward by Sir Edward Grey, that as the 7 Sster with the great responsibility upon his shoulders of directing *he foreign affairlof the British Government, he has not always time to confer wTth hf colleagues concerning circumstances which may arise. He has, moreover to accept the responsibility, and the oversea Dominions, even if taken into consutatton with the British Government, could not, during the sitting of a Terence aTwavs have the opportunity of expressing an opinion even on ol"cogence prior totL Secretary for Foreign Affairs deciding what C ° Tir Withregard to the definition of " base." I look upon that as important, and I recXnise iTth Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Mr. Asquith, and the other gentlemen leads to a P ort ; ™f V^V ;: ailwav to the forC es, and used for the preservation itSbe Dr g EINDLAY • I do not know that I can contribute much fresh light

121

A.—4

1 June, 1911.] Declaration of London. [3rd Day. Dr. FINDLAY— cont. has given very careful thought to it should not merely express concurrence but should state very shortly the reasons which I think amply justify that concurrence. I had the opportunity of studying this Declaration of London when it reached New Zealand, and having given it the best thought I could, I published there the detailed views which entitled me, .1 think, to urge upon our Government that it should be adopted. I desire to say that it seems to me that the more critically that Declaration of London is examined, the more fully will it be found that in every part of it it is an advantage to the British nation. I would impress, first of all, that it is at once an immense protection against the chances of war. The ultimate sanction, as a rule, in international law, is war. International differences arise, such as arose in the cases referred to by Sir Edward Grey, when Russia refused to recognise our view with regard to the sinking of those vessels, which might easily result in war. Now these chances of war should be enormously obviated by the protection of an independent and impartial international tribunal upon which there must always be a majority of neutrals, unless in the almost inconceivable case of a very considerable number of nations being at war at the same time; so that, from the point of view of the constitution of your tribunal, the rights of neutrals may fairly look for as complete a protection as justice and impartiality can secure. Now there has been an immense amount of misconception with regard to the true purpose and function of this Declaration of London. First of all, it makes no change or difference whatever with regard to the rights and powers of a belligerent against another belligerent. Those rights remain as. heretofore. When Great Britain is a belligerent against a neutral it seems to me the Declaration is in our favour, because, speaking generally, Great Britain has hitherto imposed upon herself more restrictions in favour of neutrals than any other of the Great Powers. The relaxation which occurs in various of these clauses of that strictness is in our favour when we, as a belligerent, are dealing with neutrals. If we are a neutral dealing with a belligerent, we still have an advantage because the Declaration imposes upon other belligerents restrictions which we, as a neutral, will be able to take advantage of. So I put it that from either one of those two characters we look at—either Great Britain as a belligerent against a neutral, or Great Britain as a neutral against a belligerent—the Declaration of London confers upon us distinct advantages. Now the point made by Mr. Batchelor in the matter which is immediately before us is that foodstuffs should be upon the free list. Foodstuffs have never been upon the free list, The British rule and practice heretofore are now contained in the Declaration of London, which substantially expresses what has been the British practice for at least a century. It clarifies the whole position, but what our representatives have done is to procure for us the recognition of the British rule with regard to foodstuffs as conditional contraband. So that upon that point it should be borne in mind we have not receded at all: we have lost nothing, but have gained. You have the further advantage that the Declaration expresses definitely the grounds upon which foodstuffs may become contraband. T , I do not want to labour this matter, but only want to say, as far as I have been able to give it close attention, nothing has been lost in either clause 33 or clause 34 but we have secured for ourselves the advantage that by other nations our practice should be recognised. May I point out here that I received last night objections to this Declaration of London based on this clause 33, signed by a very imposing array of admirals, which contained, as it seemed to me, one entire misconception of the spirit and object of clauses 33 and 34 It is put that while Germany or any other Continental nation may have her food supplies delivered at a neutral port and thence transferred by rail, England is in no analogous position, and must necessarily lose by that situation. It seems to me that such a contention is quite untenable. If it be secured to Germany or any other Continental nation that she may have her foodstuffs delivered at a neutral port and thence transferred by rail, surely we may have our food supplies delivered at a neutral port, it may be on the Continent, and traa ferred by sea

A.—4

122

3rd Day.] Declaration of London. [1 June, 1911. Dr. FINDLAY— cont. under the protection of the fleet of Great Britain! This provision is not onesided. These gentlemen say it would be a bogus transfer to permit our supplies to come to a port in France and be conveyed protected from France here, and that would not be recognised by Germany, but treated as a breach of the spirit of .this Declaration, and consequently the neutral ships would be seized. That seems to be quite inconsistent and quite erroneous. I take it—and I should like to know whether Sir Edward Grey agrees with this very vital point—the Declaration of London contemplates as a right and proper thing the delivery of food supplies at a neutral port with the admitted intention of transferring them to belligerent territory' if they can be got there. It is not a bogus transfer at all, but a transfer within the spirit and meaning of the Declaration, and would, I take it, be quite valid; and Germany or any other country can only escape that conclusion if she violated the plain good faith which should lie below this Declaration. The point which is made there and made on a mere superficial criticism of this Declaration, is that a nation will not recognise the true spirit, meaning, and intent of the Declaration, that it will be violated in the interests of each particular nation, and, consequently, is of no use. Very well, if that is so, there is an end of the question. If that is to be the attitude in which each nation is to deal with a matter of honour, you might give up treaty-making altogether. This treaty rests, as every treaty must rest, upon the honourable obligation of each party to it, and it seems to me to beg the whole question when critics in one breath declare that a different treaty should be made, and in the next breath declare that a treaty so made will be ignored by those who signed it. That brings me to the point of the splendid advance made under the Declaration, in the securing of an impartial tribunal. No student of international law can deny that the present system of adjudication by a prize court of the nation claimed against is utterly unsatisfactory, if it does not deserve a stronger adjective. You have here a great stride towards that international arbitration which Sir Edward Grey is doing so much to promote in connection with that proposed treaty with the United States. This is a great step in that direction —the erection of an impartial and international tribunal, on which we and any other nation at war with us would be represented, and in which, with a membership of not less than nine and not more than fifteen, there must in practice always be a majority of neutrals. The further point I desire to make in answer to the objection raised by Mr. Batchelor is with regard to the destruction of merchantmen. It seems to me that a good deal of his argument, proceeded upon a misconception. First of all, Great Britain has not consistently said that it is improper to destroy ships in those cases. Mr. BATCHELOR : I did not say so. I quoted Sir Edward Grey. Dr. FINDLAY : I know, but I point out that both Lord Stowell, and later Dr. Lushington, said explicitly, that circumstances might justify the destruction so long as the owner was compensated. But that is not an important point. The PRESIDENT : I think they laid it down that the owner must be compensated although the vessel was really liable to condemnation. Dr. FINDLAY : Just so; but that does not seem to me to be the important point. The point is, what do the other nations do? I think it was said that the United States do not recognise the right of destruction. The present regulations of the United States do recognise it. The present prize regulations of France, Russia and Japan —although Japan has since indicated a disposition to take our view—and the United States, permit destruction in these cases. While you have such a large amount of international support to destruction, it seems to me a little idle to complain that we have not been able to secure a thing which we ourselves have never done consistently, and secondly a thing which

123

A.—4

1 June, 1911.] Declaration of London. [3rd Day. Dr. FINDLA Y—cont. these strong nations have heretofore objected to do. But we have secured something much better than the existing state of affairs. First of all, the chapter begins with a declaration that destruction is not to take place. There is a general prohibition against destruction : " A neutral vessel which has been captured may not be destroyed by the captor; she must be taken into such port as is proper for the determination there of all questions concerning the validity of the capture." Then follow the exceptions, that where the observance of that rule would involve danger to the safety of the warship or the success of operations in which she is engaged at the time, then destruction may take place. Let me emphasize one point so far not noticed. The first thing which has to be done when this matter comes before a court is that the captor has to justify himself first and foremost, on the ground that circumstances demanded the action he took. He must show that the circumstances were so urgent as to come within these exceptions contained in Rule 49, and if he does not do that it does not matter whether the ship was liable to be captured or not; he has to pay compensation. I suggest that as a very strong reason indeed why a belligerent should think twice about capturing arbitrarily and improperly a vessel in those circumstances. No doubt it will not prevent it, but the fact that an independent tribunal would have the right to call upon him first to make clear to it that the circumstances did demand this drastic action will certainly potently act as a deterrent upon the present arbitrary and very often unnecessary destruction of neutral vessels in these cases. I suggest that these.circumstances taken together are a distinct advance upon the existing chaos, that they give a great measure of protection to us as neutrals, and that they deserve unqualified adoption by this country. I do not think it necessary to traverse other grounds which have been raised, The point made that conversion might take place on the high seas is not touched by this Declaration at all, and it is found, if you look at the reports, that such nations as France, Russia, and Germany all refused to take the British view, and strongly resisted the British view; so it was hopeless to get an agreement, however desirable that may be, and the best that was possible in the circumstances was done. For these reasons, and many others with which I will not occupy the attention of this Conference, it seems to me that in every respect the Declaration of London is one of the best things which has been done for British commerce for very many years, and that, apart from any national obligation to ratify it, because we, in a sense, are responsible for it—upon the simple ground of self interest —it should, undoubtedly, in my judgment, be adopted. The expression of regret which is contained in the proposition I do not think calls for any discussion from me. It has led to an exceedingly interesting reply from Sir Edward Grey, and as Mr. Fisher does not make it the basis of any motion, it is unnecessary for me to refer to that now. The reply which Sir Edward Grey has given is still more gratifying I feel sure to every one at the table, and shows still more fully how closely those in charge of the destinies of the Empire are disposed to consult those who represent the Dominions overseas. Mr. FISHER : I think it would be wise to pass some resolution on this point. General BOTHA : I would suggest adjourning now. The PRESIDENT : You would rather defer what you have to say until to-morrow morning ? General BOTHA : Yes. Adjourned to to-morrow morning at 11 o'clock.

A—4

124

FOURTH DAY. Friday, 2nd June, 1911. The Imperial Conference met at the Foreign Office at 11 a.m. PRESENT: The Right Honourable H. H. ASQUITH, K.C., M.P., President of the Conference. The Right Honourable L. Harcourt, M.P., Secretary of State for the Colonies. The Right Honourable Sydney Buxton, M.P., President of the Board of Trade. T. McKinnon Wood, Esq., M.P., Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Canada. The Right Honourable Sir Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G., Prime Minister of the Dominion. The Honourable L. P. Brodeur, K.C., Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Australia. The Honourable A. Fisher, Prime Minister of the Commonwealth. The Honourable E. L. Batchelor, Minister of External Affairs. The Honourable G. F. Pearce, Minister of Defence. New Zealand. The Right Honourable Sir Joseph G. Ward, K.C.M.G., Prime Minister of the Dominion. The Honourable J. G. Findlay, K.C., LL.D., Attorney-General and Minister of Justice. Union of South Africa. General The Right Honourable L. Botha, Prime Minister of the Union. The Honourable F. S. Malan, Minister of Education. The Honourable Sir David de Villiers Graaff, Bart., Minister of Public Works, Posts and Telegraphs. Newfoundland. The Honourable Sir E. P. Morris, K.C., Prime Minister. The Honourable R. Watson, Colonial Secretary. Mr. H. W. Just, C.8., C.M.G., Secretary to the Conference. Mr. W. A. Robinson, Senior Assistant Secretary. Mr. A. B. Keith, D.C.L., Junior Assistant Secretary. There were also present : Lord Lucas, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Colonies; Sir Francis Hopwood, G.C.M.G., X.C.8., Permanent Under Secretary of State for the Colonies; Sir C. P. Lucas, K.C.M.G., C.8.. Assistant Under Secretary of State for the Colonies;

A —4

125

2 June, 1911.] Declaration of London. [it h Day. Mr. J. S. Risley, Legal Adviser, Colonial Office; Sir H. Llewellyn Smith, X.C.8., Permanent Secretary to the Board of Trade; Sir Walter Howell, X.C.8., Assistant Secretary, Marine Department, Board of Trade; Mr. G. J. Stanley, C.M.G., Assistant Secretary, Commercial and Statistical Department, Board of Trade; Sir Ellis Cunliffe, Solicitor to the Board of Trade; Mr. JEL. Fountain, Board of Trade; Sir Eyre Crowe, K.C.M.G., C.8., Foreign Office; Mr. C. J. B. Hurst, C.8., Assistant Legal Adviser, Foreign Office; Rear-Admiral Sir Charles Ottley, K.C.M.G., M.V.O , Secretary to the Committee of Imperial Defence; Mr. Atlee A. Hunt, C.M.G., Secretary to the Department of External Affairs, Commonwealth of Australia; Mr. J. R. Leisk, Secretary for Finance, Union of South Africa; and Private Secretaries to Members of the Conference.

Declaration of London. " That it is regretted that the Dominions were not consulted prior to the acceptance by the British Delegates of the terms of the Declaration of London ; that it is not desirable that Great Britain should adopt the inclusion in Article 24 of foodstuffs in view of the fact that so large a part of the trade of the Empire is in those articles ; that it is not desirable that Great Britain should adopt the provisions of Articles 48 to 54 permitting the destruction of neutral vessels." General BOTHA : The resolution proposed by the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia is one on which I express my opinion with great diffidence. At the same time I do not shrink from doing so to the best of my ability I beg to ask you for your indulgence if in the course of my remarks I refer to points and arguments which have been amply discussed before and during this Conference—my excuse is that such great interest is taken in this question also in South Africa that T should like to place my views on record fully so as to explain my position in regard to it. The first part of this resolution involves a question of the very greatest importance The question is how far, when the Imperial Government negotiates with foreign countries agreements or treaties which may affect particular parts of the Empire, it should consult the self-governing Dominions concerned before committing itself. I intended to discuss this question at greater length, but after what has been said here on behalf of His Majesty's Government that does not appear necessary, and I shall content myself by stating my profound conviction that it is in the highest interest of the Empire that the Imperial Government should not definitely bind itself by any promise or agreement with a foreign country which may affect a particular Dominion, without consulting the Dominion concerned. The debate in the House of Lords which took place on the subiect of the Declaration of London was very instructive in connection with this principle. I closely followed the—if I may be allowed to say so— very excellent debate in the House of Lords on this important matter and I believe that I am correct when I say that, with the exception of one noble lord, not a single member looked upon the question at issue from the point of view of the Dominions, and the noble lord who did refer to it from this standpoint only did so more or less casually. . I do not wish it to be inferred from what I have said that we in South Africa feel any grievance as to our treatment in this connection during the

A.— 4

126

Ith Day.] Declaration of London. [2 June, 1911. Genera] BOTHA— cont. past. I only desire to take this opportunity of stating that the Union of South Africa claims this to be a sound principle which must be recognised in the best interests of the whole Empire, and I have heard with great pleasure what Sir Edward Grey has said on this matter. We are now invited to express our regret that the Dominions were not consulted prior to the acceptance by the British delegates of the terms of the Declaration of London, and I beg to state at once that I would not feel justified in supporting such a resolution. I feel quite satisfied with the explanation in regard to this point as given by Sir Edward Grey, and I am sure that all my colleagues will agree with me that it would not be fair to us to pass this part of the resolution as it stands. It seems to me that international agreements which provide for an impartial court of appeal from prize courts, and for a code of rules establishing uniformity on questions connected with maritime war, in respect of which there is at present so much divergency, must be of immense advantage to neutral Powers. I would myself, therefore, be most unwilling to give a vote against the ratification of this Declaration, especially when I remember that His Majesty's Government have done everything they can to induce foreign Governments to agree to an International Prize Court and to a code of international rules, in respect of which all the Powers have made some concessions. It appears to me that a non-ratification of the Declaration would be a great blow to future negotiations for international agreements. At the same time, notwithstanding these weighty considerations, if I am persuaded that this Declaration vitally injures the interests of Great Britain I would not hesitate to give my vote against its ratification. I now come to the second part of this resolution. It is not my intention to attempt even to grapple with all the extremely difficult and intricate problems which are connected with this Declaration. It is not for me to discuss here whether it is on the whole to the advantage or otherwise of the United Kingdom to ratify this agreement, and I shall endeavour to confine myself more particularly to the point of view of the Dominions, and more especially of the L T nion of South Africa. If I may be allowed to do so, I should, however, only like to say this, that after having carefully considered the pros and cons of the Declaration of London I have come to the conclusion that the balance of advantage is greatly in favour of ratification by Great Britain. Objection is taken in the resolution to the inclusion of foodstuffs in Article 24 of the Declaration, which gives a list of conditional contraband articles, the contention no doubt being that foodstuffs should be included in the free list under Article 28. It appears, however, that, notwithstanding the persistent efforts of His Majesty's Government, some of the maritime Powers are opposed to this, and therefore it is at least gratifying that foodstuffs can never be made absolute contraband, as they can now, by any belligerent Power which chooses to do so. I know it is said that no European nation ever would make foodstuffs absolute contraband, but this statement is certainly not borne out by the correspondence, which I have read in the White Papers presented to both Houses of Parliament, between His Majesty's Government and the Erench Government in 1885, and between His Majesty's Government and the Russian Government during the war between Russia and Japan. The strongest attack against the Declaration of London has been directed against this particular Article 24. It has been argued that the food supply of Great Britain will be seriously endangered in time of war by the inclusion of foodstuffs in this article, and I have endeavoured to ascertain, after a careful study of the Declaration, how that part of the Empire which I have the honour to represent would probably be affected by the clauses dealing with questions of conditional contraband. But what is the position when Great Britain is a neutral ? It seems to me that there can be no doubt that British commerce and shipping all over the world should welcome the provisions which define the articles which may be made absolute contraband, conditional contraband, and which in no circumstances can be treated as contraband, because more certainty will be established as to the conditions under which in time of war trade can be carried on, where at present there is no certainty whatever.

If the Declaration of London is ratified, traders and shipowners will be in a much better position to know what risks they run in carrying on their

127

A—4

2 June, 1911.] Declaration of London. [Ith Day. General BOTHA— cont. trade in time of war. Under present conditions should two powerful countries be waging war against each other, it seems to me that no one could say in how far neutral British trade could safely be carried on with those countries, and that British trade would be liable to be harassed continually, with no other appeal than to the prize courts of the belligerent countries. As has been pointed out, if a belligerent under present conditions were to capture as contraband in a British ship, Great Britain being a neutral, a cargo of foodstuffs consigned to a neutral port or to a port of the other belligerent, the British owner could only appeal to the prize court of the offending belligerent. Of course, Great Britain could emphatically protest against such action, and no doubt this would often be effective; but we have seen in recent times that such protest is not always so. Short of going to war, there would be no other remedy. If the Declaration of London is ratified the chances of serious loss and risk of complications will be reduced by the establishment of an International Court of Appeal, guided by definite rules to which all the important maritime countries of the world will have given adherence; and I submit a belligerent would consider twice before systematically acting in breach of such generally accepted rules, and thus run the risk of offending not only one particular neutral, but all neutral Powers who had agreed to them. My conclusion, therefore, is that Great Britain being a neutral, British trade and shipping, whether of the United Kingdom or of the Dominions, will be benefited by these articles in the Declaration of London. What effect will these articles in the Declaration of London have on a Dominion like South Africa when Great Britain is a belligerent? Now, it has been argued that Articles 24 and 33 will, when Great Britain is at war, make it possible for a powerful enemy to prevent any foodstuffs at all being sent to a Dominion like ours. If this were true I would, notwithstanding advantages to us which I might see in other articles of the Declaration of London, take serious objections to its ratification. I cannot, however, imagine how any one who has studied the Declaration of London could arrive at such a conclusion, seeing that, in view of the provisions contained in Article 35 of the Declaration, South Africa, in respect of importation of foodstuffs, would be in as good a position as if they were on the free list in the event of a war between Great Britain and some European Power other than Portugal, and I think it may be safely assumed that in a European war Portugal would be neutral Delagoa Bay is the best port in South Africa, and at present nearly 60 per cent, of the imports into the Union of South Africa enter through that port. The distance between Delagoa Bay and Johannesburg by rail is only about 400 miles, and every important part of South Africa, including Rhodesia, is now connected with Johannesburg by rail. Any quantity, therefore, of foodstuffs and other articles in the list of conditional contraband can be imported into South Africa with impunity through the neutral port of Delagoa Bay in the event of war to which Great Britain was a party. It is not only in regard to foodstuffs, but also in regard to all g-oods which are made conditional contraband under Article 34, that in view of Article 35 South Africa would, as it appears to me, be in a favoured position whenever Great Britain is a bellisrerent. "When I look at the list of conditional contraband goods, and at the list of free goods under Article 28 of the Declaration, it seems to me that they include nearly all the classes of goods which form the import trade of South Africa, and which would not therefore be to any serious extent affected by war as long as there are neutral ships to carry them. I notice also that the free list contains nearly all the classes of goods forming our export trade with the exception of bullion, gold, and maize, which are placed in the list of conditional contraband, and which form a very substantial part of our export trade. If there should be any difficulty in conveying this gold and maize to England during a war between her and some other Power, there would be no difficulty in exporting them to a neutral Continental Power, where they could be disposed of as readily as they could be in England. But Igo much further, and I do not even see how the Declaration can possibly be considered to mean that all foodstuffs in neutral bottoms conveyed to the ports of the Union could legally be captured by the enemy. It seems clear to me that the general principle laid down in Article 33 of the Declaration of London is that foodstuffs in neutral bottoms can only be

17—A. 4.

A.—4.

128

4-th Day.] Declaration ok London. |2 June, 1911. General BOTHA— cont. captured legally when they are shown to be destined for the armed forces or Government Departments of the enemy. It is true certain presumptions of such destination are created by subsequent articles, but these cannot, in my opinion alter the general principle. I fail to see how it could ever be held that foodstuffs consigned to an ordinary trader (who does not fall within the terms of Article 34, as one who as a matter of common knowledge supplies articles of this kind to the enemy) in any part of the Union, were legally liable to capture. It seems to me that Article 34 is not doubtful, and when, as Sir Edward Grey has promised, it is made clear on the ratification of the Declaration by Great Britain that she agreed that the word " enemy " in this article should mean ■' enemy Government," any possible doubt which may have existed on this score will be removed. I cannot conceive how any International Prize Court could, according to the rules laid down in the Declaration, ever hold that an enemy of Great Britain has acted legally when such enemy has captured foodstuffs in neutral bottoms which were addressed to, say, an ordinary trader in any of our harbours in the Union, and of which there could be no reasonable suspicion that they were not intended for the peaceful population. I should like to point out further that whatever importance may be attached to the authoritative General Report of the Drafting Committee, the "Renault Report"—and we have*now heard that it is of the greatest importance—this Report, I submit, fully bears out my interpretation of Article 33. The Report reads as follows : " War may be waged in such circumstances that destination for the use of a civil department cannot be suspect, and consequently cannot make g-oods contraband." For instance, there is war in Europe, and the Colonies of the belligerent countries are not in fact affected by it. Foodstuffs or articles in the list of conditional contraband destined for the use of the Civil Government of a Colony would not be held to be contraband of war, because the considerations adduced above do not apply to their case; the resources of the Civil Government cannot be drawn on for the needs of the war. In the case presupposed by the Committee, therefore, even foodstuffs destined for the Civil Government in a Colony could not be legally captured as contraband. Under which circumstances, then, could foodstuffs in neutral bottoms consigned to ordinary traders or private pprsons, and clearly destined for the peaceful population of thp country, be leg-ally captured as contraband? Even if the war were to be actually carried on in South Africa, I submit that foodstuffs consigned to ordinary traders in the harbours of the Union and destined for the peaceftil population could not leg-ally be cantured. If there is any doubt about ports like Cape Town and Durban, that they miffht be considered to fall within the scope of Article 34 as fortified places belonsring to the enemy, or places used as a base of operations or supply, there could, I submit, be no possible doubt about harbours like Port Elizabeth, Mossel Bay, East London, and others. Now, I am aware that the argument of those who are to the Declaration is that a commander of an enemy cruis°r would only be doing his duty towards his own country if he were to capture every neutral ship carrying foodstuffs to any British harbour, on the ground that they are consigned to a fortified r>lace belonging- to the enemy, or a place serving as a base for the forces of the enemy; that, in fact, commanders of the enemy cruisers would consider these words as applicable to practically every port in the Empirp. They arg-ue that in ratifying the Declaration of T on don neutral Powers would relinquish their power to remonstrate. Great Britain herself could, of course, in any case only protest in these circumstances by pushing: on the war as hard as possible, and that the only appeal would lie to an international court after the war would be over and the mischief had been done, which may have caused disaster to Great Britain. Wi+h this argument I cannot at all agree. If a bellisrerent during- the course of a war were to put such, to my mind, utterly wrong; interpretation on the Declaration of London, there is nothing whatever to prevent the uputral Government concerned from protesting - in a most emphatic manner. If such a belligerent were to handle neutral shipping; so unfairly this Declaration of London will, in my opinion, probably make a combined protest on behalf of all important neutral Powers much more likely than would otherwise be the case.

129

A.—4

2 June, 1911.] Declaration of London. [kth Day. General BOTHA— cont. The position to-day is that a powerful enemy of Great Britain may conceivably declare foodstuffs conveyed to harbours of the Union contraband, or at least capture such foodstuffs on some pretext or other. As far as we would be concerned we could only fight all the harder, and the only remedy which neutrals would have would be to protest, and in the last resort to go to war—a remedy which, as Sir Edward Grey has pointed out, would almost always be disproportionate to the evil, and one which it is most unlikely they w r oiild resort to. From this point of view also therefore, in my opinion, the Declaration of London will be a material improvement on the present position. After the very lucid explanation of Sir Edward Grey I need not say much about Article 49 of the Declaration, which makes an exception to the general rule established in Article 48 prohibiting the destruction of a neutral vessel by the captor, and requiring it to be taken into such port as is proper for the determination there of all questions concerning the validity of the prize. There has been much criticism on this article, but it seems to me beyond dispute that it protects the destruction of neutral vessels more than they are now T protected from destruction under the practices of some of the European Powers, and the safeguards appear to me to be of such a nature as would make a captor more cautious in proceeding to destroy a neutral vessel than he would be now. It was evidently impossible to get all the Powers to agree to the proposition that under no circumstances ought a neutral prize to be destroyed, and the most that could be done, therefore, was to establish uniformity in this practice, and to make the conditions precedent to the sinking of a neutral ship of such a nature as to prevent it as far as possible; and it appears to me that such conditions are prescribed in the Declaration. I have endeavoured to confine myself in my remarks to those points which have been raised by this resolution. Only one who has had an opportunity to devote a very long and careful study to this subject could adequately discuss the many other and intricate problems involved. I have only tried to give my reasons for not being able to support this resolution, and for saying on behalf of the Union that there seems to be no reason to fear that the interests of that part of the Empire which I have the honour to represent wall be prejudiced by the ratification by Great Britain of the Declaration of London. Sir EDWARD MORRIS : I should like to see the resolution amended to some extent, especially in view of what we have heard from Sir Edward Grey, and I do not think it fairly represents the position of the British Government in relation to this matter. The explanation of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as to why the Dominions were not consulted is a fair and reasonable explanation, and one that commends itself and will commend itself to every one. Further, he stated it was the natural outcome or corollary of the Hague Conventions, as to which the Dominions were not consulted —and it was a reasonable assumption, I think —from the fact of their knowing both these Avere going on and they had not been consulted, that to a certain extent they gave their consent. However, on the general principle I agree that it would be well—and I think it would be only right and in harmony with the spirit now prevailing— that in future, on matters like this in which there is an interest and a partnership, that they should be consulted; but there is no longer any doubt on that point now, as the Secretary of State has informed us that that will be done, and that, in a way, I think, will probably be one of the most important results of this Conference — that statement by him that in future matters of this character will be submitted for consideration to the Dominions. Now, as regards the Declaration itself, I have endeavoured to study a good deal of the literature in relation to it, and I agree with those who say that the Declaration of London is an improvement in every sense of the word. Any one who has read the debate referred to by General Botha that took place in the House of Lords, particularly between the Lord Chancellor and Lord Halsbury, must see that on nearly every point, particularly in relation to the International Prize Court, we have gained considerably, and it is an advance on every point. A great deal of the'literature in both Houses where it has been debated and in the Press is to a- certain extent coloured, and one has to seek opinions and in-

A.—4

130

4:th Day.} Declaration of London. [2 June, 1911. Sir EDWAED MORRlS— cont. formation from those who have no very special party interest Now, I take it that the Lord Chancellor's speech is practically a Judgment on this Declaration as if he were sitting on the Bench, and it is important and instructive in that way; and I think all round we have a new work on International law, and what was chaos and confusion before is now to a very large extent made clear and certain. For these reasons I should be sorry to see any resolution go on record which might be misunderstood, which might be misleading, and which probably now would not be intended. Mr. FISHER : I am sure we are gratified, and I think the whole Conference are pleased with the manner in which the debate has been carried on on this resolution submitted by the Commonwealth. The members will see that the terms of the resolution are such that it is not intended to hit either at the Government or at the Declaration itself. There were certain features in thai Declaration which appeared to us to be bad, and which should not appear there in the way in which they do appear. The whole general trend of the Declaration was not attacked, and has not been attacked at any time —at least, from our side; but we did think, and Australia has thought for many years, that we should have been advised in some way not merely prior to the signing of the Declaration or a treaty or a convention affecting our interest, but we should be informed before the ideas of the Imperial Government had matured on any subject that would materially affect our interests one way or the other. That is our view. I think General Botha put it very clearly in his statement this morning when he said that the Imperial Government should not bind themselves with foreign countries before consultation. That is a very definite statement. Sir D. DE VILLIERS GRAAFF : Affecting a particular Dominion. Mr. FISHER : Obviously that is so. Hitherto, I think, there have been promises of such a thing being done, btit not in such a definite, distinct, and clear way as it was put to the Conference by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs the other day, speaking on behalf of the Government; and we feel gratified that a new condition of affairs shall prevail from now, I presume. I do not know whether I can make it clearer, but that new condition of affairs, as I interjected while the matter was being discussed by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs yesterday, should not be limited to questions that are brought before the Hague Conference, but should apply to other questions also, and that, I think, is concurred in. We do not feel, under the circumstances, that we should press this resolution now, but it has been suggested, and we approve of it, that, as the Declaration itself is a great advance on any previous arrangement in international affairs, it would be wilful waste of, shall I say, energy and a loss of valuable labours if we were to destroy it simply because it does not contain everything that we desire. I spoke strongly in opening about our desire to co-operate in every effort of the Imperial Government and all other Governments to provide machinery for the settlement of international disputes without resort to war. This Declaration is undoubtedly a new and additional piece of machinery; it will be a valuable piece of machinery. We do not say it is perfect — we say it is a long way from being perfect from our point of view; but we do say that as it stands it is much too good for us to vote against. T propose, with the concurrence of the Conference, to ask leave to withdraw that motion, and to substitute another motion to this effect: " That this Conference, after hearing the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, cordially concurs in the proposal of the Imperial Government, viz. : (a) That the Dominions shall be afforded an opportunity of consultation when framing the instructions to be given to British Delegates at future meetings of the Hague Conference, and that Conventions affecting the Dominions provisionally assented to at that Conference shall be circulated among the Dominion Governments for their consideration before any such Convention is signed; and (b) that a similar procedure where time and opportunity and the subject-matter permit, shall as far as

131

A.—4

1 June, 1911.] Declaration of London. [4tth Day. Mr. FISHER—cow*. possible be used when preparing instructions for the negotiation of other international agreements affecting tne Dominions." It is not necessary to say any more about that. We think, as I have said publicly and here, that the matter is of far too great consequence to the Dominions to be made a controversial party matter at all. It is for that reason that we desire to have this Conference unanimous in coming to any conclusion, and with the permission of the Conference we would ask leave, after the statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to withdraw our resolution and substitute this one. General BOTHA : Will you read it again ? The PRESIDENT : I will read it again: " That this Conference, after hearing the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, cordially concurs in the proposals of the Imperial Government, viz. : (a) That the Dominions shall be afforded an opportunity of consultation when framing the instructions to be given to British Delegates at future meetings of the Hague Conference, and that Conventions affecting the Dominions provisionally assented to at that Conference shall be circulated among the Dominion Governments for their consideration before any such Convention is signed " —that deals with matters like the Hague Conference and such things as the Declaration of London. Then, " (b) that a similar procedure, where time and opportunity " —-those are limitations which you will remember were suggested—" and the subject-matter permit, shall as far as possible be used when preparing instructions for the negotiation of other international agreements affecting the Dominions." This is proposed by the Australian Government, but I think it does carry out exactly what Sir Edward Grey yesterday undertook to be the procedure of the future. Sir EDWARD MORRIS : It has occurred to me whether the word " concurs " should be used, because there is no question of concurrence in such a statement as that. I think some word in the nature of " welcomes " should be used. It would be unlikely we would do anything but concur in a matter of that kind. The PRESIDENT : " Cordially welcomes," shall we say ? Mr. FISHER : I agree with the word " welcomes." . Sir EDWARD MORRIS : Anything that expresses that idea. The PRESIDENT : If Mr. Fisher approves I will substitute the word " welcomes." Mr. FISHER : Yes, it softens it. The PRESIDENT : I do not know that it wants softening. General BOTHA : Do I understand you think this will not handicap in any way the British Government ? The PRESIDENT : In order to prevent the possibility of that, and Mr. Fisher very fairly acknowledged yesterday that we must be careful in these matters, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier pointed out many important considerations in the second branch here the words used are rather carefully chosen : " a similar procedure where time and opportunity and the subject-matter permit." General BOTHA : I want it clear. Ido not want to handicap the British Government. I want them to undertake the full responsibility.

A.—4

132

\th Day.] Declaration of London. [2 June, 1911. The PRESIDENT : The British Government do not want to shovel it off on to the Dominions. Mr. FISHER : I do not want to handicap you either. We want to be associated as far as possible. The PRESIDENT : I really think that this gives effect to both views in the resolution. Speaking on behalf of the Government I think it does. Then is it the pleasure of the Conference that this resolution be adopted ? The resolution, as amended, was carried unanimously. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I think it would be desirable, in view of the position that we have got to now, for the Conference to express an opinion on the Declaration of London, and I suggest we put on record our view : " That the Conference, after full consideration and debate, approves the ratification of the Declaration of London." If we are all in agreement as to the desirability of the Declaration, of London, as we have it, being ratified by the British Government, I think the mere expression of our opinion, which does not after all concrete into a practical proposition, is not sufficient; and it seems to me it would be just as well, as we have unanimously supported it, to express our opinion in the direction I have indicated. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : For my part I shall be very glad if you will move in that direction. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I move, " That the Conference, after full consideration and debate, approves the ratification of the Declaration of London." Sir WILFRID LAURIER : F shall be very happy to concur in that resolution. Mr. FISHER : I find myself in a difficulty here. The PRESIDENT : May I say a word before Mr. Fisher states his difficulty 1 I quite recognise the position that the Australian Government has taken up in this matter, and, if I may venture to say so, the admirable spirit which they have shown in their desire to secure unanimity in our procedure with regard to this matter. It is in every way worthy of them, and of the spirit which has animated the Conference from the beginning. I confess, speaking upon behalf of the British Government, I do attach considerable importance to the passing of such a resolution as this, because, for reasons which no one has given better than Mr. Fisher just now, it is a tremendous step in advance in the direction of, first of all, framing a code of international law, which, though it may not be perfect—and we do not for a moment contend that it is perfect, and recognise the force of many of the criticisms which have been made in regard to particular provisions—is yet an enormous advance upon anything that has hitherto taken place, and setting up simultaneously an international court which may be trusted to act impartially in the administration of that code, and in the settlement of concrete cases in dispute which may arise under it. To have got the great Powers of the world into agreement upon a point like that seems to us to mark such a tremendous and significant step on the road which we are hoping to travel, that it will be an immense encouragement, I think, if this Conference, representing as it does all the self-governing parts of the British Empire, whatever opinions we may individually entertain as to particular provisions of the Declaration of London, and however much we should like to see a phrase altered here or there, and something, if you like, omitted, or something added, will, looking at what Mr. Fisher has called the general trend and object of it, welcome it and say : " Yes,

133

A.—4

2 June, 1911.] Declaration of London. \Ath Day. The PRESIDENT— con't. it is a thousand pities to throw away this chance, which you would do if you refused ratification now." There is nobody here who does not wish to see the Declaration ratified, even Mr. Fisher himself, although he would wish to see it amended in particulars. In ratifying the Declaration now we do not in the least prejudice our freedom of action in the future to advocate further advance. Some of the points which have been adverted to in the course of this discussion, in particular that very important point of the conversion of merchant ships into ships of war, are matters in which we do not pretend that we have reached a final or on the whole even a satisfactory result; but there is nothing in the ratification of the Declaration which will prevent us by persuasion, by argument, and ultimately by negotiation, from inducing or getting the other Powers to assent to the introduction of amendments and improvements in it. But there it is, a milestone, if ever there was a milestone, on this road of progress; and I confess I think it would be a very great satisfaction to the Empire at large if such a representative body as this were to say : " Yes, you would not be doing right, but doing wrong, and throwing away a really great opportunity, if at this stage you did not ratify what has been done." That, of course, does not involve any abandonment of the position which Mr. Fisher takes up, and with which I have a great deal of sympathy, that the Dominions might have been consulted at an earlier stage, as they are going to be consulted in the future, and that, I think was the main head and front of his resolution, and the motive of it. That having been cleared out of the way by our unanimously assenting to the proposal he has just made, which will obviate the possibility of any such complaint or misunderstanding in the future, I think we might unanimously agree that the right and only proper course at this stage is to ratify the Declaration of which in spirit and substance we all approve. Mr. FISHER : The point I raise is this : The Declaration of London has not been brought before this Conference for approval. It was an act of your own Government, which we commend, and commend very clearly and definitely. We commend the policy of it. We commend the whole trend of that policy and the wisdom of the Minister or those responsible for drafting it. Having said all that, we, as a self-governing Dominion, received it when it was practically ready for signature, and we were told that it was beyond amendment; but we make no complaint of that part, because the responsibility must rest with some one. Sir Edward Grey said here yesterday that it could not be amended. If objected to it would have to be abandoned. The only thing that he could do and intended to do was to define definitely the meaning of certain words and terms which would not invalidate in any way the agreement come to. My contention is that the motion which has just been passed on the withdrawal of our resolution of inquiry, and attack, if you like, met with absolute approval, because no opposition had been offered. But now a proposal is made that we approve where we, as a Government, have said we disapprove. I have said in my remarks again and again, and I say now, that the weight of advantage in having a declaration or treaty or convention of that kind is such a great step in advance in international agreements that it would be, I think, a pity to throw it away. That, however, is a different thing from making a clear and distinct statement here that we approve of the w r hole of that treaty. The PRESIDENT : Allow me to say I should quite agree that would be a resolution that the Conference could not be asked to adopt. All that Sir Joseph Ward proposes is not to approve of the Declaration, but to approve of the ratification at this stage of the Declaration — a wholly different thing. That gives you perfect freedom of opinion as to particular questions. Mr. FISHER : My lay mind cannot perhaps grasp it, but Sir Edward Grey said this Declaration is settled and final. The PRESIDENT : No, not final.

A.—4

134

4:th Day] Declaration of London. [2 June, 1911. Mr. FISHER : He said so here. The PRESIDENT : Not final in the sense that no further progress can hereafter be made. Mr. FISHER : Certainly not; but we can only speak of the thing that is before vs —the Declaration of London We should have the right to raise the point and to bring it before you, and you the right to ask for a new Convention, and to discuss an improvement on that, and better it and revise it if you see the chance. But that is quite a different matter. We hold that it might be improved, and we hold with you in all your devices to improve it; but we find ourselves in this difficulty, and in a word we say this : While we cannot under the circumstances give our full approval to it, we shall go so far as not to oppose it. The PRESIDENT : You do not dissent from it ? Mr. FISHER : No. The PRESIDENT : May I take it the other members of the Conference are in favour of that resolution? [Agreed.] Then the resolution is carried, the Government of Australia abstaining. Mr. FISHER : Yes. The PRESIDENT : Perhaps you will forgive me if I leave the Chair. I am obliged to go to the House of Commons. It is the first time I have absented myself from the proceedings here. The Right Honourable L. HARCOURT took the Chair. Commercial Relations and British Shipping. " That it is advisable in the interests both of the United Kingdom and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas that efforts in favour of British manufactured goods and British shipping should be supported as far as practicable." The CHAIRMAN : Item No. 1 on the Agenda will be left over for further discussion after Whitsuntide, and we will begin with Item No. 2 : " Commercial Relations and British Shipping." Mr. FISHER : The resolution is : ' That it is advisable in the interests both of the United Kingdom and of the British Dominions beyond the seas that efforts in favour of British manufactured goods and British shipping should be supported as far as practicable." Members of the Conference must be aware that other countries give very special facilities to shipping, both by subventions and also contributions from national exchequers, to assist their ships in competition with British ships. We, in Australia, have helped to counter-balance that by legislation to facilitate our shipping in competition with them, but I would like to leave that matter to the Minister of Defence, Mr Pearce, who will elaborate it a little more. ■ --•» —<^ Mr. PEARCE : In 1906 the Commonwealth Government, acting on the lines of this resolution in dealing with the tariff, brought in proposals for preferential trade by which a preference of 5 per cent, was to be given to British manufactures with a view to encourage British shipping; and in order to do something to equalise the unfair conditions existing between British shipping and foreign shipping trading to Australia, they attached to the Bill which

135

A.— 4

2 June, 1911.] Commercial Relations and British Shipping. \Uh Day. Mr. PEAECE— cont. brought in the preferential trade relations a condition that the goods which were to get the benefit of the preferential rate should be brought into the Commonwealth by British ships manned by British seamen. The Bill was withheld by the Governor-General for His Majesty's assent, and representations were made, I understand, that the proposition came into conflict with certain treaties which the Government of the United Kingdom had entered into with foreign countries. It is difficult to deal with this subject without bringing in the subject of navigation, but as that is the subject of a separate resolution T will not touch on this more than is absolutely necessary. The CHAIRMAN : If you like to take the subject of the navigation laws at the same time it would be quite convenient. Mr. PEARCE : No, I prefer to take it separately. In dealing with our navigation legislation in the Commonwealth so far we have not yet passed an Act, though the Bill has been before Parliament on several occasions. The Government of the United Kingdom., through the Board of Trade, have from time to time made representation to the Commonwealth Government with a view to inducing the Commonwealth Government to alter the provisions of their Navigation Bill, and they have made representations that some of the clauses in the Navigation Bill pressed hardly upon British shipping. Now we are faced with this position : that round the coasts of Australia there are several very powerful subsidised lines of foreign steamers —very heavily subsidised some of them—and, moreover, they are vessels that are under an agreement with those foreign Governments to be placed at their disposal in the time of war. Some of them, as the result of those subventions and the conditions attached to them, being manned by trained naval reserve men, and the Government of the Commonwealth have thought it their duty, in the interest not only of the Commonwealth, but of the Empire generally, to endeavour to assist British shipping in their competition with this subsidised foreign shipping. Obviously, the only way in which we could assist them was by exempting them from the provisions of our mercantile law, where that mercantile law laid upon them obligations which would entail expenditure. Accordingly it would be unfair to our own ships, because we laid down those obligations upon our own ships, to put our own shipmasters to the expense which it would entail, and if we exempted British shipping from those conditions we would be subjecting our own Australian shipping to unfair competition from British shipping; so that we could not take that upon us. It was with the intention of giving some assistance to British shipping in this unfair competition with subsidised foreign shipping, and assisting British shipping on our coasts, that the Bill I have referred to was introduced, and passed both Houses of Parliament. I may say that the Bill, as originally introduced, did not contain a provision which was put in as the result of an amendment made in the House of Representatives, but it was approved of by both Houses of Parliament with a substantial majority. The only other way in which British shipping could be assisted in the fight for the Australian trade against foreign shipping would be by action taken by the United Kingdom on similar lines to that which is taken by foreign countries. With that we have nothing to do, and nothing , to say to it. That is entirely a question for the Government of the United Kingdom, and entirely a question of policy for them, and therefore we do not make any statement as to our views on that question. But the view we wish to discuss here to-day is this : That the principal difficulty raised as to not giving assent to the legislation which was proposed by the Australian Parliament was that a certain number of treaties with foreign countries stood in the way. I think I am correct in saying that the greater number of those treaties were with small countries, the trade of which was inconsiderable compared with the trade of Australia and New Zealand, and the only obstacle therefore to the Australian law receiving assent was the denunciation of those treaties. The point of view we wish to put is that if the Dominions, by their legislation, desire to assist British shipping, and assist it in the only way open to them, the Government of the

18—A. 4.

A.—4

136

kth Day.] Commercial Relations and British Shipping [2 June, 1911. Mr. PEARCE—cow*. United Kingdom might very well consider the advisability of denouncing those treaties which stand in the way of the realisation of that idea by the Colonial Governments. There is another feature of this case which will no doubt be advanced by the Government of the United Kingdom, and that is that we, in the Bill to which I have referred, debar from participating in its benefit those British ships which carry Lascar crews, or coloured crews other than European. The crews had to be crews of European descent. Lascars were not specifically mentioned, but the stipulation was that the crews had to be of European descent and British subjects. Now it is a well-known fact that there is a question which has been disturbing the minds of British statesmen for many years past, and that is the gradual decline of British seamen on British shipping, and their displacement on the one hand by foreigners and on the other hand by coloured men. That is a problem, of course, with which, as regards British shipping, this Conference is not concerned directly. It is again a question of policy with the British Government; but we would submit that when by Dominion legislation, which we claim we have the power and the right to pass, we endeavour to assist British shipping! , which is concerned wholly and solely in the Australian trade to the United Kingdom, it is not against the general policy of the British Government of doing even-handed justice to all sections of the Empire, white or coloured, and we should not be interfered with in carrying out that policy in the way which we think fit. The trade to which we referred was peculiarly and entirely Australian trade; it was not Indian trade, or China trade, or Japanese trade, or trade with any other Asiatic country, but it was peculiarly and entirely trade directly from Great Britain to Australia, because the goods made the subject of the preferential tariff had to be manufactured in the United Kingdom. If the goods were of foreign manufacture they could not get the benefit of the preferential tariff. While we do not ask that our view should be consulted at all with regard to legislation by the United Kingdom on those subjects, we do ask that opportunity should be given to Australia to carry out her view and assist British shipping in the way we have indicated. We think that is a fit subject to be discussed at this Conference in view of the fact that possibly other Dominions may also wish to assist British shipping because we, in the outlying Dominions, feel that it is of vital importance to us that the fast merchant steamers around our coast should be owned either in Australia or in Great Britain, or by British capital, and that they should be manned by Britishers, because we know after the discussion we have had on the Declaration of London, we realise that these merchantmen may in time of war be turned into ships of war, and it would be a calamity, not only to Australia but to the Empire, if the British mercantile flag is to decrease in our waters and be displaced by subsidised foreign merchantmen carrying crews that are already trained in the arts of war, and therefore formidable enemies to us in a time of crisis. It is for that reason we bring forward the resolution, and those are the points which we wish to bring before the Conference for their consideration. Mr. BUXTON : I was not aware what points would be raised on this resolution, and I did not know therefore that this particular point would have been raised in connection with it. But it having been raised perhaps the Conference will allow me to say a few words with regard to it. The position which His Majesty's Government have taken up upon it is a twofold one. Mr. Pearce explained what was proposed by the Australian Act, and may I say, in passing, that as far as the object is concerned, we very much appreciate the desire of the Australian Commonwealth Government in reference to this matter —namely, to assist the British shipping in connection with the Colonies, and as far as possible to give an advantage to British shipping over foreign shipping in the Commonwealth. As far as the object is concerned, therefore, we are obliged to the Commonwealth for what they have done and what they were desiring to do. But the question had to be considered not only from the point of view of British shipping in connection with the Commonwealth, but we had to look at it from the point of view of British shipping all the world over. Mr. Pearce said that the point was taken —and he is correct in saying so— that we, in agreeing to this proposed Act of the Commonwealth would have conflicted in many respects with some of our treaties with other nations, and

137

-A.—4

2 June, 1911.] Commercial Relations and British Shipping. [4cth Day. Mr. BUXTON— cont. he seemed to imply, I thought, that we might denounce these treaties, at all events a portion of them, with a view of obtaining freedom in connection with this matter. No doubt that might be done under certain circumstances if the end in view would justify the means, but the view we have taken about it is much wider than that. lam speaking now as to our position as regards foreign ships and foreign trade. We think it is not a question of merely denouncing the treaties, but that if this attempt was made, which is the suggestion, namely, to confine the trade of Great Britain with the Commonwealth to British or to Commonwealth ships, this would be very largely resented by the Foreign Powers interested, and the result would be that we should be open, as we are open all the world over, to attack and retaliation. Mr. PEARCE : It is not the whole trade, but only the trade in those articles which are the subject of the preferential tariff. Mr. BUXTON : Yes, but still it is practically confining the trade, or very largely excluding foreign ships from a portion of the Australian trade. What we, as representatives of British shipping here, and representatives, I hope, of the British Dominions as well, are nervous about is the power and opportunity of retaliation against our British shipping all the world over on any of these matters. I would point out to the Conference that out of the 285,000,000 tons of British shipping all the world over, no less than 164,000,000 tons goes to foreign ports, and a comparatively small portion goes to Australian ports, and therefore for the advantage, and no doubt the considerable advantage, of the trade of the Commonwealth, we do not think it would be worth while to risk the possibility of disadvantage accruing to the very enormous trade which we have with other Powers. That is really the substantial reason why, as at present advised, we do not think on the whole it would be expedient to adopt the proposal of the Commonwealth Government. As regards one question incidental to that raised by Mr. Pearce, namely, that they would not only propose to differentiate against foreign ships, but at the same time they would differentiate against British ships which carried crews other than white crews, that particular point, I think, will be raised on a motion of Sir Joseph Ward later on on some subsequent day, and so perhaps I had better not discuss it now. But I should like just to say this, in reference to what fell from Mr. Pearce : that I cordially agree that as far as possible the British mercantile marine should be manned by British subjects—l am not touching on what their colour should be, but British subjects. I dare say it would be to a certain extent a satisfaction to Mr. Pearce to know that since the passing of the last Merchant Shipping Act of 1906 the proportion of British sailors as compared with foreign sailors has gone up in percentage. In 1905 it was 68 per cent, as against 15 per cent, of foreign sailors, and—l am not speaking of Lascars and Asiatics —in 1910 it had gone up to 73 per cent, as against 11 of foreigners. So as far as it goes the tendency is in the right direction. Ido not say it is altogether satisfactory. : Mr. PEARCE : What proportion of them are British, and what proportion Lascars? Mr. BUXTON : These are entirely whites we are speaking of. Mr. BATCHELOR : It is much more satisfactory than the previous development —two years before. Mr. BUXTON : Yes, it is. For some years before it was stationary. Since the Act of 1906, I am glad to say, the proportion has, as I have pointed out, very materially increased. We are not satisfied with that, we should like to see a higher proportion still of British as against foreign sailors in our mercantile

A.—4

138

4:th Day.] Commercial Relations and British Shipping. [2 June, 1911. Mr. BUXTON— cont. marine, but I thought it would be a satisfaction to Mr. Pearce to know that the tendency is in the right direction. I am afraid I am not in a position to accept this resolution if it is intended to apply to the particular point raised by Mr. Pearce. I took it as a general proposition to which we should assent in principle, and as regards the general proposition I should have no objection to it. But at the moment, at all events, until the trade develops more than it is at present, the position that we have taken is that the result might be, if we accepted the Australian position, possibly a serious disadvantage to British trade without material advantage on the other hand. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : This question is a purely Australian one, but it involves principles in which all the Dominions are certainly interested. Ido not know if I have correctly apprehended the whole tenor of the question. I will state it as I understand it and if I am wrong I would like to be corrected, so that we may know exactly the true situation we have to deal with. The question arises, as I understand, from a Bill which was passed some years ago by the Commonwealth of Australia giving for British manufactured goods a preference of 5 per cent, on condition that they were carried in British bottoms, with the further condition that the crews should be exclusively white. For the moment we can eliminate the colour question and confine ourselves simply to the fact that the condition of this preference was that the goods in order to earn the preference should be carried in British bottoms. As I further understand, this Act was returned and the assent was refused on the ground stated by the British Government that its disposition would interfere with certain treaties of commerce now existing between England and various nations. It would be important to know exactly what are those nations and what are those treaties, and the discission would perhaps be more profitable if we knew exactly the full extent of what those treaties are; but leaving that aside for the moment we are face to face at the present time with a condition of things which exists, as far as Australia is concerned, as far as Canada is concerned, and probably New Zealand also, that there are certain treaties which have been long in existence, negotiated long before the Dominions had reached the position in which they are now, and which were negotiated at the time simply from the point of view of Great Britain, and Great Britain alone, and which yet affected all her Possessions. In recent years —I had occasion to refer to that yesterday—the British Government, whenever negotiating treaties, has always been careful not to apply those treaties to the self-governing Dominions, except upon their own volition and assent. If those treaties which Australia finds in its way to-day had not been negotiated years ago and were to be negotiated at this moment, Australia would not be included in those treaties except upon the assent and volition of Australia. We are face to face, therefore, with this position: the old treaties we find are an obstacle to Australia to-day. We may find ourselves in Canada also in the face of similar treaties which in Canada might be an obstacle to our commercial development. Years ago the Government of Canada obtained from the Government of Great Britain the denunciation of two treaties, which were very obnoxious to the Dominion —the treaty with Germany and the treaty with Belgium. The British Government, on that occasion, denounced the treaties entirely. It may be difficult, I conceive, to ask the British Government to denounce those treaties which are, as is represented to us, of advantage to the United Kingdom; but I had in my mind—in fact I discussed the question before I left Canada —to bring to the attention of the Conference and the British Government some method of dealing with such questions as this. As to those old treaties, which may be of advantage to the United Kingdom, no one here would think for a moment that the United Kingdom should not have the full benefit of those treaties. On the other hand when a Commonwealth like Australia finds a treaty of this kind not only an obstacle to its own commercial development, but finds in it an obstacle to closer trade relations between Australia and the Mother Country, I would submit that perhaps it might be possible that the British Government should enter into negotiations with those nations with a

A.-4

139

2 June, 1911.] Commercial Relations and British Shipping. [4th Day. Sir WILFRID LAURIER— cont. view to exempting the effect of the treaties so far as the Dominion is concerned if the Dominion concerned were to ask for such an exemption. It would be done to-day if the treaty were to be negotiated, but as they are in effect, is it not possible to enter into negotiations by the British. Government whereby they will not denounce the treaty but obtain from the contracting party the privilege for any of the Dominion Governments to be exempted from the operation of that treaty —for instance, in this case, Australia ? I do not know, as I said a moment ago, to what nations these treaties may apply, but suppose it is a treaty with Italy or with France, would it not be possible to obtain from the French Government or the Italian Government that they would agree to allow any of the Dominions to withdraw from the operation of such treaty ? This would not go to the extent of debarring the United Kingdom of the advantages which they might derive from the treaty, but it would have the advantage of getting the Dominions withdrawn from its operations. It is likely enough that those treaties are of such advantage to the United Kingdom and to the other nation respectively that it would not be an interference with the rights or benefits derived by each of the other nations, and probably a matter of very little consequence. Therefore I think the motion is one which is worthy of very careful consideration, and I had intended at some time or another to submit a resolution in this form to the Conference, which perhaps I might read now so as to bring it to the attention of the Conference : " That His Majesty's Government be requested to open negotiations w T ith the several Foreign Governments having treaties which apply to the oversea Dominions, with a view to securing liberty for any of these Dominions which may so desire to withdraw from the operation of the treaty without impairing the treaty as respects the rest of the Empire." I would not propose to move it to-day, but I place it to-day before the Conference so that it may be thought over. If this resolution were passed it would have this effect of asking the Government of the United Kingdom to enter into negotiations with those respective nations with a view to securing to the Dominions the liberty of withdrawing from the operation of such treaties. If such a motion as this were accepted and if such a thing were to be carried out I do not know how far it would be acceptable to the Government of the United Kingdom, but if such a treaty could be negotiated it would have the effect of securing Australia against the obstacles which are now in its way and without impairing the advantages which the United Kingdom derives from such a treaty. Mr. FISHER : Would you like to move that ? Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Not to-day; I think I would like to give notice of it for consideration. Mr. FISHER : It is better to get on with the business, is it not ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : 1 agree with the resolution moved by Mr. Fisher. I think it is advisable in the interests, both of the United Kingdom and of the British Dominions beyond the seas that efforts in favour of British manufactured goods and British shipping should be supported as far as is practicable. Now I recognise that in the business conducted with the oversea Dominions there are at least two countries which are paying enormous subsidies to steamers that are competing very strongly against the" British manufacturer and against the British shipowner in'the trade of the oversea Dominions, and Ido not believe myself that it is possible under the existing conditions for those who are conducting the export trade from the United Kingdom in many cases to compete upon equal terms with thos.e countries. As a matter of fact, it is perfectly well known to many people who look into the question of the development of trade that in some instances it is cheaper to ship goods at an English port and to allow them to go on to a German port and bring them back again round the ordinary ports and thence out to Australia

A.-4

140

4:th Day.] Commercial Relations and British Shipping. [2 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. and New Zealand than it is to send them direct from England itself. That can only be done, in my opinion, as an outcome of this very valuable assistance which has been given, but, however it is done, it is that competition that is telling so much against, in my judgment at least, an equal opportunity for the men who are conducting the operations from this country to carry on successfully against their competitors who arc helped in the matter of these subsidies. For that reason I think the general proposition here is that it is desirable both in the interests of the United Kingdom and of the British Dominions to have British manufactured goods carried in British bottoms, and it is very desirable that we, as a Conference, should affirm that principle and do all in our power to assist it. As to the question of the treaties referred to both by Mr. Fisher and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, they open up a very important matter and we recognise that where there is a treaty existing between Great Britain and other countries it has to be respected, and so long as the treaty is in operation I know of no way in which you can, without a breach of agreement, have an alteration made excepting with the voluntary consent of the countries concerned. I want to wait, before forming a definite decision myse-lf, to hear Sir Wilfrid Laurier expound his proposition. I assume now, in dealing with this question of treaty, that the proposition which would give the liberty of withdrawing from the treaties would enable any of the oversea Dominions to enter into a treaty, subject to the Foreign Office consenting, with any of those foreign countries to carry on trade under a direct treaty. lam not quite clear as to the advantage of the withdrawing from an existing treaty, and it is a point upon which I want to hear, when Sir Wilfrid Laurier is explaining his resolution, a little more before I commit myself as to whether it is a desirable thing to do. Sir EDWARD MORRIS : May I interrupt you, Sir Joseph ? I understood Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in reading that resolution, distinctly to state "if they desire." Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes, <: if they desire "—I say that. Mr. PEARCE : It only puts us into the same position with regard to the old treaties as with regard to the new. Sir JOSEPH WARD : It must be quite voluntary. Of course I quite recognise that. Ido not want to mix up this question of Europe generally With the proposal now before us, concerning which I sent a notice of motion ea,rtier in the year for the consideration of the Conference. In our country we hold a very strong opinion upon this question of our inability to have our own ships protected against extraordinary conditions in the shape of low rates of pay and excessive competition against the legitimate enterprise conducted by vessels manned by British men receiving rates of pay under the arbitration awards in our country who are supporting their wives and families under reasonable conditions ashore, and who to-day are likely to suffer tremendously as the outicome of the very difficult problem in connection with the importation of British subjects of a different colour to our own who are largely manning some of the British ships trading to our countries. I want to take an opportunity of saying here that the matter is regarded as very serious in our country, that as far as we are concerned everything in our power legitimately which we can do we intend to do to prevent it. As a matter of fact lam cognisant, with regard to one of those shipping companies of the great services it has rendered to this countrty, and T would not presume for a moment to say a word against a particular shipping company. I recognise that they are employing British subjects of a different Colony, some of them, to ours, and that they are conforming to the law of Great Britain and are doing exactly what they are entitled to do, but it

141

A.—4

2 June, 1911.1 Commercial Relations and British Shipping. Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD—con*. is when the extension of their sea voyages from the Old Country to Australia and on to New Zealand takes place, picking up a larger amount of local traffic as they do, that they will commence to make a very serious inroad upon other institutions manned entirely by white British subjects and receiving as I say good pay. It is then that the whole community in our country realises that they stand a chance of having great institutions there that have taken a lifetime to build up practically smashed to pieces unless they reduce the rates of pay of the officers, engineers, and men on board these steamers to an amount that a white man cannot support his wife and family upon. So that we are up against a very serious proposition in connection with the important matter of supportingBritish manufacturers and British ships, because it is undeniable that the ships I refer to are British. They may certainly have very good reasons for the way in. which they conduct their business, concerning which I am not in any way interfering, but it is the danger to our ships manned by white men of competition against coloured seamen and firemen employed at low rates of pay that I speak of. As to this matter of helping British manufactured goods and British shipping, we are doing it now, as far as New Zealand is concerned, to the extent of over half a million a year. We go on the line of helping the British manufacturer and the British shipowner against the competition which is due to the large subsidies to which I have just referred by protecting them to an extent on British goods, which represented in 1909 the amount of 504,845 Z. Mr. PEARCE : You say that you protect the shipowners. How do you doit? Sir JOSEPH WARD : We protect British goods. Mr. PEARCE : You also said the shipowner. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I beg pardon if I did; it is British goods that we protect. In other words, had we not the system in operation which is intended to help the British merchant as against the foreign competitor for our trade, we would have collected 1,073,000 Z. of duty from the British merchant, whereas we collected 504,000/. Now that is the only way in which we can help the British merchant against competitors who are carrying on their business, as I say, with steamers which are subsidised very heavily indeed. We confine our trade, as far as we can, to British merchants, and I think in turn they ought, as far as it is possible for them to do so, to see that their goods are shipped in British ships. That part of the responsibility devolves upon them and it is one upon which they can help very much. It probably would be more convenient if the discussion of the shipping laws was left until a later period. I only want to say now, as far as lam concerned; that I am not only anxious, but I intend, as far as it lies in my power, in every way I can to support the British merchant, and also to support the British shipping as far as it is possible in carrying that trade between the Old Country and New Zealand. . Dr. FINDLAY : May I make a suggestion at this stage ? Ido not want to discuss the matter, but it seems to me that we will be involved in a double, if not a treble, discussion on the same matter. We are discussing now this item No. 2on the Agenda Paper. Sir Wilfrid Laurier is going to propose a matter which either is very closely related, if not mutually involved, in the subjectmatter of Australia's proposal, and New Zealand has one equally closely related in connection with crews and navigation laws. Could not these be collated and discussed at the same time ? V - '

A.—4.

142

<tth Day.] Commercial Relations and British Shipping. [2 June, 1911. The CHAIRMAN : I would suggest that the matter of the Lascars should be dealt with on the day which is put down for the treatment of British Indians, when the Secretary of State for India will be here to deal with it especially from the Imperial and Indian point of view. That has been provisionally put on the Agenda for Monday the 19th. Dr. FINDLAY : Sir Wilfrid Laurier's proposal is very closely related to the one which Mr. Pearce has put. Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF : South Africa has also a suggestion in connection with shipping which will have to be discussed. Mr. BUXTON : That is down for Friday, I think. Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF : That is very closely allied with the discussion which has gone on this morning. The CHAIRMAN : That is down for Friday, 16th June : " Concerted action for the promotion of trade and encouragement of British commerce." Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF : Yes, it appears to me it all affects the same subject. The CHAIRMAN : If the Conference would like to postpone the discussion until we reach those items, we could proceed with any further resolution that is on the Agenda for to-day. Mr. FISHER : We will accept that resolution of Sir Wilfrid's as covering this point. I think we might dispose of that. We all seem to be in agreement. The draft motion read by Sir Wilfrid I think meets our views, and we will withdraw ours and pass that one without comment if necessary. Dr. FINDLAY : Would it not be better to withdraw yours and for Sir Wilfrid to give us notice, so as to give us time to consider his ? Mr. FISHER : It seems so simple. The CHAIRMAN : I am afraid we must ask for time to consider the motion. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : The motion is one which, I am very glad to see, commends itself to the view of the Conference, but it is laying a duty on the Imperial Government and perhaps they would want to consider it. I think it is a reasonable resolution, but I would not press it upon you to-day. Mr. FISHER : Would you please read it again ? Mr. BUXTON : I will read it: " That His Majesty's Government be requested to open negotiations with the several Foreign Governments having treaties which apply to the oversea Dominions with a view to securing liberty for any of these Dominions which may so desire to withdraw from the operation of the treaty without impairing the treaty as respects the rest of the Empire." As regards the general principle I feel confident that the Secretary of State, in whose department it comes rather than my own, would be in favour of the resolution. But I think the members of the Conference will feel that I ought not to commit him or myself until we have had an opportunity of considering it. May I say that, as a matter of fact, the Foreign Office since the last Con-

143

A.—4

-2 June, 1011.] Commercial Relations and British Shipping. [4-th Day. Mr. BUXTON— cont. ference have been in communication with several of the Governments concerned with a view to doing what Sir Wilfrid Laurier has desired, and which, as he knows quite well, and as he has pointed out, is already done when any new treaties are negotiated ? So that our sympathy at all events is there, but before accepting the resolution I feel sure that you would like Sir E. Grey to have the opportunity, as I think I should like myself to have the opportunity, of considering the terms. May I add with regard to this resolution that, as far as the wording of it is concerned, I have no objection to it. Mr. Pearce raised a particular point, and he gave the reasons for that particular point being accepted. I thought it well on behalf of the Board of Trade to give the reasons to the Conference why we were unable to agree with the Commonwealth Government upon that particular point. As regards the general principle, I do not think there is any difference between us. Sir D. m VILLIERS GRAAFF : I was going to say that the resolution under discussion does not say anything about treaties at all. It is true that as the argument has been used in connection with this resolution there seemed to be treaty obligations which interfered with the passage of a certain Bill, but the resolution as to British manufactured goods and the British shipping should be supported as far as practicable. There are two other matters appertaining to the same subject of shipping and British manufactured goods. I think it would be advisable if we could discuss those two questions together. It would save a lot of time because they are all appertaining to the same subject. If that is agreed, we could fix one day for the discussion of the three resolutions together outside the treaties resolution. I believe, myself, that the treaties resolution will find favour here, but for the moment it really has nothing to do with shipping or British manufactured goods. It is altogether a different question. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Australia by passing - such a resolution would not be more advanced than it is at the present time, because there is a treaty against it. We are told : "We cannot help you because there is a treaty against this." That is a question which has to be discussed and removed at the present moment. Sir D. be VILLIERS GRAAFF : When it comes to the question of assisting British manufactured goods and British bottoms we have something to say upon that which would probably alter the complexion of the treaty arrangements when you have heard what we have to say upon it. The CHAIRMAN : If it is agreeable to the Conference shall we postpone the further discussion of Resolution 2. and I suppose Resolution 3 as to navigation law ? Mr. FISHER : That has nothing to do with No. 2. Mr. PEARCE : There is another point upon No. 3. The CHAIRMAN : We will adjourn Resolution 2 until Friday the 16th. Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF : You are not pressing your motion to-day, Mr. Fisher ? Mr. FISHER : No. The CHAIRMAN : Will Mr. Fisher go on with No. 3 ? Mr. FISHER : I only formally move No. 3 and ask Mr. Pearce to speak upon it.

19—A. 4.

A.—4

144

Ath Day?, Navigation Law. [2 June, 1911. 3. Navigation Law. " That it is desirable that the attention of the Governments of the United Kingdom and of the Colonies should be called to the present state of the navigation laws in the Empire and in other countries, withja view to secure uniformity of treatment to British shipping; to prevent British|ships Jby ships ; to secure to British ships equal trading advantages with foreign ships ; to secure the employment of British seamen on British ships ; and to raise the status and improve the conditions of seamen employed on such ships." Mr. PEARCE : The reason why we do not require No. 3 discussed with the other questions is just this, that the whole question of navigation law as it affects the Dominions and the United Kingdom requires to be discussed apart from the question as to the object you are aiming at in your navigation law. In the other resolution you are dealing with what you are endeavouring to do. As I think every member of the Conference knows, whenever a Dominion proposes to pass a navigation law it finds itself reminded by the Board of Trade of the existence of the Merchant Shipping Act, and the Board of Trade have pressed, and still press, on the consideration of the Dominion Governments the view which I think no Dominion Government so far has assented to, that the Merchant Shipping Act overrides the Dominion legislation even in territorial waters of the Dominion itself. The law officers advising the Board of Trade and the law officers of the Commonwealth are in direct conflict as to the power conferred on us by our Constitution and the power which the United Kingdom has and which it has expressed in the Merchant Shipping Act. The Board of Trade has in the course of a long correspondence with the Commonwealth Government pressed this view Avith regard to the details of the Bill which has been before the Commonwealth Parliament for some time. The first suggestion we have to make with regard to this resolution, which, although it deals with a certain amount of detail, really expresses the desire and wish of the Dominions to pass legislation dealing with navigation for these purposes, is that all the Dominions should be put on an equal footing in this respect; that as I believe Canada, and T know New Zealand, has passed a Navigation Bill —in the case of New Zealand a Navigation Bill in which the provisions are similar to those in our Bill, provisions which have been challenged by the Board of Trade; but as the Bill of the New Zealand Government has been passed and assented to and become an Act for the Dominion— Dr. FINDLAY : What Act are you referring to ? Mr. PEARCE : Your two Navigation Acts — your main Act and your amending Bill. Dr. FINDLAY : The last one is not assented to yet. Sir JOSEPH WARD : It is, provisionally with the alteration of one clause. The 1907 one was reserved for IS months. Mr. PEARCE : But it was assented to \ Sir JOSEPH WARD :It was assented to. The 1909 one was reserved for two years. Mr. PEARCE : That is the one I am referring to; but what I want to say is this, that I think it is time we had a clear understanding as to how this matter is to be dealt with as between the United Kingdom and the Dominions. It seems to me that if we are to get uniformity in reorganizing the self-governing powers of the Dominions, it is only right that each Government should be placed in this position, that it should be allowed to express its will by the passing of an Act, and that Act should be assented to as a recognition of the power of the Dominion to deal with that subject.

145

A i

2 June, 1911.] Navigation Law. [kth Day. Dr. FINDLAY : What subject? Mr. PEARCE : Navigation; lam dealing with navigation. That having been done, that recognition of the power of the Dominion to deal with the subject having been given, then it seems to me the time comes when the United Kingdom should press its view as to the desirability of securing uniformity; but in the case of the Commonwealth —I do not know what the experience of the other Dominions concerned has been —the United Kingdom has taken up the attitude of bringing pressure to bear upon us in the course of the drafting of the Bill, and in the passage of that Bill through Parliament, and we put the view, with all respect, that that is an undesirable course, and it is one which infringes on the legislative power of the Dominion. As our Bill will be one of the measures in the forthcoming session, we desire to put the view before this Conference, and we anticipate we should have the full support of other Dominions in pressing the view upon the Government of the United Kingdom that uniformity, or any action to secure uniformity, should be taken subsequent to the Dominion passing its legislation, and not prior to and during the course of the passing of that legislation, by a memorandum sent forward by the Board of Trade. Then, if that point is conceded by the Government of the United Kingdom, we find ourselves in this position : we are desirous, and I am sure the other Dominions also are desirous, that under our legislation we shall not put the British shipowner at a disadvantage as compared with the foreign shipowner. We do not desire by our legislation to do that, but we must in justice to our own shipowners see that they are not put in an unfair position as regards the British shipowner. Therefore, in any proposal the United Kingdom is to make with regard to securing uniformity, we ask that that position should be remembered, that our legislation is aimed at, first of all, securing fair conditions for our shipping trade in our own waters; and, secondly, fair competition between British shipowners and foreign shipowners; and there we come up against the treaty question again—these questions are linked up in a sense — and it constitutes another reason why the action indicated by Sir Wilfrid Laurier should be taken, in order that on these shipping questions we should have the power to deal with British shipowners in a spirit of fair play as regards foreigners. While this resolution is specific in certain directions, the underlying proposition we have to make to the Conference is that, first of all, the right of the Dominions to legislate in these matters should not be challenged or questioned, and that we should be given a free hand, first of all, to place on the Statute Book our view as to the dealing with this subject, and then that the action to bring about uniformity should be subsequent to the Dominion's legislation being assented to by His Majesty's Government. The CHAIRMAN : Mr. Buxton will deal generally—in fact, altogether— with the question of navigation and shipping; but may I say on the point which has been raised by Mr. Pearce that T am quite sure that the early communications that have been made to the Dominions by the Colonial Office, where it is necessary ultimately to obtain uniformity of legislation, have been made to the Dominions entirely for their own advantage, from the impression at home that it would be to their advantage to know these views at the earliest possible moment, rather than that they should pass a law which had ultimately to be reserved and possibly vetoed by the Imperial authority here. The early communication is in order that the Act as passed in the Dominion shall as nearly as possible correspond with the shape which it is believed it must ultimately take, and that priority of communication has been out of consideration for the feelings and convenience of the Dominions themselves. Mr. BUXTON : Perhaps that point is, to a certain extent, rather more one for the Colonial Office than the Board of Trade, but as Mr. Pearce has mentioned the Board of Trade communications I can assure him that in this matter there is no intention of interfering with any constitutional rights which the various Dominions may possess. On the other hand, there are certain con-

A.—4

146

■tth Day.2 Navigation Law. [2 June, 1911. Mr. BUXTON— cont. stitutional positions which the Home Government are bound to take up in reference to those matters of shipping and other questions of that sort. As far as the official communications are concerned, they are always of a confidential nature. As far as we are aware, they are kept confidential — that is to say, they are not brought out into the public purview as far as we are concerned with any object of bringing pressure, as Mr. Pearce seemed to imply, I think, to bear on the Dominion Government, with a view to altering their view or bringing pressure to bear in connection with a Bill they might have before them. There is certainly no such intention, and as far as we are concerned our communications are intended to be direct through the Governor to the Ministers, and not to the public concerned. I think Mr. Pearce should remember that in those matters, especially the ones to which he has referred, there are also great interests concerned which are not simply the interests of the Dominion or the Commonwealth, whichever Dominion it may be. And as regards the shipping trade here, we are bound to consider and to make representations to the Government in reference to a trade which represents about 87 per cent, of the whole compared with the small percentage of any of the particular Dominions. I want to emphasize what Mr. Harcourt has said in reference to this matter, that the desire in making those communications to the Governments concerned is that we should arrive at an amicable decision if possible beforehand, with a view to uniformity and to a workable Act, rather than after the Act is passed, when it becomes obviously, I think, much more difficult for either side to come to a satisfactory arrangement. It is really with a view, as the Colonial Secretary has said, to arriving at an amicable agreement beforehand that these communications are made; and lam bound to say that I think it would be inexpedient, as far as we can judge, if these communications were not made beforehand rather than afterwards. They are always made in a friendly spirit, with a view, if possible, to avoid friction and to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. Whenever we have to make communications with foreign Governments with regard to these matters the communications are made beforehand rather than after. I am willing to accept this resolution on behalf of His Majesty's Government, subject to the suggestion which I made to Mr. Fisher, which is this : I do not think we could agree to the words, " The present state of the navigation laws in the Empire," as we ourselves here have no navigation laws; it is opposed, as the Conference knows, to our whole policy to have them, and it looks a little as if it was intended, if we accepted these words as they stand, that we should be committed to an expression of opinion that we should have navigation laws here as well as in other parts of the Dominion. I suggest to him the words : " That it is desirable that the attention of the Governments of the United Kingdom and of the Colonies should be called to the desirability of taking all practical steps to secure " —that is really the object he has in view— and, instead of " to secure," "to promote " (it is merely verbal) " the employment of British seamen." I should like, with the permission of the Conference, to read a memorandum—not a very long one —in reference to the attitude, or, rather, the action, we have taken on the various points raised in the resolution. I should like to have it on record that in these matters we at the Board of Trade and His Majesty's Government have not been remiss in our action with regard to them. As a matter of fact, Mr. Pearce has not actually raised the point, but, looking to the fact that this resolution is going to be accepted, T should like to have it on record what action we have taken. Mr. FISHES : We do not know what it is. Mr. BUXTON : It is in reference to the motion of the Commonwealth Government, which is to this effect—l need not read it again, but the points that they make are that we should adopt this proposal in order : (1) To secure uniformity of treatment to British shipping; (2) to prevent unfair competition

147

A.-4

2 June, 1911.] Navigation Law. [43h Day. Mr. BUXTON —cont. with British ships by foreign subsidised ships; (3) to secure to British ships equal trading advantages with foreign ships; (4) to secure the employment of British seamen on British ships; and (5) to raise the status and improve the condition of seamen employed on such ships. To all these points we agree in principle. (1) Uniformity of Treatment to British Shipping.—Uniformity in the safety regulations is one of the most important matters in which uniformity of treatment to shipping is desirable. Uniformity in the safety regulations enforced in the different parts of the Empire is one of the main objects of the Board of Trade, and whenever any proposed Colonial legislation is submitted to the Board it is considered by reference to the Imperial Merchant ShippingActs in so far as the latter deal with the subject-matter under reference, and the legislating authority is advised to frame the legislation in accordance with the principles of the Imperial Acts. In so far as this is done, the safety regulations, or at least those of them which affect oversea vessels, will become uniform in essentials, and the object aimed at will be attained. (2) The passing of the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act of 1906 has had a very remarkable effect in bringing foreign safety regulations into harmony with those in force in the United Kingdom. The Act enforced on foreign ships trading to the United Kingdom the safety regulations applicable to British ships, but made provision for the exemption of such vessels as had complied with the regulations in force in their own country, provided these were equivalent to the British regulations. The result has been that a large number of foreign countries have revised their safety regulations or adopted new regulations, with a view to securing exemption for their ships in the United Kingdom, and the regulations as to load-line, life-saving appliances, and survey of passenger steajners in many countries are now regarded as equivalent to those in force in the United Kingdom. In few of these countries is any serious attempt made to enforce safety regulations on non-national ships, but where such an attempt is made the exception of British ships is insisted on as a condition of exempting the foreign ships in the United Kingdom. In so far, therefore, as Colonial and foreign safety regulations are assimilated to those in force in the United Kingdom, international uniformity is attained as regards these regulations. (3) Uniformity of treatment of British vessels in different foreign countries need not be discussed in detail, for in so far as foreign regulations are assimilated to British regulations (a process which is now going on) they are assimilated to each other. (4) As regards uniformity of treatment as between the various sections of British ships, it may be presumed that to the foreigner all vessels sailing under the British Flag are British ships, and that there is no likelihood of any foreign authority making a distinction (so far as the enforcement of safety regulations is concerned) between, say, vessels registered in the United Kingdom and those registered in Australia, Similarly the Imperial Merchant Shipping Acts do not distinguish, so far as the safety requirements are concerned, between United Kingdom and Colonial vessels, but deal with them all alike if they come to the United Kingdom. Provision is, however, made for the recognition of Colonial passenger certificates and load-line certificates if issued after a satisfactory survey and in accordance with satisfactory regulations (sections 284 and 444 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894), and a number of Colonies have received recognition in this way. This arrangement is directly advantageous to Colonial ships visiting the United Kingdom, and encourages the Colonial Governments to frame their legislation and regulations in harmony with those of the United Kingdom. (5) So far as is known, no complaint has been made of the enforcement in any foreign port of more stringent safety regulations on British than on foreign ships. In ports of the United Kingdom, British and foreign ships must now, in accordance with the Merchant Snipping Act, 1906, comply with the same regulations. Prior to the passing of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, one or two of the Dominions expressed a grievance that their ships, if they came to the United Kingdom, were compelled to comply with the Merchant Shipping Acts, while foreign ships were allowed to go free; but all grounds for this complaint have now been removed. It has been suggested to the Dominion Governments that they should initiate similar legislation, so that throughout the British Empire the foreign ship shall not be allowed to compete

A.- 4

148

4:th Day.] Navigation Law. [2 June, 1911. Mr. BUXTON—cont. unfairly with British vessels. So far as can be seen, therefore, the ideal of uniformity has been to a considerable extent attained, and further steps towards it are being taken. The Board of Trade will not relax their efforts in this direction, and it is to be hoped that the cordial co-operation of the Colonies will be obtained for such a very desirable end. As to foreign subsidized ships, 1 have already said something about them, and they will be discussed on the other motion. But as a matter of fact, it is in the ordinary course against the policy of His Majesty's Government to subsidize British shipping except under particular conditions, because they believe they can hold their own without such subsidies. As to equal trading advantages for British shipping, it is difficult to deal with this part of the resolution without knowing more definitely what is in the mind of the Australian Government. The Imperial Government are naturally desirous of obtaining equality of opportunity for British ships, and this object is, of course, borne in mind whenever general negotiations are in progress with any particular country. As to the last two points, British seamen on British ships and conditions of employment on such ships, the principle underlying much of the most recent merchant shipping legislation of the Imperial Parliament has been that the former object—that is, the employment of British seamen on British ships— can be best attained by pursuing the method indicated in the latter. The Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, was intended to improve the conditions of merchant seamen generally by establishing a proper dietary scale for seamen and providing for the proper cooking of their food, by requiring enlarged and improved accommodation for seamen in British ships, by making further provision for repatriation and medical treatment, and by various other means. the adoption of a language test was a measure likely to encourage the employment of British seamen, and it was believed that it was calculated to and would tend to increase the proportion of British seamen employed in British ships. The figures showing the number of British and foreign seamen employed in the British Mercantile Marine during the last few years confirm this view. I have already given the figures in reference to the matter, which show a distinct tendency in the right direction. It may be added that New Zealand has followed this Act very considerably in recent legislation, doubtless with the same object in view; and the Australian Navigation Bill now before the Commonwealth Parliament is based on similar lines. As regards the improvement of conditions in the mercantile marine, there are some points on which it would probably not be possible to arrive at actual uniformity with Australia and New Zealand. For instance, there is no statutory fixed rate of wages, &c, in the mercantile marine here, because as a rule they are matters of settlement between the owners and masters and seamen. I have shortly put before the Conference the points we have taken up since the last Conference meeting, and I hope it is not an unsatisfactory record of the activities of the Board of Trade; and we are only too glad in all these matters, as far as we can, to act in conformity and in conjunction with the representatives of the Dominions. Mr. BRODE-UR : I have not got much to say on the motion which has been made by Mr. Pearce and by Mr. Fisher, and which is agreeable in its provisions. I think perhaps it would be better to postpone the adoption of this resolution until we have considered the one of which notice has been given by New Zealand, as to some of the laws of navigation and shipping. In the meantime, however, you will perhaps allow me to bring to the attention of the Conference the situation in which the Governments are concerning their navigation laws. We were formerly under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854. Later on, as far as Canada is concerned, in 1867, by the British North America Act, we were given the power to legislate with regard to navigation and shipping. The provisions of the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act of 1854 were applying, of course, to Canada. However, we proceeded to make some provisions in our own legislation. Sometimes those provisions were passed with the consent of His Majesty in Council; sometimes also some amendments were

149

A.—4

2 June, 1911.] Navigation Law. [4£A Day. Mr. BRODEUR—con*. made without the matter being referred to the Imperial Government. Our legislation is in a sort of chaos, especially since the revision of the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act by the Act of 1894. In 1894 you have virtually incorporated in legislation the same provisions as the ones which existed before under the Act of 1854, so much so that by the different amendments that were being made from 1867 to 1894 amendments were concurred in by the Imperial Government, and we find to-day that this legislation has been overridden by the provisions of the Act of 1894. That means to say that legislation which has been concurred in by the Imperial Government from 1867 to 1894 is now absolutely null on account of the provisions of the Act of 1894. That puts us in a very awkward situation. I may quote a case which I have in my mind now with regard to the liability in the case of collisions. We have embodied in our statute the provisions of the Act of 1854. Later, by the Act of 1894, this provision has been changed with regard to collisions, and now the provisions of the Act of 1894 are overriding the provisions of our own Act, which had been simply a copy of the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act. I did not know this question would come up this morning, because I thought it might come up more in the discussion of the Merchant Shipping Act as embodied in the resolution proposed made by New Zealand. But I think in those cases the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act should be amended in such a way that the Dominions should be given absolute power to deal with the question. In the cases where the Governments have not dealt with the question the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act might apply. Instead of declaring, as it has been declared in several of the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, that it will apply to the Dominions, it might be stated that the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act should apply in cases where no legislation has been passed by the Dominions; but where legislation has been passed by the Dominions I think that legislation should be considered as being absolutely of force and effect. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I prefer to wait, as has been suggested by Mr. Brodeur, until we come to the motion dealing with the shipping: but I would like to say, on the point referred to by Mr. Pearce as to pressure being , brought to bear on the oversea Governments, that that is not the experience of New Zealand. In fact, I think there must be a misapprehension, because we have worked together at the Navigation Conference with a view to assimilating our shipping laws, and our practice in New Zealand is to send an outline to the Home authorities of any new law on the subject that we contemplate submitting to Parliament, for it is desirable upon points upon which the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act would be in conflict with what we are doing that we should know beforehand in what direction the British authorities can assent to our legislation. I want to make it quite clear that we do not accept the kind of intimation conveyed by them as any direction to us that we should not submit legislation on any lines we think proper; but we are, all the same, very glad to know where the conflict may arise, and in what direction we may, as far as it is possible for us to do so. avoid the conflict. I hold very strongly the view that we should have wider powers than exist at present in dealing with the important proposal that is submitted by Mr. Fisher and spoken to by Mr. Pearce. We have in our country to deal with the condition of the men who are on board our ships under a system that suits our requirements very well indeed. Unlike the officers and men on board British ships, under our system of settling their rates of wages, the salaries, the ordinary rates of pay and the conditions under which they work are very different in many respects from what they are in the Old Country, and we require to have a broadening of the law to enable us to meet the requirements of our own people under the special circumstances in which we find ourselves. We require to have a uniformity of law if we can get it, but, I certainly think we require to have more power and not so much difficulty in obtaining assent to such measures as we seek now which meet the special requirements of our country. As to the delays and the difficulty of obtaining the assent, lam not sayine; that those delays that took place were not warranted on account of

A.—4,

150

Ath Day.] Navigation Law. [2 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD—cont. the position of the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act and what was required here, but in the legislation we passed dealing with the matter in 1903 eighteen months elapsed before it Was assented to, and the amending Act which we passed in 1909 (I am not dealing with the Act passed last year dealing with Lascars) has received a conditional assent only, subject to legislation regarding ; a clause in it; in reality it is not law yet, but, subject to a reservation as to the alteration of one clause of that Bill, the rest of it is agreed to* But I want to point out the difficulty that arises in a country like ours where we have to wait such a long time—eighteen months in one instance and nearly two years in the second one —to enable the desires and requirements of our own people to be put into statute law so as to enable our shipping operations to be carried on successfully in New Zealand, and I think there does want to be a broadening of the law to enable more powers to be given to us. We are in a very much better position, as far as New Zealand is concerned, to judge what suits our own people and to decide what legislation is necessary than the Imperial Government can be so far as the oversea Dominions are concerned. I am not raising at the present moment the issue of the employment of Lascars in steamers; that oomes under a separate heading, and can be dealt with more conveniently later on. The matters we think we ought to have absolute power with respect to, and as to which there should be no difficulty about obtaining assent to our proposals, are on the question of the wages of seamen, the manning of ships trading from the Dominion to the neighbouring Dominions. That is a very important point, and I dare say Australia concurs in it. We want to have complete power over the manning of ships trading between our country and the oversea Dominions. It may be far-reaching in its effect, but we want it because the conditions of life out in our country are so different to what they are in other portions of the British Empire where coloured people are employed that it means practically life or death to great local institutions with very large capital in them, with a large number of people employed, and a large number of dependants living on shore. We want to have the power of fixing the regulation of accommodation for seamen, and the survey of ships and their life-saving appliances. The Board of Trade has done splendid work in that matter, as far as my observation has gone, and I have watched it very closely from time to time, and they are doing good work, in my opinion, in connection with this very important matter that we are dealing with now; but in the proposal submitted by Australia directing the attention of the Government of the United Kingdom to various matters, I am merely indicating what it is that we feel it is essential we ought to have the undoubted right to do J —namely, that which we believe to be the best in the interests of safety and the interests of the accommodation, both of passengers and seamen, and generally connected with the vessels trading from our country, and especially between the Dominions, which is very important from our standpoint. Then we meant to have the fixing of the load-line and the regulation of the form and stipulations in bills of lading as to cargoes shipped from the Dominion, and we want to have the regulation with regard to proposals for the employment of Asiatics. We know that raises an important question which comes probably under the heading of emigration, which may be dealt with later on. The matter, however, is one of very great importance so far as we are concerned, and at this Conference I should like very much before we have concluded if we could be able to affirm some way in which this very troublesome question of the Asiatic could be met in a dignified way as far as the Asiatics themselves are concerned. They are entitled to consideration; they are proud people, and have the right to be considered in many ways. I believe we ought in a friendly way to pass some resolution at this Conference before we rise expressing our opinion as to how this great and important question may upon high lines be dealt with in the interests both of the Asiatics and of the Britishers. I am not insensible to the fact that there are many difficulties standing in the way of a great Empire such as this in governing shipping, permeating as it does the wide world, and dealing with the people who are required for the various trades on account of climatic conditions and others to man them. At the same time, while recognizing all that, Aye want to see our own country protected in the fullest way possible from the inroad of a system which I believe

151

A.—4

2 June, 1911.] Navigation Law. \Uh Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. would eventually break down the shipping in our country altogether. I lookon the matter as of such importance that at the proper time later on I will probably take a little more time in explaining what I think we ought to do, putting my views on record, even though I should happen to be the only one taking the particular view. General BOTHA : I have nothing to say at present. Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF : I understand this is coming up again ? The CHAIRMAN : Yes. Sir EDWARD MORRIS : I should like to know, when it is coming up, if we could have a statement of the percentage of British as compared with foreign shipping? Mr. BUXTON : I will circulate some figures. You mean the figures* I was quoting in the early part of the forenoon ? Sir EDWARD MORRIS : Yes, the British as compared with the world in percentage. I understand we have something like one-sixth of it. Mr. BUXTON : I will give some figures which will be of use to the Conference. Sir EDWARD MORRIS : Also, I would like to be sliown the total value of imports last year and the total value of exports from the United Kingdom, and as to whether the unhampered condition of our navigation laws at present has to some extent brought about a favourable result. Mr. PEARCE : Before we adjourn, some exception was taken to a statement I made that pressure was brought to bear upon the Commonwealth Government. lam just going to give one instance. Mr. FISHER : Of many. Mr. PEARCE : Of several, which I think do go beyond the region of suggestions coming from the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade picked out one clause of a Bill, and they started off dealing with it by saving that this was the most important principle which could be dealt with in a Bill Mr. BUXTON : Which Bill are you speaking of ? Mr. PEARCE : The Navigation Bill, clause 185. It is at pages 10 and 11 of our own Parliamentary Paper which we circulated in which we set out a memorandum of what had passed between the Board of Trade and ourselves. They urged us not to take the course that the clause proposed to do. On the 28th October, 1908, the Deakin Government cabled back as follows : " Clause 185 " (which was the clause challenged by the Board of Trade) " has been law in New South Wales and Victoria for many years." That is to say, two of the States had been given the power to make this law, which was challenged by the Board of Trade, years before, and it had been in actual operation for many years without complaint or entailing the suggested inconvenience or expense. On the 27th November, 1908, the Secretary of State cabled in reply as follows : " With reference to your telegram of 28th October, the Board of Trade are most anxious to know from your Government, as soon as possible if your Ministers consider it essential to insist on oxtendins- compulsory survey to all vessels; they earnestly trust that your Act will be administered in the same spirit as

20—A. 4.

* See Volume of papers [Cd. 5746—1.]

A.—4

152

Uh Day.] Navigation Law. [2 June, 1911. Mr. PEARCE— cont. the New South Wales and Victoria Acts." It seemed to us that that was the most peculiar language to use. It implied first of all that, although the States could be trusted with these powers, we could not be trusted with them, and that it needed some undertaking from us that we would administer them in the same spirit as the States had done. The CHAIRMAN : I was not the Secretary of State then, but in effect it was giving way to the view of the Commonwealth. Mr. PEARCE : They were challenging us in legislating in the direction the States had been allowed to legislate in without challenge, although by our constitution we were given the powers which formerly rested in the States, and then they were requiring, if they consented to our legislation, that we would give an undertaking with regard to it. Mr. BUXTON : There are just two points—one which Mr. Brodeur raised, as I understood him, that the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 practically overrode a certain amount of Dominion legislation, and that under that Act they were prohibited from doing certain things, or that certain Acts had been invalidated in consequence of this Act- I can assure him that that is really not so. lam informed* that the 1894 Act was a Consolidation Act merely, and not only so, but that it preserved the validity of all action taken between 1867 and 1894; so that I think Mr. Brodeur in this respect really has misread the Act, which was not intended in any sense to override the existing Dominion Act; on the contrary, it was a Consolidation Act merely, and actually preserved the validity of all that was being done. Perhaps Mr. Brodeur would not mind looking at that. Mr. BRODEUR : Which section? Mr. BUXTON : I will be glad to see you afterwards about it. Mr. BRODEUR : I think it would have to come before His Majesty in Council to get approval of our Acts under the provisions of the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. Mr. BUXTON : Perhaps Mr. Brodeur would kindly have a talk with me about it afterwards with the Acts before us. As regards Sir Joseph Ward's point of the difficulty or the delay in obtaining assent to the 1909 Act, perhaps he would not mind looking at the correspondence and telegrams which passed, and I think he will see that, although there was delay, it was not upon this side only. I think there was some delay on both sides. Sir JOSEPH WARD : T am not blaming you. Mr. BUXTON : I think it is a matter of regret that it should take so long, but I think really there was great delay on both sides. As regards the point he raised about Lascars, and so on, and the coasting trade, T think it would be more convenient if I did not give disjointed observations on that, because we are going to discuss it later on. The CHAIRMAN : Do we now pass this resolution as altered ? The resolution reads : " That it is desirable that the attention of the Governments of the United Kingdom and of the Dominions should drawn to the desirability of taking all practical steps to secure uniforroitv of treatment to British shipping, to prevent unfair competition with British ships by foreign subsidized ships, to secure to British ships eaual trading with foreign shins, to promote the employment of British seamen on British shins, and to raise the

153

A.-^L

2 June, 1911.] Navigation Law. \4tth Day. The CHAIRMAN—eon*. status and improve the conditions of seamen employed on such ships." Do you approve of that resolution being passed? [Agreed.] That is carried unanimously. After a short adjournment. Death of Mrs. Bishop. Mr. HARCOUET : I am sure it will be your wish that we should express to one who should have been our colleague at this table our heartfelt condolence. I will ask that there may be conveyed to Mr. Bishop, on behalf of the Conference, an expression of our deepest sympathy with him in the loss he has sustained. Labour Exchanges and Emigration, " That the Governments of the various Dominions should consider in concert with the Imperial Government the possibility and the best method of utilising the machinery of the national system of Labour Exchanges established in the United Kingdom by the Labour Exchanges Act, 1909, in connection with the notification of vacancies for employment and applications of persons for employment as between the Dominions and the United Kingdom." Mr. BUXTON : The resolution which I have to move is printed on the Paper, and perhaps I had better read it : ' To resolve that the Governments of the various Dominions should consider in concert with the Imperial Government the possibility and the best method of utilizing the machinery of the national system of labour exchanges established in the United Kingdom by the Labour Exchanges Act, 1909, in connection with the notification of vacancies for employment and applications of persons for employment as between the Dominions and the United Kingdom." If that is read in conjunction with another resolution, not printed on the Paper to-day, which is proposed by the Commonwealth of Australia, it asks : " That the Imperial Government be requested to co-operate with any Colonies desiring emigrants in assisting suitable persons to emigrate." When the Board of Trade system of labour exchanges was established in February, 1910, as a national market for labour, concerned solely with questions of industrial efficiency and entirely divorced from the relief of distress, it was realized that the question of its connection with emigration must sooner or later come to the front. From the first the exchanges have from time to time received applications for workpeople from employers in the Dominions, and have, after consultation with the Dominions' representatives in London, endeavoured to fill such vacancies so far as was found desirable and possible. Such action was, however, necessarily spasmodic; and now that, the labour exchanges number more than 200 and are filling at this moment between 12,000 and 13,000 vacancies each week (exclusive of persons placed in certain well-defined casual employments), it is thought that some more regular and efficient arrangement might be made to meet what are understood to be the wishes of the Dominions' Governments in the matter. Subject to any modifications which the Dominions' Governments may propose, the following is a brief outline of the method which appears to the Board of Trade to be most practicable. It is suggested that employers in the Dominions should notify their requirements for labour to the Government of the Dominion or State concerned, which should in turn pass on such notifications as it thought suitable to its representative in London. The latter would then report the vacancies to the central office of labour exchanges, who would circulate them to the individual exchanges. In cases where suitable applicants were found it is suggested that the Board of Trade might, subject to the Treasury's approval, make an advance of the necessary travelling expenses. These advances could, however, only be made provided that the Dominion or State Governments were willing to guarantee their repayment. It would, of course, still be open to employers in the Dominions to notify their wants direct to the labour exchanges. In such cases the orders would be dealt with in consultation with the representative of the Dominion's Government, in London, but it would not be possible for the Board of Trade to make any advance under the circumstances for travelling expenses. It is the thought that with this safeguard the oversea Governments would have at their disposal official machinery for assisting the migration of suitable people as vacancies offered for their employment, and would be at the same time in a

A.—4,

154

Uh Day.] Labour Exchanges and Emigration. [2 June, 1911. Mr. BUXTON— cont. position to ensure that any vacancies dealt with by the labour exchanges were . of a nature properly to be filled from the United Kingdom. I would like to add to that just one point upon which I think there is some misunderstanding. I think it is thought by some persons that our labour exchanges are only a continuation of the old distress committees which were started under the Unemployed Workmen's Act, in which undoubtedly much the larger number of those registered were really unemployable, and not, at all events, persons suitable for emigration. As far as the labour exchanges are concerned, at the very beginning we cut ourselves entirely apart from any question of distress committees, and I am glad to say the longer we have gone on —now nearly \\ years—more and more have we got rid of the lowest class and the less useful class of labour, and I think we can safely say now that our labour exchanges do supply very good workmen indeed. As regards the building- trade, for instance, last April, out of 6,000 places filled, only 15-3 per cent, of those were labourers; the others were skilled workmen. As regards the engineering and machine-making trade, only 11 per cent, were labourers, and 89 per cent, were skilled workmen, so that so far as we are concerned I hope it may be clearly understood that, as far as regards the bulk of those we have on our books who are available for employment, they are really of a suitable class both for home work here and for emigration. Sir WILFRID LALRIER : I have for my part no information at all as to the working in Great Britain of the system of labour exchanges which have been established under the recent Act. I understand that it has worked satisfactorily. lam sorry to say we in Canada would not view with favour such a system of exchange as is here suggested in the resolution. The conditions of the labour market are very different in Canada and the Dominions beyond the seas —at all events, they are very different in Canada. This is a question which chiefly concerns labour, and with us the labour organizations have not viewed the system at all with any favour. I should say that, whilst we have encouraged emigration from Great Britain to Canada, we have really only one kind of immigration, and that is agricultural immigration, for which the market is unlimited. Any man who leaves the British Islands and comes to Canada with the intention of going into agricultural pursuits is sure of immediate employment, and is sure to find work as a farm labourer; and if he prefers an establishment still more advantageous to him he can immediately go upon public land's and have a homestead for himself, but when it comes to industrial pursuits he is very liable to disappointment unless he has work secured in advance. Just before I left the Minister of Labour placed in my hands a memorial upon this question, in which he has summarized the objections which have been urged. It is too long to read, but I will summarize or indicate the salient points of the memorandum. He said : " The Government policy has not looked to the direct promotion of immigration, whether from Great Britain or elsewhere, of those concerned in other industries " —having originally spoken of agricultural pursuits —" it being considered that the play of natural causes at a time when the resources and prosperity of Canada are receiving a world-wide publicity, may well suffice to secure an adequate response to the needs of employers of labour in this country." Further on he says :" No matter how carefully guarded, it would appear that any arrangement of the kind proposed would lead inevitably to much friction between employers and workmen in Canada, as well as create distrust in the minds of many in the Dominion as to the quality of labour which might be supplied under the proposed arrangement. Workmen sent out from England under Government auspices would, in all probability, if dissatisfied with the employment obtained, make of their dissatisfaction a grievance to be investigated by the Governments, while Canadian workmen would be certain to represent that they were being unduly discriminated against by the Governments concerned. Apart from the agencies indicated above, the bringing of labour from Great Britain to assured employment in Canada has been in the past entirely a matter of private initiative. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association opened an office in London, England, in 1907, for the purpose of securing skilled help for its members. The experiment would appearnot to have been wholly satisfactory, and the office has been since closed." "It

155

A.—4

"2 June, 1911.J Labour Exchanges and Emigration. [kth Day. Sir WILFRID LAURIER—eo»*. is also to be specially noted that the question of a system of interchange between labour exchanges in the Dominions and the labour exchange system of Great Britain has already been the subject of discussion by the labour organizations in the Dominion, and that there are grounds for believing that any project of the kind would meet with unqualified opposition from this source." .For those reasons chiefly my own view would be on the same lines, and I should have to say that the motion would not be met with any favour by the country I represent here. Mr. FISHER : I will ask Mr. Batchelor to speak on behalf of the Commonwealth. Mr. BATCHELOR : The position in Australia in regard to this matter is more like the position which Sir Wilfrid Laurier has just outlined as the position in Canada. As far as immigration is concerned, the management is divided between the States Governments and the Federal Government. So far the Federal Government has confined itself to advertising with a view to obtaining immigrants; but the selection of men to be obtained which the exchanges propose to take in hand has been left entirely in the hands of the agencies of the States Governments —agencies controlled by the Agents-General of each State in London. I communicated with the Agents-General and asked them to meet me, in order to discuss the proposals a few days after I arrived here, and they were quite unanimous in their opposition to the view that they would gain any advantage in selection, or that the Colonies they represented would gain any advantage whatever, from this proposed extension of labour exchanges. They put forward a number of objections, some of which I have here, expressed at very great length. It might be possibly an advantage if we were to consider them in committee; but, speaking generally, it is clearly evident that the present organization of emigration activity in London and the United Kingdom meets with their entire approval, and they state that it is working very satisfactorily indeed, and they cannot see any advantage, and they see a certain number of disadvantages, that could accrue from the adoption of these labour exchange proposals. They also, for the most part, confine themselves to the introduction of farm labourers, for which, as in Canada, there is an unlimited demand, and domestic servants. As far as artisans are concerned, there has been no difficulty in getting any number of artisans to emigrate to Australia; the difficulty has been farm labourers. They also state that their activities are chiefly directed to securing men who are already in employment rather than the unemployed; and therefore, though some of them express the view that many of the men you are registering on the exchanges would be exceedingly suitable, and they do utilize the information which is furnished by the ex changes in order to reach the men that they desire to emigrate, still they do not think, speaking generally, that the men who are unemployed are the men whom they wish first to encourage to emigrate. I admit I do not know very much about the working of the exchanges here, and I should be glad to get some more information as to the working of these labour exchanges before expressing any very definite opinion as to what extent we could work" in along with them. There are some very clear difficulties in the scheme as outlined, one of which is the great distance between Australia and the United Kingdom, and the time taken thereby in communicating the wants of the employers, which would have to be done in writing, and could hardly, satisfactorily be done by cable; and the fact is that the time taken in communicating and in selection and then in despatching would probably amount to about six months in the case of Australia, and that would mean that the whole conditions of the labour market in any particular industry or any particular locality might have changed during that time. The opportunities, therefore, of its general use seem to be rather small and rather confined. I think it would be a good thing if this matter were relegated to a sub-committee who might go into it a little more closely, arid we could then see if some of the difficulties which have been set out by the Agents-General could not be met. Of course, I wish it to be understood that we are exceedingly desirous of encouraging immigration, and there is no bar whatever to the introduction of immigrants, as you all know. As the Prime Minister mentions, poverty, or

A.—4

156

<Wi Day.] Labour Exchanges and Emigration. [2 June, 191.1. Mr. BATCHELOR— cont. want of means, is no bar; but as to the extent to which we could utilize your labour exchanges, which I suppose are primarily labour bureaus for the registration of men who are out of employment with the view of their obtaining . employment—— Mr. BUXTON : Registration on the one hand of the men requiring work, and registration on the other hand of vacancies, and we put the two together. Mr. BATCHELOR : That is what I understood. As I point out, our State Immigration Departments require that our agents in London shall select the men, and I think we would have very great difficulty in persuading our State Governments to part with that entire control and selection. The CHAIRMAN : You mean in the case of assisted passages? Mr. BATCHELOR : That is in the case of assisted passages. Mr. BUXTON: In this case there would be no question of taking it out of their hands; it would be done in conjunction with them. That is the idea, Mr. BATCHELOR : The words used are "in concert." Mr. BUXTON : Obviously we have no intention or desire of taking the control out of their hands. It is a question of the application coming from the employer through the Agent-General or High Commissioner, whoever it may be, and asking us if we can find a suitable man. That is all we propose to do. Mr. BATCHELOR: The application coming from the employer in Australia ? Mr. BUXTON : Yes, through the Government here. Mr. BATCHELOR : Yes. One of the difficulties which the AgentsGeneral see in that matter is the time which would necessarily elapse before men could be supplied, which would alter the whole conditions. As at present advised I do not see how it is going to work better than the schemes which are now adopted. The employers might communicate direct with the AgentsGeneral of their Governments, and they might send it on to your body, and then they might select from the men registering suitable persons. They could do that now, and that is done. Ido not quite see how any extension can be made. With regard to the proposal that you should obtain from the Governments a guarantee of the cost of sending out men, and they should get a refund from the men themselves, we have found in practice that is an exceedingly difficult thing to do. What it would mean would be that the State Governments would have to make themselves responsible, and in our ow m experience they would be very unlikely to be recouped by the men sent out. Only an infinitesimal portion has been received in Australia of the amounts which have been expended to introduce men. Mr. BUXTON : Of course, in a case in which they are selected by the representatives of the Governments here, they would be prepared to undertake that responsibility. Our only point is that His Majesty's Government are not prepared to spend money on emigration at this end, but as a matter of convenience where the Dominion Governments were prepared to repay the money we could advance it. Mr. BATCHELOR : Quite so; but what it would mean in practice would be that the Governments would have to make up the amount. Mr. BUXTON : If they wished—if there were an advance. Mr. BATCHELOR : Yes.

157

A.—4.

2 June, 1911.] Labour Exchanges and Emigration. \4th Day. The CHAIRMAN : Is it a fact that these amounts have been repaid badly \ Mr. BATCHELOE : Very badly indeed. The CHAIRMAN : I understood from some of the Agents-General that on the whole they have been very well repaid. Mr. BATCHELOR : No; the information I have received is that only an infinitesimal amount has been received. That is our experience generally. Dr. FINDLAY : It is a debt of gratitude—not more. Mr. BATCHELOR : I know Mr. Williamson, the Agent of the Central Unemployed Body, said the amount they had expended in sending emigrants had been repaid extremely well, but that has not been our experience. The CHAIRMAN : It was his information I was thinking of. Mr. BATCHELOR : That has not been our experience. On the whole, the proposal is not one which we can cordially support without more information. Sir JOSEPH WARD : The object of this resolution, in my opinion, is a very laudable one, and I am disposed to think it ought not to be set aside upon the assumption that it is going to be iniurious to the methods that exist in any of our countries. T see no reason whatever why we should not take into consideration, in concert with the Imperial Government, the possibility of utilizing the labour exchanges in the United Kingdom for the purposes indicated. I make that statement subject to the reservation that we have in New Zealand, and have had since 1894 —17 years— a complete organization of labour exchanges from end to end of the country. There the employers, and the expectant employees, are kept in continuous touch all over the country, and we help to avoid anything in the shape of congestion either by arrivals from oversea or by people converging upon any point in New Zealand that would upset the local labour market, and it has worked admirably as far as we are concerned. Now, one of the difficulties about the proposition from the standpoint of New Zealand is that our immigration system is. perhaps, on a different basis to that of Canada or Australia, and we regulate it in an entirely different way, and we do so because we have thought it better to consider the absorbant power of our country beforehand of every one coming to it as an immigrant rather than have an aggregation of labour brought in in large numbers from anywhere and so disturbing the local market, creating a glut, and, in turn, doing a certain amount of damage to our local workers. The difference between Canada and New Zealand is very great. In Canada they have large landed areas, by the possession of which, under their system, they are able to offer great inducements to individuals to the extent of 160 acres of land free. If I understand it aright, the Canadian system takes any number of people who choose to go to that country, and they allow them to find their way to places where there is occupation, and they go upon the principle that the larger the absorption of labour and the more they get the better it is for Canada, and they are able to absorb them without difficulty in their huge territory. I think, with the exception of the land system in Australia, the Commonwealth is in a similar position—able to absorb an immense number of people. We, however, work our immigration system on a different basis. The High Commissioner, who acts here, and Basses the men who are going to our country, has definite instructions that at certain times of the year no one at all is to be assisted. We try to prevent anything in the shape of assisted emigration from arriving in our country during the winter months. We stop the whole system for the time being so as to insure that when they arrive they can arrive at a

A.—4

158

4th Day.] Labour Exchanges and Emigration. [2 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. time when they can get into the back blocks or wherever they go under climatic conditions that will not in any way prevent them from making a very agreeable start. We go upon the principle of assisting two classes only—one the agricultural labourers, and the other domestic servants. Now, we can absorb a large number of agricultural labourers, but we go upon the principle of seeing that there is employment available for the number passed by the High Commissioner, so_as_not to over-supply the agricultural labour market, just as we do it by utilizing the labour exchanges and labour bureaus in seeing that people go to where work is obtainable for them, so that they are all employed. The result of our system is that we are getting as many people into New Zealand as we require for the purposes I have named, and for all the other purposes any one who chooses to come to our country is welcome, but we do not give assistance in the shape of a contribution from the Government towards a low passage to enable them to get out there. I believe it would be a good thing if we could by co-operating—that is. the High Commissioners' Office here co-operating—with the British labour exchanges utilize the machinery here for obtaining the class of people that we want. A suggestion, however, that a refund of the full passage should be made to the British Government would, I think, have to be carefully considered. I look at it from the practical business standpoint, which may not be a sound one, but I am of opinion that where a country like this requires emigration, and we require a certain amount of immigration, there is a mutual need on the part of both countries, and a fair proposition would be that the country which wants to help itself by assisting emigration should jointly with the country that wants to have immigration agree to pay the passage and not to expect a refund at all, because as a matter of practice I confirm what has been said by Mr. Batcbelor, that in New Zealand we never get a refund from an individual of the amount we contribute in the shape of reduced passage. Speaking on behalf of the Government of New Zealand, I think it would be futile for us to try to do anything of the kind. If it is an advantage to the Old World, as I take it it is, to get rid of a proportion of its surplus population that cannot be remuneratively kept here, it is worth something at least to have that side of the proposition carried out. As far as New Zealand is concerned, I would be prepared to consider this proposal with a view to the co-operation of the High Commissioner, and if it worked satisfactorily I should not object to transferring it altogether to the labour exchanges of the Old Country with the conditions we apply now to those who want to come to our country. We require them to be in good health, and we also stipulate that they shall have a small amount of money, so that they shall not come out to our country practically as paupers. Moreover, we require the health conditions to be beyond all question, on the ground that we are as anxious as can be that those suffering from incipient diseases of the nature of tuberculosis or anything else are not coming into our country. Mr. BATCHELOR : Do you mean transferring the whole organization ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : I think it might be considered, always provided our present conditions applied. . Canada is in quite a different position. They want to introduce large numbers of people, and if the British labour exchanges were working unitedly for all the oversea Dominions we would have to have a system of proportion, and probably Canada would not care about it. They advertise very largely, and the whole of their machinery is used with a, view of furthering the employment of people in their.country now, and I think there would be some difficulty in labour exchanges apportioning what was wanted. For instance, if we got too short a supply as the result of Canada and Australia drawing a larger number than we thought satisfactory, if the labour exchanges were working, naturally we should have to adopt some other method to get the number we required to come to our country. But I hail with a good deal of satisfaction the proposal of co-operation in a matter of this kind if we can bring it about. It is just one of those matters that I think might be considered by the Governments. The adoption of this resolution does not commit us to anything, and if any of us cannot fall in line with it, well and good. I shall be quite prepared to

159

A.—4

2 June, 1911.] Labour Exchanges and Emigration. \4tth Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. recommend the Government of New Zealand to give it a trial on the basis of co-operating with the High Commissioner. We want a certain number of people, and, if it is any advantage to the British Government labour exchanges, that they should filter through them and the people conform to the conditions we require, I see no objection to it. But as far as New Zealand is concerned we could not go for a system that would allow an indiscriminate number of people to be sent out to our country. We should require to regulate that. But upon the whole I rather favour the proposal, provided the flexibility necessary to meet the local conditions is recognised, that is, assuming all of us put it into practical shape; I am prepared to consider the matter contained in this resolution. General BOTHA : I can only say that I agree with what Sir Wilfrid Laurier has said. We intend to make use of the labour machinery here to get the men that we want from here; but we shall have to be very careful in South Africa. As you know, we have in South Africa, a large number of labour men earning a wage on the contract system of about QOl. a month. The average man in Johannesburg gets about BZ. a week. That class of man earns enough to look after himself. Besides that we have a large number of men in South Africa. Our labour market is quite full, and we therefore have a large number of men in Johannesburg and Pretoria to-day who have no work at all. Labourers are attracted in a very large number to South Africa where these wages are being paid, and the Government has to keep a large number of men going now at temporary work at 3s. and 4s. a day. We have been paying large sums of money, and I think we have 4,000 or 5,000 people now working at 3s. and 4s. a day on relief works, just to keep them going. Now that class of man we cannot afford to have in South Africa, and we cannot encourage that class of man to come to South Africa. Therefore we have already had our difficulties with this class of man, and we must be careful. My Government has spent a large sum of money in trying to make agriculturists of some of these men, and have placed a large number of them on the veldt; but I am sorry to say we have met with hopeless failures as regards some of these men, and I shall not be at all surprised if we lose a lot of money over them, because you cannot change a man from an ordinary labourer into an agriculturist at once; it takes some time, and it is too expensive. Now I am very much in favour of supporting emigration to South Africa, but there I do not want men who will be idle in the streets; I want agriculturists, and for that class I am prepared to spend money, and I hope if we get over this difficulty we have—with the difficulty we have with the Union-Castle Company-—and get that settled to make provisions to support our immigration scheme, because we are in favour of it, and we are going to encourage it to a very large extent, but at the same time I think we shall have to be very careful in bringing in, or trying to bring in, the best and the right men to South Africa. Unless we are careful it will be a hopeless failure and a great drawback to us in South Africa. Everything therefore depends solely upon the selection of the men. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I agree. Sir EDWARD MORRIS : I am in favour of the resolution, if the labour exchanges can be secured. Mr. BATCHELOR : The Agents-General state that their own methods of obtaining direct were much more efficacious than supplying through the labour exchanges. Mr. BUXTON : I am very glad we have had this discussion, and I think it has been of value to us here from the point of view of the labour exchanges and the question of emigration. I brought forward this resolution, not with any intention of pressing it on the Conference if there was any objection at all, but with a view of raising the point for discussion. We have had various representations made to us from various quarters that it would be expedient, and that the Dominions themselves would" welcome some co-operation between

21—A. 4.

A:—4

160

4:th Day.] Labour Exchanges and Emigration. [2 June 1911, Mr. BUXTON— cont. our labour exchanges, as now constituted, after they have had over a year's working in reference to the question of emigration. We have had from time to time vacancies notified to us from the Dominions, and we thought that instead of the somewhat spasmodic method of dealing with them at present, it might be well if they were put on a better basis. In reply to what General Botha, and • I think Sir Joseph Ward, said, the object of this proposal, if the Dominions co-operate with the labour exchanges, would be this very selection to which they referred, because our proposal would be that only those persons should be sent out who had been passed by the representatives here—the Agents-General or the High Commissioners or whoever it might be. It would be no question of our sending men out without proper inquiry or without proper recommendation ; in either case they would be necessarily passed by the representative here, and would only be sent out to fill specific vacancies of a suitable character. . But I think it is clear, after what has passed, that at all events as regards one of the Dominions, they do not welcome the method of dealing with the matter through the labour exchanges. Under these circumstances I certainly should not press it as a resolution. At the same time, in regard to New Zealand and the Commonwealth and the South African Union, we shall be very glad to be put into communication with them through their Agents-General or High Commissioners to see how far we are able to co-operate with them in what they desire. As regards the question of cost lam afraid I can only say it is the recognised policy, not only of this Government but of previous Governments, and I think successive Governments, that they do not see their way to advance money for the purpose of emigrating British subjects from here. It may be right or it may be wrong, but that is the view they hold. I think Mr. Batchelor's point, that in the case of the notification of a vacancy by the time the man got out it might be filled, would apply equally to those who came through the labour exchanges. Our suggestion is that no emigrant should be sent out without the vacancy being actually open for him, and they would remain if done through the representative here. This resolution was brought forward with the object of raising , discussion and to see if the various Dominions desired to co-operate in it, and also to show, as far as His Majesty's Government is concerned, that they are not backward in this matter of emigration, but are desirous of co-operating as far as they can with the various Dominions concerned, and that on the whole they consider this was the best way of doing it. I trust those Dominions who see their way to discuss the matter with us further will do so, and we shall perhaps be able to remedy such difficulties as exist. We should be very glad to co-operate and consider the matter further in the case of South Africa and New Zealand. As regards Canada, for the reasons given by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, I understand it is hostile to the resolution. The CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen, we may assume that this resolution is withdrawn, and that the Government here will communicate with any Dominion which thinks we can be of any assistance to it at all, in regard to emigration apart from actual monetary assistance but assistance in other ways in the selection of persons they might wish to obtain for their own Dominion. Enforcement of Arbitration Awards. " That the Imperial Government should consider, in concert with the Dominion Governments, whether, and to what extent, and under what conditions, it is practicable and desirable to make~mutuararrangements* withfa'view to the enforcement in one part of the Empire of Commercial "Arbitration Awards" given in another part." Mr. BUXTON : As regards this question, it is a very difficult and complicated legal question, as Dr. Findlay will recognise, and I do not think any useful purpose would be served if I endeavoured to enter into it in any detail. The object is : " That the Imperial Government should consider, in concert with the Dominion Governments, whether, and to what extent, and under what con-

161

Xα..™ ' Tc.

-2 June 1911.] Enforcement of Arbitration Awards. \4tth Day. Mr. BUXTON— cont. ditions, it is practicable and desirable to make mutual arrangements with a view to the enforcement in one part of the Empire of Commercial Arbitration Awards given in another part." At the present moment the law in respect of this matter differs in the various Dominions, and what is still more disadvantageous is, that a commercial arbitration award does not, or very exceptionally, carry with it powers of enforcing it in other parts of the Dominions. I think we should probably all agree in such a matter as this that if we could have uniformity of practice it would be of great advantage from a commercial point of view, and not only that there should be uniformity, but that there should be the power of enforcing throughout the Empire the various arbitration awards given in another part of it. If it commends itself to the Conference I suggest it should be referred to a committee; and I would ask the Attorney-General, who knows about the question, to undertake the matter and discuss it on behalf of His Majesty's Government. As a layman it would be hopeless for me to attempt to do so. It is a very complicated matter, but it will be in the very able hands of the Attorney-General if it be approved by the Conference. Dr. FINDLAY : I think the scope of the proposal should be greatly widened. Mr. BUXTON : You mean as to judgments ? Dr. FINDLAY : I mean different parts of the Empire stand precisely in the same relation to the Motherland as a foreign country does. The King's Writ runs in Ireland if it is endorsed, but the King's Writ does not run in Australia or New Zealand; there it is practically the same as if it were a foreign country. The CHAIRMAN : That is a technical matter which had better be discussed in committee, as suggested by Mr. Buxton. Mr. BUXTON : That is our view, and we thought this resolution would be sufficiently wide to cover it. Dr. FINDLAY : My suggestion is that instead of confirming it merely to the enforcement of awards under an arbitration, you should give valid currency to the King's Writ, and to Judgments of Courts and other legal processes. We, indeed, in New Zealand, have taken rather a prominent step in this matter already for providing for reciprocity with Australia, so that orders made under the Destitute Persons Act should be recognised in Australia as fully as if they were made there; and orders made in New Zealand should have currency in Australia providing Australia will give us reciprocal legislation. The present system obviously causes expense, trouble, and disappointment, and there seems no reason Why a step should not be taken a great deal further than merely as concerns enforcement of awards. An Empire is not an Empire if you treat oversea portions of it like a foreign country. The CHAIRMAN : I think that is a matter which might well be discussed in Committee, and if the representatives here in Committee with the AttorneyGeneral are not able to come to a final conclusion on this matter during their visit, it is one which might well be followed up by the Secretariat subsequently in communication with the various Dominions, if that method of dealing with it is approved by the Conference. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I think that is quite satisfactory. It is a matter where the legal representatives of the Conference are to attend the Committee, and if Dr. Findlay suggests the widening of the proposals here, I think, if it is understood that the Committee can discuss more than is in this Resolution, it is all right. Mr. BUXTON : The Judgments can be discussed; that is your point.

A.—4

162

4-fh Day.] Enforcement of Arbitration Awards. [2 June, 1911. Dr. FINDLAY : We have further down in your paper a provision with regard to the orders made under the Destitute Persons Law, as to which at present there is no reciprocal provision at all. It would be a very useful thing indeed, because every day it is found that there are difficulties in the way. The CHAIEMAN : I think the question* of the reciprocity of Destitute Persons Law, which is to be taken up on the resolution of New Zealand, might very well be referred to that Committee at the same time for consideration. We have not got it before us until the 9th June, but it might be referred earlier. Dr. FINDLAY : It is based on exactly the same principle. The CHAIRMAN : We will take it that those questions will go to the sub-committee, and we will ask Mr. Buxton to make arrangements for the sitting of that Committee! with the Attorney-General. Mr. BATCHELOR : I would like to ask whether we ought not to decide the constitution of this Committee to which this will be relegated. The CHAIRMAN : I should assume that any member of the Conference who wishes would be empowered to attend the committee, and that Mr. Buxton will bring with him the Attorney-General and any other legal assistance which may be requisite. Ido not think we need limit the members of the Committee. Mr. BATCHELOR : Mr. Buxton is to convene it ? Mr. BUXTON : I will convene it. General BOTHA : I wish to raise the question with regard to Minutes being taken of the Proceedings of Committees. Is not this the proper time to raise the question ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : I think that is quite right, General Botha. Yesterday when we were informally considering matters, I raised the question that at those Committees there ought to be a record of the Proceedings taken. The CHAIRMAN : I think probably it is right that you should have a record of Committees, but you will remember that the consultations which have taken place so far have been quite informal. It was on the suggestion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier that nothing was sent to Committees, but it was understood that there might be informal consultations which might simplify our work here a little. Now that we have agreed on this subject to send the matter to a Committee we will take steps to have a record made of the proceedings of the Committee. Sir JOSEPH WARD : So that when the matter comes up here again it may be rediscussed if necessary. Uniformity of Laws. New Zealand. That it is in the best interests of the Empire that there should be more uniformity throughout its centres and dependencies in the law of copyright, patents, trade marks, companies. Australia. That it is desirable, so far as circumstances permit, to secure and maintain uniformity in the company, trade-mark, and patent laws of the Empire. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I think as the outcome of the informal meeting:): which took place yesterday, possibly the Conference may agree to my resolution which is contained here : " That it is in the best interests of the Empire that there should be more uniformity throughout its centres and dependencies in the law of copyright, patents, trade marks, companies." I think it is generally

* This question was disposed of on 9 June, see pp. 206-212, before the Committee on Arbitration Awards met on 15 June. t See p. 326. I This refers to an informal meeting* which took place at the Board of Trade on 1 June.

163

A.-4,

2 June, .1911.] Uniformity of Laws. [4th Day. Sir JOSEPH WARB—cont. conceded that where uniformity can be established, it is a good thing to work for. It was explained yesterday by Mr. Buxton, with regard to the Conference which took place dealing with regard to copyright a short time ago, that there has been practical uniformity arrived at as to what should be done with regard to that matter. That Conference held its meetings after I had given notice of this proposal to come on to this Conference for consideration, and I think the decision arrived at by the Copyright Conference upon the whole is in favour, as I understand it from the informal discussion, of the different Dominions. So far as that is concerned, I look upon it as settled that in connection with patents, trade marks, and companies it does seem to me that it is very desirable we should have uniformity in connection with these laws as far as we can, and what I suggested yesterday among other things was that we should make provision for uniformity of the forms of application and specification and the mode of execution of those documents, also the initial fees and manner of their payment. I understood yesterday that there was a difference of opinion as to whether the individual countries concerned could adopt a proposal to have uniformity of fees. The point was raised, and a very weighty one it is, that in some cases a great deal more work might be involved in the matter of administration and that consequently it would be more costly, and that uniformity of fees at all events was not looked upon as being practicable at the present time. Under those circumstances that is a matter that I should, in conformity with the wishes of the representatives at the meeting yesterday, leave out of the proposal I am submitting now. The CHAIRMAN : Which matter would you leave out ? Sir JOSEPH WAED : The initial fees and the manner of their payment. That need not come into consideration, assuming that the Conference agrees to this general resolution which I have submitted now. Then the forms of the claims and their substance would, of course, depend on the results of the examination in each country. As to the requirements regarding drawings, uniformity is absolutely necessary, in my opinion, because I have known of cases which have been brought under my notice where a man has applied for a patent, and the patent agent has had certain drawings prepared, and they have gone on to another country and then it has been found they did not conform to the requirements of that country at all. Then the process of delay starts again; the man who is waiting has to be advised in the country where he has first registered or perhaps only got provisional registration of his patent, and then he is told, perhaps three or six months afterwards, that fresh sets of drawings are required to be sent to another country. They may be prepared in the other country all right if he has given his consent, but in the meantime there is a delay, and it disheartens any man who spends money and is anxious to have his inventive ideas put into practical effect throughout the British Empire. Then there is another point which has come under my notice, the dispensing with an address for service in the country in which application from abroad is made. That is a matter of detail, no doubt, but it is a very important one and it causes no end of inconvenience to the people outside of the country where he has registered in the first instance the patent he is anxious to have protected in all parts of the world until the necessary searchings have taken place to enable him to be perfectly sure that there is not a similar patent on record in any of the outside countries to which he is going. The whole process at the present time means delay, it means expense, and there is nothing in the wide world to be gained by it as fa* as I can judge, and an enormous amount of good would arise if we had uniformity in the matter. So with the opposition to patents. There ought to be no difficulty whatever throughout all portions of the British Empire to have uniformity as to what is required to oppose any proposed patent that is applied for. Now every country is different, there is not a single one alike, and, speaking generally, the systems right throughout the Empire are different. I think that if the Conference were to agree to a resolution that in form and substance as far as practicable we should have uniformity of law on a matter such as this, it would certainly

A.—4

164

4>th Day.] Uniformity of Laws. [2 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WAKD—cont. stimulate numbers of people who are anxious to give to the world—and to obtain the benefits from it themselves, which is perhaps the inspiring motive in the first instance —but it would give the world the opportunity at least of having the value of the brains of lots of people who are able to produce something new. But when they make a start in New Zealand (and it applies to the other Dominions too, and to England itself) to have that patent protected all over the world they are confronted with such difficulties that in many cases they drop the idea of doing it. In addition to this, under the present system a man may get provisionally covered in one Dominion, but, owing to a certain confusion and want of uniformity and the great delays taking place, before he has made his second start some smart man in another country completely outside the British Empire gets the idea; he gets the sketch drawings, even where registration has taken place in one country, sent to him. The result is that in some great country (it has occurred to my own knowledge or been brought to my notice) the whole possibility of a man getting the benefit of his genius is lost because the patent has been registered by another and put into operation before he could patent it there himself. That is very often the result of these delays. So with trade marks. There ought to be no difficulty in having uniformity regarding our trade marks law. It requires no elaboration from me to commend this to the representatives of the Conference who are here. So with our company law. Ido not say that we could expect to have a similar company law established in all portions of the British Dominions, but it is worth consideration as to whether we now have a company law that as far as the other Dominions are concerned would be accepted in connection with the companies they have in any portion of the British Empire. At the present time our company law in some respects follows the English law; in some respects it differs. The number required to found a company is different in different portions of the Empire, and, as far as I can judge, it would be a good thing if we had, as this motion says, "more uniformity." Exact uniformity, if one may use the term, is impossible of achievement, but I think it a move in the right direction, and I have pleasure in submitting the motion that I gave notice of. Dr. FINDLAY :As this is a legal matter, may I say one word \ It seems not only that uniformity is desirable, but, if possible, unity is desirable. It seems that, if we are going to give substance to the Imperial spirit, we ought, where we can, to give an Imperial force to such a law as this is. If you get a patent in America at Washington it is a patent for about one hundred million people. You may get a patent in New Zealand which will not be recognised in Australia. We have litigated through our courts some of the greatest patents, including the cyanide process, for instance, and our courts arrived at a different result from that of the courts in Australia, based on a different interpretation of the different prevailing patent laws of both States, although the circumstances were the same and the offices which the patent was discharging were the same; and it is anomalous, it seems to me, where you have an Empire like ours, that you should have in one part of it a patent valid and in the next part of it'the patent invalid. It seems to me, therefore, that, as far as we can accomplish it, the system should have the force of Imperial uniformity. It is surely conceivable that the grant of a patent here in London might have validity right through the Empire. That is one branch of it, and the other is the uniformity to which Sir Joseph Ward has referred; but the uniformity should not, it seems to me, be limited to machinery merely, but might go still further. In Canada the examination made before a patent is granted is much more exacting than in England, and hence a patent granted in Canada is looked upon as more valuable even than a patent granted in England, New Zealand, or Australia. In America the inquiry is more exacting still; but it seems to me that it would be a great advantage if uniformity of examination could be established in connection with patent law as well as mere uniformity of machinery, because what I desire to press upon the Conference is that if you are going to give some concrete expression of the Imperialistic spirit it might be done in such a direction as this. I think the scope of the suggestion might be even wider.

165

A.-4

2 June, 1911.] Uniformity of Laws. [ith Day. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : What do you propose ? Dr. FINDLAY : That a patent might be granted in prescribed cases with valid rights throughout the Empire. Take the cyanide case: it was contested here, it was contested in Australia (in Victoria, in New South Wales, I believe in Western Australia), and in South Africa, where it was upset. In New Zealand it was maintained; in England it was maintained; but it failed as often as it succeeded. Still, it was the same process directed to the same purpose, and it seems to me, in such a case as that, thousands of pounds are wasted. That company must have spent half a million in defending their patents; and it seems to me that, if a patent is good, properly examined, and properly given, it ought to have Imperial currency. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : There is a good deal to be said in favour of what you say, Dr. Findlay; but I think if you adopted Sir Joseph Ward's suggestion for uniformity at the present time, that is as far as we could go. Mr. BUXTON : As far as His Majesty's Government is concerned, we certainly accept this resolution, being strongly in favour, as far as we can, of uniformity both as regards copyright, patents, trade marks, and companies, I think Sir Joseph Ward used the right expression, and it is a question really of " more uniformity." Ido not think in any of these cases we can get absolute uniformity, but at the present moment the confusion with regard to matters of this kind is so great as to be a great disadvantage to the persons concerned. It places in the one case the patentee in a position of difficulty, and the same is true with regard to trade marks and companies; and certainly it is a great disadvantage to the public, and therefore any step we can take in the direction of uniformity would certainly be very advantageous. I do not know that I can quite go into any of the details raised by Sir Joseph Ward. We discussed them to a certain extent informally the other day; but so long as we are generally agreed that the direction we desire to proceed in is " more uniformity " I shall be glad, as I say, to support this resolution. CHAIRMAN : I suppose, Mr. Batchelor, I may take it that the New Zealand resolution covers certainly that of Australia, which comes next ? Mr. BATCHELOR : Yes, the two resolutions are quite to the same effect. CHAIRMAN : The Government having accepted this resolution, it seems to be a matter which will ultimately go to the Standing Committee of the Conference, and which might be satisfactorily dealt with by that Committee. It could equally well be dealt with by the existing Secretariat, if that is the final decision of the Conference hereafter. Coinage and Weights and Measures. " That with a view to facilitating trade and commerce throughout the Empire the question of the advisableness of recommending a form of the present units of weights, measures, and coins ought to engage the earnest attention of this Conference." Mr. BATCHELOR : On the question of facilitating coinage, the Prime Minister, who has been looking into this matter, is absent just now, but what we feel is that the practical difficulties, which I know are very great, in the way

A.—4.

166

4£A Day.] Coinage and Weights and Measures. [2 June, 1911. Mr. BATCHELOR— cont. of uniformity in weights and measures throughout the Empire, and also coinage, ought not to stand in the way of our, at any rate, pointing out that we aim at bringing about that uniformity if it can be made practicable at all. The Commonwealth Parliament has carried a resolution at the instance of Mr. Edwards, who has unfortunately since died, declaring the desirability of having .uniformity, adopting uniform coinage and uniform weights and measures, as soon as Great Britain has adopted them. We recognise that it is quite impossible for any one of the Dominions, at any rate so far as Australia and New Zealand and, I think, South Africa are concerned, to adopt any system other than the present, or to make any alteration at all unless the United Kingdom are prepared to fall in with it. It would only lead to more complications instead of simplifying matters. At the same time, there is such a tremendous waste in our methods of determining weights and measures and coinage that it is extremely desirable that an alteration should be brought about as early as possible. I do not know what is the position the United Kingdom Government take up. I believe the matter has been discussed pretty frequently in the Imperial Parliament; but we feel it would be a good thing, and possibly that it would strengthen the hands of the Government if they brought the question before Parliament, if we were to carry this resolution. It would be a desirable thing, before attempting to introduce anything of this kind, if this Conference were to express its opinion of the desirability of having a uniform and simpler method of computing weights and measures, and as to coinage. Mr. BUXTON : I am afraid, on the part of His Majesty's Government and the Board of Trade, I cannot accept the resolution as it stands, because it implies that this reform ought to be carried through—that is to say, that we should take active steps to carry it through. I will admit that if we had a clean slate in this matter we should, I think, probably, with very little difficulty and little hesitation, in consonance with the general view, and certainly the general advantage, adopt, both with regard to coinage and with regard to weights and measures, the proposal of the Commonwealth of Australia. As regards coinage, that is not in my Department, but I understand it will be discussed later on with the Treasury. However, the two things, weights and measures and coinage, really go very much together. The coinage really will take precedence, I think, of the weights and measures; at all events, the two matters go very much together in reference to any question of alteration. Our position here is really this : that we do not think it is a reform which, however advantageous a thing in its way, is a practical matter really to carry through here. It has been discussed more than once in the House of Commons, and the question of the voluntary adoption has been accepted. The question of compulsory enforcement was as short a time ago as 1907 rejected on the motion of a Private Bill by a considerable majority in the House of Commons; and generally, as far as the Board of Trade are concerned, we do not believe it would be practicable to introduce it—at all events, at present, if it ever were possible. In these matters you have to look at the general custom of the country, and the custom has grown up so much, perhaps unfortunately, on the opposite system that I do not think it would be possible for us to get over that general position h ere — a t all events, for a very long time. One of the real diffictilties about it is the point which was included in all these Bills proposing compulsory enforcement—that the various industries should necessarily be included. Take, for instance, the case of the cotton trade : the cotton trade here accounts for about 30 per cent, of the whole exports of our home manufactures; and the Lancashire cotton firms and the employees are very strongly opposed to the proposal of 1907, and are strongly opposed to any alteration on this ground : that if this metric system of weights and measures were introduced it would necessitate having to renumber the sizes of their hanks of yarn, pieces of cloth, &c, to accord with the metric system, as the present numbering is fully understood wherever their goods go throughout the world, and they fear that there would be considerable loss of trade from any alteration. Although the inch and the

167

A.—4

2 June, 1911.] Coinage and Weights and Measures. [Uh Day. Mr. BUXTON— cont. centimetre are not commensurable units, it would mean, as far as they are concerned, that the sizes could be only approximately specified, and in dealing with large quantities appreciable errors would result. This would specially affect the complicated scales of pay for different classes of work, which have been drawn up with great care under the existing system, and labour troubles would be likely to occur. The alternative of altering all the looms and other machinery to produce sizes commensurate with the metric units would involve a prohibitive cost, and would be detrimental to the foreign trade. As regards the engineering trade, they stated that they were opposed to it on somewhat similar grounds, and also it involves the scrapping of patterns, gauges, &c, if the metric system were to be fully enforced. As regards measurement of land, it would entirely upset the existing system under which land is measured and sold and dealt with. As regards various other industries, the same arguments were advanced on their behalf —not against the metric system principle, but against the difficulty of carrying it out in detail. Until those difficulties are overcome— -and it is very difficult to see how they can be overcome, as far as we are concerned —we do not see how we could adopt a resolution which would necessarily commit us to action in the matter. I would first like to point out as regards the Question of the trade of the United Kingdom, taking the whole trade throughout, about half of it is done in countries which have adopted the metric system; and so far as the trade in Great Britain is concerned (the foreign trade I am speaking of), it would not really be greatly advantaged by the adoption of the metric system. Putting them very shortly, those general points show the attitude which the traders of this country, and the retail traders especially, have taken up, and I do not think under those circumstances, however much we may feel that if we based our system on the metric system it would be an advantage, it would be possible for us to move in the matter. Practically it is a business proposition, and we could not enforce it even if we desired. CHAIRMAN : May I say one word on the point of decimal coinage? although lam not concerned in it except as an individual. It is recognised generally that the pound sterling is the coin of account of the merchant and the banker, and, indeed, of large parts of the world, but you must consider that with the great population of the British Isles the penny is really the coin of account of the poor, and if you were to reduce the shilling or the token silver coin of that size to 10 pennies instead of 12, you would be inflicting a great injustice and hardship on the poor, whose only knowledge of coinage is by the penny, of which there are 240 now in the pound. I only offer that as a casual observation from a student of rural life and poor life in England. Mr. MALAN : What is the position as regards foreign nations ? Do they press for a change at all in connection with the British Empire? Mr. BUXTON : There has been no representation as far as T am aware. Mr. MALAN : The Dominions, of course, have got a fairly free hand in this matter. They are younger communities, and they have no very old established institutions as the United Kingdom has got. Canada, for instance, has o'iven us a lead in having its own coinage and its own metric system. Australiahas already got its own coinage, and South Africa will probably start its own coinage one of these days when the Union sets a little bit further advanced and we are more or less looking at ourselves. We have a freer hand than the United Kingdom has got, We have not got the trade connections that Mr. Buxton has

22—A. 4.

A.---4

168

Uk Day.] Coinage and Weights and Measures. f'2 June, 1911. Mr. MALAN- cont spoken of in connection with other nations. Now, I know that the foreigner is the largest customer of the United Kingdom, and that if a change is made by the United Kingdom without considering their wishes you might inflict a serious injury on your own trade, and therefore that is the reason of my question as to what the United States of America. Russia, and India would say about it. Have they expressed any opinion about it at all ? CHAIRMAN: No. Mr. BATCHELOR : They nearly all have the metric system and the decimal system. CHAIRMAN : Not; Russia. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I would just like to say a few words. In spirit I am in accord with what Mr. Batchelor has been urging in connection with this proposal. I believe that if it were possible to start the business of the old world again now it would be infinitely better for all portions of the world to have the metric system and the decimal system, but the difficulty that faces us now is that age brings to a country —perhaps not infirmities, as it does to the individual—but it brings about the difficulty that you cannot restore without really doing an immense amount of injury to the parts where the restoration is attempted to be brought about. For instance, I have no doubt whatever, as far as the Oversea Dominions are concerned, that we could not carry on our business properly unless Great Britain was to establish the metric system and the decimal system —that is, if we were to establish it and the old world were not to do so; in practice it would work with very great difficulty indeed. Unlike the foreign countries that have had either the metric system or the decimal system in operation for many years, it is quite a different thine. There it is the easiest thing in the world to walk into a bank or a commercial house in one of the countries which has the decimal system in operation and ask for the equivalent of a British sovereign. You can get it by wav of exchange immediately, and it does not affect their trade in the slightest; but in the parts of the British Empire where we are all trading, if we attempted to carry out what is proposed here, unless Great Britain did it, then I think it would inflict a serious amount of injury upon the trade generally of the country attempting to carry it out. What I would like to see established is uniformity of currency and uniformity of coinage. Take the case of the coinage now existing in Australia : Australia has left out the old half-crown and established a new silver Denny. In the matter of coinage, I believe it is very important that we should have uniformity, and it is particularly awkward, we being next door +o Australia, if our people go across to Australia with 10,000 half-crowns and they find over there that they are not current ooinage, because the half-crown is not part of the coinage of Australia. That is a point upon which I think it is important we should try to have uniformity. Ido not know that it is practicable to put into operation what is suggested in this resolution. I am afraid the difficulty standing in the way, without the first movement being made by the old world with its millions of people, is of such a nature as to make it next to impossible for any of the Oversea Dominions to put into operation what is suggested here. Sir EDWARD MORRIS : Like the others, I agree with the principle of the resolution, but, in view of what Mr. Buxton has stated, it is not practicable at all, and there is no use discussing it. Mr. BATCHELOR : Just in reply, I would like to say that, of course, those difficulties that have been mentioned by Mr. Buxton must be in the cognizance of everybody who considers the matter at all; but would not those

169

A.—4

2 June, 1911.] Coinage and Weights and Measures. [4th Day. Mr. BATCHELOR— cont. difficulties be got over —I put it to you with all deference —if you were to say that after a time —say, 10 years or 15 years hence—the metric system should be adopted or the decimal system of coinage ? So long as we give a sufficient time for commercial conditions to adjust themselves to the alteration in order to prevent any violent dislocation of business, which, of course, would be intolerable, it does not seem to me that there would be such a disadvantage to commercial interest. Mr. BUXTON : Would that really be so, because you have at one time or another to start your metric system and your decimal coinage as against the existing system? Ten years' notice would surely not get them any further. Take the case of the cotton trade which I have referred to : at some particular moment they must change from one system to the other. It is that particular moment that will disorganize their trade, no matter what length of notice may be given. That is the practical difficulty, as to the disorganization of their trade. I think if we were suddenly both to accept this proposition and to enforce it compulsorily we should have a revolution here. CHAIRMAN : I am quite certain that if you imposed the decimal coinage in this country you would have a revolution within a week. Mr. BATCHELOR : Supposing you started with your penny. Sir EDWARD MORRIS : At any rate, you would change your Government in a week. Mr. BUXTON : You would certainly change your Government. CHAIRMAN : You would change any Government that tried to impose it. Mr. BUXTON :It is a practical question. We are, I think, all agreed that if we had a clean slate it would be a very different matter. Mr. BATCHELOR : As regards the criticism of Sir Joseph Ward, the Australian Parliament considered that the half-crown was a useless coin, and that it was absurd for us to go on minting them. It does not affect the computation, and it is not a very convenient coin. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I agree, if all parts of England and the oversea countries had the two-shilling piece and no half-crown, it would be all right. CHAIRMAN : The curious thing is, we tried dropping the half-crown here, and we were compelled by the public again to coin it. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That difficulty does exist, Mr. Batchelor, and it is the fact that people from other countries going into Australia with halfcrowns find that there is a tendency to treat them as two shillings. If you have a different coinage in countries so close together as that, there is no doubt, while in theory what you say is right, and it may be desirable to avoid an excessive number of pieces of silver to represent a pound, yet w T here all the other countries have the half-crown, and you stop it, it makes the use - of every half-crown our people take to your country more difficult.

A.-4

170

Mh Day.] Coinage and Weights and Measures. [2 June, 1911. CHAIRMAN : I do not know whether, in view of the discussion, Mr. Batchelor wishes to press the Resolution further. Mr. BATCHELOR : The Resolution does not ask that the Government shall take any action; and, really, in the form in which it is, it is not very much more than a pious hope. Sir I), de VILLIERS GRAAFF : Is it not a pity to pass the Resolution unless some action is to be taken ? Mr. BATCHELOR : I am prepared, after the discussion which has taken place, and the statement made by Mr. Buxton that it is quite impracticable in the United Kingdom to pass any such proposal, to let the Resolution be taken off the Notice Paper. International Exhibitions. " That in view of the International Conference to be held at Berlin in 1912, with a view to the regulation of the conditions under which International Exhibitions should receive support, it is desirable that the Imperial and Dominion Governments shall consider the matter in conjunction so as to arrange, if possible, for concerted action on this subject." Mr. BUXTON : The next question is International Exhibitions, and the Resolution here is as follows : " That in view of the International Conference to be held at Berlin in 1912, with a view to the regulation of the conditions under which international exhibitions should receive support, it is desirable that the Imperial and Dominion Governments should consider the matter in conjunction, so as to arrange, if possible, for concerted action upon this subject." There is this Conference at Berlin next year, and the points they are going to discuss are the practicability of classifying all exhibitions according to the auspices under which they are promoted, and their scope, with a view to the adoption of general principles which would prevent great exhibitions being held simultaneously. This involves the establishment of general regulations governing such matters as the classification of exhibitions, and so on, transport and the adoption of general principles relating to the anticipation of exhibitions being held abroad, consideration of means for suppressing fictitious exhibitions, and fictitious awards. I think that it is of very great advantage that there should be something in the nature of an International Agreement in reference to exhibitions. I think everybody admits that they are far too frequent; and what happens still more is that one exhibition, unless it is arranged beforehand in reference to others, really spoils another. I believe one of the chief objects which the German Government have in summoning the Conference is, as far as we are aware, to.see how far exhibitions might be limited in number and made more effective. We find over here that our manufacturers, merchants, and others are getting very shy of these exhibitions, because it is really a very great tax upon them; and if you have an exhibition at all it should be of material advantage both as an exhibition of goods used in commerce and also from the point of view of extending trade on all sides. So I hope the Dominions may agree with us that it would be well to be represented at this International Conference, and as far as possible obtain International uniformity. Mr. BATCHELOR : What do you propose to do—to ask the Conference to carry a Resolution affirming the desirability ? Mr. BUXTON : That is the Resolution I have down on the paper.

171

A.—4.

2 June, 1911.] International Exhibitions. [4tlh Day. Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF : This is all right. Mr. BATCHELOR : You say here. "In view of the International Conference to be held at Berlin in 1912, with a view to the regulation of the conditions under which International Exhibitions should receive support, it is desirable that the Imperial and Dominion Governments shall consider the matter in conjunction." What precisely does that mean? Does it mean you want to do it to-day ? Mr. BUXTON : No, not to-day, but that we should pass this Resolution, and then we consider the best method of putting forward our views. That might be done, T think, between us by correspondence. CHAIRMAN : The imperial Government, might find out the views of the Dominions on this matter, and then represent the Dominions as well as themselves at the Conference which is to take place. Mr. BUXTON : We can formulate the views which we hold, which probably will meet the views of the various Dominions, and then we can circulate those to them. Probably that would be the best way of doing it. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : The object to be attained would be simply to restrain the number of exhibitions which are held at the present day. I suppose the Dominions would expect to be represented at that Conference, to give their views and arrive at a general uniform system to be adopted by all nations. CHAIRMAN : There would be no difficulty in arranging for representation of all the Dominions who wished it. Sir JOSEPH WARD : What I wanted to ask Mr. Buxton was this : Does this suggest that in an individual country it should apply to local exhibitions ? For instance, there is one great city in Sir Wilfrid Laurier's country where they have an exhibition yearly. CHAIRMAN : This matter refers to international exhibitions. Mr. BUXTON : It refers to international exhibitions like the Brussels and Rome Exhibitions, and your own in 1916, Sir Wilfrid. Mr. BRODEUR : This relates only to international exhibitions. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Then I agree with the proposal. Mr. BATCHELOR : We certainly will support that resolution heartily. I think there is very great need not only to limit exhibitions, but to have classification of exhibitions. At present one never knows when applications are received for Government support of particular exhibitions whether they are sufficiently international in. "their character to justify giving support. It is very important to have classification. I think there is no difficulty about arranging for representation at the Conference. CHAIRMAN : May I assume that the Conference agreed to this resolution ? [Agkeeb.] Adjourned to Thursday next at 11 o'clock.

A.-4.

172

FIFTH DAY. Thursday, Bth June, 1911. The Imperial Conference met at the Foreign Office at 11 a.m. PRESENT : The Right Honourable L. HARCOURT, M.P., Secretary of State for the Colonies (in the Chair). Canada. The Right Honourable Sir Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G., Prime Minister of the Dominion. A ustralia. The Honourable A. Fisher, Prime Minister of the Commonwealth. The Honourable E. L. Batchelor, Minister of External Affairs. New Zealand. The Right Honourable Sir Joseph G. Ward, K.C.M.G., Prime Minister of the Dominion. The Honourable J. G. Findlay, K.C., LL.D., Attorney-General and Minister of Justice Union of South Africa. General The Right Honourable L. Botha, Prime Minister of the Union. The Honourable F. S. Malan, Minister of Education. The Honourable Sir David de Villiers Graaff, Bart., Minister of Public Works, Posts and Telegraphs. Newfoundland. The Honourable Sir E. P. Morris, K.C., Prime Minister. The Honourable R. Watson, Colonial Secretary. Mr. H. W. Just, C.8., C.M.G., Secretary to the Conference. Mr. W. A. Robinson, Senior Assistant Secretary. Mr A. B. Keith, D.C.L., Junior Assistant Secretary. There were also present : Lord Luc.ss, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Colonies; Sir Francis Hopwood, G.C.M.G., X.C.8., Permanent Under Secretary of State for the Colonies; Sir C. P. Lucas, K.C.M.G., C.8., Assistant Under Secretary of State for the Colonies; Mr. Atlee A. Hunt, C.M.G., Secretary to the Department of External Affairs, Commonwealth of Australia; Mr. J. R. Leisk, Secretary for Finance, Union of South Africa; and Private Secretaries to Members of the Conference.

173

A.—4.

8 June, 1911.] Congratulations to Union of South Africa. [sth Day. The CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen, you sent a telegram* of congratulation to the Union of South Africa on its anniversary, and I have received the following telegram in reply from Lord Gladstone : "'Your telegram, 30th May. Ministers request me to convey to Imperial Conference their thanks for its congratulations on the first anniversary of Union of South Africa, and to express their appreciation of warm feelings which exist in all parts of the Empire towards the people of this country. They further desire to express the hope that deliberations of the Conference will tend towards the strengthening of the bonds of brotherhood between the various peoples of our great Empire.—Gladstone." Standing Committee. In the unavoidable absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day, I ventured, with your concurrence, to put down for our business the consideration of the Memorandum,t which I have circulated in accordance with the request made by the Conference at our previous discussion. Perhaps I might briefly recapitulate the position. This offer is made on behalf of the Imperial Government in order to meet the express wishes of New Zealand, and the supposed wishes of some of the other Dominions. It is a strengthening and enlarging of the Secretariat, in order to secure greater continuity and co-operation in the work between one Conference and another, and on any allied questions which may properly come up for consideration as Conference questions; but those questions woxild always be submitted to the Dominions concerned or interested in them before they were considered by such a Standing- Committee as this. In formulating a Committee I had no alternative but to suggest the only permanently resident representatives of the Dominions in Great Britain—the High Commissioners — but I was very careful to say that we should receive with equal satisfaction on such a Standing Committee any representative whom they might like to send or to nominate in place of their High Commissioners. His Majesty's Government do not wish to press this proposal upon the Conference unless it commends itself to their unanimous judgment. It would obviously be impossible to establish such a Committee unless all the Dominions were taking part in it. Therefore, gentlemen, I would leave the discussion and decision of this matter entirely to yourselves. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Have you got any resolution on the subject? The CHAIRMAN : There is no resolution put down. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : I thought there was a skeleton resolution. The CHAIRMAN : I have got a skeleton- shall I read it? This was only a suggested resolution : " That, with a view to promoting continuity of cooperation in the work of the Conference, any matters for discussion upon which it is not deemed necessary or desirable to hold siibsidiary conferences should be referred, with the consent of the several Governments, to the Standing Committee outlined in the Secretary of State's memorandum." There is another form of it- Ido not attach any importance to the form : ' That this Conference, having read Mr. Harcourt's memorandum dated May 26th, and entitled ' Proposal for a Standing Committee of the Imperial Conference,' is of opinion that a Standing Committee should be established in the form, with the representation and subject to the conditions suggested by the said memorandum." Mr. BATCHELOR : You do not suggest in the resolution that there are to-be periodical meetings?

* Note.—The following telegram was sent to the Governor-General of the Union of South .Africa on the 30th of May: "I am asked to communicate to you the following message for your Government: — " The Imperial Conference desires to congratulate South Africa on the occasion of the celebration of the first anniversary of the establishment of her political Union, sharing most warmly the feelings of thanksgiving and high hope which animate her people to-day and which find a hearty response in all parts of the Empire.—Asquith." t See Volume of papers [Cd. 5746. —I]. , .

A..—4.

174

sth Day.} Standing Committee. [8 June, 1911. The CHAIRMAN : No; they will be called together when there is business to do. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : I must say, frankly, for my part I do not view with any favour any departure from the system we have now; but I would defer my judgment until we have heard what Sir Joseph Ward has to say, because I have an open mind on this question; but I know Sir Joseph Ward feels more strongly on the subject than I do. As I understand it now, the powers of this Committee would be very much limited, as will be seen from condition sof the memorandum. " The advice of the Committee would be given to the Secretary of State, and communicated to the Dominions Governments through the Governor-General, though the High Commissioners or Dominions' representatives would, of course, be free to inform their Governments of the proceedings at the Committee." I would reserve my judgment, and perhaps Sir Joseph Ward would give us the benefit of his views upon it, because he seems to think strongly on this matter. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I spoke on the resolution that I submitted in the first instance, and I explained why I thought it was desirable that something in the direction contained in those resolutions should be established; and in the course of the discussion I understood you to say that you had no objection to No. lif it was proposed. As far as lam concerned, Ido not wish to press any special portion of it; I believe myself it is of considerable importance that there should be some bridge between the meetings of the Imperial Conference over which from time to time could be carried the matters that had not been brought to a final issue, or, in cases where a general decision, if not by resolution, a course of action is expressed in the various views of the different members attending the Conference. I consider that there should be an oDportunity, as points would arise connected with them, no doubt, of their being discussed, with a view to something practical or finality on different points being arrived at. When we were here in 1907 there was a movement in this direction made. On the whole, while it has been carried out as well as it possibly could be done under the circumstances, I do not think it is complete enough, and I am inclined to think we ought to have a Standing Committee, although I do not ouite fall in with some of the proposals contained in the memorandum which has been submitted this morning. For instance, just to make the point clear, I think it would be a very invidious thing to ask the different countries to appoint " the High Commissioner or other representative"; because once you put in a proposal to appoint the High Commissioner or other representative, if any of the oversea Dominions left out the High Commissioner, it would be looked upon by the outside world as a stamp of inferiority being put upon him, so putting the Government in the very invidious position of every time having to appoint the High Commissioner whether they desired it or not. Another thing is the point I referred to in discussing this matter beforethat it is not quite desirable to have the principal executive officer of the oversea Dominions here acting under the authority and direction of his Government and at the same time a member of a Committee which might in some matters come in conflict with his high and responsible duties in his special office. I do not think it quite the most satisfactory thing from the point of view of the responsible Governments across the seas, to put an officer who has to take his direction from them in the position of being an adviser to them in conjunction with the Imperial Conference, whereas at the meeting's of the Imperial Conference he has no status whatever. Ido not say positively that the High Commissioner should not be on the Committee, but the matter is one that requires to be very carefully considered. So that I think it would be better in any case, if this proposal of Mr. Harcourt's is agreed to. to leave out the Hio-h Commissioner, and iust simply to put " Representative for Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa," letting the Governments have the power to appoint whom they desire.

175

A.—4

8 June, 1911.] Standing Committee. [sth Day. The CHAIRMAN : I would agree at once to the alteration in the memorandum, and to leave out " High Commissioner or other," and put in " a representative." Sir JOSEPH WARD : I think that puts it all right. The CHAIRMAN : Then we should omit condition 8, of course. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes, that would require to be omitted. Dr. FINDLAY : And there is a consequential change in condition s—" the High Commissioners or " to be omitted. Sir JOSEPH WARD :" A representative " it should be. I want to say that, upon the whole, I think this is a step in the right direction, and I am quite ready to accept the proposal which you make here as an evidence of the desire of His Majesty's Government to have some machinery that will enable practical decisions to be come to upon points, even where we have not arrived at resolutions, that may be required to be rediscussed, which could only be done, as suggested in your memorandum, in consultation with the respective Governments through the Governor or Governor-General; and that keeps the power entirely, so far as the decision is concerned, in the hands of the Governments of the oversea Dominions, as it ought to be. I do not want to take up the time of the Conference by going again over the various reasons, but I believe we ought to go a step forward to improve the present position. I think it is very important that we should have something in the interval, without expecting men to come over the seas too frequently to sub-conferences here, by means of which we should have the opportunity of having matters discussed, considered, and reported upon to the respective Governments. With another important alteration that has already been made on the Defence Committee, to which I cannot refer here, I think the machinery suggested, with what has already been done in another direction, would be very valuable. The CHAIRMAN : May I ask, Sir Joseph, whether you contemplate the probability of having a representative of New Zealand permanently resident here for this purpose ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : No, I do not contemplate that; but my impression is that it is not a desirable thing to say that it should be, " The High Commissioner or other representative." It is far better to say that it should be " a representative " definitely; but it is quite possible that at times—and this does not apply to any of the existing High Commissioners—through no fault of our own, perhaps, the High Commissioner might not be in every way qualified to take up the work. Such a thing might occur with some of the oversea Dominions; so that I think it better to have it as " a representative " only. Dr. FINDLAY : I might ask a question about this. Condition 3 says : " Being a Committee of the Imperial Conference, it must deal only with matters which concern the past Conference, or have to do with the preparations for the approaching one, or for any other matters w r hich seem to be appropriate questions between both." That would cover all the matters upon the Agenda Paper at this Conference ? The CHAIRMAN : Yes. Dr. FINDLAY : So that all those minor matters, such as the currency of awards, uniformity of Patent Law, Copyright Law, Company Law, Shipping, Civil Service, Exchange, and so on, would be threshed out before this Standing Committee between this and the next meeting of the Conference? The CHAIRMAN ; Certainly.

23—A. 4.

A.—4

176

sth Day,] Standing Committee. [8 June, 1911. Dr. FINDLAY : It seems to me that is an immensely useful function; because it is hopeless to go into the details of the uniformity of Company Law and Copyright Law at a Conference like this. Mr. FISITEE : When Conferences were first suggested there was considerable opposition to them, because they might interfere in some way with the self-government and the responsible government of the Dominions. That has been successfully overcome, and T think, with the greatest respect to those who take a different view, that the time has arrived when we need some such body to carry on the work between these Conferences. Hitherto the Conferences have been dealing with the Government of the United Kingdom, with part of the household shut. During this Conference the Government of the United Kingdom have taken the representatives of the oversea Dominions fully into their confidence in matters of moment and of grave concern to the whole of us. I think under those circumstances it is all the more necessary that we should have this subsidiary Committee to deal with the important work that is done openly in this Conference and facilitate communication even to a closer extent and degree than hitherto. That seems to me to be the position we occupy to-day. As to this draft memorandum, I say at once that I agree so far as it says that this Committee shall only be advisory, and shall have no executive power whatever to commit any one to anything except to advise the Governments and to co-operate with the Ministers here in any matter where it can assist and be of use to them. T agree with Sir Joseph Ward that, while it might be advisable that the principal representatives of the Dominions permanently here might be most useful members on that Committee, still it would be more advisable to name no one, but to leave it to the respective Dominions from time to time to appoint their own representatives. I am very glad of this opportunity of saying that many important matters will undoubtedly come up between these four-year Conferences. Immediately we were taken into the full confidence of the Government here I was very doubtful whether that new position would stand four-year Conferences. It seems to me that the Conferences will have to be at shorter periods, unless you are going to intrust to some other person or body larger powers than we are intrusting them with at the present time, and unless the Government here w T ill convey to them, or to us in a larger measure than they have done in the past, their confidence in matters that cannot discuss here. On the merits of the proposal I think they are good, and I should like my friend Mr. Batchelor, who is immediately concerned with this matter, to address himself to the subject, if he will. Mr. BATCHELOR : In addition to the limitation that was mentioned by Mr. Fisher, and which was also referred to by yourself, Sir, that this Committee would be purely advisory and would have no powder to vote, there is also the further limitation, that before it can consider anything at all, before it can be brought into being at any time, the Secretary of State wall inform the Dominions, and the Dominions must agree to the discussion of any question. Under those circumstances it seems that there can be hardly any doubt as to the advisability of having a Standing Committee, which, whenever all the Dominions desire anything to be discussed which has come before this Conference or which to come before the next Conference, can be called into being and discuss them. It is a proposition which I should think no one, however anxious for complete autonomy, could object to. I suppose the Secretary to the Imperial Conference, Mr. Just, would report to this Committee on any work he had been engaged upon 1 The CHAIRMAN : Certainly.

177

A.—4

8 June, 1911.] Standing Committee. \hth Day. Mr. BATCHELOR : T think it would have some distinct advantages. Some of the smaller matters which this Conference has not time to thrash out properly might be discussed at such a Conference, at the unanimous desire of the Dominions concerned. It is a proposition we ought to accept very readily, I think. General BOTHA : I only want to say that I do not see any very great advantage in accepting this, and we feel that the system ought to remain more or less the same. My Government has brought up one point in connection with this matter on the Agenda, and that is, that the work of the Dominions should be brought under the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. I have already intimated that I did not intend to press this point after having heard what Mr. Asquith said about it a few days ago, explaining how impossible it would be for the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to undertake the additional work which this would involve. Besides, 1 feel the force of the argument , that it would be very inconvenient in South Africa if the Union were to deal through the Prime Minister and the territories through the Colonial Office. With regard to this proposal, I am not in favour of accepting it as it stands. If we leave in the words " The High Commissioner or other representative," we shall find one Dominion appointing its High Commissioner and another might make it a post for some political man whom it might be convenient to get out of the way. The CHAIRMAN : I suggested withdrawing the words : " High Commissioner," and merely leaving it " a representative," and that would, of course, leave it open to any Dominion to choose any person it liked. General BOTHA : I understand that Sir Joseph has suggested doing away with the mention of the High Commissioner altogether; but if you do that, again you place the Dominions in absolutely the same position. The one Dominion will say : " My High Commissioner must act," and the other Dominion will say : " No, I am going to send another man, so as to get him away." Mr. FISHER : You would surely never do that ? General BOTHA : I only say what could be done; and the object of the Conference is to get uniformity. Sir JOSEPH WARD ; Uniformity of action and uniformity of decision. General BOTHA : You want the same class of man, and if one Dominion sends a Minister here and the other an official or its High Commisioner, you will very soon have a rupture between the Ministers and the other men. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Speaking for New Zealand, we could not spare a Minister to attend those Conferences here at shorter intervals than at present; and I do not think any Dominion could. General BOTHA : Then you could send another political man. I think the object is either to get the High Commissioner in, or some other person; but every Dominion ought to send more or less the same class of man or men of the same standing, otherwise the thing will not work. If the one man has a very much higher standing here than the other, I do not think that will lead to uniformity. Sir JOSEPH WARD : There is no voting, of course. General BOTHA : Then, also, what will be the position of this Committee at the next Conference? Will they be allowed to attend the next Conference of Prime Ministers ? What would be their position—will they be able to come and sit here and listen to what is going on, or will they be kept away from the Conference ?

A.-4

178

sth Day.] Standing Committee. [8 June, 1911. The CHAIRMAN : I suppose when a Dominion is represented at the Conference by its own Ministers, the members of the Committee would no longer take part in the Conference. General BOTHA : I am only raising this one point to show you what is likely to happen. Those men would say : "We have to carry out the Prime Ministers' work here at this Conference, but we do not understand the details of the work and the discussions that have taken place at the Conference." I am only mentioning that there is some difficulty, and that it would not be all clear sailing after we have appointed the Committee. Sir JOSEPH WARD : It will have all the information regarding the work of the Conference, because everything is published. General BOTHA : Still they are then part and parcel of this Conference. They must carry out the Conference work if we accept this suggestion. They must not only carry out the work, but they will also assist in preparing what is to be discussed at the next Conference. The CHAIRMAN : I do not think they could possibly be members of the Conference when they met. That, I think, would not be approved of by any Dominion. Of course, if Ministers wished to have them in the room in order to consult them, that is a different matter; but I should have thought it was desirable when the Conference took place, for Ministers alone to represent their Dominions. General BOTHA : I quite agree. Sir JOSEPH WARD : The Secretary of State for the Colonies, Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Permanent Under-Secretary and so on, have been at this Conference all through; and so could the other representatives be here in the same way. General BOTHA : I do no want to have any misunderstanding; I want the thing made quite clear now, otherwise you will find there will be difficulty afterwards. Let us settle all this to begin with. Ido think the responsible man at those Conferences must be the Minister of the Imperial Government who presides over, them. I think that is the really responsible man for the carrying out of the resolutions that are taken here. Sir Joseph W T ard said just now that this is a forward move in the right direction. lam not quite sure that it is; because if you Avant to take any responsiblity away from the Secretary of State, who is to be the connecting link between us and the Dominions ? Our High Commissioners or the men we are going to place here to carry out these resolutions will have no influence, and never can have the same influence as the British Minister who presides at this Conference. Sir JOSEPH WARD : If that was so, General Botha, you would be right; but read clause 3in the proposed arrangements. If you will allow me I will read it: " Being a Committee of the Imperial Conference, it must deal only with matters which concern the past Conference or have to do with the preparations for the approaching one, or for any other matters which seem to be appropriate questions between both." General BOTHA : I quite agree that this looks very innocent. You said just now, Sir Joseph, that this was a move in the ri ht direction, but it might lead up to that Imperial Council which I very strong! r object to. Sir JOSEPH WARD : It is bound to come an; how, quite irrespective of this. The CHAIRMAN : I might point out that the subsidiary conferences which have been held from time to time, may and do consist sometimes of High Commissioners or other Ministers sitting together. The Copyright Conference was so composed, but of course it did not lead to any suggestion that the people who composed the subsidiary conferences should attend or be members of this Conference.

179

A.-4,

8 June, 1911.] Standing Committee. [pth Day. Mr. BATCHELOR : Yes, and Lord Tennyson represented Australia. General BOTHA : 1 quite agree that subsidiary conferences must be held. You have defence and various things as to which 1 think from time to time you will have to have Conferences here; but we cannot now arrange that this Committee is going to discuss these subjects. Therefore, lam very much in favour of subsidiary conferences standing, where a Minister will be sent over to deal with and meet other Ministers here on a special thing, like defence or anything of that kind. Ido not think this Committee must discuss anything of that kind. I do not want to have a standing committee here which may lead in the slightest way to interference in the work of the responsible Government in any one of the Dominions. That is a point I want to make very clear. If that is the case I would rather not appoint any man on such a Committee. Therefore, let us be quite clear; let us have this Committee, but it must not be of an interfering character. Mr. BATCHELOR : The subject has to be relegated by the Dominion Governments to this Committee. Sir JOSEPH WARD : It does not interfere with the actual work of any of the oversea Dominions at all, either directly or indirectly. That remains intact as it is now, through the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State alone. General BOTHA : But, Sir 'Joseph, cannot the Secretary of State who is there now carry out the work just as well as a committee ? Cannot an arrangement be made with the Secretary of State whenever anything crops up to call in the High Commissioners and to discuss with them, without making it a hard and fast rule? As far as 1 know, our High Commissioner lias been called in from time to time on various difficulties that have cropped up, and they have been discussed here, and I think that is the right thing. He is here as the representative of his Dominion and must be heard. I think that is the right thing, and, as the Secretary of State has already explained to us, he is having monthly meetings with them now to discuss various questions. Dr. FINDLAY : A question cannot be discussed unless you approve. If you look at condition 4, it is entirely in your hands. Sir JOSEPH WARD : " In all cases the Dominions' Governments will be consulted, through the Governors-General, as to their willingness for the submission of questions to this Committee." The CHAIRMAN : I may say again that I have frequently consulted the High Commissioners on all the questions which have arisen with the Dominions, not only at the monthly meetings which I have newly established, but I have asked them to come and see me, and they have asked me to see them, on many questions relating to their Dominions, and we have had the very fullest discussion of those matters very frequently; but, of course, there was no formality about it. They were not authorized, I suppose, specially to give me information on the subject, and I sent for them in a purely informal way, in order to keep me to the full charged with the view of the Dominion and any circumstances which might be in their knowledge but which had not come to mine. Sir EDWARD MORRIS : I should just like to say that I rather concur with General Botha in relation to this proposed Committee, for the reason that it appears to me that, if anything important should arise, a subsidiary conference could be held and delegates or representatives with power to nmke recommendations could attend. Now it seems to me that such a Committee as this could only deal with matters that at present are being dealt with by the various public departments here in England, in correspondence with the various Dominions. Suppose this Committee that is proposed desired to deal with the question of the unification of the Patent Law, Copyright Law, Bankruptcy Law, Weights

L.-1

180

sth Day.} Standing Committee. [8 June, 1911. Sir EDWARD MORRlS— cont. and Measures, or any of these questions as subsidiary matters, how could they possibly accomplish this any better than the Board of Trade or other similar Boards here by dealing direct with the Dominions ? If they were here sitting to-day on any of these matters, they would simply have to invoke the aid and assistance of the machinery of the Board of Trade or other Department. Then, as regards the constitution of such a body, it appears to me that is only going to lead to confusion and circumlocution; in other words, they would have no binding powers; they would have no authority whatever. All they have to do is to advise, and even then it would be difficult for them to advise unless they were a permanent body, daily acquiring such information as would entitle their recommendations to be regarded seriously. I took rather an interest in the debate resulting from the proposal of Sir Joseph Ward in relation to the Imperial .Council. I thought it was an impossible proposition as long as the present machinery of government exists; but it may come when a complete change will have taken place in the Constitution of the Imperial Government as well as the Constitutions of the Dominions. This Conference itself is a very good illustration of the little practical work it ts possible to accomplish even if you had such a permanent committee as is now proposed. It is four years now since the last Conference was held. We came here nearly a month ago with very comprehensive agenda not contributed to, perhaps, equally by all the Dominions, but very careful and, as I say, comprehensive agenda, and the result of the work will probably be—the outcome of the whole deliberation will probably be —one or two important matters that were not on the agenda at all. The first is a statement by the Secretary of State in relation to the consultation in the future of the Dominions with regard to trade matters similar to the Declaration of London, and the partnership constituted by the statement of the Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey. Now if the last four years was only able to furnish the material that we have been discussing, and from which such little practical result, I am afraid, may flow, what value would there be in having a committee sitting to deal merely with matters which, I assume, would only go to them after the failure of the various Dominions themselves to deal with the Colonial Office direct ? Speaking for Newfoundland, we would have nothing, practically, to submit, except it would be some very serious and important question upon which we should have a difference with the Colonial Office, because at the present time we are not interfered with in any way. In other words, we are allowed to work out our constitution in its broadest possible way, and thus it is only on an important constitutional question that we should have any difference; and if that difference should arise, it is not a matter we would submit to that Committee. Of course, there might be more matters in common between Dominions like New Zealand and Australia, where probably a Conference between their representatives on matters in which they would be peculiarly interested might be of valise, but to have a permanent committee dealing with questions which are now being satisfactorily attended to does not appear to me to be of any very great importance; and I am afraid, by reason of the fact that they are to have no powers whatever —that seems to commend itself to some—the fact of their having no powers and not being able to do anything at all —and being merely advisory, it would simply lead to multiplication of departments, circumlocution, and confusion. That is my humble opinion. I .understand this was merely a suggestion of the Secretary of State for the Colonies arising out of the proposal of Sir Joseph Ward, and if it was a mere question of voting against it, I do not suppose I should vote against the proposal, for the reason that, in my opinion, it will not amount to anything. Sir AVILFRID LAURIER : As I said at the outset, I approach—and my colleagues, who unfortunately are not here to-day, although I have had some discussion with them, have approached —this question with an open mind, not in any way favouring it, but we were not anxious to press our own view, and are rather anxious to take the views of our colleagues at the Conference; and certainly, for my part, I am thankful it has been done in so open a manner as it has been done.

181

A.—4

8 June, 1911.] Standing Committee. [sth Day. Sir WILFRID LAUEIEE— cont. The greatest importance is attached, and, I think, should be attached, to those Conferences which have been held periodically under the system which was adopted four years ago of Governments and Governments; but I would view with serious apprehension the interference of any body whatever between the Government here and the Governments in the respective Dominions. If this body is to be anything at all, it will try to exercise its own views and tp impress its own views on the Government here and upon the other Governments. It would be either that or it would mean nothing at all. Therefore, for my part, I have not changed my view. I still adhere to the position I took up four years ago, that the relations between the Dominion Governments and the Imperial Government should be carried on by themselves. We have ample machinery now in the reorganization of the Colonial Office, which has given ample satisfaction; and, therefore, for my part, I adhere to the proposition that I should leave matters just as they are at the present time, and that this would not be an improvement upon them. Mr. MALAN : Before you reply on the discussion, Sir, I would just like to add a few words to what General Botha has already said. One of the difficulties we feel in connection with this proposal is that we do not know exactly what the status of this Conference or Committee will be. Condition 2of your proposal says : "It should be advisory of the Secretary of State." Now, to begin with, Condition 3 says : " Being a Committee of the Imperial Conference." This Imperial Conference is not advisory of the Secretary of State. It is a Conference of responsible Ministers, Prime Ministers from the Dominions and the United Kingdom. We consult together here; we take certain resolutions, and it is more the policy of the Empire which is under consideration here and is being discussed than any executive matters which could be taken by this Conference itself. Dr. FINDLAY : You see why it is made advisory to the Secretary of State if you look at Condition 5; it is merely as an avenue of information to the different States. Mr. MALAN : Yes. But why should they not be advisory to the Prime Ministers of the Dominions ? Why should this Committee, which is a Committee of this Conference, or which is stated in paragraph 3 to be a Committee of this Conference, be advisory to one partner only—that is to say, to the Secretary of State of the United Kingdom ? The other Dominions will get a communication through the Secretary of State, but the advice will be given to only one of the partners sitting round this table; and if our views are not to be represented by the responsible Minister, the Prime Minister sitting at this same table, but by one we have to nominate, and he is going to dictate to us out in the Dominions what our policy is to be on any particular subject, we will certainly object. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That is not so. There cannot be any dictation. It can only be suggested, and has to be assented to by our respective Governments before anything can be given effect to. The CHAIRMAN : It was for that reason I did not suggest that it should be advisory to the Dominions; I thought the proposal would have still less chance of success if it were suggested that it was to be advisory to the Dominion Governments. Mr. MALAN : Yes, but this proposal in condition 2 will tend to still further lower the status of the Dominions as compared with that of the United Kingdom. The CHAIRMAN: No/ Mr. FTSHEE : Hardly that, surely? The CHAIRMAN : That was certainly not the intention,

A.-4

182

sth Day.} Standing Committee. [8 June, 1911. Mr. MALAN :It would mean that. If this proposal is accepted it would mean that the Conference then becomes advisory to the Secretary of State here; because you cannot give different functions to a Committee of this Conference to what the Conference has itself; and if you state in condition 2 that it is advisory of the Secretary of State, and in condition 3 that it is a Committee of this Conference, it seems to me that the Conference itself then becomes merely advisory of the Secretary of State. I know that is not the intention, and that is why I say we do not understand exactly what this proposal would lead to. Then, what is going to be the relation of this Committee to this Conference ? General Botha has discussed that matter fairly fully. Will the members of this Committee become members of this Conference; and, if not, will they not have a right to complain, and say : " We prepare things, and then we have not the opportunity of presenting our views to the Conference. We advise one thing and the Conference decides differently, and we have not had the opportunity of stating our views directly " ? If, on the other hand, you are going to put men representing the Dominions and the United Kingdom on to this Conference, it seems to me that you are very seriously interfering with the function of this Conference, and that certainly should not be allowed. Then we have very great difficulty as regards the personnel of this Committee. If we take the High Commissioners, then we put on, along with Ministers and political men, permanent officials. As regards the United Kingdom, it does not matter very much, because the Secretary of State, or two Secretaries of State who are responsible to their Government, would always be present and be members of this Committee; but as regards the Dominions it would be quite different, and our only representative would be an official. Now, supposing this official is only to be the mouthpiece of his Government, and not to express his own mind or his own opinion about any particular subject, what, then, is the good of him being there ? You might as well send your information through the Secretary of State in the ordinary way, as is done now. If the representative, on the other hand, is to express his own opinion apart from the advice which he receives from his Government, then it is very possible that he will compromise his Government. Supposing he always speaks with the mind of his Government and there is a change of Government out in the Dominion and a new Government comes in, and speaks with a different voice from the old Government, are you to remove your official then ? Is he going to be in the same position as a Minister, or are you going to say to Jacob : '' You must now speak with the voice of Esau "'• So that it seems to me you must either decide between having a paid official —and then I do not see any advantage over the existing system —or you must have a Minister. If you have a Minister you say here that he must represent Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, or Newfoundland. How is he to be elected 1 By the Government ? Then he is the mouthpiece only of the Government and not necessarily of the whole colony. The Prime Minister, when he opened this Conference, said that we leave party politics at the door. Very well. Still we are in our own Dominions party politicians; but, regarding the "fact that you have the Prime Ministers here, and that this is a Prijne Ministers' Conference, you expect of those men when they come here that they will take a broader view, not of their own party in their own Dominions, but of their whole country, and also of the whole Empire, and it is the broader view, and the Imperial view, which is to predominate at this table. You cannot expect that from officials, and I do not think we should give any such power to a Committee such as is proposed here. As regards the personnel of it, as I say, we will have very great difficulty. You might appoint a man who is very pushful, who thinks that the Imperial Conference, with the full responsibility upon them, do not press the thing quite as strongly as it should be done, and says : " We do not look to the men who have sent us here; we are permanent officials, and we will press the thing." They might put the Imperial Government here as well as the Governments of the Dominions in a very awkward position indeed. It is sometimes felt necessary at a Conference of this kind to pass a resolution. It is not always found advisable to give immediate effect to it. When the Conference has adjourned, they may find that more light is thrown on the subject, or they may find by a little delay public opinion will be ripened, and as responsible Ministers, being in touch with public opinion in their own Do-

183

A.—4

-8 June, 1911.] Standing Committee. \pth Day. Mr. MALAN— cont. minions; all the Ministers here feel the importance of that. That is not the case with the official; he thinks that it should be pressed and he presses it home, and by doing so he does an immense amount of harm. Under all those circumstances, seeing that the system we have had up to the present has worked well, so as to avoid all the difficulties I have stated, we have distinctly come to the conclusion that matters must be left as they are now. I agree with Sir Edward Morris that the day may come when we shall have to look in a different direction than our present Conference. Ido not know whether that day is coming soon or is far off, but when a change does come it must be on the sound British principle of giving the people representation and getting government through representatives elected by the people, and not government by officials or government by men who nominate themselves. To a large extent we are here now because we represent only a majority in our own Dominions, but whatever we do, if an alteration is made in the future, it must be representatives elected by the people who will be responsible to the people, and not otherwise. The CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen, I need, I think, only say one word as to Mr. Malan's statement. I would like, first of all, to clear up the impression that the Committee, in being made advisory to the Secretary of State, was in some way derogatory to the position of the Dominion Governments. That was certainly not the intention. It was desirable that it should be an advisory and not an executive committee. That, I felt, was the view of all the Dominions. Mr. MALAN : That is our view. The CHAIRMAN : I also felt that they would be willing that it should be advisory to me, but that they would not be willing that it should be advisory to them; and therefore I offered myself up for the purpose of being advised in order to relieve them from a situation which I was sure they would not tolerate. It was entirely to meet what I believe to be their views of the situation that those words were there inserted. I have never contemplated that the people who would have formed this Committee would have ultimately been members of the Conference. I quite see the point Mr. Malan has made as to the grievance they might have suffered from not being able to take part in the final deliberations on work which they had prepared. Mr. FISHER : I confess I do not see that point. The CHAIRMAN : Of course on that point no complaint has arisen; but the absence of people who have done the work has arisen in copyright and other subsidiary conferences; there was no question that they should join this Conference afterwards, and it certainly was very far from my mind to attempt any enlargement of this Conference, the composition of which has been settled by itself in the past, and which I see no desire to change for the future. Gentlemen, I think from our discussion it is quite clear that there is not sufficient unanimity for the proposal which I have put forward to make it worth my while to move any resolution on the subject. I should like the Conference to be quite clear that this offer was made by me on behalf of the Government only in order to meet what we believed to be a desire on the part of some of the Dominions. It does not represent any conscious want on the part of the Home Government. We have felt that the communications which we keep up directly with the Dominions through myself, and the continuity of work which is so admirably carried on by Mr. Just and the Secretariat of the Conference, has been sufficient for all Imperial purposes. This was only an offer to meet what we believed was a desire which we might find more widely spread when the discussion came. After this discussion I think it is quite clear that there is not unanimity of wish for a further enlargement and co-operation at present, and therefore I do not propose to go any further with the memorandum which I have circulated.

24—A. 4,

A.—4

184

sth Day.] Standing Committee. [8 June, 1911. Mr. FISHEE : Before you close this discussion Sir JOSEPH WARD : It is not closed yet, because my motion now comes forward. The CHAIRMAN : Yes, you can take any part of your motion you wish to. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That is the position, I think ? The CHAIRMAN : Yes. Mr. FISHER : I should just like to ask before we pass from this whether this negative action will not forbid also your having any monthly conferences ? The CHAIRMAN : No, I do not think so. We also have already on record the decision of the previous Conference, which I imagine is not going to be repealed by this one : " That upon matters of importance requiring consultations between two or more Governments which cannot conveniently be postponed until the next Conference, or involving subjects of a minor character or such as call for detailed consideration, subsidiary conferences shall be held between representatives of the Governments concerned specially chosen for the purpose " Mr. FISHER : I do confess that I like this machinery distinctly better than that, and I can only add to what I have already said, and I think my colleagues will entirely agree with it, that this is a possible improvement of the machinery that would enable the views of the Dominions to be conveyed to you and to each other, and discussed with each other, eliminating the chaff before the matter is presented to the Government —that is, during the interval between the Conferences. It is fairly set out in the memorandum that they would only act under the advice and instruction of their own Governments, but I quite recognise what you have said, Sir, that unless we can get a nearer vote it is no use proposing it. The CHAIRMAN : Sir Joseph, do you wish to proceed with parts of your resolution ? Sir JOSEPH WARD • I desire to say a word or two in reply on the resolution I have submitted, and that will bring the discussion to a conclusion perhaps. The CHAIRMAN : Yes. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I have listened to the discussion with a very great deal of interest, and if the position were such as it is supposed to be by some of the gentlemen who represent their respective countries, then I am bound to say I would be in accord with them, and should be taking up a similar attitude; but there appears to me to be an extraordinary misconception in connection with the proposals as you outlined them to the Conference, the nature of which some of the members overlook, or else I am sure they would not misrepresent it intentionally, and rhere is going on record a statement which is quite contrary to the procedure which is followed. Now let me take the case which is made in this memorandum of the suggested representation of the permanent officials connected with the Home Government and of the representatives from the different countries on the Committee. At the present moment what would the procedure be? It is quite certain that that Committee would advise the Secretary of State; it is equally certain, under the proposal, that the Secretary of State would communicate with the overseas Dominions; and it is equally certain under the proposal that the Governments of the oversea Dominions retain the supreme power of decision upon any of

185

A.—4

8 June, 1911.] Standing Committee. Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD- -cont. the points referred to them; and it is equally certain that no one can prepare an Agenda Paper for the consideration of the Imperial Conference, at which Ministers must assemble, except the Governments themselves — the British Government, and each of the Governments of the oversea Dominions. Wherein can arise the possible consequences such as have been debated under a system which does not admit of those consequences being possible? The system of preparation of work for the Conference remains exactly as it is now, and the question as to whether there are to be allowed into this room all the representatives who form a committee of the kind, if it, is established, is a matter of no consequence whatever, to my mind. I assume that the permanent officials now attached to His Majesty's Government, and who, under the direction of the Secretary of State, have a great deal to do in the preparatory work for the consideration of Members who attend the Prime Ministers' Conference —that is, the Imperial Conference—would be here under the altered circumstances as they are now. Why should not a further four or five members who represent the oversea Dominions take a similar place without any loss of dignity, and certainly without any loss of prestige, and without any possibility of their being offended at what was done? I will go further and say, even if they are offended at what may be done by the full Conference, they ought to take their offence cheerfully, and allow us to proceed upon the lines we think right as the outcome of the vahiable work prepared by them in the interim for such a Conference as this. Such preparatory work I think would be invaluable. What is the position to-day with regard to this Conference? We have already relegated a number of very important matters to the consideration of sub-committees. That has been done with a view to shortening the time of the Imperial Conference itself. If this Conference could sit here for three months I do not think there is a member now sitting at this table who will contradict me when I say that the relegation of matters which we believe to be of great importance to our respective countries to sub-committees of the Conference would not take place. In other words, such matters would be discussed by all the members of the Imperial Conference itself sitting at this table. Now, what is to happen if there is no system of having a bridge that can carry on the important work which we, through force of circumstances, now relegate to sub-committees ? General BOTHA : Cannot the Secretary of State do it as well ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : I am going to point out how, in my opinion, he cannot do it. Rowever ably and however well the duties of the Secretary of State are discharged, there are some matters which we are now referring for consideration to a sub-committee, in order that the result may be reported to this Conference, which it would be absolutely unfair and improper to ask the Secretary of State to settle by himself, with due regard to the points of view of the oversea Dominions. For instance, we have already decided to refer to subcommittees the important questions concerning trade marks, patent laws, and details connected with shipping laws, and company law, and currency, uniformity of coinage, and taxation, and death duties— matters concerning the people in our respective countries which require to be dealt with as far as possible in a uniform way. What practical position do we arrive at in connection with this important four-year Conference upon some of these matters, which cannot be said to stand out as great proposals of policy relating to any of the oversea Governments or to the Imperial Government, but which are all of vital importance to many of the people in our respective countries ? What chance has the next Imperial Conference, taking place in four years from now, of doing any more than we have done at this meeting of the Imperial Conference, or than we did at the last meeting of the Imperial Conference, beyond bringing these matters up for consideration, because of the absence of machinery for the purpose ? As these are questions which vitally affect our own people in our own countries, it would be unfair and improper to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies of the day, after we have left this Conference, to suggest to us, without our having any voice or say of any sort or kind in connection with the discussion which may take place on the details of these matters, what should be done at

A.—4

186

sth Day.] Standing Committee. [8 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD—cow*. the next Imperial Conference. As a matter of fact, it cannot be done. In short, the value of this Imperial Conference is, to my mind, being extraordinarily minimised on account of the inability to do anything in connection with it with the existing machinery which will enable us to carry on the important work we are dealing with between men who come from overseas as representatives of their respective countries and the representatives of His Majesty's Government who attend here and are taken from their various duties from time to time for that purpose. These are matters which no Secretariat can deal with—it has no power to deal with them, and it is not possible for it to deal with them, nor can the Secretary of State for the Colonies deal with them from the point of view of our respective Dominions. There is one matter which is coming up for discussion at this Conference which has been alluded to already, and was referred to at the last Imperial Conference, and I have no hesitation in saying that it could have been dealt with if we had had a Committee appointed for the purpose, as outlined in condition 3 of Mr. Harcourt's proposal: " Being a Committee of the Imperial Conference, it must deal only with matters which concern the past Conference or have to do with the preparations for the approaching one, or for any other matters which seem to be appropriate questions between both." Now take the important matter of navigation and shipping, which is going to be referred to at this Conference. That is a matter which is of supreme importance to most of the oversea Dominions—certainly it is to Australia, and to South Africa, and to New Zealand, and I do not know to what extent it may be important to Canada, as I am not sufficiently cognisant of the position there to even indirectly suggest whether it is important or not important to them; but if there had been such a Committee existing between the last Imperial Conference and the present one I, as the head of the Administration in New Zealand, would certainly have been in communication with the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and with whoever was our representative upon that Committee, for the purpose of giving effect to the suggestion contained in No. 3 of Mr. Harcourt's proposal, in order to impress from time to time upon all the other representatives who formed that organization the absolutely extraordinary position which our oversea countries are placed in in connection with the Suez Canal, and I would have asked that the matter should be considered. I should not have rested content to allow it to wait in order to be brought up again in four years' time. If we do not arrive at a decision upon it at this Conference it stands over until the next if you negative these proposals, and we shall be in the position of going away leaving this very important matter in abeyance for another four years. That is why I say that upon these important matters, which are vital to the development of our overseas trade and vital to the people of our respective countries, we ought not to be content with affirming resolutions and sending some of them on to sub-com-mittees to deal with, because upon their reports it is impossible for us, within the limits of time at the disposal of the Conference, to shape them into anything like practical form upon which we can unitedly, in our respective countries, legislate. Are we to deliberately continue to be in that most unsatisfactory position at the end of each four-yearly period ? I know the British Government cannot alter the Suez Canal dues of their own act, and I have made that clear whenever I have spoken upon the subject anywhere. I know Avhat the position is; but still, as we are co-operating with the British Government in trying to obtain uniformity and trying to improve the position of the oversea Dominions, I am a great believer in pressing for a change in the undesirable position of things in regard to the Suez Canal, which is so important to our people in New Zealand, as it is also to the people of Australia. It is so important to us because we cannot to a large extent make use of that canal for a very large portion of our shipping, on account of the very unsatisfactory condition of things existing there, and our people look upon it as a gross hardship. I say, upon such a matter, if there had been machinery in existence, I certainly, as head of the Government of New Zealand, would have asked our representative here to have had a meeting of that Committee called in order to deal with that matter among others. I would also from time to time have urged that the important matter which was brought before the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day—namely, the question of double taxation—

187

A.—4

8 June, 1911.] . Standing Committee. \bth Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. should be dealt with. That is a matter which presses upon the people in England and the people in New Zealand—one man paying double taxation on the one income. For instance, a British resident belonging to the British Empire may have to pay double taxation upon one income because of the. condition of the laws in our country, and in this country and in the other Dominions too. There is no doubt about the desirability of having an assimilation of taxation, if such a thing can be brought about. That is a matter which I, as the representative of New Zealand, brought before the then Chancellor of the Exchequer four years ago, but we are to-day in exactly the same position as we were in then. I think there are difficulties in the way of it being assented to now, and I am not taking exception to that—far from it; but it is a point which crops up in our country repeatedly in the case of residents from Great Britain who are out there. I want to be in a position not of imposing an impossible duty upon the Secretary of State for the time being, but of doing what the representatives of the Homeland of New Zealand may deem desirable—meeting in committee for the purpose of advising the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State in turn informing the Governments of the respective oversea Dominions, and then those Governments, as an outcome of the discussion which had taken place at the meeting of the Committee with their representatives upon it, considering the whole matter and saying whether it is possible for them to do anything, without waiting for another four years to pass in order to agree to some uniform course. General BOTHA : What I cannot follow from Sir Joseph Ward's argument is this : Why cannot you have the same thine , done now without that Committee? What hinders you here to-day from having a meeting between the Government here and your representative in this country, and talking the matter over exactly as you want to talk it over at a meeting of this Committee? Sir JOSEPH WARD : If it was only a matter affecting South Africa or New Zealand by themselves as oversea Dominions, I admit the force of General Botha's observation. In an informal consultation between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the High Commissioner upon a matter which is pertinent to one country alone you can have a settlement which is satisfactory to that country and to the Home Government; but if it is a matter which is of importance not only to one oversea Dominion and the Home Government, but of equal importance, say, to New Zealand, Australia, and Canada, South Africa, and Newfoundland, then how can we individually act upon any matter upon which a decision is not arrived at which is satisfactory to one Dominion only ? If we want to go in for co-ordination as far as our laws are concerned, we could not do it in that way. General BOTHA : But the Committee which has been proposed is purely advisory, and I do not see how they .can be of greater service to you in getting uniformity than the present machinery. Mr. BATCHELOR : There is no machinery now at all. Sir D. de VTLLIEES GRAAEE : Yes, there is the Secretariat of this Conference. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Take the case of death duties, which is another important matter, and which is of consequence to the people in South Africa, in Canada, in New Zealand, in Australia, and also in England. Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF : It does affect us very much. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I do not know whether you have death duties or not in your country.

A.-^t

188

sth Day.] Standing Committee. [8 June, 1911. Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAJbT : We have them in part of the Dominion. Sir JOSEPH WARD : How can it be expected that in an informal way the Secretary of State for the Colonies, conferring with the High Commissioner of your country, can bring about anything like uniformity without legislation? Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAEF : That is a point which is going to be discussed further on some later day. That very matter is on the Agenda. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes; but after that is discussed, in my judgment, little can be done, knowing as I do the intricacy and the difficulties and the complexity of the position from the standpoint of individuals in our respective countries, the whole matter being made perhaps more difficult by one trying to co-ordinate between the Old Country and the newer countries. So that I fail to see how we can have anything in the. shape of matter ripe for legislation in any of our countries without the details being fully gone into here in London. Who is going to do it ? You have no piece of machinery in existence to-day that can touch it. It will be observed that it is only such matters are to be dealt with by the proposed Standing Committee of the Imperial Conference as are referred to it by the unanimous consent of the Imperial Conference. So at the very inception of a proposal of this kind any one representative from any one of the countries can stop the reference to the Committee, and stop the consideration of it. You can make it a condition that it should be so. Therefore, if there is any point in the suggestion that there might be some interference with the administration of the respective Dominions by the constitution of such a Standing Committee, which I myself cannot see, it is met by that part of the proposal to which I have referred. General BOTHA : Cannot such a thing as that be settled by a subsidiary Conference ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : With regard to what has been said about a subsidiary Conference, I may say I have listened to the remarks made by Sir Edward Morris with a very great deal of attention. In practice what is the fact? Sir Edward Morris can arrive in England from his country within 10 days. As a matter of fact, a question which had been troubling his country for years was not settled until quite recently, when he found it necessary to visit England a year ago; and, to his credit and to the credit of the British Government, a settlement was arrived at on that important matter. On the other hand, a representative of New Zealand or of Australia wanting to come to this country for the purpose of consultation could not leave their respective places with any hope of being able to carry out anything except by providing for an absence of about six months. In practice it is impossible to consider it with such a lapse of time. Mr. BATCHELOR : The voyage takes at least three months. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Canada is in the same happy position as Newfoundland —it is within a week of England. South Africa is in an equally happy position, because it is within a 14 days' journey of England. General BOTHA : No, 17 days. Sir JOSEPH WARD : The journey is going to be shortened. General BOTHA : Perhaps the journey to New Zealand will be also. Sir JOSEPH WARD : We are only in the position of being able to get here now every four years. Even for the Imperial Conference every four years it is very difficult for the Ministerial representatives to come over here from our

189

A.-^t

8 June, 1911.] Standing Committee. [pth Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD—cont. country. In the interval between the meetings of the Imperial Conference the practical work we want to see threshed out may never arrive on the statute-book. We want to see an opportunity given for the necessary details to be threshed out and discussed by some one representing our countries in touch with the administration, so that the Secretary of State ma} ? be advised with the view of uniformity being agreed to, and then, in turn, the Secretary of State for the Colonies will inform the oversea Dominions, and each of the oversea Dominions will still hold its power and right to say aye or no to any proposal. As a matter of fact, if we were not in that position, how could we expect to be able to make an attempt to legislate upon matters which are of considerable importance to the whole of us, leading in the direction of uniformity ? When we go away from this Conference I undertake to say that the most brilliant man you could find'in any of our countries could not be asked to put into shape legislation for circulating amongst the different countries we represent with any hope of having that legislation put upon the statute-book without all the details being threshed out by some important Committee beforehand. We ought to have skeleton legislation of that sort fashioned into a concrete piece of work in order to do what is required for ail the Dominions, and that is why I hold very strong views.about the absence of machinery for the purpose. lam not saying this because the work at present is not well done by the Secretariat, or that the best and closest attention is not given to the oversea Dominions by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and by the Department, because it is. lam not putting it forward because of any supposition of that kind, but I know there is no machinery in operation that is going to help New Zealand or the Government of Australia, or, in my opinion, the other Governments, to carry on this work which we come here to promote to a point at which we can take it up intelligently four years hence and have it pushed forward with a view to legislation. One of the arguments of Sir Edward Morris I most heartily endorse. He argued that only important constitutional questions could probably be settled under existing conditions as far as a resolution of this Conference is concerned. That is my opinion also. I agree with Sir Edward Morris that that is the case, except in regard to matters of detail work required for carrying on the decisions of the Conference. I stated distinctly, when I was dealing with the proposition with regard to an Imperial Council, that in the absence of some such machinery, or some such organization, there was, in my opinion, no machinery in existence at present that can do other than he has said. I concur in that; and the difficulty presents itself to us all the time. General Botha says he wants closer union, and I know he does, and T a,gree with him. He says he wants a Minister to represent his country upon the Conference. I agree also. If so, why should he or I object to the representatives of the people, through the Governments, giving effect to what is unanimously referred to such a Committee by the Imperial Conference ? The Dominion Governments, through their Ministers, come here every four years. Logically this takes him and me back to this position : after all, the representatives of the people, through their Governments, are to be upon the Committee, where they will be in a minority and not in a majority, according to the proposals contained in the Secretary of State's memorandum, which provides for the permanent officials connected with the different Departments here being upon it. Then where is the fear of a Committee of this kind being, in some incipient way, a precedent for the establishment of au Imperial Council ? As a matter of fact, if that other proposal is ever to be given practical effect to, which I believe it will be, it can only be done hy the public of our respective countries supporting it; and it cannot.be anticipated or prejudiced by anything which we are doing here. Nothing is proposed here but advisory power being given to such a Committee. Nothing is given to_it in the shape of initiative in any way, and the Committee will have no power of action. All the power rests entirely with the Governments represented at this Imperial Conference. I should exceedingly regret anything being done in a matter of this kind which would prevent a bridge being formed between one Conference and the next. I say that, with all deference to the opinion of other gentlemen who have spoken, and I do not think any one can prevent it under the existing system,

A.—4

190

sth Day.] Standing Committee. [8 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. which means doing comparatively nothing between the Conferences upon material points which we, by our action here, say ought to be put in a position for mutual effort in order to gain such uniformity as we can in the general interests of the people of the different countries we represent. As far as my judgment is concerned, I think Sir Edward Morris is perfectly right in the summing up which he gave from a different standpoint to the way in which I am stating it now. If we are going to be in a position, through the absence of machinery, of not being able to give effect to a number of proposals iipon the Agenda (some of which are sure to be assented to, and some of which are already assented to), what is going to be the use of an Imperial Conference at all \ As a matter of fact, we could with equal advantage meet here at a greater interval than four years, and limit the whole operations of the Imperial Conference to one or two or three overriding matters and devote ourselves to* the discussion of those with a view to arriving at a decision concerning them. If we had such a proposed Committee we could refer to it all these matters, and give the Committee no power of voicing the views of our Governments, but simply power to advise the Secretary of State, who would, as suggested in the memorandum, refer the matter to the different Governments for their consideration. If we were not going to have some practical work upon those lines it would be far better, instead of having an Agenda Paper containing matters of material consequence to our people, to say that certain things are not to be brought up here at all, because I for one have the strongest objection to coming here and taking part in a discussion in connection with important matters and then having them, through the absence of machinery, put aside for four years, and brought up again in just the same position for consideration when we come back four years afterwards. A number of matters on this present Agenda Paper were dealt with four years ago, and we are in exactly the same position now, and shall be in the same position four years hence, if we provide no machinery now, when we come then to consider them. If our policy is to be one of inanition, doing nothing on account of the absence of machinery regarding these matters, I think the sooner we make up our minds that it is so the better, and then we can apply ourselves to the things that, we can deal with in our Parliaments, or as matters of policy with respect to portions of the Empire. Ido not want in the slightest degree to press upon the Conference proposals that are not unanimously agreed to. As far as I understand it, the Conference are opposed to Mr. Harcourt's amended proposal, which was a suggestion coming out from a proposition I gave notice of. I have not the slightest desire to put any one member of the Conference in the position of doing anything but express his opinion of the proposal. Personally, I think it could be fashioned into a useful form, and would help to make this Imperial Conference certainly much more potent for good for all parts of our Dominions than it is under the existing system. The CHAIRMAN : I have only one word or two to say. First, in answer to Sir Joseph Wa.rd's observations, I should like to put in a caveat against the idea that certain portions of the work of the Conference have been referred to Committees owing to want of time. T really do not think such references arise from want of time, because the Conference has been extremely generous in the time it is willing to give to the discussions. Wo have found it willino; to sit in the afternoon of any day when it was necessary. I think these particular questions have been selected for committee work and for individual consultation, partly on account of their being very complex and technical matters, and partly because in some cases they affect only a single Dominion, so that a discussion between the head of one of the Departments of the State and the representatives of a particular Dominion really attains, or is likely to attain, more solid results than a loose discussion of very technical subjects round the table. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That is not what I meant by what I said. I agree with the view you express, but that does not get over the difficulty that I have pointed out. The CHAIRMAN : I will undertake to Sir Joseph Ward and to the Conference to give effect between now and the next Conference—or as long as lam at

191

A.-4

8 June, 1911] Standing Committee. [sth Day. The CHAIRMAN— cont. the Colonial Office—to all agreed questions which may be decided upon by the Conference or by any of its Committees. Where, of course, there is acute difference of opinion between the Dominions as to any proposed settlement, I am only human, and until I get an agreement T cannot carry it out; but so far as I can get any agreement at the Conference, or at any Committee of the Conference, on any question raised, I can pledge the Conference that I will see it carried out through the Secretariat and in communication with the Dominion Governments. Mr. BATCHELOR : Can you tell me whether there has been any effect yet given to the unanimous resolutions of the Conference at different times ? Has any resolution ever resulted in any legislation ? Has anything happened as a result of a unanimous resolution of this Conference 1 The CHAIRMAN : I believe so. Mr. BATCHELOR : The sort of thing I refer to is this : In 19(r2, I think, the advantages of naturalisation and uniformity in certain respects in regard to naturalisation were discussed. In 1907 it was unanimously agreed to. There was no kind of machinery by which that matter could be discussed between one Dominion and another, and in the result nothing happened, I believe. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : It is a matter for legislation, and not for resolution. Mr. BATCHELOR : There was a Bill prepared and submitted to all the self-governing Dominions, and observations were called for on that Bill. There was no opportunity at all for consultation in any way between the Dominions, and, I think, wholly as the result of misunderstanding of some of the objections raised, nothing at all has been done with regard to it. Has anything been done in the case of any other of the resolutions which have been come to by the Conference* ? The CHAIRMAN : I think the resolution about naturalisation is a very good illustration of the difficulties of what are called agreed resolutions. A perfectly general resolution on naturalisation was agreed at a previous Conference, but the moment the individual Dominions were consulted! the most acute differences manifested themselves. I have been labouring at it myself for six months, and my predecessors have laboured for a much longer period, and it has been absolutely impossible to come to agreement. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That is exactly what I say. The CHAIRMAN : It has been absolutely impossible to get any unanimity at all on the question of naturalisation. Mr. BATCHELOR ■ It is due, I think, to the want of machinery on the point. Sir JOSEPH WARD : It is due, in my opinion, to a complete absence of being able to go into the details required as a precedent to combined action by the oversea countries. Without such details legislation cannot be expected. We cannot agree upon uniformity once we get away from here. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : The question of naturalisation being complicated by the question of colour, the Conference cannot carry on upon details when they are not agreed iipon principles.

* See [0(1. 5273]. t See [Cd. 5273], pp. 138-157.

2S—A. 4.

A.—4

192

sth Day.} Standing Committee. [8 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD : In my statement about delays I should like to make it quite clear that I was not in any way intending to reflect upon the procedure of this Conference; on the contrary, T recognise that under the existing system it is the only sensible procedure that could be adopted. What I was endeavouring to make clear, and which I evidently failed to do, was that when those Committees report to this Conference on the detail work required on each matter we send to them, the Imperial Conference could take up that work to see what is required to be done by the respective Governments. I fully recognise the difficulty with regard to uniformity in relation to naturalisation when you have the colour question, which, in my opinion, in our respective countries makes it almost impossible to have uniformity in such law; but if we had a Committee sitting here, the Government of New Zealand, and the Government of Canada, and the Government of South Africa, and the Government of Australia would have sent their views on the subject to their representative. We each should have seen the views of the other, and might be enabled to have some elastic system put into operation upon which we could all legislate. What is the use, after we all get back to our respective countries, for the New Zealand Government to sit down and suggest some line of procedure by way of a Bill on which they want the consideration of the other countries ? Mr. BATCHELOR : We do not know the position in other countries on this question. The CHAIRMAN : Naturalisation is a matter we are going to take on Tuesday next, when the Home Secretary will be here, and T hone we may be able to strike otit some line of agreement —not of uniformity, because I am hopeless of that. Mr. BATCHELOR : You cannot get uniformity, but you might get similarity. General BOTHA : T have only to add that T do not like this proposal. The CHAIRMAN : T have withdrawn my proposal. Sir JOSEPH WARD : And T withdraw mine. General BOTHA : I think it is essential that the Secretary of State should consult from time to time the Hiqrh Commissioners, but, as I have already said, after what the Chairman has stated to-day I am ouite satisfied that that will be done in future. With regard to anvthins , that takes place here, I think, when we pass a resolution there is no better maehinerv. because you have the Dominion machinery to assist you in carryine , out whatever haopened here. Tf we cannot get a resolution about any particular matter passed at this Conference, no Committee appointed by us outside this Conference will be of any value in bringing about uniformity on that subject. Mr. BATCHELOR : But if you have it you can get it, • General BOTHA :If we have it we can get it without any Committee. I voted for that Naturalisation Resolution, and after studying the whole question it was laid before my Government, and we unanimously decided against it, and informed the Secretary of State to that effect, Tf in the meantime we had had a Committee here, could they by their decision bind me and my Government out in South Africa on this question? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Certainly not, General BOTHA : Certainly not. Therefore what is the need of this Committee? After all, it is the Governments that are responsible in the Dominions to pass legislation, and we must look to the Governments to support

193

A.—4

8 June, 1911.] Standing Committee. [sth Day. General BOTHA— cont. us, and not the Committee which is sitting here. No Dominion will stand being ruled by any Committee or being interfered with by any Committee sitting over here. That is my point. I want the Dominions to be consulted, not the Committees. Sir JOSEPH WARD : So do I; that is what the proposal says. General BOTHA : We meet here as Prime Ministers and as Ministers responsible for large portions of the British Empire. Sentiment and mutual interest bring us here together. Now it is sought to create Committees. In creating these Committees we might take a false step which might lead rather to breaking down than to building up the Empire, and therefore I say we must hasten slowly. If we want to build up, and to remain builders-up of the Empire, we must not take hasty steps. We meet here and come together not only to pass resolutions on small and minor things, but to discuss the more important work relating to the British Empire. We have now seen what has happened. The British Government has now taken the Prime Ministers into their confidence fully on all subjects, and I say that is a step in the right direction. Along those lines we can build it up; but if the British Government must consult a Committee of officials here on those things, how will it help us \ Must those things also be discussed with that Committee \ No. Therefore I say, let us stick to the work as we have gone on. It is slow work, but it is sure work. Let us go slowly, and we will build up better than otherwise. I cannot for one moment see in what this Committee or how this Committee is going to assist us. It is a very easy thing to create bodies, but if it does not prove to be a practical body it becomes a nuisance afterwards, and then difficult to do away with. If it is not practical it becomes a complete failure, and by that time it has perhaps done such a lot of harm that it will injure the cause of the Conference entirely. Therefore I sincerely hope my friend Sir Joseph Ward will understand that I do not take a hostile attitude towards him, but it is a difference of opinion. I only differ from him on the method, and I think our ideal is the same —he wants it done through a Committee, while I cannot see how this Committee is going to assist us. Sir JOSEPH WARD : The difference between General Botha and myself upon the question of the Committee is that if the Committee had the power of decision, which he appears to think it has, I would be with him up to the hilt. This proposed Committee has no power of decision, but only the power of preparing preliminaries for the purpose of advising the Secretary of State, the matter by him being referred to our respective Governments, and we accepting it or rejecting it as we think best. Mr. BATCHELOR : Like the matters dealt with by the Secretariat. Sir JOSEPH WARD : My opinion is that in the four years between the Conferences the Secretariat cannot do much unless there is some machinery for carrying on the work of the Conference. The CHAIRMAN : I think this has been a useful and informative discussion which we have had upon the subject. I have no motion, to withdraw, because I did not move one, but I understand Sir Joseph Ward does not now wish to press his resolution after the discussion that we have had. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That is so. The CHAIRMAN : however, the memorandum which I have circulated had better go on record.

194

sth Day.] Interchange of Civil Servants. [8 June, 1911. " That it is desirable that Jill matters relating to self-governing Dominions, as well as permanent Secretariat of the Imperial Conference, be placed directly under the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom." General BOTHA : The resolution of the Government of South Africa is withdrawn now. The CHAIRMAN : After what the Prime Minister said the other day about it being impossible for him to accede to it, you would like to withdraw your resolution. General BOTHA : Yes. Interchange of Civil Servants. " That it is in the interest of the Imperial Government, and also of the Governments of the Overseas Dominions, that an interchange of selected officers of the respective Civil Services should take place from time to time, with a view to the acquirement of better knowledge for both services with regard to questions that may arise affecting the respective Governments." The CHAIRMAN : We will take now the resolution proposed by the Government of New Zealand, as to the interchange of Civil servants. Sir JOSEPH WARD : In submitting this resolution 1 would like to say that, in my opinion, it would be well if we could have, as far as the oversea Dominions are concerned, a system of interchange of Civil servants similar to what has been established in connection with the defence system of the Empire. I believe it would work out in all our countries very well indeed. I think a knowledge by some of the important offices in the Old World of the matters in operation in the New World, and in turn a knowledge by men in the oversea countries of the system that is in operation in the Old World, would be invaluable for the respective Administrations, and the permanent executive officers, the heads of Departments, would find in many ways great value as an outcome of such an interchange upon lines somewhat similar —though I do not pin myself to exact details —to what I suggest here. I think it would be of very great importance if some Treasury officers from our country could exchange for a few months with a Treasury officer in England, each country paying the expenses of its. own officers, so as not to have any charge put upon the other country. So in connection with the various other services in our countries, I believe if we could have an interchange —not for long periods, but for short periods—of executive officers from time to time, it might be desirable and might act in the direction of smoother working of the machinery of government of our respective countries, and certainly would, with regard to questions which crop up from time to time, be of great assistance to the oversea countries. I have had a fairly long experience of ministerial life, and I know r that many matters have cropped up where a little knowledge on the part of some of the officers in our country would have avoided delay, and in some cases perhaps have saved not the best decision being arrived at as far as concerns the countries over the seas. An interchange has been arranged upon quite good lines in connection with defence matters as between the Home Government and the oversea Governments, and has, in my opinion, done an immense amount of good already; it has caused a number of men to believe that they are getting the benefit of the system which has been brought into existence in this Old Country, together with the great experience of the men who have been at the head of the armed forces here. Speaking for New Zealand, I know it gives the very greatest confidence and satisfaction indeed. In my opinion, if the respective Governments from time to time desire to give effect to an interchange of Civil servants upon the lines I have indicated, I believe, in the various Departments it would have an equally good effect, and would certainly be very useful for administration purposes.

195

A.-A

8 June, 1911.] Interchange of Civil Servants. [sth Day. Mr. BATCHELOR : You mean an exchange of officers in the Public Services ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes, the Public Services. The CHAIRMAN : I entirely sympathise with Sir Joseph Ward's wish— 1 will not use the word " interchange " —for greater knowledge of administration work at Home by the Dominions, and in the Dominions by our own services. There are very great difficulties in the way of making a formal interchange— difficulties as to pension, salary, status, and other things would arise—but I think we may be able to overcome the occasional ignorance of one another's affairs by doing something not so formal as an actual interchange. For instance, if there were an interchange between the Post Office in Australia and the Post Office in London, there would be likely to be little gain to either. We, with a very large population greatly concentrated, have necessarily a totally different postal service to that of Australia. We can learn probably nothing from Australia, nor could Australia learn anything useful from us in such a matter as that. But I should be very happy to arrange —I have authority for saying that I could arrange—with the Board of Trade and other Departments of the British Government that, if representatives were sent over from the Dominions and were attached for a time to your High Commissioners' Offices, they could be given full facilities to be taken into any Department they wished to see, and given two or three months' work in one or even more Departments. I would make individual arrangements, which I think would be far better than allocating an individual, say, for a whole year to a single Department, w r hich might not be of the slightest use to him on his return. Then there is the question of what we should do ourselves in keeping our staff better informed as to life and policy in the Dominions. It is not now a question of the administration work in the Dominions for guiding better the Secretary of State at Home. What comes before him in regard to the Dominions are, as a rule, questions of high policy, and not of internal administration, which is your own affair. I have made special efforts —and my predecessors have too—in order that the staff of the Colonial Office shall by degrees acquire greater knowledge at first hand of the general work of government in the Dominions. Mr. Malcolm, who belongs to the staff of the Colonial Office, is now serving with Lord Grey in Canada, and he was previously with Lord Selborne in South Africa. He will return to the Colonial Office with an intimate knowledge of the system of government in both those Dominions. Mr. Griffin, a. member of the Colonial Office, is now 7 serving with Lord Gladstone in South Africa, specially for the work of the Protectorates. lam just releasing Mr. Vernon, of the Colonial Office, to go with Lord Denman to Australia as his secretary. All this is primarily or partly for the assistance of the persons to whom they are attached, but largely in order that we shall have the value of their knowledge when they return to the Colonial Office after having done two or three years' service, or whatever it may be. I need only further allude to the visit paid by Mr. Just to Canada, and previously to South Africa, and the visit paid by Sir Charles Lucas to Australia and New' Zealand. Those are all examples of the way in which we are endeavouring to keep permanent Civil servants here in touch with the actual work of the Dominions, and to get detailed knowledge of general policy, though not of actual administration. If there are any other ways which can be suggested in which we can enlarge that knowledge, and especially any method by which we can afford facilities to any of your public servants or permanent officials to acquire knowledge of any of our Departments here, I shall be delighted to carry them out. I merely suggest to you that the best method of doing it is not to try and effect an which would be difficult, but rather to attach a man to your High Commissioner's Office, and let me secure facilities for his entrance to any Department. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : The idea, involved in the proposal of Sir Joseph W r ard seems to me a most excellent one, and, for my part, I absolutely approve of it. It might perhaps be improved in the manner in which it should be applied, but as far as the idea itself is concerned I heartily agree with Sir Joseph Ward.

A—4

196

sth Day.} Interchange of Civil Servants. [8 June, 1911. Mr. BATCHELOE : I do not think anything further than has been outlined by Mr. Harcourt is practicable, or could be of very much advantage. I think that covers pretty well all the kind of interchange that would be of service at the present time. With regard to my own Department, we have an exchange of officers between the High Commissioner's Office and the Department, in order to keep them properly in touch. If, at the same time, facilities are given so that any one who is attached to the High Commissioner's Office may serve or see everything in any of the Home Departments, I do not think anything further could be done, because I think that would meet all that Sir Joseph Ward desires. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I will insert the word " visits " instead of "an interchange." Mr. BATCHELOE : Such visits are wholly desirable. The CHAIEMAN : You think that would meet the point? Sir JOSEPH WAED : Yes, I think so. General BOTHA : Yes, I agree with it now as amended. Sir EDWAED MOEEIS : I entirely agree with it now. The CHAIEMAN : I suggest leaving out the words "that may arise" in the last line, and let it read " with regard to questions affecting the respective Governments " I think that is better wording. Sir JOSEPH WAED : I concur. The CHAIEMAN : Then I may take it that this resolution is unanimously agreed to, with Sir Joseph Ward's amendment. [Agreed.] The CHAIEMAN : That closes out: business for to-day. To-morrow the question of emigration is to be dealt with, and Mr. John Burns will attend and speak to the Conference on the subject, Adjourned to to-morrow morning at 11 o'clock.

SIXTH DAY. Friday, 9th June, 1911. The Imperial Conference met at the Foreign Office at 11 a.m.

PRESENT : The Eight Honourable L. ITAECOIIET, M.P.. Secretary of State for the Colonies (in the Chair). The Eioht Honourable John Burns, M.P., President of the Local Government Board. Canada. The Eight Honourable Sir Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G., Prime Minister of the Dominion. The Honourable L. P. Brodeur, X.C, Minister of Marine and Fisheries.

197

A—4

A ustrcdia The Honourable A. Fisher, Prime Minister of the Commonwealth. The Honourable E. L. Batchelor, Minister of External Affairs. The Honourable G. F. Pearoe, Minister of Defence. New Zealand. The Right Honourable Sir Joseph G. Ward, K.C.M.G., Prime Minister of the Dominion. The Honourable J. G. Findlay, K.C., LL.D., Attorney-General and Minister of Justice. Union of South Africa. The Honourable F. S. Malan, Minister of Education. The Honourable Sir David de Villiers Graaff, Bart., Minister of Public Works, Posts aud Telegraphs. Newfoundland. The Honourable Sir E. P. Morris, K.C., Prime Minister. The Honourable R. Watson, Colonial Secretary. Mr. H. W. Just, C.8., C.M.G., Secretary to the Conference. Mr. W. A. Robinson, Senior Assistant Secretary. Mr. A. B. Keith, D.C.L., Junior Assistant Secretary. There were also present : Lord Lucas, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Colonies; J. H. Lewis, Esq., MR, Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board; Sir Francis Hopwood, G.C.M.G., X.C.8., Permanent Under Secretary of State for the Colonies; Sir C. P. Lucas, K.C.M.G., C.8., Assistant Under Secretary of State for the Colonies; Mr. H. Lambert, C.8., Colonial Office; Mr. F. G. A. Butler, Chairman of the Managing Committee of the Emigrants' Information Office, Mr. Atlee A. Hunt, C.M.G., Secretary to the Department of External Affairs, Commonwealth'of Australia; Mr. J. R. Leisk, Secretary for Finance, Union of South Africa; and Private Secretaries to Members of the Conference.

A.—4

198

6th Day.] Emigration. [9 June, 1911. Emigration. . " That the Resolution of the Conference of 1907, which was in the following terms, be re-affirmed :— " That it is desirable to encourage British emigrants to proceed to British Colonies rather than foreign countries." " That the Imperial Government be requested to co-operate with any Colonies desiring immigrants in assisting suitable persons to emigrate." " That the Secretary of State for the Colonies be requested to nominate representatives of the Dominions to the Committee of the Emigrants' Information Office." Mr. FISHER : I have formally to move the resolution, and Mr. Batchelor will speak to it. Mr. BATCHELOR : The resolution asks the Conference to re-affirm the resolution of the Conference of 1907, which was in the following terms : " That it is desirable to encourage British emigrants to proceed to British Colonies rather than foreign countries; that the Imperial Government be requested to co-operate with any Colonies desiring immigrants in assisting suitable persons to emigrate." And then in addition we propose to add : " That the Secretary of State for the Colonies be requested to nominate representatives of the Dominions to the Committee of the Emigrants' Information Office." Of course, every member of the Conference will, I think, agree without any discussion that it is desirable that the encouragement of emigration within the Empire should be the duty of all parts of the Empire. We are drawing upon the Mother Country for the supply of our population, and so are other nations. The United States, of the foreign countries, is the one nation that is drawing any considerable population from the United Kingdom. We feel that the Mother Country will not be able permanently for all time to supply us with the very large percentage of emigrants it is doing to-day—l am speaking generally, and not as to Australia alone—and we feel specially anxious that as large a number of those who do depart from the United Kingdom, of our own race, acquainted with bur methods of government, and the most suitable of all persons to build up the British Empire, should be kept within the Empire as far as possible. Ido not think I need argue that any further, because it goes without saying. What I would like to know is, whether any action at all has been taken on the part of the Secretary of State or on the part of the Department—the Local Government Board —to carry out the resolution of the last Conference. A resolution in similar terms was proposed then, and we should be glad if the President of the Local Government Board would mention if anything , has been done. The only new matter in the present resolution is the nomination of representatives of the Dominions to the Committee of the Emigrants' Information Office. It was felt, upon a perusal of the Debates of the last Conference, that there appeared to be some lack of very precise information at the Emigrants' Information Office, and therefore it might be desirable if some representatives of the Dominions were nominated as members, in order that more complete and up-to-date information should always be at hand in the office of the Board. I want to say that we have no complaint to make since the last Conference as regards the information that is supplied to emigrants, but it is considered that it would be an advantage if there were some representatives of the Dominions on the Board. Tdo not think there is anything;: further I need refer to. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I desire to say that mv views upon this question are similar to those T expressed to the Conference in 190*7. We are not in favour of a wholesale system of emigration to New Zealand. We want to absorb those who are coming, and we wish, as far as it is possible, to have only those from Great Britain coming to New Zealand—naturally so. We apply an examination test to every one comine , to our country excer>t to those coming , from Great Britain. Our system of administration is a, very strict one in the direction which T have iust indicated, because we are especially desirous of preventing aliens coming to our country. The CHAIRMAN : You say you apply a test, " except to those coming from Great Britain "?

199

A.—4

9 June, 1911.] Emigration. [6th Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes. The CHAIRMAN : You mean those coming as British subjects. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Those coming as British subjects. The CHAIRMAN : Would aliens coming from Great Britain be subject .to this test ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes, the aliens coming from Great Britain or elsewhere would be subject to our tests, as Asiatics are. We get just about as many people as we can reasonably absorb. AYe go upon the principle of seeing them placed in positions where they can make their living and earn their way as they come to the country. As far as I am concerned, I have nothing to add to what I stated at the last Conference. My views are put on record at the last Conference in 1907, and I have seen no reason to change them since. Mr. MALAN : I regret that General Botha is not well enough to attend the sitting of the Conference this morning; but I may say on behalf of the Union of South Africa that we have no objection to this resolution. Sir EDWARD MORRIS : I am in favour of the resolution. Sir JOSEPH WARD : It is understood that I am in favour of the resolution. Mr. BURNS : Mr. Harcourt and gentlemen, the resolution submitted to the Conference this morning is in some respects a replica of that submitted to the Conference in 1907; and perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Conference if I were briefly to say, as I now do. that since the last Conference the object of the first portion of the present resolution has to a very great extent been secured by events that have transpired since 1907. It perhaps would also help the Conference if I were to say that in 1906 the volume of emigration from the Mother Country to all countries was 194,671. Of that number the British Dominions and the British Empire took 105,178, or 54 per cent, of the total. In 1910 the volume of emigration had grown from 194,67] to all countries to 233,944, and of those, 159,074, or 68 per cent., went to the British Empire, as against 54 per cent, in 1906. Tn the intervening four years Canada's immigration from the Mother Country had grown from 47 to 49 per cent., whilst the United States of America (to which Mr. Batchelor has referred), which used to take a very large percentage of the total emigration, dropped in the same period from 44 per cent, to 31 per cent. But in 1911—that is, in the first four months in this present year —there is an increase over 1910 (which was a very good year) of 23,000, or 29 per cent, over the four months of 1910, and the British Empire has taken the whole of this increase; that is, in the first four months of 1911 there is an increase of 47 per cent, over 1910 to the British Empire. Mr. FISHER : Will you show the figures for each country? Mr. BURNS : Yes, I will do that directly. May I put this with regard to Australia ? I have circulated a memorandum, which I commend for the close perusal of the Conference, where yoii will see set out the total emigration to all countries and to the British Empire, with some of the Dominions particularly mentioned. Now, of the total increase of 47 per cent, over 1910 to the British Empire, Australia and New Zealand show an increase of 133 per cent, in 1911 over 1910, or 10,000 more people in the four months of 1911 went to Australia and New Zealand than in a similar period in 1910. That brines me to a very important point, and it is this : If the increase on 1910 developed by 1911 is continued, the total emigration during 1911 from the Mother Country to all countries will be 300.000 people, and we estimate that 230,000 will go to the British Empire and 70,000 to foreign countries —that is to say, 77 to 80 per cent, of the total emigration from the Mother Country to all countries will go to the British Empire this year.

26—A. 4.

A.—4.

200

6th Day.} Emigration. [9 June, 1911. Mr. BUBNS— cont. It is interesting for us to remember that in 1911, when the percentage of total emigration to the British Empire will "be from 77 to 80 per cent., it will only leave 20 per cent, for foreign countries, and this is best illustrated, perhaps, if I give the 10 years. In 1900, 33 per cent, of the total emigration went to the British Empire, and 67 per cent, to foreign countries; in 1910, 68 per cent, went to the British Empire, and 32 per cent, to foreign countries; in 1911, 80 per cent, will go to Dominions beyond the seas, and not more than 20 per cent. to foreign countries. So you see that in 10 years the stream of emigration has been diverted from foreign countries to the Empire, which is something which I presume this Conference will be quite content with; and, if I may say so, it is a justification of the excellent improving and increasing work in the right direction which has been carried on by our now admirably organized Emigration Department here. It is only right for me to say, having perused some of the statements on this subject by Dominion statesmen and Premiers, that coincident with the quantity and volume having increased, it is generally admitted that the quality of the emigrants to all Darts of the British Empire has been better in the last two or three years than it has been in any two or three years of the last 15 or 20 years. The other point I want to put to the Conference is this : 300,000 emigrants in 1911 means 60 per cent, of the natural increase of the population of the United Kingdom by births over deaths. That is a very large contribution to external territories, and it will be interesting to have on record how emigration to the Dominions and other countries has absorbed as the years go on the natural increase of the population of the United Kingdom. In 1907 we exported 50 per cent, of the natural increase of population; in 1910, 48 per cent.: and in 1911, 60 per cent. But for the saving in life through much lower death rates, which I am glad to say we have now in the Old Country. and the much lower infant mortality (which we also have\ emigration would be a very heavy drain on Britain. For instance, Ireland has decreased its population by 76,000 in 10 years. Scotland has increased its population by 287.000, or 6 per cent.; but that 6 per cent, is against 11 per cent, in the previous decade. Tn 10 years Scotland and Ireland have increased their population by only 210,000 people, or less in 10 years than the total emigration from this country for one year—namely, 1910. In the year 1910 Scotland's natural increase of population was 51,755, but its emigration was 55,344 — that is to say, its emigration exceeded the natural increase of births over deaths. Now, we respectfully put to this Conference that, with a diminishing birth rate and with an increasing emigration of fertile people, the Mother Country cannot safely go beyond 300,000 a year, and we think if we send you, as we intend to in the years that are to come, from 80 to 90 per cent, of that 300,000 a year, we are giving all that you reasonably and consistently should require. These facts, I think, dispose of any need for State-aided emigration. It was not asked for at the last Conference. It has not been revived, so far as I can gather, by any responsible person, and I do not think this Conference expresses any desire for it. If it is State-aided in money it will interfere with the free choice by the Dominions of the class of immigrants they require, and it will in many ways prevent the intending emigrant, who may be suited, both by his physique, his trade and calling, to a particular class of Dominion and country, from having that free choice of home in any of the Dominions to which he is entitled as of right. State-aided emigration, so far a? money is concerned, is not favourably regarded by the Mother Country. We respectfully suggest, having given these figures, that you are entitled to take our surplus, but you must not diminish the seed-plot. You can take our overflow, but do not empty the tank. Whatever we do in the Mother Country or the Dominions, crowded emigrant ships leaving the Mother Country are no compensation for empty cradles in any country in the British Empire. So far as regards help in the direction of sending emigrants from the Mother Country to all the Dominions, I have simply to say this : Since 1907 the work of the Emigration Office, as these figures indicate, has more than doubled. Increasingly the Emigration Office adapts itself to modern reouirements, to rapid transit, to the extraordinary number of letters that intending emigrants pour into it; they see daily a larger number of intending emigrants, and the rapprochement between the Agents of the various Dominions and the High

201

A.—4

9 June, 1911.] Emigration. [6th Day. Mr. BUENS— cont. Commissioners is cordially improving and increasing; and the need for overorganized effort either by the Dominions or the Mother Country in the direction of stimulating emigration is, in the judgment of those responsible here, really not necessary. Where the Mother Country can help the Dominions with emigrants it does so by diverting the flow from foreign countries increasingly to the British Empire, and this is done in various ways. There are some fifty private societies and benevolent organizations, non-political, and in no sense possessed of fads or doctrinaire views with regard to emigration, and showing no particular preference for any Dominion engaged in this work; and I am under the impression that over-organization and any attempt either by the Dominions or by the Mother Country to do more than they are now slowly but surely doing would check many of those organizations, which in a way fill a gap that no State organization can possibly occupy. Beyond the 50 private societies and public agencies, there are 1,000 public libraries and municipal buildings that display literature and give information, as do many of the postoffices. Beyond that, directly stimulating emigration to the Dominions from the Mother Country there are 650 Boards of Guardians under my Department, which send —and this will please Mr. Batchelor —to the Dominions absolutely all the children they emigrate. In 21 years 9,300 poor-law children have been sent to the Dominions at a cost to the Mother Country out of the rates of 109,000/., or 111. per head of children emigrated. The quality of the children is indicated by one simple fact : Of 12,790 poor-law children who have been passed through the poor-law schools of London, only 62 out of the 12,790 have been returned by their employers, either through natural defects or through incompatibility of temper or disposition. They are a sample of what the poor-law guardians have sent into all the Dominions. Beyond the guardians, 130 Distress Committees have, since I have been President of the Local Government Board, sent 16,000 people in five years, at a cost of 127,000/., or 81. per head, and all of those have gone to the British Empire. Two hundred labour exchanges give information about emigration, and to that extent indirect help is given. Mr. BATCHELOR : They give information about all countries —not only about the British Empire. Mr. BURNS : All countries—not only the British Empire. But this indirectly helps emigration to the Dominions more than to foreign countries. All the private societies give prominence almost exclusively to emigration to the Dominions. Since the Conference of 1907 a very useful thing has been done, both for the emigrants who could not then go and for the Dominions to which they now can go. That is to say, in 1906 an army reservist—that is, a man who had done his three years in the Guards or his seven years in the line—was nol allowed by law to leave this country for any external country, whether in the British Empire or not, and then draw his reserve, pay. That, lam pleased to say, has been altered, and reservists can now go to any part of the British Empire and draw their reserve pay up to a number approved by the War Office; and in the four years since the Conference of 1907, 8,000 army reservists have been allowed to stay outside this country and draw their reserve pay until it expires, and of the 8,000 only 329 are not under the British flag. In rural counties there is an increasing tendency, as judged by the letters to the Emigration Office, for applicants from rural areas to apply, and the figures right up to date are that no less than 41,000 emigrants left the United Kingdom in the month of April last; and I should say that of the 41,000 emigrants who left in April last perhaps 85 or 90 per cent. —we cannot tell exactly at this momentawent to Dominions within the British Empire. I do not know that there is anything for me to add, except this : If I can advise this Conference, I will advise you to let well alone. Emigration to the Dominions is proceeding at a disproportionately ranid rate. There is no need for the Conference to do other than trust the Mother Country in this matter, just as the Mother Country trusts the Dominions to treat its emigrants well when they arrive there; and I have nothing but praise for the efforts of Mr. Bogue Smart in Canada, and for the Canadian and other Governments, for the

A.—4

202

titk Day.] Emigration. [9 June, 1911. Mr. BURNS— cont. kindly care they take of the child emigration that comes directly through my Department. Here and there there may be opportunities, as the Dominions themselves may decide, of providing hostels to an increasing extent for women immigrants, who, I am glad to say, are going to the Dominions in greater numbers than they previously did. There may here and there be an opportunity, as the Dominions may decide, for perfecting the organization by which children and women particularly may be protected during the short interval they are in the receiving homes or hostels before getting the work to which they are going. I do not know that I have anything further to add, except this : that the Dominions will ultimately lose, and the Empire will not gain, if there is too much emigration or more than we can replace by births. Britain must not export more than she breeds and rears. If she does she must needlessly import herself from Continental populations, and with 9,000 to 10,000 Polish miners in Scotland, I do not think that we should be either encouraged or persuaded to invoke that kind of industrial help. . I think if emigration is over-organized favouritism may ensue. The nearest Dominions now have a great advantage. Manitoba sometimes complains of Ontario; Australia sometimes may complain of all Canada. To open all the Dominions to the emigrants that want to go from this country, I think the Dominions must be left to themselves to offer what attractions they can in their own particular way. It is for the Mother Country to give its own people and its own emigrants that guidance, information, and protection which they are entitled to receive from the Government, and to hold the balance as between all the Colonies, and, generally speaking, to do in the future as we have been able to show you since the last Conference we have done in the immediate past. I have one word to say to all the Dominions, if I may, and it is this : Here and there there have been complaints that the standard of rejection of some of our emigrants has been a bit too rigorous. I am glad to say that in the last two or three years that rigour has not been continued, and there is a generosity all round in the treatment of emigrants from the United Kingdom which personally I, as one responsible for its direction and diversion from foreign countries to Dominions beyond the seas, am pleased to see. In conclusion, I may say that I have set out for the Conference a series of diagrams which are reproduced in the small memorandum which I have circulated for your perusal, and I trust that the statement I have made will be satisfactory to the Conference; if not, I shall be pleased to answer any questions that may be put. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : It is extremely satisfactory, as far as we are concerned. Mr. BATCHELOR : I would like to say that we have had a most interesting statement from Mr. Burns, and the tendency of the emigration movement is certainly very satisfactory to the Dominions; 20 per cent, now go to foreign countries, and we hope before long that that 20 per cent, will be considerably reduced. I have no complaint whatever to make, and I think the Emigration Office is assisting us as far as it possibly can; but I would like to say that we hold the view that it is the duty of the Emigration Office not only to assist, but also to hold the balance as between States and as between Dominions; and while I cannot say that you should take any definite action to prevent people going outside the Empire, still every active help that can be given to further reduce that 20 per cent, which goes outside the Empire would be appreciated by the Dominions. Sir JOSEPH WARD : After the very interesting speech we have heard from Mr. Burns, I really believe this motion ought to be altered, if I may suggest it. As far as I am concerned, I am thoroughly in accord with what Mr. Burns has stated as to the importance, in regard to the future, of England itself not stressing this question of excess of British emigrants beyond the figures that Mr. Burns himself has suggested. If we are getting 300,000 a year of British emigrants to the oversea Dominions, or 80 per cent, of them at all events, that

203

9 June, 1911.] Emigration. [6th Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD—cont. does appear to me to be as much as any of the countries can reasonably expect from Great Britain, and I. would suggest that this first portion of the resolution be altered to the effect that the Conference endorse the policy of the Home Government in connection with British emigrants. Mr. BATCHELOR : That is the same thing. Sir JOSEPH WARD : The resolution as it stands seems to me to convey the impression, or might convey the impression, that we are not satisfied with the aggregate number going to the oversea Dominions, and I think perhaps you might see your way to alter it in the direction of affirming what has been done, and expressing the hope that it will continue. It reads in a double way, which I had not noticed until I listened to Mr. Burns's speech. It reads as if we wanted to have some extra steam put into the machinery here to send people out to our countries. Ido not think we do. For instance, in the course of the remarks of Mr. Burns about the population of Scotland during the last 10 years, I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that New Zealand has increased its population almost entirely from British subjects by twice the number Scotland has during the last 10 years. The numbers that we are getting we are absorbing, as I said before, as they come; and from our point of view I should be very sorry to see Scotland depleted. Ireland has been depleted to a very large extent in the je&rs gone by, and I myself should be sorry to see the impression conveyed that we w T anted an increased exportation of British subjects from the Old Country to the new ones. Mr. BATCHELOR : There is nothing in the resolution to that effect. It says : " That it is desirable to encourage British emigrants to proceed to British Colonies rather than foreign countries " —that is all. The CHAIRMAN : May I suggest a via media f I think I w 7 ould insert the word " continue." " That it is desirable to ' continue' to encourage British emigrants to proceed to British Colonies rather than foreign countries "; and may I make a suggestion for alteration in the second paragraph : " That the Imperial Government be requested to co-operate," because they are co-operating, and I think it should run : " to co-operate with any Colonies desiring immigrants." I suggest stopping at the word " immigrants." I think we mean the same thing, but if you put in the word " assisting " it looks like a demand for State-aided emigration from here, which is not the intention. As at present worded it is a little misleading. Mr. FISHER : I have no objection to that. The CHAIRMAN : Then it will read in this way : " That it is desirable to continue to encourage British emigrants to proceed to British Colonies rather than foreign countries. That the Imperial Government be requested to cooperate with any Colonies desiring immigrants." I presume there is no objection to the word " Colonies " there, because, of course, we have Crown Colonies as well as Dominions. Might I also suggest that the remaining paragraph be eliminated % I ask that on this ground : We keep the Emigrants' Information Office in the closest possible touch with the High Commissioners and the Agents - General. We obtain all their information from them continuously; but the Conference will understand that the Emigrants' Information Office is not designed to promote emigration to any particular Dominion. It is designed to give absolutely frank and accurate information to the Englishman wishing to go abroad, to whatever country he wishes to go; but, as a matter of fact, the information given is almost exclusively in relation to the British Dominions, and the operation of that office has undoubtedly had a deflecting effect towards the British Empire. But if you were to introduce on the Committee of that office representatives of all the Dominions or of all the States of the various Dominions you might have

A—4

204

%th Emigration. [9 June, 1911. The CHAIRMAN— cont. —I do not say you would —an element of competition as between, say, different States in Australia, as to the encouragement which should be given to people to go to New South Wales rather than Queensland, or to Western Australia rather than to Tasmania. Various undesirable questions of that kind might arise. But if Mr. Batchelor would like to move a resolution that the Secretary of State should be requested to make arrangements for closer contact for the purposes of information with the Agents-General, I should be quite happy to accept that, so long as we do not interfere with the present constitution. Mr. BATCHELOR : I do not think it is necessary. The CHAIRMAN : We do keep in very close touch, and I will see that the information is kept up to the very last moment, as, indeed, it always has been, I am happy to say. Mr. BATCHELOR : The idea was to draw attention to it rather than anything else. Sir JOSEPH WARD : The resolution is quite sufficient, I think. Mr. BURNS : I would ask the representatives of the Conference present to look at the character and quality of the information that is sent out by the Emigrants' Information Office, and in answer to Mr. Batchelor I may say that you have only to mention the amount of correspondence to see an improvement in the methods of working, because in the four years between 1907 and 1910 it has risen from 86,000 to 132,000, which, I think, symptomises what Mr. Batchelor wants, that there should be an opportunity of seeing that the Dominions beyond the seas, so far as the Information Office is concerned, get all the necessary information given to intending emigrants who may wish to go to the various Dominions. Mr. FISHER : Before the discussion closes I should like to say that a remark made by Sir Joseph Ward regarding what they did in New Zealand might, if applied to Australia, continue a misapprehension that is in the minds of the people of Great Britain and other countries regarding our immigration laws. We have not in practice applied the educational test to any people of European descent. Mr. BATCHELOR : We have never applied it to any white men. Mr. FISHER : No; but that did not prevent persons at this side of the world saying we did. The Commonwealth has been much misrepresented for years on that question. Happily Australia is better known and appreciated to-day. The Local Government Board has assisted in bringing that good feeling about. I recommend Australia to those who intend to make a new home in another country. It is healthy, and the standard of comfort for the worker is as high as it is in any other country. The CHAIRMAN : I think, as we are not absolutely re-affirming the terms of the resolution of the Conference of 1907, some slight alteration would be necessary in the resolution I suggested. I think possibly the Conference might like to begin with the words : " Having heard the interesting and explanatory statement from Mr. Burns, resolved, That the present policy of encouraging British emigrants to proceed to British Dominions rather than foreign countries be continued on the present lines, and that full co-operation be accorded to any Dominion desiring immigrants." Does that seem satisfactory? Mr. FISHER : It seems clear and direct. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I think it is very good.

205

A.—4

9 June, 1911.] Emigration. . [6th Day. The CHAIEMAN : I will read it once more : " Having heard the interesting and explanatory statement from Mr Burns, resolved, That the present policy of encouraging British emigrants to proceed to British Dominions rather than foreign countries be continued on the present lines, and that full co-opera-tion be accorded to any Dominion desiring immigrants." Mr. FISHER : I agree, if you stop at the words "be continued." Mr. BATCHELOR : And leave out ' : on present lines." Mr. FISHER : Leave out the words after " continued." The CHAIRMAN : Leave out "on the present lines." Mr. FISHER : Yes, because you might develop on some other lines, and you might feel tied to go on on those lines if you saw something better, and it is complete without it. The CHAIRMAN: Yes. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Lest any misconception should exist in the mind of Mr. Fisher, or anybody else, regarding my remarks about New Zealand's position, I desire to state that I have not at any time taken exception to the Australian policy, and lam not doing so now. In referring to the New Zealand system all I wish to convey is the fact that we require everybody, except those from Great Britain or of British orio-in, to send in an application in writing in English. That does not apply to Asiatics; they require to go through an education test, and also to pay a poll tax, similar to what they have in Australia, I think. Our reason for that is a very clear one. In regard to those men who come from foreign countries to New Zealand, if they are to have the rights of citizenship on similar lines to'our own people and those who come from Great Britain, we want to avoid having any people in our country who in any sense of the term may be illiterate, or people who cannot conform to the laws in operation there, and in some cases cause considerable cost to the people of our Dominion for whose benefit those laws have been put on the Statute Book. We want to insure that those coming from other countries, and wanting the rights of citizenship, should be able to conform, not only to the examination we call upon them to pass, but to the requirements of our country, and that such an examination is intended to insure. I do not want to say anything about New Zealand as a field for emigration, because we are getting what we require by degrees, but it is not a matter of policy to have more people coming than we can legitimately absorb, and from our point of view we are quite satisfied with what Mr. Burns's important Department is doing. Mr. FISHER : I only embraced a suitable opportunity to make an explanation regarding our position, so that Australia might not be misrepresented in future by any good citizen. ' Mr. BATCHELOR : The only distinction we make as regards British and foreign other than Asiatic immigrants is with regard to contract immigrants, Sir JOSEPH WARD : We do that too. The CHAIRMAN : May I take it that the resolution as T have read it is acceptable to the Conference ? [Agreed.]

A.—4

206

6th Day.~] Ekciprocity Destitute Persons Law. [S June, 1911. Reciprocity Destitute Persons Law. " That in order to relieve both wives and children and the poor relief burdens of the United Kingdom and her dependencies, reciprocal provisions should be made throughout the constituent parts of the Empire with respect to destitute and deserted persons." Sir JOSEPH WARD : I move the resolution herein, and Dr. Findlay will speak to it. Dr. FINDLAY : You will observe that the resolution refers to wives and children, and I want to make this first opportunity of saying that it was not intended to include bastardy orders, or what we call officially affiliation orders. I make that observation because in the comment which appears in this book of memoranda, objection is taken to the application of such principle as is here suggested to bastardy orders. That was not the intended scope of this resolution, and with that observation I desire to say a word as to what its real meaning is. What we feel in New Zealand—and I think I am entitled to speak for Australia, because I have been in communication with the Attorney-General of Australia, Mr. Hughes— is that there is not sufficient reciprocity in connection not only with these orders under our Destitute Persons Act, but in connection with many other orders made by the courts here or by the courts there, which in our view should have some kind of operation and effect throughout the whole Empire. The United Kingdom itself, as you will observe, has asked us to consider the expediency of allowing a wider operation to awards made under an arbitration, showing that the people here realise that there is not sufficient imperial scope given to legal processes to have them properly conducted to a proper conclusion. The situation at present is exceedingly anomalous, and often surprising. If a man deserts his wife in London and comes to New Zealand and prospers there he cannot be proceeded against. There is no means under the existing law by which a wealthy man in New Zealand can be made to contribute to the support of his starving wife and children in England unless you proceed very much by the method of extradition, that is, take proceedings, the man being dealt with under the Fugitive Offenders Act in New Zealand in much the same way as you would do if he had gone to France, and have him brought back from there at enormous expense, because you have to send a man from here to identify him. He has to be brought before the courts there, and an order has to be made which resembles an Extradition Order, and he has to be brought over here. If he is in employment in New Zealand, it means his prospects of earning a living a*e ruined, and you get a situation no better than when he started—he is indigent, and the wife and children are indigent too. If a man deserts his wife and children in New Zealand and comes to England, precisely the same difficulty is met with. We have no means of coming to England and attacking the purse of a wealthy deserting husband or father and making him contribute, unless we go to the expense, and risks incident to it, of bringing him back to New Zealand. That, I think, illustrates an anomaly. If he had gone to Ireland, an entirely different procedure would have been followed; if he had gone to Scotland, an entirely different procedure woiild have been followed, because there is operation given to writs, judgments, and orders in Ireland and Scotland. The whole matter really wants to be made uniform: the fact that a different law would apply if he deserted to Ireland than to Canada or to Australia, suggests that something might be done to introduce a more intelligent and uniform system. Mr. BRODETIR : I suppose the wife who had been deserted could take civil proceedings against him in New Zealand % Dr. FINDLAY : No, that is the very point T am making, that a Dominion like New Zealand has no power to punish or to deal with any matter which took place outside its borders.

207

A.—4.

9 June, 1911.] Reciprocity Destitute Persons Law. [Gth Day. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Would not she have an action for maintenance ? Dr. FINDLAY : Supposing she came to New Zealand to proceed against him for deserting her in England, she would fail. But she would get future maintenance. Mr. BRODEUR : You mean in a criminal action; but suppose she took an action for support ? Dr. FINDLAY : If she came to New Zealand she would be able to get support from the time she brought her action and complained, but she would not be able to get anything for the expense of corning to New Zealand, or for her maintenance before coming to our courts and seeking relief there. Mr. BRODEUR : Even if she remained in England, could she not take a,ny proceedings before your civil courts to get maintenance from him ? Dr. FINDLAY : No, that is the point I want to make clear; we cannot give extra territorial operation to any law of ours, and the point I wish to press is this very point. If the desertion takes place in England it is not an offence according to our law at all; we cannot make it an offence because we are not permitted to legislate for what takes place outside our borders. What we did last year by an Act which passed last year was this : We provided that if a husband deserted his wife or children, wherever the desertion took place, proceedings might be taken in New Zealand. Now that provision requires reciprocal legislation on the part of Australia, and we are going to get it from Australia if Mr. Hughes has the mind of his Government. The other AttorneysGeneral in Australia have readily agreed to pass reciprocal legislation so far as is necessary. What we ask now is that the Imperial Government should help us to make effective this provision for dealing with those deserting husbands and fathers. The provision suggested is this, that proceedings may be taken either in New Zealand by the wife left deserted in England, or more efficiently still, that she should take proceedings in England against her husband who has deserted her and gone to New Zealand; that the order made here should on being filed in our Courts be prima facie a valid order in New Zealand; that provision should be made (as we have already made it in New Zealand) that he can attack the order upon any material ground, but on no technical ground; he can show that it was made in fraud or that he is a destitute person or any other valid ground is open to him, but in the absence of his sustaining a valid ground of that kind the order would have the same currency in New Zealand as it would have had in England. Now, we are proposing, and with the concurrence of Australia I hope it will be operative next year, the system of common action I have mentioned. Our orders will be enforced in Australia and the Australian orders will be enforced in New Zealand. Is there any reason why a similar arrangement should not be made with the Home Government ? It is true, perhaps, that so many do not desert from us to England or from England to us, but we know that there are at present in England men who are well able to support wives and children, some of the children being in our industrial schools, and yet we are advised that the expense of the present process would be so great to us that we had better go on paying as we now do. That applies more strictly and strikingly to desertion to Australia and from Australia to us, but if you are going really to promote Imperial unity, the oversea Dominions should not be treated as they are just now, in point of law almost exactly like foreign nations. There is little or no difference between the proceedings necessary to give validity to an order such as I have mentioned in France or Germany as to give validity to orders in Australia and New Zealand, and while that continues it does not seem to me that you have that Imperial unity we are all anxious to promote. The matter is, of course, largely technical, Mr. Harcourt, and the question of giving further Imperial operation to industrial aAvards and arbitration awards is still under consideration, perhaps this matter, now that I have opened and explained it, might stand over for consideration when we are deal

27—A. 4.

A.—4

208

6th Day.] Reciprocity Destitute Persons Law. [9 June, 1911. Dr. FINDLAY— cont. ing with the further operation of awards. In the meantime I should like the principle that I have now sufficiently outlined to be affirmed, that as far as possible reciprocal operation should be given to orders made in this class of cases. I think it will be generally admitted that where a man deserts his wife and children there ought to be given the very fullest facility to the deserted wife and children to make him responsible for their maintenance. The objections raised in this memorandum, which I have read very carefully, we have found in practice to be wholly illusory. There is nothing substantial in them. We have had the same law with regard to proceeding without service on the defendant, giving him power to come in afterwards and show that the order should not be made. The dangers mentioned here can be quite well provided against by some such provision. I impress on the Conference that this is not an isolated step, but a step in common with a number of places which I think should be taken, and I would urge that it would be a great help to deserted wives and children in New Zealand, as I believe it would be in this country. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : The principle seems to be right, but the difficulty of coming into line as far as Canada is concerned is that the administration of justice in our Dominion is within the powers of the local Legislatures. I have no objection to passing the resolution, for my part, or on the part of my colleague, but the form of putting it into practice is a matter which would have to be relegated to the Provinces and not the Dominion. Mr. FISHER : I like the sentiment and purpose of this proposal, and I think it would be a good thing if we could have a federal law, or a law embracing the United Kingdom and all the self-governing Dominions at least, that would cover the points raised by Dr. Findlay. As I understand it he wishes to be able to recover from people who have deserted their Avives or their children, by some simple process of law. I agree with the idea; I think not only that it would be just, but I think we would be protecting our own communities against people who are manifestly dishonest or even worse than dishonest, who desert their own issue and their own kith and kin. I would suggest, however, that you do not put it in the form in which it is here. I do not think it is wise to refer to the " Poor relief burdens of the United Kingdom." Would it not be advisable to make it read, in the general terms of justice, that is : " That in order to protect wives and children of the United Kingdom and her dependencies with respect to" &c. Ido not think we have anything to do with the poor relief burdens of the United Kingdom, that is really their business. Sir JOSEPH WARD : There is no objection to altering it in that direction at all. Mr. FISHER : I think that is better and clearer, because if we begin in our Dominions fighting law cases to satisfy the poor law guardians here, we shall have a larger order than I think Dr. Findlay and Sir Joseph intended. We wish to do substantial justice to the wives and children of people who have come to our countries or who may have left our countries and may have come to the United Kingdom and who are well able to provide for their dependants. We want a simple process of law by which deserters shall be compelled to do what worthy citizens would do to support a dependent wife and child living in the same country, and which they would be compelled to do if they were living in the same country under the same law. Mr. MALAN : The matter in the Union of South Africa is this, that before the Union, we had in the four Provinces laws dealing with the desertion by the responsible heads of families of their dependants, and we have not yet legislated in the Union Parliament on this matter. In the Transvaal and the Orange Free State the Government is empowered to obtain reciprocal regulations providing for the recognition and enforcement in those Provinces of

209

A.—4,

9 June, 1911.] Eeciprocity Destitute Persons Law. [6th Day. Mr. MALAN— cont. similar maintenance orders made in any other part of His Majesty's Dominions wherein there is a law in force providing for the recognition of maintenance orders made under the laws above mentioned. In the Cape and Natal Provinces there is a similar provision for reciprocal regulations, but it is limited to provinces, states, or territories in South Africa. It is the intention of the Union Government to introduce uniform legislation for the whole of the Union, and I think that the provisions of the Transvaal and Orange Free State as regards proclaiming regulations for reciprocal treatment or enforcement of orders of States and Dominions that have similar laws with ours .on this point w r ill be incorporated in the Union Act. That would be very much on the lines of the law as it is now in New Zealand as stated by Sir Joseph. The practical side of the matter of enforcing an order, especially when it is far away from the country in which the original order has been taken is a very serious matter. Dr. Findlay, in speaking about the matter, referred to that. There is the question of expense. You are dealing in the majority of these cases with poor people, and unless your machinery is very simple, you may find that putting the machine in motion costs much more than the actual relief you would get. Over against that there is this, that one case actually brought to book may serve as a deterrent for others, and that the indirect effect of legislation of this kind, and taking steps on such legislation would have the desired effect, at all events to a large extent. I see that in the report issued by the Local Government Board in Scotland a suggestion is made that provision should be made for sending a man back to the country in which the original order was taken if he refuses to comply with the order, and that the power of being deported back to the country from which he was emigrated, to where he has left his dependants unprovided for, would be sufficient sanction. Dr. FINDLAY : That is the law now; you overlook the fact that that is the law now under the Fugitive Offenders Act, which is an Imperial Statute. Mr. MALAN : Yes, but that is not the law in the Dominions. Dr. FINDLAY : It is the law in our country. Mr. MALAN : It is certainly not the law in the Union of South Africa. Sir JOSEPH WARD : But I understand that you are going to make it so. Mr. MALAN :I do not know. Ido not know what the law is in Canada nor what the law is in Australia, and I am bringing forward this practical point with a view to getting the Government to send out a circular to the different Dominions suggesting what the lines of this uniform legislation should be. Dr. FINDLAY : Might I just explain that there is an Imperial Statute called the Fugitive Offenders Act; if a man deserts from South Africa and an order is made against him there for deserting his wife, and he deserts to Australia, he may be brought back from Australia to South Africa under the existing law under that Imperial Statute. Mr. MALAN : But supposing the order is taken here and that the man is out in South Africa and you want to enforce the order there, what sanction could you apply to the man there ? We have no law by which you can send the man back here. It is quite true you can get the man back from here to South Africa but not from South Africa to England, and it is with a view to getting similar legislation in all the different parts of the Dominions on this point that I think we have to go a little further into detail than merely affirming the principle. As regards the principle of this motion, Mr. Harcourt, we think that it is quite sound, and, as I say, we intend to legislate in that direction in the Union of South Africa.

A.—4,

210

i)th Day.] Reciprocity Destitute Persons Law. [9 June, 1911. Sir EDWARD MORRIS : I favour the principle of the resolution with the proposed amendment making it clear what it is intended to cover. Mr. BURNS : As Dr. Findlay suggested in his opening remarks, the subject is almost severely technical, and although we might agree on the principle, the sentiment, of the resolution, he and succeeding speakers have admitted that it would be somewhat difficult to find a practical metiiod of applying the principle in the resolution. We in the Mother Country endorse that view, and the South African representative has to a great extent expressed our minds upon it. There is not a great deal of this desertion, lam giad to say, in the Dominions by British husbands and fathers, and I do not think there is a great deal in Britain of desertion of wives and children by Dominion parents and husbands. If it were possible to adopt this resolution, it is one of those counsels of perfection that, given we could easily enforce it, would be desirable for us to entertain and apply; but I am guided in this matter, not being a lawyer, by the experience and advice of the various Departments. My Department, which has more children and women and more deserted wives and children under it than any other Department in this country, is under the impression that it would be very difficult to enforce, and that the cost of so doing would be disproportionate to the benefit that might accrue, and that view is shared by the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board for Ireland. It is also shared by the Home Office. The only branch of the Imperial Government at home that looks upon this resolution with some degree of sympathy is the Scotch Local Government Board, and they of course admit, as Scotsmen always do when they are confronted with difficulties such as this, that it is a very very difficult matter to deal with. We are under the impression that injustice might be done, or at least we did think injustice might be done, if it was intended to apply this to putative fathers and to bastardy and maintenance orders for illegitimate children, and I am very pleased to see that Dr. Findlay applies it only to desertion of wives and children by their husbands and fathers. Even on that we are rather reluctant to encourage Boards of Guardians in very rare cases to embark upon litigation over long periods and over very long distances, that probably would not secure many deterrent examples, but which would certainly give a great deal of work to the law officers in the Dominions and the Mother Country over a small number of cases, and we think that it is one of those difficulties of a great Empire, it is one of those disadvantages that big aggregations of people must always have whilst they have erring spirits amongst them, and we were inclined rather not to press for any legal remedy for the difficulty that has been outlined. But I think it would be possible — and I hope Dr. Findlay will be content with it —if the subject were remitted to the law officers of the various Governments to consider the practicability of such reciprocation as is indicated by the resolution: how it can be carried into effect, how by way of the circular suggested by the South African representative you could bring the views of the Dominions before the Home Government in a more technical and more directway than the resolution has done, and I should be only too pleased with the assistance of Mr. Harcourt to discuss with the Home law officers as to whether this very difficult subject might perhaps be met in another way—that is, should desertion of wife and children either in a Dominion or in the Mother Country be regarded as a deportable offence ? and get their views upon it. I would ask Dr. Findlay to be content with putting forward his resolution and allow Mr. Harcourt and myself and the other Departments of the Home Government to discuss with the law officers of the various Dominions as to the best way in which what is proper and just and fair in the resolution might be given practical effect to. But on the present information we have we are under the impression that unless it is made a deportable offence it will lead to extraordinary expenditure which is disproportionate to the benefit that is gained. I would ask Dr. Findlay to adopt the suggestion, with all courtesy, which I have put forward. Dr. FINDLAY : May I, just to obviate a misunderstanding, say a word? The chief purpose which Sir Joseph Ward and myself had in supporting this resolution is as follows : At present a wife in New Zealand whose husband deserts her and comes to England is practically without a remedy. Under the law as it stands she has to find a sum of about 1501. before the police will move to bring him back. In effect that means that a deserted wife is without a

211

A.—4

9 June, 1911.] Reciprocity Destitute Persons Law. [6th Day. Dr. FINDLAY— cont. remedy. Is it, or is it not, desirable that an offence which is just as serious an offence as many in the criminal calendar should be protected by an obsolete machinery such as that at present existing ? The proposed improvement is simplicity itself—l submit it to Mr. Burns's consideration and it is this—that she should be permitted by virtue of Imperial legislation to obtain an order in New Zealand through our courts, that that order should be brought to England, that here in England where her husband is, and we will assume is doing well enough to maintain her, that order should be brought before one of your courts, and that the court here should call upon the deserting husband to show why he has deserted his wife and why that order should not have as much effect here in England as it would have in New Zealand were he there. He will then have the opportunity of saying : " That order was obtained in fraud " or " improperly " or any other effective material defence; but unless he can show a defence of that kind the order would have the same operation in England as it has in New Zealand. Where is the difficulty? We are trying it. We have it on our Statute Book, and it will be operative, I daresay, and working well between ourselves and the great Dominion of Australia quite shortly. Why should not it work in England ? It gives a deserted wife a ready and effective way of getting at her deserting husband in England. It is cheap; it would not cost very much. The application for an order would be to one of our primary courts in New Zealand, and if the order were made it would be transferred to one of your courts here. The defendant here would be called upon to say why that order should not be made effective against him, and unless he can show good grounds why it should not be made effective, it binds him here, and the money he pays here would be remitted to support his wife in New Zealand. Surely it is not too much to ask for an Imperial cooperation of that kind. No doubt those who compiled this memorandum were not in possession of the fuller explanation I have given of our purpose, and I feel quite sure that if they had known the purpose and intent of our existing legislation and that which I believe Australia is to pass, and the simplicity of it, we should have the co-operation of the Imperial Parliament. Mr. BATCHELOR : The deterrent effect is great Dr. FINDLAY : At present, as you know, Mr. Batchelor, a man leaves our shores and comes over here and in effect that is a complete escape. Under the law which we have passed and which you are going to pass he knows that he does not get away from the arm of the law, that the order made in New Zealand would be effective to follow him in Australia, and it would check this desertion, which, as you know, goes on pretty freely between your country and ours. Mr. FISHER : I am going to quote, if I may, the reply of the Edinburgh Local Government Board, which seems to me to be very good. They admit the weight of the contention of the Local Government Board here, but they say : " Although there is much to be said for this view, in our opinion it places undue weight on the question of profit and loss in individual cases. We are quite of opinion that, were th< s benefit of reciprocity limited to the actual cases in which the law might be put into operation, the expense would be prohibitive. We think, however, that considerations of public policy outweigh the question of expense. We are satisfied that when it becomes known that a man cannot escape his natural and legitimate liabilities by merely going to Canada, Australia, South Africa, or New Zealand, a great deterrent force will result. The real value of the change would lie in the fact that there existed an effective law which could at any moment be put into force. Our inspectors were unanimous on this point, and we entirely agree with them." The CHAIRMAN : Might I make a suggestion as to an alteration in the form of the resolution ? It might possibly run in this way—it is quite clear that we ought to have further inquiry into this matter : " That in order to secure justice and protection for wives and children who have been deserted by their legal guardians either in the United Kingdom or any of the Dominions, reciprocal legal provisions should be adopted in the constituent parts of the Empire in the interests of such destitute and deserted persons."

A.—4,

212

6th Day.] Eeciprocity Destitute Persons Law. [9 June, 1911. Dr. FINDLAY : You say : "In the constituent parts of the Empire." That includes the United Kingdom, I take it ? Tiie CHAIRMAN : Yes. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I agree to that. Dr. FINDLAY : Then I agree. Mr. FISHER : It seems all right. The CHAIRMAN : May we take it in that form \ [Agreed.] That really concludes our business for the morning. Mr. FISHER : I am rather anxious to know how our agenda are proceeding. I think we might, as far as it is possible so to do, get to know when we are going to discuss the minor and important matters that still remain. Although we have fixed our days of sitting, members might get a day or two free instead of Wednesday. I understand on Monday very few things are down. The CHAIRMAN : It will not be a very short discussion on Monday— there is the Imperial Court of Appeal and the Law of Conspiracy. The Lord Chancellor and Lord Haldane will be here to discuss those matters. Then on Tuesday there is naturalization, which will be a very full morning I should think. Mr. FISHER : It seems to me that if we were to sit in the morning and afternoon on Monday we should be able to clear off those two sets of subjects, and that would give us two days off, because some of us can do nothing at all with the one day, as it ties us to town. Dr. FINDLAY : I think naturalization will occupy a considerable time. The CHAIRMAN : It would occupy more than an afternoon sitting, and it is rather short notice now for me to get the Home Office to attend on Monday afternoon. Next week is a very heavy week. Mr. FISHER : May I point out that there are other matters of the greatest importance which have still to be discussed % The question of Defence has only been touched upon lightly in a way. We want to have discussions with the expert officials to discover exactly what their views are. We want to bring the matter before this Conference, if necessary, in general terms, and we will want a little time for that before this Conference closes. The CHAIRMAN : I really do not see how you can put more into the days of next week. We happen to have had a light sitting this morning, but Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday of next week are very full. Mr. FISHER : I also intend, as I indicated on the first opening of this Conference, to bring up a resolution about the Suez Canal rates and dues. The CHAIRMAN : That will come on Friday, the 16th, with the other matters down for that day. Mr. FISHER : If you think we cannot put in any more it is no use discussing it. Mr. BRODEUR : On the question of Naval Defence, I understand that we were to have some further conference with the Admiralty. I have not received any intimation as to whether it is to be done. Will they communicate with us ? The CHAIRMAN : I took no steps myself because I supposed they were doing it. I shall have inquiries made about that matter. Adjourned to Monday next at 11 o'clock.

213

A.—4

SEVENTH DAY. . Monday, 12th June, 1911. The Imperial Conference met at the Foreign Office at 11 a.m. present : The Eight Honourable H. H. ASQUITH, K.C., M.P., President of the Conference. The Right Honourable L. Harcourt, M.P., Secretary of State for the Colonies. The Right Honourable The Lord Chancellor. The Right Honourable Viscount Haldane of Cloan. Canada. The Honourable L. P. Brodeur, K.C., Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Australia. The Honourable A. Fisher, Prime Minister of the Commonwealth. The Honourable E. L. Batchelor, Minister of External Affairs. New Zealand. The Right Honourable Sir J. G. Ward, K.C.M.G., Prime Minister of the Dominion. The Honourable J. G. Findlay, K.C., LL.D., Attorney-General and Minister of Justice. Union of South Africa. General The Right Honourable L. Botha, Prime Minister of the Union. The Honourable F. S. Malan, Minister of Education. The Honourable Sir David de Villiers Graaff, Bart., Minister of PublicWorks, Posts and Telegraphs. Newfoundland. The Honourable Sir E. P. Morris, K.C., Prime Minister. The Honourable R. Watson, Colonial Secretary. Mr. H. W. Just, C.8., C.M.G., Secretary to the Conference. Mr. W. A. Robinson, Senior Assistant Secretary. Mr. A. B. Keith, D.C.L., Junior Assistant Secretary.

A—4

214

Ith Bay. Imperial Appeal Court. (12 June, 1911. There were also present : Lord Lucas, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Colonies; Sir Francis Hopwood, G.C.M.G., X.C.8., Permanent Under Secretary of State for the Colonies; Sir C. P. Lucas, K.C.M.G., C.8., Assistant Under Secretary of State for the Colonies; Mr. J. S. Eisley, Legal Adviser, Colonial Office; Sir Almeric FitzEoy, X.C.V.0., Clerk of the Privy Council; Mr. C. J:I. L. Neish, Registrar of the Privy Council; Mr. W. Reeve Wallace, Chief Clerk, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; Mr. Atlee A. Hunt, C.M.G., Secretary to the Department of External Affairs, Commonwealth of Australia; and Private Secretaries to Members of the Conference.

Australia: — " That it is desirable that the judicial functions in regard to the Dominions now exercised by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should be vested in an Imperial Appeal Court, which should also be the final Court of Appeal for Great Britain and Ireland." New Zealand :— " That it has now become evident, considering the growth of Population, the diversity of laws enacted, and the differing public policies affecting legal interpretation in His Majesty's overseas Dominions, that no Imperial Court of Appeal can be satisfactory which does not include judicial representatives of these overseas Dominions." The CHAIRMAN : The Prime Minister, I hope, will be here in a few moments, but there is no reason why we should not begin, and I will ask Mr. Fisher to move the resolution. Mr. FISHER : Mr. Harcourt, the motion is : " That it is desirable that the judicial functions in regard to the Dominions now exercised by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should be vested in an Imperial Appeal Court, which should also be the final court for Great Britain and Ireland." The idea underlying this proposal is that there ought to be one Appellate Court for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the oversea Dominions. The constitution of that court we do not propose to go into at the present time; it is the subject of a motion by the sister Dominion of New Zealand how that court is to be constituted. We wish to advance our views that it would be advisable to have a court to which all the cases could be submitted for final decision, indeed, that is the whole case. I would ask my friend the Minister of External Affairs, Mr. Batchelor, to give some further reasons why we think it desirable that should be so. Mr. BATCHELOR : Mr. Haccourt, the present position is that there are two courts of final appeal within the Empire, one for the Crown Colonies and India and the oversea Dominions, and the other the House of Lords for the United Kingdom. This seems to be an anomalous position which ought not to be continued in an Empire such as ours. At this point the President took the Chair. Mr. BATCHELOR : I was speaking on our resolution for an Imperial Appeal Court, and I was just mentioning that the present position is distinctly anomalous, it seems to me, and unless there are some very practical difficulties in the way of having one appeal court for the whole Empire, one court in which the last word is said, that system ought not to be continued if it can be avoided. E aving two final courts of appeal, I think it will be admitted, has previously

215

A.—4

12 June, 1911.] Imperial Appeal Court. [7th Day. Mr. BATCHELOR— cont. led fo conflicting judgments as to the law. There ought not to be any possibility of uncertainty as to the law. When an appeal is made to a court supposed to have final powers of jurisdiction, there ought to be no possibility of any conflict in the different parts of the Empire as to what the law means. Another point I want to put is this, that if the two courts are quite equal in powers, then, of course, there must be a certainty sooner or later of conflict. If they are unequal, if one gives way to the other, one is the inferior court if any heed is paid to the judgments of the other court. Practically they are the same persons at present. The Privy Council is composed of very much the same judges as the House of Lords in practice, with a few additional members; I think that is the present position. The PRESIDENT : I think that is so. Mr. BATCHELOR : There seems to be no very great difficulty, one would think, in those circumstances in having one court —in having the court which is now the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the court of the Empire, or possibly the other way round. I think it would be generally considered advisable that this supreme court, this final court, should be a court in which there should be some representatives other than the Law Lords, but that point is one that will be raised by the New Zealand resolution. What we are contending for now is that there ought to be one court of final appeal. There is one point in connection with the Privy Council that it is not in the usual way the decision of a court, but it is the finding of a board—it is the report of a board rather than the finding of a court. I think it is the only court in the Empire, if I mistake not, which does not give individual judgments. The PRESIDENT : Yes, some people think that is a drawback and others an advantage. Mr. BATCLIELOR : Still, if that is an advantage, and it is the only court of the Empire which does not give individual judgments, then it is rather a reflection on all the rest of the courts of the Empire. The PRESIDENT : You can put it either way. Mr. BATCHELOR : It rather suggests that we should bear in mind the fact that if it is generally accepted that it is the proper thing in all the best courts to have individual judgments, that should also follow in the case of the Colonial Court of Appeal. The PRESIDENT : It has this curious consequence, that you never know whether a judgment of the Privy Council is unanimous or not. Mr. BATCHELOR : Quite so; you never know whether it is unanimous. The PRESIDENT : Or to what extent it was dissented from. Mr. BATCHELOR : Or to what extent it was dissented from; and that is one of the arguments which I think can clearly be used against the report of a court of that nature. Another thing is that I would not suggest for one moment than any one who ever sat or who ever will sit on a court of that kind should act in a slipshod manner, but the fact that there are not individual judgments recorded would not under ordinary circumstances tend to the very close personal study of each member of the court as it would if they had to record individual judgments. I think, Sir, I need not advance any further points. I believe one of the reasons which has been urged against having one court is that there might be over-work and congestion if you had one court to do the work of the Empire, at least that was suggested at the last Conference. That of course is a question that could be very easily dealt with. There are two courts now, consisting very largely of the same individuals, and if they can meet the over-work that at pre-

28—A. 4. ' .-...-

A.—4.

216

Ith Day.] Imperial Appeal Court. [12 June, 1911. Mr. BATCHELOR- -cont. sent exists there ought to be no difficulty in uniting the two courts, and calling it one. That cannot be really a practical difficulty. 1 think we ought to take a step in advance in the direction of Imperial unity in a case of this kind where there are no great difficulties in the way, where no interests will be upset, and where the matter can easily be arranged. The PRESIDENT : I think it might be convenient to the other Members of the Conference that the Lord Chancellor should at once make a statement, as it might abridge the discussion and concentrate it. The LORD CHANCELLOR : I will do so with great pleasure. The matter is undoubtedly a very important subject, and I think it is a very difficult subject. I think I had best begin by stating in quite an abbreviated form the nature of the jurisdiction already existing. In the House of Lords the House hears all the appeals from the United Kingdom. I have before me the judicial statistics, and I find that in the last year of which they give a record, which was in 1908, the total appeals disposed of in the House of Lords was 107. The number is increasing, because the average of the preceding five years was 91-8. Those who may sit in the House of Lords are, in theory, every peer, and, for a considerable part of the history of England, every peer did sit if he liked, but for a long time now it has been restricted to the judicial members of the House of Lords, who consist of the Lord Chancellor and four Lords of Appeal, together with any previous Chancellor and any peer who has held high judicial office. In practice, those who sit at the present time, which is a very good illustration of what is common and usual, are the Lord Chancellor and the four Lords of Appeal: we get a good deal of help from Lord Halsbury; we have the advantage of Lord Gorell and Lord Mersey, both distinguished judges in the English Courts. We have assistance from the Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland, Lord Dunedin, and from Lord Kinnear, who sits also in the Scotch Courts, and Lord Ashborne occasionally comes. Ido not think Lord O'Brien, who is the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, ever has sat in my time, but the Lord Chief Justice of England also helps us. The backbone, so to speak, of our Court in the House of Lords is the Lord Chancellor and the four Lords of Appeal, but a good deal of assistance is voluntarily given by the other Lords I have referred to. Mr. MALAN : Have you got a fixed quorum to make up the Bench ? The LORD CHANCELLOR : The quorum in the House of Lords is three, but we very seldom sit with less than four, and the practice, as you probably know, during the whole history of England has been that our courts are comparatively small. Four or five judges have decided all the greatest cases in the whole history of England. Now I come to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and in order to point out what the jurisdiction of that most unique and interesting tribunal is, I have had printed the appeals disposed of by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the years from 1906 to 1910. The PRESIDENT : You have copies of these. The LORD CHANCELLOR : If you will kindly look at those statistics at page 10 for the last year, 1910 —so that we are really up to date as far as this document is concerned-—you will see there a list of nearly all the courts in which the Privy Council has jurisdiction. There are one or two in the United Kingdom, but the jurisdiction, broadly speaking, is a number of courts in India, the Dominion and Colonial Courts, and other courts, which do not belong to the British Empire, like Constantinople. That is the work which they have to do. Would you kindly look and see what the proportion is of the business they have to do ? Out of a total of 78 appeals disposed of, 41 came from India. Then some all the other Dominion and Colonial Courts, and the High Court of Australia has 3, the Supreme Court of Canada 10; there were none from the Cape of Good Hope, none from Natal, 1 from Newfoundland, 2 from New South Wales, 2 from New Zealand, 6 from Ontario, 1 from Quebec, 4 from the Transvaal, and 1 from Western Australia. The PRESIDENT : About half of the 33 seem to come from Canada.

217

A.—4

12 June, 1911.] Imperial Appeal Court. [7th Day. The LOED CHANCELLOR : I think more than half. The PRESIDENT : It is more than half altogether—l 7. The LORD CHANCELLOR : You will observe that now, speaking of the Dominion apart from the Colonial Courts, Canada figures much more largely than half—in fact, a great proportion of the cases are from one court or another in Canada. The PRESIDENT : I was including that. Dr. FINDLAY : 1910 is an exceptional year. The LORD CHANCELLOR: I have given each year; I only took the last for convenience. If you go back and take 1909, Australia had 3, Canada Supreme Court 7, Cape of Good Hope 1, Natal 1, New South Wales 1, New South Wales (Vice-Admiralty Court) 1, New Zealand Court of Appeal 1, Nova Scotia 4, Ontario 7, Quebec 3, Transvaal none, and Western Australia none. The PRESIDENT : I make it 23 from Canada, that is about half, if you include British Columbia and Nova Scotia. The LORD CHANCELLOR : Yes. Ido not wish to go through this because I think it would be more convenient that the members of the Conference should have the document before them and be able to see exactly the numbers, which I believe are quite accurately taken out. Who may sit as Judges in the Privy Council 1 You see the very large scope of its work. It has to consider Canadian cases, which involve Canadian statutes which have quite their own character, and there are cases involving the old French law before the date of the French Revolution —the old French law and the rules of the French.law which was taken to Canada. They have to consider in South Africa Roman-Dutch law. have to consider also the English Common Law largely modified by Statute or considerably modified by Statute in Canada, in Australia, in NeAv Zealand, and also in South Africa. There is, of course, also Indian law, which is in itself extremely difficult and of a different kind altogether, which I have not adverted to before. Accordingly, with a body of law like that to deal with, you have to adjust the composition of the tribunal in order to accommodate it to the nature of the law which you have to weigh. The people who may sit as Judges in the Privy Council are the Lord Chancellor, the four Lords of Appeal, all those who have held high judicial office, the same as the people who sit in the House of Lords. Then there are two appointed under the Act of 1833 with special knowledge of Indian law, and in addition to that there are provisions to enable Judges in the Dominions or in the Colonies to be members of this Court as well. Sir JOSEPH WARD : How often has that been availed of ? The LORD CHANCELLOR : I was going to say—very seldom. The Act of 1895 states that any person being or having been Chief Justice or a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Dominion of Canada or of. a Superior Court in any Province of Canada or of the Australasian or South African Colonies or of any other Superior Court in His Majesty's Dominions named in that behalf by His Majesty in Council if he is a Member of His Majesty's Privy Council shall be a Member of the Judicial Committee, but the number of such persons is not to exceed five at any time. I am sorry to say, as Sir Joseph Ward intimated rather in his question, that we have not had the advantage which I should like to have had of the assistance of many Judges under that rule. We have had the great advantage of Lord de Villiers coming, and he has come several times. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Five separate visits. The LORD CHANCELLOR : Yes, I need hardly say how welcome his presence has been. We have had the late Sir Henri Taschereau from Canada, who has sat occasionally. If my memory serves me right we had Chief Justice Way.

A.—4

218

Ith Day.] Imperial Appeal Court. [12 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD : In 1897. The LORD CHANCELLOR : One year was it \ Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes, 1897. The LORD CHANCELLOR : And Sir Henry Strong, too, when he was Chief Justice. I must say that the fruits of that Act have not been copious at all events. We should have liked to have had more of that kind of assistance, and I will refer to the difficulties in a moment. In addition to that the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1908, which was passed in accordance with the request of the Conference which was held in 1907, gives power to direct a colonial judge to act as an assessor to the Judicial Committee on the hearing of appeals from his Colony. Sir JOSEPH WARD : He has no vote, of course ? The LORD CHANCELLOR : It has never arisen, 1 was going to say, unfortunately; 1 do not know whether he would have a vote or not, I think he would, but I am not sure —at all events, it has not been operative. Sir JOSEPH WARD : If he attends as an assessor, he does not have a vote as an assessor. The LORD CHANCELLOR : I have not thought about it, but I am not sure that he would. I think Sir Joseph Ward is right, and that probably he would not have a vote. At all events, this was what was asked at the last Conference; the members of it will remember that after discussion the proposal made was exactly this, and we carried it out by Act of Parliament; we did not go further, because the Conference did not ask us to go further. Of course, it has been fruitless, and we have not had the advantage of any judge. Mr. BRODEUR : Do you get any assessors when you have one of the judges from the Dominions on the Bench ? I suppose not. The LORD CHANCELLOR : We have no one except those I have been referring to under those different Acts. I have not attempted—it would weary the Conference and obscure the subject if I were to enter in detail into all the Acts of Parliament, but I have given you roughly the composition of those who are entitled to sit. Now, in practice those who do sit are the same men who sit in the House of Lords, with the addition, which I am afraid we are now going to be deprived of, of Sir Arthur Wilson, who has for years sat constantly, and who is unquestionably a judge of the very highest ability; but I am afraid we are about to lose his services immediately. With regard to the Indian cases, we always have the assistance of an Indian judge, and at the present time it is Mr. Ameer Ali, who sits only in Indian cases. For the rest what happens is that the same men who are available in the House of Lords either sit in the Judicial Committee when the House of Lords is not sitting, or, if the House is sitting at the same time, a distribution is made, and I have to do it myself, my colleagues intrust me with the duty. I can assure you that the utmost effort is made to equalise the strength between the two courts —between the House of Lords on the one side and the Privy Council on the other. For myself, I always, or nearly always, sit in the House of Lords when it is sitting at the same time, but in cases of importance, for instance, cases from the High Court of Australia of late years, my colleagues have always wished me to be present in the Judicial Committee, and I always have been present in any case of great importance, either with regard to Australia or Canada. Whether that strengthens the Board or not it is not for me to say. I think that whenever the two courts sit together there is an absolutely fair balance of judicial strength between the two courts, at least, this is my object.

219

A.—4

12 June, 1911.] Imperial Appeal Court. [7 th Day. The LORD CHANCELLOR— cont. Something was said about conflicting judgments arising between the House of Lords and the Privy Council. In substance the personnel of the two Courts is identical and I am not aware of any case in which there has been a conflict between the Privy Council and the House of Lords. I think that is a mistake; I am not aware of a single case in which there has been a difference of opinion between the House of Lords and the Privy Council. Dr. FINDLAY : It arises in connection with dicta of the Judges in the respective tribunals; we sometimes have in our courts the dicta of the Judges of the House of Lords cited which apparently are at variance with the judgments expressed by the Judicial Committee. The LORD CHANCELLOR : I am very much obliged, and I can understand that because I am sorry to say that is constantly occurring in England between the different dicta of the different Judges in the House of Lords itself. That leads me to the other point that was referred to about having one judgment. In the House of Lords and in all our English courts and in the courts of the Dominions too, in fact it is our custom, each judge delivers his own judgment. Sometimes they differ in opinion, but even when they do not differ in opinion they sometimes agree for different reasons, and one of the perplexities of the law at the present time and one of the disadvantages of our system, which has its own merits too, is that there is always scope for an ingenious critic to take a sentence from this judge and a sentence from another and suspend them for animadversion as being contradictory and inconsistent one with the other. I am afraid that is a habit that is ingrained in human nature, and it is particularly developed in the practice of the law. But as regards this point of one judgment as against a number, there are differences of view I know, and I do not at all pretend that in my view I am sustained by the whole volume of authority, but my view is that it would be better in every court if there was only one judgment as the judgment of the court which rules the particular subject of litigation, and I think there would be more coherence and more consistency if the practice of the Privy Council was extended to other courts as well. But, as far as that goes, that is not a point upon which I think any of us would be disposed to make a difficulty. If the wish is that there should be successive judgments by the different Lords in the Judicial Committee I do not think there is any reason for us to adhere, contrary to the wishes of the Dominions, to the practice that already prevails. The PRESIDENT : I do not know whether you have observed, but I think I have noticed, that the practice now in the Supreme Court of the United States, which is the nearest analogous body, is for the actual judgment to be given by one judge and if there is dissent, then the dissentient judge expresses his views. The LORD CHANCELLOR : I know the practice is to give the decision by one judge, and very likely you are right about the dissent. Sir JOSEPH WARD : It is the same in New Zealand too; the dissenting judge gives separate reasons for his dissent. The PRESIDENT : I know in two recent cases there was one dissentient judge and he expressed his dissent. It is a sort of midway house between the two practices. The LORD CHANCELLOR : I see no objection to that. I mean it is not a thing upon which any of us in this country would make any difficulty in the Judicial Committee at all. If the real desire is either to have a series of judgments or to have one judgment with a faculty of dissent on the part of any member who does not agree with it, I am sure we should not make any difficulty at all provided that the Conference makes up its mind that it would prefer that course.

A.—4.

220

7th Day.] Imperial Appeal Court. [12 June, 1911. The PRESIDENT : The present practice is due to the fact that it is supposed to be a Committee of the Privy Council which makes a report to the King; it is not the judgment of a court, in fact; until the King has by Order in Council given effect to it there is no judgment at all. It is a mere report. That is the theory. The LORD CHANCELLOR : That is the origin of it. The PRESIDENT : It ought to be easily met, of course. The LORD CHANCELLOR : There ought to be no difficulty in meeting that. 1 have tried to give to you the nature of the tribunal and the work they have to do in a succinct way. Ido not mean to say that I have covered every point or mentioned every person, but I have given, broadly speaking, the effect of the present system, Now let me try to come to the question of the principle on which I think we ought to decide all these things. The principle to my mind is that each constituent part of the Empire ought to judge for itself as to what kind of tribunal it wishes, and what ought to be the composition of that tribunal, and, including of course in that the United Kingdom, we, like the other Dominions, are entitled to have our own court according to our own view. Therefore whatever Court of Final Appeal in England is desired by any of the Dominions, their wishes ought to prevail so far as we can give effect to them, and there will be no difficulty made by us in trying to give effect so far as we can to the wishes of each Dominion with regard to its own appeals. If we all want the same kind of court and the same kind of judges, then so much the better. It would be very easy then to get a tribunal which would have final jurisdiction all over the Empire. But then the question is, do we all want the same kind of court and the same conditions, or do we not ? Of course, the idea of any pressure or constraint is wholly inadmissible, and all we want to see is whether we are all agreed as to what we severally and individually desire. Let me take the Privy Council first. Do you wish British judges to sit in the Privy Council ? Do you wish only British judges to set in the Privy Council \ If so, and you will tell us so, we will try to provide a court of that character. Do you wish Indian judges to take part in your final appeals from the Dominions ? Do you wish that there should be a permanent judge from each Dominion to hear all the Privy Council ? That is to say, do you desire that the Privy Council shall consist partly of British judges and also shall comprise a Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, South African, and Newfoundland judge as well ? If I may say so, you have to make up your minds as to what it is } r ou desire with regard to its composition, and each Dominion making up its own mind as to what it wants, it would be so much the better if we all agreed. There has been an idea put forward of a judge coming from each Dominion not to sit upon all appeals; for instance, a judge coming from South Africa not to sit upon Canadian or Australian or New Zealand appeals, but only to sit upon South African appeals. Now if that, is so, you would see that some of the judges who came from these Dominions would have hardly anything to do. If you 100k —I merely take the last year, 1910, as a specimen—the Canadian judge would have something like 21 cases. Mr. BRODEUR : 21 out of 33 cases ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : I think that would be a hopeless proposal and make it perfectly worthless. The LORD CHANCELLOR : I am going to make a suggestion about it, Sir Joseph, in a moment. Ido not think that would do, because the Australian judge, for instance, would only have, I think, four cases in the year, and the New Zealand judge would only have one. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Sometimes one and sometimes two.

221

A.—4

12 June, 1911.] Imperial Appeal Court. [7th Day. The LORD CHANCELLOR : That is not what is meant, but this might be done of course; if it was desired that in Dominion cases there should always be a representative from the Dominion present at the hearing, we could do it in this way—we could fix a time —whatever time suited the Dominion—and take all the cases coming from it at a particular time that would suit the convenience of any representative of the Judicial Bench in the Dominion, who would come over for the piirpose of hearing them. We could do that and facilitate it instead of requiring him to spend all his time waiting here without doing other work. Or, if the other Dominions wished it, he could of course sit and try their cases, but it is entirely for them individually to say. Then there is another consideration which it seems to me, having regard to the complex nature of the jurisdiction, is probably the best, and it is this, that there should always be a wide membership of the Judicial Committee, and that there should be selection made of the judges to sit upon these cases according to the nature of the case. Now that is exactly what we have at the present moment, so far as we have the necessary judicial strength for the purpose, we try to get the most suitable judges. If there is an equity case we always have a strong equity judge present, and if there is an Admiralty case we often get those who have experience of Admiralty jurisdiction. Then there is one more matter to refer to with regard to the Privy Council, and it is this—it is for each Dominion to say on what conditions as to appeal there ought to be an appeal at all. For instance, ought there to be special leave given—ought leave to be required from the court in the Dominion ? What is the limit of amount in which there is to be the right of appeal ? What is the nature of the security which ought to be given when an appeal takes place? Now there are different rules with regard to the different Dominions upon some of those subjects, and the reason is that we have endeavoured to ascertain what is the wish of the Dominion Governments, and have settled it according" to the wishes of the Dominion Governments. So much for the Privy Council. Now, as regards the United Kingdom, the House of Lords—or rather the Court which goes under the denomination of the House of Lords—has been for a very long time the final court for all business from the United Kingdom. We are not prepared to recommend that we should change the personnel of our judicial body of the House of Lords. We can now add to the number any distinguished judge from the Dominions, as. for example, Lord De Villiers, who is now a member of the judicial body of the House of Lords, and whenever it is thought necessary that can be done. But I think I understand the ideal that is aimed at, and I sympathise with it myself, and I will make a practical suggestion. Let each of the Dominions say what is the composition of the court that they would prefer — I do not mean individual judges, that they would like this judge and that iudge, and so forth, but what class of judges do they wish to have their final appeals heard by, and what strength of the court do they think is right, and we will give you our best in the future as we have endeavoured to do in the past. Mr. BATCHELOR : In Australia, when the Constitution was originally passed, it was expressed that the final court of appeal should be in Australia. That was the wish of the Australian representatives, and that was altered by the Imperial Parliament. The PRESIDENT: I remember that; I think Lord Haldane will remember it better than I do, but I think the original Bill as presented to us destroyed the appeal to the King in Council, did it not? Mr. BATCHELOR : Yes, that meant a final court of appeal in Australia, and the Imperial Parliament put in the provision which is now to be found there. Viscount HALDANE : With the consent of the Australian representatives who were over here. Mr. FISHER : I think not.

A.—4

222

7th Day. Imperial Appeal Court. [12 June, 1911. Viscount HALDANE : I rather think so; your arrangement was not quite fixed when they came over. Mr. FISHEE : Under duress. Viscount HALDANE : I do not think so. I think the only point they cared about was as to the Constitution, and if you will remember that was kept final, but as to the other they left it so. I am certain nothing was decided against the wish of the Dominion representatives. I remember the negotiations very well. Mr. FISHEE : I am surprised to hear that. Viscount HALDANE : I think you will find it was so, Mr. Fisher. The LORD CHANCELLOE : Of course, I am speaking upon the hypothesis that in Australia it was desired to have a final court of appeal in this country. Mr. FISHEE : I did not quite understand that in your earlier remarks; I thought you meant that the Dominions might settle their own Appellate Court. The LOED CHANCELLOE : I was trying to deal with the matter on the assumption of the final court of appeal being in this country. Mr. FISHEE : I think your words conveyed to me a different view. The LOED CHANCELLOE : Let me make it perfectly clear. I have not at all been thinking throughout my observations of whatever each Dominion might think fit to settle for itself in its own country; I was only thinking of how we in England could meet their wishes in regard to a final court of appeal in this country —a different proposition altogether. I have said nothing at all about the Australian desire, if there be a desire in Australia, to have no appeal at all. That is a different thing. I was speaking solely with regard to the court in England, and I think it would be desirable that each Dominion should say what class of judges they wish to have in this country, if they have an appeal here, and what strength they would like them to sit in. Mr. FISHEE : It is obvious, as far as we are concerned, that without an amendment of the Constitution we cannot do anything now. The PRESIDENT : You cannot get rid of the appeal here now; you cannot consume your own smoke entirely as you say you wish to do or some of you wish to do. It would require an amending Act. The LOED CHANCELLOE : That is why I was dealing with the situation as I was doing. The PEESIDENT ; The Lord Chancellor is speaking on the assumption that the law remains as it is now. Mr. FISHEE : Yes, that question is not raised here. The PEESIDENT : No, it is not raised. The LOED CHANCELLOE : Will the Conference now allow me to suggest my own idea? My idea is that we should add to our highest court of

223

A.-4

12 June, 1911.] Imperial Appeal Court. [7th Day. The LORD CHANCELLOR—eon*. appeal both for the United Kingdom and for the Dominions and Colonies by selecting two English judges of the finest quality we can find and that there should be a quorum fixed, say, of five, for sitting in the Privy Council. I do not mean that the court should be limited to five—indeed, I should contemplate that it would be generally stronger and that it should sit successively in the House of Lords on the United Kingdom appeals and in the Privy Council on appeals from the Dominions. So that, substantially, you would have the same court sitting both for our appeals and for your appeals. Viscount HALDANE : In its full strength in each case ? The LORD CHANCELLOR : In its full strength. Mr. BATCHELOR : And adopting the same practice of giving individual judgments in both cases or the same. Ido not much care which way it is. The LORD CHANCELLOR : I should say that would be according to the feeling and wishes of those whose cases are adjudicated. Ido not know whether in England it is desired to alter the practice so as to have one judgment in the House of Lords. The PRESIDENT : I do not think it is. The LORD CHANCELLOR : I do not think it is. Sir JOSEPH WARD : What representation from the Dominions do you suggest upon that point 1 You have not stated that. The LORD CHANCELLOR : I thought I had stated that. What I mean is that if any Dominion wishes its cases to be heard by any class of judge at all, its own judges, we should certainly meet that. All that New Zealand, for example, would have to do would be to say : " We desire that a New Zealand judge should be present in New Zealand cases." Sir JOSEPH WARD : That means that a judge would require to leave our country for about six months to take part in the hearing of possibly only one case, and in all probability that case would have been tried before him or have been before the appeal court in New Zealand of which he was one of the judges. The PRESIDENT : Yes, that is very likely; but Sir Joseph, supposing you had a New Zealand judge here always, the one chosen for the purpose, he has no special acquaintance any more than an English judge has with the systems of law which are administered in Canada and South Africa. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That is so, but he would have with the New Zealand law. The PRESIDENT : Nor has he any special acquaintance with the system of law administered in the United Kingdom. Dr. FINDLAY : There is a good deal of community of law between us and Australia particularly in regard to the land question. The PRESIDENT : No doubt in Australian cases he would be more or less at horne —I am only throwing this out —but he does not appear to have any qualification which would not be equally possessed by an ordinary English lawyer for disposing of South African, Canadian, or Indian cases,

29—A. 4,

A.—4

224

Ith Day.] Imperial Appeal Court. [12 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Excepting that the procedure, as a rule, has been, in the absence of a judge from our country in cases of New Zealand law, only such portion of the New Zealand law as the counsel put before the judges was really considered. That has been the usual procedure I understand from the official communications I have read. The PRESIDENT : That is rather an argument for having him to hear New Zealand cases. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That is why I want to have him there, to take part in hearing New Zealand cases. The PRESIDENT : But it does not seem an argument for having him there in other cases. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I see the point you raise all right, but it does seem to me to be a bar to any proposal so far as New Zealand is concerned, that a judge should come over here, taking nearly six months to do it, to take part in the hearing of possibly only one case. The LORD CHANCELLOR : I do not suggest that; I only suggest that if you wish it that could be done. But 1 go further, and if the Canadian or the South African Governments wish that there should be a New Zealand judge sitting on their cases I am perfectly willing. Sir JOSEPH WARD : We do not object to a Canadian or South African judge sitting, as far as we are concerned, and dealing with New Zealand cases, but in practice the result would be that we would be debarred from taking any part in a proposal such as you have suggested, I am afraid. Viscount HALDANE : Sir Joseph, I had an experience when I was at the Bar in a great many cases from your country, which it seems to me is not irrelevant. There was a great case about the Maori Land Acts, an intricate and complicated case, which lasted 10 days over here. It was an appeal from the Supreme Court, and an appeal in which the opinion of the Chief Justice was involved, so that he could not have sat, but it would have been very useful if you had sent us a judge of experience in those cases, for that case, as assessor, simply to make us quite sure that we had missed nothing. The case was very thoroughly done by a strong tribunal, and lasted 10 days here, but that case could have been taken at another period on notice being given; you might have said " Please take it three months from now, and we will arrange that the judge comes over"; and if you had sent us an assessor for that case it would have been really all that was wanted in order to make sure that every point in that very interesting and intricate mass of statutes was seen to. But the other cases that I remember which came from New Zealand were for the most part cases turning upon the broad principles of English law or equity. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I know the case Lord Haldane refers to quite well. The class of cases which will come here, as a general rule, are cases connected with the native lands in New Zealand. It is well known to the legal profession that they are subject to tremendous differences of opinion, and both the courts in our country and the legal men in our country hold very decided opinions in various directions upon the issues which require to be settled. There is a feeling in New Zealand, right through the country, that it would be of the greatest importance to us if one of our judges were sitting in a properly constituted court here when those cases come along, to enable, not the native law to be interpreted for the home iudges, because they can interpret the native law as well as our judges can, but there are the customs of the natives which come in, and a mass of extraneous things which come into our own courts which require to be considered, and those cases are bound to be fairly numerous.

A.—4.

225

12 June, 1911.] Imperial Appeal Court. [Ith Day. Viscount HALDANE : Is not that a case which the Act of 1908 meets ? Any experienced judge who has not sat and pledged himself to his opinion in the court below is all we want. After all, when you get the statutes and understand them, it is a mere question of the construction of the words. The LOKD CHANCELLOR : I do not in the least dissent from what Sir Joseph says ; it is desirable, and I should like very much to have a New Zealand judge present when a New Zealand case, especially one of that kind, was being heard. That is one thing I perfectly agree, but it is quite a different thing to say that there ought to be a New Zealand judge present when there are Canadian cases and South African cases and Australian cases being tried. If the Australian, the South African, or the Canadian Governments wish it—by all means; it is not for me to say that it ought to be so ; it is for them to say. That is the proposition lam making. Mr. FISHER : Mr. Asquith, it is quite evident that we are discussing the two propositions together. The PRESIDENT : Yes, and perhaps it is more convenient to do so. Mr. FISHER : So long as.it is understood. The PRESIDENT : This is not distinctly raised by your resolution, I think ? Mr. FISHER : No, we simply say there should be a court. The PRESIDENT : You want to have one court ? Mr. FISHER : That is it. The PRESIDENT : The Lord Chancellor's suggestion is that you will have what you want really because you will have the same court sitting in two different places, not side by side. Mr. FISHER : My colleague does not object to the general discussion, only we will have to understand that we are dealing with both at the same time. Sir JOSEPH WARD : No, I want to deal with the other one separately. The PRESIDENT : Yes, but what is being said just now is relevant, and all the discussion has been with regard to the second one. It has diverged into that. The LORD CHANCELLOR : It is very difficult to treat them separately ; there are the two different propositions, but they are related to the same subjectmatter, and what I have been trying to do has been to present a general view of the whole thing and to indicate what we are prepared to do. Sir JOSEPH WARD : It is very interesting and valuable. Mr. FISHER : I should like to add that they are not in conflict, in fact, they are the same resolution in two parts. We decide that there should be a Court of Appeal and I think you agree in that. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes. Mr. FISHER : Then the constitution of the court is another matter.

A.—4

226

Ith Day.} Imperial Appeal Court. [12 June, 1911. The LORD CHANCELLOR : Practically this would be a Court of Appeal sitting in two separate divisions, but the amalgamation of the two is a matter which would very easily follow if you found that all the Dominions and the United Kingdom agreed to it afterwards. That is the way in which the matter stands I think. Viscount HALDANE : The great point of the Lord Chancellor, as I understand it, is that you would have the whole strength in each division at a time ; it would not be the personnel divided into two divisions sitting concurrently, but you would have the whole strength for an average case in the Privy Council for a period, and for a period you would have it in the House of Lords, so that it is a mere question of form and name. The PRESIDENT : That would meet the complaint which I myself in old days when I used to practise a good deal before the Judicial Committee used to hear. I used to be in a good many New Zealand cases, and a great many Australian ones, and the complaints we used to hear from our clients out there were that it was what they called a " scratch " court, that the judicial strength was in the House of Lords, and that the Privy Council got what was left over. They complained also, and I think sometimes not without reason, that the court was too few in number. We have argued these cases in old days before three judges, and that is very unsatisfactory when you are appealing from a body like the Supreme Court of New South Wales it seems to me. The LORD CHANCELLOR : I think there is a change with regard to that. I think the court is now always constituted fairly strongly, although I should be glad to have the additional strength I have referred to—two more judges—which would be very valuable. Viscount HALDANE : It would give six or seven. The LORD CHANCELLOR : Yes. Mr. FISHER : I think I have heard some very injudicial language from judicial persons on that very point as to the strength of the court. Dr. FINDLAY : Your predecessor. The LORD CHANCELLOR : All I can say is that we try, for instance, to make a fair division of our strength when we have to divide. For instance, to-morrow the Judicial Committee is sitting and so is the House of Lords, and I will tell you the composition of the two bodies ; this has arisen and it will give you an illustration. In the House of Lords to-morrow there will be Lord Atkinson, Lord Gorell, Lord Robson, and myself; and in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which is taking Indian cases, there will be Lord Macnaghten, Lord Shaw, Mr. Ameer AH the Indian Judge, and Lord Mersey. When the Dominion cases come on Mr. Ameer Ali does not sit and Lord Haldane will take his place. Now I think that is a pretty fair division of the judicial strength. Mr. BATCHELOR : Is it not possible that the same point of law might come up before both those courts and different decisions be given ? The LORD CHANCELLOR: It never has happened. That, of course, is incidental to any court that is sitting in two divisions, but that never has happened. I do not know and I do not believe there is such a thing. Sir JOSEPH WARD : What Mr. Batchelor says would mean that the one case would require to be brought before two separate courts in England and in practice that could not be. The LORD CHANCELLOR : That would not happen.

227

A.—4,

12 June, 1911.] Imperial Appeal Court. [lih Day. Dr. FINDLAY: The objection we feel in New Zealand to the one judgment is probably based on an entirely erroneous assumption. It is sometimes assumed that the Member of the Committee who has least to do writes the judgment and that there is not very much discussion before the judgment is written. The LOED CHANCELLOR : I assure you that is wrong. Dr. FINDLAY : I realise that probably the assumption is wrong. The LORD CHANCELLOR : It might be as well that I should tell you what happens in the interior. Sometimes before the Privy Council the cases are quite obvious, and we are all agreed at once and the judgment is delivered at once. But that is not usual; as a rule, as you know, time is taken to consider these cases, and in the House of Lords they are mostly considered judgments for the final decision of any case. Ido not mean to say for giving leave to appeal, or anything of that sort. We meet, we sit there and discuss the whole thing from top to bottom always after the case is heard and the counsel have withdrawn. We discuss it, and agree to the lines upon which the case is to be decided. If there are dissents, which there are not often (dissents are rare), the point of view of the dissentient judge is weighed, considered, and discussed. Sometimes we put it back in order to have a fresh discussion if it is necessary, and after having fully discussed it, and agreed together the lines upon which the judgment is to be drawn, one, mostly taken in rotation, of the judges who sit writes the judgment. It is then printed and circulated to all the others for their criticism. They make their criticism if they dissent from anything, and when that has been done the final judgment is reprinted, is recirculated if necessary, and then is delivered. So that there could not be more deliberation, and it is indeed quite a mistake, I assure you, to suppose that there is any sort of slackness in that business. On the contrary, lam quite Certain that all those who sit have a very strong sense of their responsibility. We have given the best we can. Whether it is good enough, is another thing. Dr. FINDLAY : I apprehend the idea is quite erroneous, but in the absence of any other judgment than the one, it is sometimes difficult to pick up from a Privy Council decision the real ratio decidendi of the judgment. In Clouston v. Gorry the other day, which came before the Privy Council, it was a short judgment; obviously there had been an agreement amongst the judges, but the reasons were not sufficiently set out in that judgment to enable us quite to understand it. If more than one judgment were delivered, or if dissenting judgments were delivered, it would help to elucidate doubtful points which might be contained in the judgment. I think we, in New Zealand, are in favour of separate judgments. The LORD CHANCELLOR : If it is stated that that is the wish I do not suppose there would be any difficulty at all on the part of the Privy Council acceding to it. The PRESIDENT : Not the least. Viscount HALDANE : It is quite easy. The PRESIDENT : If that is the general opinion of the persons affected by the judgments. Mr. BRODEUR : Would not that be contrary to the principle of unanimity that covers all the proceedings of the Privy Council ? The LORD CHANCELLOR: We should have to get the King's permission. It is not for me to say what his Majesty might say, but I do not suppose that there would be any difficulty of any sort made.

A.—4

228

7th Day.] Impeeial Appeal Court. [12 June, 1911. The PRESIDENT : It might require an Act of Parliament. The LORD CHANCELLOR : It might, perhaps, require an Act of Parliament. I think the King's consent is necessary, because it is the King's decision in theory, of course. You will remember the form in which we put it. We advise the Crown to do so-and-so and so-and-so. Viscount HALDANE : The rule is that anybody who does not agree and lets it out to the public that he has dissented gets into trouble. I remember Sir Fitzroy Kelly did. The PRESIDENT : It is a breach of his oath. The LORD CHANCELLOR : The theory is that the King's permission must be given for any disclosure by the Privy Council. The PRESIDENT : We had a great deal of agitation in England some years ago about some ecclesiastical judgments which were supposed to have been arrived at by a narrow majority, with very active dissent on the part of various judges, and there was only one written judgment. I think there was a great deal of force in that contention. Mr. FISHER : If we are to disturb the present arrangement, we are talking about having one court, and not about the form of it. The PRESIDENT : But these incidental points have come up, you see, as we went along. The LORD CHANCELLOR : I was rather looking at the substance of it— that you should get the same judges with any additions that were needed from the Dominions. Mr. FISHER : I was rather looking at the discipline of it. The LORD CHANCELLOR : Of course, there is this to be borne in mind, that the conditions of approaching the Court of Appeal are quite different in different parts of the British Empire. The method of appealing to the House of Lords in England is a well-known method ; there is a petition, and there is a case stated, and so forth. In the different Dominions there are different methods and different conditions. In some cases you cannot appeal unless the amount at stake is 5001., in others it may be 3001. Mr. FISHER : That is important. The LORD CHANCELLOR : Or In some cases, as in Australia, there is concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court, you will remember, by the statute ; in some cases you may appeal direct from the State courts to the Privy Council. Mr. FISHER : I think our High Court can take a case if there is a principle involved, even with a very small amount. The LORD CHANCELLOR : Yes. Those conditions are different in Canada and different in South Africa. In South Africa, I think, it is only by leave that there may be an appeal, but I have forgotten. General BOTHA : Only by leave.

229

A.—4,

12 June, 1911.] Imperial Appeal Court. [Ith Day. The LOED CHANCELLOR : We cannot assimilate all these things without the consent of all the Dominions. They are framed upon their representations because they think it is most to their convenience, and we cannot alter them unless they wish it. If they wish it, we are quite prepared to alter it. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Have you any objection to there being one final court of appeal ? Why is there any necessity for one for the United Kingdom and one for the oversea Dominions ? The LORD CHANCELLOR : Do you mean that the House of Lords and the Privy Council should be amalgamated ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : That they should be merged. The LORD CHANCELLOR : I think the United Kingdom has its own view with regard to that. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Certainly, I fully recognise that. The LORD CHANCELLOR : We have got our own system, which is a complicated and difficult system, and in which there is an enormous amount of work. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I was only inquiring whether there was any objection. The LORD CHANCELLOR : I think probably that may come ; the system I suggest may develop into that, and I should be very well pleased and very glad if it does ; but I think the idea of amalgamating the Privy Council and the House of Lords is a foreign idea to our people, and I do not think our legal profession or the Chambers of Commerce, for instance, or the people at large have any quarrel to make with our final court of appeal. Dr. FINDLAY : Have you any objection to our having the House of Lords as it is as the final court of appeal ? The LORD CHANCELLOR : I do not see any objection ; it would be the same men sitting in the House of Lords. Dr. FINDLAY : Yes, it would mean practically the abolition of the Judicial Committee, treating the House of Lords as the one final court of appeal for the oversea Dominions. The LORD CHANCELLOR : Do all the Dominions want that ? ■ Mr. MALAN : No. The LORD CHANCELLOR : We cannot do for them what they do not want for themselves. Viscount HALDANE : It is a little interesting to bear in memory the origin of this. Originally, the King was the fountain of justice for the courts in this country as for the courts of the Empire ; but, just as the House of Commons filched finance from the rest of Parliament, so the House of Lords filched the judicial jurisdiction from the King, and it is by that process of abstraction, which is now a tradition of many centuries, that the House of Lords is the supreme court. Naturally and properly the King is the fountain of justice, and the Privy Council is the original form. The House of Lords has usurped its jurisdiction, and it has worked very well.

A.—4

230

Ith Day.] Imperial Appeal Court. [12 June, 1911. Viscount HALDANE—- cont. and the Lord Chancellor's proposal now is in substance to make only one court, but to leave the other forms until such time—it may come very soon if one is to pay attention to what has been said recently in the House of Lords itself—as the whole judicial business is excluded from that assembly and combined in one court. Mr. MALAN: A reference has been repeatedly made to the position in South Africa, and I would just like to give the Conference the exact position as far as the Union is concerned. Our appeals are governed by clause 106 of the Act of Union, which reads as follows : "There shall be no appeal from the Supreme Court of South Africa, or from any division thereof, to the King in Council, but nothing herein contained shall be construed to impair any right which the King in Council may be pleased to exercise to grant special leave to appeal from the Appellate Division to the King in Council. Parliament may make laws limiting the matters in respect of which such special leave may be asked, but Bills containing any such limitation shall be reserved by the Governor-General for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure : provided that nothing in this section shall affect any right of appeal to His Majesty in Council from any judgment given by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court under or in virtue of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act of 1890." The position, therefore, is this, that there is no right of appeal from our Appeal Court to any other court outside the Union. It is absolutely final. Mr. BRODEUR : Is there any appeal from the courts of the Provinces ? General BOTHA : Yes, to the appellate division. Mr. BRODEUR : To the Privy Council here ? General BOTHA: No. Mr. MALAN: We have only one Supreme Court in South Africa with different divisions. One division is the Appeal Court for the Union, and for each Province we have another division; but there is one Supreme Court, and there is no appeal from the appellate division of that court to any court outside the Union or to any other court. But we recognise that every subject has the right to petition his King, and we act on the supposition that the Privy Council is still exercising this power of appealing to the King in person; and we say that, therefore, although there is no appeal as of right from our appeal court, any subject may petition the King. When a petition comes to the King here the practice now is that he sends it to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and the Privy Council must then say whether they will hear the appeal, no or yes. If they give the right to appeal the case comes before them and they discuss it on its merits. As far as the Union of South Africa is concerned we do not anticipate that there will be more than one case perhaps in five or ten years coming before the Privy Council. It will be a very special case indeed when any one will petition the King in that form. As regards the practice at the present moment I think South Africa is fairly satisfied. We have got a representative on the Privy Council with a strong judicial mind, and when there are cases from South Africa in which we are interested he usually takes part in the decision, and as far as that is concerned we are satisfied. Sir JOSEPH WARD : So would we be if we were in the same position. Mr. MALAN : I am speaking now only as regards South Africa. The PRESIDENT : How do you mean, Sir Joseph ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : They are in the happy position of having Lord de Villiers on the Privy Council.

231

A.—4.

12 June, 191 L] Imperial Appeal Court. [Ith Day. The PRESIDENT : He is not regularly here ; he only comes occasionally, and as a rule when there are South African cases. Sir JOSEPH WARD : But he sat during five years in connection with South African cases. The PRESIDENT : In those cases, but he does not sit regularly. I understood your proposal to be, although it is rather anticipating what you have to say on your own motion, that the judge from the Dominion should be a peimanent member of the tribunal and always here. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes, for a term of, say, five years, and then return to the New Zealand bench and another judge come for another term, and so on. The PRESIDENT : That is not the case in South Africa. Mr. MALAN: I would like to say this: The difference between New Zealand and South Africa is not great, because under the Act of 1895 at any moment when New Zealand wants to have a representative on the Privy Council they can ask for it; and, as the Lord Chancellor has said, there will be no difficulty in acceding to that request. So that New Zealand, under the Act of 1895, is really in the same position as South Africa practically. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That is not quite the case. As a matter of fact the number is limited to five under the Act, and there is that number now, so that New Zealand has not a chance of doing what you, in good faith I know, suggest. Mr. MALAN : Under the Act of 1895. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Under that Act they are limited to five. " Under these provisions there are five Colonial judges who are members of the Judicial Committee —namely, Lord de Villiers (South Africa), Sir Samuel Way (South Australia), Sir Samuel Griffith (High Court of Australia), Sir H. Taschereau (Canada), and Sir E. Barton (Hight Court of Australia)." There is no vacancy at all. The PRESIDENT : Sir Henri Taschereau is dead. I am not sure whether Lord de Villiers any longer comes under this. He is now a peer of Parliament, and entitled to sit in the House of Lords, so my own impression is there are two vacancies. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Sir Henri Taschereau is put down as being on it in the memorandum sent to us dated February, 1911. Mr. BRODEUR : Sir Henri Taschereau died a few weeks ago. The LORD CHANCELLOR : Somebody has succeeded him. There can be no difficulty about meeting the wishes of New Zealand in regard to having a New Zealand judge in this position. The PRESIDENT : No difficulty whatever. The LORD CHANCELLOR : We could meet your wish about that at once. Mr. MALAN : I was about to say that there is a feeling that the Judicial Committee is really no court of law at all. Its procedure differs from that of an ordinary law court, not only in the way in which judgment is delivered, but also in the number of judgments. There is only the one judgment. Counsel have to withdraw, and then judgment is published afterwards.

30—A. 4.

A.—4.

232

Ith Day.] Imperial Appeal Court. [12 June, 1911 The LORD CHANCELLOR : The judgment is delivered in the presence of Counsel ? Mr. MALAN: The judgment itself is delivered in public, but the public does not know at all what happens in that Chamber, whether there is a dissentient decision or not, and it is this difference in the character of the court from that of an ordinary law court which is rather objected to in some quarters. As regards South Africa there are a few cases perhaps on record where we would have liked to know something more of what actually took place and how the judges were divided. In ordinary cases Ido not know that there is very much difference. I certainly think, after what the Lord Chancellor has said here to-day, that if the same practice will be followed in the Judicial Committee that is followed in the House of Lords, that difference in character will be removed, and that would be satisfactory. But there is another point, and it is this : the appeal to the King has been one of the connecting links of the Empire, and it is felt that on purely sentimental grounds, altogether apart from the practical, it would be a right thing to have one final court of appeal for the whole Empire, not because it is not working well in practice as we have it now, but, as I said, on purely sentimental grounds. It may be a mere matter of form or a mere matter of name, as the Lord Chancellor points out, still in those things a great deal sometimes depends upon the name, and if it could be found convenient or practicable to have one court of appeal and make two divisions of that same court, then I think the difficulty would be solved. We have that arrangement in South Africa. In our Act of Union, as I explained, we have only one Supreme Court for the whole of South Africa, with different divisions. One division is called the Appellate Division, and then we have the Provincial Division of the Cape of Good Hope, the Provincial Division of the Transvaal, the Provincial Division of Natal, and so on ; but it is one Supreme Court, and the judges are interchangeable. The PRESIDENT : What cases does what you call the Appellate Division take ? Are they cases affecting two of the Provinces ? Mr. MALAN : They take all the appeals from the Provincial divisions. There are three permanent judges of the Court of Appeal, with two assessors. So that the court nominally consists of three, but when there is any necessity to increase the number, two judges from the Supreme Court Bench are added, and they form the court of appeal. If here you could find a name under which to combine the two courts and then have it in two divisions, one division dealing with appeals coming from the United Kingdom and the other division dealing with appeals coming from the Colonies, the Dominions or India, that would give the Lord Chancellor sufficient discretion in constituting his Bench to allow of a Colonial judge or a Dominion judge coming on for Colonial or Dominion cases, without unnecessarily hampering the final court of appeal for the United Kingdom cases. I would therefore suggest, if it could be done, to find one common name for the court of appeal for the whole of the Empire, but to have two divisions of it, one dealing with appeals from the United Kingdom and another one dealing with appeals from the rest of the Empire. Mr. BRODEUR : I may say that as far as Canada is concerned we have never strongly urged any change, and we are generally satisfied with the appeals which are taken to the Privy Council and considered by that court. I must say at first that a change would be rather difficult as far as Canada is concerned, on account of the different Provinces. The Provinces have something to say in the creation of the court, or in the granting of appeals to the Privy Council. Every Province has its own jurisdiction in that matter. By the British North America Act it is provided that each Province has the organization of the courts, and, as a result, it is for each Province to decide whether an appeal shall lie to the Privy Council or not. We have also a Supreme Court, which is a final court of appeal as far as Canada is concerned, and an appeal may lie to that court from the decisions of certain courts of the Provinces. Though it is provided in the Supreme Court Act that no appeal shall lie to the Privy Council, I see by the statements which have been laid before

A.—4

233

12 June, 1911.] Imperial Appeal Court. [Ith Day. Mr. BRODEUR— cont. us this morning that there are a large number of cases where leave has been granted by the Privy Council to appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court. lam sure if we undertook to make change it would probably raise some difficulties or some objections on the part of the Provinces, and for my part in those circumstances I. cannot very easily urge any change which would alter the existing situation. We had an idea of the jealousy with which the Provinces regard their rights in that connection when the draft Rules which have been sent to the different Dominions, were, at the request of the Colonial Office, submitted by us to the different Provinces. We found out that the two largest Provinces, Ontario and Quebec, have not, so far, adhered to those Rules. They do not want to make any change, but prefer to let the matter remain as it is to-day ; and I suppose that is the reason for their delay in answering the request made as to the alteration of the Rules themselves, though the alterations were not very drastic or of a radical nature. I may say that the Privy Council has given satisfaction generally in Canada, and the appointment of a Canadian representative has, of course, strengthened, that confidence. That change, which has been brought about by the addition of a representative of Canada, has, I think, manifest advantages to the Bar, to the Colonial suitors, and to the Bench also, and similar advantages might accrue to the Judicial Committee from the presence of representatives of other Dominions having knowledge of local laws and conditions. As has been said, various systems of law are in existence in the British Empire. As far as Canada is concerned we have two different systems ; one is the British Common Law, which is in force in some Provinces, and we have also in the Province of Quebec a Civil Code based upon the Coutume de Paris and the French Code which is commonly called the Code Napoleon. I may say that any one who has been practising before the Privy Council has been impressed with the great breadth of mind which pervades the members of that court. They have shown profound science in dealing with the principles of the different systems of law —at least as far as we are concerned. I suppose the great opportunities that they have in the British Universities of mastering the different systems of law, and of making a close study of the Roman, French, and English, laws, make the members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council eminently qualified to administer laws which are so different in character. As to Canada, there is no part of Canada more pleased with the decisions of the Privy Council than the Province of Quebec. Though the judges of the Privy Council are supposed to be more versed in the British Common Law, they have shown, however, by their decisions, or by their jurisprudence, in regard to the French law, such science, as far as the Province of Quebec is concerned, that litigants prefer sometimes to come before the Privy Council rather than to go before the Supreme Court of Canada. Judging by the statistics which are now before us, Canada seems to be largely interested in the appeals which come before the Privy Council. I find that in 1910, out of 33 cases 21 came from Canada. In 1909, out of 43 cases 23 came from Canada. In 1908, 16 out of 50 cases came from Canada. In 1907, 21 cases out of 42 came from Canada, and in 1906, 25 out of 55. So you see we are greatly interested in the judgments of the Privy Council. Those statistics also show that there have been more appeals from the decisions of Provincial Courts than from the decisions of the Supreme Court. Some suitors in the Provinces, instead of going to the Supreme Court, come direct to Great Britain, and have their cases decided here by the Privy Council; so it shows, on the whole, that the people are very much satisfied with the existing system. We had a law passed some years ago authorizing the Canadian Government to refer to the Supreme Court constitutional questions which are constantly arising as to the relative powers of the Provinces and of the Dominion. lam sure that those references would not be acceptable by the Provinces or by the Dominion if it was understood that in all those cases after the judgment of the Supreme Court is rendered we would not have an opportunity of asking leave from the Privy Council to hear the case. I have two cases in mind. There is one case concerning my Department —a question of fisheries—which is now, in virtue of an agreement reached between the Dominion Government and the Provincial Government of British

A.—4

234

Ith Day.] Imperial Appeal Court. [12 June, 1911. Mr. BRODEUR— ccmt. Columbia, referred to the Supreme Court, and it is understood between the two that the one who fails before the Supreme Court in their contention will have the opportunity of coming before the Privy Council to ask for leave to appeal. That shows you the satisfaction or confidence that the people have in the judgments of the Privy Council. I believe, on the whole, that any|change might at first be resented by the Provinces, who claim absolutely and certainly the right of dealing with appeals. Secondly, I think it would reflect upon the court that we have to-day, and which is giving us satisfaction. I think, also, it may perhaps not be advisable to change a system which has been in existence now for a number of years, and which has been giving satisfaction. Perhaps, also, I might urge that it would not be opportune for this Conference to try to deprive the House of Lords of one of the rights and privileges which it is enjoying to-day. The House of Lords is a question which appertains entirely to the Imperial Parliament, and I think perhaps it would not be opportune for us just now to raise the question of changing or increasing or decreasing the powers and privileges now enjoyed by the House of Lords. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I would like to make it clear at the inception of the observations which I propose to make, that in submitting a resolution suggesting a change, I have certainly never had in my mind, nor have any of my colleagues in New Zealand, the idea that the Privy Council has not done its work well or that we were dissatisfied with the work of the Privy Council. My own opinion is that the Privy Council has given general satisfaction as far as we are concerned, and I should be very sorry to adopt the assumption of my friend, Mr. Brodeur, who has just spoken, that if we suggest the making of a change it is to be regarded as a reflection upon the existing institution. If that line of argument were to be applied to everything which we attempted to change, then we should never make any progress at all in anything. I am approaching this matter from the New Zealand standpoint without the slightest idea of reflecting either upon the Privy Council or the individual members of the Privy Council who have dealt with any of the cases that have been brought before it from New Zealand; but one of the primary causes for our urging a change is that we are singularly peculiar in one important matter—we have about 7,000,000 acres of land in our country which is owned by natives. There are about 47,000 natives in New Zealand, and it must be obvious to any one that in a country whose general area is not very large, where we have land to the extent of 7,000,000 acres, the proprietors of which are a different race to the Europeans, there is a great amount of litigation from time to time, and appeals have been made to the Privy Council in the past, and will be made in the future. Our people in New Zealand —those who are specially concerned in the administration of the native affairs of the country, and also many members of the legal profession—while not in any way reflecting upon the decisions of the Court of Appeal, which they accept in all loyalty (and rightly so, coming from a body of that kind), consider that in matters relating to native land which come before the Privy Council heie, what is a custom, as far as the native law in New Zealand is concerned, may not in the ordinary sense be fully recognised by the Privy Council when dealing with those laws. Custom is considered in the preparation of them in New Zealand and the passing of them through the Legislature. One of the things we have to considei in making provision by statute for dealing with native lands is the custom of the natives. In our own courts, though the actual custom cannot of itself be taken as against the law, it is quite a common thing for evidence to be called upon what the custom of the Maori is in connection with the lands that may be held either under the communistic system or by individuals. The position is entirely different in most countries as to the way in which land is administered, and for that reason, as we have found it necessary to introduce this important question of custom when dealing with the laws controlling the Native lands in New Zealand, we have felt from time to time—and I could cite cases bearing on the point I am trying to make, but I think it is not necessary to do so —that when these important cases relating to land and vitally affecting the interests of both Europeans and natives are sent

A.—4.

235

12 June, 1911.] Imperial Appeal Court. [Ith Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. to the Privy Council by way of appeal, in the absence of knowledge of the customs which exist (and it could not be expected to be otherwise) a representative judge from New Zealand, familiar with the customs of the natives and familiar with the laws and the difficulties surrounding them, would be of immense advantage to the Privy Council in fully understanding the position before giving judgment. Therefore, speaking for the people of our country, I think it would be a good thing if we had a system of representation by one of the judges of our Supreme Court upon the Piivy Council. The PRESIDENT : You are speaking to your own resolution now, Sir Joseph ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes. My resolution can be put afterwards ; I do not propose to debate the matter twice. The PRESIDENT : You do not want to say anything about the Australian resolution ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : The two resolutions have been dealt with together, and I cannot do otherwise than deal with them together, as the Lord Chancellor treated them in that way. The PRESIDENT : Yes, I think he set the example, and it is for the general convenience that they should be so taken. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes, I recognise that they had better be treated in that way, and Ido not want to have a double discussion upon it. Another important matter which has been referred to the Privy Council, and upon which a decision has been given, to which exception has been taken by people well qualified to judge, is the question of land transfer in New Zealand. I remember a case perfectly well where a decision of the Privy Council was given interpreting a rule quite contrary to the interpretation that has ever been given to it in New Zealand. Such a decision given upon an important matter like that by the Privy Council here was, and I say it with all respect, looked upon by many people in our country well qualified to judge as a wrong decision. I have no hesitation whatever in saying that if a judge of our Supreme Court had been associated with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in that important matter, he could have supplied information to his brother judges which would, to say the least, have been very valuable to them, even although they might have adhered to the same decision. With regard to the suggestion of merging the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the House of Lords, as the Lord Chancellor expressed the view that it was not practicable, I shall, under the circumstances, defer to his statement at once, and I will not attempt to press the proposal for that merger ; but I would urge that in addition to the present members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, there should be a permanent judge for each of the important oversea Dominions— one for Canada, one for Australia, one for South Africa, and one for New Zealand. The Lord Chancellor invited each part of the Empire to judge for itself what kind of tribunal it wished to have, and in response to that invitation I want to state the kind of tribunal I wish for, as far as New Zealand is concerned. The difficulty I see in regard to the suggestion made by the|Lord Chancellor that a time should be fixed for the taking of the New Zealand cases, in order that a judge might come over from our country for the purpose of hearing those cases, is that he would be, or might be, coming over to take part in the consideration and decision of a case or cases which had been before him in his judicial capacity in New Zealand. Ido not believe the itinerary system of a judge coming over to this country would meet the position of New Zealand in a satisfactory way. Members of the legal profession, and other gentlemen, too, will see the point I am making; it would never do to have a Judge coming here to form one of the

A.—4.

236

Ith Day.] Imperial Appeal Court. [12 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD—con*. tribunal on the retrial of a case in which he had taken part in our country. In my opinion, the only way in which the position can be improved, as far as New Zealand is concerned, is by having a permanent appointment made of a judge here, not for life, but for a period of five or seven years ; at the end of that time the judge, returning to his own country and again taking up his work in the Supreme Court there, and another judge coming here to take his place. Let me point out what would be the outcome of such a system, apart from the advantage it would be in regard to important cases to be dealt with coming from New Zealand. There is admittedly, very strongly evidenced at this Conference, a desire to have uniformity of laws and co-ordination of laws, as far as it is possible for us to have it. If, from the point of view of each portion of the Dominions, that uniformity is wanted as a valuable addition to the present system, I do not know of anything that could do more good than the appointment of a representative judge from the respective countries I have referred to. When going into the question of the assimilation of the laws and the unification of the laws as far as possible, having regard to the different considerations applying to the position of the different Dominions, I do not know of any section of men who could do such valuable work in this respect as the judges from the different countries. In the case of South Africa, I concede to Mr. Malan, who spoke upon this matter, that they have got practically what they want by the fact of Lord de Villiers being a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ; but that is no reason why they should not be agreeable to the rest of the Dominions getting into as good a position as they themselves now are in that respect. The PRESIDENT : Let me point out again, that Lord De Villiers is not permanently or temporarily resident in this country, he only comes over here very occasionally ; whereas your proposal, as I understand it, is that there should be a judge from each of the Dominions permanently quartered here for the teim of five years, sitting upon the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at any rate —I do not know whether the suggestion extends to the House of Lords also. Sir JOSEPH WARD : No, only to the Judicial Committee. The PRESIDENT : I do not know whether your proposal extends to his sitting to hear English appeals as well ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : No ; I say let the English appeals be kept in a separate category, as suggested by the Lord Chancellor. The PRESIDENT : But such a judge is to sit and hear appeals from the Dominions, say, from South Africa, for which special leave has been granted ; because you will remember that under the Consitution of South Africa, as we have been reminded, there is absolutely no right of appeal at all; and Mr. Malan said, I think, that he did not think there would be more than one appeal in perhaps four or five years, because the appeals would only be heard on special leave being granted by the Privy Council. Is it your proposal that we should have a Judge from South Africa as a permanent member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council when the probability is that from South Africa there will not be more than one appeal in five years ? Is it really a profitable employment of the time of an eminent South African lawyer that he should be kept here for that sole purpose ? Viscount HALDANE : At an expense to his Dominion of 5,000 Z. or 6,0001. a year. The PRESIDENT : We have not had the question of expense dealt with at all yet. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I propose to refer to that question presently. I cannot put myself in the shoes of South Africa, and I do not presume to do so ; but as far

237

A.—4

12 June, 1911.] Imperial Appeal Court. [Ith Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. as New Zealand is concerned, I believe that there should be no such thing as a final appeal court in our country —I am not attempting to have a final appeal court in New Zealand at all, for good and sufficient reasons in my opinion, our final appeals should be sent to the Home authorities —the Privy Council —in the absence of a merger with the House of Lords. I suggest this alteration, namely, the trial of our own cases with one of our own judges as a member of the tribunal, in order to meet what is a strong feeling in New Zealand which has been felt for some years past. On the question of the expense, I think it would be incomparably better from a New Zealand standpoint that we should pay our own judge a proper salary, and his expenses while here. Considering the many hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of property involved in the cases which will have to come to the Privy Council in future in connection with the class of property and the section of the community I have mentioned, the question of the expense is a secondary point when you consider the enormous interests involved. Moreover, as far as New Zealand is concerned, we should hail with supreme satisfaction, in dealing with all the oversea cases referred for appeal to the Privy Council, the idea of a judge from each of the other Dominions referred to sitting to hear a New Zealand case, because there is no reason why any of the New Zealand representatives should have any fear about the judges from other Dominions outside the particular one they represent taking part with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in deciding cases affecting their country. As far as New Zealand is concerned, I should not object to that for one moment. On higher grounds, I believe myself that the judges from the respective countries, if they were here, would do an immense amount of good in the direction of bringing our countries still closer and closer together. If we had men occupying such high judicial positions, I should assume that an Imperial link, through the judiciary, would be formed, and, by the process of assimilation of the law, where it was possible to do so, they would by degrees do an immense amount of good to all portions of the British Empire. As far as I am concerned, I concede at once that the suggestion the Lord Chancellor has made, that a judge of our Supreme Court should come here, perhaps once a year, our cases being held over to enable him to hear them, would , in practice, be unworkable from our point of view ; and, moreover, I am inclined to think it would not meet with the approval in New Zealand while a wider and broader scheme certainly w T ould. I should be glad if my colleague, Dr. Findlay, would speak upon the matter. Dr. FINDLAY : I will only add a few words to supplement what has been said by Sir Joseph Ward. This matter presents itself to us in the double aspect of form and substance. There can be no doubt that in New Zealand, and, I apprehend in Australia, it would satisfy a growing sentiment if one final Imperial Court of Appeal were established. No doubt that is largely a matter of sentiment, and probably, as the Lord Chancellor has explained, the personnel of that court would differ very little, if at all, from the personnel of the present Privy Council, but it would seem to the different outlying parts of the Empire a step towards closer unity if there were His Majesty's Imperial Court of Final Appeal to which people both of the United Kingdom and of the self-governing oversea Dominions and the Crown Colonies came as a final tribunal. I understood from the Lord Chancellor that although that does not seem to be immediately practicable it is not altogether entirely out of his horizon. The other branch of this matter is one of substance. There can be no doubt that while there never has been the faintest suggestion that the Privy Council has been wanting either in patience, or in knowledge, or in legal attainment, there can be also no doubt that on various occasions they have entirely misintrepreted certain branches of the law of New Zealand. It may seem somewhat presumptuous to make that statement, but that, at least, is the view of the legal profession of New Zealand and the judges. The difficulty of removing that defect, of course, is great, and the view suggested by Sir Joseph Ward that one of our judges, for instance, should be resident in London for a period of from five to seven years would have more than one advantage. First, it would obviate our sending home, as we do now so freely,

A.—4,

238

Ith Day.] Imperial Appeal Court. [12 June, 1911. Dr. FINDLAY— cont. Counsel from New Zealand to see that the Privy Council are instructed on peculiar features of our law. Litigants are put at present to very great expense indeed. Lord Haldane is aware that in earlier years I came over to be associated with him, and other members of the New Zealand Bar have come over, believing it was essential that one who had spent his professional life in interpreting peculiar parts of our law should be here to add what light he could to the arguments in the Privy Council. That is a pretty heavy burden on our litigants ; and the New Zealand Government feel it is their duty to relieve litigants as far as possible of that burden. If, therefore, a judge of our Supreme Court were resident in London for a period of from five to seven years, and he had a right to sit upon appeals not only from New Zealand, but from the other self-governing Dominions, his time would be fairly fully occupied. There would be, roughly, one appeal every week to be heard. Ido not apprehend that the other oversea Dominions would object to a New Zealand judge being associated with the English judges in trying their appeals, any more than they object now to a judge who has spent his life in India having a seat on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. If the burden were borne by New Zealand, I apprehend there would be no objection on the part of the British Government. So the first question really is, I suppose this : are the oversea Dominions agreeable to a judge from New Zealand sitting upon their appeals if we in turn are agreeable to a judge from their Dominions sitting upon our appeals, the expense, of course, to be borne as I have suggested ? There is another feature of this matter which, I think, meets the objection which Mr. Asquith made. Why should the Imperial Court of Appeal be entirely paid for by this country ? The Privy Council is as much part, I take it, of our judicial system as it is of yours. If a tribunal of that kind is to be maintained, is it anything unfair to ask us to contribute our portion in the shape of paying one of the judges of that tribunal ? I apprehend on any fair conception of the burden of Empire there should be no objection. We feel strongly that the presence of one of our judges would be helpful in more directions than the one of interpreting our law. He would possibly be able to confer with the Judges from Australia, South Africa, Canada, and Newfoundland in helping to bring about that uniformity of law which forms a large part of this Agenda Paper ; and, again, meetings of the Judges from the oversea Dominions would be a substantial contribution to closer Imperial unity. Their presence in London for five or seven years, in more or less daily contact, would be a great gain to the growth of real Imperial unity, and to the devising, possibly, of some closer means of making that unity effective. There is, moreover, this phase of it. If a judge coming from Australia or New Zealand could spend five or seven years here, it would be to him an education in your system, and possibly the light he might bring from the New Zealand judicial system might be some addition to the light of the judges on this side. There have grown up with us, as must be the case in every British country which is following its own destiny, divergent lines between your law and ours, and it is probably difficult for a lawyer in London to completely understand our judicial system, as it is sometimes difficult for our lawyers to thoroughly understand yours. If, then, there could be this union of the judges of the oversea Dominions in London, I urge upon the members of the British Government present, that it would have more than the aspect of membership of this tribunal; it would be some contribution, and a valuable one, to a better understanding of the oversea Dominions, and possibly to the discovery of a closer organized system of Imperial unity which Sir Joseph Ward has been trying to impress upon us at earlier meetings. For those reasons I should like to know whether Canada, Australia, South Africa, and Newfoundland would object to the system of a judge from each of those selfgoverning oversea Dominions, sitting upon the appeals of each of the other countries, so that these five judges should be associated with the judges of the Privy Council to hear appeals from all these oversea Dominions, and, if you like, from the Crown Colonies as well. If, so, there would be enough to do, I take it, all the year round, and the other advantages I have mentioned would flow from the proposal.

A—4

239

12 June, 1911.] Imperial Appeal Court. [Ith Day. Sir EDWAED MOEEIS : I should just like to say that, ffi the first place/as regards the Privy Council, we have had practically every satisfaction that could be desired in the matter of appeals from Newfoundland. But, at the same time, if there was a desire for a change on the part of the other Dominions who have very-much more work before the Privy Council than we have, I should not consider that I would be justified in voting against any resolution. Now as to the first resolution, proposed by the Commonwealth of Australia, it would appear to me that as regards the final part of it: " which should also be a Final Court of Appeal for Great Britain and Ireland," after what has been said by the Lord Chancellor it is hardly a, practical matter now for us to discuss. It is really more a matter to be taken up by those representing the Imperial Government, as to whether, if any change is to take place, it should affect the English appeals. But as regards the first part of the resolution: " That it is desirable that the judicial functions in regard to the Dominions now exercised by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should be vested in an Imperial Appeal Court," there does not appear to me to be any very great objection to it, because after all it is merely a change of name. Instead of calling it, as now, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, you would call it an Imperial Appeal Court. The Lord Chancellor asked the question what would the various Dominions prefer ? While there can be no possible objection if it can be arranged, for each Dominion to have a representative on the permanent Court of Appeal or on this Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, I entirely agree with Sir Joseph Ward that if the change is to take place, if there is to be any alteration, the new appointees representing the Dominions ought to be permanent in order to make them absolutely independent—not for five years, but for life ; and, further, they should be paid in such a way —not alone by salary but for the period of their appointment—that they should have no interest whatever in the matters on which they would be called upon to pass judgment. As I say, we have probably only an average of one case a year, and up to the present time we have had very great satisfaction indeed ; but, as has been suggested by the proposers of both these resolutions, the principle is in harmony with the general sentiment of unification which seems to be in the air, and seems to be largely the motive behind the various resolutions that we have been considering. If there is no very special objection to a remodelling of the Judicial Committee by having permanent representatives of the Dominions upon that committee I should not see any objection to it. Now it seems to me that the matter was very fully gone into at the Conference in 1901, presided over by Mr. Chamberlain, who was then Colonial Secretary, and in this memorandum of correspondence which has been laid before us, the whole matter is summed up on page 25, signed by all the delegates then present, and it was a unanimous recommendation with the exception of Judge Emerson. The PEESIDENT : I believe Mr. Fisher has some proposal to make, but before he makes it I should just like to put to you individually, as representing your different Dominions, this proposition which has been put forward by Sir Joseph Ward. Sir Joseph Ward's proposition, you will clearly understand, is this : that each of the Dominions should have permanently, or, at any rate, for a number of years, but permanently during that time, here in London a judge of its own, representing itself, who should sit upon the Judicial Committee, or by whatever title the Imperial Court of Appeal may be styled, to pass judgment not only upon appeals from his own Dominions, but upon appeals from all other parts of the Empire. Sir JOSEPH WAED : The oversea Dominions. The PEESIDENT : The oversea Dominions. I think it is very desirable that we should ascertain whether that proposal does or does not commend itself to the other Dominions. What do you say ? Mr. BEODEUE : So far as Canada is concerned, in view of the different systems of law that we have there, as I have already explained, we are perfectly satisfied with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as composed. I am afraid

81—A. 4.

A.—4.

240

7th Day.] Imperial Appeal Court. [12 June, 1911. Mr. BRODEUR— cont. if the court was composed of members who would not have had the same opportunity of mastering the different systems of law as those who now hear our cases it would not give the same satisfaction. Mr. FISHER : We desire to have an Australian Court of Final Appeal. Not having that, we prefer to have one Court of Appeal here. As regards having an Australian judge here I shall certainly not commit myself to that under any circumstances. Of course, that is the point the Prime Minister put —to deal not only with our own cases but the cases of other Dominions, and I presume India and Crown Colony cases, which would be a poition we could not think of. May I make this suggestion : The discussion to-day has enlightened us a great deal, and the speeches of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Haldane, and the Prime Minister have enabled us to see that we cannot by any resolution go any forwarder, and perhaps it would be wise that we should remit the whole question to His Majesty's Advisers to submit some scheme on the lines of the opinion of the Conference. Have we got their opinion on this particular point ? The PRESIDENT: Yes. I think there is general agreement upon the other points. What does South Africa say on this particular point about sending a judge here? Mr. MALAN: The Union of South Africa would certainly never send a man to reside in London to serve on this committee. Sir EDWARD MORRIS : I think I should take the same view—that we would not be prepared to pay a man and send him here for that purpose. The PRESIDENT: I think the balance of opinion is against the proposal. Sir JOSEPH WARD : May I ask if you will kindly state your opinion upon the suggestion that a judge should be sent from New Zealand, allowing the accumulation of cases to wait for him, and for him just to try those cases and then go back again ? Do you think that is practicable ? The PRESIDENT : If you appeal for my personal opinion I would much prefer an arrangement of that kind to the proposal of sending a permanent judge here. I am perfectly satisfied myself, and I find it is the opinion of the representatives of other Dominions, that it would not give any increased confidence on the part of the Empire generally in the decisions of this tribunal if they were participated in by judges representing other systems of law with no special knowledge of the particular system at issue in a particular case. On the other hand I quite sympathise with Sir Joseph Ward's feeling, and I am sure the Lord Chancellor does that in regard to cases coming from a particular Dominion like his own, although the tribunal, he admits, is conscientious and industrious, and does its best to inform itself, it has not the means at its disposal to get the fullest and most accurate information about that particular system. Therefore lam sure, if, say, the Dominion of New Zealand, on this special land question and this complicated network of land laws thinks it desirable that in the case of New Zealand appeals there should, if found practicable, be a New Zealand judge, we should be most anxious to defer to that. Although the difficulties are considerable I do not see that they are insuperable. Certainly the judge selected should not be one who had been a party to the decision under appeal. It would, I presume, always be the case that you would have one or more Judges not actually parties to the decision there. I should have thought that by grouping the cases, and choosing a convenient time of the year for hearing them, and giving ample notice, it might be possible to meet the difficulty in that respect, and I am sure the Lord Chancellor would welcome the assistance of such a judge. The LORD CHANCELLOR • Yes,

241

A.—4

12 June, 1911.] Imperial Appeal Court. [Ith Day. The PRESIDENT : Matters could be arranged as far as possible for his convenience. That, I think, would meet your difficulty, as none of the other Dominions desire, as far as this particular point is concerned, any change in the existing system. The LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say to Sir Joseph Ward this: I quite appreciate, if there are only a few cases—two or three cases —the suggestion seems strong that a judge should be sent from New Zealand over here to hear those cases each year, I quite agree with that. I was quite conscious of the fact that it was rather a large order to ask for such a small result in actual business. My only reason for suggesting it was that I had anxiously thought how I could meet the suggestion that appeared on the Agenda Paper, that there ought to be a New Zealand representative at all events hearing New Zealand cases because of their peculiar character. I agree it seems a large thing to do for a comparatively small result, but I can say most heartily I should welcome, and the whole Judicial Committee of the Privy Council would welcome, the presence of a New Zealand judge, and we will do anything we can in order to meet that view, especially with regard to the land cases which Sir Joseph mentioned. If there is any method of arranging it we would heartily welcome it. But if New Zealand desires to send a permanent Judge it seems equally difficult, because there is so little to do. We cannot, however, ask that the other Dominions shall have a Court composed otherwise than as they prefer. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I fully recognise the position of the other representatives. The difficulty I see in an individual judge coming from New Zealand, as suggested as an alternative, is this. It means that, preceding a case in which Maori lands are being dealt with by the Appeal Court of New Zealand, one of the judges of that Appeal Court would require to stand out when that case was before it, in order that when that case came here on appeal he might come to the Old Country to sit with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council when considering that case, and my own opinion is that in practice it' would be most difficult and certainly inconvenient. The LORD CHANCELLOR : I do not know whether you are aware that in England in former times judges did sit in appeal upon their own cases. The PRESIDENT : You do not applaud that practice ? The LORD CHANCELLOR : I do not applaud the practice, but as a matter of fact the Lord Chancellor used in the olden times to sit on appeal from himself, and occasionally reversed his own decision. The PRESIDENT : Ido not think we want to go back to that system. How many judges are there in your Appeal Court, Sir Joseph ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Six Judges. The PRESIDENT : Surely you do not want the whole six to sit there to try all cases ? Dr. FINDLAY : They seem to think so. The PRESIDENT : We should regard it as very luxurious for six judges to sit in our Court of Appeal. I should have thought you might let one stand out once in a way. However, you will try to arrange a way of dealing with that. With reference to Mr. Fisher's suggestion, which, if he will allow me to say so, is a very excellent one; perhaps you will first allow the Lord Chancellor to give an outline of what is the suggestion—not on this point—but on the first point. Mr. FISHER : Certainly.

A.—4

242

lih Day.] Imperial Appeal Court. [12 June, 1911. The LORD CHANCELLOR: Is this the substance of what is proposed—l think it has been spoken to by all the Prime Ministers : That there should be one final court of appeal for the whole British Empire in two divisions, the fiiist division for the United Kingdom, consisting of the same persons as now are entitled to sit in the House of Lords, and the second division for the oversea Dominions, consisting of those now entitled to sit on the Judicial Committee, with such further additions as may be needed. Does that represent the view ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : I should accept that. Mr. FISHER : Practically it is that. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I think that is the only modus vivendi, and that meets the position. The PRESIDENT : I think so. Then Mr. Fisher proposes something. Mr. FISHER : I suggest something like this : " Having heard the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor, and Lord Haldane on this question, the Conference remits the question of establishing one final court of appeal for all cases for consideration and the submission of a scheme " The PRESIDENT : "On the lines indicated by the Lord Chancellor." Mr. FISHER: Yes. Mr. BATCHELOR : May I say that in my view it still ought to be understood that as far, as we are concerned we look towards one final court of appeal for the Empire. As to the division of it, I do not know whether it is necessary for this Conference to recommend a division. A division seems to be the only possible practical method of arranging it at present. The PRESIDENT : For the time being. Mr. BATCHELOR : For the time being. I think it ought to be understood that it is a proposal for the time being, and not an ultimate conclusion of the whole matter. The PRESIDENT : No, that is clearly understood. The LORD CHANCELLOR : There is another thing, and that is, the suggestion was made about strengthening the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the House of Lords, or strengthening the court. Mr. FISHER: That comes under the one final court of appeal. You are responsible for making it what it ought to be. The PRESIDENT : As strong as possible. The LORD CHANCELLOR: Do I understand that there is an assent to that proposition ? Mr. FISHER: On my behalf—yes. The PRESIDENT: There is another point of which notice ought to because, as far as I know, it is the unanimous opinion of all the representatives of the Dominions that it is desirable if possible that the procedure in regard to the

A.—4

243

12 June, 1911.] Imperial Appeal Court. [lih Bay. The PRESIDENT— cont. delivery of judgment in this branch or division of the court should be assimilated to the procedure in the other division, as indicated by Mr. Batchelor in the first instance, and assented to by all—Mr. Malan and Sir Joseph, too. Notice ought to be taken of that as being the opinion of the Conference. The LORD CHANCELLOR : Certainly. Mr. FISHER : You will submit, as early as possible, to the Dominions concrete views on that question ? The PRESIDENT : Yes, on all the points arising out of the development of this discussion. Sir JOSEPH WARD : And the resolution stands over for that purpose, or is withdrawn. I have no objection to the latter. The PRESIDENT : Your resolution had better be withdrawn, Sir Joseph. We do not want to divide on it. Sir JOSEPH WARD : No, I concur. The PRESIDENT : Do you withdraw your resolution, Mr. Fisher, and substitute for your resolution the one you have just read ? Mr. FISHER : Yes, I have not drafted it. Mr. BRODEUR : It might be drafted after the meeting. The PRESIDENT : Yes, and submitted. Mr. FISHER : There ought to be added to that resolution words to the effect that a scheme should be submitted by the British Government to the Dominions at a comparatively early date. The LORD CHANCELLOR : Do you mean during the present Conference ? Mr. FISHER: No. The PRESIDENT : As early as practicable. Mr. FISHER : I mean it should not stand over for years. The PRESIDENT : No, we will put it in hand at once. Mr. FISHER : We are quite satisfied with that. I have now drafted a Resolution (handing it in). " Having heard the views of the Lord Chancellor and Lord Haldane, the Conference recommends that the proposals of the Government of the United Kingdom be embodied in a communication to be sent to the Dominions at an early date." Mr. MALAN : Will the resolution or suggestion, as read by the Lord Chancellor, appear on the Minutes, because that is the bottom of the whole discussion ? The PRESIDENT : Yes, that will appear on the Minutes. The LORD CHANCELLOR : I put it as an epitome of what I thought was proposed as a basis. The PRESIDENT: You agree that what the Lord Chancellor read fairly represents the opinion of the Conference, and that will appear on the Minutes.

A.-4

244

Ith Day.] Imperial Appeal Court. [12 June, 1911. Viscount HALDANE : It is understood that this final court of appeal for the whole Empire is not merely to be of the strength of the existing one. We have agreed to strengthen it, and propose to add to it as the Lord Chancellor said, two highly picked lawyers. Mr. FISHER: Two or more, just as you please. Viscount HALDANE: Strengthening it by the inclusion of additional members in that way, and the quorum in that case becomes five. The Law op Conspiracy. " That the members of this Conference recommend to their respective Governments the desirableness of submitting measures to Parliament for the prevention of acts of conspiracy to defeat or evade the law of any other part of the Empire ; that the Imperial Government make similar representations to the Government of India and the Crown Colonies." Mr. FISHER : While we have the Lord Chancellor and others here, I would like to formally move this resolution, and Mr. Batchelor, who is well acquainted with the question will say a word, and perhaps we shall be able to remit that also to you for consideration. The PRESIDENT : I think so. Mr. BATCHELOR : The position in Australia stands in this way. All the Dominions have passed laws peculiar to the Dominions, and frequently cases arise where the intention and desire of the Parliaments to enforce the measures which they pass are rendered almost impossible, not by acts of persons within their jurisdiction but outside their jurisdiction. Take, for instance, a case in which the matter arises in Australia. We have laws dealing with the introduction of aliens. We found that stowaways, for instance, were constantly being planked on to the boats and introduced into Australia, and the real persons who were guilty of introducing them into Australia were not within our jurisdiction at all. The stowaways themselves were comparatively innocent victims ; the shipowners were also innocent victims. All we could do was to still further punish the stowaways and still further punish the shipowners ; but we were not getting at the people who were responsible for their introduction, and really the procurers of those persons to break the laws. The same thing happens also in the case of tariff matters. We cannot get at the people who are really responsible and who ought to bear the punishment. There are other laws of a similar nature in which the same thing arises and must constantly arise. I understand the position is that no State will enforce the penal laws of another State except by the extradition of fugitive criminals ; but in an Empire like ours would it not be worth while to look into the whole question to see whether there is not a possibility of some greater amount of co-operation so as to protect the laws which any self-governing community desires to see imposed ? The breaking of the laws sometimes happens altogether outside the jurisdiction. Under these circumstances, if there is any means by which we can bring about some method that would alter the present conditions, it would be very desirable. In a case which was tried in Hong Kong of men who undoubtedly were conspiring to break our laws, whom, had they been in Australia, we could have punished very severely, the Chief Justice of Hong Kong said, during the progress of the case, that no indictment would lie for conspiracy to defraud the steamship company, as there was no attempt to evade payment of fares, and also that a conspiracy to break the laws peculiar to the statute-book of Australia, was not an offence within the jurisdiction of the courts of Hong Kong, and therefore he directed an acquittal. What we should like is that the matter should be referred to a Committee. It is rather a difficult matter to decide in general confeience. The PRESIDENT : Yes, it is highly technical.

A,—4,

245

12 June, 1911.] Law of Conspiracy. [Ith Day. Mr. BATCHELOE: It is technical. The LOED CHANCELLOE : The real difficulty is exactly that pointed out by the judgment of the Chief Justice of Hong Kong. For instance, we make in England, and you in Australia, certain laws. Any combination for the purpose of violating those laws is a breach of the law of England or of Australia as the case may be, and may be punished by the English or Australian tribunals ; but supposing a law is made in Australia, then it is not an offence against the criminal law of England to combine here in order to defeat that law. If you were to lay down the broad and general proposition that, the British Empire being a united Empire, whenever in any one part of it a law was made, a combination to defeat that law in any other part of the Empire should become a criminal offence, you would enable one part of the Empire to make laws governing another part of the Empire. That is the difficulty. Mr. FISHEE : That is the difficulty. The LOED CHANCELLOE : And the sole difficulty. Mr. FISHEE : And the real one. The LOED CHANCELLOE: It is a very real one, because we are all autonomous ; that is the situation in which we stand to one another. That broad proposition I think you would all assent to. Therefore it imports that in each part of the Empire, if you want to make a man punishable, you make him punishable by the laws of that part. Mr. BATCHELOE : But you cannot. The LOED CHANCELLOE: You cannot unless that part of the Empire concurs. In the case of the stowaways which has been referred to, I suppose it may be that the Straits Settlements or the Hong Kong Government would, assent to making it an offence by their laws to violate the particular rules. Mr. HABCOUBT : As to the stowaways, I think we could probably strengthen the law, although I think in Hong Kong it is already strong enough under a different section of the Ordinance. The Attorney-General of Hong Kong believes that under section 78 of the Ordinance of 1865 they could proceed against a stowaway who falsely and deceitfully personates any person with intent fraudulently to obtain any chattel, because the stowaways constantly obtain other people's naturalisation papers. Mr. FISHEE : What about the persons engaged in the traffic in them ? That is the difficult point. Mr. HAECOUET : The steamship company ? Mr. FISHEE : Yes, and other agents who traffic in them. Mr. HAECOUET : The steamship company is punishable when it reaches Australia. Mr. FISHEE : But the outside agents who traffic in human beings to get them smuggled away are conspiring against the law. Mr. HAECOUET : I do not think it is beyond possibility for us to get additional powers by Ordinance.

A.—4.

246

Ith Day.] Law of Conspiracy. [12 June, 1911. Mr. FISHER : I think we might leave it to you. Mr. BRODEUR: I think in a case like that it could be easily done. You might communicate with the country in which this illegal business is carried on, and perhaps that country, by its statute law, would be willing to pass legislation. Mr. BATCHELOR: It should be reciprocal. Mr. HARCOURT : For proceedings to be taken for conspiracy ? Mr. FISHER : I have a few delicate feelings in dealing with conspiracy laws in general terms. The PRESIDENT : I daresay you have. Mr. FISHER : Although this is a particular case regarding smuggling alien immigrants, there are also cases of defeating our Customs Act by conspiracy in other countries, which are all very delicate questions. That is the reason why it might not be unwise to ask the Government to co-operate with us. We brought it up here because we are trying to get some via media to meet these cases. The LORD CHANCELLOR : You mean by arrangement with the other States ? Mr. FISHER : As far as practicable. The LORD CHANCELLOR : That is a matter for the Colonial Secretary. Mr. HARCOURT : I shall be glad to communicate with Hong Kong and the Straits Settlements on this special question of stowaways and see if we can make the law even more effective than it is now. I believe there have been only three cases, involving 10 men, in the last three years. Mr. BATCHELOR : Cases were not brought forward because it was not any bringing them forward, although we had the clearest evidence of conspiracy in China. Mr. FISHER : We did not bring any more forward because of the decision Mr. Batchelor referred to. Mr. BATCHELOR : That settled it. The PRESIDENT : What you really want is that as far as possible the Imperial Government should communicate with the non-self-governing parts of the Empire. You can arrange with the self-governing parts yourselves. Mr. FISHER : That is so. The PRESIDENT: To see whether it is practicable for them by appropriate legislation to prevent such abuses as you have indicated. Mr. FISHER : That is so. The PRESIDENT : With that understanding you withdraw the resolution as it stands ? Mr. FISHER: Yes. Adjourned to to-morrow morning at 11 o'clock.

A.—4

247

EIGHTH DAY. Tuesday, 13th June, 1911. The Imperial Conference met at the Foreign Office at 11 a.m. present: The Eight Honourable L. HAECOURT, M.P., Secretary of State for the Colonies (in the Chair). The Eight Honourable Winston S. Churchill, M.P., Home Secretary. Sir John Simon, K.C., M.P., Solicitor-General. Canada. The Eight Honourable Sir Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G., Prime Minister of the Dominion. The Honourable Sir F. W. Borden, K.C.M.G., Minister of Militia and Defence. The Honourable L. P. Brodeur, K.C., Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Australia. The Honourable A. Fisher, Prime Minister of the Commonwealth. The Honourable E. L. Batchelor, Minister of External Affairs. New Zealand. The Eight Honourable Sir J. G. Ward, K.C.M.G., Prime Minister. The Honourable J. G. Findlay, K.C., L.L.D., Attorney-General and Colonial Secretary. Union of South Africa. General The Eight Honourable Louis Botha, Prime Minister. The Honourable F. S. Malan, Minister of Education. The Honourable Sir David de Villiers Graaff, Hart., Minister of Public Works, Posts and Telegraphs. Mr. H. W. Just, C.8., C.M.G., Secretary to the Conference. Mr. W. A. EoBiNSON, Senior Assistant Secretary. Mr A. B. Keith, D.C.L., Junior Assistant Secretary. There were also present : Lord Lucas, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Colonies; Sir Francis Hopwood, G.C.M.G., X.C.8., Permanent Under Secretary of State for the Colonies; Sir C. P. Lucas, K.C.M.G., C.8., Assistant Under Secretary of State for the Colonies; Mr. J. S. Eisley, Legal Adviser, Colonial Office; Sir C. E. Troup, X.C.8., Permanent Secretary to the Home Office; Mr. J. Pedder, Home Office; Mr. Atlee A. Hunt, C.M.G., Secretary to the Department of External Affairs, Commonwealth of Australia; and Private Secretaries to Members of the Conference.

32—A. 4.

A.—4

248

Bth Day.] [13th June, 1911. • The CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, lam asked to say that Resolution of the Commonwealth of Australia, No. 12, raises the question of the co-operation and mutual relations between the military forces of the United Kingdom and those of the Dominions. The Government of Australia have also indicated certain subjects which they desire to discuss with representatives of the War Office, and which fall under the head of the resolution. The General Staff have prepared memoranda upon certain of these subjects which affect the Dominions generally, and it has been arranged that a meeting should take place at the War Office at 10.30 to-morrow, Wednesday, over which Sir William Nicholson, the Chief of the General Staff, will preside, for the consideration of the subjects treated in the memoranda by representatives of the Dominions. Such of the Australian subjects as may require individual discussion could be taken separately at another time if desired. Any conclusions which may be arrived at during the meeting would be brought up to the Conference, as was done in the case of a similar meeting held during the Defence Conference of 1909. Mr. BATCHELOR : The subjects for general discission are to be brought up to-morrow, and the Australian subjects can be taken afterwards. The CHAIRMAN : If necessary, and if it is found desirable. I understand Mr. Batohelor is prepared to deal with the resolution to-day on Naturalisation. General BOTHA : With regard to to-morrow, I shall not be able to attend, nor do I think Sir Joseph Ward and Sir Edward Morris will. I believe we have accepted an invitation to go to Cambridge to-morrow. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes. General BOTHA : The three of us. The CHAIRMAN: I understood this fixture had been already made in consultation with members of the Conference. General BOTHA : I did not know it. The CHAIRMAN : Is not Mr. Malan able to take it on behalf of South Africa ? Mr. MALAN : I knew about this appointment of the three Prime Ministers at Cambridge to-morrow. If the Conference is prepared to go on with the discussion without these Prime Ministers, or if these three Prime Ministers do not object, then we could do it, but otherwise I do not think we could go on. The CHAIRMAN : What about you, Sir Joseph ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : I shall be away. Dr. Findlay could attend. Dr. EINDLAY : It is not a matter upon which I know much. The CHAIRMAN : Would it be your wish to try and fix some other day ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : I think it would be better. General BOTHA: Is it the general question that you want to discuss and advance to-morrow, or is it solely Australian subjects ? Mr. BATCHELOR : No, the Australian subjects are postponed to a later day. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Why not take the Australian subjects to-morrow and let us have another day for the general discussion ?

249

A. 4,

13 June, 1911.] Naturalisation. [Bth Day. Mr. BATCHELOK : I do not know if that could be arranged; Mr. Pearce is taking those subjects. The CHAIRMAN : I think we had better leave it over until the end of our sitting. Mr. BATCHELOR: I know Mr. Pearce is prepared to attend to-morrow morning, but I do not know whether he is able to attend all day. Sir JOSEPH WARD : What about Saturday morning ? Mr. BATCHELOR : I could not answer for Mr. Pearce. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Let it stand till later in the day. The CHAIRMAN: Yes. Then we will proceed with the resolution on Naturalisation. Naturalisation. Australia : — " That this Conference is in favour of the creation of a system which, while not limiting the right of a Dominion to legislate with regard to local naturalisation, will permit the issue to persons fulfilling prescribed conditions of certificates of naturalisation effective throughout the Empire, and refers to a subsidiary Conference the question of the best means to attain this end." New Zealand : — " That it is in the best interests of the Empire that there should be more uniformity throughout its centres and dependencies in the law of naturalisation." Union of South Africa :— " That it is desirable to review the principles underlying the draft Bill for Imperial Naturalisation before its details are discussed further." Mr. BATCHELOR : I move the Australian resolution : " That this Conference is in favour of the creation of a system which, while not limiting the right of a Dominion to legislate with regard to local naturalisation, will permit the issue to persons fulfilling prescribed conditions of certificates of naturalisation effective throughout the Empire, and refers to a subsidiary conference the question of the best means to attain this end." The resolution that was passed at the last Conference affirmed the desirability of uniformity of naturalisation as far as practicable, and decided that an inquiry should be held to consider the question further. The idea, I think, was that there should be some subsidiary conference later on, and that the details should then be determined on the drafting of an Imperial Bill. Ido not mean to go into the history of this matter, because, of course, it is all within the knowledge of every member of the Conference equally with myself. An attempt has been made by the Home Office in the preparation of a Bill which was sent round to all the Dominions, and replies and suggestions were, I think, received .from all the Dominions, and they show very great difference and much divergence of practice as regards naturalisation throughout the Dominions. What we particularly desire, and that is the Australian view which our Cabinet have decided upon, is that there should be certain things that we must lay down to begin with as regards naturalisation ; that is to say, every self-governing Dominion must determine for itself whom it admits to its citzenship. We begin with that, and any kind of attempt to influence or direct any of the Dominions as to whom they shall admit to local naturalisation is no part of this Conference, but the question is solely for the individual State. Nothing could be done in the direction of Imperial naturalisation except by the Parliaments of the Dominions themselves ; and we

A..-4

250

Bth Day.] Naturalisation. [13 June, 1911. Mr. BATCHELOR— cont. should not seek to bring about Imperial naturalisation by an Imperial law, but whatever is done should be done directly by the Parliaments of the Dominions concerned. Thirdly, we must recognise the divergence of the law in the various States; we must make no attempt to bring about uniformity of the law in . naturalisation so far as local naturalisation in any particular Dominion is concerned. We find that there are some considerable differences in the conditions under which naturalisation is effected in the various Dominions. The conditions usually laid down are that there shall be a certain length of residence, which runs from five years, I think, in the United Kingdom to two years in the case of Australia. Dr. FINDLAY : There is no limit at all in New Zealand. Mr. BACHELOR : No limit at all. Thus it runs from five years down to nothing in the case of length of residence. Other conditions are payment of fees—from about 51. in the United Kingdom, running to nothing in Australia, where there is no fee at all charged. Then there is evidence required of good character, and that varies. The United Kingdom require the evidence of four reputable persons. In the case of Australia, we require the evidence of some official—the written evidence of some person in an official position. Then there is the very great difference in the law of naturalisation regarding the races that may be naturalised. For instance, in Australia and New Zealand, and I am not quite sure about Canada for the moment, Asiatics may not be naturalised under any conditions. There are also educational conditions laid down. Those are the principal ones. Now, it occurs to us, and I put it to the Conference, that there are a great many people—many thousands perhaps—in every Dominion of the Empire who can comply with all the conditions, the most severe conditions, and the point is, whether it would not be worth while to give certificates of naturalisation to those persons who can comply with any standard that may be set up. Supposing we have a standard of Imperial naturalisation which covers the most drastic conditions —if I may use the word " drastic " —not of each, but of the whole of the Dominions, any Dominion then could give not only local naturalisation, but could grant, so long as the conditions of this Imperial standard which might be set up are compiled with, a certificate of Imperial naturalisation; every one of the Dominions could do that. That appears to us a way in which we could bring about the advantages of Imperial naturalisation without having any difficulties at all about the complete local autonomy, the complete right of every part of the Dominions to determine whom it shall admit into its own country. It does not raise the question of Asiatic exclusion ; it does not touch the question of the payment of fees, or any of the other conditions. We do not ask any one of the Dominions to vary its law in any degree at all; but each Dominion should carry legislation authorising, recognising, or acknowledging the holders of Imperial certificates to the full advantage of naturalisation in their communities. Ido not know whether I have made myself quite clear as to what we propose, but we think that there are some very manifest advantages in having naturalisation which will run right through the Empire, so that persons going anywhere, having been naturalised, and having complied with the Imperial conditions need not be naturalised further. Once admitted to Imperial naturalisation that naturalisation continues, and wherever they go they are subjects of the British Empire. In Australia and New Zealand, of course, this matter arises pretty frequently. People go across from Australia to New Zealand very readily, and it is rather absurd that they should have to take out fresh naturalisation certificates in each place. Being naturalised in Australia does not mean being naturalised in New Zealand, where the conditions are practically the same ; and at present there is no means by which we can grant any naturalisation that will apply in New Zealand, nor can they in New Zealand grant anything that applies in Australia. I should think the same thing would apply to Canada and Newfoundland. Then, of course, from all the Dominions people come very extensively to the United Kingdom. The advantages of an Imperial certificate are so obvious that there is no need to discuss the matter at length, but I think what I have suggested is a practical method

251

A.—4

13 June, 1911.] Naturalisation. [Bth Day. Mr. BATCHELOR— cont. by which our aim can be carried out, and at the same time do away with any of the disadvantages which have been shown would occur if there was any attempt to have one uniform naturalisation law passed either by all the Dominions separately or imposed by the Imperial Parliament. Anything of that kind would lead to some difficulties, and, so far as we can see, there would be no difficulty, and yet all the practical advantages will be brought about by the issue within the Dominions and the United Kingdom of Imperial certificates of naturalisation which will be certificates showing that the conditions of the standard, which we could set up very readily, have been complied with. There would be no need, I think, to have a subsidiary conference, as suggested in our resolution, because it would be very easy to compile from the laws at present in force a standard which could be used as an Imperial standard. Mr. MALAN : Just for the purposes of information, supposing in Canada a man applies under the local naturalisation law, and his application is refused, would he then have a right to apply for the Imperial naturalisation certificate, and in that way defeat the local administration ? Mr. BATCHELOR : Certainly not; Ido not see how that point could arise. Mr. MALAN : But if you have two standards and two authorities issuing letters of naturalisation, how would you avoid that difficulty ? Mr. BATCHELOR : The greater will always include the less. The certificate of naturalisation could not be, and ought not to be, granted unless it complies with the conditions in every one of the Dominions. It must cover the most severe conditions which are laid down by any of the Dominions. Mr. MALAN : Yes ; but supposing, now, an application is refused on the point of character—the local authorities go into the record of the applicant, and they refuse —and this same man applies in another part of the Empire for Imperial naturalisation, and they go into his character and they grant a certificate, then this same man comes to South Africa and laughs in our faces. Mr. BATCHELOR : But would not that be a difficulty which in practice could scarcely occur, because it would be required that a man should qualify for five years. Supposing the qualification is five years, he would have to go and reside in that other territory for at least five years in order to get his certificate. It seems to me that ? as a matter of practice, would knock out the difficulty. Mr. MALAN : Your term of five years would be five years in any part of the Empire. Mr. BATCHELOR : No, not necessarily. Mr. MALAN : Then I do not follow what you propose. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : This is, in my estimation, one of the important questions that the Conference has to deal with. I sympathise in the views expressed by Mr. Batchelor, and I would be prepared to support the resolution which he has moved, although, if he will permit me to say so, before reaching a final conclusion it may perhaps be possible to frame the resolution in more apt language with a view to reaching the object which we desire.

A.—4,

252

Bth Day.] Naturalisation. [13 June, 1911. Sir WILFRID LAURIER— cont. The power of naturalisation is one of the incidental powers of sovereignty, and one of the most important attributes of sovereignty. The British Government in granting the constitutions of the several Dominions has parted with this power of sovereignty and delegated it to the Dominions. It has given the power to all the Dominions of granting letters of naturalisation to aliens. That was one of the necessary incidents, I think, of the power of self-government which was given to the Dominions, and the one power which it was very important for them to have, because, being young nations and all inviting immigration, it followed as a measure of practical moment that they should have the power to grant letters of naturalisation. They have all availed themselves of that power, and each one has its own law of naturalisation, and those laws are all different, as Mr. Batchelor has said. Ido not think there are two laws in all the Dominions which are here represented which are the same — they all vary. The practical difficulty, which arises at once is, as to what is to be the effect of this power of naturalisation. The power which is given to Canada, to New Zealand, and to all the self-governing Dominions, is one which is limited, each to its own territory. It does not extend beyond the limits of the territory covered by that legislation. If a man from Denmark, or Switzerland, or Sweden, or Norway comes to Canada, and conforms to our laws of naturalisation, he becomes a British subject quoad Canada alone. He is a British subject so long as he remains in Canada ; but the moment that same man goes out of the territory of Canada, if he comes from Denmark he remains a Dane, and if he comes from Sweden he is a Swede. So he has a divided allegiance; he is a British subject in Canada if naturalised in Canada, and he is a British subject in Australia if he is naturalised in Australia, and so on, but he remains a citizen of his native country the moment he is out of the Dominion of his naturalisation. For instance, if a Canadian to-day comes to Great Britain, and he was a native of the United States and has become a British subject in Canada, in Great Britain he is not recognised as a British subject. Therefore-, here is a difficulty at once which is of the greatest possible moment. In Canada, where we receive annually at the present time some 100,000 American citizens, who generally take out letters of naturalisation as soon as it is possible for them to do so, we are in this condition : those 100,000 American citizens are British subjects in Canada, but if they come to Great Britain they are still American citizens. In these days of travel and locomotion it is conceivable that this condition of things —this divided allegiance—may produce serious complications. Therefore I think the first consequence to be deduced from this condition of things, this divided power of legislation between the Mother-country and the Dominions beyond the seas, must be remedied in some way, and I think this principle may be laid down as an object to be ultimately reached —a British subject anywhere, a British subject everywhere. The Imperial Government has naturally retained to itself the power to grant letters of naturalisation, and I understand that jurists are of opinion that letters of naturalisation issued here in Great Britain under the authority of British legislation carry their effect not only in Great Britain, but in Canada, in Australia, in all the oversea Dominions, and everywhere. That is to say, letters of naturalisation granted here in England make a man a British subject all over the world, whereas the letters of naturalisation granted by the authority of the Dominions beyond the seas are restricted only to their own respective territories. I say that this legislation at once ought to be remedied in some way, and a measure ought to be adopted whereby it should be universal that, if a man is made a British subject somewhere in the British Empire under authority delegated by this Parliament of Great Britain, then legislation to that effect should carry the power of naturalisation not only in the country in which naturalisation has been granted, but all over the British Empire, or, indeed, all over the world. In other words, civis Britannicus is civis Britannicm . not only in the country of naturalisation, but everywhere. This principle, it seems to me, is the one which ought to be reached and ought to be adopted ; otherwise we are liable to very serious complications. Therefore I say that we should have uniformity in the effect of naturalisation, and the principle should be adopted that whenever a man is naturalised, whether it be in the United Kingdom or in any one

253

A.—4

13 June,, 1911.] Naturalisation. [Bth Day. Sir WILFRID LAURIER— cont. of the Dominions which derive their authority from the Parliament of Great Britain, the effect should be the same, and that man should be civis Britannicus all over the world. Now, as to the method of obtaining naturalisation, I agree with Mr. Batchelor that it would be extremely difficult to have the same methods adopted in every country. The circumstances vary very much ; nothing shows that better than the variety of legislation which we have upon this subject. In Great Britain the period of probation before an alien can become a British subject is five years ; in my country it is three years ; in Australia it is two years ; and in New Zealand, I understand, it is no period at all—a man can arrive one day and be naturalised the following day. That shows that the local conditions vary so much that uniform legislation is hardly to be attained. I see no objection for my part at all to this varied legislation ; let every Dominion for itself determine what is the period of probation which it will subject an alien to before it makes him a British subject. I see no reason at all why the conditions should not vary as they do now. If we adopt these two principles, that is to say uniformity in effect but diversity of methods, I think we reach the solution we are seeking to obtain. That is the policy which I would submit to the Conference. If these two principles are recognised and adopted I think we have found an easy solution of a very serious problem and one which, has given us a good deal of trouble hitherto. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I do not see any objection to the Imperial Parliament legislating in connection with naturalisation for application throughout the Empire, and I think it is necessary that it should be done, with certain reservations. In our country the course that we follow is that there is no time limit; if a man has the necessary education, and his character is all right, a certificate is furnished by a Magistrate, and we may naturalise him within a month after he comes to our country. On the other hand we have people in New Zealand to-day who have been there 20 years whom we would not naturalise, because they cannot comply with the requirements as to citizenship of our country, and therefore they are refused. The CHAIRMAN : Is that an educational test ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes, an educational test and a character test. If reservations are provided in the proposed Imperial Bill, which would be submitted for the consideration of the respective Governments, to enable us to exercise certain powers within our own territory, I fail to see any reason why we should not have uniformity right throughout the British Empire dealing with naturalisation. lam inclined to think that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was probably not quite right in stating that where naturalisation was conferred upon a British subject he was then civis Britannicus all over the world. As a matter of fact there are Continental countries that will not accept the naturalisation of a British subject here if the naturalised person be of j their nationality, so that it does not apply in the way in which it was suggested. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : I do not understand that. Sir JOSEPH WARD : There are cases where a man is naturalised in Great Britain, but his naturalisation is not accepted all over the world—in some Continental countries it is not accepted. Sir WILFRID LAURIER: That is a different matter altogether. That depends upon foreign interpretation, and not upon what concerns us here. Sir JOSEPH WARD : So far as we are concerned, in New Zealand, we would not accept it either.

A.—4

254

Bth Day.] Naturalisation. [13th June, 1911. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : You would not accept the naturalisation of a man in Canada, for instance ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : I am not prepared to say that if he be Canadian born. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : That is what I mean. Sir JOSEPH WARD : If he were a foreigner to Canada, whom you naturalised, and he came to New Zealand, we would not accept your naturalisation. We would require him to commence de novo and to comply with our conditions. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : That is a different condition of things. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I think, to some extent, we ought to be able to meet in a general way the position in order to enable cases of that kind to be dealt with. In dealing with this matter I want to make a suggestion to Mr. Churchill, the head of the Department here. The Bill which was sent out for the consideration of the Government of New Zealand made provision for two distinct things separately : The acquisition and the loss of British citizenship otherwise than by naturalisation, and the status of aliens and the naturalisation of aliens. What I suggest is that the provisions of the Imperial Bill regarding naturalisation, which are intended to be of universal application, should be collected in one part of the Bill and expressly declared to be applicable. If that is done I am quite certain that no reasonable objection could be offered, so far as New Zealand is concerned, to the exercise of power by the Imperial Legislature in denning for the whole Empire the conditions of British citizenship, and it would be a step in the right direction ; but what we would require to have in that Bill, in my opinion, would be power to provide the necessary machinery for bringing those provisions into operation in the Dominions and Colonies and determining the Colonial officials by whom the powers of the Secretary of State are to be there exercised, and power to establish the necessary penal provisions, appointing the fees, and authorizing regulations by the Governor in Council; and there should be power provided to impose further restrictions, limitations, and conditions on application in the Dominion for Imperial naturalisation. The powers at present provide for Colonial naturalisation to be granted on easier terms than Imperial naturalisation, but without extra-territorial operation. That is the law just now on that particular point. Now, if what I suggest is done, I see no reason whatever, speaking from the New Zealand standpoint, for our being opposed to the general proposals of the Imperial Government, because, after all, we still can exercise the power of the exclusion of aliens under another Act, and so long as we hold that power there does not appear to me to be any reason why we should not in a general way support a proposal to have uniformity ; but I do think it important that the two matters in the proposed Bill should be kept apart —there ought to be no difficulty about that, so far as draftsmanship is concerned—in order that certain parts of the Bill may be made applicable by Order in Council in our country if it seems to us desirable to do it. The CHAIRMAN : You have more than the power of exclusion of aliens left to you ; you have the power of exclusion of British subjects, if of a particular colour or a particular race. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That is so, so we are perfectly safe in that particular respect. Mr. CHURCHILL : Or any other conditions you may choose to make at any time by your law. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That is so. In our country we would not naturalise Asiatics, that is quite certain ; we have power to deal with their coming to the Dominion under other Acts of Parliament. If in the ordinary course of things

255

A.—4

13 June, 1911.] Naturalisation. [Bth Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. Chinese happen to be naturalised in this country and wanted to come to our country, it is beyond all question we would refuse assent; but I see no reason why there should not be an interchange, as suggested in the course of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's speech, to enable us under proper conditions to allow a Canadian to come to our country when naturalised, so that that naturalisation would not require reaffirming in New Zealand. I think the anomaly mentioned by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, where an American comes to Canada and is a Canadian citizen while he is there and is naturalised there, and then comes on to England, and when he is in England he is not a Canadian but is an American subject, ought to be removed, because once a man becomes a British subject when he comes to Canada, surely he ought to continue to be a British subject when he comes to England, and I am prepared to support general legislation to enable such an undesirable anomaly as the one referred to, to be stopped. Mr. MALAN: I may at once say that in general we agree with the view expressed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The practical difficulty of setting up two standards seems to me to be insurmountable. If you have in the same country two sets of certificates of naturalisation running, issued by two authorities, as is proposed in the draft Bill, one set issued by the local Government, and one set issued under the Imperial Act by the Governor- General, it seems to me you are let into a maze of practical difficulties which you can never overcome. Therefore, I think, that as far as the present Bill which has been circulated is concerned, we could never support that. Sir Wilfrid Laurier laid down two clear principles. The first one was uniformity of effect. If he means by that that the same rights which attach to a British subject in the country of naturalisation should also, as of right, be granted in every other part of the Empire to that naturalised British subject, I think his proposition goes too far. But if he sticks to what he first said—a British subject anywhere, British subject everywhere in the Empire—then, I think, he expresses the principle correctly. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Would you apply that to Chinese ? Mr. MALAN: Yes. A British subject anywhere in the Empire is a British subject everywhere in the Empire, but you do not necessarily give him all the rights of a British subject in all parts of the Empire. For instance, a man may be a British subject in South Africa and not be a registered voter at all. General BOTHA : That is the present condition. The CHAIRMAN : Or not be admitted to the country. Mr. MALAN: Yes ; lam speaking now first about the point of citizenship • He is a British subject, but if he is not 21, for one thing, then he is not a registered voter ; or if he does not satisfy the qualifications required by the country he is not a registered voter. In the Cape Province, for instance, there is a property qualification. In Natal it is the same. In the Transvaal and the Free State, where they have manhood suffrage, it is for Europeans only. So the coloured British subjects in the Transvaal and the Free State have not a right to go on to the register. In the Cape Colony they say he has to satisfy their local law as regards registration before he can become a registered voter. If, therefore, a man become a British subject in England and he has the right to be on the register, I do not want to say if so facto when he comes to South Africa he has a right of coming on to the register also. But if he has certain general rights as a British subject when he is naturalised here—that he will be under the British flag and have the protection of the British Flag—then wherever he goes within the Empire that should be maintained.

33—A. 4.

A.—4

256

Bth Day.] Natubalisation. [13 June, 1911. Mr. MALAN— cont. The second principle laid down by Sir Wilfrid Laurier was diversity of method, that is to say, we must leave to each individual self-governing part of the Empire the right to say under what conditions they will create British subjects. If you do not concede this, or if you override this principle by an Imperial Act, you will have very serious practical difficulties, and you will have the most serious constitutional difficulties. The practical difficulty will be that, supposing you decide to pass the Act, who must pass it ? If you ask the Imperial Parliament to pass it for the whole of the Empire and so override the local legislatures you will create difficulties. If you ask the local legislatures to pass a similar law you have this difficulty, that you cannot force the actual ipsissima verba Act through the local Parliaments. They must have the right to amend that Act, and as soon as you begin to amend a statute of that kind diversities will at once appear again. Then, there is this difficulty afterwards : How are you going to alter this law ? Supposing it is found that the law is not perfect and it has to be altered, you have no legislative power for the whole of the Empire by which you could satisfactorily deal with a question of that kind. Then you have the constitutional difficulty. The self-governing countries say : "We do not want to be overridden in our legislature by any other legislature in the world." But if you concede this principle of diversity of method, then it will apply to 99 per cent, of the British subjects that are created in the different Colonies, and the difficulty, if it is a difficulty at all, would only be as regards a few men who go from the one country to the other. I would then say " British subject anywhere, British subject everywhere," but subject to local laws. I have spoken about the registration of voters, and the qualification of men as voters. There is also the question of emigration. Being a British subject does not necessarily open the door to that British subject in any part of the Empire, and that principle of a Dominion, or any part of a Dominion, having the right to say what shall be the composition of its population is a principle which I think South Africa will maintain to the last. Provided that it is clearly understood, and clearly expressed, that " British subject anywhere, British subject everywhere " means subject to the local laws which obtain as regards the rights of British subject whether of citizenship or of admittance into a country, we think that the principles as laid down by Sir Wilfrid Laurier are correct and sound ones. Mr CHURCHILL : Gentlemen, I think the statements of opinions which have already been made to the Conference reveal the very great possibility of agreement being reached upon this subject, and they also reveal the great importance of the question. Sir Wilfrid Laurier referred to the fact that 100,000 emigrants enter Canada every year, the greater part of whom seek certificates of naturalisation at the earliest moment, and that this great body of persons, rapidly increasing in numbers, are in a wholly anomalous position outside Canada, whether they go to other parts of the British Empire or to the Mother Country, or go into foreign countries. This must, I am sure, bring to the Conference a realisation of the importance and the significance which this question has already attained. There is no doubt that the importance of the question of uniformity in naturalisation is going to grow ; it grows with every development in the wealth and prosperity of the Dominions, with every improvement in locomotion, with every extension of the affairs of persons resident in the Dominions to all parts of the world. Therefore, I welcome with the greatest satisfaction the strong statements made by every one of the representatives of the Dominions present here to-day in favour of the desirability of securing a uniform and world-wide status of British citizenship which shall protect the holder of that certificate wherever he may be, whether he be within the British Empire or in foreign countries. Now, I do not think I need dwell on the inconveniences of the present system. To the Dominions they are much greater than they are to the Mother Country, because, as a matter ofjfact,fat the present time the Dominions do as a matter of courtesy, or even as a matter ofjright under local statutes, accept as current our naturalisation certificates issued in this country, though we are unable at present (except as a matter of courtesy solely), to recognise theirs. Of course, the inter-

257

A.-4

-13 June, 1911.] Naturalisation. Day. Mr. CHURCHILL—con*. colonial question is quite unsettled, and, as Sir Joseph Ward and Mr. Batchelor have pointed out, the close proximity of Australia to New Zealand, where there are exactly similar conditions, has not prevented a complete absence of arrangement for mutual naturalisation between the two countries. It would be a great thing if we could remedy these inconveniences, but we shall not remedy the inconveniences of the present system if we depart from sound principles of Colonial and Imperial Government. We must base ourselves, in any legislation which we seek upon this subject, upon the two main principles, as I understand them, of the government of the British Empire. First of all, we must base ourselves upon the assents of local Parliaments ; and secondly, upon the responsibility of Ministers. As long as we stand on those two foundations I do not think that any real difficulties will arise in practice. Now the draft Bill which has been circulated and has been examined and studied in all the Dominions must not be regarded as by any means a final or a perfect scheme. I think the very valuable criticisms which have been made upon it, not only this morning but in the despatches which have been written, particularly the South African Despatch, have shown that that Bill can only be regarded as a convenient peg upon which to hang the discussions of this subject, and we are not committed to it in form or in detail at all this morning, as far as the Imperial Government is concerned. It is a method, and I think it has proved to be not an inconvenient method, of raising the question. lam bound to say I have found the criticisms which have been advanced by the different self-governing Dominions upon that Bill very valid and important, and I agree very much with them. I certainly feel, and I am sure my Right Honourable friend, the President of the Conference, agrees with me, that no Imperial Act ought on this subject to deal with the self-governing Colonies, unless and except in so far as it is adopted by their Parliaments. We feel very strongly that, in regard to a question like naturalisation, the Government of that Dominion where the certificate of naturalisation is applied for must be the judge and the complete judge. We have no desire at all that the Secretary of State for the Home Department should have the power to reach out, as it were, into the self-governing area of the South African Union or the Dominion of Canada and confer naturalisation—l think that perhaps was in Mr. Malan's mind—on persons who have been refused naturalisation there. We have no idea of that kind of reaching out into a self-governing area ; nor have we any idea of overriding local law. That is a matter of the very greatest importance. A certificate of naturalisation does not entitle the naturalised person to any treatment in this country or in any Dominion of the British Empire, except as may be prescribed by the laws of this country or of the Dominions in question. We draw distinctions in this country between different classes of white British subjects. We do not, for instance, put peers on the register for voting ; and there are many distinctions which you draw in the colonies. Nothing in the proposal we put forward to-day is intended to touch or affect the local law as regards immigration, that is to say, the exclusion of aliens or even natural-born British subjects, which the colonies strongly hold to in some cases, and I think very reasonably in some cases ; and nothing would affect any differentiation which may be in force by local laws within the area of any self-governing colony. I feel that we have to recognise all those facts if we are to make any advance in this field. Then "I come to the second step. There is a great diversity in the conditions of naturalisation in the self-governing Dominions, and I do not see how we, sitting round this table, could come to an agreement to establish uniform Imperial conditions of naturalisation. Ido not think we could. The circumstances of the different Dominions are so varied, and the time and labour of the work, even if it were a possibility, would be so great that we should not reach any practical conclusion, and if we did reach a practical conclusion the whole matter would then have to be delayed until the different uniform Bills enforcing the uniform principle had been carried through by the Parliaments all over the British Empire. Ido not think that there can be any progress along that road. So lam forced to the conclusion, after considering very carefully the objections which have been taken to the draft Bill and having the advantage of discussing this matter with the learned SolicitorGeneral, who is here this morning, that if we are to give effect to the resolution

A.—4

258

Bth Day.] Nattjbalisation. [13 June, 1911. Mr. CHURCHILL— cont. proposed by Mr. Batchelor and to the wishes which. Sir Wilfrid Laurier has expressed we shall have to face two standards of naturalisation ; there will have to be the local law, and there will have to be an Imperial standard. I see Mr. Malan smile, but I think I can meet the difficulty which he has in his mind. For our part in this country we cannot depart from the five years' limit as a qualifying period. We are in very close proximity to Europe, and great numbers of persons come through this country and come into this country, and with every alteration in our social legislation there is greater incentive to acquire British citizenship in this country, and we feel it is absolutely necessary for our good government to insist upon a five-years period. But that five-years period, if insisted upon by this Mother-country, will not be any inconvenience to the Dominions ; on the contrary it will be a protection to them against persons being naturalised in this country and then becoming British subjects for the purposes of the different Dominions, because it will prevent such persons getting in under standards which might be less severe than those the Dominions have thought it necessary to establish for their own protection. What I would therefore suggest is this—if I may make a tentative suggestion to the Conference—that it should be open to any person who has obtained a certificate of local naturalisation in any of the Dominions, and who, in addition to that local certificate of naturalisation, has resided five years in any part of the British Empire to apply for a certificate of Imperial naturalisation. He would apply, of course, to the responsible Ministers of the Dominion or State in which he was resident, and if the responsible Ministers indorse his application, the Government, upon advice in the ordinary manner, would issue the certificate. In that way it would be possible to allow all the existing diversities of Dominion legislation to continue untouched. There would be no need to alter all those laws, although it is very possible that there would be a gradual tendency to assimilate them, but that would be a matter which time and circumstances, and the opinions of the Dominions concerned, would solve in their own way. There would be no necessity at all to alter the existing diversity of practice. I think in the great majority of cases persons would be quite content to remain in the enjoyment of the local naturalisation, but if they wished to go further, in two years later in the case of Canada, or three years later in the case of Australia, they could, by application to the Government, or under any other condition that the Government of the Dominion might prescribe, take out papers of Imperial naturalisation, and those papers of Imperial naturalisation, based, as they would be, not only upon the local citizenship, but also upon the five years qualification, ought to be current throughout the British Empire. Of course, there is just one loophole of difficulty, to which Mr. Malan has referred, and which does not appear to be completely met; that is, supposing a man applies in South Africa for naturalisation, and is refused, and then goes away, say, to Canada, and lives there for a period, then gets Imperial naturalisation, and then and there comes back to South Africa, he will have acquired an Imperial naturalisation certificate current in South Africa, although he had previously been refused that certificate by the Government of that Dominion. I think we are having to go a good long way round to get to the difficulty exemplified in that case. Such cases would be extremely rare, but I can only say in answer to that, that the local law would not be affected at all, and if it really were thought to be such a serious danger that this should happen, I do not see any reason why, if it were thought worth while to do it, the Government of the Dominion which did not wish to have this man should not by legislation arrange that the Imperial certificate should be in abeyance in cases where an application had previously been refused to the same person within their own bounds. Ido not think the danger is a real one, but it would be quite possible to safeguard local autonomy completely against it. Mr. BATCHELOR : Could not you do this—require a declaration from each applicant for an Imperial certificate that he had not applied and been refused a certificate ? That would seem to get over the difficulty.

259

A.^-4,

13 June, 1911.] Naturalisation. [8th Day. Mr. CHUECHILL : I am afraid it would not. We could not guarantee we should not naturalise any persons here who had been refused naturalisation elsewhere. Mr. BATCHELOR : No ; but you would not give him an Imperial certificate. Mr. CHURCHILL : We do now—a world-wide certificate. Dr. FINDLAY : We have a separate resolution down, although, I take it, it is embraced within the present discussion. I have not said anything about this matter, but I hope, if the matter is not being treated independently, to say one word now. Mr. CHURCHILL : I have practically finished what I have to say, and I will just summarise my points in five propositions : (1) Imperial nationality should be world-wide and uniform, each Dominion being left free to grant local nationality on such terms as its Legislature thinks fit. (2) The Mother-country finds it necessary to maintain the five years. This is a safeguard to the Dominions as well as to us ; but five years anywhere in the Empire should be as good as five years in the United Kingdom. (3) The grant of nationality is in every case and this discretion should be exercised by those responsible in the area in which the applicant has spent the last twelve months. (4) The Imperial Act would not apply to the self-governing Dominions until adopted by them. (5) Nothing now proposed would affect the validity and effectiveness of local laws regulating immigration and the like, or differentiating between classes of British subjects. Those are the general principles and the main principles which, I think, would have to underlie any legislation we may endeavour to put forward on this subject, and I would express a hope that the Conference, if it felt itself in general agreement with those general principles, which are not at all unhappily expressed by the resolution which Mr. Batchelor has moved, would allow us to redraft the Bill in conformity with those principles which are laid down, and submit it to a subsidiary conference in the shortest possible time. I do not think it would take very long. That is what I should hope might follow from our discussion. The CHAIRMAN : I would like to make this point to Mr. Malan. He supposed the extraordinary case of a man failing to get naturalisation in South Africa, but coming to Canada, or coming here, in order to get naturalisation. That man is in no better position after he has acquired that naturalisation than thousands of Britishborn subjects to-day, either Indians born in India or Chinamen born in Hong Kong. The fact that he has acquired elsewhere naturalisation, which has been refused to him at the Cape, does not entitle him on his return to South Africa to any rights from which he is excluded by your other laws laying down exclusive regulations as to colour or any other bar you may choose to impose, so that he really gains nothing by that process, except British nationality, which he may have been born with, and yet be an excluded person in South Africa. Mr. MALAN: Yes ; but I would just like to point out that I was criticising clause 7 of the draft Bill. Our contention was, that no applicant should be allowed to defeat the local naturalisation law by applying for the Imperial naturalisation. Mr. CHURCHILL : That was the intention ; but the drafting is ambiguous, and I quite agree it is not at all satisfactory ; so let us consider clause 7 as gone altogether.

A.—4,

260

Day.] Naturalisation. [13 June, 1911. Mr. MALAN : As the Home Secretary has stated now that twelve months at least he must be in the country in which he applies for Imperial naturalisation, that alters the situation very much indeed. Sir JOHN SIMON : The last twelve months. Mr. MALAN : The last twelve months ; so that with the altered principle as expressed in what we have now —No. 3—as against what is contained in clause 7 of the draft Bill, I think very much to be said for it; personally I would like|to say that as this is an important matter, if we could have a copy of those five or six principles, as expressed by the Home Secretary, before we come to a final decision I should be pleased, because we have hitherto been going rather on the principles expressed in the draft Bill, and they are very materially altered now in the memorandum read by the Home Secretary. Dr. FINDLAY : I should like to say, first, one word here. It seems to me that the plan suggested by the Home Secretary involves a little needless duplication. It presupposes an application for Colonial naturalisation first, and bases upon that a right to acquire Imperial naturalisation. I think that might be avoided, and the same purpose attained by there being passed an Imperial statute providing for Imperial naturalisation, and providing that the powers given in that Imperial statute may be adopted by the self-governing oversea Dependencies, but that they should have power, however, in addition to that, to meet a difficulty which would arise, and that difficulty is this : it may well be that you will grant naturalisation upon conditions less stringent than those prevailing in some oversea Dependencies. That is quite conceivable. Possibly it is an existing fact. You would require, therefore, to provide that where an applicant for Imperial naturalisation in, say, Canada was going to acquire naturalisation there by virtue of Imperial naturalisation, the Canadian Government should have power to prescribe some further condition, some stricter condition, than that contained in your Imperial statute. The converse of that is a provision that local Colonial naturalisation may be given if the country desires to give naturalisation upon conditions less stringent than those contained in the Imperial statute. The situation then would be this : you pass a statute providing for Imperial naturalisation which may or may not be adopted by the self-governing countries. That is the first stage. Secondly, they may adopt it, and provide that any person applying for naturalisation under it should comply with still stricter conditions than those contained in that statute, because you will observe that obtaining Imperial naturalisation means obtaining naturalisation in that particular country. Thirdly, they may enact that the present system, if it is better, should continue. Now, the difference between the course suggested and the one I am suggesting is this : you would in many cases avoid duplication altogether. The Imperial statute would be passed providing for Imperial naturalisation. New Zealand, for instance, may be content to adopt the statute as it is without more ado, and without providing for any local naturalisation at all. Canada may do the same. You would then avoid the double system entirely. It may be Canada or New Zealand think the conditions are too stringent, and it will continue its local system. It may be that Canada does not want a local system, but wants to increase the stringency of the Imperial system, and it could do that by a separate statute. So you would unify the process, having but one process, and still preserve to each country the power of controlling this matter itself. Mr. CHURCHILL : But the Mother Country has at present the most stringent law as far as the time-limit is concerned. Our five years covers everybody. Dr. FINDLAY : That may be so just now ; but changes may take place in Australia or elsewhere, increasing the stringency of your conditions. That is conceivable, and one must provide now for the future. The course I am advocating seems to me to avoid duplication—local naturalisation first, and afterwards Imperial naturalisation. I should have thought there would be no difficulty in drafting the proposed Bill for Imperial naturalisation, leaving each country to adopt it or not as it pleased, leaving each country to ask for increased stringency if it pleased, and leaving each country to continue its present system if it pleased.

261

A.—4,

13 June, 1911.] Naturalisation. [Bth Day. Mr. CHURCHILL : I think the method we are proposing would be very simple and fair. Take the case of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's 100,000 American citizens that have come into Canada this year ; in the third year they would become Canadian citizens, but in the fifth year, if they wished, they could become Imperial citizens. There would be no difficulty, no extra inquiry, but simply an endorsement. Dr. FINDLAY : That would, of course, be a matter of machinery, but we require a person to first apply for Colonial naturalisation, and then by a separate process, which might be simple, to apply for Imperial naturalisation. Why not unify the processes ? Mr. CHURCHILL : If he had all the qualifications there is no reason why he should not apply for the full Imperial naturalisation if he had been there for five years. Dr. FINDLAY : The Bill before us contemplates the two processes ; first local, and then Imperial naturalisation. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : The suggestions of Mr. Churchill go very far towards remedying the condition of things which now exists, and which everybody admits is a source of danger, and which ought to be remedied in some way. His remedy is that any man who has obtained letters of naturalisation in any of the Dominions may come here to England and obtain upon presentation of an application a further letter of naturalisation which would make him an Imperial citizen. Mr. CHURCHILL : He may obtain it in the Dominions. The CHAIRMAN": He need not come here. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Very well; it may be obtained in the Dominions themselves. I hoped that the Imperial Government would have been able to go further, and to recognise the letter of naturalisation which has been given as carrying its effect everywhere. That can be done, I think, with the diversity of legislation which exists to-day. In England you require a probation of five years. Very well, a man cannot obtain letters of naturalisation unless he has been a resident in this country for five years. After that he can become a British subject. These are conditions which are applicable to the United Kingdom. In the case of Australia, the same man, if he is located in Australia and not in Great Britain, can have his letters of naturalisation after a probation of two years. Can there be any reason at all, from a practical point of view, why this alien, who has become a British subject in Australia should not travel anywhere, and put his letter of naturalisation in his pocket, and claim he has the right of a British citizen, even if he comes to England ? I see no objection. There may be objections, but I see them not. In the same way, suppose he goes to New Zealand. New Zealand is very careful also in the selection of its own citizens, but in New Zealand the main question which they have in mind when granting letters of naturalisation is not the period of residence but the character of the man. Sir JOSEPH WARD : And his education. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : And his education. A man goes to New Zealand one day and applies for naturalisation on the following day. They do not attach any importance to how long he has been there, but they ask him what is his education and what is his character, and they go carefully into it, and they come to the conclusion that he is a fit person to be a British subject. What objection is there, if that man comes to Great Britain, to his being recognised as a British subject as well ? I repeat what I said a moment ago, that I see no objection. There may be objections from the point of view of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain,

A.-4,

262

Bth Day.] Naturalisation. [13 June, 1911. Sir WILFRID LAURIER—con*. and if there are we have to submit; but I think it would be far safer if you were to say that when a man has obtained his letters of naturalisation in any of the Dominions he can put his certificate in his pocket and can travel all over the world and come to Great Britain and say : "lam a British subject." It would be much more simple, as everybody would admit, and unless there are very strong objections to the contrary, this would seem to me a far simpler solution of the whole problem. At present a man who obtains his letters of naturalisation in Great Britain comes over to Canada or Australia, or anywhere else, and he is at once recognised as a British subject; and I would like to have the reverse position—that a man naturalised in the Dominions should be also recognised anywhere as a British subject. There are objections. One objection is perhaps the colour question. It is supposed that here you are perhaps more easy on the colour question than we would be in Canada, South Africa, or New Zealand. I, for my part, do not see any serious difficulty in that, because the colour question will never be a problem in this country. The men of the coloured races who would be naturalised in Great Britain would be of higher education and of the higher class. You would not have in this country a rush of such immigration as we would have in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, unless it is limited. That is really the true difficulty at the bottom of every mind here, that you may naturalise a class of subject generally undesirable. This is a difficulty technically, but I do not think it is a difficulty practically, and therefore I would prefer, if His Majesty's Government are able to see their way to do so, our certificates to be accepted here and their certificates to be accepted in our countries. Mr. MALAN: ' Would not you stipulate for a minimum of two years' residence ? Sir WILFRID LAURIER : I would not like to interfere with the freedom or the wisdom or the preference of any Dominion on this point. For my part, lam quite willing to accept in Canada every man naturalised in New Zealand, although there is no probation at all there in point of residence. If a man comes to Canada with a certificate issued in New Zealand, for my part I would at once pass legislation in Canada to accept this man as a British subject in Canada. The CHAIRMAN : Would every Dominion be willing to accept the individuals naturalised by every other Dominion under laws on which they had not been consulted ? Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Let me say in answer to the objection raised by Mr. Malan that a man who had been rejected in one country might go somewhere else and there get naturalised. As has been pointed out by Mr. Churchill, this is a very remote contingency ; it is a possibility. Mr. MALAN : Under your system it would not arise at all, and under the revised scheme as laid down by Mr. Churchill now, the chances are very much less; but in the Bill as it was sent out to us, the man could get the Imperial naturalisation in his own Dominion after he is refused naturalisation by his local Government. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : But even under those circumstances it would be easy for any Dominion to say that a man whose application had been rejected could not be recognised under any circumstances. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I think one of the questions that might possibly be answered by Mr. Churchill is that suggestion made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier as to accepting a British naturalised subject everywhere, with the system that prevails in New Zealand of no limitation of time, with three years in Canada, and with two years in Australia, and so on ; would that be acceptable to the Imperial Government in view of the fact that they have a five-years limitation ?

263

A.—4,

13 June, 1911.] Naturalisation. [Bth Day. Mr. CHURCHILL: No, it would not. There is a very strong feeling in this country that it ought not to be too easy for aliens to obtain naturalisation, and that feeling will increase, I think, with the development of the pensions and the insurance schemes, which play such a large part now-a-days, and in which there is a distinct difference made between naturalised and non-naturalised people in this country. I think there would be a difficulty, and at any rate, we attach as much importance to our five years' limitation as any of the representatives of the self-governing Dominions attach to their various standards. The CHAIRMAN: I think Sir Wilfrid Laurier rather suggested another method of treatment—that a naturalisation in Canada after a period of three years should become automatically at the expiration of five years naturalisation in the Empire as a whole. But there, again, there would be a difficulty, that if an American had resided three years in Canada and acquired his naturalisation, the moment he had got that paper in his pocket he might return to the United States and remain there, and at the end of five years he would for his own purposes have become a British citizen. Mr. CHURCHILL : No, it would not do. The CHAIRMAN: That is how the automatic suggestion would work, because we would not be able to say to him : " You have not resided for five years in the British Empire," nor should we be able to put to him the point: "Do you intend to reside in the British Empire in future ? " Sir JOSEPH WARD : That might be got over by a certificate that he had. Mr. BATCHELOR: May I say on the point raised by Sir Wilfrid Laurier that, as far as Australia is concerned, I do not think we could agree to that, because it would be giving each other country legislative powers practically which would govern local naturalisation. Take the case of New Zealand: they require no limitation at all as to residence. In Australia we require two years' probation. People could come after, say, getting a certificate from New Zealand to Australia, who had not completed anything like the two years we require, and, of course, under those circumstances they would have advantages by going first to New Zealand which they would not have if they came direct to Australia. Under those circumstances it would be over-riding our conditions. It seems to me that the method which was suggested by Mr. Churchill, which I am very pleased to say was practically on the same lines as that which I suggested, gets over nearly all these difficulties, the only difference appearing to be upon the question as to whether an Imperial Act is necessary, or whether we should set up some standard. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I think an Imperial Act is absolutely necessary. The CHAIRMAN : An Imperial adoptive Act. Mr. BATCHELOR : I think so. Some kind of standard would have to be set up by some authority which each of the Dominions by legislation could adopt. Whether the standard is set up by Imperial Act or not is not material to the Dominions ; it is not material to us, for instance. Probably the best way is to have an Imperial standard. Mr. CHURCHILL: Of course, the five years includes everything—the greater includes the less —and it would bring us all together. Mr. BATCHELOR : I do not think there are any conditions imposed by any of the States that are not also imposed by the United Kingdom, so that I see no difficulty at all. What each of the Dominions can do is to slightly alter their own legislation, giving power to adopt the Imperial Act or the Imperial standard, and it seems to me that that gets over all the difficulties which have been suggested.

34—A. 4.

A.—4

264

Day.] Naturalisation. [13 June, 1911. Mr. CHURCHILL : We do not tie ourselves to any other condition at all except the five years. There are a great many differences as to how character is ascertained, the ability to speak English, and so on. We do not trouble about that at all; all we say is : " The local certificate in a Dominion plus five years' residence in the British Empire." It is very simple. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : In the British Empire or in the United Kingdom ? Mr. CHURCHILL : In the British Empire, residence anywhere in the British Empire counting for the five years. Sir JOHN SIMON: I should like to point out with reference to what Mr. Batchelor has just said, that from the Home Country's point of view there is one reason why we must have an Imperial Act, and it is this: Under our existing law five years' residence in the British Empire does not help the applicant at all. Fifty years' residence in the British Empire does not help him. What he has to show is five years' residence in the United Kingdom and the intention to continue to reside in the United Kingdom, and, of course, that has got to be our law until we have altered it. Therefore we must have an Imperial Act from our point of view in order that we may do what we all wish to do, recognise residence anywhere in the British Empire as just as good as residence in the United Kingdom. That leads me to make this suggestion to Mr. Malan. He was raising this difficulty. He was saying that perhaps a man may have been objected to on good grounds in some portion of the Empire and then afterwards may apply to the Home Government and attempt to get a certificate of naturalisation here. May I just point out this ? Before he could get a certificate of naturalisation here he would have to show where his five years of residence has taken place, and in the case supposed he has resided in various parts of the Empire. I conceive it would not be a very difficult regulation to say that if a man came forward and said : "I make up part of my five years by saying that I have resided for two of them in South Africa," communication could take place in order that it might be possible to see whether South Africa knows anything about him. That would be a very possible regulation, and it is made possible because he has got to show where his five years have been made up. If he has done five years in the United Kingdom without a change, he naturally satisfies the Home authorities. May I say also, Sir, that I appreciate very fully, and I have felt the difficulty myself to which Mr. Malan refers with regard to clause 7 of the Bill, and I am quite certain that that does not accurately represent the intentions of those who drafted it or the Home Government. It is essential to the scheme which the Home Secretary has referred to that the grant of an Imperial certificate should be a matter of discretion, and that that discretion should be exercised not in all cases by the Home Government, of course, but by the authority which has the local opportunity of judging of the man's personal qualities and credentials during the last year of his five years. That seems to me to be essential to the scheme. Mr. MALAN: That is not expressed in clause 7at all. Sir JOHN SIMON : I agree it is not, but I am confident it was what was really intended, and it is made very plain by what Mr. Churchill has said. May I finally point out this ? It is said very truly that there might be cases in which a man would get an Imperial certificate, although if he applied locally he might not be regarded, in some parts of the Empire, as qualified for a local certificate on the ground of colour or so on. What I suggest the Conference has to remember is that for every one man who is naturalised you have thousands of persons who are natural born British subjects. Of course our law is that anybody born in any part of the British Empire, whatever his parentage, is a natural born British subject for all purposes ; and, as Mr. Harcourt was pointing out, whatever may happen in the case of a man of colour who in some corner of the Empire gets naturalisation, he cannot

265

A.—4

13 June, 1911.] Naturalisation. [Bth Day. Sir JOHN SlMON— cont. be put in a better position than an exactly similar man who was born, within the British Empire. The real safeguard which I suggest that the Dominions have is the power which they, of course, exercise freely as they think right, of imposing conditions which apply not only to aliens, but apply to British subjects, which must be satisfied before those persons in their own area exercise political or other rights. That seems to me really to show that the danger is exaggerated when the danger is referred to of the grant of naturalisation in some other part of the Empire. Mr. CHURCHILL : I think the Conference are perhaps ready to come to the conclusion on these points. Ido not know, Sir Wilfrid, how far we meet your view ? Sir WILFRID LAURIER : They do go very far, but not quite as far as I would like. What I have in my mind is this —of course, every one speaks for the country he represents here—the case which I put forward some time ago of the American citizen who has been three years in Canada and becomes a British subject in Canada, but is not a British subject in Great Britain. You would meet partially my views if you were to go further. I had hoped that the man who was a British subject in Canada would be a British subject in Great Britain. I had hoped you would go further than you are going, but if you are going to say that with two further years in Canada he would be a British subject. Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : I would accept that. Sir JOHN SIMON: And granted by the Canadian Government. Sir WILFRID LAURIER: Yes, that would carry the full British citizenship. General BOTHA: I think we should accept Mr. Churchill's suggestion. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I agree. Mr. CHURCHILL : May I ask the Conference, then, if they will allow me to have the Bill redrafted at once on the lines of the principles which have been elucidated in the discussion, so that the Bill, or, at any rate, the heads of the Bill* could be submitted to the representatives of the Dominions before they leave this country. I am not quite familiar with the actual procedure of the Conference, but I imagine that we could have a sitting in a fortnight or three weeks of one day when I could submit the draft Bill. The CHAIRMAN: lam afraid that will not be possible. Mr. FISHER : I should like to say, Mr. Harcourt, that I should hesitate to assent to a proposition of that kind—the examination of a Bill to be gone through. We shall do well if we confine ourselves to affirming propositions in well-defined language expressing our views here. The CHAIRMAN: They must ultimately take the form of a Bill. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : If you ask me, I say we are prepared to accept the proposal as far as Canada is concerned of adding another two years to the period of probation. If you could make it general and say that after continuous residence in any of the Dominions for five years

* See draft Bill in Volume of papers [Cd. 5746—1].

A.-4

266

Bth Day.] Naturalisation. [13 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I was going to say the very same thing, that if the five years which is suggested as being the period for Canada, that is two years plus these local three years—if the proposal is made that it is to be after five years' residence in our countries, I see no objection to it at all. Sir JOHN SIMON : That is a portion of the second proposition which Mr. Churchill read out, that five years anywhere in the Empire should be as good as five years in the United Kingdom. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That is all right. The CHAIRMAN : It may be three years in Canada and two years in New Zealand, and that would make five years for British naturalisation. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : But the probation should be in the country of naturalisation. It would not be that the applicant should be three years in Canada and two years in Australia. The CHAIRMAN : It would, for Great Britain ; that is the change we propose to make. We should give him Imperial naturalisation so long as he has resided five years in any one part or parts of the British Empire. Sir JOSEPH WARD : There is one point I want to ask a question upon so as to make it quite clear. Supposing in the case of New Zealand, in connection with this second part of the proposal as to the five years, we required a man before we naturalised him to wait for five years, would this proposal mean that on his being naturalised he has to stay another five years before he gets it ? Sir JOHN SIMON : No, they overlap. Sir JOSEPH WARD : It is residence only. The CHAIRMAN : It is concurrent residence. Dr. PINDLAY : We have no prescribed number of years. We ask how long he has been in New Zealand, and we may grant it without any period being prescribed. Will you ask as they do in Canada : " What period does your law provide ? " and if the answer is " Two years," will you then say " You have to wait another three years and then you will have Imperial letters of naturalisation " ? We have no time prescribed, and we would like to know what evidence you would be content with. Mr. FISHER: You could state in your certificate the time he had been there. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I think our better way would be probably to put into one of our Acts a period of years, say, a year or two, and that would get over it. Mr. FISHER: Supposing you naturalised an applicant the next day, Sir Joseph, you could put down the time he had been in your country when you granted him naturalisation ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes, but I think the clearer and more handy way would be to put a period of a year or two into our own Act. The CHAIRMAN : That would be an advantage in the way of similarity.

A.—4

267

13 June, 1911.] Naturalisation. [Bth Day. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : The idea is this : that after a man who has obtained letters of naturalisation in any of the Dominions has five years' residence, under those letters of naturalisation he is entitled to be a British subject anywhere in the Empire. The CHAIRMAN : Yes, anywhere. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : But if he has been three years in Canada I would not should have Imperial letters of naturalisation if he goes to reside elsewhere in the British Empire. The CHAIRMAN : But that is for British purposes ; we are to be satisfied with five years in any part of the Empire. Mr. FISHER : If you would allow me to say so I am rather in a difficulty here. The suggestion now is that there must be five years after naturalisation. The CHAIRMAN: No. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I shall make it clear by legislation if it is not so. Mr. FISHER : You could put on to your dated naturalisation certificate the length of time the applicant had been in New Zealand, and that would count prior to the gi anting of the certificate, and the subsequent period would make up the five years. I see no difficulty at all now. The CHAIRMAN : They do not inquire in New Zealand as to his length of residence. Mr. FISHER : In my own State of Queensland, a foreigner, as we call them, coming to that State could apply the day he landed to be naturalised, and then six months afterwards they would grant his naturalisation. Sir JOHN SIMON : Then he would want four years and six months more. Sir JOSEPH WARD : It is only a matter of detail as to whether any of the Dominions remain without a fixed period of years or with a period of years. I believe, for the purpose of enabling us all to have a better understanding of what we are doing, it would be better if New Zealand fixed a term of a year or two as the case may be. We should not object to making it three years, the same as in Canada, because, as I have said, we keep some of our people out for more than twenty years. Although we have not a limit we do not allow them to get in in a hurry, they must have the proper qualifications. I wanted to say this particularly, Mr. Churchill, that as far as I am concerned I would infinitely prefer to see your proposed Bill. I believe without our going in the direction of saying that we affirm everything in the Bill, if we had the suggested Bill of Mr. Churchill with amendments on the lines suggested this morning, we might perhaps by way of suggestion be of some service in arriving at what we could all generally agree to, because, after all, you have to remember that the Imperial Bill is not going to supersede our power to legislate locally. It is not to supersede our power to keep out the alien, and it is not to supersede our power to keep out the coloured man, so that we remain perfectly free, but I think it would be a valuable thing if we could see the proposed Bill, and it might save a lot of time in bringing the system into operation throughout the Empire. Mr. CHURCHILL : I will ask them to begin drafting it at once. May I propose then to the Conference this resolution which I will read and embodying the difficult points ? " That the Conference approves the scheme of Imperial citizenship based on the following five propositions : (1) Imperial nationality should be worldwide and uniform, each Dominion being left free to grant local nationality on such terms as its Legislature thinks fit. (2) The Mother Country finds it necessary to

A.—4

268

Bth Day.] Naturalisation. [13 June, 1911. Mr. CHURCHILL— cont. maintain five years as the qualifying period. This is a safeguard to the Dominions as well as to us, but five years anywhere in the Empire should be as good as five years in the United Kingdom. (3) The grant of nationality is in every case discretionary, and this discretion should be exercised by those responsible in the area in which the applicant has spent the last twelve months. (4) The Imperial Act would not apply to the self-governing Dominions until adopted by them. (5) Nothing now proposed would affect the validity andjeffectiveness of local laws regulating immigration and the like or differentiating between classes of British subjects." Mr. BATCHELOR : Is there not one other thing you want there—l do not know that it is quite clearly enough expressed—that no Imperial naturalisation would override the local requirements ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : It cannot until it is adopted by the local Legislature. Mr. BATCHELOR : I do not think you have that expressed at all—that no Imperial naturalisation granted anywhere can give naturalisation in cases where locally something else is required. Sir JOHN SIMON : Take the case of a natural-born British subject who may, of course, be a person of colour, it may be that he cannot speak any European language—there are thousands and tens of thousands such—l suggest to you that he is a natural-born British subject whatever happens, but, of course, that does not in the least affect the legislative power of each and every Dominion either to exclude him or, if he comes inside the area of a Dominion, to deny him privileges which white people or persons speaking a European language enjoy. Surely his position internationally as a British subject of the King is beyond question. Mr. BATCHELOR : lam not discussing that at all—that is not the point. The question is this : Supposing any one of the Dominions chooses to impose some kind of barrier on naturalisation, this Imperial Act should not prevent them doing something. Mr. CHURCHILL : Nothing would conflict with the local law. Mr. BATCHELOR : That is not expressed in your five propositions. Mr. CHURCHILL : You have a pretty good safeguard in practice. First of all, you have the fact that either the Mother Country or else one of the Dominions has thought the man a fitting and suitable subject. Then you have the five years which are in force in this country, which is a still greater security, and the special conditions which apply in this country, one of which is ability to read and write the English language. Mr. BATCHELOR: Yours covers all our requirements, there is no doubt about it. Mr. CHURCHILL : I do not think you need run any risk at all in practice. The only thing you need to say in the future, supposing you wish to say it should be 10 years is : " We will not have anybody who has not been 10 years in the Colony." Sir JOSEPH WARD : I am satisfied with the proposal, and I think it meets what Mr. Batchelor wants. Mr. CHURCHILL : In any case nothing affects the autonomous power of the local Parliament. You could pass a law in which you could say " The provisions of this Act must be in abeyance as respects Australia."

A.—4

269

13 June, 1911.] Naturalisation. [Bth Day. Mr. FISHER : Can an Act of the Imperial Parliament, except it specifically states that it does so, amend any of the legislation of the self-governing dominions ? The CHAIRMAN : We discussed that before you came in. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : It has been approved. The CHAIRMAN : It was only proposed that the Imperial Act should be adoptive by the Dominions. Mr. FISHER : That is quite true, but you say here—drafted by the legal hand, I presume —that it will not in any way affect the self-governing powers of the Dominions. Sir JOSEPH WARD : It provides that unless we adopt that legislation it does not apply to us. Mr. FISHER : Why is it necessary to say that ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Because it could not have any effect unless we did. Mr. FISHER : Why do you need to state that there ? If you cannot do it, you cannot do it. Dr. FINDLAY : It is still doubtful. Mr. CHURCHILL : If Mr. Fisher would read the objections which South Africa took to the draft Bill, they took the constitutional ground, and these are more or less the principles which should guide us in preparing the Bill. It is not necessary to affirm it in law at all. Mr. FISHER: You are to ask the Government in the Bill to declare that so-and-so is so-and-so. Sir JOHN SIMON: Would it not meet your feeling if one said—l think exactly the same effect is produced if one laid down one of those propositions in this way : " That the scheme for Imperial naturalisation would have no operative effect in any Dominion until the responsible Government and Legislature of that Dominion had adopted it as its own law." That is exactly the same thing. The CHAIRMAN : This is not a declaration that we cannot legislate for a Dominion; it is merely a declaration that on this particular matter we do not propose to. Mr. FISHER : It is for you to say. I feel, speaking for the Commonwealth of Australia, that there can be no attack on our constitution unless it is specifically stated that you are attempting to amend it, and if you do, you will hear about it. The CHAIRMAN : There is no admission on either side, Mr. Fisher. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Under the Imperial Naturalisation Act of 1870, which is in operation now, exactly the same position exists as that which you are referring to, and we are not bound by that. Mr. FISHER : It is the statement of it that seems to me to be a redundancy. Sir JOHN SIMON: It was intended rather as a protection against a possible misunderstanding.

A.—4

270

Bth Day.] Naturalisation. [13 June, 1911. Mr. CHURCHILL : I think it was really necessary to do it because of the objections that have been taken by the Government of South Africa ; they raised the constitutional point very strongly and, therefore, in trying to arrive at a general basis of agreement this morning, we put that in in order that every one should feel that we are not trying in this instance to do anything of the sort. Mr. FISHER : Theirs is the most recently prepared, and their constitution is all right. Sir JOHN SIMON : Would it not put it in a way which is not capable of misconstruction, Mr. Fisher, if our fourth proposition ran : " The Imperial Act should be so framed as to enable each self-governing Dominion to adopt it " ? The effect is exactly the same. Mr. FISHER : These are much better words. The CHAIRMAN : May I take it that we are agreed to these general propositions on which the Home Office and the Law Officers will proceed to frame a Bill to be submitted and discussed at the earliest possible moment. Mr. MALAN: We down here have heard it only once read, and I would like to hear it again. Mr. CHURCHILL : " That this Conference approves the scheme of Imperial citizenship, based on the following five propositions." I will send to each member of the Conference a typescript of this, and perhaps that will be the better course. The CHAIRMAN : But that will mean that we do not come to any decision on it now. Mr. CHURCHILL: I will read it now, and send a copy this evening: " (1) Imperial nationality should be world-wide and uniform, each Dominion being left free to grant local nationality on such terms as its Legislature thinks fit. (2) The Mother Country finds it necessary to maintain five years as a qualifying period. This is a safeguard to the Dominions as well as to us but five years anywhere in the Empire should be as good as five years in the United Kingdom. (3) The grant of nationality is in every case discretionary, and this discretion should be exercised by those responsible in the area in which the applicant has spent the last twelve months." Mr. MALAN : That would apply to the Imperial nationality as well as to the local nationality. I think you had better make that clear. Sir JOHN SIMON : We had better put in the word " Imperial." Mr. CHURCHILL : Yes. " The grant of Imperial nationality." Mr. MALAN : That is right. Mr. CHURCHILL : " (4) The Imperial Act should be so framed as to enable each self-governing Dominion to adopt it. (5) Nothing now proposed " (this again is not necessary, but only to make clear where we stand—it is only an aide memoire) " would affect the validity and effectiveness of local law regulating immigration and the like or differentiating between classes of British subjects." The CHAIRMAN : I think we can probably agree to this as instructions for the drafting of a Bill. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes, I think that is right. General BOTHA: Yes.

271

A.—4

13 June, 1911.] Naturalisation. [Bth Day. Mr. BATCHELOR : I should like to say, as far as I can see, that I am not quite sure that all of those clauses are necessary, but I certainly agree with them all. Sir JOHN SIMON : They are really your suggestions. Mr. CHURCHILL : They are aides memoire for drafting the Bill. Mr. BATCHELOR : I should like, personally, to express my pleasure that the Conference has come to a decision which, I think, will be very useful and have very good results. The CHAIRMAN: I think we may have time, Sir Joseph, to deal with the uniformity of laws, which is next on the Agenda. I take it that the three resolutions on naturalisation which stand first are now withdrawn, and this one substituted. [Agreed.] Uniformity in Accident Compensation Law. " That it is in the best interests of the Empire that there should be more uniformity throughout its centres and dependencies in the law of ... Accident Compensation." Sir JOSEPH WARD : In moving this resolution, which is in the following terms : " That it is in the best interests of the Empire that there should be more uniformity throughout its centres and dependencies in the law of accident compensation," I want to say that it seems to me to be desirable that the principle of payment by the employer of compensation for injury sustained by the employee in the course of his work should be adopted throughout the Empire. At present Workmen's Compensation Acts are in force in Great Britain, New Zealand, Queensland, Western Australia, and other countries. In some of these Acts the right to compensation is limited to those dependants who are domiciled in the country in which the accident happens. In the case of a worker coming from Great Britain to, say, New South Wales, and meeting with a fatal accident there, compensation would not be payable to his dependants who were left in the country of his domicile. In the New Zealand Act there is power given to extend by Order in Council the benefits of the Act to dependants domiciled in any country which makes similar reciprocal provisions, and under that power reciprocity has been established with Great Britain, Queensland, and Western Australia. I think it is important that in the case of accidents we should insure that payment should be made in all parts. I do not see any reason why Great Britain should not agree to a proposal of the kind. We want to adopt the British system. Mr. CHURCHILL : I think we may claim that we are as far advanced on this road as any one. We even pay compensation to aliens, and the relations of aliens would not be deprived of it even if they were not residents in this country at all if their bread-winner were injured in an accident, and, of course, a fortiori, we would do it to all representatives of the self-governing colonies or British subjects of the Empire.||[So that you have no dispute with us on the subject at all. Sir JOSEPH WARD : No ; there is no quarrel with the Imperial Government. What we ask is that the British system should be made universal throughout the Empire. You have no objection to that. Mr. CHURCHILL : I think New Zealand and this country are the only two who have this system. Is not that so ?

35—A. 4.

A.—4

272

Bth Day.] Accident Compensation Law. [13 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes ; where they have a Workmen's Compensation Act in operation. Mr. CHURCHILL : As far as we are concerned I do not think we have any reason to object to that resolution at all—that there should be more uniformity in the matter of accident compensation. We certainly do not object to the form of this proposition. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : So far as Canada is concerned, for my part I can approve altogether of the principle; but it is a matter upon which the Government of Canada would have no power at all. It is within the jurisdiction of the Provinces. I have no objection at all to affirm the principle. Mr. BATCHELOR : As a general proposition one must agree to it, but, just as in Canada, in Australia this is a matter which comes under the State Governments and not under federal control. Sir JOSEPH WARD : We have got it already with Queensland and Western Australia. Mr. BATCHELOR : Probably you will get it with all of them by arrangement. Sir JOSEPH WARD : There is, therefore, no objection to affirming the principle. General BOTHA : I feel it to be very difficult for me to accept this proposition for South Africa. We have got the most difficult problem there with the native on the .one hand and the white workman on the other. We have already tried in South Africa to get a uniform law passed, and we have not succeeded, as it v ill not work. Sir JOSEPH WARD : This resolution says that the effort should be to have more uniformity, so that that keeps you all right. Mr. BATCHELOR : It does not carry us any further. Mr. M ALAN: It only affirms the general proposition, which is all you want certainly. Dr. FINDLAY : Your own law is the same as the British law as far as the exclusion of aliens is concerned. The CHAIRMAN : General Botha, I do not think it commits us to anything but a pious hope that there should be more uniformity. Dr. FINDLAY : You are in line with the British people on that point, so that we only ask others to agree with what you are doing. General BOTHA : But you will find that even there we cannot have uniformity in South Africa. Dr. FINDLAY : It is only with regard to aliens. General BOTHA: We have an Act there, but there is not uniformity. Dr. FINDLAY : The only question is about aliens and non-residents, and you do not exclude them under your own law now. Mr. MALAN : Then you should alter the wording of your resolution. Your resolution does not say that. Dr. FINDLAY: That is the principle which Sir Joseph Ward asks you to affirm,

273

A.—4,

13 June, 1911.] Accident Compensation Law. [Bth Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD : " That it is in the best interests of the Empire that there should be more uniformity throughout its centres and dependencies in the law of accident compensation." The CHAIRMAN : " More uniformity." General BOTHA : You cannot get it. Mr. CHURCHILL : You may not get complete uniformity, General Botha ; but you may get more of it. Mr. MALAN : If it is a pious opinion, we might agree to it. The CHAIRMAN: We will take that as adopted. Expulsion of Undesirable Aliens. " That where aliens are deported under the law of any Dominion to a part of the United Kingdom, it is desirable that some system should be devised whereby the Dominion may effectively co-operate in the measures necessary in the United Kingdom for the final disposal of such aliens." Mr. CHURCHILL : The last resolution is a very small matter indeed ; but at present we suffer some inconvenience, particularly from South Africa, of undesirables who are deported, coming in the ordinary course to English ports, and reaching the United Kingdom. We have a sort of unofficial working arrangement with the Union of South Africa, which gives us a certain amount of information about them. What we want is to devise in concert, without going too much into detail, some method by which when a Dominion deports an undesirable to a port in the United Kingdom we should have full notice that such a person is coming, in order that we may take steps to prevent our becoming a dumping-ground for persons who are not fit to reside in one of the great Dominions. The resolution does not commit the Conference to anything further than that we may embark on a discussion through the Colonial Office in the regular way as to some means of regularising the present system. We should really rather like the Union of South Africa to keep an agent at Southampton, and, perhaps, Canada an agent at Liverpool, to work in harmony with our immigration officers in order to secure the ultimate disposal of the undesirables deported. That is really what we should like, but if you do not feel that you could do that for us, correspondence leading up to the systematisation of the methods by which we now get informed of those events is what we should like to embark upon. General BOTHA : I agree that it is desirable to co-operate with the British Government in regard to the deportation of aliens to any part of the United Kingdom with a view to the final disposal of such aliens, and the Union Government will gladly enter into any suitable arrangement with the Home Government for such a purpose. When an alien is deported from South Africa all necessary information may be given to the Home authorities, so that they may know how to deal with such alien on his arrival at the British port. But it must be borne in mind that the vast percentage of such undesirable aliens come to South Africa, not directly from their country of origin, but from British ports, and that therefore the only course open to the South African Government is to deport them to the British port from which they have sailed to South Africa. We can, however, understand perfectly well the anxiety of the British Government not to be permanently saddled with this rubbish of the European population, and would willingly co-operate with them in any possible scheme that they may devise and submit to us.

A,—4

274

Bth Day.] Expulsion of Undesirable Aliens. [13 June, 1911. Mr. CHURCHILL : Thank you very much. Sir WILFRID LAURIBR : That seems to be quite satisfactory. Sir JOSEPH WARD : The accepting of this resolution will not in any way, as far as New Zealand is concerned, of course, affect the way we treat aliens ? Mr. CHURCHILL : Not at all. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I understand that. I also understand what is going on in South Africa, but I do not want to discuss it. Mr. BATCHELOR : I have nothing to say on this resolution. I was just going to mention that it might be widened to include deportation to any part of the Empire, not only the United Kingdom. Mr. CHURCHILL : To make it reciprocal. Mr. BATCHELOR : Yes. Where aliens are deported under the law of any of the Dominions to any other Dominion or to any part of the United Kingdom, it is desirable that some system should be devised whereby the Dominions might co-operate. Mr. CHURCHILL : There is no objection to that. Mr. BATCHELOR : South Africa might deport to Australia, for instance. Mr. CHURCHILL : What amendment do you suggest ? Mr. BATCHELOR : " From one part of the Empire to another "—I think that is the best form. Mr. CHURCHILL : Yes ; " from one part of the Empire to another whereby the Governments concerned may effectively co-operate in the measures necessary for the final disposal of such aliens." Mr. BATCHELOR: Yes. The CHAIRMAN : That meets you, does it not, gentlemen ? [Agreed.] Celebration of King's Birthday. " That the 3rd June, the Birthday of His Most Gracious Majesty King George V, shall, in each succeeding year, be duly honoured and celebrated throughout the British Empire, and that such measures be taken by legislation, or otherwise, as may be deemed necessary to give full effect to this resolution." The CHAIRMAN : There was the question we discussed informally the other day of the celebration of the King's birthday. We had a general conversation, and I think our views generally coincided, but I have prepared a quite neutral resolution on the subject which does not commit you to any particular proceeding except that of celebrating the King's birthday on the 3rd June. It reads thus : " That the 3rd June, the birthday of His Most Gracious Majesty King George V, shall, in each succeeding year, be duly honoured and celebrated throughout the British Empire, and that such measures be taken by legislation, or otherwise, as may be deemed necessary to give full effect to this resolution."

275

A.—4

13 June, 1911.] Celebration of King's Birthday. [8$ Day. Mr. MALAN: I am sorry that the point which was raised in the previous conversation here is not referred to in this resolution —namely, that Empire Day, the 24th May, should coincide with the celebration of the King's birthday. The CHAIRMAN : That is what I hoped would be the effect, but I thought perhaps you would not wish it laid down by resolution of the Conference. Mr. MALAN: The reason why I would like to have it in the resolution itself is to get uniformity. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I think probably this resolution might be agreed to and a second resolution moved that, in the opinion of the Conference, Empire Day should be celebrated on His Majesty's birthday. The CHAIRMAN : Will Mr. Malan move that ? Sir WILFRID LAURIER : We are wedded to the 24th May in Canada for Empire Day, but I do not know that we could not substitute for it another suitable day. The present Sovereign's birthday is on the 3rd June, and we could have the holiday on that date; but suppose the next Sovereign's birthday is in January, it might be all right in New Zealand, but January would not do for us. Sir JOSEPH WARD : 24th May and 3rd June are too close together. Mr. BATCHELOR : I am afraid I must ask you to alter this in some way before I can feel justified in committing Australia to it. This necessitates legislation : " That the 3rd June shall in each succeeding year be duly honoured and celebrated throughout the British Empire." That is a matter for our Parliament. If you put it " that it is desirable " that it should be, I have no objection to giving a vote in that form. The CHAIRMAN : The official celebration of the King's birthday has nothing to do with Parliaments anywhere ; it is instructions by the King to his Governors - General that they as the representatives of the Sovereign shall celebrate his birthday on a particular day. This is only a suggestion to make the celebration rather more general. Mr. BATCHELOR : You say that such measures should be taken by legislation or otherwise as may be deemed necessary. The CHAIRMAN : That is as to a public holiday and matters of that kind. General BOTHA : The difficulty we have in South Africa is that we have already got three holidays in May—Whit Monday, Empire Day on the 24th, and Union Day on the 31st. When there was a Bill proposed in the last session, the commercial people objected very strongly and said " No, do not have the 3rd June, but have a later date." The CHAIRMAN : The first Monday in August. General BOTHA : So we have the first Monday in August; but our idea was that if you could unite Empire Day and the 3rd June there would be no difficulty. The CHAIRMAN : I do not think it is necessary that Empire Day should be changed in each Dominion of the Empire. I quite agree to the convenience of it, and if South Africa chose to celebrate Empire Day on the 3rd June I think it would be very suitable. There is no reason why Canada should change the date if she does not want to. '

A.—4.

276

Day.] Celebration op King's Birthday. [13 June, 1911. ______ . — - Sir WILFRID LAURIEE : If you make it Empire Day it will make uniformity of date. General BOTHA : I understand you have not put " Empire Day" in the resolution. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I suggest as a second resolution : " That in the opinion of the Imperial Conference it is desirable that Empire Day should be celebrated on the Monarch's birthday throughout the British Empire." Whenever the Monarch changes, the date of Empire Day would change. Why should we have the two days ? The 24th May and the 3rd June are too close, and in New Zealand we should certainly celebrate Empire Day on the 3rd June, but it is not desirable, in my opinion, to have one day in Canada and another day in South Africa. General BOTHA : I think the King's birthday should be the Empire Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD : It is not desirable to have a separate day, because it is an Empire movement, and it ought to be held on the same day in England and in our countries. I think we should make it the Monarch's birthday. The CHAIRMAN : But there is no official celebration of Empire Day here. Sir WILFRID LAURIER: In Canada we have a statute making Victoria Day a public holiday. Sir JOSEPH WARD : So have we. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Therefore you will have to repeal that, and there may be some difficulty or objection raised. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Of course, if we cannot do it, it is a different thing. Mr. MALAN : We call the 24th May Victoria Day—that is the name of it. When the proposal was put forward to celebrate Victoria or Empire Day on the same date as the King's birthday, it was said " But then you destroy to a very large extent the usefulness of Empire or Victoria Day by not having the same day right through the Empire," and it is for that reason that if you are to have a day of that kind at all it must be on the same date, otherwise you destroy the usefulness of it. The CHAIRMAN : I do not venture to make any suggestion to the Dominions as to what they should do about Empire Day, because that is entirely their concern. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : We should not apply it as a legal holiday, but do as we did in the last reign, keep the King's birthday with nothing but a salute and an official dinner. The CHAIRMAN : If it is your desire. This is only really a declaration that the King's birthday shall be celebrated on the actual date of his birthday. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes ; I think we ought to carry that. The CHAIRMAN : I do not wish to go any further as to Empire Day. Mr. BATCHELOR : I think it ought to have the words " That it is desirable." The CHAIRMAN : I do not mind—" That it is desirable that the 3rd June," and so on. We may take that as carried. [Ag-beed.]

277

A.—4

13 June, 1911.] Celebration of King's Birthday. [Bth Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I beg to move " That in the opinion of the Imperial Conference it is desirable that Empire Day or Victoria Day should be celebrated on the Monarch's birthday throughout the British Empire." The CHAIRMAN : " Celebrated in the Dominions." Sir JOSEPH WARD: In the Old Country too. The CHAIRMAN : We have no official celebration of Empire Day here. Mr. MALAN : No ; but the King's birthday. The CHAIRMAN: Empire Day has never been adopted by the Imperial Government; flags are not flown on public buildings on that day. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I think we ought to suggest they should do it. The CHAIRMAN : I think you had better let us celebrate our King's birthday. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Then I will say, " throughout the self - governing Dominions. The CHAIRMAN : We will see what Sir Wilfrid Laurier says to that. Sir WILFRID LAURIER: For my part, I stick to the 24th May. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Then you need not alter it. I think you will find it inconvenient to have the King's birthday on the 3rd June and Empire Day on the 24th May in any case. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : I am quite willing to say Victoria Day or Empire Day, but now you want to substitute the 3rd June instead of the 24th May, and I feel then that we must suppress the 24th May. Sir JOSEPH WARD : We cannot continue the 24th May in New Zealand and the 3rd June also in New Zealand. I very much doubt whether the people in our country would have two holidays so close together. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : I agree with you, but I understand we can celebrate the King's birthday not as a legal holiday. You never observed the 9th November as the late King's birthday. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes ; always. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : In what respect—as a legal holiday ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : It was not so with us. General BOTHA : There is another way out, Mr. Harcourt, if you leave Empire Day entirely out. The CHAIRMAN : This is really a domestic matter for the Dominions, and Ido not take part in it, because officially we do not celebrate Empire Day here.

A.—4

278

Bth Day.] Celebration of King's Biethday. [13 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I have made it " Dominions." We look at it from two standpoints—one, the desirability of celebrating Empire Day and not having it blotted out, which I think is very important; and lam satisfied that in a country like New Zealand our people would not agree to two days, the 24th May and the 3rd June, being regarded as holidays. If seems to me that an expression of opinion from this Conference as to the desirability of having Empire Day or Victoria Day celebrated upon the Monarch's birthday, not the present King's birthday but each Monarch's birthday in the years to come, is a good thing, because it would perpetuate Empire Day or Victoria Day for all time ; and while I have personally the highest reverence for the late Queen Victoria, who reigned so long over this country, I think, in practice, it is not possible for the oversea countries to attempt to keep up on the birthday of a former monarch the recognition of the fact that it was a glorious reign and a good reign, though we want in some tangible form to show that we appreciated it. We appreciate it just the same, but for practical reasons it seems to me we ought to have an understanding that Empire Day is to be celebrated on the Monarch's birthday in such of the countries as desire to do it. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : If you leave it "in such of the countries as desire to do it " there is no need for such a resolution as this. I would point out this difficulty which we have in Canada and which exists also in South Africa, that the 24th May is Empire Day. It is understood now that you propose to let the celebration take place on the Monarch's birthday. That is all right at the present time, but just consider those conditions. The Monarch's birthday is on the 3rd June, and in most of the Empire that would be a very convenient day, but if the Sovereign's birthday were to be in the month of January, in Canada we could not make a celebration then as conveniently as we could in the month of June. We did not observe the last Monarch's—King Edward Vll—birthday on the 9th November, which is stormy weather with us, but celebrated it on the 24th May. The celebration we had was simply a royal salute and an official dinner, but it was not made a legal holiday. Now you propose that Empire Day should move with the birthday of the reigning Monarch, and you propose to leave that to the Dominions. It is far better to leave it to the Dominions to celebrate it if they choose. The CHAIRMAN : The Prince of Wales's birthday is on the 23rd June. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Then it is all right for two generations. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Of course, if the movement for the celebration of Empire Day throughout the Dominions is to be what I call of practical use, it seems to me very important that we should have it on the one day throughout the Empire if we can. I am quite certain that in New Zealand we will not continue the celebration on the 24th May, which is too close to the 3rd June, because it would mean public holidays in both cases, and with the Prince of Wales's brithday coming on the 23rd June that still aggravates the position ; and it does seem to me that it is desirable that we should fix one day. It would look very awkward indeed, as far as Empire Day is concerned, if we celebrate it on King George V's birthday, and in some other country they carried it out on the 24th May, and in another portionjof£the Dominions on another day still. Sir WILFRID LAURIER: It is not worth while having a discussion upon it. Mr. BATCHELOR : As far as Australia is concerned, Empire Day is not a statutory holiday. In some of the States, however, they issue a proclamation declaring it a public holiday, but the practice in the States varies ; they do not all have the same, and it would be no use our passing a resolution as we cannot express any opinion on the matter. We must leave it to them. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Unless there is unanimity on the point, I see that it is quite useless, but as far as New Zealand is concerned I feel sure we will fix ours on the 3rd June.

A.—4

279

13 June, 1911.] Celebration of King's Birthday. [Bth Day. The CHAIRMAN : It is better to leave the resolution we have passed. General BOTHA: I think we should stick to this resolution and let the Dominions, as suggested by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, settle for themselves. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Then we shall not have it on a stated day, and we will all celebrate it on different days. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I want to give a notice of motion* for another day : " That in the opinion of the Imperial Conference it is desirable in the interests of the respective countries concerned that each coloured race should be encouraged to remain domiciled within its own zone." The CHAIRMAN : It had better go on the Agenda, but I do not know what day it can go on, as we are rather full. It had better go down on the 19th, when the position of British Indians is down for consideration, and the India Office will be represented here. Sir JOSEPH WARD: That would be a very good time. The CHAIRMAN : May I mention this meeting at the War Office to-morrow at 10.30 ? It was not expected that all the members of the Conference would take part in the meeting, but only those representatives interested in military defence. If any Ministers find it inconvenient to send a representative to attend, the Australian representatives, who, I understand, will be there in any case ; will discuss their subjects with the War Office. General BOTHA : I will not be present, Mr. Harcourt, but Mr. Malan and Sir David Graaff will go there. The CHAIRMAN : I think it would be a pity if we upset this engagement which has been made if it is possible for a sufficient number of people to attend. Will Canada be represented ? Sir FREDERICK BORDEN : I can be there. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I cannot be there owing to another important engagement. Dr. Findlay will attend for New Zealand. The CHAIRMAN: Then the appointment may stand, as there will be a representative from practically every Dominion. Adjourned to Thursday next at 11 o'clock.

* See p. 394.

36—A. 4.

A.—4

280

NINTH DAY. Thursday, 15th June, 1911. The Imperial Conference met at the Foreign Office at 11 a.m. present: The Right Honourable H. H. ASQUITH, K.C., M.P., President of the Conference. The Eight Honourable L. Harcourt, M.P., Secretary of State for the Colonies. The Right Honourable H. Samuel, M.P., Postmaster-General. Canada. The Right Honourable Sir Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G., Prime Minister of the Dominion. The Honourable Sir F. W. Borden, K.C.M.G., Minister of Militia and Defence. The Honourable L. P. Brodeur, K.C., Minister of Marine and Fisheries. A ustralia. The Honourable A. Fisher, Prime Minister of the Commonwealth. The Honourable G. F. Pearce, Minister of Defence. New Zealand. The Right Honourable Sir J. G. Ward, K.C.M.G., Prime Minister of the Dominion. The Honourable J. G. Findlay, K.C., LL.D., Attorney-General and Minister of Justice. Union of South Africa. General The Right Honourable L. Botha, Prime Minister of the Union. The Honourable F. S. Malan, Minister of Education. The Honourable Sir David de Villiers Graaff, Bart., Minister of Public Works, Posts and Telegraphs.

281

A.—4

15 June, 1911.] Day . Newfoundland. The Honourable Sir E. P. Morris, K.C., Prime Minister. The Honourable R. Watson, Colonial Secretary. Mr. H. W. Just, C.8., C.M.G., Secretary to the Conference. Mr. W. A. Robinson, Senior Assistant Secretary. Mr. A. B. Keith, D.C.L., Junior Assistant Secretary. There were also present : Lord Lucas, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Colonies; Sir Francis Hopwood, G.C.M.G., X.C.8., Permanent Under Secretary of State for the Colonies; Sir C. P. Lucas, K.C.M.G., C.8., Assistant Under Secretary of State for the Colonies; Mr. G. W. Johnson, C.M.G., Colonial Office; Sir M. Nathan, G.C.M.G., Secretary to the Post Office; Mr. E. W. Farnall, Assistant Secretary to the Post Office; Mr. R. J. Mackay, General Post Office; Rear-Admiral Sir Charles Ottley, K.C.M.G., M.V.0., Secretary to the Committee of Imperial Defence; Mr. Atlee A. Hunt, C.M.G., Secretary to the Department of External Affairs, Commonwealth of Australia; Mr. T. A. Coghlan, 1.5.0., Agent General for New South Wales and Representative of the Commonwealth of Australia on the Pacific Cable Board; and Private Secretaries to Members of the Conference.

The PRESIDENT : The Government of New Zealand has the first resolution. Cheapening of Cable Rates. ". That in view of the social and commercial advantages which would result from increased facilities for inter-communication between her Dependencies and Great Britain, it is desirable that all possible means be taken to secure a reduction in cable rates throughout the Empire." Sir JOSEPH WARD : Mr. Pearce has just asked me whether it is intended to take the two branches, the Cheapening of Cables, and the Nationalisation of the Atlantic Cable, together. lam inclined to think it would be better to keep them separate. The PRESIDENT : Yes ; keep them separate, if you please. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I would like to say with reference to this matter that this subject of the cheapening of rates between, the old country and the oversea countries has engaged a great deal of the attention of the Governments of all the parts concerned for some years past, and a good deal has been accomplished in the direction of cheapening cable communication already, but in my opinion it has not gone to anything like the extent it ought to do. I will endeavour to show that by a cheapening process better results could be obtained for the cable companies if they allow their cables to be used reasonably fully. The very restrictive business

A.—4

282

9th Day.} Cheapening of Cable Rates. [15 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WAED— cont. which is now imposed as the outcome of the public generally being prevented from using those cables would be removed, and a very much wider use of the cables could be made. Previous to the laying of the Pacific Cable, for instance, the charge from New Zealand to the United Kingdom was ss. 2d. per word—that is, for ordinary messages (I am not referring to Press or Government messages) and it is now 3s. a word ; and there was a proposal made not long ago further to reduce the charge to 2s. 6d. a word. That was contemplated, as a matter of fact, but the introduction of the deferred system of cables put that aside, and we remain as we were before at 3s. a word. I want to refer to the financial results of the Pacific Cable Board for a moment, because I know it is not an unusual thing to point out that, after making provision for a provident fund, and for the maintenance of the repair ship, and all the expenses connected with the cable stations, and the cable itself, the financial results to the contributories to the Pacific Cable Board, who represent the owners, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, do not justify the further lowering of the charges over that cable. The total cost under all headings of the Pacific Cable for 1910, including, as I have said, the provident fund, the maintenance of the repair - ship, and all the expenses at the head office and the cable-stations, amounted to 63,767?. in round figures, and the receipts to 111,723?. That left a sum of to meet the renewal account, and 30,000/. of other charges. My belief is—and it is the experience in connection with the working of the New Zealand telegraphs—and I have also noticed the same thing applies to a very large extent to the working of the postal system in Canada, for the purpose of making a comparison as to what the lowering of charges will bring about, that if you keep the charge at a point at which the public will not use it freely, you do distinctly restrict the business and consequently restrict the revenue. If you go far enough, to induce the public to use it—that is to say, if you take the converse case, all the experience we had in connection with the establishment of penny postage in Canada and New Zealand, that while we made an enormous reduction from the old rates to the new, as the result of coming down to a popular charge, the services were used to such an extent by the public, that within 2J years both those countries not only recovered the enormous loss they made in the first instance, but they made a considerable profit beyond ; and my opinion is that this system they have in operation connected with the cables at the present time, not the Pacific Cable alone, but the other private companies which are working, and not keeping their wires full, and combining and allowing a number of their cables to be not only not fully used, but some of them practically not used at all, is injurious from the point of view of the public, and certainly has a most restrictive effect on the use of the cables themselves. I would just like to take the opportunity of saying I agree to a very large extent with the views put forth in a memorandum by Mr. Henniker Heaton concerning cable business, and I will put a portion of it on record, because it puts in a concrete form my views of what I believe ought to be the policy of the countries that now own the Pacific Cable, and, indeed, in connection with cable services generally. I want to make it clear that I should be one of the last, and I am perfectly sure there is no other representative at this table who would desire to do anything to injure the existing private companies who have carried on a great work, and prior to the Pacific Cable becoming State-owned did the work of the world as far as cables were concerned very well, and had always kept before them the interests of the shareholders of the different companies concerned ; but at the same time their rates for many years, in my opinion, were excessive, and prevented the public using those cables. My own belief is—l am not introducing the matter here except incidentally— that it would pay all the countries concerned to relieve those people of their cables altogether, and pay them full value, and run them as the State-owned cables ; and a very large profit, after providing an Amortization Fund and a Depreciation Fund, could be obtained if a course of the kind I am suggesting was put into effect. Probably the better plan will be to deal with the question of the State-owned Atlantic cables, but I want to say just at this point that in this matter of the cheapening of the cable rates there is a feeling, certainly in the oversea countries, that the present position is due to a combination ;| it is believed there is a ring in the

283

A.—4

15 June, 1911.] Cheapening of Cable Kates. [9th Day, Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. cable world and that the whole of us are governed by an outside ring, who now maintain high charges over those private cables. That feeling is very wide spread, it spreads through a large section of the community who have no desire to injure those private companies. It is a feeling which has existed for quite a long time, and we do not get at the present time the full benefit of the Pacific Cable from the standpoint that it was intended to be a national cable to England itself, exclusive of the overland portion of the territory of Canada, and we feel all the time that, although we are ready and willing to do our part in assisting to have a cable laid across the Atlantic upon which we could have lower charges, the feeling is very widespread and I think it is only right to say so, that all the restriction that comes in at this end, between America and England, so far as the conveyance of messages goes, is debarring us from seeing the policy of a cheapening process in the general interests of the public given effect to, and it is this combination that is controlling everything and stopping that policy being carried out. I only want to put that on record because almost every section of the community in the country I represent which uses the cable to England has that Reeling and it is difficult to understand why so many of those cables should be practically empty on this side, while we are all fighting and willing to do our part in making a contribution toward the cost of a cable which would enable the lowering of the rates between the oversea countries and the Old Country itself to be put into operation. The PRESIDENT : Is that a mere suspicion on your part ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : It is a most pronounced feeling. lam not referring to the Government. The PRESIDENT : I quite appreciate that. Sir JOSEPH WARD : The point I wish to bring before the Conference is this. The amount New Zealand pays to the Pacific Cable is 8,0001. or 9,000?. a year, and we look on it as a mere bagatelle ; if it were possible for us to have the system completed across the Atlantic, if it cost us 20,000?. a year, we would look on that as a mere bagatelle, it would give us the means of insuring — I do not say there is anything improper on the part of the combination because they are trying to do the best they can with their cables — the regulating the rates to and from the Old Country. We would look on the contribution we were giving towards the cost of having a complete service of the kind as a very small matter compared with the benefits that would arise from it. I do not want to go into the Press aspect of it, but over the Pacific Cable to New Zealand there is the very greatest difficulty in obtaining Press messages across that cable to our country at all. That we know is due to a combination for the purpose of sending the Press messages from the Old World to Australia, and then they filter through to New Zealand, and that is done by an agreement between certain Press proprietors. That is not the fault of the Pacific Cable Board. The PRESIDENT : Is that the way you get all your Press information ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes, it comes through Australia and on to New Zealand, but still the fact remains that we have a link connecting New Zealand with the Old Country across the Pacific and Canada, and that is not used for Press purposes at all. Only once in a way has it been used for the purpose of conveying Press messages, and I think I am right in saying that it is very little availed of. Mr. FISHER : It is not correct to say that it has hardly been used for Press purposes. We get and send a lot of news over it by arrangement. Sir JOSEPH WARD : From Australia to England ?

A.— 4.

284

9th Day.] Cheapening op Cable Rates. [15 June, 1911. Mr. FISHER :g Yes. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I am not talking about from Australia to England ; that is a different thing. Mr. FISHER : You are talking of to Australia. . Sir JOSEPH WARD : I am talking about the service being used for Press purposes from the Old Country to New Zealand and Australia too. Mr. FISHER : You do not mind my pointing out that that statement does not apply to Australia. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Are you getting Press messages over the Pacific Cable to Australia ? Mr. FISHER : Yes, both ways. Sir JOSEPH WARD : It must be a very recent arrangement. That is under an arrangement by which you are independently subsidising the Press service ? Mr. FISHER : Yes, it was done by a resolution in Parliament. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That confirms my contention. In reply to Mr. Fisher's statement, Australia is in this position that they are not only giving a subsidy as a co-partner in the ownership of the Pacific Cable to the capital cost of the establishment of the Pacific Cable in the first instance and also their proportion of the annual loss, but to enable them to have the benefit of the State-owned service for Press work, they have in addition to that, within the last twelve months by the authority of Parliament, agreed to pay a further overriding amount to enable them to get Press messages to and from England over their own State cable. Why should that be ? Mr. FISHER : We want the news. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Do you not see that confirms the very statement I am making, that to enable one of the countries which is a co-partner in the Pacific Cable to obtain news through that cable they have, after the Pacific Cable has been in operation for a number of years, within the last twelve months decided to dip their hands into the Treasury of the Commonwealth to give a contribution to enable Press messages to go over a cable of which they were co-partners. That was the only thing Australia could do, and it was a good thing under the circumstances to do too ; I am not suggesting otherwise. It was a practical way of availing themselves to use their own cable. But it ought not to be necessary all the same. Recently I discussed a similar proposal with a view to seeing whether we could not have the use of this cable for Press work to New Zealand and the same position arose as arose with the Commonwealth. If we want to get Press messages out to our country over that Pacific Cable, in addition to giving our contribution of 8,000?. or 9,000Z. a year towards the deficiency upon the work, after making a full provision for the various sides of the cable service, we were asked to pay the whole cost of the Press messages. That does not appear to me to be a business-like arrangement, and is not one I would, assent to as far as New Zealand is concerned. In short, I want to say that the position of the cable service to my mind, in the matter of enabling us to come closer to the Old World and to bring the Old World closer to us, is in a most unsatisfactory position, and, speaking for myself, I believe it would pay the Old Country, and pay our countries, and would result in no loss whatever, if we owned the whole lot of them, even if the same people controlled them, just as under the system of ownership of the Pacific Cable Board. As a matter of business they are entitled to do the best they can with their cable services—one

285

A.—4

15 June, 1911.] Cheapening of Cable Rates. [9th Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. recognises that, but in these times, when there is great development going on throughout the Empire, I say as regards these cables between the Old Country and the overseas countries, it is not satisfactory that we should, from year's end to year's end (and I have been at it 20 years personally), be always in the position of fighting and battling against what we believe to be a system of combine, and is injurious as far as the people using these cables both in Great Britain and in the different parts of the overseas countries is concerned. I want, without taking up the time of the Conference unnecessarily, to express the very strong hope that there might be something done by this Conference which would bring about an improvement in the direction of making those cables more available for the public generally. The big mercantile concerns are not the only people to be considered ; they have to carry on their business, and they do not object to paying the existing cable rates, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred they make somebody else pay them, but the outside world cannot use these cables at all, unless they are fairly well-to-do. 1 beg to move the resolution. The PRESIDENT : I think it would be convenient that the PostmasterGeneral should now make a statement. Mr. SAMUEL: This is a resolution with which the Government of the United Kingdom very cordially sympathise, and which they will be very glad indeed to support. This Conference has discussed already many?matters of great importance, but possibly there are few which are of more real permanent importance to the Empire at large than this question of the cheapening of cable communication. Geographically scattered as the Empire is. it is obvious that few things are likely to contribute more to its political unity and commercial development than the establishment and maintenance of a cheap and effective system of intercommunication. Some progress has been made, as Sir Joseph Ward has said. If you compare the cable rates now with what they were, say, 15 or 16 years ago, you will find that, except as regards the trans-Atlantic rates, they have as a rule been about halved. More important, perhaps, than the, actual rates themselves is the alteration that has been effected in consequence of the resolution of the International Telegraph Conference of 1903, which permitted the use of artificial code words, the effect of which has been to enable people, business people especially, who use cable codes to pack in a single code word an astonishing number of plain language words, and this has resulted in a further cheapening of cable communication. Since'the last Imperial Conference, the Press rates to Australia have been reduced, largely as the result of the Imperial Press Conference, from Is. to 9d., not only to Australia but also to New Zealand and South Africa and India. But I quite agree with Sir Joseph Ward that such progress as has been made is quite inadequate, and that the present rates in many respects are burdensome, and that a further reduction is eminently desirable, and I should like to inform the Conference of the steps that have been taken, and are being taken, by the Post Office of the United Kingdom to bring that about. In the first place, a suggestion was made some time ago, originated, I think, by the Australian Government, but supported by the Postmaster-General of Canada, and by the Pacific Cable Board, that a special reduction of rates should be made in the case of telegrams that are not in code but in plain language, and which without disadvantage could be susceptible j[of deferment—which were not urgent telegrams like many business telegrams are. Plain language telegrams are obviously far more costly than code telegrams, and persons who are not in the position to use code are very heavily burdened by the existing cable rates. Many telegrams of a social character are not of such an urgent nature that the delay of a few hours would really matter. The messages are not such as can be sent through the post, and thereby suffer a delay of possibly weeks, but a delay of twelve or fifteen hours is not vital in the case of a great number of messages. On the other hand, the cable companies for many hours in the day have their channels of communication by no means filled, and it is to their advantage to attract traffic which could be handled by them at times convenient to them. This

A.—4,

286

9th Day,] Cheapening of Cable Rates. [15 June, 1911. Mr. SAMUEL— cent. suggestion has been cordially welcomed by my department, and we have been, during the last few months, in negotiation with the leading cable companies, and we have secured the consent of all the principal cable companies communicating with the United Kingdom to a reduction of 50 per cent, in the cable rates for cablegrams which are in plain language, and which at their option may be deferred in delivery for a period which, however, in no case must exceed 24 hours. An alteration of that character, while, perhaps, it does not absolutely need the consent of the other administrations which are parties to the International Telegraph Convention, is at all events, such as to make it desirable that we should have the consent of the other administrations, and there has been some delay in affecting this alteration through the necessity of securing the consent of other Powers. Within the last few days a Conference has been held between the postal administrations of England, France, and Germany in Paris on this subject, and although the negotiations are not yet completed, there is every reason to hope that the assent of those administrations will be given to this scheme, and that it will be followed by the assent of the other Powers which are chiefly interested. I have every expectation that by the 1st January next we shall be able to establish a new rate over all the important lines of communication, eastern, western, and southern from the United Kingdom, at 50 per cent, less than the present rate for all plain language cablegrams which are liable to deferment of not more than 24 hours. Secondly, I have been taking action with a view to the reduction of the Press rates, which are at present frequently too high, and certainly, as Sir Joseph Ward has pointed out, check the adequate dissemination of news throughout the Empire. The Press cablegrams not, of course, being able to have the advantages of the code system are seriously disadvantaged as compared with ordinary commercial cablegrams. A third measure which I am taking relates to Government control over rates generally. At present, of course, as the Conference is aware, there is no control at all over the rates charged by the various cable companies, and that fact lends colour to the conception which, Sir Joseph Ward has pointed out, is entertained in many quarters that there is a ring, and that cable rates are maintained at a figure unduly high in some cases. I certainly think cable communication is so vital to the wellbeing of the Empire that there ought to be some State control over the rates charged by the cable companies, and this, I think, can be most easily effected through the licences which are necessary for the cable companies to enable them to land their cables in this country. The licences of the companies expire at various dates, some of them this year, and some next year, almost all of them within the next 10 years, and I propose to lay down the policy that in all new landing licences there shall be a clause giving effective Government control over rates, with due security to the company against the abuse of this power. The substantial paragraph in the clause is this : " The " Postmaster-General may at any time by notice in writing delivered to the com- " pany object to the rates of charge of the company or any of them, on the ground " that they are not just and reasonable in.the interests of the public, whether in the " United Kingdom or abroad," and in the event of disagreement on the part of the company to any suggested reduction proposed by the Postmaster-General, there is proposed to be a right of appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission, which is, I think the members of the Conference will agree, a very suitable body to adjudicate in this matter. I think this control over the rates being charged, while giving due regard to the proper maintenance of the cable system and the stability of the finances of the cable companies, will, in the future, enable reasonable reduction of rates to be made. The Prime Minister suggests that I should explain that the Railway and Canal Commission consists of one judge, one gentleman who has had commercial experience, and also, as it happens, parliamentary and legal experience, and one member with special experience of railway matters. This Commission has, I think, the confidence both of those who represent public interests and those who represent commercial interests as holding the balance very fairly, and while not supporting rash attacks on commercial interests, at the same time seeing that the interests of the community at large are safeguarded. I should point out that it is the body to which the great arbitration between the State and the National Telephone Company as to the value

287

A.—4

15 June, 1911.] Cheapening of Cable Rates. [9th Day. Mr. SAMUEL— cont. of the Telephone Company's plant has been referred with general public approval in this country. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Is that a judge of the High Court ? The PRESIDENT : Yes, a judge of the King's Bench. Perhaps I might say that when I was at the Bar I practised for many years before this Commission and represented both traders and railway companies at various times, and I can say from a pretty long experience that it gives universal satisfaction. It is a very well constituted body—-a judge, a business man, and a railway man, the judge presiding and determining all questions of law himself; and upon questions of law, and only questions of law, there is an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Mr. SAMUEL : The fourth and the last measure relates to the establishment of a system of wireless telegraphy, but the discussion of that had better be postponed until we come to Sir Joseph Ward's proposal under that head. I certainly think the development of the system of wireless telegraphy cannot fail in the future to have some effect on the reduction of cable rates. Along those four lines we are now proceeding —the establishment in the near future of a new rate, half the present rate, for telegrams which are in plain language and liable to deferment of not more than twenty-four hours ; a reduction in press rates which we contemplate may be possible in the not far distant future ; further, we have the general system of control over the companies which will be enforced through the landing licences, and fourthly the reduction which may be expected to accrue in the future from the development of wireless telegraphy. So that in passing this resolution, as I trust it will do, the Conference may feel assured that.it will not merely be giving expression to a vague declaration embodying an unexceptionable sentiment, but also that the resolution will be followed in the near future by effective achievements in the direction that is so much desired. Sir WILFRID LAURIER: The resolution is certainly timely, and we in Canada will have no hesitation at all in indorsing it. The explanation just given by Mr. Samuel has shown, however, that the evil which the resolution seeks to remedy is already pretty well on the way to being extinguished altogether. All the trouble which exists at the present time and which we complain of seems to be centred on the Atlantic part of the communication. On the Pacific Ocean we have the Pacific Cable, which is practically under the control of the Governments represented at this table. Across the Continent we have two or three lines of communication already, although only one of them, I think, at the present time is in direct communication with the Pacific Cable, that is to say, the Canadian Pacific Railway Line. But I would observe that we have in Canada also a Commission similar almost to the Railway and Canal Commission of which Mr. Samuel has spoken, which has given [satisfaction in our country, and I might also say that our Commission has given very general satisfaction. The tolls of the telegraph lines are under the control of this Commission, and if any complaint is made that the tolls are excessive the matter can be at once investigated and is under the jurisdiction of the Commission, and if a grievance is found I have no doubt at all that the remedy will be immediately applied. The trouble is with the Atlantic part of the present cable. There is an impression in my country that there is a combination between all the cable companies to maintain the tolls at an excessive rate. Mr. Asquith asked a moment ago if that was only a feeling or if there was more behind it. There is a feeling amounting almost to conviction that such a thing exists ; it would be perhaps difficult to prove it mathematically, but if a proper investigation could be had, I think it would show that there is good ground for the feeling which now prevails.

37—A. 4,

A.—4,

288

9th Day A Cheapening of Cable Rates. [15 June, 1911. Sir WILFRID LAURIER— cont. The remedy, however, suggested by Mr. Samuel seems to me adequate to reach such an evil if it exists. We have introduced legislation on that line to try to take possession of the cable at our end of the line, and it is exactly on the line of this resolution suggested by Mr. Samuel—that is to say, that by giving the licences to the companies, the Governments interested should keep themselves the control over the rates. If that legislation is followed to its legitimate conclusion, it seems to me that we have reached almost the very remedy which we have in view and which would work satisfactorily. Having the control of the lines of the Pacific Cable practically under this board, having the tolls of the continental part under the jurisdiction of an independent judicial body, if we now have the control of the licences over the Atlantic it seems to me that we ought to reach the solution we have in view. For my part, I think Sir Joseph deserves much congratulation for having brought the matter to the attention of the Conference. As stated by Mr. Samuel, it suggests nothing practical, but simply draws the attention of the Conference to it, and the attention of the Conference having now been given to it, and the explanation having been made by Mr. Samuel, I think we are in a fair way to reach the desired settlement. Mr. FISHER : I want to be brief, and I want my colleague, the Minister of Defence, to speak. Two points are raised by this resolution : increased cable facilities and lower rates. These two points appeal particularly to New Zealand and Australia, because for four weeks we are dependent entirely for the information we receive about European or American affairs upon the cable news. It does not strike the ordinary person here how we are situated. The increased facilities will mean, I presume, lower rates and better conveniences of every kind. If we are going to have increased facilities, those facilities can only ■ appeal to me if there is going to be a larger amount of news. If this is not out of place, I would like to say, a better class of news. Sir Wilfrid Laurier talked about there being a feeling, almost amounting to a conviction, that there were certain interests on the American side of the water which prevented these facilities being as great as they might be. I can assure you that it not only exists in Canada, but that feeling has got as far as our own country. Of course it is not our business to investigate as to whether it is well founded or not, but at any rate it is there. Ido not know, as far as the present Government is concerned, how far the Government of the United Kingdom would go with the other partners in the Pacific Cable in providing a facility such as this for more speedy communication, say, from Australia to Europe—a low cable rate from Australia or New Zealand to Montreal, with the right of posting it at Montreal and vice versa. That would bring us within easy touch of you in a week's time. That is a suggestion which will ultimately have to go probably to the Pacific Cable Board ; but at any rate it is a proposition which has been made by our own Postmaster-General, and it is one, I think, which should have weight. A great part of the distance would be covered by the Pacific Cable. The other part would be the land lines on Sir Wilfrid Laurier's territory of Canada. How you are to treat us upon that line in futuie we do not know, but we are looking forward to some greater facilities, in the words of Sir Joseph, very diplomatically expressed, I think, in the direction both of expedition and cheapness. I do not propose to do more than say that anything that can be done by your Government, Mr. Asquith, or by the co-operation of all the Dominions together in facilitating communication and intercommunication speedily, cheaply, and accurately, the better it will be for all of us. Mr. PEARCE : The statement made by Mr. Samuel this morning, of course, gives a ray of hope to those of us in the southern part of the world who have been looking forward to some increased means of communication; but we feel that even that statement, although it is an improvement on the present position, is not entirely

A.—4

289

15 June, 1911.] Cheapening of Cable Rates. [9th Day, Mr. PEARCE— cont. satisfactory to us. To our mind the method of controlling these charges in the future suggested by Mr. Samuel will not be a perfect remedy, nor will it achieve the end we have in view. The end we have in view, I take it, is the development of the transmission of news between the Dominions and the Mother Country. Mr. Samuel himself in his opening statement, referred to the time when the charge for messages between Australia and the Motherland was 9s. a word. What was it that brought about the reduction ? Not any action by the company itself, but the action of the combined Governments in laying the Pacific Cable—that and nothing else. It was the threat of it that brought about that first reduction to 4s. 6d., and it was the actual putting into action of that threat that brought about the further reduction to 3s. for ordinary messages and Is. for Press messages. When we come to this proposal that in the landing licenses the Government of the United Kingdom will exercise its power to bring these rates before the Railway and Canal Commission, we are advised that it is a certainty that that Commission must decide the rates on such basis as will leave a profit to the companies carrying on those cables. Now the policy of the various Governments that have brought about the reduction I refer to has been to achieve the result even at a loss. That is a line of policy this Commission can never adopt; that is a line of policy which is absolutely closed to this Commission. They cannot do that; they cannot say to the companies, " We shall fix a rate for you which will cause you to carry these messages at a loss." They must always fix the rate on such lines as will give these companies a profit which will give them interest on their capital. Therefore, if we are to achieve, as we have achieved partially with the Pacific Cable—the full development of these messages for the purpose of assisting all portions of the Empire, that will not be a final solution of the difficulty. It is a temporary solution and certainly puts us in a better position, but as there is another proposition coming on to-day which will propose a different method, I will ask the Conference to reserve judgment, as far as Mr. Samuel's proposal is concerned, until we have an opportunity of discussing the other proposition. Then a comparison can be made of both and the Conference can then come to a conclusion as to which is the better policy for this Conference to adopt as most likely to lead to the development of the exchange of news between the various portions of the Dominions. The only other point I want to raise is this : that the British Post Office has taken up an attitude towards a proposition by the Pacific Cable Board which I would have thought perhaps Mr. Samuel might have explained to us here. lam informed that it was the Treasury, but I daresay Mr. Samuel knows about it. The Pacific Cable Board wanted to lay a new cable between Australia and New Zealand for the purpose of facilitating business and also increasing their revenue. If this cable could have been laid it would have resulted in an additional revenue to the Cable Board of 14,000£. per annum. That would necessitate a Bill being passed by the Government of the United Kingdom to give authority to lay the cable, and the application was made to the Government for that permission. The Treasury asked first of all that the Governments concerned should give an assurance that if the wireless stations proposed to be erected in the Pacific were erected those wireless stations were not to be used for commercial messages. That assurance was given, and then the Treasury informed the Board that they could not consent to the laying down of that cable between Australia and New Zealand, because in future it might interfere with the developments in connection with wireless. That was the only explanation we had, and it seems to me an extraordinary proposition, equivalent to saying that you will not lay down Dreadnoughts because an aeroplane may be able to blow them up or down. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Quite right; it ought to be done. Mr. PEARCE : We would like, if it could be done, that some explanation should be made by you at this Conference, because it seems to us that if we could add to

A.-4,

290

9th Day.] Cheapening op Cable Rates. [15 June, 1911. Mr. PEARCE— cont. the revenue of the Pacific Cable Board to the extent of 14,000/. per annum, it puts that Board in a better position to make reductions on its ordinary messages. Possibly that 14,000 L per annum might be used in still further reducing the charges, and it seems inexplicable to us that that consent should have been refused for the reason given. General BOTHA: I will ask my colleague, Sir David Graaff, to explain our position. Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF : We had a good deal to say upon this motion, but after having heard the explanation given by Mr. Samuel, the PostmasterGeneral of the United Kingdom, I find that it meets our position fully, and I will say that it will be a matter of great gratification to our South African Union to see the efforts that have been made here, and so far, from my point of view, the very successful efforts of Mr. Samuel. The reduction of 50 per cent, in plain language messages is indeed to my mind a great concession for a very large number of people who send messages who are not business people, who do not code their telegrams, and they will enjoy this tremendous reduction. We out in the Union do guarantee the Eastern South African Cable and Telegraph Company; that is to say, if their minimum amount of receipts does not exceed a given amount we give a subsidy of so-much per annum. Of late we have paid the full subsidy, because, notwithstanding the fact that the rates had been reduced, it has not had the effect of increasing the revenue, and therefore we have had to pay ; but we gladly support this resolution, for we are in favour of a reduction in the cable rates throughout the world. Our people, I am sure, will very much appreciate what has been done on the part of the United Kingdom Post Office, and I feel after what has been said that our interests have been safeguarded in that direction. I feel sure we would not have been able to do as well ourselves, and therefore we are content to leave the matter in the hands of the Postmaster-General and gladly to support the resolution which is before the Conference now. Sir EDWARD MORRIS : I would like to say also that this was a matter in which we were very much interested in Newfoundland, in that those rates were very excessive and prohibitive, although nine of the Atlantic cables are now laid to Newfoundland, but it seems to me that all that could be desired, or very largely, is being accomplished by the negotiations which have been going on, and, as has been stated by the gentleman who preceded me in speaking, I should have, perhaps, occupied the time of the Conference somewhat in putting forward our case in relation to this matter if it had not been for the very satisfactory explanation that we have had from the Postmaster-General. Mr. SAMUEL : The point|raised by Mr. Pearce with reference to the suggested new cable to be laid by the Pacific Cable Board between Australia and New Zealand is a matter not within the province of the British Post Office the British Treasury. However, I will take steps to represent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the strong desire that is felt both in Australia and New Zealand that the Pacific Cable Board should be authorised by the United Kingdom, so far as the United Kingdom is a party to that Board, to proceed with this work. Perhaps that is all I need say at present. The PRESIDENT: I will see that further consideration is given to that matter. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That is very satisfactory. I intended to refer to it on the question of the Atlantic Cable, but it is not necessary now.

291

A.— 4

15 June, 1911.] Cheapening of Cable Eates. [9th Day. The PRESIDENT : Mr. Pearce, do you bring up the next resolution, as Mr. Fisher is not here ? Mr. PEAECE : Yes. Nationalization of the Atlantic Cable. Australia :— " That this Conference strongly recommends the nationalization of the Atlantic Cable in order to cheapen and render more effective telegraphic communication between Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand by thus acquiring complete control of all the telegraphic and cable lines along the ' All-Red route.' " New Zealand :— " That, in order to secure a measure of unity in the cable and telegraph services within the Empire, the scheme of telegraph cables be extended by the laying of a State-owned cable between England and Canada, and that the powers of the Pacific Cable Board be extended to enable the Board to lay and control such cable." Mr. PEAECE : We bring up this resolution, Sir, because we think it is the only way in which we can achieve any beneficial results. Mr. Samuel pointed out in his speech that since this matter was first taken up some progress has been made, with the exception of the transatlantic cables. That we regard as the weak link in the chain, and the proposition we have before the Conference is to get this Conference to express an opinion as to whether that cannot be remedied. The present position is that the Pacific Cable is owned by the Governments of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. That is as far as Vancouver or Bamfield Creek, and then the Pacific Cable Board has obtained a lease of the land lines from Bamfield Creek to Montreal, but that land line lease expires within the next five years. That of course is being dealt with under another resolution, and I will not refer further to that, except to say that at present the control of the Pacific Cable Board extends practically from Sydney at the one end to Montreal in Canada. Then we come to a short length of land line, and then the cables across the Atlantic. To carry out the proposal to have an " All-Eed " telegraph route from the United Kingdom to Australia and New Zealand via Canada involves the construction of a cable across the Atlantic and a land line across Canada to Bamfield, the Pacific Cable Board's station on Vancouver Island in Western Canada. The route across the Atlantic may be either direct or via Greenland or Greenland and Iceland. The direct Atlantic cable would be more costly in point of construction than one taking either of the more northerly routes, but this advantage is more than compensated for by the lesser cost of working. The Atlantic line would also be more accessible for repairing, and have the merit of not touching on foreign soil. I may say that the Pacific Cable Board has been furnished with estimates of the cost of constructing a direct line from Killala to Newfoundland, and lines via Greenland and via Iceland and Greenland. The length of line from Killala to Newfoundland is 1,844 miles ; a line via Greenland would be about 2,350 miles, and via Iceland and Greenland, 2,560 miles. The cost of construction, however, owing to the difference in the material employed, would make the economy in prime cost of the cable via Greenland 64,000?. cheaper than the direct cable, and the one via Iceland and Greenland 100,000?. cheaper, in the one case representing an annual charge of 2,240?., and in the other 3,500?. On the other hand, the Board's engineers estimate that the working expenses via Greenland would be 6,000?. a year more than those by the direct route, and via Iceland and Greenland 12,000?. more, so that the excess in prime cost is more than compensated for by the cheaper working of the direct cable.

A.—4

292

9th Day.] Nationalization of the Atlantic Cable. [15 June, 1911. Mr. PEARCE— cord. At the present time the Pacific Cable Board, as I say, leases a telegraph line from Montreal to Bamfield from the Canadian Pacific Railway, but the arrangement is only temporary, and it is proposed to construct a line from the terminus of the Atlantic Cable to Bamfield. It is assumed that the Canadian Government will give leave for the construction of the line and allow it to cross Canadian territory free of cost, and the following estimate makes no allowance for any charge for wayleave if such should be imposed. It is assumed also that if the Imperial Government join with Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in the construction of an Atlantic Cable and a connecting line across Canada to the Pacific, it would be so far interested as to do what the Australian Government does, that is, allow cable messages priority over its home lines, and not require them to wait to be transmitted in the order of their receipt at the telegraphic station. If the Imperial Post Office will not grant this concession to cable business, the Pacific Cable Board would be compelled to establish offices in the principal business centres of the United Kingdom and lease lines from those offices to London or to the cable terminus in Ireland, thereby incurring an expenditure of 23,000?. a year beyond what is included in the estimate. Owing to the delay which occurs in sending cable messages from local post offices to London, the Atlantic Cable Companies have offices in the various large towns of the United Kingdom. They have special telegraph lines leading to London or to their stations on the Irish coast. The Secretary of the Pacific Cable Board estimates that for the Board to establish such local offices would entail an expenditure of 23,000/. a year. I may say that it is apparent that if a cable message is handed in to a telegraph office, say, in Wales, and it has to remain there until the ordinary business is got through, it may be that two hours elapses before that cable reaches London, or some considerable time, and it seems it would be a fair proposition that if anything were done in this connection, as the British Post Office is a partner in the scheme, the post office should be used as a transmitting station and that cable messages put into post offices should be given priority over other messages transmitted to the central station. The PRESIDENT : Are we to understand that the estimates you are giving us are estimates made by the Pacific Cable Board ? Mr. PEARCE : By their officials. Sir JOSEPH WARD : What was the estimated cost ? Mr. PEARCE : The estimated additional cost if the Post Office would not do this would be 23,000/. a year. Mr. SAMUEL : The estimated cost of the cable itself ? Mr. PEARCE : lam coming to that. Apart from the question of wayleave through Canada and local offices in Great Britain and Ireland, the following are estimates of the capital cost and working-expenses of the proposed cable and telegraph line. This is based on the experience of the Pacific Cable Board, and also on the experience of the General Superintendent of the Canadian Telegraph Office, Mr. Keeley. The estimate is of 480,000/. for a line from Killala to Newfoundland with a connection to Nova Scotia, and it is by a very eminent firm of cable construction engineers, who would be willing to carry out the work. The estimate of 120,000/. for a land line across Canada is based upon information supplied by Mr. Keeley, the General Superintendent referred to. So that we have the cost of cable from Killala (Donegal) to Trinity Bay, Newfoundland, with connection from Trinity Bay to Sydney, Nova Scotia, where the land line would begin, including cost of equipment, 480,000/. Cost of telegraph line across Canada, Sydney, Nova

A.—4

293

15 June, 1911.] Nationalization op the Atlantic Cable. [9th Day Mr. PEARCE— cont. Scotia, to Bamfield, with equipment, 120,000/. Total capital cost, 600,000/. The expense of working and maintenance of the submarine cable may be set down at 21,500/!., and of the land line 32,500/., or, together, 54,000/. The working expenses are itemised as follows : —Working cable, 18,000/. ; maintenance of cable—contract with cable-laying company, 3,500/. Total, 21,500/. Working land line through traffic, 10,000/. ; maintenance land line, 14,000/. ; rent of offices and cost of testing stations, 3,500/. Total, 27,500/. Renewal of land line in 15 to 20 years (sinking fund), 5,000/. Total, 54,000/. Against this may be set the present expenses which would no longer be incurred, amounting to 22,000/. Mr. SAMUEL : Do you include interest and sinking fund in the cost of cable ? Mr. PEARCE : No, interest and sinking fund are not included in that list I have given. I will come to those later. Against this may be set the present expenses which would no longer be incurred, amounting to 22,000/., so that the net added expense of the new scheme would be only 32,000/. The expense which would be done away with if the Board owned its own cable would be rent paid to the Canadian Pacific Railway for the lease of their land lines, 11,300/. Present working costs of that line, 7,000/. Payments to companies for carrying messages from the Atlantic coast to Montreal, 3,700/. Total, 22,000/. The Board would/however, at once come into the revenues now received by the cable companies for carrying the Australian and New Zealand messages across the Atlantic. The amount receivable on such score is estimated at 36,000/. At the present time the Pacific Cable Board pays to the Atlantic cable companies the sum of 38,000/. a year in respect of Australian messages. From this sum would have to be deducted 2,000/., which the companies pay the British Post Office for inland charges, leaving the net revenue 36,000/. Having an Atlantic cable of its own, the Board would naturally control all its homeward messages, in respect of which it now pays the Atlantic companies 21*300/., so that this sum would accrue to the Board as new revenue The payments to these companies for outward messages amount to 16,700/. a year. The Secretary of the Pacific Cable Board estimates that one-third of this sum, namely, 5,570/., would be obtained by the Board, and the balance, 11,130/., would still go to the companies. But I submit, Mr. Asquith, that it is fair to reject this estimate, and to assume that the whole of this revenue would go to the Board, becaiise in a competition between the Board and the Atlantic companies for its own business the Board must in the end prevail, especially as it would have the support of the British Post Office. As the additional expenditure would be only 32,000/., there would be a surplus of revenue to the extent of 4,000/. It will have been observed that no mention has been made of interest and replacement of capital, nor of a fund for accidents, repairs, and renewals. A provision for the renewal of the land line within 15 or 20 years is in the estimate, and it is considered that ample provision is already being made for repairs, renewals, and accidents to the submarine cables of the Board. The Board has a reserve fund of nearly 260,000/., which is being added to at the rate of 37,000/. a year (30,000/. from earnings and 7,000/. from interest). Taking into consideration that the table is and would be backed by the Governments of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, the provision for contingencies is ample, and the reserve fund of the Pacific Cable Board at the present time is 260,000/. and is being added to at the rate of 37,000/. a year. This is not a provision required by law, but it was established at the beginning of the Board's career, doubtless for the purpose of speedily building up a large contingent fund. As the original cost of the cable is being paid off by instalments, this provision for depreciation and contingencies would be amply sufficient, even if the line were extended to England. As regards interest on capital and provision for replacement, there is at present an annuity payment of 77,545/. a year made by the Pacific Cable Board in respect of the existing cable. The money for the construction of the cable was originally advanced by the Public Debt Commissioners on terminable annuities. It is assumed that the remaining capital of

A.—4

294

9th Day.] Nationalization of the Atlantic Cable. [15 June, 1911. Mr. PBARCB— cont. 600,000?. would be advanced by the Imperial Government on the same terms, but it is immaterial, for the sake of discussion, whether such be assumed or not, as the 600,000?. required would not be a great contribution from the four partner-Govern-ments. According to the present division of the responsibility 200,000/. of this sum would fall upon Australia, 166,667/. upon the Imperial Government, 166,667/. upon Canada, and 66,666/. upon New Zealand. These amounts could be advanced on loan repayable by terminable annuities or granted absolutely to the new enterprise. This annuity which I have referred to as paid to the Loan Authorities is payable until 1952, and if it were increased to 95,000/., and the currency extended to 1962, the whole debt would disappear. The payment of such an annuity would involve a further expenditure of 17,500/., and as the expected surplus on the working of the new system would be 4,000/. there would be a slight yearly deficit of 13,500/. This sum would be payable by the four partner-Governments and would doubtless disappear if the facilities of the service were appreciated in Canada. The Board's lines of communication would pass through several of the more important cities of Canada, and it is anticipated that if the Dominion Government were to favour the scheme an extensive cable business might be done between those cities and the United Kingdom, especially as the new system would be in a position to carry messages at 6d. per word. In the discussion of this question it has not been assumed that the new system would enter into competition with the existing lines foi Canadian business ; nevertheless the Canadian Government might obtain some compensation for the sacrifices which it has made on behalf of the Pacific Cable, and the small returns it has received from that enterprise. If a cable were laid by the partner-Governments across the Atlantic, and a land line through Canada to the Pacific, messages might be accepted for transmission to the larger towns through which the land line would pass. The existing rate to Montreal, for example, is Is. a word. There is no doubt the proposed new service would carry messages at 6d. a word without loss. It is not suggested that the Cable Board should enter upon general business in Canada, but that it should undertake to deliver messages in any of the large cities through which its line passes. If 200 ordinary messages of 10 words each were received daily they would, after allowing for operating expenses, bring in a revenue of 13,500/. a year, and make the scheme self-supporting. It may therefore be concluded that, with the concession by the United Kingdom of priority of cable over ordinary messages and the grant of wayleave by Canada, the scheme of an " All-Red " route of telegraphic communication through Canada joining the United Kingdom with Australia and New Zealand is feasible and not likely to entail any special financial assistance from the partner-Governments. I had proposed to give some examples of the difficulties which our people have been confronted with in dealing with the Atlantic cable companies; but in view of the statement made by Mr. Samuel this morning, they would not, of course, apply to the future, and therefore we should be only dealing with records of the past, and I do not propose to enter into them. It is sufficient to say this : Whenever business people have attempted to improve the present service they have always met an impassable wall in the private cable companies in the Atlantic. Whether by one method or another, they have found it absolutely impossible to get any concession from them and absolutely impossible to move them in any way. As I say, Ido not propose to give those examples, although I have the correspondence here, and if Mr. Samuel would like to see it, I will let him have a copy of it so that he may be armed with it. Generally speaking, we do feel in Australia that the history of the Pacific Cable has taught us that the only effective means of dealing with this question is to extend that principle right through to the Motherland, and therefore we bring forward this proposition : " That this Conference strongly recommends the nationalization of the Atlantic Cable in order to cheapen and render more effective telegraphic communication between Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand by thus acquiring complete control of all the telegraphic and cable lines along the ' All-Red route.' " Sir WILFRID LAURIER : After the explanation which we have had from Mr. Samuel, the Postmaster-General, on a previous motion, which we have just

A.—4

295

15 June, 1911.] Nationalization of the Atlantic Cable. [9th Day. Sir WILFRID LAURIBR— cont. discussed and adopted, I, for my part, reserve my judgment upon -this resolution. It may be we may have to come to that in the end, but at the present time my feeling is—so far as the Government I represent is concerned—that we would prefer to see the result of the negotiations and legislation entered into by Mr. Samuel before we commit ourselves to the purchase of the existing telegraph lines. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I would like to say that the very important statement made by Mr. Samuel does alter the position to this extent: It has gone in the direction of lowering the rates, which can only be finally put upon a satisfactory basis, in my opinion, by Great Britain and the overseas Dominions owning the cables from the Old Country to the various outlying portions of it. I want to make it quite clear, as far as I am concerned, that I believe that the right course to follow is to nationalize the cables, and I should not like the fact of my regarding the statement made by Mr. Samuel as being very satisfactory and the acceptance of it—and rightly so—by this Conference as in any way causing an impression to exist that the final alternative should not be the acquisition of the various cables ; because I believe, in the interests of the Old Country and of the outlying portions of it, it is far and away the strongest course to adopt. At the same time, I think I should be wanting on my part if I were not to say how highly I appreciate what has already been suggested by Mr. Samuel on the part of the British Government, which I think is a step forward of a very important character indeed. But I want very briefly just to say what I desire to put on record with regard to this Atlantic Cable proposal. This extract from the report, dated 26th January, 1906, from Sir Sandford Fleming to the Secretary of State for the Colonies historically puts the position in a way that meets my ideas, and I would like to repeat it. He says : " More than a hundred and thirty years ago the great and gifted Irishman, Edmund Burke, and the illustrious U.E. loyalist, Joseph Galloway, on opposite sides of the ocean, each had visions of a mighty Empire : more than fifty years ago its organization was a dream of the great Canadian, Joseph Howe. Since then it has been the dream of other great men of various races, in various British communities, and in yearly increasing numbers. For a generation back Imperial Federation Leagues, British Empire Leagues, and other associations have been formed with the avowed purpose of converting the dream into a reality. The goal has not been reached ; but if the desired results have not followed, these several agencies have done much to awaken the spirit of union which now to so large an extent prevails." I want to say that this question of cable communication is, in my opinion, of far greater importance from the point of view of the union of the Empire than the mere advantage of obtaining concessions across the cables, though they are most important from the standpoint of bringing the people closer together ; and I believe, if it were possible for us to arrive at a decision that we were prepared to take over the private cables and pay their market value to the owners, it would be one of the finest things for the Empire that has ever been done; and between the Old Country and the oversea countries the cost of the cables, with their earning power recognised, which would be a good commercial transaction to commence with, would do no injury to the shareholders of those private companies, and would be following a policy which the British Government here adopted long ago of owning the means of communication by telegraph, and which most of the oversea countries have also adopted. My opinion is, that the best means by which the business and the news of the world could be conducted between the overseas countries and the Motherland itself, and the right thing for the Old Country and the overseas countries to adopt would be to own the cables. B !!Take this question in connection with the important resolution which Mr. Pearce is moving, as to communication right through to the countries in the southern seas. My friend Sir Wilfrid Laurier knows that in Canada an arrangement has been made with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for the use of telegraph lines across Canada, which is, as far as it goes, of a much more satisfactory character than existed prior to that arrangement being made. The position Australia occupies, and New Zealand occupies, with regard to its telegraph lines, can hardly be said to be analogous to the position of the overland line across the territory 38—A, 4.

A.—4

296

9th Day.] Nationalization of the Atlantic Cable. [15 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WAKD— cont. of Canada. If Canada owned that telegraph line itself, then, on all fours, they would be in the same position as we are as users of the cables and the lines from the Old Country to the overseas portions of it, instead of having a part that is privately owned—because, after all, the Canadian Pacific Company, enormously important as it is, is a public company privately owned by private individuals. If the Canadian Government owned that length of line, they would be in the same position in Canada as the people of Australia and New Zealand are. We undertake the receipt and delivery of any messages en route along our lines in Australia as a Government matter, and, judging by the information placed before me, in a rather more advantageous way than can be done over a private-owned system of telegraph lines. I am not suggesting for a moment there may not be extraordinary difficulties in the way of that becoming part of a State-owned system, and I think in the meantime it is satisfactory to have had that arrangement which has been brought about through the good offices of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and to that extent it is a move forward and in the right direction. But the fact of our not owning that particular portion of land line does not to my mind justify our not urging with all the force that we can the laying down of a cable across the Atlantic. lam not going to allude, in the course of the remarks I am making, to anything that may be regarded as private, so I will not refer to any companies specially as to what the proposals between this country and America or Canada may be. But what I would like to know is, who owns the cables across the Atlantic ? Are they owned by British companies, or are they owned by companies outside Britain ? If they are owned by British companies, then it ought to be possible, if they are not willing to sell at the value of their cables in the market to-day, for us to agree to say we would be prepared to purchase them at a price upon the lines I indicate ; or, if they are not agreeable to sell to us, as an alternative to put down our own cable. The estimated cost referred to by Mr. Pearce, of 600,000/., includes the land line. I leave that out, because at present we have an agreement with the Canadian Pacific Kailway, and until that expires, we need not trouble ourselves about the estimated cost of 120,000/. for a land line. My opinion is it would cost more for the overland line, but that is neither here nor there. Supposing it cost 500,000/. to lay a cable across the Atlantic between the different countries, after all, the financial side of it is, to my mind, a very satisfactory one. Our proportion of contribution towards the creating of the finance, the providing of a sinking fund and all the expenses upon that basis, turned into the position of a subsidy, would be a very small one indeed ; but we would immediately control the whole of the rates across the Atlantic, and it would prevent the possibility of those Atlantic cables coming under the control of combines either inside or outside the Motherland. I am talking of cables owned in the Empire between the Old Land and the oversea countries. When we come to cables owned outside our own country, as I believe all the Atlantic cables are, it is even worse. I think under those circumstances we ought by affirmation at this Conference to suggest the desirability of a State-owned link between Great Britain and the Continent of America being provided for. I find here, from a reference to a compilation by Mr. J. Henniker Heaton not so very long ago, that the present capital at par value of the cable companies of Great Britain amounts to 27,982,000/., and that the annual receipts of the cable companies, including subsidies, amount to 3,163,000/. It looks to me, from the standpoint of a great and important business proposition, that, if we were prepared to go into the question of nationalizing these cables, from the statement of the value of the cables and the earnings of them, including subsidies, it is not by any means a bad position from the standpoint of a great commercial undertaking providing important financial results upon the right side, and also from the standpoint— which I believe to be of tremendous importance—of Great Britain and the oversea Dominions owning these important cables. Here I want to quote another extract from the same report which, as far as I am concerned, meets my view in a very great way, and I propose to put it on record, because I believe it is — although we may not be able to do it at this Conference — what we ought to work for. The more it is put off the more it will cost the component parts of the Empire in the

297

A.—4

15 June, 1911.] Nationalization op the Atlantic Cable. [9th Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD— am*. future to do what they could do to-day at a comparatively small cost compared with what it would be, say, even 10 years from now. Mr. Henniker Heaton says : — " (1) It is advisable at all costs to put an immediate end to all cable monopolies, and to acquire and extend the existing network of them for the use of the public. " (2) When the service is in the hands of the State, it should be conducted at rates sufficient to pay working expenses, with interest and sinking fund on capital required for purchase, and to provide new plant when necessary." The next part I do not subscribe to, because I think a profit should be made, though not a large profit, upon the undertaking. " All surplus money should be applied to the provision of additional cables." I agree with that. " (3) If possible, there should be a uniform rate (of one penny per word or less) over the whole extent of the Empire. If this is objected to at first, a beginning should be made by adopting the ' zone ' system. " (4) The capital required should be subscribed by the Home and Colonial Governments, and they should own and administer the cable network jointly. The Home Government should invite the Colonial Cabinets to nominate delegates to an Imperial Cable Conference, to be held in London." The other paragraph I will quote is : "It is contrary to public policy to leave a monopoly of communication between the several portions of the Empire in the hands of speculators." To a very large extent that puts on record the view that I hold. The system of owning cables privately at their early inception many years ago, I think no exception could be taken to, although the principle of State-owned cables existed then just as it exists to-day, as being a better one in the general interests of the community likely to be affected. I want to say that while I personally regard the advance in connection with the telegraph world which has been stated by Mr. Samuel as of very great importance indeed, I should also like to be permitted to say that I look upon the other reforms (about which I have read with special interest since I have been in England) which Mr. Samuel has made in connection with the Department over which he so ably presides as very fine indeed, and calculated to do an immense amount of good, and I take the liberty, sitting at this Conference, of congratulating him very heartily upon them. The proposals made by Mr. Samuel in connection with reforms I may allude to here, because I think it comes in its proper order. The establishment of a new tariff at half rates for messages in plain language I look upon as a very great advance indeed, taken in conjunction with what was decided at the Telegraph Convention— to which Mr. Samuel referred—namely, allowing code words to be used for mercantile purposes ; of course, private individuals would not, speaking generally, use codes at all. I also, in connection with the proposal to nationalize an Atlantic cable service, attach full importance to this matter, and I think it will do an immense amount of good to say definitely we will do so if the rates are not greatly reduced. The proposal of the Pacific Cable Board for the duplication of the cable across the Pacific I regard as of extreme importance, and it was referred to by Mr. Pearce very clearly. As to the stoppage of that proposal by any want of co-operation on the part of the Imperial authorities at this end, I think it would be very regrettable to us if we were to be deterred —which I feel sure by the expression of opinion which has fallen from the mouth of the Prime Minister of His Majesty's Government will not be the case—from completing a great work of that kind upon the supposition that some invention in connection with wireless telegraphy, or some other means of communication, was going to come into operation. If we applied that principle to all other national works in which we were engaged we would not advance at all. In New Zealand we ought to stop making State railways upon the theory that aviation machines are coming along and may wipe out the whole of our railway passenger traffic ; but we are not to be deterred by any suggestion of that kind. I regard all the matters Mr. Samuel has referred to as of very great importance indeed; but after all there is nothing, in my opinion, that would do so much good for the British

A.-4

298

9th Day.] Nationalization of the Atlantic Cable. [15 June, 191 L Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. Empire as the State-owning of all these cables. It would bring South Africa, by a great cheapening of rates, probably half as close again to England as it is to-day ; it would bring New Zealand half as close to England as it is to-day; and certainly bring Canada very much closer to England than it is to-day—l mean, of course, figuratively speaking. In my judgment—and I have gone into the thing myself, but I do not want to weary the Conference by details l —if the Old World and the New World owned these cables we could put a penny-a-word system in operation before we knew where we were, and it would result profitably to all portions of the Empire by filling these cables and utilising them day and night, and I have no hesitation in saying that in my opinion this will come about; but the whole trouble is to make a start, and I would look upon it myself with intense satisfaction if, having already, with the exception of South Africa, given effect to a Stateowned cable system across the Pacific, we were, by way of a commencement and as a matter of business, to say we are going to complete that State-owned system by a cable across the Atlantic. If an Atlantic cable is not to be owned by the respective Governments owning the Pacific cable, it would be looked upon, outside the respective countries and Governments owning the Pacific cable, as a very left-handed position which exists, unless we complete the Atlantic end of it, because the Atlantic end is controlling the whole of the rates across the Pacific to and from the Motherland and the southern seas. When we have spent some two million pounds sterling in round figures upon the Pacific cable and have a proposition put before us that for another we could lay down an Atlantic cable and complete the natural connection across that route to the Old Country, looking upon it as a business matter in the general interests of the people of our respective countries it has everything, in my opinion, to commend it. The question of wireless telegraphy was referred to by Mr. Samuel. I think, and probably the majority of the members of this Conference agree, that nothing is going to stop wireless telegraph stations from practically going round the British world. We shall have wireless stations throughout the Pacific. We are getting them now. We shall all have our wireless stations to other parts of the British Empire. While it is only right that we should conform to our undertaking made with the Pacific Cable Board to do all in our power to give that particular line they control the commercial business of the respective countries, I do not believe even the Pacific Cable Board will be so retrogressive as to suggest that we should not establish wireless stations in the Pacific Islands for commercial purposes. If the wireless system goes along the route of the Pacific cable itself I think the proper thing for those controlling the wireless stations to do is to see that those wireless messages are received and transmitted at the charges the Pacific Cable Board is entitled to across their main line ; but to keep all these islands in the Pacific where a good deal of trading is going on outside the area of the commercial world, on the ground that you were going to injure the Pacific cable line, would be expecting us to go too far. I think between New Zealand and Australia, where we are establishing wireless stations, we are in duty bound to see all the commercial business and the Government business comes across the Pacific cable and that it gets the full benefit of it. But I think it would be a very unhappy position of affairs if we were to go from here on the supposition that the wireless stations established in the Pacific were not to be used for general commercial purposes on the assumption that it would interfere detrimentally with the Pacific Cable Board. There are places where we should loyally stand by them and see they get the whole of the business even if wireless stations are established. But irrespective of wireless stations being established—and they ought to be and no doubt will be owned by the respective Governments —I, personally, strongly advocate the resolution moved by Mr. Pearce. I think we ought to have an Atlantic cable. It would take some time to do it, and I believe myself that the putting down of an Atlantic cable would not derogate in the slightest from the splendid advance Mr. Samuel has made in the other directions; so for my part I heartily support the resolution. Dr. FINDLAY : I should like to say a word or two supplemental to what Sir Joseph Ward has said, for the purpose of impressing the observations made by

299

A.—4.

15 June, 191 L] Nationalization of the Atlantic Cable. [9th Day. Dr. FINDLAY— cont. Mr. Fisher. I venture the opinion that the cable service presents an essentially different point of view to people living at our end of the world and to people living here. Our information of what is happening in the seat and centre of the and what is being done affecting and controlling us comes through the cable. You see nothing of us by cable ; no man requires to spend very much time in reading the cable news from Australia or New Zealand in your daily papers here. On the other hand, every morning we rely upon our paper to tell us what has taken place in the heart and centre of the Empire, so the cable appeals to us as a national institution much more than it appeals|to people in this country, and we deem it vital and important, not only to our commercial interests, but to our national interests. I would stress the observation made by Mr. Fisher, that we think this is too large a matter to be treated purely on a commercial basis—that it has a national aspect which transcends any question of commercial profit. It is one of those great public utilities out of which it is not advisable that private profit should be made. Whether it can be achieved now or achieved later, I feel sure that the feeling in Australia and New Zealand, and, I believe, in South Africa, is strongly in the direction of nationalizing means of communication such as a cable service. The point may want stressing because I take it that the policy point of view is different here to what it is with us. In this country the matter is viewed largely, I understand, from the point of view of commercial profit. We, increasingly, in New Zealand and Australia, look upon it more from a national point of view, and recognise that the cheapening of cable rates is essential to promote immediately and permanently Imperial unity. I simply repeat that we are much more dependent from any point of view of national importance upon our cables than you are, and conseqeuntly I agree with Mr. Peirce that we are anxious to have these means of communication nationalized so that they may be secured more fully to these oversea nations. I may add that I think we are indebted to Mr. Pearce for a definite and clear proposition, which is well elucidated by figures, and seems to me to be in every way worthy of consideration. Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF : The first part of this Resolution has for its object the cheapening, so as to render more effective, of cable communication. It appears to me that again Mr. Samuel has anticipated our desire in this connection, for he has foreshadowed a Board of Control as to rates, and that, to my mind, is a great step in the light direction. Some of these licences for the landing of cables I understand fall in this year and next year, and, at any rate, within the next ten years all the licences will have fallen in, so that new arrangements could be made for the control of the rates, so that that part of the motion will be met without the State owning the cables. We in South Africa also grant licences for the landing of cables, and we make certain conditions in the event of a war as to what is to happen. If all the licences did not contain satisfactory clauses as to the position of the cables, or as to taking control during the time of war, it would not be a difficult matter to arrange for that, as the licences fall in from time to time, and new licences have to be granted. Nationalization of the cables may be necessary and may be desirable, but the question is, whether this is the right time in view of wireless telegraphy. I do not pretend to know as much about wireless telegraphy as Sir Joseph Ward, but it has certainly made great progress of late. We have established quite recently two installations, one is nearly completed now, and we have spoken 1,500 miles quite recently, and we hope that before long, when our installations are completed, and the ships trading betweed the Motherland and South Africa have their installations—one line, at any rate, has already installed it upon its ships—to be in a position to communicate with the Mother Country by wireless telegraphy whenever we think proper by passing it on from one ship to another. The chances are that there will be a biggish development in that direction, so I do not think that this is the right time to spend millions of money in buying up cables or laying submarine cables. I think the objection as to the rates will be met by the establishment of the Board of Control, and I think as to control in time of war the licences can contain clauses to that effect, and, at any rate, I should think it would be wise to hesitate a little

A.—4.

300

9th Day.] Nationalization of the Atlantic Cable. [15 June, 191 L Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF— conL and see what wireless telegraphy is going to do for us, before the Governments embark upon the owning of the cables as a-State undertaking. Sir JOSEPH WARD : This is only a proposal as to establishing an Atlantic cable. Sir D. de VILLIBRS GRAAFF : But I suppose the wireless system would control the Atlantic as well as our route ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes. Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF : Therefore, what would apply to South Africa would apply to the Atlantic also, in so far as wireless telegraphy is concerned, so that, as far as we are concerned, we counsel you to hesitate before it is gone into. Sir JOSEPH WARD : You must remember that South Africa is not asked to contribute anything towards this proposal. Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF : No ; I say it may be desirable to have nationalization of cables ; but the question is whether this is just the right time to go in for it in view of the development of wireless telegraphy. I see we have a motion coming on later in connection with wireless telegraphy. I have nothing more to say upon this motion. Sir E. MORRIS : I should like to say that to a certain extent I agree with what has been said, that the hope held out by the Postmaster-General as regards the Boards of Control as to rates promises very largely to lessen the objections to the present private-owned cables, and removes some of the strong reasons in favour of nationalization. But I should favour the four resolutions which I take it we are now discussing if they can be accomplished, and if they can be brought about. I agree with the principle that this is a matter which cannot be looked at entirely from a purely commercial standpoint, but there is the question of the development of the Empire which must flow from extension of cables and wireless and land-lines, and also it might be very important in the event of war that we should have control of these cables. Sir Joseph Ward asked the question as to who at present owns the Atlantic cables. I know that nine Atlantic cables pass over Newfoundland to-day. They are owned by the Western Union, by the Anglo-American, and by the Direct Cable Companies. Five of those are British cables, and I understand they aie going to pass into the hands of and become the property of companies in the United States—the whole of them. From the standpoint of prestige, just as we gain considerable prestige by being the largest shipowners in the world, and for many other reasons, it is important and valuable to be able to say that we control the cables, or at least that we have not gone out of the cable business. The Anglo-American Company, owning these five cables, were the pioneer Atlantic cable company, and they do their work under charter from the Imperial Government, and, as a matter of fact, there was a clause in their charter giving the right of pre-emption to the British Government. Whether that exists now or not Ido not know —I am only speaking from memory —but I think there was a time limit, and they had to be purchased out within a certain period. It might yet be important before the negotiations are closed— perhaps it is being attended to at present —that that matter should be taken up. Of course there are cases, and it is easy to conceive of many cases, where it would not be well for the Government to own the cables. First, it destroys

A.—4

301

15 June, 1911.] Nationalization op the Atlantic Cable. [9th Day. Sir B. MORRlS— cont. efficiency very often, because the fact of the various companies competing causes them to give low rates and produces efficiency ; and, secondly, in cases where it would be a very large loss to the State it might not be well to consider it. But in this case, as regards the Atlantic cables, I think it is very fair and safe to assume that the Western Union Cable Company would not be purchasing the Anglo-American and buying their five cables unless there was money in it at present, or unless they saw some way of making money by removing the present competition. Now, if there is money in it for the Western Union there ought to be money in it for the Government to acquire and own those cables. Of course it is a matter that ought to be inquired into very carefully. As to the first resolution proposed by Sir Joseph Ward, as regards everything possible being done as to the rates, we know now that to a very large extent that is being done, and as regards the other four resolutions we may learn that something has been done in this respect, and possibly our views may be accomplished. Personally, if it can be done, I should rather favour the nationalization of these various utilities within reasonable amounts. Mr. SAMUEL : These resolutions invite the Governments which are participating in the Pacific Cable Board to incur an expenditure, apart from the Canadian land line, of about 530,000/. for the cable alone, 470,000/. for the line from the United Kingdom to Newfoundland, and about 62,000 Z. to connect with Canada. I should like to mention to the Conference some considerations in this connection which appear to me to be relevant. In the first place, the load which may be given by the Pacific Cable traffic to an Atlantic cable would be, it is estimated, about 1,000,000 words a year at the present time. The average traffic carried by the Atlantic cables per cable is about 2j million words at the present time. The capacity of a cable is from 5 million to 5j million words, so that the present traffic that could be given to this cable, if it had all the Pacific Cable Board's work, would be less than one half the amount that is carried now by the Atlantic cables on the average, and rather less than one fifth of what a cable is capable of carrying in the course of a year. The question therefore arises whether the deficiency can be made up by other business or by an increase of business, so that the heavy loss which would accrue in working a cable with less than half the business the other cables work with can be made good. Of course, if the business is increased by a large reduction of rates, then, while you will be filling up your cable during the day, on the other hand you will not be increasing your revenue, and consequently from a revenue point of view the advantage will be small. If, on the other hand, it were possible to fill up with general commercial and other business between Canada and the United States and this country, in other words, to compete with the other cable companies, then, perhaps, the loss might possibly be wholly or partially made good. But I want to point out that so far as regards the traffic from Canada and the United States to this country there would be very little possibility of attracting any business to a State-owned Atlantic cable, because, as the Conference is aware, all the land telegraph lines in those countries are in the hands of private companies which are closely connected with cable companies, and, of course, they would not transmit ordinary business to a competing State-owned cable as against the interests of the cables which they themselves own, or with which they are closely allied. So iar as business from the United Kingdom to Canada and the United States is concerned, Mr. Pearce suggested that possibly the British Post Office might give preference to cablegrams handed in at our Post Offices for transmission over our Government land lines if they were to be sent by the new proposed State-owned cable. I would point out, however, that our statutes debar us from giving a preference of that kind, and though, of course, legislation might be possible, I should not be able to guarantee that the House of Commons would be willing to enact legislation of that character. Further, there is this consideration, a very important one, which has to be borne in mind, that from the date when the private telegraph lines in the United Kingdom were purchased by the State, that is to say, 1870, there has been an agreement between the Post Office and the Anglo-American Company that all telegrams handed in for transmission across the Atlantic at any British Post Office, unless the sender specifies some other route, must be sent by the Anglo-American cables.

A.— 4.

302

9th Day.] Nationalization of the Atlantic Cable. [15 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Does that agreement apply to messages sent beyond the United States to America ? Mr. SAMUEL : I understand it is only to North America, but that consideration applies to the point I am now discussing, namely, whether it would be possible for us to obtain sufficient business, between the United Kingdom on the one hand and Canada and the United States on the other, to fill up a cable and keep it busy in order to avoid loss. That agreement would be an important factor in preventing our doing that. Sir E. MORRIS : On that point, and also as regards the other point with respect to the land-lines of the United States and Canada, controlling the route of the message by the cable, there would not be any object in a State-owned cable unless the rates were to be lowered. Mr. SAMUEL : No. Sir E. MORRIS : Now, if the rates were lowered, would not every one have their cables sent that way ? Mr. SAMUEL : Not if the competing companies lowered their rates too. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That is part of what we want. Sir E. MORRIS : But you would keep on lowering. Every one would keep on having their messages sent over the lower-rated line, and that would get over the Anglo-American agreement as well, because every one would direct the AngloAmerican to send them by another line. Mr. SAMUEL : That raises very important financial considerations, and the question is whether it would be advisable for the Government to enter into competition with the present Atlantic companies in order to get sufficient traffic to fill up the new State-owned cable, and if they did so, whether they would succeed in obtaining sufficient traffic. Of course it may be said that the effect may be that they would not get traffic themselves, but that other companies would lower their charges. That is a different consideration, a very important one, but a somewhat different one. But the point I am on is whether we can add to the 1,000,000 words, which is all we would be able to obtain from the Pacific Cable Board, another 1,000,000 or 2,000,000 words to make up a sufficient load, and I very much question whether that would be possible, for the reasons I have given. Mr. PEARCE : You contend that the cable is not payable unless it is fully loaded. ' Mr. SAMUEL : The present Atlantic cables, of course, do pay, and pay quite well, although they only carry half the load of their capacity. But the present load that the Pacific Cable Board would give would be only one fifth. Mr. PEARCE : Do you say it would not pay without more than that ? Mr. SAMUEL : I will come to the estimate of the probable financial position of such a cable. The estimates which were given by Mr. Pearce ignore wholly the payment of interest and sinking fund, so I understand,

303

A.—4;

15 June, 1911.] Nationalization of the Atlantic Cable. [9th Day. Mr. PEARCE : No ; I come to that later. Mr. SAMUEL : But you said you were justified in omitting any charge for interest and sinking fund on the ground that from the Pacific side there was a sufficient revenue, with the present reserve fund at any rate, to make good that. Mr. PEARCE : No ; I was referring then to the fund which has been established by the Pacific Cable Board for maintenance, and I pointed out that the fund they have there is of such a volume that it would be sufficient, spread over the whole line, to maintain it, and therefore we did not need, on this new proposition, to make any further provision for that. Mr. SAMUEL : That is precisely what I understood. Mr. PEARCE : I thought you said I had not dealt with it. Mr. SAMUEL : So far as sinking fund is concerned it is suggested that we need not take that into account in regard to this proposition, because the Pacific side of the business is already on such a financial basis that it could take in its stride, so to speak, the provision of a sinking fund on the Atlantic side. I doubt really whether that is a satisfactory view to take if we are looking at simply from a commercial or business aspect. If the provision for sinking fund and depreciation on the Pacific side is excessive, then possibly the Pacific Cable Board ought to revise its present finance. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (to Mr. PEARCE): If there is a fund of that character is not it maintained now by the contributions of the Governments ? Do not we pay a deficit every year ? Mr. PEARCE : It is maintained by the contributing Governments. Mr. SAMUEL : There is a deficit of about 60,000 Z. a year. Mr. PEARCE : There is 37,000 Z. a year put into that fund. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Then it is easy to see how there is that fund. It is created at the expense of the Governments. It is not paid out of the profits of the business. Mr. PEARCE : The Governments have to make up the loss on the cable and that goes down for the loss on the cable. Mr. SAMUEL : I understand that loss includes an amount which, it is suggested, is really excessive debited to the Pacific Cable for depreciation. If that is really excessive that is a factor which must be reviewed in itself and must be considered separately. The Pacific Cable Board, which contains many very able representatives of the various Governments, consider that the amount which they put by is the amount which is needed in respect of the Pacific Cable, and I suggest if it is now proposed to lay down an Atlantic cable, that must be considered on its own financial

39—A. 4.

A.— 4

304

9th Day.] Nationalization of the Atlantic Cable. [15 June, 1911. Mr. SAMUEL—con£. merits, and you must provide in your estimates for a sinking fund against the capital expenditure that is involved, apart altogether from the present finances of the Pacific Cable Board. Sir JOSEPH WAKD : That is so. There is no doubt of that. Mr. PEARCE : But it need not necessarily be on the 'same basis, as it has proved to be excessive in the case of the Pacific Cable Board. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I agree with Mr. Pearce that the amount provided for the Pacific Board is very heavy, if not excessive, but the financial part of the Altantic section should be kept entirely distinct and worked from a standpoint of a separate financial undertaking. Mr. PEARCE : My only contention on this point was that that sum of 37,000/., on the experience of the Pacific Cable Board, would be a sufficient sum, divided if you like into two parts, for the two cables. Mr. SAMUEL : The experience of the Pacific Cable Board has been very short, and from the point of view of interruption they have been exceedingly fortunate. There has been only one interruption, and that was within easy reach of the coast of New Zealand, and it was easily repaired ; but we have to consider a long series of years, and this reserve fund put by is mainly in order to cover the cost of expensive repairs that may at any time be necessary in the course of the life of the cable. However, I think it is generally agreed that we must keep the financial aspect of these things separate from the existing accounts of the Pacific Cable Board. There has recently been sitting a sub-committee of the Pacific Cable Board entering into the finance of the scheme, and I would remind Mr. Pearce of the estimate made by that sub-committee, which I may say the experts of the Post Office consider somewhat sanguine ; they would have made the figures soemwhat less favourable even than those suggested by the committee of the Pacific Cable Board. This relates to the Atlantic cable alone, apart from any question of land lines in Canada. The estimated receipts are about 25,000/. a year. Sir JOSEPH WARD : How many words is that based on passing over the cable ? Personally, I do not agree with the estimate of 1,000,000 words at all. On the information I have, I think it is altogether too low. Mr. SAMUEL : I cannot give it at the moment. This is the estimate on the existing conditions. That, of course, may be increased, but on the other hand, if you reduce rates, it is a question whether the increased number of words more than counterbalances the loss on reduced rates. They estimate 25,000/. of receipts ; operating staff and repairs 21,600/. ; interest and sinking fund on the basis of 4 per cent, per annum, and renewal fund, on the basis of 1| per cent, on a capital outlay of 530,000/., would require a further sum of 29,000/. ; and there would be a total expenditure of 50,600/. against an estimated receipt of 25,000/. In other words, the receipts would amount to about 50 per cent, of the expenditure. If those estimates are at all reliable—and, as I say, the Post Office would put the figures of cost somewhat higher than the committee of the Pacific Cable Board have done— the question is : What reasons can be adduced for asking the contributing Governments to add to the present loss of the Pacific Cable Board of 60,000/. a further sum of possibly 25,000/. ? Mr. PEARCE : Do you quote those figures as having been adopted by the Pacific Cable Company ? Mr. SAMUEL : No, by the committee.

305

A.—4

15 June, 1911.] Nationalization of the Atlantic Cable. {9th Day. Mr. PEARCE : Figures that have been adopted by the committee ? Mr. SAMUEL : I understand so. Mr. PEARCE : I am informed not, and that this is a draft report not yet adopted by the committee of the Board. Mr. SAMUEL : I understood the committee had submitted this report to the Board, but the Board have not yet considered it. Perhaps lam wrong. Mr. PEARCE : I am so informed by the Australian representative. Mr. SAMUEL : As I say, my own Department has examined the estimate and thinks the expenses would be heavier. The question is, what reasons can be adduced for incurring the loss, if a loss is probable ? It cannot be urged that on the ground of efficiency the present service is unsatisfactory, because I think it is agreed on all hands that the work is done by the companies with very great speed and accuracy. Then the question remains as to whether it is necessary to incur this expenditure, and possible, or, as I think, probable, loss in order to cheapen cable rates. If no steps were being taken with that object in view, then possibly a strong case might be made out, or a stronger case at all events than is now made out, for laying a Stateowned cable across the Atlantic : but in view of the halving of the rates on deferred telegrams, which is now agreed to by the companies, and in view of the fact that we are now establishing State control over all rates as fast as the land licences expire, it appears to me that the Governments would not be justified in putting their hands in their pockets in order to make this large capital expenditure, which is, in our view, very likely to be unremunerative. There is one means I would suggest to Mr. Pearce by which the cable rates between this country and Australia might be reduced. The rate now by the Pacific route is 3s. a word, and it is made up in this way : The rate from any part of England to Montreal is 10d., and that includes the expense from the town in England, wherever it may be, to the cable across the Atlantic, and from the landing place on the other side to Montreal. From Montreal to the Pacific the charge is 2d. ; from the Pacific Coast of Canada to Australia the charge is Is. Id. ; but in Australia itself the charge is sd. Mr. PEARCE : Transmitted to any part of Australia. Mr. SAMUEL : The charge is sd. as compared with the charge of less than Id. a word for inland telegrams from any portion of Australia to any other portion. Mr. Pearce tells me the rates vary, but in no case are they more than Id. a word. If Australia would reduce her charges for handling the Pacific Board's traffic to her ordinary inland rate she would at once reduce the cost of cablegrams between this country and Australia by 4d. a word, which is very nearly equal to the. reduction which is contemplated by halving the Atlantic rates. In New Zealand the inland charge is only a penny a word. Of course, New Zealand is a somewhat smaller country, but still there does seem to be a large discrepancy between the New Zealand charge of a penny and the Australian charge of sd. which very largely contributes to swell the present rate of 3s. a word. Possibly Mr. Pearce will give that question his attention with his colleagues on his return. I cannot pledge His Majesty's Government to support the laying of a Stateowned cable across the Atlantic either now or at a future time, still I do not know whether the Conference would be prepared to accept an alternative resolution in the following form : " That, in the. event of considerable reductions in the Atlantic cable rates not being effected in the near future, it is desirable that the laying of a State-owned cable between the United Kingdom and Canada be considered by a subsidiary Conference." Sir WILFRID LAURIER : That is quite acceptable.

A.-4

306

9th Day.] Nationalization of the Atlantic Cable. [15 June, 1911' Mr. PEARCE : There is one point I should like to ask Mr. Samuel before he concludes, and that is this : What would be the life of the landing licence proposed to be given to the cable companies under the new arrangement ? Mr. SAMUEL : The Imperial Conference of 1907 recommended, on the proposition of Cape Colony, that a maximum of 20 years should be observed. In practice we never give more than 20 years, and we give as much as 20 years only in cases of new cables where it is necessary that the Company should have some security for being able to recoup their capital expenditure. As a rule the renewals are for about 10 years. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Does Sir Wilfrid Laurier agree with that resolution ? Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Yes. Mr. SAMUEL : The point is really not one of importance, because at any time the Government can take action, under my proposal, for a reduction of rates where a reduction is desirable and reasonable, and not only at the moment when the landing licences are renewed. CHAIRMAN (Mr, HARCOURT) : May I take it that the Conference will accept this resolution ? Mr. PEARCE : You ask that I should withdraw my resolution and you propose one in substitution. CHAIRMAN : Or you could move it. Mr. PEARCE : I prefer that you should move it. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I want to say a word, if I may be permitted, as to the estimate of the British Post Office of the expenditure required for that Pacific Cable. As the result of close investigation into it, I not only agree with it but I put it at 3,000 Z. higher, so that upon the point of expenditure upon the Atlantic cable your estimate, from your Department, Mr. Samuel, is quite in accord with the independent investigation that I have had made into it, and which has been made by my Department in New Zealand as well. Mr. SAMUEL : It was the estimate in the draft report, as I understand it, of the committee. Sir JOSEPH WARD : No ; the estimate you gave from your office as against the draft report. What Ido want to say is that I cannot understand how the estimate for that cable has been arrived at from this end. In my opinion, excellent in some ways as the estimate is, it is an under-estimate. I cabled out to New Zealand to the head of the Postal and Telegraph Department there to examine into the matter carefully, and I have got back from them, as a result of close investigation— and it has been most carefully done —that their estimate is that the words over that Atlantic cable would be 1,000,000 beyond what the British Post Office estimates, within 12 months after it was in operation. Now, it is my firm conviction that that is the case. If the estimated receipts from that wire are taken upon the basis of 1,000,000, as against 2,000,000, the revenue is about half what it ought to be. In arriving at estimates you have to be on the conservative and careful side. I recognise that fully, and I believe the departmental officers in my Department in New Zealand have been on the careful side. So we have the two departments, one at this end and one at the other, differing materially. This one is basing its revenue on 1,000,000 words, and at the other end they are estimating that within 12 months it will be 2,000,000 words. Whilst the British Post Office put down the receipt at 25,000 Z., we put them down at which is about double the amount the British Post Office estimates. Ido not want to take up time, but I carry my memory back to attending Postal Conferences in the years 1892 and 1893, and I am bound to say from the point of view of the heads of the departments and rightly so, as they are

307

A.—4;

15 June, 1911.] Nationalization of the Atlantic Cable. [9th DaySir JOSEPH W\RD— cont. required to be conservative in their estimates, 1 have not found an estimate which they did not under-estimate most carefully in order to be safe, and in that respect I compliment the British Post Office on this subject. CHAIRMAN : We understand you withdraw your motion, Sir Joseph ? Sir JOSEPH WARD: I should like to say that the resolution which Mr. Samuel submits meets the position, and as we have virtually spoken upon my motion as well I do not propose to go into it further. CHAIRMAN : May I take it that Mr. Samuel's motion is accepted by the Conference ? [Agreed.] After a short adjournment. 7. State-owned Telegraph Lines across Canada. " That in order to facilitate the handling of the traffic, and to secure entire control over the route in which it is engaged, the powers of the Pacific Cable Board be extended to enable the Board to erect a land line across Canada." CHAIRMAN : I understand in view of the decision arrived at a short time ago, you do not propose to move No. 7. Sir JOSEPH WARD : No, I think the former decision governs this, and under the circumstances I accept the former decision. Development of Telegraphic Communication within the Empire. " That the great importance of wireless telegraphy for social, commercial, and defensive purposes, renders it desirable that the scheme of wireless telegraphy approved at the Conference held at Melbourne in December, 1909, be extended as far as practicable throughout the Empire, with the ultimate object of establishing a chain of British State-owned wireless stations, which, in emergency, will enable the Empire to be to a great extent independent of submarine cables." Sir JOSEPH WARD : In moving this resolution 1 would like to say that the wireless system which has been in operation in different parts of the world up to now has advanced so considerably during the last five years that it offers a great inducement to hive what I would call a world-wide Empire .system established. In New Zealand, as a precedent of what I am urging should be extended abroad, we have accepted a contract for two high-power stations, and there is a guarantee given supported by a financial bond of two powerful financial men under which it is guaranteed that our system in daylight will carry messages 1,250 miles. That means they will reach in the daytime to both Sydney and Melbourne from our two highpower stations. One of those two stations is in the north of New Zealand, and will cover Fiji, which is under the British administration, coming into line for the creation of a wireless system there. Then we have a number of islands in the Pacific attached to New Zealand where wireless is to be established. In addition to the two high-power stations we are putting up four low-power stations to enable communication to be had with the distant islands belonging to New Zealand, the Auckland Islands, for instance, and the Chatham Islands, and all the ships in our waters will be provided with wireless equipment, and will be in complete touch with one another and our country. We are also establishing low-power wireless systems on both our Government steamers; so that the whole of the steamers, both belonging to public companies and the Government steamers in our waters, will all be provided with the wireless system.

A.—4.

308

9th Day.] Development of Telegraphic Communication. [15 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. About 18 months or two years ago a Wireless Conference took place in Melbourne, and at that Conference there were |representatives of the various countries, including, I think, Fiji, but at all events we had a representative in Australia, and it was agreed there by resolution to establish a system of Pacific wireless .stations, and apart from anything we are doing in New Zealand now we agreed to combine with those countries who were favourable to that proposal so as to have a well-devised system of wireless stations not more than essential to carry on the important work of the Pacific Islands. I understand that the Home authorities favour the girdling of the Empire to some extent with a system of wireless stations, and if it could be made to fit in with what we are carrying out in our country now —Australia is also carrying out a wireless system independently of vs —it seems to me that it would be a splendid alternative route in times of war, particularly where no interference could take place with the shore wireless stations, so that in the event of the cutting of the existing cables there would be the alternative of being able to carry on the work by wireless stations, which would be very valuable indeed. The Conference which took place in Melbourne in 1909 agreed to extend the wireless to the Pacific, and I think it would be a very fine thing in the interest of all parts of the Empire from a national as well as a commercial standpoint; as well as giving those now in isolated places an opportunity of being brought into touch with the world at large. I have pleasure in moving the motion. CHAIRMAN: I think probably it would be for the convenience of the Conference if Mr. Samuel at once stated the position of the Government and the proposal they are prepared to make. Mr. SAMUEL : In the opinion of the Government of the United Kingdom it is very desirable that a chain of wireless stations should be established within the Empire, partly for strategical and partly for commercial reasons. Cables, of course, are always liable to be cut in time of war. Wireless stations can be put in protected places, and, furthermore, the wireless stations are exceedingly useful for communication with the Fleet. On general grounds of Imperial defence we consider it is very desirable to have such a chain of stations. For commercial reasons also such stations might be of value. Wireless telegraphy at present is slow but cheap, and it is becoming more and more reliable, and the probabilities are that the progress of science relating to wireless telegraphy will lead to its being gradually more and more improved. Already the system of wireless telegraphy may be an effective means of securing or assisting to secure reasonable cable rates, and probably its influence in that direction will grow as years go on. We consider it, therefore, very desirable that such a system should be established. We also think it should be a State-owned system. If it were in the hands of a company it could not fail to be a monopoly, and in an even higher degree than the cables are a monopoly, because while it is possible to lay various competing cables it is exceedingly difficult to have competing systems of wireless telegraphy along the same route, on account of the danger of interference. Sir JOSEPH WARD : In my resolution I mean a State system entirely. Mr. SAMUEL : That I understood. Further, in the opinion of the Government of the United Kingdom, it is desirable that action should be taken speedily. But the Government do not think it would be wise at the outset to establish this system of wireless telegraphy in every direction simultaneously. We do not quite know yet what will be its commercial value. There is some doubt, and we think, in the first place, it would be advisable to establish the system along one of the routes, and the route which we would suggest is that from the United Kingdom to

309

A.—4

15 June, 1911.] Development of Telegraphic Communication. [9th Day. Mr. SAMUEL— cont. India, and from India, through the Straits Settlements, to Australia and New Zealand. There are already long-distance wireless stations in the hands of the Marconi Company connecting England and Canada, and for that and other reasons we consider it desirable that experiment should be made in the first instance, and that the scheme should not be established as a whole at the outset, but that we should set up a chain of six stations in England, Cyprus, Aden, Bombay, Straits Settlements, and Western Australia. From Western Australia the messages would go over the Australian land lines to Sydney, and from there by wireless, if it were desired, to New Zealand. Of course, the details of that scheme are matters for subsequent consideration. Later, South Africa would be connected either via East Africa or West Africa or by both the routes. If favourable terms could be obtained from one of the wireless telegraphy companies we are inclined to think it might be desirable if they erected the stations in the first instance. If satisfactory terms could not be obtained, our view is that the Admiralty, which has a highly efficient department capable of dealing with these problems, should undertake the erection of the stations, but in any case, by whomever erected, they should be worked by the Post Office and by the local administrations in the various Dominions. We propose that the cost should be equitably divided among the parties who are concerned, that the United Kingdom should bear the cost of the stations in England, Cyprus, and Aden ; that India should bear the cost of the station in Bombay ; that New Zealand and Australia should bear the cost of the stations in their own territories, and that the cost of the Singapore station, which probably would have very little local traffic, and which would be created almost entirely merely as a link in the chain, should be divided in equitable proportions that might be subsequently discussed. The resolution moved by Sir Joseph Ward tacks its proposal on to the resolution passed by the Conference at Melbourne on Pacific wireless telegraphy. This is a matter which lies more in the province of the Colonial Office and of the Treasury than of the Post Office, but I understand that those Departments have not yet consented to the proposal that there should be high-power stations in the Pacific, although the early establishment of some low-power stations in Fiji is contemplated ; but in any case even if high-power stations were established in that part of the Pacific, those stations could hardly be the beginning of a chain of Imperial wireless telegraphy. The cost of crossing the Pacific by a chain of stations would be very heavy; the Admiralty are of opinion that it would be of small strategic value ; the commercial value would, I am informed, be negligible, and I would suggest that it would perhaps be better for this Conference to pass a resolution dealing with Imperial wireless telegraphy in general terms rather than tacking it on to the proposals of the Melbourne Conference, which were on a much smaller scale, and which dealt with such territories as Ocean Island and the New Hebrides. Possibly Sir Joseph Ward might feel inclined to move his resolution in a slightly different form, not bringing in the Melbourne Conference, in which case the Government of the United Kingdom would be very happy to accept it. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I am quite agreeable to alter the resolution to read in this way— Mr. SAMUEL : Perhaps you will read this draft {handing the same). Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes, I think that is all right. I was going to ask to strike the words out of this resolution, " approved at the Conference held at Melbourne in December 1909 as far as practicable," and it would then read : " That the great importance of wireless telegraphy for social, commercial, and defensive purposes renders it desirable that the scheme of wireless telegraphy be extended throughout the Empire, with the ultimate object of establishing a chain of British State-owned wireless stations which in emergency would enable the Empire to be to a great extent

A.—4

310

9th Day.] Development of Telegraphic Communication. [15 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. independent of submarine cables." The suggestion now is as an alternative : " That the great importance of wireless telegraphy for social, commercial, and defensive purposes renders it desirable that a chain of British State-owned wireless stations should be established within the Empire," and I have no objection to proposing that. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : We agree for Canada. Mr. PEARCE : Of course we support the resolution, but we trust that the Pacific will not be lost sight of in this matter, because it has to be remembered that there are other European countries that possess colonies in the Pacific, and if the Pacific is to be put out of consideration it is just possible that those other countries will not throw away their opportunity. The Committee which sat in Melbourne pointed out that it is known that a certain country was desirous of improving their means of rapid correspondence with their administrative centres, and that they had information that it was their intention to establish radio-telegraphic connections with their colonies. We have to remember that if these wireless stations are to be used for commercial purposes, if the other nations do get in ahead of us, it will have some effect in diverting trade. I was rather disappointed to hear Mr. Samuel say that the Admiralty did not consider the Pacific stations would be of any value for naval purposes. Mr. SAMUEL : A chain right across. Mr. PEARCE : Because at the Conference at Melbourne the Admiralty was represented by Lieutenant Fanshawe, and besides him there were Captain Tickell, Mr. Logan, Superintendent of Electric Lines, New Zealand, the Honourable Eyre Hutson, Colonial Secretary of Fiji, Mr. Milward, Manager of the Pacific Cable Board, and the Commonwealth Representatives, Sir John Quick, the Postmaster-General, Sir Robert Scott, Secretary to the Postmaster-General's Department, Mr. John Hesketh, Chief Electrical Engineer in the same Department, and Mr. Atlee Hunt. That Committee drew up a secret report dealing with the naval side of the question. CHAIRMAN : Those considerations will be very present to the minds of the Colonial Office in dealing with the development and further extension of wireless throughout the Pacific when once we have got our main line connecting up the principal parts of the Empire. Mr. PEARCE : In the meantime we are straining every nerve to maintain the supremacy of British trade with those Pacific Islands, and we look upon this extension of wireless as being a very valuable aid to us. No doubt those who are opposing us in this connection, competing with us, also take the same view, and if we wait too long we may find that they will get in ahead of us. There are, first, one or two other points. With regard to the Conference of next year, I should like to ask Mr Samuel whether it is proposed that the Dominions should be represented at that Conference. Mr. SAMUEL : Yes, it is proposed. Mr. PEARCE : Also as regards the station proposed to be erected in Western Australia, has consideration been given to the fact that we at the present time are establishing a station there ?

311

A.—4,

15 June, 1911.] Development of Telegraphic Communication. [9th Day. Mr. FISHER : We are building one. Mr. PEARCE : We are establishing a wireless station at Fremantle. Mr. SAMUEL : Is it a high-power station ? Mr. PEARCE : No, I do not think it is. Mr. SAMUEL : It would not reach to Singapore ? Mr. PEARCE : No, it would not. Mr. FISHER : It would be well to keep in mind that Australia intends to go in for wireless on its own account. Mr. PEARCE : It is going in for it at the present time. Mr. FISHER : And intends to. Mr. PEARCE : If it is found that the station we are erecting at Fremantle is not of sufficient power, now is the time to make representations, before we are too far committed. Mr. SAMUEL : )I should like you to make them now. Mr. PEARCE : If you inform us what power is necessary, I could communicate with the Postmaster-General. Mr. FISHER : We have been in trouble for eighteen months, in consequence of wrong information. Mr. PEARCE : I should think the limit would be Fremantle, Cocas Island, and Singapore, and not Singapore to Fremantle direct. Mr. SAMUEL : That is a scheme which has been worked out by the Cable Landing Committee, which is a committee of the various Departments here. The more links there are the more expense it is, and the slower will be the communication. We are already transmitting five times after the original transmission, which will very much slacken the speed of telegraphing. Mr. PEARCE : I should be surprised to learn that by a high-power station we could link up with Singapore. CHAIRMAN: The Landing Committee certainly thought there would be no difficulty about that with an ordinary high-power station. Mr. PEARCE : The point we want to press is that the Pacific should certainly not be overlooked, and we are rather doubtful whether it should be held over pending the completion of the main line of communications. Mr. FISHER : We cannot commit ourselves to stopping our procedure. Mr. SAMUEL : No, but you would be very willing, I understand, to join in the scheme for a chain of wireless stations from the United Kingdom to Australia, and, if necessary, to adopt one of your stations to make the final link of that chain.

40—A. 4.

A.—4,

312

Mh Day.] Development of Telegraphic Communication. [15 June, 1911. Mr. FISHER : I would like to know whether the passing of this Resolution alone commits the Governments to this scheme, and I should like to hear more about it first. Mr. PEARCE : The only financial responsibility we would be committed to would be Singapore. Mr. SAMUEL : Part, not the whole, and also to the establishment of such a station in Australia as would link up with the next station on the chain. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That would be the Fremantle station, I presume— extended, perhaps. CHAIRMAN : To link up with Singapore. Mr. FISHER : I want to be quite clear on this matter. We are quite willing to co-operate in every possible way, but this matter rather belongs to an expert committee before I should agree to involve the Commonwealth in a monetary obligation. These things cannot be done hurriedly. Passing a resolution of this kind will express the views we hold as to co-operation with you, but to approve a scheme which has not been fully considered would be unwise. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Everything we are doing here, as far as I am concerned (I made that quite clear before, and I repeat it now), and I think you are in the same position, is subject to the ratification of our Parliaments. Mr. FISHER : Yes, but I say the scheme is not complete enough from my point of view ; I want to see more of a scheme of this character in detail before I can commit the Commonwealth financially to it. Mr. BRODEUR : I understand it is not embodied in the resolution proposed by Mr. Samuel. Mr. SAMUEL : We circulated yesterday to all the members of the Conference a memorandum on the subject, but that memorandum also does not go closely into financial estimates. Mr. FISHER : I do not want to say it, but we have, as a Government, lost a considerable amount of money by following advice that came from an excellent source ; it has been embarrassing and inefficient advice, and we shall certainly not agree to financially assist a scheme which we have not got our experts to examine and report upon. Otherwise the proposition is all right. Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF : We support this scheme, sir. We think it is a capital idea, and, I may say, I am glad to hear that South Africa is to be joined in at a later period. If a high-power station is placed at Aden, it is quite possible, by erecting another high-power station at the Victoria Falls, or some other convenient position, we would be able to come into the chain of communication. The Union Government will be quite prepared to consider the advisability of it, so soon as the high-power station, which has been foreshadowed by Mr. Samuel, has been erected at Aden. AVe support the idea of the scheme, and I am sorry that we cannot at once come into the same line of communication—that we cannot be connected with the whole at once, but the Government would be prepared to consider, and I think favourably, erecting a station in a suitable position to communicate with Aden, which will also put us then in the line of communication. Sir JOSEPH WARD : May I just say on the point raised by Mr. Fisher—and perhaps Mr. Samuel will correct me if I am wrong—that I understand that the

313

A.—4

15 June, 1911.] Development of Telegraphic Communication. [9th Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. proposal for the establishment of the six wireless stations which you named outside of Singapore, which is a necessary connection for transmitting the wireless messages from Australia and New Zealand and from this end from India; the British Government carry out the other stations. Mr. SAMUEL : And the Indian Government. Sir JOSEPH WARD : They bear the cost of providing the stations and the maintenance and working of them. Mr. SAMUEL : Yes, that is with regard to the capital expenditure for establishing the stations, but as these stations will be links in the chain, the working of the scheme must be viewed as a whole, and the suggestion is that the working expenses should be pooled, and that the receipts should also be pooled, and any profit or loss be divided under an equitable scheme to be agreed upon. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Australia is in a similar position to New Zealand, and we are establishing high-power stations now. At Fremantle, I understand, it is a station to carry messages distances of about 1,000 miles. The difference between a high-power station and a station carrying messages 1,000 miles under ordinary conditions ought to be the work of Australia, just as in New Zealand the work of providing our stations for carrying messages a long distance is our work. I understand your proposition is that after we have established our high-power stations, our profits or our losses are to be included in the link of suggested wireless stations right round, including Australia. Mr. SAMUEL : It will probably be necessary to distinguish between the work which is done by these stations for local purposes and the work which is done in the transmission of messages between the United Kingdom or India, and Australia or New Zealand. Sir JOSEPH WARD : The feeling I have, in reply to Mr. Samuel's question, is that if it were possible it would be more satisfactory to say that we were to bear the capital cost of our high-power stations and the working of them ; that Australia was to bear the capital cost of its Western Australian Station and the working of it; and that we, with the other co-partners you have referred to, should jointly bear the cost of the Singapore Station, and jointly bear a proportion of whatever loss or profit was incurred on that particular station. I foresee that if this system of the chain of wireless stations which you are referring to is established on the basis of our standing in with the working of the whole of them, right over the different portions of the Empire, as a corollary to that proposal it would necessitate the establishment of some Board outside the representative Governments, just as in the case of the Pacific Cable Board. I think there is a little difficulty in that. Mr. FISHER : Only a little one ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Certainly not much difficulty, for this reason, that independently of the Empire side of the question, we have out in the southern seas to carry on local work of a different character altogether ; we have to carry on a local work, and when you get an important system of stations established for local working and you endeavour to attach that to a system for wide Empire purposes, for general telegraphy, we would not use it very much commercially right over the Empire, but for other purposes it would be invaluable. I think, when the local side is considered, with regard to the uses to which we put our wireless stations, it would be more satisfactory to let us carry out what we require for our local purposes, giving extended limits in that station at Fremantle, for instance, which has been referred to, to enable communication to go to Singapore.

A.—4.

314

Mh Day.] Development of Telegraphic Communication. [15 June, 1911. Mr. FISHER : There is one at Sydney, too. Sir JOSEPH WARD : There is one at Sydney, too. Let us, if we can, agree that we should share the establishment of the link between the whole of vs —the British Government, the Indian Government, the Australian Government, and the New Zealand Government—of the Singapore Station; it would not be very much for any of us to bear our part, and that would be helping on the Empire side. Speaking for New Zealand, we do not want you to suppose for a moment that we require you either to sustain a portion of the loss or to share the profit, as the case may be, of the local uses to which we are going to put our wireless stations, and if we came into the larger question of pooling the profits or losses for Imperial purposes, the corollary to that would be the pooling of the profits or losses for local purposes. That would be an invidious position even to suggest that any Government outside our own, which has its own stations, should be put into. lam inclined to think with Mr. Fisher that, provided that the details of these schemes are not imposed upon us by the affirming of a resolution of this kind, our own experts in the ordinary course of things should report upon them. In a general sense I support the whole proposal you are submitting, but I think upon the question of the division of the responsibilities we require, perhaps, to have a slight alteration made imposing upon us the establishment of our own high-power stations, to make it part and parcel of the whole system you are suggesting; and in turn we ought to recognise—l do so far as New Zealand is concerned—that it is a fair proposition that we should stand in, as far as Singapore is concerned, and do something to keep the link in existence, because that link is just as useful to us as to you. If any proposals for establishing wireless stations by or in conjunction with a cable company were to be favourably entertained, I would ask that this reservation should be made, that where those wireless stations came into the zone of the Pacific cable there should be no such possibility as a competing cable company with the Pacific cable taking in wireless messages over its wires that should go over the Pacific cable ; in other words, whatever feeders we can give the Pacific cable through our wireless stations as co-partners in the State-owned Pacific cable there, I think clearly it is our duty to see that business is given to the Pacific cable ; and I should, as a matter of preserving the existing rights in the Pacific cable, ask that there should be no confusion in the proportions of the work which should be given to the Pacific cable. That is a detail which I apprehend, in the ordinary course of events, could easily be arranged. If we get to the time when the erecting of these stations is to be carried out, I think it ought to be competed for publicly, and if any particular company whose system is acceptable is the lowest, or if any competing offer is not satisfactory, then I think the work should be handed over to the Admiralty and carried out under the experts. In our country what we have to guard against from a public standpoint, while making for an efficient system, is the possibility of paying too much for the establishment of stations in any part. However, that is a point again which, I think, could be left to the British Administration to do what they consider right, and who also would report and would confer with us before committing us to any expenditure in connection with a matter of that sort. Mr. FISHER : I just want to make our position quite clear in this matter. No Dominion is more heartily in favour of a British linking up of wireless than we are, only we have started our own scheme, and we intend to proceed with it, not only with these two stations, but a number of other stations on a great continent, and we feel a little out of humour because of the delay which has already taken place. We should have liked, as the Commonwealth, to have had some of the best wireless stations in the world established there; but owing to holding on, for similar reasons to those put forward now, until we once get a system for the whole Empire, we have been delayed, and the Commonwealth of course reserves to itself the right to put the stations where they please and how they please. But you may rely upon it, that once the scheme is developed and our financial obligations known, the Commonwealth will enter into full co-operation for strategical and protective purposes, and for commercial purposes

315

A.—4

15 June, 1911.] Development of Telegraphic Communication. [9th Day. Mr. FISHER— cont. too. I wish to reserve myself from conveying to this Conference or any other one that we are committing ourselves to a scheme as outlined on the financial side of it. Mr. SAMUEL : We were hoping that the amount of traffic which would go through this chain of wireless stations would be so great that it would occupy them all day, that they would be additional stations, and that they would be unable to take any local work, but it is impossible to guarantee that. Would it not be best to establish a small joint committee representing the various parties immediately interested in order to work out the details of this scheme ? Mr. FISHER : We are going on, and we cannot stop because of anything being done elsewhere. Mr. SAMUEL : It will not affect the stations you are now putting up, but it would be desirable, if there is to be a scheme of this sort, that your stations you are now erecting should either work in with them or that supplemental stations should be erected to take this new work. Mr. FISHER : But our contracts are so drawn that we really find ourselves embarrassed when we want to make any alteration whatever. Mr. SAMUEL : I would suggest that there should be a joint committee working out the details on which, perhaps, the Australian Government would nominate a member, and perhaps the New Zealand Government would also nominate a member. I suppose it ought to sit in London. Mr. FISHER : I think it ought to sit in Australia. It is about time you were seeing the countries you are dealing with. Mr. SAMUEL: The Indian Government is also concerned, and Aden and Cyprus ; all those places will need stations. However, perhaps we can discuss the details afterwards. Mr. FISHER : I do not think it would be a bad idea if they would just take a trip out there and see the places before deciding upon them. Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF : I take it that we express the desirability of such a system by passing this resolution. The other matters are matters of detail to be considered later on. As to the desirability, there can be no question—we are all in favour of it. CHAIRMAN : I understand the motion is acceptable to all: " That the great " importance of wireless telegraphy for social, commercial, and defensive purposes " renders it desirable that a chain of British State-owned wireless stations should be " established within the Empire." Sir JOSEPH WARD : That, I understand, is carried unanimously. CHAIRMAN : That is carried unanimously. Universal Penny Postage. " That, in view of the social, political, and commercial advantages to accrue from a system of international penny postage, this Conference recommends to His Majesty's Government the advisability of approaching the Governments of other States known to be favourable to the scheme with a view to united action being taken at the next meeting of the Congress of the Universal Postal Union." Sir JOSEPH WARD : I had the honour of introducing a similar motion to this in 1907. and although the resolution was accepted by the British representatives, it was regarded as an indication of policy as leaving the British Government free to

A.—4

316

9th Day.] Universal Penny Postage. [15 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. judge as to the time and opportunity, and especially as to the question of funds at their disposal, with respect to how far and at what moment and to what extent the Government would carry out the policy of further postal reforms with reference to foreign countries or the Colonies, and in the matter of the adoption of a universal penny post. It was pointed out that the adoption of the penny rate in its entirety would, involve a charge on the British Government of a very serious sum, and I anticipate the same idea probably will suggest itself in connection with this resolution. Fears were expressed that there would be no hope within a number of years to make up the loss by increased facilities leading to increased business. I want to point out what has occurred since then. Not only has the British Post Office been able to see its way to arrange for the exchange of penny letters between the United Kingdom and the United States of America, but the German Post Office has made a similar arrangement with the United States of America. Here I want to take the opportunity of saying that at the Postal Conference in Rome in 1906 I expressed the conviction that a system of Universal Penny Postage would be an enormous advantage to the world at large, and that the loss of revenue would be but temporary. I propose presently to show that the loss of revenue in every case where penny postage has been carried out has been but temporary, and I think I will be able to justify that. But, judging from the Reports of the British Postmaster-General, the anticipation then expressed appears to be amply confirmed. In speaking on the subject at the Conference of 1907, I suggested that we might find America and Germany entering into agreement for penny postage, and, as I have already said, this has been realised, but it is some satisfaction to remember that the agreement between Great Britain, and America preceded it. Now, from the point of view of New Zealand, and I also believe from that of the Commonwealth of Australia, the weak point with the present arrangement with America is that it is confined to Great Britain instead of covering the countries included in the Imperial scheme. It is quite true that New Zealand has a unilateral arrangement with the United States under which penny letters are delivered in that country without surcharge, but in any case that cannot be looked upon, as far as we are concerned, with any degree of complete satisfaction. In the case of the great Dominion of Canada, it has its own arrangement with America. In connection with the suggestion to include the rest of the Empire, I want to say something with regard to the individual experiences in those countries from the financial standpoint in the matter of loss of revenue, although my proposal now is over a wider area. There was some loss, but we had a quick recovery of our revenue, and we have the two important illustrations of Canada and New Zealand in that respect. I remember perfectly well in New Zealand, when the suggestion of the Universal Penny Postage was being considered, the Postal Department believed we were to make an immediate loss of something between 80,000?. and 150,000 L a year. The first year after that system was in operation our loss of revenue was 48,000 L Here the increase in the correspondence would soon make good the loss, judging by the Report to the year ending 31st March, 1910, of the British Postmaster-General, who, in speaking of the penny postage with the United States of America, said, " Penny Postage " with the United States of America was established on the Ist October, 1908, and the " result has been satisfactory. The arrangement applies to letters exchanged between " places in the United Kingdom and places in the United States, including Alaska and " Hawaii. The latest statistics indicate an increase of the number of letters between " the two countries since the introduction of penny postage of about 25 per cent., a " very satisfactory increase." Now, on the 31st March, 1910, the British PostmasterGeneral stated that the total weight of letters and postcards from the United Kingdom to places abroad in 1909 shows an increase of 10*75 per cent, over the first figures of 1908, as compared with a slightly larger increase, 11-43 per cent., in that year over 1907. The rate of increase remains higher than before the introduction of the present postage rates in October 1907. The amount of correspondence sent by letter post from this country to the United States has increased by about 32 per cent, since the rate of postage was reduced on the Ist October, 1908, and the increase in the reverse direction is about 29 per cent.

317

A—4

15 June, 1911.] Universal Penny Postage. [9th Day. Sir JOSEPH WARB—eont. Roughly, two-thirds of this increase is estimated as being the result of the introduction of the penny post, the remaining one-third representing the normal natural growth in the mails at the rate of about 5 per cent. That the increase still continues is shown by the Appendix to the Report for 1910, and there it will be found upon reference that it is stated that the weight of the letters and post-cards exchanged by the United Kingdom with foreign countries and British Colonies, which in 1908 was 3,926,000 lbs., had increased in 1909 to 4,348,000 lbs. The experience of the British Post Office pending the extension of the penny rate has been somewhat similar to that of the introduction of Universal Penny Postage in both Canada and New Zealand. The point I am endeavouring to make is not due to any abnormal circumstances or any unusual causes, but to the enhanced facilities extended to the public. I want to show what took place in the increase of correspondence in New Zealand following the introduction of the penny rate there. We brought the system into operation on the Ist January, 1901. Counting took place in July, 1901, and that counting showed that the increase in letters was at the rate of about 10,000,000 over the number posted the previous year, before the introduction of penny postage, and at that period it showed that the loss according to the estimate made by the officers of the Department was only 43,591 Z. Now the first year after the introduction of the penny rate the increase in the number of paid letters despatched was 11,705,000, or 35-47 per cent. The next year it was 16,269,000, or 49-31 per cent. In the following year it was 19,207,000, or 58-51 per cent., and in the succeeding year it was 24,014,000, or 72-78 per cent. That is the increase in the number of letters alone. I know from examination into the matter and also from information furnished to me personally by the then Postmaster-General of Canada the experience of Canada in the introduction of penny postage with a larger amount of revenue at stake in the first instance was almost identical with that of New Zealand, and it shows that, although we were separate countries, the causes which were at work in the restoration of that revenue are world wide, and I believe you will find in the great Commonwealth of Australia— where they have, I am happy to see, under Mr. Fisher's Government, established a system of Universal Penny Postage—although their loss in proportion, on account of their greater numbers compared to ours, will be greater, yet I am satisfied that within the same period they will recover the whole of their revenue. The point I want to impress on the Conference is this : The great old British Post Office in this old British world has all along been the forerunner of tremendous reforms in the postal service of the most far-reaching character, conferring enormous benefits on the users of the British Post Office. I took the British Post Office as my guide in my earlier years of administrative life in my country as being the institution to follow regarding penny postage, it having conferred an inestimable boon upon the people whom the Post Office serves. I had the argument brought up time and again in New Zealand, because of the fact that in the United Kingdom there Was a population of about 40 to 1 of ours, that what was all right with that large number of people was going to be all wrong with a thinly populated country like New Zealand. Those sort of theories in the face of the facts that come out as a result of operations will not stand in the way of reform for a moment. The revenue must be less in proportion to the number of the people, and the expenditure of the Department must be less in the same proportion, but the net results of the adoption of the system, if you look at it upon the per capita basis, is practically the same whether the population of the Old Country is 40 to lof ours or otherwise. If that theory were true, why should Canada, with only about 5,000,000 of people in its territory, and New Zealand, at the time I speak of, with only about 700,000 people in its territory, separated as those countries are, and Math the comparatively speaking small populations, have brought about virtually the same results as followed the tremendous reforms made in the days gone by in the British Post Office in this all-important matter of conferring penny postage on the people using the British Post Office ?

A.—4,

318

9th Day.] Universal Penny Postage. [15 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. The question of revenue and expenditure is a point , we must consider, and I know the financial side has to be considered by the British Government* as I recognise must be the case in regard to all these matters; but the point I want to impress upon the Conference is that under the Postal Union any of those great countries that have not penny postage between them may enter into an agreement to have it established as between themselves without waiting for another Postal Conference to sit to have it made general. Already since that Postal Conference took place in Rome in 1907, we find the United Kingdom and the United States of America have by agreement (the power to agree having been conferred upon them under the Postal Union Rules) entered into the system of penny postage'as between those two countries; already Germany has by agreement with the United States of America arranged to have penny postage; and the time is not very far "distant when France will do the same with the United States of America. As a matter of fact, the people who are carrying on their important affairs in those countries who are standing outside the penny postal system, for the mere sake of getting their business arrangements carried out on grounds similar to the great competitive countries, will demand it against the will of those who may regard it from a financial standpoint as not beingdesirable to do it, and will certainly bring those countries by agreement into a system of penny postage. We have already, as Mr. Harcourt knows, and as the Postmaster-General knows, entered into an agreement with France as far as New Zealand is concerned for the establishment of the system of penny postage. So the whole movement of the independent countries is in the direction of bringing about universal penny postage. Then why should not we, as a Conference, with men from all portions of the Empire represented here, take time by the forelock, and why should we wait to be drawn by the chariot wheels of the independent countries who are going to establish this system as between themselves, and why should not we have — I will not say the courage — but why should not we accept the practical working of the great countries which have established penny postage already and have proved it to be on a sound financial basis, which proves conclusively that within two and a half years the whole of the loss of revenue as the outcome of the greater usage of the Post Office by the increase of letters posted has been made up. These facts cannot be contradicted so far as those countries are concerned. Mr. SAMUEL : There is no penny postage between France and New Zealand. Sir JOSEPH WARD : They have agreed to accept our letters at the penny rate from New Zealand to France. That shows they are a very sensible people and recognise the possible advantage of it, and I should think it is going to be the precursor to their establishing it with England. My opinion is that France cannot long remain behind Germany in that all-important question of penny postage, and they will before long be in agreement with America; and there will be the anomaly of letters passing through Italy and France from New Zealand, and from here through Italy and France to New Zealand for Id. while 2\d. is still being charged between this country and France, which will by degrees affect public opinion in those countries, and I hope before long to see them in the van of progress. I should like Mr. Samuel, in order to add to the splendid coping-stone he has already laid in the way of reforms in the Post Office of the Old Country, to agree to this Resolution that universal penny postage should be put into operation as soon as practicable. I do not believe that the fact of our carrying a resolution of this kind should make it any less or more difficult to arrange from time to time to have this world-wide system established, which I believe would be of enormous advantage to all parts of the Empire and to the world at large. CHAIRMAN : Perhaps the Conference would like to hear Mr. Samuel at once on the subject. Mr. SAMUEL : As this Resolution relates specially to the Government of the United Kingdom, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words upon it. T

319

A.—4

15 June, 1911.] Universal Penny Postage. [Sth Day. Mr. SAMUEL— cont. think this Conference ought not to separate without expression being given to the gratification which I am sure all of its members feel at the fact that Australia has now joined in the system of Imperial penny postage, so completing the whole scheme of Imperial penny postage throughout the Empire with the exception of a few not very important islands in the Pacific. Imperial penny postage involves to the United Kingdom a considerable loss every year, but nevertheless it is expenditure which every one in this country agrees is well worth making. The present loss is estimated at 155,000/. a year, and as the correspondence grows in consequence of the stimulus given to it by the cheap postage rate, and correspondence always does grow, as Sir Joseph Ward has said, under that stimulus, so the loss will increase. The average cost of handling each letter from England to varying parts of the British Empire and its reply—because we have also to handle the letter in this country which comes from across the seas for which we get nothing at all —is l\d., and we therefore lose of a penny on each letter sent under the Imperial penny postage scheme, a loss, however, which we very willingly bear. The system was extended to the United States of America two years ago. There the cost —as our expense is merely limited to the payment for the transit across the Atlantic and handling the reply in this country —is slightly less than Id. per letter on the average, but the initial loss to the Exchequer of this country is which is gradually being recouped at the rate of about 10,000 Z. a year; so that in about 14 years the initial loss of revenue will be made good. The question now is whether we should incur the further loss of revenue which would be involved by universal penny postage, a loss which would not be made good by the increase of communications to the more distant countries of the world, since, in those cases, as in the case of the more distant parts of the British Empire, the cost of handling each letter and its reply is more than Id. ? The immediate loss by reducing to Id. the postage charged on letters that now go at the rate of I\d., and the proportionate reductions on the heavier letters would be 450,000£. a year, which, as I say, would not be made good, because there is no profit on the increased correspondence. The situation, therefore, presents itself to us in a very different light from that in which it presents itself to the Government of New Zealand. Sir Joseph Ward furnished to the Conference at Rome some figures collected in 1905 dealing with the Post Office of New Zealand, and an analysis of those figures shows that the total postage paid on letters leaving New Zealand at that time for countries with which we now have the Ihd. rate—that is to say, excluding the British Empire and excluding the United States, and limiting ourselves to the Continent of Europe and South America, and Central America and to the countries of Asia—the total postage paid on letters of that character leaving New Zealand was 1,070£. in that year, so I am informed; so that the loss involved by reducing the rate on those letters from I\d. to Id. would be about 600 Z., or quite a negligible quantity. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Why do you exclude the British Empire? Mr. SAMUEL : Because I am trying to make a comparison between what we are now asked to do—that is to say, reduce from 2M. to Id. letters going to the portions of the world other than the British Empire, Egypt, and the United States —and what the similar loss would have been to New Zealand at the time she reduced her rate from Ihd. to Id. It is obvious that the position is very different when you have to approach a loss of 450,000 Z. and when you approach a loss of only some QOOL At Rome, in 1906, the suggestion was made for universal penny postage, but it received no support from any other country except the United States of America and Egypt, Sir JOSEPH WARD : What did Canada do on that occasion ? Mr. SAMUEL : I do not know. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Canada voted for it. You have left Canada out.

41—A. 4.

A.—4

320

9th Day.] Universal Penny Postage. [15 June, 1911. Mr. SAMUEL : Is that so? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes. Mr. SAMUEL : The information supplied me was that those were the only supporters. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : We stood in a subordinate position; but I would favour it, for my part. Mr. SAMUEL : The information supplied me from the records—I hope it is correct —is, that the United States and Egypt were the only countries supporting. Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF : That is so. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Dr. Coulter, the Deputy Postmaster-General, told me in Ottawa, when I passed through a few weeks ago, that he supported it, and that it was expected by the representatives of the British Government that he would vote against it, but he did not, and he supported it. The question afterwards arose in the Canadian House of Parliament, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier made a statement to that effect. Mr. SAMUEL : Then my information must be incorrect; but the other countries of the world did not support the Resolution, and even the proposal to reduce the minimum from to 2d., supported by Great Britain, was rejected, and the only alteration made was an increase in the weight allowed. I wish I could see my way to support Sir Joseph Ward's Resolution, but in view of the very heavy expenditure which'this country is now incurring for social reforms, and also for the purposes of defence, I regret to say that the Government cannot give its adhesion to the proposal. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : I would support the motion on principle. I think it is a very forward policy. It chiefly concerns the United Kingdom. So far as Canada is concerned we have very little trade relations with any country except the United States and the United Kingdom. Our relations with the outside world are very limited. I would favour the resolution on the whole. Mr. FISHER : The Commonwealth is in this position : As regards postage to-day it has penny postage throughout the world to any country that will reciprocate. We can hardly go any further. If any country will reciprocate with us we give it penny postage. That is our policy, and therefore, of course, we must support this proposal. We do not propose in the meantime to give penny postage to a country where they are charging us 1\d. or dd:, but as soon as they are ready to accept penny postage we will agree with them. Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF : We have made several concessions in the Union in the Post Office as well as the Telegraph service, and we have established penny postage, not only with the Mother Country but all the British Dominions, with the exception of a few islands; but, generally, so far as we are concerned, in the British Dominions our postage is Id. I am now advised that if we adopt the universal penny postage the loss would be too great for the Union, and, therefore, whilst we are quite at one with the principle, and approve Of the principle, and would gladly see the rate altered, but so far as we are concerned not at once, as we prefer for the present to stand out on account of the loss of revenue that would ensue. I may say in a sense there is universal penny postage by means of the penny postcard, which is already an accomplished fact. The foreign postcard rate practically all over the world is Id., and the postcard enjoys all the privileges of a letter, except that of absolute

321

A.—4

15 June, 1911.] Universal Penny Postage. [2th Day. Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF—con*. privacy, that is to say, it receives priority in delivery with letters over all other classes'of mail matter. So that we intend to abide by that for the present. My information also is that New Zealand, in 1906, moved at the Rome Convention for this international penny postage, but the only support it got was from the United States and Egypt. This is the information supplied to me by our Union Post Office. Whilst we are quite content with the principle of this motion we cannot join in it for the present. The CHAIRMAN : I do not know whether it would suit you, Sir Joseph, to recur to the motion which you moved at the last Conference : " That in view "of the social and political advantages, and the material commercial advan- " tages to accrue from a system of international penny postage, this Conference " recommends to His Majesty's Government the advisability, if and when a suit- " able opportunity occurs, of approaching the Governments of other States, " members of the Universal Postal Union, in order to obtain further reduction "of postal rates, with a view to the more general, and, if possible, universal, " adoption of the penny rate." It seems, perhaps, that is as far as we shall be able to go with unanimity to-day, and it probably expresses a wish which'would be felt by all of us round this table. General BOTHA : Yes, that is all right; and a resolution of that kind, I think, we would support. Sir JOSEPH WARD : 1 have just been looking through the Report of the Conference at Rome. I recollect the Canadian Delegate did not vote against the proposal at the Conference. I remember that quite well. As a matter of fact, here is the record of it, and it shows that Canada abstained from voting, and that is a very important point. Canada did not vote against that resolution, and I want to put that on the record. For resolution there voted the United States of America, Australia (at that time New Zealand had not an independent vote, but we got it at that Conference), and Egypt. So the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Egypt voted in favour of that proposal alluded to in Mr. Samuel's remarks. There voted against it Germany, The Argentine, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, Hungary, Italy, Mexico, Norway, Holland, Portugal, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkdy, and Uruguay; and Canada, Great Britain, India, and Japan abstained from voting. Mr. SAMUEL : Then we are both right, because I said that Egypt and the United States were the only countries that supported the Resolution, and you said Canada did not vote against it. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Egypt, Australia, and the United States supported it, and Canada, Great Britain, India, and Japan abstained from voting. That is the position regarding it. I want to say a word regarding the theory that Mr. Samuel asks the Conference to accept; and, speaking for myself individually, I am not, with all deference to him, going to accept that theory. If there is this principle of an analytical cutting-up of sections of the postal world, and applying the suggested principle of the loss of a penny, and a little over a penny in some cases, per letter, then I want to know in the first place how much does the British Post Office estimate they make as loss upon the sectional divisions within the United Kingdom and Ireland itself for the carrying of letters outside the cities at the penny rate 1 If this theory which is being applied for the purposes of argument by Mr. Samuel is to be accepted, then it is going to make an inroad upon any suggested lowering of rates over long distances, not only in the postal world, but in the railway world, of all countries. If the theory that you are going to take 15 years to recover the loss of revenue of 155,000£. with the United States of America is right, then Great Britain, in my opinion, ought not to recover for the next half-century the loss they incurred in the first instance upon the adoption of the penny post within the United Kingdom, because if

A.—4.

322

dth Day.] Universal Penny Postage. [15 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. you analyse it in that way in sections it implies this : Supposing in any one of our countries we were paying 4,000/. a year for a subsidised mail service by coach over which a certain number of letters are sent, unless the total number of letters going over that coach route, for which you pay 4,000/. a year, was sufficient to make up the whole 4,000/., or, to put the illustration to convey the impression that I hold with regard to that argument, supposing there was a loss of 3,000/. a year upon that as far as the carriage of mails is concerned, to have brought that up as a consequential argument connected with a world-wide system and say upon a particular portion of it the letters that you are carrying at a penny, a huge loss of over a penny a letter was the result, would be to assume that the very sources from which the British Post Office makes up the bulk of its revenue in short distances ought to be excluded altogether from the financial side of that great Department, I do not accept that portion of the argument adduced by Mr. Samuel regarding the mail matter at the inception of the Penny Postal system in New Zealand, if you include only some part of the countries that would be brought under the system of Universal Penny Postage. You must include them all. To sectionise a portion of the outward mail matter from New Zealand, and to say the reduction from to Id. represented a revenue of only 1,070/., and to suggest that all the other earning powers of the Penny Postage system over the short distances either in our country, or beyond too, were not to be taken into consideration in the matter of making up a loss would be logically to bear out the argument that Mr. Samuel has so forcibly given us to-day. But in my opinion that is not the right way to look at the result from a reform of that kind. You must take all the short distances with the long distances, and deal with your revenue as a whole, and with the expenditure as a whole, if you want to arrive, in my judgment, at anything like a true basis. Here you are over the whole system either going to make a profit or a loss. Supposing that system of argument was applied to the railway service we have in this great metropolis of London, I will undertake to say that any of the railway companies here depend very largely upon the short-distance traffic at a low rate encircling this City of London, and if they had not the millions of passengers utilising that short-distance traffic, giving them a very large revenue at a low rate per mile within that zone, they could not possibly carry the people for long distances throughout England, Scotland, and Wales at the rates they do. If they had not the low rates within the short area to make up for what would be admittedly a loss upon the long areas they could not carry the people, and the competition of passage by sea would deprive them of their lond-distance traffic. Mr. SAML T EL : They do not charge the same fares for suburban traffic as for taking people to Scotland and Wales. Sir JOSEPH WAED : They must charge a lower fare for suburban traffic; so you do for the delivery of a letter within the City of London. Mr. SAMUEL : No, we do not. Sir JOSEPH WARD : We do at all events in New Zealand. We charge \d. as against Id. for those places beyond. If for the purposes of bringing about a largely increased traffic over your railway system in the United Kingdom a proposal was made in that direction, and it was suggested that the more people you carried for a long distance the greater your loss was going to be, that is Mr. Samuel's argument Mr. SAMUEL : No. Your suggestion is that the railway companies should charge the same amount for carrying a man from London to Edinburgh as for carrying a man from London to Norwood. Sir JOSEPH WARD : As a matter of fact I believe I am fairly right in saying that between here and the suburbs of London the rate may be \d. per mile. Ido not know what it is.

323

A.—4

15 June, 1911.] Universal Penny Postage. [9th Day. Mr. SAMUEL : Yes, but it is per mile. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes, the rate between here and the suburbs of London may be %d. per mile, and it may be from here to Glasgow Id. per mile. Mr. SAMUEL : Yes, but the total amount is very different. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN : It depends upon the distance. The cases are not analogous, are they. Sir JOSEPH WARD : But if the railway department, for the purposes of arriving at general revenue, was sectionised as you sectionised it in connection with the proposal for penny postage, I do not believe it would make a reduction between short distance and long distance rates, because it would show a loss every time. Ido not think the postal world does show a loss every time. However, I have placed the matter before the Conference, and my own opinion is, as I said at Rome, and I reaffirm it here, that with the power of individual agreement between these countries I believe before many years pass by all the postal services of the world will be forced into a system of universal penny postage as the outcome of the individual action of different countries. I am very glad to see that this proposal is supported by, I think I am right in saying, if not a majority of the Conference, what appears to be about an equal division upon it, and in order to have unanimity, the proper thing for me to do is to accept the alteration suggested by Mr. Harcourt. CHAIRMAN : I take it the Conference agrees to the Resolution I have just read. [Agreed.] Imperial Postal Order Scheme. " That it is desirable to complete the Imperial postal order scheme by its extension to Australia, and its full adoption by Canada, so that the British postal order shall be obtainable and payable in all parts of the Empire, and thus afford a ready and economical means of remitting small sums not only between the United Kingdom and other parts of the Empire, but between each part and every other." Mr. SAMUEL : The system of the British Postal Order now extends over almost the whole of the Empire, and a postal order of a uniform character is issued, and is cashed in the United Kingdom, South Africa, New Zealand, Newfoundland, India, the West Indies and the other Crown Colonies. Wherever this system exists, it has proved successful and works quite smoothly, and no difficulties of any kind have been experienced in all the countries that have adopted it, and they have expressed their satisfaction with it. There are only two exceptions in the whole wide area of the British Empire, one a partial exception in the case of Canada, and one a complete exception in the case of Australia. Canada does not issue the British Postal order at all. Canada cashes them, but only at 22 of the chief offices in the largest towns; and Canada will not allow any adhesive stamp to be put on to the postal order which it cashes; elsewhere odd sums, pennies or cents, can be made up with stamps. In Australia the system is not adopted at all, and the British postal order is neither cashed nor issued. It is impracticable to arrange for the reciprocal interchange of the separate postal orders of all the different Dominions. That would mean that at the 20,000 offices of the United Kingdom, for example, each postmaster or sub-postmaster would have to make himself familiar with the postal order of each one of the Dominions, and it is obvious that there would be very great risk of forgery, and in such circumstances it would be exceedingly easy and very profitable for any one to forge a postal order which purported to be the postal order of Newfoundland or some island of the West Indies, and present it to be cashed at different post offices in different parts of the country; and it would be almost impossible for the sub-postmasters and postmasters to refuse to cash documents purporting to be the postal orders of some distant part of the Empire.

A.—4,

324

9th Day.~] Imperial Postal Order Scheme. [15 June, 1911. Mr. SAMUEL—cont. Also it is of great value to have a single medium circulating through all parts of the Empire, because it not only facilitates the distribution of small sums of money between the United Kingdom and each separate Dominion, but also between the Dominions and Colonies themselves. For example, I may suggest it would be a great advantage to Canada to have a postal order which would enable small sums to be remitted to and from the West Indies to facilitate trade transactions of a small character; and similarly between Canada and Australia, and so forth. It is found exceedingly convenient to be able to transmit these very small sums at a very cheap rate for the purchase of a book or for the payment of a newspaper subscription, or for buying small presents and other purposes. The scheme is self-supporting. The poundage on the postal order covers the cost of it. It is true the charge is lower than on money-orders, but on the other hand the issuing of postal orders involves less work to the officials than the issuing of money-orders. In those circumstances I trust one of the outcomes of this Conference might perhaps be the completion of the system now so nearly complete, by the acceptance by Canada and Australia of this scheme. Since the scheme is already in operation in South Africa and New Zealand, it might perhaps be to the advantage of the Conference to have the experience of those two Dominions as to the working of the British postal order system in their territories. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I can say in reply to Mr. Samuel's question that in New Zealand it works most satisfactorily. If we had not a system of this kind in operation the ordinary rates for the conveyance of money under the money-order system would not be available at all, or would only be availed of very slightly. This has provided a system as between the remission by a bank draft and by a money-order, and it is exceedingly useful to the people, and from the postal point of view the reports, as will be seen, which are here, as far as New Zealand is concerned, show results which are highly satisfactory. So far as the experience of the country I represent is concerned we look upon it as a very useful reform which has been made, and one which I believe would work just as well with other countries, and I should like to see it established throughout the whole Empire, Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF : 1 am glad that I can recount a similar experience in South Africa. When the suggestion was first made to the South African Colonies they were somewhat sceptical about going in for this system, but -to-day there is nothing but praise for it, and I may, perhaps, relate what experience has proved in South Africa. The experience South Africa has had since 1905 has demonstrated very clearly the advantages of the system, affording as it does a cheap and convenient method of remitting small sums of money between the several Dominions and Colonies of the British Empire, and there can be no doubt that a class of business previously untouched has been and is being developed by its means. The South African Postal Administrations when approached on the subject all took into consideration objections to the Imperial scheme similar to those raised by Canada and Australia, but were ultimately satisfied that the benefits to be gained far outweighed the anticipated difficulties, and the success which has attended the working of the scheme has amply justified their decision. No complications arose while separate local issues of orders were maintained. These have all been worked off, and only the Imperial order is now used in the Union. No administrative or accounting difficulties have arisen so far, and while it is true that, owing to the concentration of the audit work in London, some time, according to distance, must necessarily elapse in connection with the answering of questions respecting paid orders, this may be regarded as a very minor difficulty. London replies most promptly to inquiries and there has been no public complaint. There can be no question that the usefulness of the system depends entirely upon the availability for circulation throughout the Empire of one class of order, and if the principle underlying the scheme is recognised as an Imperial one it would seem but right and proper that the postal orders of the Mother Country should be adopted for the purpose. Apart from the facilities provided, for the interchange of small remittances and from what might be termed the sentimental aspect of an Imperial scheme, the postal order system is financially

325

A,--4,

15 June, 1911.] Imperial Postal Order Scheme. [9th Day. Sir D. de VILLIERS GMAFF— cont. advantageous to Colonial Administrations. The United Kingdom prints the orders—and great expense is involved in this —and supplies them free of charge together with the relative stationery; allows for every 1,000 orders issued and 11. 105. for every 1,000 orders paid in addition to which Colonial Administrations are at liberty to charge such commissions over and above the British rate as they may desire, the surcharge being retained by them as Revenue. The United Kingdom also gives credit for the value of all orders issued in the Union, but not cashed by the public within the usual period, and finally carries out the administration of the whole business. The postal order transactions in the Union are growing rapidly without causing any decrease in the money order business. The number issued throughout the Union in 1910 was 2,693,712, an increase of half a million over the previous year, while the number of orders paid was 2,020,730, an increase of 305,893 in the last year. So that it has worked very satisfactorily with us, and the Department has everything to say in its praise, and we will be glad to see Australia come into the same system, and, if it were possible for Canada to extend it, we would welcome it. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : I received yesterday from my colleague, the Postmaster-General, a long despatch showing a number of difficulties in the administration of this scheme. The difficutlies seem to be of a somewhat serious character, and will involve, perhaps, a eood deal of trouble and worry upon the Post Office Department; but as those difficulties have been overcome elsewhere, I do not see why they could not be overcome in Canada also, and I shall ask my colleague not to stand in the way of the unanimous adoption of this scheme. Mr. FISHER : We have the advantage of those who have experience of it in both the United Kingdom and the other Dominions. I observe that this proposition is rather a recent piece of business brought on by the United Kingdom, and it is not in the original Agenda. It is not any the less valuable on that account, but it would have been of value if we had known that you were going to bring it up. Mr. BATCHELOR : The Memorandum was issued on the 7th of February. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes, we got it on the 7th of February. Mr. FISHER : Anything that can facilitate transmission of Government orders of any kind will be very acceptable to us, and I shall take the same step as we have taken in other matters, and try and co-operate as far as possible. Without committing myself absolutely I have no objection to the Resolution. I am very glad to know that the system is working well elsewhere, and what others are doing we can put up with. Sir JOSEPH WARD : The postal orders we send out have increased by 21 per cent., and the increase in the number paid is 23 per cent., and the system is reported upon most favourably by the Departmental Officers. Mr. FISHER : But Sir Wilfrid Laurier and myself represent much larger communities and more scattered people. Our difficulties are not known to you at all; but that is not the point. If we can co-operate with you we shall do it cheerfully. CHAIRMAN : Then I may take it that even postal orders do not break our unanimity. [Agreed.] Adjourned to to-morrow morning at 11 o'clock.

A.—4

326

COMMITTEE ON ARBITRATION AWARDS.

Thursday, 15th June, 1911. At the Foreign Office. Present : Sir RUFUS ISAACS, K.C., M.P., His Majesty's Attorney-General, in the Chair. Canada. The Right Honourable Sir Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G., Prime Minister of the Dominion. Australia. The Honourable A. Fisher, Prime Minister of the Commonwealth. New Zealand. The Honourable J. G. Findlay, K.C., LL.D., Attorney-General and Minister of Justice Union of South Africa. The Honourable F. S. Malan, Minister of Education. Mr. H. W. Just, C.8., C.M.G., Secretary to the Conference.

" That the Imperial Government should consider in concert with the Dominion Governments whether and to what extent and under what conditions it is practicable or desirable to make mutual arrangements with a view to the enforcement in one part of the Empire of commercial arbitration awards given in another part." CHAIRMAN : Mr. Sydney Buxton has asked me to express to you his regret at his inability to be present; he has to attend in the House of Commons, and cannot possibly get away, and he has asked me to take the Chair in his stead. The matter which we have to discuss in this Committee is the resolution : " That the Imperial Government should consider in concert with the " Dominion Governments whether and to what extent and under what condi- " tions it is practicable or desirable to make mutual arrangements with a view " to the enforcement in one part of the Empire of commercial arbitration awards " given in another part." The substance of the matter is, I think, best put if we consider what the practice is in the procedure in this country with which I am most familiar—more familiar than I can be, of course, with the procedure in the Dominions, as to the enforcement of commercial awards. What has happened, which led to this resolution, is that, both in the Chambers of Commerce in this country and the International Law Association, it has been mooted that it would be desirable that awards in commercial arbitrations —and it is confined to commercial arbitrations —should be or might be enforced in one part of the Empire although they may have been given in another part of the Empire. In this country you can enforce an award which is given in an arbitration without bringing an action and without getting an Order of Court, except that you must go to a judge to get his leave upon an

327

A.—4

15 June, 1911.] Committee on Arbitration Awards. CHAIRMAN—cowI originating summons, and then once he has given his leave that award is enforceable just the same as a Judgment of the High Court, or as an Order which is made by the High Court. The effect of it is that although it is a decree which is made by an arbitrator under the assent of both parties to the arbitration it becomes enforceable just like a judgment. The object of that, of course, is to simplify procedure, to save time, and to save expense. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Might I interrupt you to ask what is the procedure? You say that an award is enforceable as a judgment; to whom does a judgment go in this country—to the sheriff. CHAIRMAN : If he is to issue execution upon it. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Would it be the same thing here ? CHAIRMAN : Yes; the same thing if you have an order of the judge. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : What is the order—just that it is enforceable? CHAIRMAN : Yes; the summons comes before him that the award should be enforced like a judgment under the Arbitration Act. Dr. FINDLAY : That is the rule in most of the oversea countries, and in most of the Canadian Provinces; for instance, it is the rule in two of the Eastern Provinces. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : The rule varies very much in our Provinces, but I wanted just to understand the procedure here. CHAIRMAN: It does vary. Dr. FINDLAY : Our Act is the same as yours. CHAIRMAN : That proposal is only possible with regard to awards made in submission to arbitration which is made here and which is enforced here. Of course we cannot enforce an award in Canada any more than Canada can enforce an award here. The only possibility of putting it into effective practice then is to bring an action upon it. In all countries so far as I gather from the Reports that have been made—in fact I do not quite understand how it could be otherwise except tinder special legislation—if we in this country wished to enforce an award in any one of the Dominions we should have to bring an action upon that award in the Dominion in order to recover the money from the person against whom the award is made. Mr. FISHER : Then the action itself would have to determine whether you would get it ? CHAIRMAN: Yes. Mr. FISHER : You would have no distinct advantage in having the award ? CHAIRMAN : None, except that you have some advantage in having had the matter determined by the award, and bringing your action upon it. Of course time and money would be expended in the bringing of an action, and I think the great objection to having to bring an action is that it enables persons who do not mean to pay and do not want to pay, to raise all kinds of questions by means of chicanery or otherwise, so getting time and putting the other party to considerable expense. Both for commercial morality and, I think, on the

42—A. 4.

A.— 4

328

Committee on Arbitration Awards. [15 June, 1911. CHAIRMAN— cont. broader principle of uniformity of procedure throughout the Empire, it would be very desirable if we could arrive at an agreement as to what should be done, because we should have to consider various details of procedure before anything effective could be done. All that is being asked at the present moment— I am particularly anxious that the Committee should understand that—is that this resolution should be agreed to if you think fit. That the Imperial Government should consider it in concert with the Dominion Governments, and then see by discussion between us what can possibly be done and what form the legislation should take, because we should have to have legislation in this country, and I think it would be necessary to have legislation in the Dominions also. Mr. MALAN : Have you a system here of getting the award of the arbitrator confirmed by Order of the Court ? CHAIRMAN : Yes, both under our Arbitration Act and under our Rules of the Supreme Court. Mr. MALAN : Could not that Order of the Court be executed elsewhere 1 CHAIRMAN: No. Mr. MALAN : Would not that be a simple way of doing it ? CHAIRMAN : You mean could we do that ? Mr. MALAN : Yes. CHAIRMAN : I agree it would be a very simple way of doing it, if you once have agreement that it shall be done. What we do with regard to Scotland and Ireland may be of some assistance. We have the Judgments Extension Act of 1868 under which we have a very simple procedure of registration of a judgment of this country in Scotland or in Ireland and vice versa, and the moment you have that registration then the judgment is as effective, for example, in Scotland as if it had been given in Scotland, although it is only given in this country. It is upon those lines I should suggest that we should consider, if you accept this Resolution, whether in any legislation of that kind, extending an Order which is made to enforce the award to the Dominions which would agree to it, we should not have recourse to the same kind of procedure and practice. Mr. MALAN : We had something similar in South Africa before the Union. Now we have one Supreme Court and the Order of one Provincial Division runs in the other Province, but before that we had something very similar. I think, if we limited our machinery to the enforcement of an Order of Court outside the country in which the Order was taken, that would be effective. Ido not know that we could go so far as to recognise an Arbitration Award outside a Court of Law, but if the Arbitration Award is once confirmed by a Court of Law of recognised standing, then if that Order is confirmed in a Court of Record, I think it might be worked. Dr. FINDLAY : What, I take it, is suggested is that the provision existing in New Zealand with regard to awards made in New Zealand should be made applicable to awards made — under agreement, of course — here in the United Kingdom. An award may, with the leave of the judge, be enforced in the same way as a judgment or any other Order of the Court. Now why should not the production of an award made in the United Kingdom by the leave of your judge or ours be enforced in the same way as a judgment or Order of the Court? Mr. MALAN : For one thing it will lead to complicated inquiries from time to time as to whether this arbitration was a legal arbitration, and whether the two parties were agreed, and so on. If it be an Order of Court, and you know the standing of that Court, the thing is simple.

329

A.-4

15 June, 1911.] Committee on Arbitration Awards. Sir WILFBID LAURIER : Let me try to understand what is your Act, Your Act at the present time is that when two parties go to arbitration the award can be presented to a judge, and the judge practically indorses it or gives a fiat upon it. CHAIRMAN : Not necessarily, but he can. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Then the award is made in the arbitration between the two parties. There is nothing on the record besides the signatures of the two parties, and the award is not under the signature of a public officer either, but of a private individual. You present that award to a judge. Is that application ex parte, or by notice to the other side? CHAIRMAN : On summons by notice. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : And upon that summons cause has to be shown why this order should not be made? CHAIRMAN: Yes. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : When all this has been done I see no reason why when an award comes of that kind with judicial sanction, it should not be enforceable anywhere else in any of the self-governing Dominions. The principle is all right, and, for my part, I sincerely favour it. The only objection, so far as Canada is concerned, is that the Canadian Parliament could have no control over it. This is a matter which would have to be relegated to the Provinces. It would only be enforceable by the legislation of any of the Provinces; but, for my part, I favour the Resolution, and if passed and sent over we would certainly try to have it considered favourably by the different Legislatures. Mr. FISHER : We are in the same position. The Commonwealth, I think, could not deal with this matter, but it would be entirely for the States to legislate upon it. I understood you to say that it was to be limited to commercial arbitration awards. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Mr. FISHER : Have you any idea how many of that kind of awards there are? CHAIRMAN : No; it is very difficult to say. Mr. FISHER : There are some ? CHAIRMAN : Yes, there are a great many. I have experience of a great many. Dr. FINDLAY : Yes. We have had this situation : A technical defence lodged, and a Commission to England, causing a delay for eighteen months, in a case where there was no real defence at all. Mr. FISHER : Have you any idea how many cases there are or have been where one of the parties is out in the Dominions ? CHAIRMAN : No; I think it would be very difficult to say that. A good many awards would be taken up, and would not require enforcing at all because the parties pay or act upon the awards without an order of the judge. Mr. FISHER : There is some reason for bringing it forward.

A.—4

330

Committee on Arbitration Awards. [15 June, 1911. CHAIRMAN : Yes; the reason is, because the Chambers of Commerce are desirous that it should be done, because they have found actually in their commercial relations that it is to them rather a serious matter. That is the point of it. That is why it is confined to commercial arbitrations; and also, I conceive, there would be a good deal of difficulty in enforcing awards in other arbitrations. For example, arbitrations which take place under an order of our courts, or in consequence of some statute that we have here. All we seek is, if you have two parties to an agreement to refer some commercial matter to arbitration, that once the award has been given and the judge has pronounced that it should be enforced in this country, we should be able to enforce it in your Dominions; and we propose that we should give exactly the same facility to any awards which are enforced by order of a judge in your Dominions. Dr. FINDLAY : We had a discussion upon quite an analogous matter in this Conference, and that was with regard to reciprocal legislation for the recognition of orders in certain cases of destitute persons. It seems, as you will require to give effect to what is proposed here, the principle might be extended a little further than merely commercial awards. We unanimously adopted a resolution in favour of some step being taken to give mutual recognition to orders in such cases as I have mentioned. Mr. Fisher was strongly in favour of that view. CHAIRMAN : It would be worth while considering also, although it does not come within the province of this Resolution, whether some steps could not be taken to enforce judgments as we do with regard to Ireland and Scotland. Dr. FINDLAY : As I was urging upon the Conference the other day, the oversea Dominions are treated largely as if we were foreign countries. While we are talking about the unity of the Empire uniformity in these matters is very desirable. Sir WILFRID LAURIER ;It is practically the same thing. An award is a thing which is not a record. It becomes a record when presented to a judge, and then, when it is a record, there is no reason why it should not be treated as a judgment. Dr. FINDLAY : Unfortunately we do not treat judgments as we ought to. CHAIRMAN : This will be a beginning. Dr. FINDLAY : A judgment obtained here in England, with all the proper preliminaries of judicial inquiry, is not recognised in New Zealand. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : This is simply a corollary of the proposition we had the other day. Dr. FINDLAY : I think we ought to extend the principle. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : I think we can accept this Resolution. Dr. FINDLAY : Yes; and if possible we should like it extended to other cases. CHAIRMAN : I agree entirely, and I think if we can arrive at an agreement with regard to this, and put it into actual effective shape we shall have gone a long way towards getting uniformity in legal procedure and practice in our countries which would be very valuable. Dr. FINDLAY : It is a thing which one practising in the law recognises the value of. Do you agree, Sir Wilfrid ?

A.-4

331

15 June, 1911.] Committee on Arbitration Awards. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Yes. CHAIRMAN : Are you all agreed upon the Resolution ? Mr. FISHER : I have no objection. All we can do is to recommend it to our States. Dr. FINDLAY : Had we not better add to what is proposed here some further recommendation to the Conference, on the principle of our recommendation that recognition of a judgment be also provided for by legislation ? CHAIRMAN : I should also be favourable to that, but there is a technical difficulty in our dealing with it in this form. Dr. FINDLAY: I shall have the opportunity, when the Report is brought up, of dealing with it at the Conference. Mr. MALAN : Will you read the Resolution again ? CHAIRMAN : " That the Imperial Government should consider, in concert with the Dominion Governments, whether, and to what extent, and under what conditions it is practicable and desirable to make mutual arrangements with a view to the enforcement in one part of the Empire of commercial arbitration awards given in another part." Mr. MALAN : Would you say " arbitration awards confirmed by an order of the court," because I attach rather great value to that. It must not be just a private arbitration, or an arbitration which is not recognised, but there must be an order of the court. CHAIRMAN: May I point out the Resolution says " whether, and to what extent, and under what conditions it is practicable and desirable to make mutual arrangements " ? So, of course, the point which you are raising would come up for discussion. Mr. MALAN : Would you have any objection to add " awards of commercial arbitrations confirmed by an order of the court " ? Dr. FINDLAY: That is one of the conditions to be considered when the Resolution is acted upon. CHAIRMAN : I suggest that you should not put that in, because you immediately get to what is meant by " confirmed by an order of the court." It will come up for discussion, no doubt, in regard to " under what conditions " it is to be effected ; and certainly I agree with the view expressed by you, that it ought to be after a judge in a particular country, either in yours or ours, has expressed his view that in that country in which the award is made it should be enforced. Dr. FINDLAY : I agree with that view too. Mr. FISHER : Would it be out of place to ask why you do not wish to apply it to other arbitration awards ? CHAIRMAN : The chief reason why we have confined it to a commercial arbitration award is because it rests upon a submission to arbitration by agreement in writing between two business men or business firms. They have come to a conclusion that they want to have some matter decided by the award of an

A.—4

332

Committee on Arbitration Awards. [15 June, 1911. CHAIRMAN— cont. arbitrator; and it is in particular in regard to commercial matters that you get this question arising between the various parts of the Empire. The other arbitrations which arise in this country may be upon an oral submission, which is not likely to occur where you are dealing with an award which you would have to enforce in a Dominion, and indeed there are other difficulties in that because you cannot enforce an award made on an oral submission as you can on a written agreement. Further than that, there are the particular kinds of arbitration to which I referred just now r , which I do not think ought to be at present considered in the same relation as commercial arbitrations—-that is, arbitrations which take place by order of a judge in the country in an action which comes before him. .For example, if I have a dispute with a builder the judge may say : "I shall refer this to some special arbitrator whom I will appoint " —a person who is not a member of the court and not a judge. That is one kind. There is another kind of arbitration which arises under an Act of Parliament. We have certain Acts oi Parliament which say that any dispute as to a certain matter shall be referred to arbitration. That, again, does not stand quite in the same category as these commercial arbitrations, which rest entirely upon agreement between two business men to have their dispute settled outside the court by a person either to be agreed upon or nominated. I will take it that we are all agreed upon this Resolution. Dr. FINDLAY : Yes, we agree. (The Resolution was agreed to.)

TENTH DAY. Friday, 16th June, 1911. The Imperial Conference met at the Foreign Office at 11 a.m. present: The Right Honourable H. H. ASQUITH, K.C., M.P., President of the Conference. The Right Honourable L. Harcourt, M.P., Secretary of State for the Colonies. The- Right Honourable D. Lloyd George, M.P., Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Right Honourable Sir E. Grey, M.P., Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The Right Honourable Sydney Buxton, M.P., President of the Board of Trade. The Right Honourable H. Samuel, M.P., Postmaster-General. Canada. The Right Honourable Sir Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G., Prime Minister of the Dominion. • The Honourable Sir F. W. Borden, K.C.M.G., Minister of Militia and Defence. The Honourable L. P. Brodeur, K.C., Minister of Marine and Fisheries.

A.—4

333

16 June, 1911.] [10th Day. Australia. The Honourable A. Fisher, Prime Minister of the Commonwealth. The Honourable E. L. Batchelor, Minister of External Affairs. The Honourable G. F. Pearoe, Minister of Defence. New Zealand. The Right Honourable Sir J. G. Ward, K.C.M.G., Prime Minister of the Dominion. The Honourable J. G. Findlay, K.Q., LL.D., Attorney-General and Minister of Justice. Union of South Africa. General The Eight Honourable L. Botha, Prime Minister of the Union. The Honourable F. S. Malan, Minister of Education. The Honourable Sir David de Villiers Graaff, Bart., Minister of Public Works, Posts and Telegraphs. Newfoundland. The Honourable Sir E. P. Morris, K.C., Prime Minister. Mr. H. W. Just, C.8., C.M.G., Secretary to the Conference. Mr. W. A. Robinson, Senior Assistant Secretary. Mr. A. B. Keith, D.C.L., Junior Assistant Secretary. There were also present : *The Right Hon. C. E. Hobhotjse, M.P., Financial Secretary to the Treasury; Lord Lucas, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Colonies; Sir Francis Hopwood, G.C.M.G., X.C.8., Permanent Under Secretary of State for the Colonies; Sir C. P. Lucas, K.C.M.G., C.8., Assistant Under Secretary of State for the Colonies; Mr. A. Law, C.8., Foreign Office; *Sir H. Llewellyn Smith, X.C.8., Permanent Secretary to the Board of Trade; Sir Walter Howell, X.C.8., Assistant Secretary to the Board of Trade; Captain Sir A. J. G. Chalmers, Board of Trade; Sir M. Nathan, G.C.M.G., Secretary to the Post Office; Mr. E. W. Farnall, Assistant Secretary to the Post Office; Commander Foakes, R.N., General Post Office; Rear-Admiral Sir C. L. Ottley, K.C.M.G., M.V.0., Secretary to the Committee of Imperial Defence; Mr. Atlee A. Hunt, C.M.G., Secretary to the Department of External Affairs, Commonwealth of Australia; Mr. J. R. Leisk, Secretary for Finance, Union of South Africa; and Private Secretaries to Members of the Conference.

Treaties. " That His Majesty's Government be requested to open negotiations with the several Foreign Governments having treaties which apply to the Overseas Dominions with a view to securing liberty for any of those Dominions which may so desire to withdraw from the operation of the Treaty without impairing the Treaty in respect of the rest of the Empire." /Sir WILFRID LAURIER : The first resolution which the Conference has to deal with this morning is the resolution of which I gave notice some days ago, and

* Present at the afternoon sitting.

A.—4

334

10th Day.] Treaties. [16 June, 1911. Sir WILFRID LAURIER— cont. which is in these words : " That His Majesty's Government be requested to open negotiations with the several Foreign Governments having treaties which apply to the Overseas Dominions with a view to securing liberty for any of those Dominions which may so desire to withdraw from the operation of the treaty without impairing the treaty in respect of the rest of the Empire." This resolution has been before the public for some time, and it has occasioned a good many comments in the Press, some of them of rather an adverse character. Some of the articles which I have ' noticed in the Press of London were rather excited ; others were fair and reasonable, and amongst others my attention was called to a historical review in " The Times " issue of Wednesday, June 7th. That is a very fair, and, I think, accurate, and on the whole very impartial, article, though I do not agree with the conclusion to which it has come. The conclusion to which it has come is summed up in the last paragraphs, and it is as follows : —" Obviously, Sir Wilfrid Laurier's new resolution, although in a sense it only carries on the policy of Lord Salisbury's Government in 1897, conflicts absolutely with the principle upon which that policy was based. The principle of commercial unity, for the sake of which Lord Salisbury denounced the German and Belgian treaties, and which is manifestly essential to the maintenance of Imperial co-operation, would have to be abandoned if the Governments of the Empire of their own accord decided to adopt separate systems of commercial relations with foreign Powers. Denunciation of the existing most-favoured-nation treaties, even if followed by their resumption on terms, allowing Canada or any other Dominion to stand out when it so desired, could only have the gravest results, since it would destroy for good and all the principle of commercial unity within the Empire re-established by Lord Salisbury and since accepted by the United States." The author of this article has forgotten the circumstances which brought forth this motion of which I gave notice. Our colleagues from Australia represented that the Commonwealth had passed some years ago a preferential tariff to be applied to British products, but to British products only coming through in British bottoms, but they found themselves debarred from proceeding with their intention on account of some old treaties which did not admit of the intention which they had. In other words, His Majesty's Government could not allow this trade to be carried out exclusively in British bottoms, because the same preference, I imagine, would have been claimed by other nations. Therefore, the Commonwealth of Australia finds itself to-day in exactly the same position in which the Government of Canada found itself in 1897 when it introduced the policy of preferential tariffs. We were determined to give to the products of the Mother Country in our markets a preferential tariff ; but we found that, by some existing treaties with Germany and Belgium, we could not extend that privilege to the Mother Country unless, under those treaties, Germany and Belgium were also permitted to participate. Upon our representations these treaties were denounced. To-day the Commonwealth of Australia is in exactly the same position. It wants to give preferential treatment to the products of the Mother Country when they are brought in British ships, but they find they are debarred from carrying out this intention on account of some old treaties. Those who object to this Resolution to-day cannot object to that aspect of it. But it is asserted, on the other hand, that the same privileges may be claimed by the other Dominions which, like Canada, may suffer from the treaties in which there is a stipulation as to the most-favoured-nation treatment. Well, it is a poor rule which does not work both ways, and if it works advantageously in one case it ought to work advantageously in each case. No one can object to Australia, if it chooses, giving the preference which it wants to give, and limiting it to the products carried in British bottoms, and everybody would agree if there is a treaty which prevents Australia from carrying out that intention—which I would call a very laudable intention —it ought not to stand any more in the way of that intention than the treaties with Germany and Belgium in 1897 were allowed to stand against Canada. But, on the other hand, there are treaties with other nations, it is stated, in which there is a stipulation which goes to say that any preference given by one Dominion must be extended to those nations. There are 12 of these treaties existing to-day as far as Canada is concerned. I have not them all at the present time at

335

A.—4

16 June, 1911.] Treaties. [lQth Day. Sir WILFRID LAURIER— cont. the tip of my tongue, but I remember there are treaties with Argentina, AustriaHungary, Bolivia, Columbia, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and two or three others. Our trade with those nations is very insignificant, and we are not really affected by those treaties at all. If we gave a preference, for instance, to the United States, we might have to give it to those nations also ; but we have not any trade with them ; therefore, the matter is not one of any practical moment, but the existence of such a treaty might be a serious obstacle in any trade development that we contemplated in Canada, and therefore I think it is well we should pass this Resolution. The gist of the objection which is made here is, that if this is allowed this would destroy for good and all the principle of commercial unity. Ido not know at the present time what principle of commercial unity exists, in view of the different tariffs of the Mother Country and the Dominions. The United Kingdom's own tariff is a Free-Trade tariff. All the other communities represented at this Board have not that fiscal policy. They have different fiscal policies, all based upon the principle of raising the revenue by Customs duties ; but no two tariffs in any of the Dominions represented at this Board agree ; every one is different from the other. All agree in principle, that is to say, that the revenue is to be collected by means of Customs duties, but they differ as to the articles on which duty is to be imposed. Now, when we recognise this primary fact that there is not absolute commercial unity but commercial diversity at this moment in the British Empire in so far as fiscal legislation is concerned, it is not difficult to follow the consequences of the Government in the United Kingdom making a treaty which suits its own views and its own requirements, but which will not suit the requirements of Australia, or of South Africa, or of New Zealand, or of Newfoundland, or Canada. Therefore, the principle is no longer at issue ; it has been conceded long ago, and it has been recognised that there should be that trade diversity or commercial diversity in the matter, not only of fiscal legislation, but the corollary of fiscal legislation — commercial treaties. I referred to it the other day. The matter is as plain as noonday. It is well known by everybody. The principle is now accepted by the United Kingdom, that whenever they negotiate a treaty they apply that treaty to the United Kingdom alone, and will not apply it to the self-governing Dominions except with their consent. His Majesty's Government to-day, when they negotiate a treaty, stipulate that it shall apply to the United Kingdom, but shall not apply to the self-governing Dominions, unless it is accepted by them. That has been the policy, not of this year nor last year, but it has been the universal policy followed upon every occasion for the last 15 years at least. Here is a very concrete example. We have had a treaty with Japan negotiated some 15 years ago. Canada accepted to come into that treaty. Ido not think Australia did, nor New Zealand, nor any of the other Dominions except Canada. The treaty has been negotiated for the United Kingdom. It suited the policy of the United Kingdom. It so happened it suited our policy ; but it would not have suited New Zealand or Australia, and, therefore, they were not tempted to join in it, and would not join in it. The treaty has been denounced by Japan, and a new treaty has been negotiated which is altogether for the benefit and the advantage of the United Kingdom, and to that we do not object. It has new features which make it not acceptable to us in Canada, and His Majesty's Government therefore would not suggest that we should accept it; on the contrary, they have left it to us whether we should come into the new treaty or not, and we have determined not to come in. That, therefore, shows that whether it is right or wrong — and I think it is all right in the circumstances of the British Empire such as they are to-day — this diversity should be acknowledged. It is acknowledged in fiscal legislation, and it is acknowledged in the consequences of fiscal legislation in all the new treaties that are negotiated. If we find that there is a bar to our development in the old treaties, why should not the old treaties be treated as the new treaties are ? So far as I understand this principle is acceptable to His Majesty's Government. Therefore it seems to me that instead of making for separation, as is suggested in some quarters, on the contrary it makes for closer union in this : that they recognise there are differences of opinion between the different parts of the British Empire, which had better be recognised in fact as they exist. In insisting upon this

43—A. 4.

A.—4

336

lOth Day.] Treaties. [16 June, 1911Sir WILFRID LAURIER— cont. Resolution which was accepted the other day, as I understood, by all the Dominions here present, for my part, I am very emphatic in saying that it should be coupled, and I have no hesitation in making it as broad as possible, with three propositions. First of all I think we are all agreed in this : that the policy of the self-governing Pominions represented here should be, in their first efforts, to develop their trade as far as they can go with the Mother Country, and give every facility possible to make it closer year by year as years go on. The second proposition is that though that should be our first effort it does not follow that we should confine our efforts to the British market alone, but our second effort should be to develop our trade with other nations with which we can trade. The third proposition is that in all arrangements which may be made with other nations by the self-governing Dominions, all advantages and all benefits that are given to those other nations should be given also, not only to the Mother Country, but to all the other Dominions which comprise the British Empire. In other words, if, for instance, we make a tariff arrangement with the United States, every privilege which we give to the United States we should be prepared to give to the Mother Country and to the other Dominions. Therefore, I beg to move the Resolution which is now on the paper. Mr. FISHER : I support the Resolution. It seeks the amendment of treaties which restrict the self-governing powers of the Dominions. The difficulties in the way of doing that are present in the mind of the Government. Relief is desired as early as it is possible to secure it by negotiations with the foreign countries concerned. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I agree with the Resolution submitted by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. It appears to me that in the matter of the old treaties the opportunity should be given to the respective countries to negotiate through the Imperial Government —as I assume it would be—with a view to a better arrangement being given effect to than exists at the present time. It is not necessary for me to do more than say I concur in the proposal Sir Wilfrid Laurier has submitted. General BOTHA : I concur in the Resolution. Sir E. MORRIS : I am entirely in favour of the Resolution as put forward by Sir Wilfrid Laurier ; but I should just like to ask one question. I gather from his argument that this Resolution applies more to commercial treaties—trade treaties, really — but the Resolution suggests that negotiations be taken up with foreign Governments in relation to every treaty. Now, there are many treaties that exist to-day in relation to questions of territory and certain territorial rights, such as the marching of armies, and the like. There must be hundreds of treaties that this Resolution is not intended to affect. So I suggest a slight alteration in the Resolution, if it is considered necessary, but I take it that it refers merely to trade. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Commercial treaties. Sir E. MORRIS : Purely commercial treaties or matters of trade. Mr. HARCOURT : Put in the words " commercial treaties." The PRESIDENT : Sir Edward Grey will say something on behalf of His Majesty's Government. Sir E. GREY : The Resolution is one which I think from the facts of the case it is clear should be accepted, because, as Sir Wilfrid Laurier has pointed out, the mere fact that for some 15 years —I take the time from him—the necessities of the case have required that in negotiating commercial treaties between the United Kingdom and other countries option should be left to the Dominions to adhere or to withdraw shows that the modern state of things which now exists in consequence of the developed separate fiscal systems of different parts of the Empire is something which is different from the old state of things when older treaties were negotiated. Therefore it is only natural that, as without exception for some 15 years, every

A.—4,

337

16 June, 1911.] Treaties. [10th Day. Sir E. GREY— cont. new treaty of commerce which has been negotiated has been arranged on those lines with an option to the Dominions, it follows that a number of the old treaties, which do not contain this option must be felt to be embarrassing. If it had not been that they were felt to be embarrassing by different parts of the Empire, this practice of making special arrangement for option in new treaties would never have come into force at all. The mere fact that it has come into force means that the older treaties have been found to be embarrassing, and not to give sufficient elasticity. As a matter of fact, the question has been opened already. It was opened at the request of the Commonwealth of Australia last year with the Government of Italy and with the Government of Austria. The Government of Italy, when they were approached, replied by saying that they could not see their way to modify the existing treaty in a way which would give the Commonwealth of Australia freedom to withdraw from it, and they ended up by saying : " The Royal Government " (the Italian Government) " cannot therefore see that such withdrawal is possible, and in their opinion it must remain dependent on the denunciation of the treaty by Great Britain, which is undesirable in the interests of both countries." So the point of view which the Italian Government took up was that they could not modify the existing treaty, but if power to withdraw was to be given it would mean denouncing the existing treaty with Italy and negotiating an entirely new treaty. We approached the Government of Austria-Hungary, and they took up rather a different line. The answer we got from our ambassador was : " I have now received a request from the Minister of Foreign Affairs at Vienna that, in order to be able to determine their point of view in this matter, they may be informed on what grounds the Government of the Australian Commonwealth wishes to withdraw, and whether the Commonwealth intends to do likewise in respect of other States, and whether the object is to prepare a way for a, preference treatment of British vessels as against those of other nations ? They also consider it important to know whether the Commonwealth would be ready to conclude a new Navigation Treaty with Austria in the event of their right being conceded to withdraw from the 1868 Treaty." The Colonial Office in April last year sent this to the Government of Australia, and ended up by saying : "I should be glad to learn in due ocurse what reply your Ministers would desire to be returned to the inquiries of the AustroHungarian Government." Ido not think any reply has been yet sent to that inquiry ; thus, so far as Austria-Hungary is concerned, the negotiations remain suspended, the Austrian Government have asked certain questions, and meanwhile have not received the information. With regard to Italy it is different; they have stated distinctly that they think the only course would be to denounce the existing treaty and negotiate a new one. Certain words, I think, are put into the resolution which contemplate that it might be very inconvenient to denounce existing treaties which have considerable benefit perhaps for several parts of the Empire before we have secured a new arrangement, and that to denounce existing treaties and to leave the whole of the British Empire in the air, so to speak, or suspended so far as commercial relations are concerned, might result in considerable inconvenience to the Empire generally, owing to a step which had been taken on behalf of one particular portion of the Empire. So I think the limiting words in the resolution —" without imparing the treaty in respect to the rest of the Empire "—are important. But I think we might meet the case very well by agreeing to open negotiations with those countries with whom treaties exist which are now felt to be embarrassing, asking them whether they would be prepared to modify the treaties which now exist so as to bring them into accord with the principles on which all our treaties for the last 15 years at least have been made, and bring them up to date, so to say. If they will agree to do that the course is quite simple ; we would then proceed with the modification of the treaty which would leave the old treaty in existence, but in a form which was brought up to date. But supposing they adhere to the line, for instance, taken by the Government of Italy, that they cannot alter the existing treaty, and it would require the negotiation of a new treaty, then I think the best course of procedure would be to enter upon the negotiations for a new treaty with the foreign country in question, but without denouncing the existing treaty. We might then proceed with those

A.—4.

338

lOth Day.] Treaties. [16 June, 1911. Sir B. GREY— eont. negotiations for a new treaty in which we would make one of the Articles to the effect that when that new treaty came into force it would abrogate the old treaty ; but supposing the negotiations were protracted, and we found more difficulty than expected in arriving at a satisfactory conclusion of a new treaty, the old treaty, with such benefits as it contained, would still remain in force, and there would not be the risk of our having denounced an old treaty, the old treaty coming to an end, and our having found insuperable difficulties in the way of negotiating any new treaty, and having that unsatisfactory state of uncertainty existing as to what the commercial relations were going to be with the foreign country, which is always very much resented by trade. So what I would propose is that we should accept the Resolution with the intention of opening negotiations as soon as possible with the particular countries whose treaties are now out of date, and that we should make them the proposal in the first instance which I have suggested —that they should alter the existing treaties to bring them up to date, and, if that is found impracticable, that we should then ask them to open up negotiations for a new treaty ; but the old treaty to remain in existence until the new treaty had been concluded. I ought to say I think negotiations for a new treaty would take considerable time, in some cases at any rate, because in the case of these old treaties there are some provisions which are convenient to us and to which we appeal from time to time to these foreign countries, but which are no longer so convenient to them as they were at the time they were framed ; and, therefore, it is quite possible that when we ask them to negotiate new treaties because we wish to bring up this point which we consider essential to us arising out of modern conditions, they may find certain other points which are convenient to them which they also may wish to bring up. But that is no reason why we should not begin the negotiations. I only mention it now to prevent disappointment. . Mr. FISHER : Can you give any indication in years of what you mean by a considerable time ? Sir E. GREY : I do not mean geological periods of time, but a year is a good long time for negotiations, of course. Mr. FISHER : Anything like that —a year or two. Sir E. GREY : If you cannot bring a thing to a conclusion in a year or two, providing you are negotiating earnestly, it rather points to the fact that negotiation is impossible. Mr. FISHER : If all you mean is a year or two, that is all right. Sir E. GREY : If we cannot bring it to a conclusion in a year or two it looks as if the negotiations would never result in anything, and we should have to consider the situation afresh ; but I do not think we need contemplate that until we have found negotiation impossible. It would follow from the Resolution that we should begin negotiations, and if we find those impracticable the next Imperial Conference would have to consider the situation as we find it then. We will make the best use of the time we can for negotiation in the intervening years before the next Conference. The PRESIDENT : It appears to be the unanimous wish of the Conference that this Resolution should be carried and put on record. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that we have had a very frank as well as interesting discussion. Mr. FISHER : Is it not the case that the Austria-Hungarian Treaty and the Italian Treaty are almost interlaced with each other, which makes it somewhat difficult to denounce the one without the other ?

339

A.—4

16 June, 1911.] Treaties. [10th Day. Sir E. GREY : I am not sure about that, but in any case those are two of the countries with which we should proceed with negotiations simultaneously. Mr. BUXTON : The Austria-Hungarian Treaties are of 1858 and 1876, and the Italian Treaty is of 1883. The PRESIDENT ; I suppose, from your point of view, those are the two most important countries. Mr. FISHER : It would not be a great advantage to have the one without the other. Sir E. GREY : To show how inevitable it is that this question must have come up Sir Wilfrid mentioned 12 countries —he did not go all through them by name — with which there were treaties which he felt to be restrictive to Canada. Amongst those 12 countries that are included in the list I have Denmark and Sweden. One of the treaties with Sweden, I believe, was made by Oliver Cromwell, and the treaties with Denmark were made in the time of Charles 11. I only give that as an illustration of how inevitable it is that the question should arise. The PRESIDENT : It was not possible then to safeguard Canadian interests. Commercial Relations and British Shipping. Australia. " That this Conference, recognising the importance of promoting fuller development of commercial intercourse within the Empire, strongly urges that every effort should be made to bring about co-operation in commercial relations and matters of mutual interest. " That it is advisable, in the interests both of the United Kingdom and of the British Dominions beyond the seas, that efforts in favour of British manufactured goods and British shipping should be supported as far as it is practicable." Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Perhaps Mr. Fisher will allow me to make an observation about the two next Resolutions on the Paper to-day, which come from Australia, which are in these words : First, " That this Conference, recognising the importance of promoting fuller development of commercial intercourse within the Empire, strongly urges that every effort should be made to bring about co-operation in commercial relations and matters of mutual interest." Secondly, " That it is advisable in the interests both of the United Kingdom and of the British Dominions beyond the seas, that efforts in favour of British manufactured goods and British shipping should be supported as far as it is practicable." I may observe that, for my part, and speaking for the Government which I and my colleagues here represent, we are in complete sympathy with the object which it is sought to attain by these two Resolutions. The only observation which I have to make at the present time is that unless they are supplemented by something more tangible I am afraid that they would not lead up to such immediate results as we would hope for. The commercial relations which exist to-day between the different parts of the British Empire, the Mother Country, and the Dominions, have been very much the result of haphazard, and never the consequence of any initial movement on the part of anybody or of a regular review of the situation as it exists in the different countries. We are all pretty well familiar with the condition of things as it exists in the United Kingdom on account of its great prominence in the world at large, and especially its commercial prominence, but we are not so familiar with the conditions of things which exist in the young nations which are represented at this Board, and it is difficult to proceed to an improvement in the condition of the trade relations between the Dominions and the United Kingdom, and between the Dominions themselves, unless we have, I submit, more information than we have at the present time. The legislation which has been passed in the different parts of the British Empire by all the

A.-4,

340

10th Day.] Commercial Relations and British Shipping. [16 June, 1911. Sir WILFRID LAURIER—co^. self-governing Dominions has been by each one in its own direction, and there is very little attempt at uniformity, if uniformity is attainable. We passed some legislation ourselves'in 1897 which has been followed by, and, I think, has been productive of, good results, when we gave a preferential tariff to the products of the Mother Country. On the other hand, in Canada, we have to complain, and have complained bitterly, of some legislation of the United Kingdom which peculiarly affects a very important Canadian trade—the cattle trade. Our cattle have been subjected for many years past—for over 20 years, if my memory fails me not —to an embargo which was based upon the statement then made that there was disease in the cattle of Canada, which we denied at the time without being able to make an impression. We have protested again and again that our cattle were not diseased. We have asked that that embargo should be removed, but we have failed every time. Our protests are as old as the legislation itself, but though presented year after year, they have not met with any response. We believe that if the true condition of things were known, and if it were found out that the basis upon which this prohibitive legislation was adopted was false, the result would be different from what it is, and we should have some good reason to hope that this impediment to a very important trade would be removed. These reasons, amongst others, induce me to believe that the first thing that we should do, if we are to attain the object which is sought by the Commonwealth of Australia of promoting fuller development of commercial intercourse with the Empire, and if the transport of manufactured goods in British shipping is to be achieved, is to have more information than we have upon this subject; and endeavour to'obtain as accurate and full information as it is possible to have. Therefore, I would suggest to the Conference that the first thing to be done would be to have an inquiry into all these subjects and all the connected matters. Therefore, I beg to move the following Resolution, which I venture to place before the Conference : — '' That His Majesty should be approached with a view to the appointment of a Royal Commission representing the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Newfoundland, with a view of investigating and reporting upon the natural resources of each part of the Empire represented at this Conference, the development attained and attainable, and the facilities for the production, manufacture, and distribution; the trade of each part with the others and with the outside world, the food and raw material requirements of each, and the sources thereof available. To what extent, if any, the trade between each of the different parts has been affected by existing legislation in each, either beneficially or otherwise." I have left in blank the number of the members of the Commission and the proportions to be given to the United Kingdom and the different Dominions. If we agree upon the principle, this is a matter which can be settled later on by mutual conversation at this board. What I am anxious to present at this moment is the advisability, I would almost say the necessity, before we proceed any further and before we separate, of our endeavouring to obtain all the information possible as to the trade conditions that exist now between the United Kingdom and the selfgoverning Dominions, not only with respect to the trade we have with the Mother Country, but the trade which there is with the different Dominions amongst themselves. By way of illustration I may say here that our relations in Canada with our brothers from Australia are not as satisfactory as they ought to be. We have been trying to get mutual preferential treatment, but we have not been able to do so, and I strongly hope that such a Commission as I have indicated would find it possible to come to the end which we have not been able to reach up to the present time. Mr. HARCOURT : Gentlemen, I think Sir Wilfrid Laurier's motion to-day is only another step in advance in the path of what has been the governing note of this Conference —the path, not of Imperial concentration, but of Imperial co-operation; and on that ground, with a slight explanatory amendment, His Majesty's Government will see no difficulty in accepting Sir Wilfrid Laurier's proposal. The last sentence which Sir Wilfrid Laurier read—" To what extent, if any, the trade between each of the different parts has been affected by existing legislation in

341

A.—4.

16 June, 1911.] Commercial Relations and British Shipping. [10th Day. Mr. HARCOURT— cont. each " —was directed, as we saw from his remarks, more to such matters as the embargo on cattle, and cognate subjects which have given some inconvenience and dissatisfaction to Canada ; but the words are a little wide, and might possibly be misunderstood by people who saw only the Resolution and not the discussion by which it has been accompanied ; and I would propose, therefore, to add at the end of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's motion these words : " and by what methods consistent with the existing fiscal policy of each part, the trade of each part with the others may be improved and extended." The object of this is to show that this Royal Commission is not one which is launched in order to inquire into, or to make recommendations on, the policy of the Dominions or of the Mother Country ; and especially these words will show that no recommendations are required on the fixed fiscal policy of the Dominions themselves or of the Home Country. I think if that is made clear the Commission will probably serve a most useful purpose in correlating the views of the Dominions in other trade matters, and putting the whole Empire on a better basis for further co-operation between its units. Mr. FISHER : I find no fault with Sir Wilfrid Laurier for substituting this proposition for the proposals of the Commonwealth Government; indeed, I think it is a more practical way of dealing with a rather difficult set of questions, and I see no reason why the addition proposed by Mr. Harcourt should not be made, because if a Commission of this kind is to be of any service at all it should be free to look into every matter that would be likely to give full and accurate information about the production, manufacture, and distribution of wealth in the United Kingdom and the other Dominions, and it ought not to dogmatise as to the right way for each and all of them to conduct their own affairs. I am rather pleased with this practical way out of a difficulty that exists at the present moment, and if it is approved by the Conference it may remove perhaps some of the disabilities that we quite unwillingly bear, because we do not understand the views of the other Dominions. I commend it all the more freely because I want, with the permission of the Conference, to later on submit a Resolution inviting the co-operation of the Government of the United Kingdom to allow, before the next Conference meets, some of their colleagues to visit the oversea Dominions and see for themselves, and by that means aid and give assistance to a Commission of this kind, even if one of them cannot accompany it. Ido not wish to overpress that, because I know the arduous duties that they perform here; but it is not out of place on a motion like this to say how much we should prize and value a visit from a responsible Minister of the United Kingdom in the distant parts of the oversea Dominions. We feel that we lose a great deal by our not being personally known, just as we feel we miss a great deal by not being here more frequently. It may be asked : Would it be within the powers of this Commission to inquire into the shipping arrangements and means of transport, &c. ? I suppose it would be. The PRESIDENT : Yes, clearly. Mr. FISHER : I only mention that as one of the big questions. The reference to the Commission would be wide and general. Mr. HARCOURT: The Resolution says: "The trade of each part with the others." Mr. FISHER :As I read it, it is exceedingly wide and general. That it has not prescribed limits, to go into a groove, entirely suits my opinion. I believe a Commission composed of the quality of the men who would constitute it, would largely have its labours wasted if it were circumscribed, and if the reference confined the members of it to pursue their inquiries in certain grooves. Therefore I commend it all the more because that has been wiped out. I should like to go further when speaking of getting more accurate information on these matters. I do not think it would be out of place for the Government of the United Kingdom to seriously take into their consideration whether the time is not coming when even Conferences

A.-4',

342

\Oth Day.] Commercial Relations and British Shipping. [16 June, 1911. Mr. FISHER— cont. such as this, or some subsidiary Conference, dealing with matters of inter-Dominion interest, should not meet elsewhere than at the seat of Government, in London. These are matters hardly embraced within the proposition before us. Mr. Asquith smiles at the difficulty. The PRESIDENT : All I say is that I do not think it is strictly relevant to this particular Resolution, but I am very glad to hear what you have to say about it. Mr. FISHER : I do not want to carry that any further, but the question is whether this Commission shall be of such a character as would perhaps include Ministers, or men of the standing of Ministers, in the United Kingdom or in the Dominions, because I assure you that is an important point. I should not for one moment support a Resolution of this kind except under the belief that the men who compose the Commission shall be men of the very first order both in the United Kingdom and in the Dominions, because I assure you they will be treated with courtesy, but with indifference, unless that is so. The PRESIDENT : We quite agree to that. Mr. FISHER : That is what I have in« my mind when I am speaking of men who are occupying leading positions in the United Kingdom, because, small as the communities of the oversea Dominions may be, they are just as proud as the proudest of those who exist in this part of the British Empire. Altogether I think this proposal is a happy solution and a practical solution of a rather difficult question, and I hope it will commend itself to the Conference. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I think that the proposal of Sir Wilfrid Laurier meets the position in a very practical way. The passing of either of the two Resolutions would really be a generalisation, and the outcome of them could not be of any practical use to the various portions of the Empire which Mr. Fisher in his motions was anxious to help. I recognise that a .precedent to what is required in order to have practical results achieved is a very extended inquiry, and I think that Sir Wilfrid Laurier's proposal is a happy solution of what was intended to be achieved under the Resolutions submitted by the Commonwealth of Australia. What Sir Wilfrid Laurier is proposing is to my mind exceedingly important. I believe, after we have obtained the results of the Commission proposed under this Resolution for investigating and reporting upon the national resources of each part of the Empire, we will all be in a better position to deal with matters which, to a very large extent, can otherwise only be in the air respecting the different portions of the Empire ; and, until we have practical information before us, we are really not in a position to ask our respective Legislatures to do what may be necessary in the shape of legislation, but I should hope we will be in that position as the outcome of an investigation of the kind proposed. The suggestion as to obtaining information regarding facilities regarding production, manufacture, and distribution is exceedingly important. Ido not want in any way to refer to the local aspect of the cattle trouble as applicable to Canada, which is important to that Dominion, but there are matters in my own country which could, I think, with great advantage to the Empire be improved, and none of us are in a position to come to a decision upon them unless we had the results of a Commission that would take a year or two at the very shortest to inquire all over the Empire upon the various matters that they could, with much advantage, inquire into. If they do their work thoroughly, as I have no doubt they will do, then, I think, we ought to be able to help the development of trade very materially within the Empire. For my part I think that great care should be taken to see that the composition of this Commission is a good one, because upon that a great deal would depend. I have no doubt we shall have a little trouble in selecting suitable men in the oversea Dominions. We will have some trouble in finding men who possess the requisite qualifications, with impartial minds, as they require to have. But a Commission of the kind must be a strong and representative one. It will

343

A.—4,

16 June, 1911.] Commercial Relations and British Shipping. [10th Day. Sir JOSEPH WAED— cont. afford an opportunity to the other members outside the New Zealand representation of gaining experience of our affairs when passing through our country, and vice versa, which would be very valuable to them and very valuable to us. The same remark applies to other portions of the Empire that it will go through. For my part I think the suggested amendment by Mr. Harcourt is one that is essential to enable us to arrive at a unanimous decision upon a question of this kind, because in all our countries the fiscal system concerns the whole of us. We are committed to our respective fiscal systems, and I think no Commission should be empowered to suggest to any of us what our fiscal policy should be. So far as I am concerned, I most cordially support the Resolution Sir Wilfrid Laurier has moved. General BOTHA : I agree. Sir E. MORRIS : Yes, I agree. The PRESIDENT : Gentlemen, I think the Conference is very much indebted to Sir Wilfrid Laurier for making this very practical proposition. It will set up, as the result of the decision of this Conference, a body whose labours will certainly prepare the way, and possibly make the way plain, for effective and practical action by the' next Conference ; and possibly before the next Conference meets for the legislation of the Governments of the different parts of the Empire. I think it important to emphasize that the proposed Commission is to be an advisory body with a reference as wide as words can make it, inquiring into all matters connected with trade, commerce, production, and intercourse between the different parts of the Empire; and that it is not a Commission to suggest, still less to dictate, policies to the different Governments, either to the Government of the United Kingdom or to the Government of any of the Dominions. In regard to matters of policy we are, and must remain, our own masters. Nor do we seek advice ; nor would it be fitting for anybody outside to tender us advice in regard to large questions either of domestic or of Imperial policy. I entirely subscribe to what Sir Joseph Ward said just now in illustration of what also was said this morning by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Possessing as we do in this Empire every kind of fiscal diversity, each part of the Empire, by what I conceive to have been a most happy arrangement, having been left free and autonomous in the matter, we must be allowed to pursue, as from time to time the majority of our fellow-countrymen think fit, such fiscal policy as, in the opinion of that majority, is best suited to the requirements of the particular part of the Empire for which we are responsible. Making that quite clear, let me say, in view of what Mr. Fisher said, that the intention is that this Commission should be what is called a peripatetic Commission— that is to say, that it should visit the different parts and not sit only in one. That is, I understand, Sir Wilfrid Laurier's opinion, and I entirely agree to it; and in regard to its composition, I can assure him, so far as the Government of the United Kingdom are concerned, no pains will be spared to secure the services of the ablest and most representative men that we can, and the men that will command the greatest confidence, to sit upon it. I should be very glad, if it weie possible, to adopt the kindly suggestion that a Minister of the Crown should take his seat upon it. It would be a most agreeable diversion —a change of scene, and a change of thought, and a change of occupation; but Ido not know altogether how our offices would get on in our absence from this country. Mr. FISHER : It is wonderful how they get on without us. The PRESIDENT : You are showing us how it can be done, and if we cannot follow your example, at any rate we are very grateful for your hospitable desire to see us in Australia—a desire which has been endorsed by the other representatives as far as their Dominions are concerned, and, if possible, we should only be too happy to visit you.

44—A. 4.

A.—4,

344

10th Day.] Commercial Relations and British Shipping. [16 June, 1911Mr. FISHER : I should like to add that this is a Commission the expenses of which should not fall entirely upon the Government of the United Kingdom. I want to say on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia, that.we endorse this as a sound principle, and we hope we shall be allowed to contribute our share of the expenses of that Commission. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I most cordially agree. The PRESIDENT : That is a very handsome suggestion. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Because the work of this Commission, though we have a smaller interest than Great Britain, is as much to our benefit as it is to the Homeland, and, I think, with Mr. Fisher, we should each pay our share. Mr. FISHER : It is a sound principle, I think. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : As I say, I find no objection to adopting the amendment suggested. The reasons set forth by Sir Joseph Ward seem to be very strong on this point, and therefore I agree. The PRESIDENT: Then it is the pleasure of the Conference that Sir Wilfrid Laurier's Resolution, with the added words, should be adopted as the Resolution of the Conference. Mr. FISHER : Then there is the question of the number of Commissioners. The PRESIDENT : Leave the number open for the moment. That might be a matter for private discussion. Mr. FISHER : Then about the expenses. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : We need not pass a Resolution about that. The PRESIDENT: No. Sir WILFRID LAURIER: We are all agreed we should contribute. The PRESIDENT: We take a note of your suggestion, and are very grateful for it. Mr. HARCOURT : It will be on the notes. Mr. FISHER : Under the circumstances we shall not proceed with the other two Resolutions. All-Red Route between England, Australia, and New Zealand, via Canada. " That, in the interests of the Empire, it is desirable that Great Britain should be connected with Canada, and through Canada with Australia and New Zealand, by the best mail service available. That, for the purpose of carrying the above desideratum into effect, a mail service be established on the Pacific between Vancouver, Fiji, Auckland, and Sydney by first-class steamers of not less than 10,000 tons and capable of performing the voyage at an average speed of 16 knots. That in addition to this a fast service be established between Canada and Great Britain, the necessary financial support required for both purposes to be contributed by Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in equitable proportions." Sir JOSEPH WARD : In order to save a double discussion, my friend Sir Edward Morris has suggested to me that his Resolution bearing upon the establishment of a line of steamers between Great Britain and the oversea Dominions might be taken together with mine. I have no objection to that.

345

A.-^,

16 June, 1911.] All-Red Route. Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. At the last Conference, on the 14th May, four years ago, a Resolution was carried " That in the opinion of this Conference the interests of the Empire demand that in so far as practicable its different portions should be connected by the best possible means of mail communication, travel, and transportation. That to this end it is advisable that Great Britain should be connected with Canada, and through Canada with Australia and New Zealand by the best service available within reasonable cost. That for the purpose of carrying the above project into effect such financial support as may be necessary should be contributed by Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, in equitable proportions." The idea at that time was to have a fast service across the Atlantic and across the Pacific, giving connection between the Old Country—and I take New Zealand as the other extremity—in about 21 days. After the Conference had dissolved, on behalf of the Government of New Zealand I advised that we were prepared to support a service such as was suggested, which, I think, across the Pacific was then fixed at 18 knots an hour, and to give a year. So from the practical standpoint we came right along and did our part; but I understand difficulties supervened, from a financial point of view, that prevented the others doing what was necessary to enable that Resolution which I have just quoted being put into practical form. In the interval there has been a change in two important directions to which I want to allude. The existing service across the Pacific, which expires in July of this year, has been by Canada and New Zealand extended for a period of five years. At the moment Australia is not joining in that particular service, but I should very much hope to see them come into it later on. In considering this proposal now for an Atlantic service and an overland service through Canada and on across the Pacific to New Zealand, I feel it necessary to say that this Conference requires to recognise our obligations entered into across the Pacific by Canada and New Zealand for the existing service; and whatever may be done across the Atlantic, subsequently we would require to come into a faster service across the Pacific without in any way committing any breach of arrangement with the existing contractors as between Canada and New Zealand. That position presents itself, and I think it only right for me, in submitting the proposal in the Resolution I have before the Conference now, to make that position clear. In doing so I have no doubt that the existing Pacific contractors would do their part, in return for reasonable payment, to increase the speed across the Pacific. Another important alteration which has taken place since the Resolution in 1907 was passed, and which to a very large extent would minimise and indeed overcome one of the principal objections to ensuring a fast service across the Pacific, is the fact that the difficulty of coaling at various points which was alluded to during the former discussion has now disappeared as far as the Pacific is concerned—that is, the certainty of using oil instead of coal; this would reduce the time between Vancouver and New Zealand, because the steamers would not require to spend the time which was formerly required for coaling at Honolulu and Fiji. With the facilities for obtaining oil, I have been assured by more than one representative shipping man that they could now give us a service across the Pacific of 20 knots an hour without any of the difficulties that presented themselves when this matter was before the Conference on the last occasion. So that in dealing with this matter now I find myself in the position of co-operating and supporting the All-Red route, which in the general interests of the oversea countries and Britain too is so very important. As far as the Pacific side is concerned, while recognising the obligations we have for the existing contract, I can urge the establishment of an All-Red service, and upon the expiry of the present Pacific contract (our present contractors might be disposed to enter into an arrangement to alter it of course) of availing ourselves of oil fuel with a view to having more rapid communication across the Pacific. I want to say that in those two directions there has been an alteration since this matter was submitted to the Conference on the last occasion. I also take the opportunity of saying that I have been advised only by cable from New Zealand this morning—and this is a matter which Sir Wilfrid Lauiier perhaps may allow me to say one word upon—that unless there is an alteration made in the time that the Canadian Pacific Railway Service is running mails and passengers across Canada now, a day's

A.-4.

346

10th Day.] All-Red Route. [16 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. loss as against sending the mails across the American Continent would, even under the proposals we are submitting, ensue as against the American overland route ; so that, as a corollary to what is being done across the Atlantic and Pacific, there appears to be some necessity for a reduction of the time which I apprehend is possible on the overland Canadian route. I do not propose to repeat any of the arguments I brought forward on the last occasion on the matter of what is required to carry out a service of this kind excepting to say that those arguments, with the advantage of oil as against coal, still hold good. The PRESIDENT : I do not know whether it would be convenient to you, Sir Joseph, but it occurred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself when you were mentioning some of the points in which the situation had changed, whether you would deal with the question of the approaching completion of the Panama Canal. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I intend to allude to it. I want just to direct the attention of the Conference to the particular point of the Canadian rail service, because I know it is important in connection with the hastening of the service across the Atlantic, connecting as it does with the existing service we have across the Pacific. I want to impress upon the British Government particularly, that New Zealand is, I think, the only one of the self-governing Dominions that is not in the fortunate position of having a subsidised mail service outward from Great Britain in connection with any line of steamers trading between the Mother Country and New Zealand. Australia has a subsidised service, India has it, South Afiica has it, and the United States of America has it. lam not talking of the subsidies given at the other end, of course, but of the British subventions to steamers carrying mails and passengers outwards from the United Kingdom. I want to impress upon Mr. Asquith and his colleagues here that we in that distant country do not want to be excluded from participating in what, from the practical point of view of bringing us closer to the Old Country, is so essential to us. It does seem to me that the time has arrived when perhaps that aspect of the matter might be favourably considered. We are paying for mail services to the Old Land, but the Old Country is not doing so to us, and they are doing so to other countries. I realise that the prospects in a few years from now of the opening of the Panama Canal may materially affect the whole system of connecting certainly New Zealand—it does not apply to Canada—with the Mother Country. Upon the opening of that canal it will bring us a few days at all events nearer to the Old Country than the existing route does. But I have got a very strong desire to see the All-Red route linking up Great Britain, Canada, and New Zealand independently of any prospect of the Panama Canal, because in New Zealand we look upon Canada as a half-way house, as a great and growing British Dominion that, in co-operation with England and with us, would obtain material benefits in many ways ; and I should not be disposed myself to relinquish any effort to link up Canada with the Old Country, and with New Zealand, of course, on the other side, on account of any prospective developments that may take place after the opening of the Panama Canal. When the Panama Canal is opened The PRESIDENT : When is it expected to be opened ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : In about three years from now. That is what I was told a short time ago in response to inquiries I made. In the ordinary course of things, the opening of the Panama Canal, as far as New Zealand is concerned, will raise a question beyond all doubt as to what we are going to do in the matter of some of our steam services with England, and, if the rates upon the Panama Canal are not prohibitive, I have no doubt whatever that a large portion of our trade with this country will be carried through the Panama Canal. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : Certainly the postal service will go through the Panama Canal.

A.—4,

347

16 June, 1911.] All-Red Route. [10th Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD : If there were fast enough steamers running that way I agree a large portion of them would, and my belief is that a great deal of our oversea traffic, independent of the postal business, will go through the Panama Canal. The All-Red route, however, to my mind, from the standpoint of what I would call British sentiment that is permeating this country and the oversea countries too, is very strongly favoured in New Zealand. In submitting this Resolution I recognise we are in the positron of being by no means the principal factor, because the two countries that are the chief factors are the United Kingdom and Canada, and the larger portion of the subsidy required to make it a successful service is undeniably the one across the Atlantic, and unless the service across the Atlantic is settled as between the Home Country and the Dominion of Canada, then all the efforts to have an All-Red route extending across the Atlantic, Canada, and then across the Pacific would be practically neutralised. I need not further elaborate upon this proposal. I have submitted on a former occasion what I conceived to be possible — a 21-days service between Great Britain and New Zealand, if the necessary subsidies are given—and I strongly favour the proposal, and hope the Resolution will be agreed to. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : What are the P. &0. boats—lß knots ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : They do not average 18 knots—l think it is about 15. The PRESIDENT : You have a Resolution germane to this, Sir Edward ? Sir EDWARD MORRIS : Yes, and I should just like to say a few words in relation to it. My resolution was to the point of the development of trade, and I think the statistics of the Board of Trade will show that, principally by reason of the very imperfect communication, a very large amount of trade has gone away from the Empire ; 40 years ago 50 per cent, of the total imports into Newfoundland were from Great Britain, and to-day I think it will be found that we do not import 15 per cent. ; it has fallen from 50 to 15. I was pointing out that my Resolution went more .to the point that by an improved mail service and passenger service the trade might be developed within the Empire, and I was going on to say that in my opinion the falling-off in the trade as between Newfoundland and Great Britain is largely due to the want of it. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : What country has replaced the trade of Great Britain ? Sir EDWARD MORRIS : The United States, largely owing to their greater facilities. I was coming to that. Forty years ago 50 per cent, of our total imports came from Great Britain ; to-day we do not import 15 per cent. That is in view of the fact that the imports have steadily increased every year during that 40 years, and during the last 10 years they have doubled. Now nearly all that trade, or a very great portion of it, has gone to the United States, the reason being principally that whilst we have only a fortnightly service between Great Britain and Newfoundland— the same service that we had 40 years ago —we have several lines of communication of different kinds between the United States and Newfoundland, and also practically a daily train service. The memorandum which has been submitted here in relation to this matter by the General Post Office rather misunderstood the object of the Resolution that I am proposing, in that it would appear that they understood that I claimed that the best service that can be made available for connecting Great Britain and Canada should necessarily touch at Newfoundland. Ido not go so far as to say that, but my Resolution only goes so far as to say that if a service could be established between Great Britain and Canada by touching at Newfoundland, not in the sense of remaining there to such an extent as would seriously impair the service, but merely touching as the boats touch between Great Britain and Canada at Queenstown, merely for an hour going and coming, to disembark mails and passengers. As a matter of fact,

A.—4,

348

10th Day.] All-Red Route. [16 June, 1911. Sir EDWARD MORRIS—am*. many of the lines between Great Britain and Canada go right by the coast; they nearly all pass Cape Race when they go south of the country, and with regard to the Allan boats and the White Star Lines that go through the Straits of Belleisle, there are points in Newfoundland where they are for hours within three miles of the coast; the people can almost speak to those on board, the Strait being only about seven miles between Newfoundland and Canada, and they have to pass through that, so that it ought to be a very easy matter, with hardly any delay, to make a link by such a connection as that. If these figures I have quoted be correct, and if it is equally clear that the fallingoff of British trade and the British connection with Newfoundland is due to the causes I have assigned, then I think it would be worth the consideration, if not of the Conference at least of the British Government, that some improvement should be made by getting a faster service, a more frequent service, and a better service. This can, I think, be accomplished by an increased subsidy. We could get a very much better service to-day if we could offer the tendering companies a better subsidy. To-day we subsidise one line, the Allan Line; they have been coming there for 40 years with a fortnightly service, and we pay half the subsidy, and the British Government pays the other half. It is only a very small amount, but if we were in a position to double the amount and in that way have an improved service, I am quite satisfied that a very large increase would take place in the development of trade. I should not perhaps go so far as to say that the whole of the trade that has gone away from Great Britain might be got back, but I know a very considerable quantity would. The same is true as regards passengers and as regards persons visiting the country. Thirty years ago Ido not think we had one hundred strangers visiting Newfoundland; last year we had 5,000. There has been an increase of about 5,000 in 30 years. Now of that 5,000 we had not 50 from Great Britain ; they all came from the United States and from Canada, due, as I say, to the improved service between Canada and Newfoundland, and also with the United States, to which Canada contributes with Newfoundland. Whilst Ido not think that this would be the proper time to ask this Conference to pass a Resolution to increase the present subsidy —because that is a matter really more perhaps for the Imperial Government and ourselves, and I have brought the matter before the proper Department— at the same time I should like to feel that the Conference would be in sympathy with any arrangement that might be made in which Newfoundland could be linked up with any All-Red route, without, of course, seriously impairing the same. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : I have simply to say that in so far as the Government of Canada is concerned, we altogether and absolutely endorse the Resolution moved by Sir Joseph Ward. We had a similar Resolution four years ago passed by this Conference, but, unfortunately, nothing yet has come of it. Yesterday we discussed the " All-Red " route as far as telegraphs are concerned, and there, in my opinion at all events, the difficulty (I think I was right in that) lay on the Atlantic Ocean. lam afraid on this occasion when we discuss the mail route, the difficulty is on the Pacific Ocean. We have at the present time between Canada and Great Britain four lines of steamers of first importance—the Allan Line, the Canadian Pacific, the Canadian Northern Line, which is known as the Royal George, and the White Star. They give a fairly good service, but it is susceptible of very considerable improvement. None of these lines, I think, are faster than 18 knots, if even that much. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : Only 18 knots across the Atlantic ? Sir WILFRID LAURIER : That is so. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : I thought the Canadian Pacific Railway had done 21 knots.

349

A.—4.

16 June, 1911.] All-Red Route. [10$ Bay. Sir "WILFRID LAURIER : They are thinking of it, but they have not got it yet. We hope to have a similar service with 22 knots, and we are prepared, in Canada, to have a higher kind of service going as fast as 25 knots. The Canadian Government would be prepared, on the lines of the resolution which has been moved, to contribute its share with Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. Whether we can induce Australia to come in is a question as to which I have not yet had satisfactory information. New Zealand has been more enterprising in that respect, if I may say so without offence. On the Pacific Ocean there is a difficulty, so far as I understand, between Australia and New Zealand, which, I am sorry to say, has not been solved, and, so far as I know, is not in process of solution either. If it is to be different, we will know by and by from Australia, but there again we are prepared to contribute our fair share to the best service that can be organized. Sir Joseph limits himself to 16 knots on the Pacific Ocean, but I think it is not too ambitious to say that we might go to 18 knots on the Pacific Ocean. Mr. FISHER: Twenty. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : I say 18 for the present, and I have no objection to 20 in the future, but for this year or next year we can easily provide for a service of 18 knots on the Pacific Ocean plying between Vancouver and Australia and New Zealand. Sir Joseph mentioned a moment ago in his remarks that the Canadian Pacific Railway service was slow. Knowing the Pacific Railway Company as I do, I know they would be prepared at any time to give the very best service that could be put on the Continent of America. Without boasting at all, I say that Company have shown such great enterprise that I am quite sure they will make my words good, and be prepared at any moment, if such a scheme were to be realised, to give, I will not say the fastest, but as fast a service as is to be found to-day on the American Continent. The question of Panama is one which is not to be overlooked. What will be the effect of Panama is still an uncertainty. In so far as the passenger traffic is concerned, I have heard—l give the information for what it is worth—that Panama will not compare with the Canadian route. The discomforts of the heat will be such on the Panama route as will make the Canadian route far more available. Coming from Australia to Canada, crossing the heated zone, you cross it from north to south, but by Panama you would cross it from east to west, and therefore would be subjected to much greater inconvenience in point of comfort than the northern route. The PRESIDENT : That is for passenger traffic. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Yes, I said for passenger traffic. I have only to add that if we can get the co-operation of His Majesty's Government, and of the Australian Government, Canada will back New Zealand as far as we can go. With regard to Newfoundland, the suggestion made by Sir Edward Morris, that the steamers might call at Newfoundland, is a thing which I think might be left to the Company which undertakes the service. If they can do so without inconvenience they will surely do so, but I think Sir Edward Morris will find it more conformable to his own interests if he confines his efforts to obtaining a better system, a better line of navigation than now plies between Canada and Newfoundland and Newfoundland and Canada. We have not a very large trade with Newfoundland from Canada but it is an increasing trade, and we hope it will continue to increase, and in this also I have only to say to Sir Edward Morris that we would be happy to respond to any call that is made upon us. Mr. FISHER : As I read the resolution and understand Sir Joseph Ward and Sir Edward Morris in this matter, it is based on the principle of an All-Red route. That is the sentimental side that he wishes to impress upon this Conference.

A.—4

350

10th Day.] All-Red Route. [16 June, 1911. Mr. FISHER— cont. The practical side, of course, as I understand it, must stand on its merits. As far as the All-Red.route is concerned, I see no distinction at all between a service between Australia via South Africa to the United Kingdom and a route from Australia and New Zealand to Canada and the United Kingdom. With regard to the other route via Ceylon, the Suez Canal, Malta, Gibraltar, and the United Kingdom, of course that may have its defects from the All-Red proposition, but it has much to commend it, and as regards speed from our point of view I think it is much better than anything we can get through Canada. I do not wish, and I ought not, to criticise a scheme of this kind which has been put forward in a resolution in general terms, but I understand the proposition is that ships that are. to start from Vancouver, I suppose, and to touch at Victoria, are not then to touch, at any other point until Fiji, a distance of 5,200 nautical miles. That is a distance which, speaking as a layman, I think will take a very skilful engineer to provide a ship to carry coal and go at 18 knots. But that is only by the way. All who have spoken, Sir Joseph at any rate and Sir Wilfrid, have gone over that route ; I have had the privilege of going twice over it and all the ships so far as I know touch at Hawaii and therefore the All-Red character of that route is in no better position than even the Suez route. As Sir Joseph Ward has said we subsidise a line of steamers for speed communication between Australia and the United Kindgom. We give a substantial subsidy, but we cannot get an 18-knot service for that. We are prepared to give a very large subsidy indeed to get an 18-knot service, and while the matter is here in the resolution by suggestion, and by the statement of Sir Wilfrid that you can be assured of an 18-knot service across the Pacific, is is not for me to say that it is not possible, but I should like to see the contract or the proposition of any company which would undertake it for a reasonable subsidy. That is our difficulty. While in the fullest sympathy with this proposition we in Australia cannot see our way to accept it in the terms laid down, nor to go into it, nor agree to it in the abstract until we see the proposition. Further, if any one will turn up the trade from 1905 to 1910, and see Australia's position as regards trade with the United Kingdom, they will see from the amount of exports from the United Kingdom to all the Dominions, that Australia has increased more largely—by a larger aggregate increase—than any of the others ; in other words their total amount of trade is an increase of one-third of the whole. I will give you the figures, they are very few, of the imports from the United Kingdom. The PRESIDENT: From the United Kingdom to Australia ? Mr. FISHER : I will give them to you from the United Kingdom to Australia to begin with. Taking the years from 1905 to 1910 the increase was from 17 million pounds in 1905, to 27-| million pounds in 1910 ; South Africa was from 17 million pounds to 19 J million pounds ; Canada, from 12| million pounds to 20f million pounds ; and New Zealand from 6| million pounds to 8f million pounds. Then the total imports from South Africa rose from 5j million pounds in 1905 to 10j million pounds in 1910 ; Australia, 27| million pounds in 1905 to 38j million pounds in 1910 ; New Zealand, from 13f million pounds in 1905 to 21 million pounds in 1910 ; and North America from 25 million pounds in 1905 to 26 million pounds in 1910. The total is 71 million pounds in 1905 and 96 million pounds in 1910. These are imports into the United Kingdom, so that there does not seem to be much the matter with the routes from Australia so far as the carrying of goods is concerned. As regards speed we are quite unable to see that the landing of mails would be greatly accelerated, and we are certain, so far as trade is concerned, that we cannot carry trade successfully by the route named. I think it will be admitted even by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and by Sir Joseph Ward that it is an impossibility to carry trade over practically 3,000 miles of railway. It is not a practicable proposition. The PRESIDENT ; Carrying goods you mean ?

351

A.—4

16 June, 1911.] All-Ked Route. \\Oth Day. Mr. FISHER : Yes, I am speaking of trade of all kinds—goods and chattels and wares, and I go further and say from my point of view, it is hardly a practicable proposition to carry even passengers from the disadvantage of landing and transport across the Continent, and then re-embarkation at the other side. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : That is the beauty of it—you escape the sickness there. Mr. FISHER : Of course, I am not speaking of people with plenty of means who are touring, because I presume the proposal is not to meet the convenience of mere tourists but for our purposes, for the purpose of emigration, and for the purpose of getting the people we desire to get to Australia; we desire a convenient, safe, cheap, and the most speedy route we can get. It is with some regret, of course, that I make these statements, not in any way hostilely to the proposition as a whole, but because I do not think it is practicable at the present time, with the limited amount of money we can afford to spend in an accelerated and improved steamship communication between the Commonwealth and the United Kingdom, to support the proposition. I repeat again, so far as the sentimental All-Red route proposition is concerned, it is no more All-Red than via South Africa who are now, we are all happy to say, entirely linked up with us and associated with us. Our destinies are inseparably linked up and bound up with each other, and there, of course, we have another All-Red through route. As to the othei route, via the Suez Canal. I hope even that may be improved, at least cheapened and improved otherwise before the next Conference meets. The PRESIDENT : That is your lowering of the tolls again. Mr. FISHER : We are practically in the hands of the Government of the United Kingdom in that matter, and we shall not cease to press that proposition. Sir JOSEPH WARD : The United Kingdom and France, too. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : And much more France. We are in the hands of the shareholders of the Suez Canal, which is rather a different thing. Mr. FISHER : I do not wish to compromise ourselves in any way by using any hard words about a company which is run in commercial interests ; I expect to bring this up again, but I think even the engineer who constructed it made a statement to the public as regards what would be a fair interest on the outlay, and after that he said the rate could be reduced. Mr. MALAN : Although these resolutions which are submitted to the Conference deal only with the one suggestion of an All-Red route through Canada, the discussion has brought up two alternative plans or routes. The one is via Panama and the other via South Africa, and we were very pleased indeed to hear what the Prime Minister of Australia had to say on the question of the route via South Africa. It therefore seems to us that perhaps we would be prejudging the matter without sufficient information if these propositions were definitely accepted here to-day. We have therefore thought whether it would not be advisable to refer these resolutions along with the suggestions which have been made to this Imperial Commission to which we have agreed this morning. That would be our suggestion : instead of formally passing these resolutions to refer the resolutions along with the suggestions which have been made to this Commission. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : We had at the last Conference a resolution which committed us to the principle of an All-Red route. I was present at that Con-

45—A. 4.

A.—4

352

10th Day.] All-Red Route. [16 June, 1911. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE— cont. ference as President of the Board of Trade, and I was instructed by the Government to accept the resolution, and to try to find some practical means of putting it into operation. From the sentimental point of view Ido not think there is any doubt in the minds of any one that it would be exceedingly desirable. Anything that would bring the various parts of the Empire nearer together is, of course, a very desirable end in itself, but the difficulties are entirely practical, and they are very great. We did not treat that resolution merely as an expression of opinion. A committee was instantly formed, I think, by the Board of Trade. I think my Right Honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, who was then at the Post Office, was a member, and we had the Colonial Office represented by Mr. Winston Churchill, and we went into the matter at very considerable length. We took evidence. I wired to Sir Joseph Ward to ask him to give me the names of some gentlemen here who would represent the New Zealand point of view, and I think he famished me with one or two names, and we sent for them and took their evidence with regard to the practicability of it, and the cost of it. We also had evidence from Canada, not all friendly. Sir Thomas Shaughnessy came and gave evidence ; he expressed a desire to come and give evidence, and of course we said certainly, and he came and his opinion was certainly not a friendly one according to my recollection. But we had evidence which was very favourable. We had the evidence of shipowners. We went into the cost of it and we found the difficulties were very great. The difficulties were not as great on the Atlantic side, where you have a volume of trade, but on the Pacific side they were almost insuperable. They were insuperable so far as a really fast service was concerned. We tried 11, 15, 16, 18, and 21 knots, and the 21 knots we found perfectly prohibitive on the Pacific side. Then we came to 18 knots, and we had to find out first of all what it would cost. We found that it would cost an enormous sum to run a fast service across the Pacific, but there was a difficulty about a coaling station which, as Sir Joseph Ward has pointed out, has to a certain extent been solved since then. Then came the question as to what we would get on the credit side. On the Atlantic route there was a very fair chance of making it pay in a few years time, but on the Pacific side there was no prospect of making it pay. We should have had to depend entirely upon the passengers and mails. You could not really carry goods. The statement made by Mr. Fisher only yesterday, I think, is absolutely incontrovertible to any one who has gone into the evidence ; you cannot hope to carry goods across a route of this kind which involves a double transhipment. First of all you have to disembark your goods on Vancouver, put them on the trucks, run them across, and then re-embark them across the Atlantic. So that from the point of view of carrying goods it was perfectly impossible; we should have had to depend entirely upon passengers and upon mails. That would involve a very considerable loss on the Pacific side. I was instructed on behalf of the Government to say then that we were prepared within reasonable limits to meet Canada, New Zealand, and Australia to make up that deficiency. Then our difficulty was this : who was to undertake to bring the parties together and arrange the bargain, because it involved an agreement, not merely upon a general resolution, but on the details of a considerable business transaction between Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia. I put that point indirectly to somebody who came from Canada to see me, and I said that somebody ought to be in the position of promoter. All that we could do would be to say that we are perfectly willing to come in, we are willing to subscribe, but we could not undertake, as it were, the promotion of the scheme, and somebody had to do that, I understood. Sir Wilfrid will correct me if I am wrong—that Canada said, " Very well, we will communicate with the other Dominions." Now that happened two or three years ago, and I have heard nothing ever since, so that nothing has been done. So that there are two difficulties, and the first is the preliminary difficulty of bringing the parties together to discuss the thing, and put it in a form in which the respective Governments can consider it. We have never been in that position up to the present, and it is perfectly clear that cannot be settled at a Conference like this, where so many other questions have to be discussed. It is a matter which will take weeks and even months of consideration. You have to have the opinion of shipowners upon it, to find out exactly what it costs, what a 16-knot service would cost, what an 18-knot service

353

A.— 4.

16 June, 1911.] All-Ked Route. Day. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE— cont, would cost, and what a 21-knot service would cost. That will take a very able amount of time, and I would rather support the suggestion which has been made by Mr. Malan. A Royal Commission has been appointed this morning, I understand, to consider the question of trade relations between the various parts of the Empire, and I should have thought that a Commission of that kind, which would contain representatives of all the various Dominions and of the Mother Country could very well consider a proposition of this kind. If it gave a general affirmation of the principle and as to its feasibility it might proceed to appoint a sub-committee to consider the details for working it out, but I should say, in the first place, it ought to be referred to this Commission to consider the feasibility of the proposal, and afterwards that Commission might very well appoint a sub-committee to consider the details of the scheme. That is the proposal I put forward. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I do not agree with that proposal. After Australia's declaration of opposition to the Pacific Service, I think a Commission which is to extend over all our countries, if this matter is referred to it, simply means deferring it. I would rather reconsider the whole position with a view to doing our own part across the Pacific, between Canada and New Zealand, letting everybody else do what they think proper. I look upon the proposal via the Cape, for instance, from either the Australian or the New Zealand point of view, with all due deference to my friends from South Africa, as being highly unsatisfactory from the passenger point of view, as it is a long and at times very rough voyage. I know that absolutely, and I do not want to get into the position, so far as I am concerned, of allowing a red herring to be drawn across the scent, especially with regard to what I conceive to be an impracticable proposition. So from the New Zealand point of view I should certainly not agree to that being included in the Commission's reference. I recognise, of course, that everybody has a right to his own view, but the course suggested would not suit New Zealand. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : If that is the view taken by the New Zealand Government I think there would be very little use in referring it to the Commission. I can quite see the reason why, because two, at any rate, of the elements in the Commission would come in with a hostile intent. I can see that it is not quite in the interest of South Africa to develop a route in the opposite direction, and one of the difficulties we have experienced before, as Sir Joseph knows, is in connection with Australia, the rivalry between Melbourne and Sydney, at least, that is my recollection. Mr. FISHER : No, there is no rivalry. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : the one route Melbourne would be touched first and on the other route Sydney would come first. Mr. FISHER : That has no bearing on our position. Our position is that we must do the best for the people of Australia in the matter of trade and commerce. We are not putting it forward. The PRESIDENT : What do you say, Sir Joseph ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : I want to say a word or two. I recognise the difficulties that stand in the way of a proposition for carrying on a service across two oceans separated by the great Dominion of Canada. If the Pacific section of this service had ever been prompted or promoted or suggested on the ground of carriage of goods across the Canadian continent, the point of Mr. Fisher's remarks would be absolutely indisputable, incontrovertible ; but no such question of the carriage of goods has ever arisen so far as this All-Red service is concerned, and I want to point out that such an aspect of it has not been a governing one in the past at all.

A.—4

354

lOth Day.] All-Bed Eoute. [16 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. For 16 years Australia was a party to a contract across the Pacific and on through Canada and across the Atlantic to England, and if the disabilities that are suggested by Mr. Fisher now in connection with the All-Red route as regards cargo are to be put forward as a reason why we should not agree to it, then those same arguments existed during the whole of the 16 years when the Australian Government subsidised that service and carried it on without any such objections being raised. There is a very important aspect of this matter which requires to be remembered as between the Governments of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and that is the development of trade between these three Dominions. Independently of the conveying of mails and passengers across Canada and across the Atlantic to England, the development of the trade between the three Dominions themselves has always been an important factor in connection with the proposal to have a service established across the Pacific, while at the same time giving a through route across Canada and on to England. That has been the case all through, and if I were asked to support this on the ground of its being the carrying of freight cargo to England, I should oppose it with very great determination, because as a cargo service to England it would be absolutely useless and impracticable. But that idea was never intended as far as lam aware in connection with the carrying on of a service of this kind. And so with the mail routes which have been referred to by the Suez Canal. The steamers that carry the mails and passengers through the Suez Canal from Australia and which carry mails and passengers from New Zealand through the Suez Canal to the Old Country are not the carriers of the bulk of the freightage between Australia and England or between New Zealand and England, because we have all got our independent direct steam cargo services, for which steamers have been specially built, refrigerating steamers carry the bulk of our cargo trade quite independently of those subsidised steamers, which to a very large extent are mail and passenger steamers only, it is true they have some accommodation for perishable products. If we mix up a proposal of this kind with anything in the shape of a freightage service we get into a position that there is not the slightest use, in my opinion, of discussing the advisability of attempting to have fast steamships for mail and passenger purposes so as to draw the Old Country and the oversea countries closer together. If the view of any of the representatives is that we are to discuss it from the trade-carrying point of view, then we ought not to give our subsidies for carrying to traders at all, because there are hundreds of cheap and good tramp cargo steamers which will carry the cargo trade without subsidies, and as far as New Zealand is concerned we would not give anything for such services. I feel it necessary to say this, with reference to the development of cargo trade referred to by Mr. Fisher, that, with all due deference to him, Ido not think it comes in. If it was a matter of the conveyance of freightage we were endeavouring to arrange the steamers for Mr. FISHER : I said emigrants. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes, that is carried on now by your mail steamers. Mr. FISHER : We could not ask the emigrants to disembark at one part of the continent and re-embark again. I have travelled there, and I speak of what I know. We cannot send women and children across the continent, and even if we are five days shorter we could not do it. Sir JOSEPH WARD : The emigrants would go with the steamers trading through the Suez Canal to Australia in the ordinary way, and not across the Canadian continent. Mr. FISHER.—Or by South Africa. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes, they could go that way ; but, generally speaking, they would not.

355

A.—4.

16th June, 1911.] All-Red Route. [10th Day. Dr. FINDLAY : How do they go now ? Mr. FISHER : Partially the one way and partially the other, but mostly through the Suez Canal. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I say that if we attempt to mix a proposal of this kind up with the idea of freightage, or emigrants]|going across Canada, I do not think the service across the Canadian continent would meet these two points at all; I have never thought so, but if we are to develop and improve trade between Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and to give a through fast mail and passenger service across the Canadian continent, and across the Atlantic to England, in my opinion there is a great deal to be said, even upon sentimental grounds, for what is being proposed by me. I want to make my position quite clear with regard to the suggestion which lias been made by Mr. Malan for referring this question to the Royal Commission, and I want to put on record why I object to that. It seems to me that where there are subsidised steamers now trading between England and Australia, and between England and South Africa, and between England and India, they have their contracts in hand and have their service to a large extent on the lines they require; but when a proposal is made which is required, certainly from the New Zealand standpoint and the Canadian standpoint, to suggest that it should be remitted to a Commission composed of representatives from two countries at this Conference, the interest in our particular service would only be an indirect one as far as they are concerned, and in view of the attitude of my friend Mr. Fisher regarding the Canadian Pacific Service, and South Africa's advocacy of another route, it would be obviously a very foolish thing for the advocates of the All-Red route across Canada to New Zealand from the Old Country if a proposal of the kind was referred to a Commission of such a composition as I have mentioned. As against the proposition and I prefer infinitely, whatever the effect of this resolution may be, to commence to consider the desirability of recasting what we have been trying to do for years. I should prefer to work with the Canadian Government entirely as far as the Pacific is concerned, and if they are prepared to assist in establishing a faster mail and packet service direct with New Zealand and from New Zealand direct with Canada I should be prepared to supplement the amount we are paying now to enable that to be done. For friendly reasons and business reasons, I should like very much to see Australia fall in with the Canadian Pacific Service. There is no doubt about it, it has worked very well in the past. We have never envied them the collateral advantages of a service of the kind to Australia, because we have been simply a touching point, and whatever benefits have been derived of a material character, it is Australia that has had them, and not New Zealand, right through. In the case of the San Francisco seryice it was the same. We gave a large subsidy in comparison with what Australia gave, but we took not the slightest objection to their having their final port in Sydney and allowing the provisions, coaling, docking, and repairs, and all the expenditure to be made there. The benefit in that case was to Australia, although New Zealand was giving the greater proportion of the subsidy with the United States of America. From the friendly standpoint of the two countries being so close together I should like to say, then, even now, deal with the Pacific alone, allowing Canada and the United Kingdom to look after the Atlantic themselves, concerning which it is said by Mr. Lloyd George that there are not so many difficulties as there are in the Pacific. For my part, I should be quite prepared to let the United Kingdom and Canadian Government look after the Atlantic proposals themselves, and in turn with the Canadian Government, if they are prepared to co-operate with New Zealand, to look after the other end ourselves. It seems to me that the difficulty which Mr. Lloyd George has suggested as to who was going to be the party to put into operation a scheme of this sort between scattered countries stands in the way distinctly; but if we are to wait until we are able to get the divided countries to come together on a point of that kind, the Pacific end of it is going to suffer, and it is the Pacific end that lam now concerned in. I believe it would be better for Canada and New Zealand to do that end ourselves, though I should like to see Australia joining with us both in the matter.

A.—4,

356

10th Day.] All-Red Route. [16 June, 1911. Mr. FISHER : If the Conference will allow me, I do not want Sir Joseph to be under any misapprehension regarding our position. We are not in antagonism to New Zealand, nor to the Dominion of Canada ; we are in hearty sympathy and co-operation with Canada, and, as he has stated, Queensland in the very early days subsidised a steamship line between Brisbane, Sydney, and Vancouver, and ran it for a long time. We have continued it up till lately. The present reciprocal arrangements between Canada and New Zealand give New Zealand a distinct advantage over the Commonwealth of Australia, and that is the reason why we are not co-operating in the present arrangement. The negotiations were closed by the two Dominions within their own rights about which we can make no complaint, not can New Zealand nor Canada make any complaint that we have not come into that. Further as my colleague reminds me, we have not closed the proceedings, and we might have a line of steamers either to Canadian ports or to the United States ports or to any other ports convenient for our trade to carry our goods and mails. The other point is that previously this proposition, to my mind, was submitted to this Conference as a mail route largely—for speedy mail communication. The proposition to-day names a line of steamers of 10,000 tons, which obviously means not mail and passenger steamers only ; the tonnage, I mean, puts it out of consideration that they would be run for mails and passengers across the Pacific. That is the reason I did not want to go into it. I took it rather from the actual words of the resolution than from what was said that it meant " That, for the purpose of carrying "the above desideratum into effect, a mail service be established on the Pacific, " between Vancouver, Fiji, Auckland, and Sydney, by first-class steamers of not " less than 10,000 tons " (it will be noted that from Vancouver to Fiji I dealt with before, and I need not deal with it again ; that seems an impossible distance) " and capable of performing the voyage at an average speed of 16 knots." That is a greater speed than we can get from our Orient mail steamers at present running with their ships full, carrying passengers, and touching at all the ports en route. I want to assure Sir Joseph and the representative of the Dominion of Canada, that there is no unfriendly feeling in Australia to Canada. It is a matter of business, and there is very little sentiment in business when we are dealing with the affairs of our own countries. The PRESIDENT : Do you desire to take the opinion of the Conference, Sir Joseph ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : I desire to take the opinion of the Conference on at least a part of this resolution. I want, without taking up the time of the Conference further, to make it perfectly clear that I do not regard anything Mr. Fisher has said as unfriendly to New Zealand, and I am sure he does not regard anything that I have said as unfriendly to Australia. Mr. FISHER : It is a business question. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes, and it is as a business proposition that I am urging it. The service running from Vancouver to Australia for the last 16 years was a service established by me with the Canadian Government in Ottawa in 1895 to run between Vancouver, New Zealand, and Australia. I went to Canada specially and arranged it when there, but owing to difficulties that cropped up New Zealand was finally left out and the service touched Brisbane instead, Sydney remaining the final port as I first arranged. Owing to the impossibility of Brisbane and Sydney being included as ports of call in Australia, New Zealand had to remain out 16 years. The Commonwealth Government recently wanted Brisbane continued besides Sydney, but it was an impossibility owing to geographical disabilities which exist on the Australian side to call at New Zealand too, and we are anxious to have that service continued, calling at New Zealand and Sydney only, as I have just indicated.

357

A.— 4

16 June, 1911.] All-Ked Route. [10th Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. After the discussion I propose to amend the resolution by leaving out the second paragraph, and I therefore move : ' That in the interests of the Empire it " is desirable that Great Britain should be connected with Canada, and, through " Canada, with Australia and New Zealand, by the best mail service." The PRESIDENT : I should think that would be unanimously agreed to. There is no objection to that, Mr. Fisher ? Mr. FISHER : No. Sir EDWARD MORRIS : After the word " Canada " add " and Newfoundland." The PRESIDENT : Certainly, after the first." Canada." Sir EDWARD MORRIS : Then my motion may be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT : That is unanimously carried. Mr. FISHER : We are exceedingly anxious about one point, and that is as to when those negotiations will take place with the Cable Companies. We shall be glad if you can give us any indication before the Conference closes. The PRESIDENT : Will you ask Mr. Samuel about that ? You want it on record, I suppose ? Mr. FISHER : It will do later on. Mr. SAMUEL : I can say in a moment now. Negotiations have taken place with the Cable Companies already with respect to the establishment of a system of half rates for deferred plain language telegrams, and all the Companies have consented. We are merely now waiting the assent of some of the foreign administrations. We anticipate, if that assent is not withheld, which we do not fear., that the system can be brought into operation on the Ist January next. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I understood it was to be the Ist January. Mr. SAMUEL : With respect to certain other reductions I cannot myself specify the date, but I shall be much disappointed if we are not able to carry out a reform within a few months. The PRESIDENT : As soon as the other ? Mr. SAMUEL : I should anticipate so. But if these reductions are not effected, say, within a year from the present date, I would then suggest that steps should be taken with a view to considering the necessity for the subsidiary conference which has been agreed to by the Conference yesterday. Mr. FISHER : And you will communicate with us. . Mr. SAMUEL : Yes, with a view to the subsidiary conference suggested by the Conference yesterday.

A.—4

358

\Oth Day.] Double Income Tax. [16 June, 1911. After a short adjournment. Double Income Tax. New Zealand. " That it is inequitable that persons resident in the United Kingdom, who, under the laws of a self-governing dependency, pay an income or other tax to the Government of such dependency, in respect of income or profits derived from the dependency, should have to pay a further tax in respect of the same income or profits to the United Kingdom ; and therefore it is most desirable that Imperial legislation should be introduced to remove the disability." Union of South Africa. " That it is desirable that an understanding be arrived at between the Imperial and Colonial Governments whereby the Imperial Exchequer, in claiming payment for income tax and death duties, should allow a deduction for payments fairly claimed for these purposes in the Colonies." Mr. HAECOURT : We might go now to the Resolution of the Government of New Zealand, and I think perhaps we might take the questions of the income tax and death duties together. Sir JOSEPH WARD : The question of death duties is brought up by South Africa. Mr. HARCOURT : Yes ; but they can probably be dealt with together. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes. In connection with the system of double taxation, I have had the opportunity of attending a meeting with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I placed the whole matter fully before that meeting; and I recognise the position, as then outlined by Mr. Lloyd George, makes it exceedingly difficult for the British Government to conform with the suggestion contained in this Resolution. In deference to the views expressed by Mr. Lloyd George to the informal Sub-Conference* at which he attended, I want to say that I recognise that, as far as the British Government is concerned, the heavy loss involved to the British Treasury makes it impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to agree to it being put into operation. In our country we feel—and I suppose the other people who are here feel too—the anomaly and difficulty of the same British subject or corporation having to pay income tax twice upon the same income. Ido not want to repeat the arguments from the standpoint of double taxation as it exists in New Zealand that I placed fully before the Committee, except to say that if in the future there could be some system of mutual arrangement I should be exceedingly glad. We find it necessary in New Zealand, in order to help the people who take up the debenture stock of that country, the domicile of which is in England, to forgo the income taxation in New Zealand so as to enable them to be in the position of paying income tax once only on the same income, and that is to the British Government. That is done for a local reason, and it is a very good one from our standpoint—that is, with the object of enabling our stock to be taken up in our own country without the possibility of the same person having to pay tax twice upon the income derived from the same investment. However, I think probably if Mr. Lloyd George will be good enough to make a statement of the position, similar to what was contained in his remarks before the Sub-Conference, I think it will demonstrate that, from the position as it affects the British Treasury, my proposal cannot be accepted by him, and I need not take up the time of the Conference in again advancing my views in detail. General BOTHA : Are we taking the New Zealand Resolution alone, or the two together ?

* This refers to an informal discussion at the Treasury on Ist June.

359

A.—4

16 June, 1911.] Double Income Tax. Day. Mr. HARCOURT: I think we might take the two together. General BOTHA : Then we mix the two vp —the death duties with the income tax. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : I think there is something different in both these points, and perhaps we had better dispose of the matter of income tax first. It is better that they should be dealt with separately. They are two totally different points. Mr. HARCOURT : Then we will discuss the question of income tax first and then go to death duties. General BOTHA : Of course in South Africa there is a very strong feeling in regard to income tax, and I have prepared a short memorandum of the grounds upon which I wish to state our case. Taking first the question of double income tax, I should like to preface my remarks by stating that it is with considerable diffidence that I venture to raise a subject which was so fully investigated at the last Conference, when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer made perfectly clear the considerations which rendered it impossible for His Majesty's Government to grant the desired relief. Looked at from the standpoint of the Imperial Government, I am bound to admit that the reasons adduced by them in 1907 against the granting of our request were possessed of great force. In putting forward the present Resolution, however, my Government are actuated by the hope that, during the four years that have elapsed since the subject was last discussed, the Treasury authorities may have become impressed with the force of the arguments submitted by the Dominions, and that in consequence they may now be willing to make some concessions to the Dominions, even if they are still unable to grant the full measure of our request. Before proceeding further, I should like to explain that, at the present time, if we exclude the profits tax upon mining enterprises, South Africa is without a general income tax. It may be asked, therefore, why I bring forward such a Resolution, and I would anticipate that question by stating that the profits tax on mining enterprises is essentially an income tax, and would necessarily fall within the scope of any reciprocal arrangement which may be come to as a result of these representations. Moreover, the Union Government may consider it desirable, at some future date, to introduce proposals for a general income tax, and in view of that contingency, it is important that the South African representatives should have an authoritative indication of any concessions that His Majesty's Government may feel disposed to make as a result of their further deliberations on the subject. The points at issue as regards double income tax are so well known that I need do no more than sketch the broad position. The fundamental principles of the Imperial income tax are : First, that the tax should be levied on the source out of which the income arises and not directly upon the ■ individual receiving the income. Secondly, that the tax shall be levied upon income or profits received or made in the United Kingdom without regard to the locality of the property out of which the income arises or to any taxation to which it may there be subject. In the result, residents in the United Kingdom are taxed by the Imperial Treasury in respect of profits derived from the oversea Dominions, and they have also to pay income tax on the same profits in such portions of the. Dominions as taxation of this nature may be in force. While no question arises as to the right of the Imperial authorities to levy income tax upon the profits received by persons in the United Kingdom from Colonial sources, notwithstanding that the same profits may have been subjected to similar taxation in the Dominion wherefrom they are derived, I venture to submit that there is a good deal to be said, from the point of view of broad Imperial policy, in favour of some relaxation of this double taxation. If the system of double taxation continues it is calculated to deter residents in the United Kingdom from purchasing colonial investments and to turn their attention to the securities of foreign countries where they are not subject to similar exactions. This danger would be avoided if some reciprocal arrangement could be come to between the Mother Country and her

46—A. 4.

A.—4

360

Day.] Double Income Tax. [16 June, 1911. General BOTHA— cont. Dominions whereby incomes were relieved from double taxation. As a basis for a settlement of this character, I would suggest an extension of the principle embodied in the Imperial Death Duty legislation— vide section 20 of the Finance Act, 1894 — and that profits earned in the Dominions and received by residents in the Mother Country be charged only with any difference between the Imperial tax and that levied in the Dominions. Necessarily the converse of this proposition would also have to be recognised. If some such understanding were arrived at, I submit that it would tend to stimulate the investment of British capital in British countries and to discourage the diversion of capital to foreign enterprises. Incidentally I should like to call attention to a special hardship which, under existing conditions, is suffered by colonial holders of British securities. In the Imperial Finance Act, 1910, provisions were included which imposed a new liability to income tax upon small colonial investors in British securities. A foreigner, or colonist, residing out of the United Kingdom, who received income from this country, could previously claim the same relief as persons resident in the United Kingdom if he could satisfy the Inland Revenue Commissioners that his total income derived from the United Kingdom fell below the amounts specified in the Act in respect of which relief is granted. It followed that income which could not be assessed need not be included in the statement showing aggregate income, and thus a person who might actually be in receipt of a large income abroad could claim repayment of tax deducted from his investments in the United Kingdom if the amount of the income from the latter fell below 700?. per annum. This privilege was taken away by the Finance Act, 1910 ; but before the Bill was passed the High Commissioner for the Union of South Africa had correspondence on the subject with the Chancellor of the Exchequer through the Colonial Office, urging that the privilege then possessed by persons living in a colony should not be taken away. Mr. Lloyd George treated the High Commissioner's appeal most courteously, and pointed out that it did not appear fair to make the same exemptions in favour of colonists in respect of income drawn from this country, whatever their total income might be, as were made in favour of residents here in respect of their total income. He further pointed out that it would be, from an administrative point of view, impracticable to deal with the total income of persons living abroad. I submit that the reasons adduced in support of this change in the law by the Chancellor of the Exchequer are insufficient. It is probable that a few rich foreign and colonial investors have been enabled to claim relief, but they did so within the provisions of the law. I am unaware whether any evidence has been taken to show what number of rich foreigners or colonials had taken advantage of their legal privilege, but I would urge that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, even if influenced by the anomaly of rich men claiming relief, has now gone to the other extreme, by imposing the full tax on persons whose incomes are well within 160?. The result will probably be that foreign and colonial investors will withdraw from English securities. A letter in the " Economist " dated 25th February states this to be highly probable so far as Consols are concerned. Another argument advanced is that persons residing abroad and claiming exemption from income tax do not contribute to the finances of the United Kingdom. Any dealings by them in property or securities are, however, subject to stamp duty, and when they die their investments in this country are subject to estate duty. But a colonist deriving an income of 150?. from the United Kingdom is, in addition, under the Finance Act, 1909-10, taxed at the rate of Is. 2d. in the £ and contributes 9?. 6s. Sd. annually, which is far in excess of his fair share of the taxation. Certain exceptions are granted in the Finance Act, 1910, in favour of present or former servants of the Crown, missionaries, servants of native States under British protection, residents in the Isle of Man and Channel Islands, and persons residing abroad for their health. This is a fairly comprehensive list of exceptions, and must have cut deeply into the amount of tax which would otherwise have gone into the Exchequer. The term " servant of the Crown " has been construed by Somerset House to cover persons employed in the service of a Colonial Government, so the anomaly of a Civil servant in South Africa being entitled to whole or partial relief from which other citizens are debarred immediately presents itself. It is impossible to draw a proper distinction between colonists and residents

361

A.—4

16 June, 1911.] Double Income Tax. [10th Day. General BOTRA—cont. in the Isle of Man and Channel Islands for the purpose of this section, while the inclusion of health-seekers was evidently dictated rather by a desire to avoid hardship than by reference to any sound principle of taxation. Further, a foreign resident in the Isle of Man or Channel Islands comes within the exemption. Without a special knowledge of the administration of this section it is difficult to add to illustrations of anomalies, but it can be readily imagined that they may be very numerous. It is suggested for consideration that a bold line of demarcation be drawn, and the title to relief on the score of income be restricted to British subjects wherever residing. By virtue of being British subjects they are entitled to the protection of the British Government whether they be taxpayers or not, while the law as it now stands imposes for this protection a far higher rate than that incurred by their countrymen who live in the United Kingdom. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : There are two points which have been raised. The more important point from the financial point of view, both to the Mother Country and to the Dominions, is the first point—the question of double income tax. The other is, I will not say a small point, but comparatively speaking it is. The concession of the first would involve a loss to the British revenue of at least 2,000,000/. a year, and it would be a growing amount, as I shall point out later on. This is a great lending countiy; in fact, I think it is the greatest lending country in the world. We have lent, according to the " Statist," rather over 3,000,000,000/. of our money for investment across the seas, and of that amount three-fifths are invested in India and the Colonies. Our investments in the Colonies are growing, and growing very rapidly, and lam very glad to think that that is the case. It is an advantage to the Mother Country and of course it helps trade, and it helps us to secure trade with the Colonies ; but it is also an advantage to the Dominions and to the Colonies, because it assists them to develop the enormous resources of their various countries. But if we begin to make our income tax dependent in any degree upon the amount which is charged in the countries where our money is invested, it would be such a serious breach in our income tax as to make it incumbent upon us to put another Id!, and later on probably another 2d. upon the income of residents in our own country, and that is a contingency which, at any rate as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I would rather transfer to my successors than face myself. For that reason, as I think Sir Joseph Ward very candidly admits, it is almost impossible for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to face it—certainly so soon after a great struggle like the struggle of 1909-10, connected with the imposition of fresh taxation in this country. Now I come to the second point, which was raised, I think, by General Botha alone, and that is the question of the exception of persons of small incomes from income tax altogether so long as they reside in the Colonies. Now, the difficulty here is purely an administrative one. Everybody is charged income tax upon his investments, whatever the total amount of his income may be ; but a man whose income is under 160/. can claim exemption and he gets his money returned ; but he has to prove his claim, and he has to establish it. You ought to be in a position to check it, and if he makes a false return you ought to be in a position to punish him for that false return, otherwise you have really no check upon the accuracy of his return at all. It is perfectly obvious that the moment your claimant is beyond the jurisdiction of your courts, you are entirely in his hands when he begins to make a claim for exemption. He can send in his claim and say : "My income is only 150/. a year," and you cannot check it. You have absolutely no sanction, as it were, for the purpose of examining the document which is sent in, and of punishing for a false declaration. It would really mean that as to anybody who resided either in the Colonies or abroad who chose to claim an exemption, we should have to honour his claim without any attempt at all to check it. General BOTHA: In such a case cannot we in South Africa make inquiries for the Government here ? Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : With due respect to a Colonial Government, after all it is not their interest; their interest is rather to encourage the claimant than the Exchequer here. We find it very difficult to check demands of this kind here where

A.—4.

362

lOth Day.] Double Income Tax. [16 June, 1911 • Mr. LLOYD GEORGE— cont. we have a large army of income tax collectors, assessors, and surveyors for the purpose of verifying the accounts, and where it is known that every claim which is established involves a loss to the Exchequer. We could not expect a Colonial Government, which had no interest in the matter at all, whose sole interest is the protection of its own residents, to go to the same trouble and to examine the accounts with the same sternness and severity as we would in this country. I do not think if there were a reciprocal case the Colonial Governments would quite entrust that function to us in this country —a function upon which their own revenue would be dependent. Therefore we have either to abandon this altogether and practically say that everybody who is abroad and cares to say that his income is not over 1601. should be exempt, or we should have to stick to the present system. My recollection is that it is a matter of 300,000/1. — I am only quoting from memory. That was the estimate given to me at the time. It runs to for the Colonies alone I think. I can look into that amount, but if you take not merely the Colonies, but abroad, it is a matter of I have not the exact estimate for the Colonies here at the moment. Our difficulty is purely an administrative one. The same observation applies to this as to the first. We are a great lending country. In the Dominions and in the Colonies they are dependent upon what is earned within their own territories. Up to the present you have not got a great investing public. You have great undeveloped resources, and all the money that is available you spend upon the development of your own country, and spend it very profitably. On the other hand, though we are a very small country we have a good deal of surplus cash and we invest it abroad, and in fact the very exigencies of our international trade make it incumbent upon us to find investments in other countries, because we find that the more money we invest abroad the better is our trade with the countries where British money goes. Therefore, we are not in the same position as you are. Your interest is to invest monpy in your own country, and you have plenty of country to invest money in. It is not true to the same extent about our country, and for that reason we have to watch with a very jealous eye anything which would deprive us of income tax in respect of money which is invested beyond the four seas. There was a third point which was raised by General Botha. He made a suggestion—he will correct me if I have not quite apprehended it —-that if a resident in the United Kingdom invested his money in the Colonies, he should only pay in the Colonies in respect of that investment the difference between the Colonial income tax and the income tax charged in this country. For instance, if there were a Is. Qd. income tax charged either in New Zealand or South Africa you deduct Is. 2d. out of that and charge him 4d. ; on the other hand, if there was a Colonial investor who invested money in this country and paid, let us say, 8d. in the Colonies, he should only be called upon to pay Qd. here. Is that the point ? General BOTHA: Yes. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : I confess that is the first time I have heard that suggestion, and I am not in a position at the present moment to say anything about it. I would like to consider that. That is a proposal I have never heard of before. I am not sure that it has been put before me before in that form. General BOTHA: I do not think so. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : I think General Botha will see the reasonableness of my not giving him an answer straight away upon that point. It is the first time I have been confronted with that proposition as far as I can recollect, and I would like to consider it carefully to see what the effect would be, and I would like to postpone, if he does not mind, giving a final answer until I have considered it. Dr. FINDLAY: It is much the same principle as now prevails in connection with death duties.

363

A.-4

16 June, 1911.] Double Income Tax. Day. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : I should like to consider that more carefully before giving an answer. That seems to me a different proposition and a thing we might very well consider. I will consider that very carefully, and I will let General Botha know, and probably the same thing applies to New Zealand. I can inform the Prime Ministers of South Africa and New Zealand upon that subject before they leave this country. Dr. FINDLAY : It might be well to have it clear what is suggested. Supposing the rate be the same in each country, what is to be done ? Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : Then that wipes out the income tax altogether in the country where the investor is not resident. I think the point is worth considering. Mr. PEARCE : I have nothing to say. Sir E. MORRIS : I say nothing upon this. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : I could not possibly accept the Resolution just now in this form. The PRESIDENT : What do you say, Sir Joseph ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : In what form could it be accepted ? If I left out the last two lines, would it be accepted then ? Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : No, I do not think I can accept this Resolution at all. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I have done what I considered to be my duty in directing attention to the matter, but in view of the difficulties, from the point of view of the .Chancellor of the Exchequer, that were presented to the Sub-Conference and again have been presented to the Conference to-day, and as the Resolution cannot be put into operation except with the concurrence of the Home Government, I withdraw it. ' Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : I think it would be more desirable. General BOTHA: Ido not quite follow. Do you withdraw your Resolution ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes, in view of the fact I have mentioned, it is not possible to put the proposal into operation even if a majority here agreed to pass it. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : I will give my answer on the suggestion General Botha makes later on, apart from this Resolution altogether. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Will you give the answer to the Conference ? With all deference to General Botha, I think you will find it more difficult to carry into effect the new proposal than the other suggestion. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : Yes, it is a new proposal and I have not had time to consider it. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Can you give the answer to the Conference ? Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : Yes, I could on Monday or Tuesday give you an answer. The PRESIDENT : Even if not done in the Conference I will see it is communicated to you at the earliest possible moment. Do you wish to withdraw your Resolution, General Botha ? General BOTHA : Is it not better that it should stand now ?

A.—4

364

10th Day.] Double Income Tax. [16 June, 1911. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : I could not accept either of these Resolutions.* Your suggestion is rather a different thing to the Resolutions themselves, and, therefore, even if T were prepared to accept your suggestion now, I could not accept your Resolution. It would hurt me in another form altogether. Therefore, I suggest that it should be withdrawn and we might discuss the other point, say on Monday or Tuesday, after I have had time to consider it, and perhaps you will give me a copy of your memorandum so that I may see it in writing too before then, and then I will get a report upon what it really means to our revenue. Dr. FINDLAY : This Resolution includes death duties as well, which have not been touched upon yet General BOTHA: Yes, my Resolution includes death duties. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : Yes, I could not accept that nor No. 15, as far as income tax is concerned. Mr. HARCOURT : Will you deal with death duties now ? General BOTHA: Yes, I will leave the income tax point and go on with death duties, because the one Resolution deals with death duties as well. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I was exceedingly interested to hear General Botha's statement that he hoped in the four years which have elapsed since the last Conference the Government might have appreciated or understood the difficulties that presented themselves four years ago. Double Estate Duties. General BOTHA : Turning now to the question of double death duties, this is not quite on the same footing as double income tax, inasmuch as the Imperial Government, in the Finance Act of 1894, section 20, have accepted in principle the desirability of avoiding double estate taxation within the Empire. The fundamental principles of the British estate duty are set out in the Treasury Memorandum of the 28th February, 1911, which forms Papei No. 15 in the volume of Conference Memoranda. The facts as set out in the Treasury Memorandum are not in dispute, and I need not therefore go over the ground again at the present time. In South Africa an opportunity has not yet occurred of introducing uniform estate duty legislation. . The four Provinces comprising the Union still retain their respective laws, but I hope before long bo see one consolidated measure in operation for the whole country. It would be a matter of congratulation to the Government and people of South Africa if we could provide in this new legislation for reciprocity in the matter of avoiding double death duties. Unfortunately the interpretation placed upon section 20 of the Imperial Finance Act, 1894, as regards the " situation " for taxation purposes of shares and debentures, renders it virtually impossible for us to avail ourselves of the advantages offered by that section. It is a condition precedent to any Dominion receiving the benefits of section 20 of the Imperial Act, that it accepts the British law and practice as to " situation " of taxable property. If we were to defer to these requirements, it would involve a sacrifice of death duties that the country cannot afford. His Majesty's Government, in the Finance Act of 1894, have recognised that double taxation in the case of death duties should be reduced as far as possible, but I submit that by placing a too rigid interpretation upon the provisions of that Act, they, to a large extent, defeat the objects and intention of the measure. The Union Government contends that while the principle of the English law is purely artificial, the equitable view is that the situation of shares and debentures in a company should be in that country where the company is registered, where it can be controlled by the Legislature, and where the country can exercise jurisdiction ovex it. The Union Government could undoubtedly pass such legislation as would cause shares in companies registered in South Africa to be situate in South Africa within the meaning of section 20 and so

* Note. —This matter is still forming the subject of communication by correspondence.

365

A.—4

16 June, 1911.] Double Estate Duties. [10th Day. General BOTHA— cont. comply with the technicality of the law. Such action, however, would interfere with the freedom with which shares are dealt in ; it would entail a loss to the Imperial Government of the revenue it collects from the stamp duty on transfers ; it would seriously interfere with the investment of British capital in South African securities. But, such as it is, it is the only alternative that a rigid interpretation of the law (as regards section 20) by the Imperial Government leaves open to the Dominion if it is to take any other position, as regards death duties, than that of a foreign country. I would propose therefore that for the purposes of section 20 the situation of shares or debentures in a company should be held to be the country in which the company is incorporated. The application of section 20 must entail a loss of revenue to the Imperial Government and to the country to which it is applied. The Union Government would .stand to refund to executors a proportion of the duty it collects on personal property situate in the United Kingdom w T hich belonged to persons domiciled in South Africa. It would refund a proportion of the duty it so collects on shares and debentures in companies that are incorporated in the United Kingdom and carry on business in South Africa when held by persons domiciled in South Africa, and it would abandon all the duty it at present collects on such shares and debentures when they are held by persons domiciled in the Uinited Kingdom. On the other hand the United Kingdom would stand to refund a proportion of the duty it collected on shares and debentures in companies incorporated in South Africa, which according to the Transvaal estate duty collections for the year 1910 amounts to about 30,000/. The Imperial Government would be called upon to refund more than the Union Government, but considering the nature of the South African property, which consists mainly of mines and partakes of the nature of realty, I think it will be conceded that in equity this should be so. In conclusion I would urge the desirability of finding a way out of the duplication of the death duties within the Empire, which, if the English law as to the situation of shares and debentures is strictly enforced, will not, I think, be for long avoided in other parts of the Empire. Their imposition leads to evasions of South African duty and must tend, as any excessive taxation is bound to do, to evasion of the Imperial death duties also. They must also act as a deterrent to the investment of British capital in South Africa. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : Mr. Fisher, you have already had this in Australia. We have an arrangement with you about death duties. Mr. FISHER : No. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : Yes, I think so, except as to Queensland. Dr. FINDLAY : The same as New Zealand, I think. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : Yes. Mr. FISHER : We are not seriously worrying about that. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : No, I do not see why you should worry about a thing you already have. The PRESIDENT : You do not want to say anything about it, Mr. Fisher ? Mr. FISHER : No. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I consider we are all right as we are.

A.—4

366

Day.] Double Estate Duties. [16 June, 1911. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : Yes, you have it. It is a purely South African question, except as to Queensland. But I understand it is a very serious matter for the British Exchequer. If this were conceded in the form in which it is asked for it would ultimately cost us 2j million pounds a year. That is a very serious loss to our revenue, which we could not possibly face. Mr. MALAN : Surely not as regards South Africa alone. General BOTHA: Impossible. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : Yes, I am told it would be ultimately 2J millions. That is the information I get from the Death Duty Office. I cannot pretend that I have gone into the way in which the figures have been made up. As the Prime Minister points out, it does not follow that South Africa would gain that, but we would lose it. The section of the Finance Act of 1894, referred to by General Botha, which deals with this matter, is already applicable to 35 Colonies in all, and the arrangements are considered satisfactory by all those Colonies ; but for some reason or other, it does not work well in South Africa. lam not quite clear what the reason is, but General Botha wants to establish the principle that no death duty should be charged in respect of shares in a company except in the country where it is registered. That would be a very serious thing to us, because we have so much money invested in the South African mines by residents in the United Kingdom. The shares are transferable here, and if we were to abandon the claim which ■we now make in respect of death duties in those cases, as I am informed by the Death Duty Office, it would involve a loss of 2\ millions a year. Our test is the test of transfer —whether the shares can be transferred in this country. That is accepted in all the other Dominions—in Canada, New Zealand, and Australia— as a mutual arrangement between them and the Mother Country, and it works well. I regret that it does not work equally well in South Africa. It is too serious a thing for me to contemplate the loss of a revenue of 2j millions in respect of residents in the United Kingdom. Mr. MALAN : As regards the majority of these South African companies, they have really got a double registration office. They are incorporated with us and are under our law. They fall under our legislation, and they have got a local register where the shares are transferred, but they have also a register in London—they want to have, perhaps, the advantage of the London Stock Exchange and so on. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : I do not think it is " perhaps " at all, they really want the advantage of our market, and then we say if they want the advantage of our market it is fair that we should be able to claim taxation in respect of that advantage. It is an undoubted advantage and an enormous advantage to them, and an advantage which it is well worth their while paying double death duties for. Mr. MALAN : But you may find that the result of continuing the present system, will be that people will transfer their register just across the Channel. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : I do not think you need apprehend that, because they cannot afford to lose our market. As long as we have the cash here, you may depend upon it the South African companies will have their offices here, because it is a very valuable market for them. There is no other market for them which is comparable with it except France. Mr. Soward, of the Death Duty Office, tells me we have invested in South African companies in this country. To forego death duties in respect of that would be an enormous loss to xis, and it is quite obvious that the 2{ millions is a very fair statement upon that basis alone. Some of them run to very big figures ; they are millionaires. Mr. MALAN : Perhaps we had better leave it as it is and hope that the people will remain resident out in South Africa. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : I think this market is well worth their while paying this little fee for.

A.—4

367

16 June, 1911.] Double Estate Duties. [lOth Day. General BOTHA : I understand you cannot give us anything. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : lam afraid I cannot face the loss. The whole of these Resolutions would cost the Exchequer in revenue here 4j millions annually. Mr. MALAN: Is not that on the basis that you give up your whob tax, whereas our pioposition is that you should only for. go the difference. Mr. LLOYD GEOEGE : I have already told you that that is a thing I will consider. That is a totally different proposition which has not been before me before and I should like to consider that. I am now taking the figures as they stand. The other suggestion I should like to have a little time to consider, as it is the first time the proposition has been submitted to me in that form. Mr. MALAN: My point is that you should consider that suggestion in connection with the death duties as well as in connection with income tax. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : I am prepared to consider it, but I am not so hopeful with regard to death duties as I am with regard to income tax. Mr. MALAN : We will be satisfied with that. General BOTHA: I will not press the Resolution further after what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said. Stamp Duty on Colonial Bonds. That in order to encourage investment in the bonds of oversea Dominions it is desirable that debentures or other securities issued in the United Kingdom by, or on account of, the Governments of the self-governing dependencies should be exempted from stamp duty. Sir JOSEPH WARD : After the interview I have had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer I am prepared to withdraw my Resolution. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : Yes, so I understand. Mr. HARCOURT : It is an amicable settlement. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : We had a full discussion with Sir Joseph Ward about stamps. Uniformity in Currency and Coinage Laws. Australia. That with a view to facilitating trade and commerce throughout the Empire, the question of the advisableness of recommending a reform of the present units of coins ought to engage the earnest attention of this Conference. New Zealand. That it is in the best interests of the Empire that there should be more uniformity throughout its centres and dependencies in the law of currency and coinage. The PRESIDENT : I do not know whether the Commonwealth of Australia or New Zealand are going to take this up. Mr. PEARCE : As far as our Resolution is concerned, Mr. Fisher desires it to be postponed. Mr. HARCOURT : I am sorry to say it is not possible to postpone it until Monday as we have already so full an Agenda Paper for the only two sittings we have next week.

47—A. 4.

A.— 4.

368

10th Day.] Uniformity in Currency and Coinage Laws. [16 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I am quite prepared to make a statement with regard to coinage, but I do not propose to discuss the metric system. The PRESIDENT : Might not Sir Joseph Ward state his views on Resolution No. 12 ? It comes to the same thing. Mr. PEARCE : Yes. Mr. HARCOURT : I think he is aware of Mi. Fisher's views. The PRESIDENT : We might hear you, Sir Joseph. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I want to talk about the advantages and disadvantages of the present system of coinage, and to point out that if a uniform system of coinage could be adopted for the whole Empire the benefits would be enormous. At present, from the researches I have made, there is quite a chaotic condition existing in regard to coinage. No modern Empire has such a variety of non-related coins in its various possessions, and notwithstanding the magnitude of the trade of the Empire, with its vast Colonial possessions, we have a system of coinage existing throughout many of them which is quite out of keeping with what the position ought to be. The Latin races some years ago decided to have a uniform system of coinage which has proved to be of enormous benefit to them, and I do not see why we should not, if necessary, have—as is the case in Canada, where the sovereign is recognised and the dollar is recognised —throughout our countries, both the sovereign and the silver coinage attached to the sovereign and the dollar system recognised. There may be difficulties in the way of bringing that about, but at present we have all sorts and conditions of coinage existing throughout the Empire which, in the matter of quick transit existing now, and the visitation of people for personal or even trade purposes to the different parts of the Empire, makes it exceedingly inconvenient. It might be with great advantage referred to a Commission with a view to seeing whether we could not have a uniform system established. The use of the different coins, as I have already said, causes great inconvenience in commercial transactions throughout the various portions of the British Empire, especially when the coinage is wholly silver, as in India, and the exchange is with London, or some other portion of the Empire where the sovereign is used. I am not suggesting anything in the shape of bi-metallism, because theoretically it may be all right; but to put it into practice is an impossibility, in my opinion, unless we were to bring about practically repudiation by the parts of the world which have borrowed on a gold basis from the Old Country, because an alteration of that kind would practically mean a repudiation by many of the oversea countries, and which, I am sure, they are all deadly opposed to anything of that kind. It seems to me we could with advantage follow the course that was adopted by the Monetary Convention of 1865. There, countries believed it was impossible for them to come under what they finally agreed to do, but it was found to be perfectly easy of accomplishment. In the matter of coinage, take the position of New Zealand relative to Australia ; we are just about three days' steam from Australia. Under the Australian system of coinage now, the British half-crown is not recognised, though it is recognised in New Zealand. They have stopped the issue of half-crowns in Australia by legislation. The sovereign is recognised. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : The half-crown is still in circulation: Sir JOSEPH WARD : It is still in circulation, but it is not legal tender. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Is that so ? Mr. PEARCE : That is not so. You can still cash it, I know.

369

A.—4

16 June, 1911.] Uniformity in Currency and Coinage Laws. [10th Day. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : It is still legal tender until the Government of Australia withdraw it. Mr. PEARCE : Under our law we have taken the power but not exercised it. Dr. FINDLAY: It is not current tender in Australia, as you will find if you go over there. Sir JOSEPH WARD : As to people crossing and recrossing between Australia and New Zealand, the half-crown issued by the British Mint is legal tender in New Zealand, but in Australia they may refuse to take it altogether if they wish, or they may give you 2s. for it. Mr. PEARCE : They do not. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I have heard of a case where the half-crown, no doubt through ignorance of the recipients, was stated not to be legal tender and they would not accept it. The PRESIDENT : Is there no other coin which is different in Australia ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : No. Except that in Australia they have substituted a silver penny for the ordinary penny. We have ordinary pennies in New Zealand, although they are not used very much except for purchasing newspapers. That is the only other alteration I know of. It is inconvenient to have two British countries so close together with two different systems. In order to bring about uniformity it may be necessary to alter basically the units of our coinage, and if it could be done, even at the expense of temporary inconvenience in bringing it about, it would repay the whole of the portions of the British Empire to do it. I do not want to go into a number of details which I have taken the trouble to collate in regard to this matter, except to say that it does appear to me that what Great Britain thought right, say, 20 years ago, when the means of communication between the different parts of the Empire were very slow, and where one portion was almost looked upon practically as foreign, from the standpoint of distance, or the uses of the people doing business, is quite a different thing now when they are all within a month or so of each other, and it ought to be possible as an outcome of a commission after examination and investigation into the whole question to bring about a system which would not be injurious to Canada, which requires to recognise the dollar, because its great neighbour has a dollar in operation. Ido not see why we should not have the two systems in operation, so that if people came from any of the countries using the component parts of a sovereign, they could exchange quite freely. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: You can use the sovereign and half-sovereign in Canada, I think. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Yes; you can use everything in Canada. The PRESIDENT : Are they current coins ? Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Yes, they are legal tender to a certain amount in Canada. .The PRESIDENT : Are they much used ? Sir WILFRID LAURIER ; No ; our circulation is paper.

A.— 4

370

10th Day.] Uniformity in Currency and Coinage Laws. [16 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Do I understand all the ordinary parts of a sovereign, sixpences, and so on, can be used in Canada ? Sir WILFRID LAURIER : They can, but they never are. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That is almost as bad as not being allowed to use it at all. However, I bring up the matter because we have it impressed upon us in New Zealand so much in connection with the forward movement made by Australia, which was quite r ght from the point of view and doing what it thought proper, but they have altered the coinage there, and we are so close that, so far as the component parts of the sovereign in silver are concerned, it has been a subject of discussion in New Zealand. The PRESIDENT : What is the extent of the practical inconvenience ? Is it that your half-crown is not circulated in Australia ? Where does the practical inconvenience come in beyond this matter of the half-crowns ? We do not see half-crowns very much here. We have them, but if you look in your pocket you will not find very many. Dr. FINDLAY : Australia happens to have power to mint its own coinage. The PRESIDENT : The half-crown is not a very common coin. Sir JOSEPH WARD : It is a pretty common coin out in our country. I find a good many half-crowns knocking about in England too —not so many as I would like to have. This system of having to be sure you get rid of your silver coins in one Dominion and g> ;t another form of coins before going to another is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. Ido not see why we should not be able to bring about uniformity as these other countries have done. It seems to me it would be a very great convenience if we could. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Sir Joseph Ward has proposed a Commission to invest g&te this question. There is nothing to investigate, in my judgment, and the argument is all on one side ; it is against your coinage. I cannot see any reason why you stick to the pounds, shillings, and pence ; but I know an Englishman will stick to his pounds, shillings, and pence as long as he sticks to anything else, and so long as England continues to be the great lending country it is, it is no use trying to get them to conform to this new system. When they come to borrow in Canada and New Zealand we will compel them to borrow in dollars and cents, but with things as they are I do not see the possibility of getting an Englishman to change his views on this coinage* question any more than he will change his views on dogs and horses. Our system is a sensible one and the other system in not sensible. Ido not say it is absurd because it has the sanction of ages, but compared with our easy system of dollars and cents I think all the argument is on one side, and I will stand behind Sir Joseph Ward, though with little hope that it will do any good at this Conference. The PRESIDENT : lam not sure you are standing behind Sir Joseph. Your argument is in favour of the decimal system, and Sir Joseph said not a word about that. Mr. PEARCE : We in Australia are in favour of the decimal system, and we are waiting for the Home Government to move in the matter before we can reform our coinage. In connection with our silver coinage, we have dispensed with the use of half-crowns, but we have not made the half-crown cease to be legal tender ; certainly in our new coinage we do not use them, but there are plenty of half-crowns in circulation. There was a rather curious little incident which occurred to a member of our own party who came with us and presented to a certain cabman, a London cabman, an Australian shilling with a kangaroo on, and the London cabman said, " What are you trying to pass off here ? "

371

A.—4

16 June, 1911.] Uniformity in Currency and Coinage Laws. [10th Day. The PRESIDENT : Why did you give up the half-crown ? Mr. PEARCE : Because it was not a convenient coin. We are certainly in favour of this resolution. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I have not been discussing, or did not intend to discuss, the decimal system. The PRESIDENT: No, I thought not; but Sir Wilfrid Laurier did. Sir WILFRID LAURIER: I confounded New Zealand with Australia. The PRESIDENT: He put that interpretation upon it. General BOTHA: lam satisfied with the present system. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As long as you get plenty of the coins. Sir E. MORRIS: I have nothing to say. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : I remember trying to introduce the metric system for other purposes, and every interest in the country lose in revolt against it —I never saw such an opposition —and proved that it would be utter ruination and disaster to their particular trade. The cotton trade was specially violent about it. I think about 10 years ago somebody tried to abolish the half-crown, and there was such a fearful outcry about it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being—l think it was Sir Michael Hicks Beach—had to retreat at once. It was quite impossible. Sir JOSEPH WARD : They would not agree to abolish it. The PRESIDENT : .About those things the people are so conservative. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : Yes, and it has not only the sanction of ages but the sanction of a good deal of accumulated wealth in half-crowns and shillings. The Englishman says : "I have done very well with my half-crowns and shillings and sovereigns," and it is exceedingly difficult to alter either the measurement system or the system of coinage. With regard to the suggestion made by Sir Joseph Ward that you should use these coins indifferently and accept them everywhere, I think that would introduce such a confusion as would make it a very serious proposition. It is almost the same sort of thing as they had in the German States before they introduced their Imperial coinage, when each State had a coin of its own, and I believe it was very ruinous to trade, because nobody knew what the value of his coin was, and always had to reckon up what a thing was worth. A man would take his dollar, for instance, to New Zealand, where the coinage would be of a different kind, and have to reckon up how much he could get for it, what a cent was worth, and how many cents were equivalent to the same number of pennies. I think it would introduce a confusion which would make it quite impossible. Not only that, but you could export your coins from one colony into the other, and that is a serious matter to consider. After all there is a certain amount of profit on silver coinage which ought to belong properly to the particular Dominion or Kingdom which has got the mint. If you are allowed to trade indiscriminately with these coins that profit goes : at least it is broken into and you never know quite where you are. L am rather afraid of undertaking the responsibility of any revolutionary change, though there are many revolutions which I would much more gladly undertake than the one of coinage, with a better hope of getting them through.

A.—4.

372

10th Day.] Uniformity in Currency and Coinage Laws. [16 June, 1911. The PRESIDENT : With a man of your ingrained conservatism I think that is a very serious argument. Sir JOSEPH WARD : It is not my resolution, Mr. Asquith. The PRESIDENT : I am afraid there is very little possibility of making a practical change in this direction. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : We have tried it so often here. The PRESIDENT : The difficulty is the opinions and habits of the British people. The Resolution was withdrawn. Trade and Postal Communications and Shipping Conferences. " That concerted action be taken by all Governments of the Empire to promote better trade and postal communications between Great Britain and the overseas Dominions, and in particular to discourage shipping conferences or combines for the control of freight rates between the various portions of the Empire." Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF : The motion in the name of the Government of the Union of South Africa is as follows :—" That concerted action be taken by " all Governments of the Empire to promote better trade and postal communica- " tions between Great Britain and the overseas Dominions, and in particular to " discourage shipping conferences or combines for the control of freight rates " between the various portions of the Empire." During the 1907 Session of the Colonial Conference discussions took place upon the subject of improving trade and postal communications between the United Kingdom and the oversea Dominions, and unanimous views were expressed in favour of concerted action being taken upon this important matter. In no part of the Empire has a more clear demonstration been given than in South Africa of the evils and disadvantages that are suffered by all sections of the community through the lack of those facilities for ocean transportation that play such an essential part under present conditions in aiding the development and stimulating the trade and commerce of every country. We spend thousands of pounds in assisting agriculture in South Africa, but the expenditure to a large extent would be lost if our farmers could not get oversea transportation to the European markets at reasonable freights. It is not necessary for me to trace in detail the various stages in the evolution of the present situation as regards South Africa's seaborne trade. It will suffice, I think, if I outline the main features leading up to the position in South Africa as it stands to-day. The shipping trade of South Africa is controlled by a body of steamship owners commonly known as the Conference Lines. Of this body the Union Castle Steamship Company is the wealthiest and most powerful member and practically dictates the policy of the combine. That the Conference Lines should have acquired the dominating influence that they now possess in regard to the shipping trade of the sub-continent is not surprising when it is remembered that, until the Union of the four South African Colonies was accomplished a year ago, there was no single Governmental authority which could negotiate with the combine. As was only to be expected from such a state of affairs, the combine, presenting a united front, had little difficulty in imposing terms for the carriage of the imports and exports of the four separate Colonies which would not have been possible in any other circumstances. When the need arose the combine did not hesitate to play off the various Colonies one against the other. The strength acquired by the Conference Lines is due, in no small degree, to the fact that their most influential member, the Union Castle Company, has for many years held the contract for the conveyance of mails between the United Kingdom and South Africa. The annual subsidy paid in respect of this service has undoubtedly been a factor in establishing the Lines in their

A.—t,

373

16 June, 1911.] Trade and Postal Communications and [10th Day. Shipping Conferences. Sir D. de VILLIBRS GRAAFF— cont. present strong position, and maintaining their prestige. Combinations of this character are not the outcome of philanthropic inclinations ; as a rule they are established to maintain freight rates and to prevent outside competition. The South African Conference organization is no exception to the rule, and in the result, the seaborne trade of South Africa has been handicapped by freight rates, which, as a general rule, are high, and in many cases, are excessive when compaied with rates for similar classes of freights on other ocean trade routes. Representations on the subject to the Conference Lines have been frequent and urgent, but unfortunately have had little effect. In furtherance of their policy of excluding all competition from the South African shipping trade, the Conference Lines have rigidly enforced a system of deferred rebates under which shippers are obliged to pay a rate above normal and are subsequently given a rebate of the excess charge provided they can furnish a declaration that in the interval they have not shipped goods by any vessels outside the combine. The success of this system of deferred rebates in the South African trade has been, unfortunately, most pronounced, and shippers di-ifted so completely into the power of the combine that it soon became evident that nothing short of Government intervention could free them from the burden. I may add that the membership of this shipping combine, originally confined to British shipowners, now includes the influential lines of South African steamships sailing under the German and Portuguese flags. Up to the date of Union all efforts at concerted action by the various Colonial Governments failed, owing to the diversity of interests involved. But the accomplishment of Union gave a long looked-for opportunity of dealing with the Conference Lines. The outcome of the Government's policy was the passage through the Union Parliament of legislation which prohibits the Government from entering into a contract for the carriage of mails with any shipowners who are members of a combine established to maintain freights at a level injurious to the trade of the Union, or who grants rebates to the detriment of that trade. Furthermore, legislative sanction has been given by the Union Parliament to the charging of differential port and railage rates within the Union against goods transported in vessels belonging to any such combine. As regards South Africa's mail contracts the legislation alluded to will only be made operative on the termination of the contract now current with the Union Castle Company, since it would have been manifestly unfair to interfere by legislation with existing contractual obligations. If the policy of South Africa as expressed in this legislation proves a success, as is my confident expectation, I venture to submit that the same course might well be followed by the other portions of the Empire where similar conditions obtain and where corresponding evils and disadvantages exist in consequence of shipping monopolies. This suggestion is advanced, not merely in the interests of the Mother Country and of the individual Dominions, but as offering an effective means of stimulating trade within the Empire. It is instructive to recall, in this connection, the views expressed by Lord Selborne when High Commissioner for South Africa. Dealing with the shipping question, in the admirable memorandum which stimulated the movement for Union in South Africa, his Lordship said :- —" If South " Africa can trust her commerce permanently to the unfettered control of any " shipping ring, the case against trade monopolies falls to the ground. So long as " the companies were united, and she remains divided, a combination can always " break up a temporary alliance between the several Governments by making " concessions to any of them. As soon as one Government controlling the railways " and harbours can speak for all British South Africa, it will at least be within her " power to arrange with the Shipping Conference the conditions of her seaborne " traffic on a footing of equality, and to discuss as a question of business what other- " wise she must ask as a matter of favour. At present the whole seaborne trade of " South Africa is controlled by one private Corporation, which, of course, has no " responsibility to the people of the country—and the mercantile community must " recognise that unless an unforeseen. complication is conjured out of the deep, the "power of that Corporation must remain dominant, so long as no single control can

A.—4,

374

10th Day.] Trade and Postal Communications and [16 June, 1911. Shipping Conferences. Sir D. de VILLIERS GEAAFF-co^. "be exercised over the ports. It has been shown how powerless this Union has " made South Africa when dealing with a single foreign country. The same con- " siderations apply to all her relations with any carefully organized union of private " interests. She can only deal with them on equal terms by applying the lesson " which they themselves have learned from the conditions of their business." Coming from such a high authority on maritime and economic questions, these views naturally carry the greatest weight. What we in South Africa are resolved to have is an open freight market for our seaborne trade. Our past experience has shown us that the trade and industries of the country will never be free to seek and secure their most advantageous outlets so long as it is within the power of any private monopoly, having no responsibility to the people of the country, but actuated solely by selfish motives, to manipulate the ocean freights without let or hindrance. Thus far I have merely attempted to give a brief review of the situation to-day in South Africa, and of the remedy which the Union Parliament has resolved to apply in order to protect the interests of the people of that country. But as one of the objects of the resolution submitted by us is to secure the co-operation of His Majesty's Government and of the other Dominions, it is necessary that I should give some illustrations of the evils to which I have referred, since it is not to be expected that this Conference will be prepared to affirm the resolution without proof of the justice of our cause. Such proof lamin a position to put before the Conference. The whole question of shipping rings, and of deferred rebates, was investigated by a Royal Commission which reported in the year 1909. The Commission's Report, and the evidence upon which it was based, offer most instructive reading to those interested in the subject. I may say at once that South Africa's attitude towards this question has not in any sense been induced by the Report of this Commission. We have taken up the matter solely and entirely as a result of our own experiences of the South African Shipping Ring and its methods ; and it is upon our own experiences and not upon the conclusions of the Commission that we have submitted this Resolution. At the same time it is of interest to note, by way of opening our case, what were the findings of that Royal Commission. The Commissioners found that (a) The system of shipping rings has resulted in monopolies ; (b) That these monopolies have in certain cases enabled the rings to place rates on higher levels ; (c) That the system has led to the diversion of trade from the United Kingdom to the United States to the injiiry of British trade and has allowed in certain cases, German and Continental goods to be carried at lower rates ; (d) That the rings have granted preferential rates to particular traders and have acted arbitrarily. And, as supporting the point I made a few moments ago in regard to the unfortunate position of South Africa prior to union, the Commissioners say, to quote their own words (at page 74) : " The actions of the Conference in these matters seem to us to show that the members " of the Conference, or the dominant members of it, have not only not been alive to, or " anxious to meet, the wishes of the South African communities, but that for the pur- " pose of preserving their monopoly and resisting change, they have not abstained from " playing off the interests of one Colony against those of another." Comment on these conclusions seems to be superflous, more particularly when it is borne in mind that several of the s ; gnatories to the Report are gentlemen who, by reason of their close association with powerful shipping rings, were not likely to exaggerate the seriousness of the situation. In face of these findings one would be forgiven for expecting the Commissioners to put forward some effective proposals for remedying the undoubted grievances that were discovered ; but their recommendations, as outlined in the Board of Trade memorandum of 24th February last, exhibit, if I may be permitted to say so, a regrettable disinclination to advocate those remedies which, drastic though they might appear, constitute the only effective and business-like method of meeting the situation. I refer, of course, to the total prohibition by legislation of deferred rebates similar to what was done in a few other countries, as I will show by and by. But I would repeat that it was not these findings of the Royal Commission that inspired the Resolution submitted by the Union Government. World-wide as

375

A.—4

16 June, 1911.] Trade and Postal Communications and \ltith Day. Shipping Conferences. Sir 1). de VILLIEES GRAAFF— cont. the scope of the Commissioners' inquiry was, and conclusive as the Commissioners findings are, we prefer to base our case upon our own experiences ; but it is useful to bear the Commissioners' Report in mind and therefore I have taken the liberty of quoting it. Now, to return to the specific case of the South African Shipping Ring, it should be noted that there are about a dozen distinct Steamship Companies participating in the combine. I have already mentioned that the membership of the Ring includes vessels sailing under the German and Portuguese flags. The tonnage involved cannot be far short of 700,000 tons, of which roughly a quarter of a million tons belongs to the Union Castle Company. The next largest owner is probably the German East Africa Line, with approximately 85,000 tons. The total number of steamers representing this tonnage is in the neighbourhood of 120, of which 27 belong to the Union Castle Company. The figures I have just given do not include certain vessels engaged in the East Coast or American trades. It will be apparent to all what a power can be wielded by a combination controlling such an enormous amount of shipping tonnage. Before proceeding further I shall explain exactly what is meant by the " deferred rebate " system which is practised by the South African Shipping Ring. If there is any member who does not know what a " deferred rebate " means I will just explain it. Shippers in the South African trade who consider it in their interests to ship all their steamer goods by the Conference Steamship Lines only receive a commission percentage on the net freight subject to completion of a declaration which is to the effect that the shippers, during the period affected, have not shipped or been interested, directly or indirectly, in any shipments by steamers other than those despatched by the Conference. This commission, or as it is more commonly called deferred rebate, is computed for periods of six months up to stated dates, usually to 30th June and 31st December in each year, and becomes due and is payable six months after such respective dates, provided that also during this second period shipments have been exclusively made by the steamship lines specified. So that in effect the payment of the rebate is deferred until twelve months after the shipment is made, during the whole of which period the shipper has to submit to the terms of the combine or sacrifice his rebate. It can readily be imagined what an effective weapon this " deferred rebate " system may become in the hands of a powerful and wealthy shipping corporation. In the language of the Royal Commissioners' Report the system " imposes a continuous obligation upon the shipper to send his goods by the Conference Lines. The shipper, it is true, is not bound to send his goods by the Conference Lines. He does not, by contract, expressed or implied, bind himself to do so. But for the shipper who has sent goods by the Conference Lines there is, unless he chooses to cease shipping altogether for a considerable period, no day in the year on which he is free to ship by ' outside ' vessels, save by forgoing his rebates. The cardinal principle is that a shipper, who, during a particular period ceases to confine his shipments exclusively to the Conference, loses his right to the rebate, not only in respect of goods shipped during that period, but also in respect of goods shipped during the previous period." In the South African trade the growth of the power of the combine has been so stealthy and gradual as to be almost imperceptible, until to-day it may be said, without fear of contradiction, that the great majority, in numbers and importance, of the shippers doing business in or with that country are so far in the toils of the combine that they can only ship with outside lines under penalty of loss of their rebates —a sacrifice too great for them to face. The strength thus acquired by the Conference Lines has enabled them to prevent all private competition, and to-day the amount of shipping accommodation offering by other than the Conference vessels for the transportation of goods to or from South Africa is negligible. Efforts have been made by outside owners on several occasions to enter into active competition with the Conference Lines, for the South African trade, but these efforts have resulted either in the absolute defeat of the competitor or in his absorption by

48—A. 4,

A.— 4.

376

10th Day.] Trade and Postal Communications and [16 June, 1911. Shipping Conferences. Sir D. de VILLIEKS GRA&FY—cont. the ring. For a brief period shippers have enjoyed the benefit of reduced rates, but no sooner has the defeat or absorption of the competitor been accomplished, than the rates have been restored to their previous level, if indeed they have not been raised a point higher. As a general statement of fact, the freight rates on the South African trade routes are much higher than the charges for similar services on other routes. So great is the disproportion in some cases that any one not conversant with the gradual building up of jthis shipping monopoly might well express surprise that shippers have not been able before now to protect themselves from such charges. Take, for instance, the case of wool, which forms one of South Africa's staple articles of export. From South Africa to the United Kingdom the freight rate is fd. per lb. (plus 10 per cent.), while from Australasia, that is to say, for double the distance, the rate is the same. I am given to understand that my friends who represent the Australasian Dominions hold that the freights they have to pay on wool are too high. What, then, will they think when they hear that the shippers in South Africa, the halfway house between their country and the United Kingdom, are charged a similar rate. In the case of sheep-skins, another substantial export item of Australasia and South Africa, precisely the same thing is found. And I might add that, in the case of scoured wool, particulars submitted to me by prominent merchants of this city show that the rates from South Africa are actually higher than those from Australasia by some 5 per cent. Comment would be superfluous. Now let us look at some of the rates of freight which obtain from the Argentine to the United Kingdom and compare them with the South African rates. I may explain that the Argentine rates are given to me by a prominent firm of London merchants engaged in the trade. The PRESIDENT : What was the distance ? Sir D. de VILLIEKS GrRAAFF: The same; the Argentine is the same distance from the United Kingdom as South Africa is, and this is a comparison between the Argentine trade and the South African trade carrying the same distance. For wool from the River Plate recent freight rates have ruled about 19s. to 20s. per ton weight; compare this with the South African rate of fcL per lb. plus 10 per cent., which works out at 775. per ton of 2,240 lb. The PRESIDENT : Is that wool in both cases ? Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF : In both cases. When it is remembered that the distance between the River Plate and the United Kingdom is much the same as from the Cape, it will be perceived what a tremendous disadvantage our shippers labour under as compared with Argentine shippers. Let me also mention to you the case of wet hides. From the Argentine goods of this description have recently been shipped to England at rates running between 10s. and 20s. per ton weight; from South Africa the freight charged by the Conference Lines is considerably higher. The principal reason for the lower rates from the Argentine is that in so far as concerns homeward shipments, there is no Ring, although for outward freights a powerful combination controls the freight market. Another instance that occurs to me in this connection is the rate on maize from South Africa, and the Argentine, respectively, to the United Kingdom. From South Africa the rate is 11s. 6d. (and the Conference Lines are not satisfied with this rate, while from the Argentine as low a rate as 6s. is sometimes accepted ; the average rate for last year was Bs. 9d., it came to something between Bs. and 9s. against our 11s. 6d., which is not satisfactory. It was 17s. first, and we got a reduction from them to 11s. 6d., in order to encourage the

377

A.—4

16 June, 1911.] Trade and Postal Communications and [10th Day. Shipping Conferences. Sir D. de VILLIEES GRAAFF— cont. farmers to develop that part of the industry, which is a very great industry in the United States of America, as we know. Last year's output of mealies to the United States of America was ten times as big as the output of gold from the whole of South Africa put together. Whilst we were importing into South Africa some few years ago mealies for our consumption, last year we exported close on 2,000,000 bags, and of course if the freight is raised so that agriculturists cannot compete with the world's market, although our mealies have a very good reputation over here, the industry, instead of being developed, will decline. So much for our export rates. I would now ask the indulgence of the Conference while I cite a few comparisons of outward freight rates between the United Kingdom and South Africa and Australia. Take, for instance, the case of bicycles. These useful articles are conveyed from the United Kingdom to Africa at 425. 6d., but if they are taken on to Australia they are only charged 375., actually less for 12,000 miles than for half that distance. Similarly, in the case of motor cars, it is cheaper by some ss. 6d. to ship them to Melbourne than to Cape Town. Pianos, too, could be conveyed to Melbourne some Bs. cheaper than to Cape Town. To take goods of a more general description, we find that agricultural implements are rated at 30s. to Cape Town, but for the double distance to Australia only 7s. is added to the freight. Passenger fares also offer material for reflection. The average third-class fare to South Africa is 16 guineas, on the other hand the fare to Melbourne works out at about 171., or only 4s. more for double the distance. Sir JOSEPH WARD : What class is that ? Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF : Third class ; these are the charges by mail steamers. It is interesting to note that third-class passengers represent two thirds of the travelling public on these routes (that is by South Africa). I could multiply instances of similar anomalies — all to the disadvantage of South Africa — but perhaps these will suffice. They will serve to show that the Conference Lines have used to the full their monopolistic powers, and have raised rates and maintained them at a level that not alone retards development but effectually prevents the establishment of new industries in South Africa. By the arbitrary action of this shipping ring, manufacturers and producers in South Africa are prevented from reaping to the full the advantages of their own local markets, and deprived of the benefits which they are entitled to claim by reason of geographical proximity. We in South Africa have no inland waterways alongjwhich our goods can be carried, and we are therefore thrown back upon the ocean and our railways as the principal agencies of transportation, and while the freights for our coastwise trade are maintained at an unreasonable level, it|will readily be perceived what a restriction is placed upon our development. So much for the disadvantages under which we suffer by reason of excessive sea freights. By no means, however, does this exhaust the list of disabilities which are imposed upon shippers by the Conference Lines. Take the case of our maize shipments. Last season some thousands of tons of maize were detained for varying periods at South African ports for want of sufficient accommodation in the Conference vessels. The companies knew that their combine possessed effectual means of preventing outside shipowners from loading such cargo at anything like reasonable rates—they knew also that there was, in South African wool exports (at that season very active) a much more profitable business ; they therefore gave permission to the shippers to load their maize by any outside ships that might be available, without being subjected to forfeiture of any rebates due to them by the Conference Lines. It should be noted that, in the case of certain lines belonging to the combine, the shipowners are not permitted under the terms of the agreement to accept any shipments from South Africa : that they may carry cargo to South Africa but not from our Union ports, and that after discharging their South African consignments they are obliged to proceed elsewhere if they want to pick up return freights.

A.—4

378

10th Day.'] Trade and Postal Communications and [16 June, 1911, Shipping Conferences. Sir D. DE VILLIERS GRAAFF— cont. Although it may be difficult to believe, it is nevertheless the case, that cargo may be offering at South African ports, and vessels of the Conference lines may be berthed in these same ports with plenty of available space, but these vessels aie prohibited from loading by virtue of the terms of the agreement between the various companies in the combine. Under an open freight maiket, of course, this could not happen and the shipper would derive full benefit fiom the lower rates quoted in order to fill this vacant accommodation. Then, again, we find the Conference lines controlling the agencies established at certain of our ports for loading and unloading vessels carrying our goods, and levying through their agencies charges that are much higher than the circumstances justify ; by these means a heavy additional burden is laid upon shippers. I have only touched upon a few of the disabilities under which we labour through the operations of the Conference lines, but they will afford a substantial indication of the considerations which have weighed with the Union Parliament in deciding to legislate against shipping combinations and against the granting of deferred rebates. We are convinced that the breaking down of this shipping monopoly will aid materially in the development of our country and, indeed, is essential to our prosperity. Nor do we admit that, in comparison with the advantages that the country will reap from an open freight market, the arguments in favour of a shipping Conference are possessed of any real force. Let us look at these arguments for a moment. It is contended that it is only by means of combinations that regular sailings are made possible ; that capital is assured of a sufficient return to justify the shipowners in investing in new vessels of higher type and capacity, and that stability of rates is secured to the advantage of the small importers. These arguments are specious and "plausible, but they will not stand examination. Fortunately the ring system is not universal and we have at hand a most striking instance of an open freight market proving the direct converse of the case put by the friends of the conferences. I refer to the case of the United States of America, where, in so far as concerns her export trade, absolute freedom of freight obtains. lam aware that the ring system of " deferred rebates " is in operation to a limited extent for the freights to the United States, but the wise and far-seeing legislation adopted by our American cousins, in what is known as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, has effectually trimmed the claws of the shipowners in respect to the granting of " deferred rebates " on export shipments. The effect of this Act can be gauged from the fact that, so far as can be ascertained from the best informed quarters on that side of the Atlantic, the " deferred rebate " system has not been in use, at any rate in such centres of maritime activity as New York, at any time during the last eight years, and is not now used in the States publicly, if at all. This may come as a surprise to some of the members of the Conference, and it may not be without interest if I give a very brief account of how the result was achieved. Curiously enough we find our friends the Union Castle Company figuring prominently in the legal case which liberated the American shipper from the " deferred rebate " system. The United States law was in a somewhat uncertain state with regard to combinations for many years, but the precise question of the illegality of " deferred rebates " was decided in the case heard in the American courts of Thomson v. The Union Castle Company and others. In that case a shipper sued for treble damages under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, alleging that the Conference of Shipowners who were operating the steamship service to South Africa under the deferred rebate system had injured the plaintiffs by restraining their trade, and also by forfeiting other rebates under the deferred rebate system, so as to place them at a disadvantage as compared with shippers who shipped exclusively by the Conference lines. The court held that the combination was illegal, and the jury found that the deferred rebates were, in substance, forfeit money exacted by the combination in excess of reasonable rates of freight. In the result the plaintiffs, who had not complied with the terms of the rebate circulars, and thus lost their rebates, recovered the full amount of the rebates lost as well as certain other minor damages, and this

379

A.—4,

16 June, 1911.] Trade and Postal Communications and [10th Day, CONFEBENCES* Sir D. de VILLIEES GRAAFF— cont. verdict under the statute was trebled by the court. The deferred rebate system had actually been abandoned by the Conference lines prior to the commencement of the action, on advice furnished by nearly all the leaders of the commercial bar. I think it will be readily admitted that a system which has been found by the American courts to be so contrary to public interests as to warrant such a severe penalty as I have indicated deserves at least to be viewed with grave suspicion by communities in other parts of the world to whom facilities for ocean transportation are essential to their very existence. Having explained this much in regard to what has happened in the United States, I should like to call attention to the results to that great country of the abolition of deferred rebates. If the contentions of the friends of the Conference lines are correct, the abolition of the deferred rebates in America should have been followed by irregular sailings and by hesitation on the part of shipowners to invest in new vessels, owing to the (alleged) absence of an assured return on the capital so invested ! As a matter of fact, the exact converse is the result; the competition induced by an open freight market has stimulated shipping operations to such an extent, by enabling shippers to enter new markets in consequence of reduced rates, that shipbuilding received an enormous impetus, and no signs of hesitation in the matter of acquiring the newest and best types of vessels were ever displayed by the shipowners. And this same healthy competition obliged American shipowners to maintain regular sailings or, in the alternative, to see their customers patronising more go-ahead lines. Not only were the regular sailings maintained, but services became more frequent, and the element of competition encouraged owners to cater more efficiently for the comfort, convenience, and safety of passengers, and for the needs of the commercial, industrial, and farming community. The other argument alluded to by me as having been urged in favour of shipping combines—viz., that they benefited the small shipper through the stability of freights—may be possessed of a certain amount of force, but I venture to point out that, in the fight for national existence and prosperity, it is the interest of the majority that must prevail, and it cannot for a moment be conceded that the wellbeing of a country should be subordinated to the interests of what, after all, must be a very small section of the community. As a matter of fact, Ido not for one moment admit that the interests of the small importer would suffer. In South Africa the railways and harbours are public property and the Government naturally fix the railage and harbour charges at such rates as may appear to them to be right and proper in the public interest. But so long as the absolute control of the seaborne traffic to South African ports is in the hands of an uncontrolled shipping combination, the Government's arrangements in regard to rail and port charges may at any time be nullified. This has been our experience in the past, and we are determined that, so far as lies in our power, it shall not continue. Close upon one hundred millions sterling is invested in the railways and harbours of the Union, and it is unreasonable to think that in matters relating to this enormous asset the will of the people of South Africa shall not prevail. But for the power wielded by the Conference lines, a power derived mainly from the operation of the deferred rebate system, such a state of affairs could not have been possible. In short, it has in effect rested with the Conference lines to determine how a large section of our fiscal dispositions should be made—to decide what additional burden of transportation charges should be borne by certain of our commercial highways and what measure of relief was good for the communities served by other of our main transport routes. Nor does South Africa stand alone among the British Dominions as an example of the unfortunate effects of shipping rings. Australia, I understand, appointed a Commission to investigate the subject of rebates, and that Commission recommended that rebates should be declared illegal. The result, I am informed, was the passing of the Australian Industries Act, 1907, containing provisions affecting the operations of shipowners making use of the rebate system. How far the provisions of that measure have operated towards limiting the powers of shipping rings in Australian waters I should be very much interested to

A.—4.

380

IQth Day.] Trade and Postal Communications and [16 June, 1911. Shipping Conferences. Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF— cont hear from the Australian representatives. As regards the Crown Colonies, the efforts of the Straits Settlements to combat the shipping interests have, of late, bulked somewhat largely in the public eye, and recent official utterances in Canada would seem to point to a growing feeling in that part of His Majesty's Dominions against shipping combinations. It may well be, therefore, that the Union Government have selected a favourable time for bringing forward their Resolution on this subject. In the case of railway companies established in this country the Board of Trade is clothed with powers to prevent the companies from granting preferences to their customers. Having acknowledged in this respect the danger to public interests that lies in the granting of preferences of this nature, it is not too much to expect that a similar attitude should be adopted in regard to ocean freights. Furthermore, if my memory serves me aright, the Board of Trade not long ago viewed with disfavour a proposal put before it for the amalgamation of two of the larger English railway systems — the Board's objections being founded upon the belief that any [such combination would operate in restraint of trade and tend to place the public at a disadvantage. Once it is conceded that shipping rings have the effect of maintaining high rates for sea transportation—and in face of all the evidence I do not see how this can be controverted, since one of the primary objects of a shipping ring is to discourage competition and maintain rates —I do not see how it can be argued that the abolition of the rings would not have the effect of reducing rates : and a reduction of rates must necessarily afford a stimulus to trade and commerce which, while it would more than compensate the shipowners for the reduction in freight charges, would give to British manufacturers and merchants generally an opportunity of opening up and exploiting markets which are unattainable under present conditions. On the other hand, we have seen that the operations of the rings in the past have diverted to the United States, and to the Continent, trade that should have belonged to British manufacturers. I have already indicated what happened in America when the deferred rebate system was declared illegal. Shippers profit by the reduced rates and by the healthy competition that is brought about, and shipowners benefit through the increased volume of the carrying trade. Nor should too much attention be paid to the cry that stable freights are essential and can only be maintained by the agency of shipping rings. There is no good reason whatever why, in the case of sea freights, greater stability should be assured than for ordinary commodities. There is a further important point to which I would ask consideration, and that is that when a period of trade depression arrives working costs are reduced and new markets, new avenues of consumption, are opened up which in dearer times were inaccessible : and markets once found are not readily lost. But if shipping rates are maintained in such a crisis and do not fall in sympathy with other working charges, the opportunities for entering these new fields of activity are pro tanto diminished. Looked at from the point of view of trade and postal communications between the United Kingdom and the oversea Dominions—which is the object of the first part of our Resolution—the Union Government are satisfied that by no means can this object be more speedily and satisfactorily achieved than by abolishing the system of deferred rebates. The abolition of these rebates would, we are convinced, effectively break down shipping monopolies, and would create a healthy competition among shipowners. This must benefit the whole of the Empire, since our prosperity is dependent upon the fullest freedom being secured to our seaborne trade. The competition thus stimulated would oblige shipowners, in order to maintain their position, to provide faster and better vessels, and, in this way, better trade and postal communications would be promoted between Great Britain and the oversea Dominions—and that without any additional cost to the public. By these means the different parts of the Empire would be drawn together more closely. The shipowners, on the other hand, would be more than compensated for their increased outlays by larger volume of trade.

381

A.—4

16 June, 1911.] Trade and Postal Communications and [10 JA Day. Shipping Conferences. Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF— cont. I have much pleasure, Sir, in moving the motion standing in the name of the Union of South Africa. I hope it will commend itself to the Conference, and I hope I have said enough to show that for a good many years past the whole of the South African trades and industries have been dominated by a shipping ring the members of which are not responsible to the people of South Africa; in other words, we in South Africa have not been masters in our own home. For the future we hope to be so, and I trust that the resolution which I have just moved will find favour with the Conference and that the resolution will be passed. I move the resolution. The PRESIDENT : I think it would be convenient that Mr. Buxton should at once make a statement. Mr. BUXTON ; This resolution, as drafted, puts His Majesty's Government in some little difficulty, because, while they would be prepared to support a resolution directed against combines and conferences where they were shown to be in restraint of trade, this motion as drafted practically assumes that all such conferences are necessarily disadvantageous. That is not the view necessarily held here, either by our Mercantile Marine or by our shippers or manufacturers. I think, therefore—because I should be glad if the Conference could arrive in those matters at a unanimous vote—l would suggest, if it met with the view of the South African delegates, to add at the end of the printed motion, " in so far as such conferences operate in restraint of trade." I should be very glad to give my support to the motion so amended. I am also somewhat in a difficulty after Sir David Graaff's speech because the Conference has heard the side which, with great ability, Sir David has put, and they are of course at a certain disadvantage in not having the opportunity on the present occasion of hearing what might be said on the other side by those interested in these conferences. It is not my duty nor do I intend either to controvert what Sir David Graaff has said or to argue the matter on its merits. But in agreeing to this resolution as amended, I must not be held as necessarily agreeing, and I am sure that he will be with me there, in all the arguments which he has put forward or the views he holds, nor must it be assumed that I necessarily agree in the solution which South Africa has proposed for this matter as being the best method to deal with the evils to which he has referred. South Africa, it is clear from his remarks, has peculiar hardships in reference to this matter, and especially with regard to freights and facilities. As representing the Board of Trade here, and therefore representing the commercial interests of the United Kingdom as well as the shipping interests, I am bound to look at it from rather a broader point of view, and, as I have already said, the views, or some of the views, which Sir David has expressed are not those necessarily held here. Therefore, I must not be held to accept all his statements or conclusions without qualification. I think it may be to the convenience of the Conference if I first state in a very few words how the matter stands with regard to our position over here. These rebates, as every one is aware, are not a new thing. They have been in existence for 30 or 40 years or more, and it is more of recent years that complaints have come forward with regard to them and that greater interest has been taken in them by those affected by them. I think 1904 was the first time there was a definite Conference with regard to it, at which the various States and Colonies of South Africa, as they then were, met, and came to the conclusion that the freights were excessive, and that the rebate system was objectionable. In 1905 there was a similar Conference, affecting Western Australia chiefly, which came to the same conclusion. All that time, and subsequent to that, the Board of Trade was very carefully watching the whole question and had given it very careful attention. They did not feel at that time they would be justified in initiating legislation without some further evidence and some further full and exhaustive inquiry into the matter. Therefore in 1906 a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the whole matter, and their terms of reference were to this effect : they were "to inquire into the operations of shipping rings or conferences " generally, and more especially into the system of deferred rebates, and to re- " port whether such operations had caused, or were likely to cause, injury to

A.—4

382

10th Day.] Tbade and Postal Communications [16 June, 1911. and Shipping Conferences. Mr. BUXTON— cont. " British or Colonial trade, and, if so, what remedial action, if any, should be " taken by legislation or otherwise." The various Dominions were represented on that Royal Commission, but rather unfortunately as it happened, either through illness or some other cause, the representatives of Australia and South Africa alone took a part in the proceedings and signed the Reports, and those two gentlemen signed the minority Report. The other Colonies, for various reasons, unfortunately, in the final report were not represented. That Commission to which Sir David has already referred issued a majority Report, and I think it must be said that the majority Report as a whole did not condemn the system of conferences and the system of rebates. They pointed out the advantages which those who support the Conference system claimed for it. They were these : that it improved shipping services by the institution and maintenance of regular sailings and steady and stable rates of freight, and they attached great importance to the last suggestion, namely, the steady and stable rates of freight. They stated that it also improved the services by the provision of steamers of high class and speed, that it brought about the maintenance of equal rates from the United Kingdom and the Continent; that it brought about —and to this again they attached great importance —uniform rates of freight to all shippers, large or small; that an open freight market gave a preferential rate, as a rule, to the larger steamer, and that the system of Conferences to a certain extent was a protection to the smaller trader. Those were the principal arguments which were adduced on behalf of the system of Conferences at the Conference. The majority came to the conclusion, however, that there were considerable disadvantages of various sorts in connection with these matters, and especially that abuses might arise in reference to them for which they suggested certain remedies, which I will mention in a moment. The minority Report, on the other hand, thought the majority had put these claims much too high, and they on their part believed that there was a great deal to be said against the system of Conferences and rebates on the following grounds. lam only quoting the most important ones, and there are minor ones as well. The first one was that the system was introduced in the first instance with the object of raising rates or preventing their fall and diminishing competition, that the system had been successful in raising and keeping up rates, and that the public had, as a rule, to pay higher rates of freight under the Conference than they would pay in the open market. They also said that the system had been injurious to tramps, the strongest element in the British Mercantile Marine; that it had diminished, or tended to diminish, the ports of sailing; and that it gives a country like the United States, in which the system is illegal, an advantage as compared with the United Kingdom. They said that there was no evidence to show that it appreciably increased the regularity of the sailings or greatly improved the quality of the steamers, but they admitted that it tended to bring about equality and stability of rates. CHAIRMAN : I have to go to the Colonial Office to interview two Sultans, and 1 am sure that it will be in accordance with your wishes if I ask Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who is the doyen of the Prime Ministers, to take the chair of the Conference. Sir WILFRID LAURIER took the Chair. Mr. BUXTON : I put these two documents of the majority and minority reports on the one side and the other in order that the Conference might see clearly the lines of argument which were taken as to the system of Conferences. When the Royal Commission came to their report, their proposals in both the majority and minority reports were not of a very drastic description, and they certainly did not carry out the suggestions which were made by various witnesses to the Commission during the course of their proceedings. Proposals were made to them as to the abolition of the system of deferred rebates, the establishment of a Board of Control, the exercise of Government influence by means of mail contracts, and the modification of the rebate conditions by legislation Neither the majority nor the minority proposed the abolition of rebates

383

A.—4,

16 June, 1911.] Trade and Postal Communications \\Oth Day. and Shipping Conferences. Mr. BUXTON— cont. nor the abolition of the conference system. They both suggested that an Association should be formed of those interested in the various trades, in order that, as far as they could by negotiation and by conciliation, they should be able to arrive at conclusions which might be satisfactory in getting rid of the disadvantages of these Conferences and these rebates. The majority proposed that in the event of these Associations not being able to come to terms with the Shipping Companies, the Board of Trade should endeavour to bring that about, and where the Board of Trade thought there were good grounds for believing that important national or Imperial interests were affected they should then be able themselves to intervene by appointing persons to inquire into the matter, take evidence on oath, and so on, and report the result of their conclusions. The Minority Report went further than that, and they suggested that the Board of Trade should be given greater powers, and that, quite apart from any question of whether there were matters affecting important national interests, they should have power to appoint persons to take evidence, produce documents, and so on, where it appeared to them that the public interests were involved, including those of consumers and producers, and also on the representation of a Colonial Government. They were to report the nature and result of their inquiries to Parliament, and they were annually to lay before Parliament returns dealing with these agreements, or alterations in the agreements, on the question of rebates, and so on. Either of these proposals would have required legislation in order to give the Board of Trade power to take evidence on oath and to deal with the matter from the point of view recommended by the Commission. This was about two years ago, and the initiative in both cases of taking the first steps was rather left to the parties interested. These persons have not up till now shown much desire—the exporters, the merchants, and the manufacturers —have not shown, over here at all events, very much desire to move, nor have they pressed the Board of Trade to carry out legislation in the matter. No active movement having been taken, a little while ago I, wishing to ascertain what their views really were, invited a Conference to meet me at the Board of Trade, representing the parties principally interested in the matter. I asked the Associated Chambers of Commerce, the London Chamber of Commerce, the Manchester Association of Importers and Exporters, the South African Merchants' Committee, and the Australian Merchants' Association to come and discuss the matter, informing them beforehand what it was I wished to consult them about. Besides that we had taken the opportunity, as occasion has arisen, to consult other interests concerned. lam bound to say that the support in favour of legislation, and in favour of any drastic proposals from these various persons interested, has not been very encouraging; and there is no doubt that here at all events there is great difference of opinion as to how far these Conferences and the system carried out by the Conferences are an advantage or a disadvantage to the trade of the country on this side. As every member of the Conference will know, in a matter of this sort, touching an enormous interest like the Mercantile Marine here, it is not very easy to introduce a Bill, at all events it is not very easy to pass it, unless you have behind you a considerable volume of public opinion. Sir David has been fortunate, if I may say so, as far as he is concerned, in having, as I understand, behind him in dealing with this matter a practically unanimous opinion; but I am afraid, as far as my information goes, at the present moment at all events, that is not the position over here. . Then the step has been taken by the Union of South Africa Government to which Sir David has referred, and I am sure he will feel, and the Conference will feel, that it is not the duty of His Majesty's Government to express an opinion in reference to the merits or demerits of that particular proposal, as it was entirely within the competence of the Union Government to carry it out, and there was no question as to their Bill receiving the Royal Assent. 1 did not at the time it was going: through, nor have I since, nor do I intend now—it would not be riffht that I should do so—express an opinion with reference to the merits of it. Perhaps I might express, as representing the Board of Trade, which is always very much interested in anything which can be brought about by conciliation or agreement, a pious hope that the two sides interested in the matter 49—A. 4.

A.—4

384

10th Day.] Trade and Postal Communications [16 June, 1911. and Shipping Conferences. Mr. BUXTON— cont. may possibly be able to come to an agreement; but that is merely a pious hope on the part of the President of the Board of Trade. As regards the action of His Majesty's Government in the matter, the motion I think refers to the question of postal subsidies. It has not been the policy of His Majesty's Government, rightly or with regard to their postal matters to deal with postal subsidies as being anything except payments for postal facilities, and it has not been their policy to use that payment or those subsidies for anything except purely postal matters. Therefore some other way must be found to deal with the matter. lam afraid that all I can say on behalf of Hi's Majesty's Government at the present time is that we think it is a matter of great importance, that we shall continue to give it the utmost consideration, and thus we shall still more await the developments to which Sir David has referred. These developments may throw some light on the best methods of dealing with the matter, if it is necessary to deal with it, and we shall, at all events, learn by experience, and we shall be better able to understand the matter at a later date. Therefore, while agreeing with the resolution, and willing to accept it at the moment in the sense I have suggested, it must not be held that at any early date the Board of Trade will be able necessarily to deal with a matter of this sort by legislation, because in such a matter as this, as I have already pointed out, we cannot be much in advance of public opinion. Personally, lam hopeful that we may be able in some ways to take some action in regard to it, and I am from time to time, as far as my powers and opportunities go, endeavouring to ascertain the feeling here on the question. I hope Sir David and his colleagues will be prepared to accept my amendment in order to enable His Majesty's Government to give their support to the resolution, otherwise I am afraid I should have to dissent from it, on the ground I have given. Mr. BRODEUR : Sir Wilfrid, as far as I am concerned, I do not see any serious objection to the motion which has been proposed by Sir David Graaff. I find, however, in view of the explanations given by Mr. Buxton, that it would be rather difficult for the Imperial Government to accept the motion unless some amendment was made. As far as Canada is concerned, we have not suffered a great deal at the hands of these Conferences. I may say, however, that a couple of years ago the Westbound Conference on the Atlantic, which covers not only shipping between Canada and Great Britain, but also shipping to the United States of America —at least, the ports of New York, Boston, and Portland—took action which was detrimental to some of our ports. The agents of the interested companies were generally opposed to that increased rate which was decided upon by this Conference, at least they said they had nothing to do with the passing of this resolution of the Westbound Conference, and were willing to help us in taking the necessary steps in order to remove it. Fortunately we were able to deal with that increased rate in such a way that they had to remove it, but that was through the local conditions and local circumstances, which perhaps cannot apply in all cases. As a general principle, I think it would not be advisable that the Conferences which are made in restraint of trade should be encouraged, and I am sure Mr. Buxton, as President of the Board of Trade, will do his utmost to prevent any such thing being done. Since we are upon this subject, and since the motion as framed may permit, me to bring up this question—because I see in the motion it is stated, " That concerted action be taken by all Governments of the Empire " to promote better trade and postal communications between Great Britain and the Overseas Dominions," I might call the attention of the Conference to a very serious discrimination, and a very serious injustice which is done to Canada, not by a Shipping Conference, it is done by another Conference which exists— an agreement or combine which exists between insurers here in England. We found out that in all policies of insurance issued here there is a clause by which a ship is prevented going into British North America unless she pays a larger premium. This works very detrimentally to our interests in Canada, and we are at a loss to find out for what reason the insurers are charging a larger rate

385

A.—4

16 June, 1911.] Trade and Postal Communications \lQth Day. and Shipping Conferences. Mr. BRODEUR— cont. to go to the St. Lawrence or to go to Halifax or St. Johns than they would charge to go to Portland, for example, or New York or Boston. As far as Boston and New York are concerned, of course, they are a little lower than Canada is; but that is not an objection as far as the summer trade is concerned. Take the case of Portland. Portland is just a short distance from St. Johns. However, the insurance rate which is charged on a boat plying to Portland is less than the insurance rate charged for a boat going to St. Johns. This discrimination which exists between the insurance rates charged for boats going to Canada and for boats going to the United States is very seriously detrimental to us, and is detrimental to the encouragement of trade between Great Britain and Canada. Mr. BUXTON : That is hardly a question of the shipowners and a combination; that is a question of and the insurers. Mr. BRODEUE : Yes, that is what I say. Mr. BUXTON : I would suggest that you should communicate with Lloyd's or we will do so, if you will communicate the facts to us. Mr. BRODEUR : I only wanted to raise the matter here with the expectation that you might use all your influence with the insurers in order to have this clause struck out of their insurance policies. Mr. BUXTON : We should be very glad to do anything, but I think it would be better for you to see Lloyd's yourselves. Mr. BRODEUR : I think you would have more power than we would have. Mr. BUXTON : We will do anything we can. Mr. BRODEUR : We have been spending large sums of money to improve our route, our ports, and our shipping, and I do not know why they should continue to charge such unfair rates, especially considering that, just a few miles below, certain ports enjoy better rates of insurance than are charged as far as Canada is concerned. On the whole, I favour the motion moved by Sir David Graaff. Dr. FINDLAY : I do not want to address myself to this matter, but may I ask whether the additional words suggested will not practically nullify the intention which Sir David Graaff has ? I think it will be admitted that none of the operations to which he is alluding would then come within the prohibition intended by this resolution, because they would not be in restraint of trade. Mr. BUXTON : If I may say so, as the resolution stands, without amendment, it practically implies that all Shipping Conferences are necessarily disadvantageous. I say that is not the view necessarily which is held here, and the words I have proposed to add are " in so far as such Conferences are in restraint of trade." Sir David Graaff's argument was that they did operate in restraint of trade in South Africa both with regard to the question of freights and the question of facilities, and in other respects I only used the expression " in restraint of trade " because it is a common term for anything of that sort. Dr. FINDLAY : I think it has been fairly well understood in point of law that those words would not permit this resolution to hit the cases which Sir David Graaff has mentioned.

A.—4

386

10th Day.] Trade and Postal Communications [16 June, 1911. and Shipping Conferences. Mr. BUXTON : May I alter the amendment I proposed—I do not think there is any difference in our views—and say, " so far as they are prejudicial to trade " ? Dr. FINDLAY : That is better. Mr. BUXTON : I took advice on the matter, and it is the usual term used. Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF : I would prefer "prejudicial to trade" to " in restraint of trade," because the latter would imply that we were quite satisfied with the combinations and their high rates so long as we cannot prove that they are in restraint of trade, which is a very difficult thing to do. Mr. BUXTON . I understand the point, and we will make the amendment " so far as such Conferences are prejudicial to trade." Mr. PEARCE : We in Australia hold very definite views on this question as the result of our experience of Shipping Conferences, and I will just give one instance to the Conference—a practical illustration of how they work, not merely on our coast, but also in international trade. Here is an instance given by a witness before our Shipping Commission, Mr. McPherson, who by the way is a member of the Council of the Chamber of Commerce of Melbourne : " In 1903, when I had 300 tons of iron to ship to Fremantle, I went to the shipping people to learn the rate of freight. They held a meeting, and then they gave me a quotation. They said : ' You will have to pay 18s. a ton now, but in twelve months' time, if you confine all your shipments to the ports of the North and the West to the Companies within the ring, we will grant you a rebate of 20 per cent.' In other words, I had to leave with them a hostage of 3s. 6d. a ton on the 300 tons, and let it stay in their hands for twelve months. Had I not agreed to confine all my shipments to the Association, I should have had to charge 18.9. a ton for the freight of the iron, and probably I should have lost the business." They handed in at that Commission the rules under which that rebate system was worked. Now as to the effect, out of 188,000 tons engaged in our Inter-State trade, less than 10,000 tons were outside the Shipping Ring, and their strength and their power to control our trade was due solely and wholly to the rebate system. Now as the result of that investigation and others we came to the conclusion that that was not a healthy thing for our trade, and we determined to break it up, and we introduced legislation on the lines of the Sherman Act; this legislation made these■ rebates illegal and they have now been abolished. But I want to point out that Mr. Buxton's view that the declaring of rebates to be illegal is going to break up Conferences, or that it is to prevent any co-operation between shippers in order to secure uniformity, has not been our experience. It certainly does not allow them to tie up the shipping, but they still have their Conferences; they still tend to compete so far as the despatch of their vessels is concerned; so that the Australian experience is a complete disproof of the statement put forward by Mr. Buxton that if you do away with rebates you do away with the regularity of trade. Our experience is that it does nothing of the kind. Mr. BUXTON : Do not say that it was my argument. Mr. PEARCE : No; but it was quoted by you. Mr. BUXTON : I carefully avoided giving an opinion on the matter, I think rightly, and I was only giving the arguments which you will find in the Blue Book given by the majority and the minority. I made it quite clear that it was not my argument.

387

A.—4

16 June, 1911.J Trade and Postal Communications \loth Day. and Shipping Conferences. Mr. PEARCE : I do not reply on it as your argument but as an argument quoted by you which I say our experience in Australia has shown to be fallacious, that you can destroy the rebate system and still have the Conferences regulating the despatch of vessels and other matters which are a benefit to trade. So much for our coastal trade, but we have been unable to deal with the rebate system in our oversea trade, because those rebates, as in the case of South Africa, may be determined in Great Britain. We have the evidence of Sir Thomas Sutherland which was given on pages 24 and 25 of the Report of the Royal Commission on Shipping Rings which sat in this country, in which he sets out the basis upon which they worked a similar system in connection with the oversea trade of Australia. That has been made illegal in Australia, but it still affects our oversea trade, and we say it affects it prejudicially. We say we can get all the advantages which flow from the Conference—of regularity of ships and the other advantages—if the Board of Trade were applying the same legislation we have applied, and that the United States have applied, to bring about competition and freedom of trade for the shipper so far as the freights are concerned. Furthermore, we contend that it is a distinct advantage to the United Kingdom itself, and I am very much surprised that Mr. Buxton, in his appeal to the manufacturers of the United Kingdom, has not met with more support. They certainly could never have directed their attention to the evidence given before that Royal Commission which sat in this country, because had they done so they would have found on page 65 that there is a preferential tariff! in operation, due to those shipping rings, that is distinctly to the advantage of the manufacturers of the United States. That is operating in regard to the freights charged between the United States and Australia to this extent ; By the direct lines evidence was given that the freight on saddlery from the United Kingdom to New Zealand was 555. plus 10 per cent., and from the United States of America 375. 6d. ; castings and wood spokes in cases from the United Kingdom, 40s. plus 10 per cent., and from the United States of America, 375. Qd. ; bolts and nuts, castings and axles, in cases, 40s. from the United Kingdom and 375. 6d. from the United States of America; duck, 40s. from the United Kingdom and 375. 6d. from the United States of America. The same evidence practically is given as to the transhipment rates, at paragraph 218, on page 64 : " The through rates by the White Star Line on goods carried via Liverpool were, some time ago, Mr. Tredwen stated, for a considerable period about 30 per cent, lower than the rates on English goods sent by the same boats from Liverpool." I believe they go from Liverpool and then on to Australia, and 30 per cent, lower is charged from Liverpool to Australia. There is a quantity of evidence given here to the same effect, which I will not quote as it is too long, but it is there and can be^referred to. It bears out the point put forward by the South African delegates, that this is a question which can only be dealt with by the Government of the United Kingdom. If the Government of the United Kingdom does not take action upon it this will continue to the disadvantage of British manufacturers and to the disadvantage of Colonial producers, because what is operating here is also operating with regard to our export trade. So much was that the case that we in Australia had to take very drastic action in order to secure our producers in the export of perishable products, and I have here to-day a copy of the mail contract we entered into with the Orient Mail Steamship Company, and one has only to look through that contract to see that we have definitely laid down the rates of freight on perishable products. We have also prevented them entering into any Conference agreement for the purpose of interfering with those rates. We have gone so far as to put in a clause that if they infringe any of the provisions of the Australian Industries Preservation Act, the Act which Sir de Villiers Graaff quoted, that will constitute a reason why the contract should be cancelled. In various ways throughout this contract we have had, in the interest of our producers, to tie up this company in order to secure at least one company which would treat our producers on something like a fair basis. I may say that is not a total cure for the position as far as our producers are concerned; but there is at the present time, and has been for some years, a strong agitation going on for the Government itself to take a more drastic step, and that is, to own a line of steamers from Australia to Great Britain for the direct purpose

A.—4.

388

10th Day.] Trade and Postal Communications [16 June, 1911. and Shipping Conferences. Mr. PEARCE— cont. of carrying perishable products. Members may think that that arises from one political party only, but I want to tell them that one of the first public men to take action and to speak publicly on this proposition was the late Senator Robert Reid, who was a prominent member of the Free Trade Party in Australia, and who was the President of the Australasian Chamber of Commerce; and it was at the yearly gathering of that body that he made a speech in which he advocated the Government entering into this particular business. More recently still, during last year, Mr. Graham, the Minister of Agriculture in Victoria, announced that if the export trade of the Commonwealth was to be advanced, in his opinion, the Commonwealth Government would have to put on a line of steamers to prevent producers being exploited and the profits of the makers taken from them by this Conference of Shipping. It seems to me, therefore, that we have a right to ask this Conference to express an opinion, and we have a right to appeal to the Government of the United Kingdom, for we are not asking for any restrictions on trade, we are asking for freedom of trade, and we believe this constitutes a direct hindrance on shippers; it restricts their choice of ships; it restricts the ships coming to our ports; it acts against the interests of the United Kingdom; it acts in the interests of foreign countries, and especially those countries that have such legislation as we have in that it leaves their ports free, and we accordingly support the Resolution brought forward by South Africa, Sir JOSEPH WARD : Sir Wilfrid Laurier, I have listened to the speech of Sir David Graaff with a very great deal of interest, and I must say that the conclusion I came to upon hearing the position that he put forth was, that the people in the Union of South Africa have suffered a great deal over their shipping business. In our country years ago we went through not quite the same class of trouble, but we had to face a great deal of difficulty connected with the carrying on of the shipping trade of that country. I remember on one occasion, twelve or fourteen years ago, the Government guaranteed to provide freights by a certain line of steamers, in order to enable a satisfactory rate to be obtained for the conveyance of wheat from some of the ports in New Zealand to the old country. The result of that was, that there was an adjustment in the rates of freight which, upon the whole, was satisfactory to the shippers in the Dominion. We have had difficulties from time to time, but we have always met them locally by taking a course which we felt was sufficiently strong to enable us to have a position of affairs that suited the interests of the producers of the country. In connection with a general Resolution of this kind, I am prepared to support it as amended, because I think the Resolution ought to be put on record in order to help our friends from South Africa to obtain what they are asking for; but I want to point out in connection with this matter, where in the interests of a country like New Zealand, I for one, at all events, require to be a little careful upon questions which may appear to be very easy of securing a settlement. We have four lines of steamers, all refrigerated, running in competition to this country for the conveyance of freight brought direct from New Zealand —not steamers passing through the Suez Canal, or steamers touching at Canada, but carrying our refrigerated produce in large quantities of sheep and frozen produce direct to the Old Country, and we do not give any contribution in the shape of a subsidy to any of them. They are all carrying on their business without Government support of any kind. We have got no less than twelve calling ports in our country which, from the geographical point as far as our producers, our settlers, are concerned, is very valuable to them. I know the condition of Australian trade quite well, and our class of trade, from the point of view of conveying our produce from New Zealand to the Old Country, is as different from what Australia's is as daylight is from dark. It is a perfectly common thing for any one of those refrigerating steamers to go to as many as seven, eight, and nine ports before they have completed their loading. It is not an uncommon thing on the outward voyage from England to New Zealand for shippers at the various ports, with that local sentiment which probably permeates all communities away from the towns, to ask to get their shipments

389

A.—4

16 June, 1911.] Trade and Postal Communications \loth Day. and Shipping Conferences. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. from England direct to the port which serves the district that port is in, with the result that the steamers going outward from the Old Country have frequently to call at three and four discharging ports. Looking at the position that the New Zealand producer is in, which is the one from our point of view in our country that we always consider, we are always working to obtain as low rates of freight as it is possible for us to get, bearing in mind the fact that we know that if we obtain a fictitiously low rate of freight for a short time, inevitably freights later go up and the consequences would be more disastrous to our people later on than if we obtained a fair rate of freight for the winter season and the summer season, with fair regularitj- and continuity. In our country we have no coastal rebates. If this system of rebate, the abolition of which is being urged both by South Africa and Australia, did not exist for the oversea trade in New Zealand, we would very soon put our producers who export frozen meat, sheep, and lambs, and those who export butter and cheese, in a position of having to pay possibly double the rates of freight upon their frozen article, and lam going to show yoii why. If there were some legitimate system in operation which, while not injurious to our producers as a whole, would allow us to maintain a line of four independent refrigerated steamers of considerable cost as against the ordinary tramp steamer, which would come in and take away the class of trade outside the frozen meat and the butter and cheese, leaving that alone for the high-class expensive steamers to carry on —if the ordinary tramp steamer came along spasmodically, with a larger freedom of rate and in any case not requiring refrigerated steamers, they could probably carry the nonrefrigerated cargo at perhaps ss. a ton less for a short time to the Old Country, and in the meantime the high-class refrigerated steamers which are necessary for the preservation of the trade of New Zealand, from the point of view of our frozen meat and dairy produce, would require to have the freights considerably increased, possibly doubled, on our meat and our dairy produce exported, which would be ruinous to our country. In the Bill for Prevention of Monopolies in New Zealand which, on behalf of the Government, I introduced last session and Put on the Statute Book, on this very point of the difficulty from the position New Zealand is in, we had to be very careful as to what we did for fear of raising the freights upon the classes of produce which are two of the principal staple exports from our country; and we had to be very careful what we did for fear of bringing about direct injury to that class of our producers. We do not, as I say. give a subsidy to any of these steamers which carry our frozen meat, wool, dairy produce, or any of our cargoes to the Old Country, and we have no intention of doing , that, so far as the New Zealand Government is concerned, but the difference between New Zealand and Australia, and it may apply to South Africa for all T know to the contrary, is that we have no such thing in our country as a deferred rebate system on the coastal trade. Sir D. pe VILLTERS GRAAEE : There is in South Africa, Sir JOSEPH WARD : There is not in New Zealand; we have no such thing in New Zealand as a deferred coastal rebate system. Mr. BATCHELOR : Is not that because you have practically only one company ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : We have two large trading companies, one hailing from Australia and one owned in New Zealand, and besides we have local steamship companies carrying on business, but there is no such thing as a rebate on our coastal trade at all. But the necessity for our home export trade is that we require refrigerating steamers and cargo carriers combined of large capacity for the purpose of taking frozen meat and general cargo from New Zealand; they must be large in order to meet the requirements of the people in the dif-

A.—4,

390

10th Day.} Trade and Postal Communications [16 June, 1911. and Shipping Conferences. Sir JOSEPH WAED— cont. ferent centres, to go to a number of ports, not so many inwards as they require to go to outwards. If we had the system which Mr. Pearce suggests —and it may be perfectly right from the Australian standpoint—of allowing any one and every one to come as they thought proper without refrigerators on board their steamers to carry away the unrefrigerated exports from our country in comparatively small tramp steamers, we could only do it by paying much higher rates on the frozen meat and dairy produce than our producers are now called upon to pay when a steamer carries both general cargo and frozen cargo. With regard to the contracts for dairy produce from New Zealand, they have always been carried without the intervention of the Government; without any interposition on its part the freight for the exportation of dairy produce from New Zealand is arranged direct by the dairy companies and the shipping lines, and is competed for between the different companies with a view to their getting it on the best terms they can. We do not require to do what Australia is doing under their contract with the Orient Line. Their position is different to ours. There should be every effort made to prevent injustice being done or unfair impositions being put on the producers or on the shippers. I want to make it clear that Ido not believe that the primage which was mentioned by Sir David Graaff should be dispensed with in any country without full consideration. I believe it would be a mistake for South Africa to abolish it, at least if the primage is rightly used. If the primage referred to was going into the pocket of the shipowner, then there is a great deal to be said for not having it; but a large portion of the primage is used where the shipping firm has not got its own organization in existence for the cost and expense of securing freight, just as a wholesale merchant sends his travellers out over the country for the disposition of goods or where a man is a large purchaser and requires to send his men out to obtain satisfactory purchases. Sir D. de VILLLERS GRAAFF : No Sir JOSEPH WARD : A portion of it has to be used for the initial cost of actually carrying out the work of obtaining cargo. Ido not know whether there is a different system of primage in your country, but that is, I think, the practice. Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF : I will answer that later. Sir JOSEPH WARD : As far as I know, that is the system in operation. We have had shipping fights in New Zealand in connection with our oversea produce to the Old Country, and we have had them for over 30 years to my own knowledge; and upon the whole we have got our export shipping business on a satisfactory footing. As a matter of fact, it is open to any one to come along with a refrigerated steamer, and if he can bring down the rates in our country he has a free and open field to do it in. lam not putting myself in the shoes of the representative of South Africa, very far from it, because I recognise from his speech that they have difficulties there of a nature auite sufficient to suggest that they should move in order to have them abolished, and an improved condition of affairs created—but in our country we have had our shinuing fights for 30 years. We suggested twelve or fourteen years having State-owned steamers with the object of getting our trade on a basis that was satisfactory to our country as a whole. I want to say. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. that I support the Resolution. I felt it necessary to make the matter clear as far as New Zealand is concprupd. We cannot come into line upon all the points referred to by Sir David Graaff in the course of his speech, as some would not suit the conditions of our trade. Sir E. MORRIS : I agree.

A.—4

391

16 June, 1911.] Trade and Postal Communications \lQth Day. and Shipping Conferences! Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF : I would like to say a very few words with your permission. I think I made it clear at the outset that we have not taken this step in consequence of what has occurred in the Conference or before the Royal Commission. We based our facts and we have taken our action in consequence of the experience which we have actually had in South Africa. Only yesterday, I think, we all agreed that the cable companies should not be left to themselves to charge whatever they thought proper, and a Board of Control was suggested, but it appears that when we come to shipowners we must leave them to charge whatever freights they think proper. Ido not agree with that. On the question of steady freights, which both Mr. Buxton and Sir Joseph Ward alluded to, I may give a little experience of what steady freights have proved to us. I have had practical experience of it; there are the very highest class of freight, the middle freight, and the low freight. As soon as you establish the steady freights with the deferred rebate system it means that you always pay the highest freights, and you never participate in the middle or lower freights. That has been our experience. On the question of the freights not being steady and varying very much, what the producer will have to pay, if there was no such thing as a rebate, as Sir Joseph has saidSir JOSEPH WARD : That was not the point of my argument at all. Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF : I understood you to say that if the rebate.system did not obtain only tramp steamers would come in, and I have heard that argument from shipowners often. Sir JOSEPH WARD : What I said as far as New Zealand is concerned was, that our steamers are practically all refrigerated steamers, and require to carry a portion of ordinary general cargo as well as frozen produce, and if tramp steamers took the general cargo then the refrigerated steamers would be compelled to raise freights on frozen produce, and our producers, our frozen meat men and our dairy produce men, would suffer, because no tramp steamer could take away their class of trade. There is no fluctuation in the frozen rate of freight with us; the rate is fixed for a whole season, for winter and summer, by our refrigerating companies. Sir D de VILLIERS GRAAFF : Your experience has not been the experience in Australia or in America, where the steamers are also refrigerating steamers The 10 per cent, rebate in our Colony has had the effect of keeping a steady rate which means simply the top rate, never the middle or the lower class rate and I think our people would prefer also to participate sometimes m the middle rate and the lower rate as well as in the highest rate. As for regular sailings, I quoted the case of the United States of America, and although there is no rebate system there, regular sailins-s are not affected. . , As to the question of the postal contract, which Mr. Buxton has referred to we hold that the system which the shipowners indulge in is detrimental to the best interests of South Africa and should not be continued. Therefore our Government were not prepared to support them by giving them a mail subsidy thereby helping to keep them in the position which they command to-day. Lt may not be to the interests of the United Kingdom to look at it from that point of view if the United Kingdom was as much concerned about the export oi their products as we are, possibly they would see that was the right way to look at it Until we get satisfactory transportation for our produce we cannot rest, and we hope to continue in this movement until we have secured satisfactory arrangements for the producers of our country at any rate and, in addition to that, reasonable rates from the Mother Country to South Africa. Mv friend Mr Pearce has referred to the matter of iron, which was to have been shipped by the Conference Lines. I can give many cases of various

50—A. 4.

A.—4

392

lOth Day.} Trade and Postal Communications [16 June, 1911. and Shipping Conferences. Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF— cont. descriptions, but as he has referred to iron, I will give one case of iron which occurred with us. For the extension of our harbour works a large number of 50-feet long iron tubes were required, and freight was inquired for from the Conference Lines, and the quotation was HZ. a ton to South Africa. The gentleman representing our Harbour Board was not prepared to pay the price, and he went to America. In the interval a little disagreement happened between the shipping companies here, and the agents were able to claim an independent ship, and that independent ship took out the same iron, as to which the quotation by the combine was 111. a ton, at 455. a ton. That is the effect of your combinations, and it is the fact not only from the Mother Country, but also from our Union, that so long as you have a combination, the deferred rebate is a very formidable instrument in the hands of the combination. We have not got to look at it from the point of view of the combination, we have to look at it from our producers' point of view and from our own trade point of view. So long as that continues our industries will not be able to develop as they should. We have brought this Resolution forward in consequence of our own experience. The question of the coastal trade was touched upon. Our coastal trade is also in the hands of the combine. I believe there are only one or two local people who own ships, but if they did not conform to the combine they would soon be wiped out of the way. Therefore the Conference will understand that in this matter the Union Government of South Africa is serious, and they mean to continue doing all they possibly can to remove this incubus from South Africa. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Hear, hear—quite right too. Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF : With regard to the amendment suggested to the motion, which will have the effect of the Conference approving of my Resolution wherever it is prejudicial to trade, the wording is, "in so far as the operations of such conferences are prejudicial to trade." I think we, on behalf of South Africa, need have no fear to accept this, because there is not the slightest hesitation in our minds but that these Conference Lines which exist in South Africa are prejudicial to our trade Mr. BUXTON : I will now read the amendment so as to have it on the notes. I move as an addition to the end of the Resolution, "in so far as the operations of such Conferences are prejudicial to trade." That stands as accepted. CHAIRMAN : The motion as amended is accepted. That is all our programme for to-day. Adjourned to Monday next, at 11 o'clock.

393

A.—4

ELEVENTH DAY. Monday, 19th June, 1911. The Imperial Conference met at the Foreign Office at 11 a.m. Present : The Right Honourable L. HARCOURT, M.P., Secretary of State for the Colonies (in the Chair). The Right Honourable the Earl of Crewe, K.G., Secretary of State for India. The Right Honourable Sydney Buxton, M.P., President of the Board of Trade. *T. McKinnon Wood, Esq., M.P., Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Foreign Office. *Sir Rufus Isaacs, K.C., M.P., Attorney-General. ■ Canada. The Right Honourable Sir Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G., Prime Minister of the Dominion. The Honourable Sir F. W. Borden, K.C.M.G., Minister of Militia and Defence. The Honourable L. P. Brodeur, K.C., Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Australia. The Honourable A. Fisher, Prime Minister of the Commonwealth. The Honourable E. L. Batchelor, Minister of External Affairs. The Honourable G. F. Pearce, Minister of Defence. New Zealand. The Right Honourable Sir J. G. Ward, K.C.M.G., Prime Minister of the Dominion. The Honourable J. G. Findlay, K.C., LL.D., Attorney-General and Minister of Justice. Union of South Africa. General the Right Honourable L. Botha, Prime Minister of the Union. The Honourable F. S. Malan, Minister of Education. The Honourable Sir David de Villiers Graaff, Bart., Minister of Public Works, Posts and Telegraphs. Newfoundland. The Honourable Sir E. P. Morris, K.C., Prime Minister. The Honourable R. Watson, Colonial Secretary. Mr. H. W. Just, C.8., C.M.G., Secretary to the Conference. Mr. W. A. Robinson, Senior Assistant Secretary. Mr. A. B. Keith, D.C.L., Junior Assistant Secretary.

* Present at the afternoon sittii

A..-4.

394

11th Day.] [19 June, 1911. There were Also present : Lord Lucas, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies ; Sir Francis Hopwood, Gr.C.M.Gf., X.0.8., Permanent Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies; Mr. H. Lambert, C.8., Colonial Office; Sir H. Llewellyn Smith, X.C.8., Permanent Secretary to the Board of Trade ; Sir Walter Ho well, X.C.8., Assistant Secretary to the Board of Trade ; Captain Sir A. J. G. Chalmers, Board of Trade; Mr. A. Law, C.8., Foreign Office; . ■ . Sir H. H. Risley, X.C.1.8., C.5.1., India Office; Mr. J. Pedder, Home Office ; \ .; Rear-Admiral Sir Charles Ottley, K.C.M.G-., M.V.0., Secretary to the Committee of Imperial Defence; ;■ Mr. Atlee A. Hunt, CM.Gγ., Secretary to the Department of External Affairs, Commonwealth of Australia 5 Mr. J. R. Leisk, Secretary for Finance, Union of South Africa ; and Private Secretaries to Members of the Conference.

CHAIRMAN; Gentlemen, the Resolution* by the Government of New, Zealand which appeared on the Agenda issued on Saturday, as to coloured races being encouraged to remain domiciled within their own zone, is withdrawn by Sir Joseph Ward ; he does not want to discuss it. Sir JOSEPH WARD: I propose, instead of moving a formal Resolution, to refer to it on the question-which is before us to-day. " That the self-governing oversea Dominions have now reached a stage of develop- ,, ment when they should be entrusted with wider legislative powers in respect to British and foreign shipping." CHAIRMAN: As to the Resolution of New Zealand, which appears first to-day on the corrected Agenda, as to British and Foreign Shipping, I understand that it would be for the convenience of Sir Joseph Ward and probably of the Conference, that Lord Crewe should open by making some general remarks on Indians within the Dominions* ■'-,- EARL OF CREWE : Mr. Harcourt, I understand it is desired that at the beginning of the proceedings I should make a few general observations as to the principles upon which this question of Indian emigration and immigration into the Dominions is founded. Perhaps I may begin by asking for some measure of indulgence from the Conference, because I have been away from my work for some time owing to an illness from which I am happy to say I am beginning to recover, but which has laid me by for some little time. I may, therefore, lam sure, claim the indulgence of the members of the. Conference.

* See page 279.

A.—4

395

19 June, 1911.] Indian Emigration and Immigration. \\lih Day. EARL OP CREWE— cont. It so happens that I have had the advantage or the disadvantage, as the case may be, of having observed this question from two different standpoints ; first, for some years when I held the office which Mr. Harcourt now holds, and since then as Secretary of State for India. In both offices I have reached the conclusion that there is no question which could be discussed at this Conference more difficult, or I might even, I think, venture to say in some of its aspects more critical, than this question of Indian immigration, and the treatment of those of the Indian races, or indeed of any foreign native race who find themselves within the various selfgoverning Dominions. I remember some years ago making a speech at a large Colonial dinner, in which I enforced that view, and went so far as to say (if I remember aright) that if there was any question which seemed to threaten not merely the well being, but the actual existence, of the Empire as an Empire, it was this difficulty between the white races and the native races, because, I ventured to point out, as between the Dominions and the Mother Country there could be no question, whether it was a question of commerce or a question of defence or any other of the questions which we now discuss, which could not be solved by good will and by good sense on both sides. But this particular question, especially as regards India, is in one sense insoluble ; there is no complete and perfect solution of this difficulty between the white races and the various native races. Now, I understand that this memorandum which I have before me has been circulated to all the members of the Conference, and those who have read it will recognise that it deals both with the general principles of the question, and also with special instances of difficulty which have arisen in the various Dominions with regard either to the ingress of Indians or to the treatment of Indians when they are there. In my present remarks I propose to confine myself entirely to the first branch, namely, to the question of the principles, because the particular instances involved are more matters for the special Department involved either here or in the Dominions themselves, and from that point of view they are less suitable, perhaps, for such general discussion as takes place here as being more of a domestic character. Now I desire to say, first, that I fully recognise—as His Majesty's Government fully recognise—two facts : the first is that, as the Empire is constituted, the idea that it is possible to have an absolutely free interchange between all individuals who are subjects of the Crown —that is to say, that every subject of the King whoever he may be or wherever he may live has a natural right to travel or still more to settle in any part of the Empire—is a view which we fully admit, and I fully admit as representing the India Office, to be one which cannot be maintained. As the Empire is constituted it is still impossible that we can have a free coming and going of all the subjects of the King throughout all parts of the Empire. Or, to put the thing in another way, nobody can attempt to dispute the right of the self-governing Dominions to decide for themselves whom, in each case, they will admit as citizens of their respective Dominions. That is one of the facts which on behalf of His Majesty's Government I fully recognise. I also recognise this : that we are or may be easily prone in this country to underrate the difficulties which confront the Dominions in this matter, because we are not troubled to any extent by a similar problem here. It so happens that there never has been any influx of coloured races into this country on a scale which has awakened any of the difficulties which, as I well know, confront you gentlemen in the different self-governing Dominions. From one point of view, of course, ifc is an advantage to an Englishman, because he is able to take an impartial view, but at the same time it may lead him —as I indicated at first—not to attach sufficient weight to the very real and undoubted difficulties which you have to encounter in settling these questions. As regards the whole question of Indian immigration, the Dominions feel, as I understand, two separate but at the same time closely interwoven objections to the influx of a large native population into their areas. In the first place, such an influx may mean, and in practice often has meant, the rivalry of cheap labour. Now this is an entirely separate difficulty from the racial difficulty to which I shall allude

A—4

396

11th Day.] Indian Emigration and Immigration. [19 June, 1911. EARL OF CREWE— cont. in a moment; but it is, of course, a very real difficulty, and it is accentuated by the abandonment which we now see on the part of many of some of the old theories of political economy. Many have now abandoned, for instance, the theory that labour can be regulated simply by the conditions of supply and demand. There are many nowadays, too, who have abandoned the theory that the remuneration of labour need necessarily stand in any very close relation to the value of the work done, and that being so, it is clear that the rivalry of cheap labour such as may be introduced from India seems a greater hardship than it did in the days of a harsher political economy which was generally accepted in Great Britain, and more or less all over the world, during the greater part of the nineteenth century. Now this labour objection would apply, and indeed in some parts of the world has applied, equally to the influx of any kind of labour depending on a lower standard of comfort, whatever its colour may be, whether it be white or whether it be brown or black ; and all over the world we are certainly approaching, if we have not already arrived at, the time when organized labour will seriously object to the importation of any kind of lower paid labour, whatever its colour and whatever its nationality, if it is of a competitive character. This is one of the main of difficulties, indeed, which is connected with this question of Indian immigration. It is quite separate from and ought not to be in any way confused with the question of what we call the colour bar. The two are often intermixed, and sometimes I think objections which are really founded on one are made to rest upon the other. But as to the existence of the colour difficulty in its crudest form there can, of course, be no question whatever. This question of colour affects individuals in this country, and I have no doubt the same applies to all the Dominions, in a very varying degree. Some people feel a natural sympathy and kindness towards the men of a coloured race. On the other hand other men, very often equally humane and with as high an ethical standard as the others, feel an instinctive distaste or even dislike to men of a different race. That is a matter which cannot be argued upon, but it is an undoubted fact, partly, I daresay, physiological as well as mental. Now certainly I am not at all disposed to underrate the objections of a certain kind which are felt by many to a close intercourse between the white and the coloured races. If we consider, for instance, the question of marriage, the question of intermarriage between races is one which is so far singular in its application to this subject that the disapproval of marriage of a white man with a native woman, and still more the marriage between a white woman and a man of a native race, affects superior people to the greatest extent. It is one of those prejudices or beliefs which becomes stronger as people become more educated and more generally superior, and in this respect it differs from most of the easy and foolish prejudices which are held against the native races. lam disposed to go so far as to say that in most respects the less a white man has individually to be proud of, the prouder he is apt to be of his whiteness, and the more he considers himself entitled to look down upon people of a coloured race. So far as my travels about the world, which have not been inconsiderable, have led me to suppose, I should certainly go so' far as to say that there is no man who is more convinced of his superiority to the members of the native races, however cultured or however superior in other respects they may be, than the mere bar-loafer whose mental horizon is habitually clouded by whisky. Now there is no doubt, I think, that our national British traits lead us into some temptation and difficulty in this matter. I remember hearing of a witty observation made many years ago, which was to the effect that a Frenchman begins by having a good opinion of himself, but an Englishman begins by having a bad opinion of other people. Ido not know whether Sir Wilfrid, who knows both races so well, would be disposed in any way to confirm that statement; but that being so, if it is so, shows, I think, what our national temptations are when we come to consider the claims and the merits of people of a race entirely different from our own. What those claims and merits are are set out in the words which are quoted on the first page of this memorandum which has been circulated, among the observations made by Mr. Chamberlain in his address to the Conference in 1897. Those words are, if I may venture to say so, well worth weighing. I will not attempt to enlarge upon or in any way to develop what Mr. Chamberlain there so admirably said. I might,

A.—4

397

19 June, 1911.] Indian Emigration and Immigration. [11th Day. EARL OF CREWE— cont. however, venture perhaps to remind you that, on the point of the national claims of Indians grounded on their past history—on their long descent—and other questions of the kind, this at any rate is not a moment when we desire to ignore those considerations. The ceiemony of Thursday next, to which we are all looking forward, depends to a great extent for its meaning upon the long line of British sovereigns, through the Stuart, Tudor, and Plantagenet dynasties back to the time of the Norman Conquest and the dim ages of the Saxon Monaichy; and yet there are to be found in India those whose pride of descent is no less well founded and no less real than that of the King of England himself. Then, again, as regards history, we must never forget that not merely has India produced a great number of remarkable men both in the public service, and, to go back further, notable in ancient literature, but that she is most closely linked to a great number of the most famous men of our own race—statesmen, soldiers, and others. Now, of course, these considerations do not appeal to everybody. We know very well there is a large number of persons to whom the particular appeal of history and tradition does not come home ; but on the eve of the Coronation I can hardly help alluding to this particular aspect of the question. But when you pass on to personal qualities in order to decide whether a man possesses a claim for consideration, really I think the case for those who object to Indians as Indians is worse still. If " A man's a man for a' that " is to be our motto, the claim of a large number of Indians is a real and solid claim indeed. Whether we value intellectual culture, whether—apart from questions of creed—we value the religious mind, whether we value that remarkable devotion to and understanding of the things which are not seen which is so exceptionally deep in India and which, I think, appeals to many people in these harder and material days—whether, again, we value simple intellectual force, uncertain in its exercise in some directions I admit, but which in others produces as keen and fine an instrument as you can fnd in any part of the world—whether we value all of those things or any of them, it is undoubtedly the fact that India and Indians can establish a high and real claim for our consideration, apart from all others. I may again venture to remind the Conference, in spite of certain facts and certain difficulties which have arisen within the last few years, of the undoubted and signal loyalty of the Indian races as a whole to the British connection and especially to the British Crown. As things are, I fully admit that there is no short cut to the solution, so far as I know, in any part of the self-governing Dominions, of this question of Indian immigration by the adoption of heroic legislation —that I fully admit. But Ido submit with confidence to the Conference that the relations between India and the rest of the Empire may be most materially improved by the cultivation of a mutual understanding. So far as the Indian standpoint is concerned, I quite admit that India must admit the main postulates with which I opened these observations—that is to say, the undoubted liberty of the self-governing Dominions to lay down the rules of their own citizenship—and I can say cheerfully on behalf of the India Office and the Government of India that we will always do our best to explain to the people of India how the position stands in this matter. We all not encourage India in any way to develop what, as circumstances are, can only be called extravagant claims for entrance into the self-governing Dominions, and we will do our best to explain to them what the conditions of the Empire really are. In turn I think we are entitled, and indeed it is our duty, to ask the Ministers of the self-governing Dominions to spread within their own area in each case a realisation of how deep and how widespread feeling on this subject in India is. As I think the memorandum point out, the question is an almost unique one in this : that it combines all sections and shades of Indian opinion —all classes and all creeds and political schools—those who are most devoted to the British Crown, and those —few in number, as I hope and believe, but sometimes noisy and sometimes in their way even formidable — who desire to see the end of British rule in India — all these combine when it is a question of Indian disability in any part of the British Empire. It cannot be denied that this difficulty is a very real asset, and a valuable asset, in India to those who are opposed to our rule there. This is an aspect which I venture to impress strongly on

A.—4

398

llth Day.] Indian Emigration and Immigration. [19 June, 1911. EARL OF CREWE— cont. the Conference. It puts into the hands of those—some of them entirely unscrupulous people —who object to our presence in India and who desire to undermine the Government, a weapon which they are not slow to use in attacking us. If, they ask, Indians are to suffer from disabilities in various parts of the Empire, what good is the British connection at all ? Of course, it is a question which can very easily be answered, at any rate to a great extent; but put in that form it naturally makes an appeal to people who are not well informed. I may point out also that the growing tendency to apply principles of self-government to India adds greatly to the complication and difficulty of the matter, because when a Legislative Council, as always possibly may happen, takes occasion to make a particular protest against some legislation or some administrative act on the part of the Government of a Dominion, it becomes —as I am sure you will all be disposed to agree—a far more serious matter than if a mere uninformed grumble, perhaps in the Press or elsewhere, is heard. Therefore, the further we go towards developing the power of India to govern herself the greater are the difficulties which arise on this particular question. What I should venture to state as the lines upon which the Dominion Governments might respectively proceed involve these two considerations. I think that it is possible for the Dominion Governments, strictly within the limits which they lay down for the admission of Indians, to make the entrance of Indians more easy and more pleasant than it has been in the past. It is a matter, I have no doubt, involving some personal trouble, but I am quite certain that if it could become known that, strictly within those limits which we all agree you are entitled to exercise, the Indian subjects of the Crown will receive a real welcome when they come and will not be looked upon with distrust or suspicion, much might be done to better the relations between India and the Dominions. On the other side, as regards the protection of those who are already domiciled there, some, I may remind you, have been there for a very long time indeed. There is at any rate one of the Dominions in which Orientals have been domiciled for some 200 yeais. Sir JOSEPH WARD : That point is not raised in this Resolution at all, Lord Crewe—the domicile of any of the Indians. EARL OF CREWE : No, I was meiely making a general statement; it is quite true I am not speaking to the particular Resolution, but it was asked that I should make a general statement also with regard to the treatment of domiciled Indians. You know very well the matters to which Indians who are in a Dominion attach special importance. In some cases, although not in all, they attach the highest importance to the maintenance of the obligations of caste, and I should hope, therefore, that so far as possible, particularly when Indians are unlucky enough to get into trouble and have to go to prison either for offences against the criminal law or on account of resistance to regulations having the force of law, so far as possible every effort will be made to consider the force of the caste prejudices and similar prejudices which Indians possess, and to make matters as easy for them as possible in that respect. So far as my experience goes, Ministers have shown every desire in every case in which we have appealed to them on the subject to act not merely with humanity (I am speaking, of course, of the Dominion Ministers), but in a broad-minded spirit on these questions. The difficulty, of course, does not arise, I know very well, from the views or prejudices of Ministers themselves, but it cannot always be easy for them to impress upon their subordinates, quite subordinate officials who are probably imbued with a very strong anti-colour prejudice, the importance which we attach, and which those who have to do with India and know India always attach, to what may seem small matters of this kind. lam quite certain that I may venture to appeal to the Dominion Ministers to do all they can to inform public opinion rationally on the points that I have ventured to allude to in the earlier part of my remarks of the general claim of Indians—the members of another race —to considerate

399

A.—4

19 June, 1911.] Indian Emigration and Immigration. [llth Day, EARL OF CREWE— cont. and friendly treatment as fellow-subjects and, as we hope in most cases, loyal subjects of the Crown. I think it cannot be disputed that until fairly pleasant terms exist between the self-governing Dominions and India, within, of course, I repeat once more, the necessary limitations which arise from the fact that you are self-governing Dominions, it cannot be denied that we are far from being a united Empire ; however close the connection and however perfect the understanding between the Mother Country and the self-governing Dominions, we are not a united Empire unless that understanding spreads to some considerable extent also to that vast part of the Empire of which, of course, India is the most prominent division, but which also includes all the Crown Colonies which are inhabited by the various native races. We cannot be a united Empire for two reasons : in the first place, you cannot properly speak of a united Empire so long as acute and active difficulties exist between the different parts composing that Empire; and secondly—this, lam sure, will appeal to Ministers here—it is a distinct misfortune and a derogation from the unity of the Empire if the Mother Country continually finds itself implicated in difficulties between various parts of the Empire. I think it is one of the least agreeable functions which Mr. Harcourt and the members of the Government generally can have to fulfil, to be appealed to from one part of the Empire to another on matters of the kind which I have indicated ; and it is for that reason that we should like to institute, if possible, a first-hand understanding between the Dominions and India—a direct understanding between your Governments and the Government of India—without the necessity for our acting either as advocates on the one side or the other, or being called in to give an opinion. I think that is all I have to trouble you with. I have confined myself purposely to general propositions, because this is really a matter very much more of the spirit and attitude which you can take up than of an attempt to deal with the question by a series of legislative propositions. Ido not pretend, as I repeat once more, that the question is really a soluble one in the full sense —I do not think it is, but lam quite certain that if the Dominions will agree all through to show an accommodating and friendly spirit towards India, although there will be, I have no doubt, plenty of unreasonable people in India as there are everywhere, yet at the same time the best public opinion in India will recognise your efforts and will endeavour to play its part in a peaceful solution of any difficulties as they may arise. CHAIRMAN : As this arises on your Resolution, Sir Joseph, perhaps you would like to speak now. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I am sure we are all very much indebted to Lord Crewe for the very full and interesting statement he has made concerning the high Imperial position in the relationship of Great Britain and her Dependencies to that portion of the British Dominions known as the Indian Empire ; and I want to say at once, to remove any misconception that may follow from a portion of the very lucid statement made by Lord Crewe, that so far as New Zealand is concerned we not only have no unfriendliness to the Indian Empire, but we regard it as a great portion of the British, possessions that is invaluable to the British Empire, and to which we have the most loyal and friendly feeling as a part of the British possessions. Nor does the question, to my mind, arise in connection with this subject of whether the oversea Dominions are troubled by an accession of people from India to our countries. As a matter of fact we are not troubled in that respect at all, and that aspect of the issue does not arise and, from my point of view, does not concern the very important matter that does deeply affect the Dominion of New Zealand and, I believe, the other Dominions too, in connection with the work in which some of the Indians are engaged in competition by British-owned ships against British-owned ships, where in the case of the oversea Dominions our ships are compelled by custom to employ white crews, and, moreover, they are compelled by law to conform to the conditions of pay, rates of hours, and all the other matters that are essential for the carrying on in a satisfactory way the business under the laws which, in the opinion of the people of Nevy Zealand, should apply to seamen on board their ships.

51—A. 4,

A.—4

400

llth Day.] Indian Emigration and Immigration. [19 June, 1911. s ir JOSEPH WARD— cont. I listened to one part of Lord Crete's speech with very considerable interest. On behalf of His Majesty's Government he recognises the undeniable right of the oversea countries to decide for themselves whom they will admit as citizens of the Empire. I have already said—although Ido not think that aspect of the matter comes up, though it is valuable to the whole of us to have the information Lord Crewe has delivered, in considering the difficult matter which has given rise to the notice of motion upon the Agenda Paper submitted by me—that that is one of the things that we stand out so strongly for in New Zealand; and indirectly if the question of the admission of either Asiatics or Indians or any of the other coloured races to New Zealand does not come up under this proposition, it is fully provided for under our legislation and we deal with that quite independently of this question. If the condition of affairs which exists now is permitted to go on connected with our shipping there are only two alternatives for the people who own and control the fine steamship companies manned by white officers, white engineers, and white crews ; they must either transfer the registration of their ships to places beyond the oversea Dominions and follow the same course as other shipping companies of employing Lascars at low rates of wages to enable them to hold their trade in the southern seas where those oversea Dominions are, or they must get the Governments of the people in those countries, which in reality means the people, to alter the whole of our laws, which are of such extraordinary use to our country and of great value to the crews on board those ships, so as to relieve them from the conditions that the labour laws in the country require to be observed—the conditions of appeal to the Conciliation Arbitration Court in New Zealand which, when disputes arise, settle the wages and which must be followed by all whom it affects. The alternative to transferring the registration of these ships and giving them the right, as is the case now under the British law, of employing Lascars at low rates of pay, and then competing upon equal terms out in our seas for coastal trade or intercolonial trade between New Zealand and Australia, or trade between New Zealand and the Islands—the alternative to the transfer of these ships from being owned and registered in our country and conforming to our laws there would be to expect our countries to repeal laws which the people believe in, which are in the interest of the white crews on board those vessels, and thus force the rate of wages down to that which is paid to Lascars and Asiatics who come along in competition with the existing crews, and under existing conditions it is a most unfair competition. Either of these propositions is unthinkable from our standpoint. First of all, why should an extraordinary and an indefensible penalty be imposed upon the enterprise of the people of a young country attached to Great Britain who, thirty or forty years ago or more, decided to have a thoroughly efficient mercantile marine owned in their own country and carrying on the work of that country both around its coasts and beyond its shores ? Why should the people there, who have built up admittedly one of the finest steamship companies in the world, whose vessels are manned by white officers, white engineers, white firemen, and white crews—why, not on account of any unfriendly feeling towards the Indian Empire or the people in the Indian Empire, but because of the fact that for commercial reasons certain other steamship companies are employing Lascars at a low rate of pay —and I am not disputing the right of those companies to carry on their work as they are doing, or saying that they have not got an absolute legal right to do so —should a country like ours (I am speaking for New Zealand only at the moment although I believe Australia is in exactly the same position) be placed in this difficult position because of the action by a great and powerful British steamship company plying from England across the seas to the Australian coast and on to New Zealand with a large number of Lascars employed on them ? Why should the whole of the industrial life of thousands of people employed on board our ships not only be jeopardised but menaced with the destruction of the whole system as it stands under the existing conditions ? To that I for one am anxious to do all in my power to prevent. I am always ready to spread throughout our country, if the necessity should arise to do it—and I say again there is no feeling against the Indian Empire or the Indians as a portion of the British people—the doctrines suggested oy Lord Crewe to

A.— l

401

19 June, 1911.] British and Foreign Shipping. [llthDay. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. maintain the unity of the Empire, and nothing, I am sure, would be done more readily in order to maintain that unity in the Empire to which Lord Crewe has referred. But that is not the question nor the point of the difficulty here. It is as certain as that I am addressing this Conference, that if the existing system goes on, one of the two alternatives I have suggested has to take place. Now let me for one minute say that this is not a question of superiority from the standpoint of the white people to our fellow British subjects, the Indians, that is at issue. To my mind the question is that the white races and the coloured races, under the extraordinary differences in the rates of pay, under the extraordinary differences in the conditions imposed by the requirements of social life in different portions of the British Empire, the white man having in many cases to support a wife and children ashore, cannot under existing conditions work together. lam not at present going into the high social side, which I believe to be of importance to the Indians as well as to the white people, as to the preservation of our individual races. All recognise that not only the Indians but the Asiatics have a right to the fullest consideration upon the score of race and that their pride in their own race is probably as great as our pride in ours; that we have a right to respect that pride which they have in their race, and they in turn have a right to respect the pride we have in our race. But if this position of affairs which exists now is to continue, and I want to make it perfectly clear that we are glad to see any great British steamship line trading to our country, and we hail it with great pleasure their doing so on equal terms and conditions with our own ships; but the conditions under which they are trading between Australia and New Zealand, and on the Australian coast too, are, I repeat, a menace to the whole of the great shipping industry which is owned and controlled and worked in those countries, unless there is some modus vivendi arrived at to prevent practically the destruction of the interests of the white crews on board those vessels. For my part I want to make it perfectly clear—l feel that it is due to the people in my country —that while I am as anxious as any man round this table to preserve all that would make for the consolidation and unity of the British Empire, I feel it absolutely necessary in the interests of the people of my country to ask the British Government to do all in their power —and I certainly intend, on behalf of the New Zealand Government with my colleagues, to do all in my power—to prevent what really means the wiping out of the white crews, on the one hand, of the vessels owned in New Zealand unless their rates of pay are lowered to an amount that could not support their wives and children ashore, or, upon the other hand, the necessity for the same rate of pay being paid to the Indians on board ships not only trading to New Zealand but everywhere else in older to prevent undue competition with the white crews, and I think that is defensible both from the Indian standpoint and from the British standpoint. I listened to Lord Crewe's statement concerning the position in India with a very great deal of interest, and when he asked that the Ministers of the selfgoverning Dominions should spread within their own areas the views he was putting forth regarding India, I thought there was a great deal to be said for that, with this important reservation: the importance of not doing anything to help those who have their hand against the powers that be, in trying to weaken the position of the Indian Empire. But while in our country anxious and willing to do what is suggested in that respect to the utmost of our ability, if it is a sine qua non that there should be the employment of a section of the British races at rates of wages and rates of pay so low, by comparison with what a white man must have to enable him to live, as would not enable him to conform to his social and domestic requirements—if we are asked to do that, then, I think, that means the destruction to a very large extent of very large sections of white British people in some of the oversea countries, and that would be simply intolerable. The Bill which the New Zealand Government passed through Parliament last session, and which is held over at the present moment —I knew it would be held over for the Royal Assent, because it does introduce very important provisions in connection with a matter which affects very large questions both in India and elsewhere —is really the cause of the submitting of the memorandum from which Lord Crewe has quoted this morning rrl five to the British Indians in the

A.—4.

402

llth Day.] British and Foreign Shipping. [19 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARB—cont. Dominions. What does the Bill propose ? I want to direct the attention of the Conference to what that Bill proposes. It proposes an alternative, and it is the alternative that is contained in this Bill, in connection with which I want to impress upon this Conference the importance of our giving effect to something of the kind unless we are going with our eyes wide open to see the destruction of the white officers, white engineers, white firemen, and white crews on board our ships that are a credit to the British flag, and certainly are prized very highly by the people in the countries where those ships are owned. This Bill proposes an alternative, as I have said, and the second clause in it, the operative clause, is to this effect: " Seamen " employed in ships plying or trading from New Zealand to any port within the " Commonwealth of Australia, or from New Zealand to the Cook Islands, shall be " paid and may recover the current rate of wages for the time being ruling in New " Zealand." Now, that is an operative clause which asks, in connection with Britishowned steamers with sections of the British races on board them of a coloured nature, that those sections should receive the same rates of pay when those steamers are trading to and from Australia, between Australia and New Zealand, and round the coast of New Zealand, or to the islands that are attached to New Zealand. That is what that Bill first provides for, and then comes clause 3 : " (1) In the " case of ships plying or trading from New Zealand to any port within the Common- " wealth of Australia, or from New Zealand to the Cook Islands, which are " manned wholly or in part by Asiatics, passenger tickets issued for passages from " New Zealand, and bills of lading or shipping documents for cargo shipped in New " Zealand, shall be liable in addition to any duty imposed under the Stamp Duties " Act, 1908, to a stamp duty equal to twenty-five per centum of the amount of the " passage money or the amount charged for freight." I want the Conference to particularly note the proviso in connection with this 3rd clause—it is that which I wish to direct special attention to. I admit at once, and I do not want any misunderstanding about it, that this 3rd clause contained in this Bill making provision for the stamping of tickets and bills of lading is, from the standpoint of what we are trying to give effect to, probably from the point of view put forth by Lord Crewe, practically saying that those ships are not to trade to our country. I do not want to have any misconception in the mind of anybody as to what that means, because with the disabilities that is intended to impose upon them in clause 3 there can be no doubt that in turn they could not operate successfully against any of the existing lines after having a disability of the kind imposed against them. But it is the proviso I want to direct attention to which is contained in that Bill, and I repeat for the information of the gentlemen attending this Conference that this Bill is the cause of the production of the memorandum upon this important question to which Lord Crewe has so ably referred in the course of his speech : " Provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Collector that the " provisions of section two hereof are complied with on any ship, then the provisions " of this section shall not apply to that ship." I want to tell the Conference what that means. That means that with regard to any British-owned ships which for reasons of their own find it necessary to employ a section of British people of a different colour to the white race, or even if they were British crews who have all the protection of the British flag under the conditions which the British Government in the position it occupies of having to do justice to all parts of the British Empire required to be observed, with that proviso in there, the clause which is intended to be a deterrent, clause 3, imposing a stamp duty on the bills of lading, would be inoperative so long as those ships under clause 2 paid the same rates of pay to Lascars or Asiatics or to British crews as have to be paid in the case of the ships plying or trading around New Zealand or from New Zealand to Australia. In these circumstances I do want to earnestly appeal to this Conference. Neither I, as the head of the New Zealand Government, nor any of my colleagues, could stand by in that country and see the practical wiping out of the shipping interests there by the insidious undermining of the whole position—I do not use the word " insidious " in any objectionable sense —by men whose requirements are ever so much less, and whose standards of living are so different from what ours are, so that it would be putting our crews in the position of either being forced down to the same rates of pay in order to allow our ships to carry on their trade in

403

A.-4

19 June, 1911.] British and Foreign Shipping. [11th Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. competition with the others across the ocean to Australia from New Zealand and round our coasts, or else we have to admit (to which I should take the most decided objection) that in a country like New Zealand, which in the future will be a country owning many ships and manning them with white crews, to run them, we must stop the registration of our own ships in our own territory and by doing so admit that we cannot carry on in a British Dominion the great shipping industry to which we attach importance except by the levelling down of the conditions and pay to white crews under which it is carried on. Those conditions can only be levelled down by the transfer of the vessels to some other country outside New Zealand and outside Australia, so that the allpowerful protection of the British flag over the wide interests that it represents can be given to coloured crews (some of which come from an important British Possession) on board those vessels, at rates of pay, and under conditions of labour, ever so much inferior to those the white man should be asked to accept, and which my Government representing our white people in a British Dominion are determined, so far as they can, should not exist on those vessels locally owned and sailing under the British flag. Let me say here that I want to keep absolutely away from the consideration of the manning of ships, the difference between the admission of Indians to our country, or the admission of coloured races from any portion of the British Empire to our country, and the existing position of those who are domiciled in any overseas Dominion, though they may have been there with their families from the time they originally went, in some cases up to 200 years, as Lord Crewe said. That question is the employment of sections of that community on board ships as employees who are not admitted to the rights of citizenship, and only come to our waters to enable ships to carry on their business over the sea, are as diametrically different in my opinion as daylight from dark. With regard to the question of the general admission of coloured races to our country, Lord Crewe, in the course of his speech, said we had the right to do as we think proper in connection with the admitting of those who are to be citizens of our Dominions. That is so. That question requires to be kept entirely apart from the other, because we are not raising it here. What I am raising by the resolution is the protection of the white crews on board the ships trading with the British flag flying at their mast under conditions which the laws of our country require them to observe. If the system that goes on now is to be continued, and the laws of our country continue as they are, it means the ruin of these vessels trading in our waters unless we repeal our present laws and allow the owners of ships trading in our waters to pay the white man on board those vessels any rate of pay which they think proper. This I am entirely opposed to, and I think it is our duty, in a country like New Zealand, to see that by legislation we impose fair conditions of work and fair rates of pay and fair hours of labour in connection with the manning and working of our shipping, both between our shores and Australia and round our coasts. I think certainly that it would be one of the most regrettable things which could happen if our shipping industry were left in this position, because it would tend to lessen the feeling of attachment and loyalty to the Empire which exists now amongst the white crews on board our vessels and in every other section of the community to which I have been referring. If a great British steamship company in England finds it necessary for its own purposes, in order to develop and carry on its business, to employ Indians on board its vessels, why should we be put in the position of reducing the conditions and pay of our men because an extremely low rate of pay is _paid to our fellow subjects in India? It would be bringing the white men who compose the crews of our vessels to a position which is practically indefensible. For the preservation of that fine feeling which was referred to by Lord Crewe, in my judgment (if I may be permitted to express my individual view on the point) every Government in the Empire, the British Government, and the Governments of the overseas Dominions, should adopt the policy of urging upon the various portions of the world that every race should be relegated to its own zone. lam not going into that matter at length, but I had intended to speak upon that when dealing with questions of this kind, and I just want to say that I believe in the future the necessity for our having white people in the great and growing British Possessions will be

A.-4

404

11th Day.] British and Foreign Shipping. [19 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. so great that it will be difficult to fill our needs even with the 300,000 people a year which was referred to as coming from the United Kingdom—or a large portion of them —to the oversea countries now, and we could, beyond all question, absorb in our countries all the white people that it is possible for any of the white countries to send. The natural pride of the Indians, the Chinese, and the Japanese has as much right and title to consideration as that of the white people, upon the score of keeping their own race pure. In consequence of these extraordinary difficulties which are presenting themselves on this matter in every portion of the overseas Dominions, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, acting for the British Government, is piit in an embarrassing position from time to time trying to adjust the unnatural conditions that exist as the outcome of representations made from the oversea Governments owing to the conflict of labour-conditions and rates of pay and the feeling of race. Why, then, should not we take the matter up from the highest national standpoint and urge upon all the different portions of the world the desirability of having all our races kept to their own zones. The Japanese do that to a large extent now, because Japan is one of the countries which say that their race in another country must not be naturalized, and they have to stand by as subjects of the Mikado no matter to what country they go. It is of just as much importance to the Chinese to preserve their race as it is to the British people to preserve a white race, and to the Japanese to preserve their race; and so it is with the Indians. If we could in a dignified way let all those people understand what our standpoint is, and we agreed ourselves to do so, I think it would be a good thing. I do not know exactly how it is to be done, because I admit it is a very difficult matter. In the different portions of the British Empire we pass legislation that is looked upon as hurtful and distasteful to the coloured races; but if we could show them from the point of view of the preservation of the race in our own countries that we are anxious to keep out of our countries people of other races, and, therefore, urge the desirability of keeping every coloured race in its own zone, then I believe such a policy, though I admit it is an extremely difficult problem, would be a good one, because this question of the mixture of the races is one which must come up for drastic settlement in the next 20, 30, 40, or 50 years. It must be recognised that there are duties devolving upon each of the governments responsible for the governing of the races in the different countries, and I believe at some time or other in the future we shall have to come to the question of providing for every colour going back to and keeping to its own zone. I am particularly anxious not to take up too much of the time of the Conference, but T feel I have to speak my views upon this question. It is a matter upon which I feel strongly, and upon which the people of my country feel strongly, and what I urge is that the Conference ought to do something in the direction of what is contained in the two clauses of the New Zealand Bill to which I have referred. I want to repeat that the provision of one of the clauses of that Bill is that the owners of ships using coloured crews are to pay them the same rates of pay that we pay to our white crews, and, in the event of that not being done, the Bill gives power to impose 25 per cent, additional upon the bill-of-lading freight, and so on, for the various purposes set forth in the Bill. If they pay the rates of pay to their coloured crews which we are paying to our white crews, then that proposal under Clause 3 does not come into operation. I do ask the Conference to keep those two important questions separate —to keep the question of the introduction of the coloured races into our country out of consideration upon this matter : it does not arise at all. The question now before the Conference is as to the employment of coloured races on ships that come to our shores and go from our shores, and do not remain there at all. Finally, I want to say upon this very important matter, that I admit it is to my mind one of the most difficult questions we have to deal with, but I do urge upon the Conference with all sincerity that, as the matter stands at present, it is a menace to the continuation of the shipping industry owned by British people in British Dominions (though these vessels are owned in the oversea Dominions they probably have shareholders permeating the whole world over for aught I know to the contrary), and it is a menace to the position of the white crews

405

A.—4.

19 June, 1911.] British and Foreign Shipping. [11th Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD—cw*. employed on these vessels—of whom there are many thousands in New Zealand and Australia —who have their homes and families ashore. I have had the matter brought before me officially in New Zealand by men pleading earnestly for protection, and they know it means, if it is allowed to continue, their absolute destruction unless they are to accept starvation wages, or, if the vessels are transferred to some other country outside New Zealand for registration, a portion of these men will be put out of employment, as they could not live for the same pay as lascars and support their wives and children. I beg to move the Resolution. Dr. FINDLAY : I should like to add a few words to what Sir Joseph Ward has said. May I suggest to Lord Crewe that he overlooks one important feature of this matter, and that is that it is not in any way a racial question at all. The same law would be made applicable if these crews consistedof a race which we admitted freely to our shores. EARL OF CREWE : I think I pointed out that the labour question was apt to be confused with the racial question. Dr. FINDLAY : That is so. EARL OF CREWE : This is, of course, a branch of the labour question, and 1 quite agree it would apply equally to the Slavonic race or any other. Dr. FINDLAY : To any race. If that is kept clearly in view, I want to emphasize another fact, that to-day in principle, and for years past, the same law has been in existence. We protect our labourers in New Zealand by imposing a tax, in some respects prohibitive, against importations from India into New Zealand. That is how we protect workers ashore. That is not racial; it is purely economic. We say if we admit the product of cheap Indian labour into our market our white workers cannot be paid a living wage. You will observe, therefore, that it is a purely economic question. Now, in what respect is that different from the case before us ? We have white workers on our ships. It is contended that we should allow Indian workers upon other ships to come into our waters and be paid a rate lower than to-day we force by law our shipowners to pay white workers. Surely if those ships are coming into the waters of New Zealand we are entitled to require that they shall submit to the laws of New Zealand. We cannot give extra-territorial operation to the law. We recognise that it can only have operation within the territorial waters of our country. Surely it is not, therefore, in any sense objectionable on racial grounds that we should attempt to impose upon employers of brown or dark labour on ships the same obligations as to wages that we impose upon other labour employers. I make that point because it seems to me in the long discussion that has taken place there is a disposition to overlook the fact that in these cases no question of colour comes in, and there need be no apprehension on the part of the Indian worker that this law is made specially applicable to him, because, as Lord Crewe recognises, it would be applicable to any other employees. May I make this further point : We are not attempting to disturb an existing condition or business, but we are attempting to maintain the status quo. We have had up to the present time white labour on our ships plying between Australia and New Zealand. It has worked well, and the wages have been fair and reasonable, and they have afforded some measure of comfort to the seamen and his dependants ashore. There have come into our waters very recently ships bringing Indian sailors. We say, therefore, that we are entitled to maintain the existing state of things. We are not disturbing anything, and for that reason alone it can hardly be urged that there is anything offensive or—l forget the phrase that is used—grievous in this legislation against our Indian British subjects.

A.—4

406

11th Day.] British and Foreign Shipping, [19 June, 1911. Dr. FINDLAY—co^. I do not want to stress what has been said so fully by Sir Joseph Ward; but what you have to decide to-day is this : are 10,000 seamen and other workers in New Zealand to be thrown out of employment because a certain number of Indian crews are coming there ? If they are to continue to come it is quite clear, as has been said, they will get the control of most, if not all, of the shipping on our side, and our 10,000 people and their wives and families will have to find different employment. It is a very serious question, and much more serious than it looks to gentlemen on this side of the world, and that accounts for the passage of the Bill which we are asking His Majesty to sanction. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : We are prepared on our part to support the Resolution of Sir Joseph Ward, although had I had the drafting of it I would not have expressed it in the same way. The Resolution reads as follows : " That " the self-governing oversea Dominions have now reached a stage of develop- " ment when they should be intrusted with wider legislative powers in respect to "British and foreign shipping." My contention has always been, and is, that under our respective constitutions, at all events, the Constitution of Canada, our powers to legislate for shipping are plenary, and that any legislation we pass as to shipping is not only valid but enforceable in law. But the point of difficulty is that whilst, in my judgment, the powers conferred on the Dominion of Canada to legislate on shipping, and I presume the other Dominions also, are plenary and absolute, the British Government in granting the power of selfgovernment to the Dominions has reserved to itself the power of disallowance, and when legislation is passed of preventing the sanction and putting in force of any such legislation which they think objectionable. While, as I say, the United Kingdom here has asserted to itself the power to disallow any legislation which it is in the power of the self-governing Dominions to pass, it has been very chary of exercising: that power, except in matters of shipping, whereon it has always maintained the doctrine that it had the power to supervise the legislation passed by the self-governing Dominions. That is a question of policy more than a question of law, and I do not think that we require any more power than we have at the present time to pass an Act, and, after that Act is passed, it is valid absolutely. Dr. FTNDLAY : Are you keeping in mind the section of the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act limiting the power of the oversea Dominions ? Sir WILFRID LAURIER : I am. This power is granted to us in our Constitution, but whether it is a question of law or policy I sympathise with the object of the Resolution whether it is raised in one way or the other. I say I sympathise with that, because we in Canada intend to keep to our doctrine that our powers in shipping are plenary. But it so happens in this case the Legislature of New Zealand has passed a law which they think to be essential for the welfare of their country. The British Government have taken up the position that this is an interference with the powers that they have asserted to themselves. It is not because they think it is an infringement on their powers, but, as I think, because they believe also it is bad policy. I sympathise with the object of the Resolution whether you meet it in one way or the other, whether according to my own views or according to the views of Sir Joseph Ward and the New Zealand Government. The question is a very large one, and embraces the whole policy of shipping, but it is intended to reach only one point, that is to say, the employment of Asiatic labourers in the self-governing Dominions. Lord Crew, in the very interesting statement which he made to-day, has covered the whole ground, not only with regard to shipping, but with regard to everything in all the Dominions. It so happens that in New Zealand Asiatic labour is brought in to compete with white labour in shipping. Asiatic labour is brought to Canada chiefly to compete in such works as railways, sawmills, lumber camps, and fishing. Whether it is one kind of labour or another does not matter; the principle is the same. The question is one of very serious diffi-

407

A.—4

-19 June, 1911.] British and Foreign Shipping. [11th Day. Sir WILFEID LAURIER— cont. culty, and every one of us must comprehend the very careful and guarded way in which Lord Crewe has presented the case. There is the great Imperial aspect of the question; but this question would exemplify once more what, for my part, I feel very deeply upon, that in all these Imperial questions it is impossible to regulate them upon a common general system; they must be guided and governed by local circumstances. Nothing is more true than that, and this very thing emphasizes it very forcibly. Sir Joseph Ward has very properly said, " We are most anxious not to do anything in our Dominion which would " impair the spirit of loyalty of the native population in India, or which would " put any difficulty in the way of His Majesty's Government in maintaining the " good relations which happily exist in India "; but at the same time the fact remains that the moment Asiatic people come into our Dominions to compete with our own labour there is a disturbance of the common conditions which, if allowed to go on, would very seriously jeopardise the British Empire. How is the matter to be solved ? Lord Crewe has put the case very fairly and very moderately. He has asked two things only to be done by the oversea Dominions, as T understood him, first of all that no serious obstacle should be put by the Dominions in the way of Asiatics and Indians coming into the different Dominions. Well, I know from my experience in my country, Sir Joseph Ward, I think, knows it in his, and Australia and South Africa know 7 it in their respective Dominions, that the moment Asiatic labour is allowed to come indiscriminately into competition with white labour there is a disturbance. It is not on account of the prejudice of colour. The prejudice of colour exists undoubtedly, but it is not a very serious factor. As Sir Joseph Ward stated this morning, the Asiatic has been accustomed to a civilisation utterly different from our own, perhaps a civilisation superior to our own, and in some respects I am prepared to concede it may be superior to our own; but the broad fact remains that, under that civilisation of ages, the Asiatic working-man can work for a wage for which a white man cannot work and live, and keep his respectability. That has been the Condition everywhere where Asiatic labour has come into competition with white labour, not only in the countries represented here, but in California and everywhere else where it has taken pla.ce. Ido not know what the remedy is. It may be the remedy is to keep, as Sir Joseph Ward said, every race to its own zone; but how it is to be reached Ido not know. For my part, I speak for the Government of Canada, I recognise the moderation of the views presented by Lord Crewe, that these men should be treated with respect and not be discouraged. But they cannot be encouraged to come, because if we were to encourage them we would create very serious remonstrances. As far as they go the conditions that exist have to be respected as far as they can be, but I do not know that we can go much further. Lord Crewe has gone further, and said that the Indians already in the self-governing Dominions should be accorded all the privileges of British subjects. They are accorded all the rights of British subjects so Ur as I know; at all events they are in my country, though I know that Mr. Harcourt has received from British Columbia, in Canada, representations from the Indians who are at the present time settled there, representing to him that they are not treated as British subjects. That is a confusion in their minds. They are accorded all the rights which are inherent to British subjects; but there are many rights which they claim and which they ha,ve not, and which they suppose to be inherent to British subjects. For instance, they have not the right of giving a vote, but the right of the franchise is not a right inherent to every British subiect. We saw a procession, 40.000 strong, on Saturday of British subjects who are not voters and who have no right to vote. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Some who were there have, when they are in New Zealand. Sir WILFEID LAURIER : Some of them have not, Therefore, I say it is a confusion on the part of these people to say that they are not treated as British subjects. They are. They have all the rights inherent in British subjects, but there are to the exercise of those rights certain conditions attached, which are matters of municipal and local legislation, and which must be main-

52—A. 4.

A.^t

408

11th Day.] British and Foreign Shipping. [19 June, 1911. Sir WILFRID LAURIER— cont. tamed as matters of municipal and local legislation, and that is what is objected to. lam sure we can all say to Lord Crewe that there is no disposition in any of our countries to treat our fellow subjects of India in any other manner than as belonging to the British Empire and as fellow subjects of ours, but they must recognise the difficulties there are in the matter which can only be overcome as civilisation goes on. When the man from India comes to Canada or to Australia, and is prepared to ask for the same wage, and is exactly on the same level as the white working man, there will be no trouble. So long as they are different I am afraid there will be some trouble, and, therefore, it is better to provide at once, as we have in all the respective countries we represent, against such a trouble. Mr. BATCHELOR : The Australian view is very much in sympathy with the view put forward by Sir Joseph Ward as regards the Resolution that he has moved, and I will ask Mr. Pearce to refer to that particular point. On the general question raised by Lord Crewe with regard to a United Empire, the mixture of black and white races, or a freer admission of them into the countries now inhabited by the separate races, I think any suggestion that would work towards that would tend to a disunited Empire rather than a united Empire. I feel that very strongly. I think we recognise that there are localities in which both black and white can live separately, and that we should have the best possible and most harmonious relations with the two races. In that way we shall maintain the unity of the Empire. I would like also to put it in this way : Taking the case of the Commonwealth —there was some years ago a very strong feeling, much stronger than there is to-day, of prejudice against Asiatics. That prejudice is very largely going. I think one of the reasons why it is very much less to-day than it used to be is because there is a better understanding, on the part of the statesmen in this country, of the position which we have taken up. There is not the same irritation caused by a wrong understanding on the part of our statesmen, or a wrong statement of the case by them of our position. Irritating statements used to be made in the Press with regard to the position the self-governing Dominions take up on this matter. We have to-day a very much better feeling in that respect. We have been enabled so far to relax portions of Statutes in which any difference was shown with regard to the treatment of Asiatics and others. We have in two or three cases been able to carry Resolutions removing the disabilities which Asiatics were formerly under. So far has this been extended that we got a resolution through the House of Representatives to give Asiatics exactly the same privileges in Old Age Pensions as white persons. It was defeated ultimately, and it was not finally passed into law, but that was owing to accidental circumstances which Ido not think will occur again. In every possible way we seek to place those who are resident in Australia in precisely the same position as other races. We aim at that. We are not able to bring it about all at once. Any attempt by resolution which we may carry here or any suggestions which might come from any extraneous source would not be helping that matter; it has to be the growth of public spirit in each of the self-governing Dominions. There are some statements in the General Considerations which appear in the Memorandum which one could canvass and challenge; but I may say, speaking for Australia on this matter, that this policy of exclusion of certain races has come to stay absolutely, and has to be recognised; but, subject to that, we are anxious to assist in the way of free entry to visitors, and to remove any obnoxious restrictions or regulations which are referred to here. There is one reference on page 6 : "If the question were not so grave, it would be seen to " be ludicrous that regulations framed with an eye to coolies should affect ruling " princes who are in subordinate alliance with His Majesty, and have placed " their troops at his disposal," and so on. " But these Indian gentlemen are " known to entertain very strongly the feeling that, while they can move freely " in the best society of any European capital, they could not set foot in some of " the Dominions without undergoing vexatious catechisms from petty officials. "' At the same time the highest posts in the Imperial services in India are open "to subjects of His Majesty from the Dominions." I want to say in reference

409

A.—4

19 June, 1911.] British and Foreign Shipping. \llth Day. Mr. BATCHELOR— cont. to that that the petty official does not know whether it is a ruling prince or a coolie, and necessarily so. There is a simple way of getting over all these difficulties by intimating their desire to visit, and as far as Australia is concerned they at once get the permit which gives them free admission, and they are subject to no kind of restriction whatever, nor to any catechism. There is the permit, and that is an absolute guarantee to free right of admission. Ido not know how else we could do it; you cannot expect the officials to be able to tell who their visitors may be. EARL OF CREWE : I may say that your permit system is quite understood out in India, and I do not think any complaint has been made of it by Indians; but it does not apply all over the world, although I know it is the case in Australia. Mr. BATCHELOR : Generally speaking, we are anxious to remove any kind of disability under which Indians may be suffering so long as it does not affect the economic and racial question which governs the whole matter. Mr. PEARCE : I would like to say just one word with regard to shipping, as the Resolution deals mainly with that subject. We, in Australia, as you know, have dealt with this question from two sides; one in regard to our shipping law, on which we take up absolutely the same position as New Zealand, and for the same reason, and therefore lam not going over that ground again; the other is that in our mail subsidies, and in our subsidies of shipping for the purposes of trade with the Pacific, we do exclude the coloured races, and we do it for a definite purpose. We believe it is in our own interest and in the interest of the Empire also, to encourage the employment of Britishers on the shipping that carries that trade. We believe that is a sounder policy from an Empire point of view than it would be to allow that trade to drift into the hands of people who would be very little assistance to us in time of war. The other point not touched upon in this discussion, but which I think also should be considered, is that the Resolution says that we should be intrusted with wide legislative powers in respect of British and foreign shipping. It is that point that we in Australia.at the present time are somewhat concerned with, because we understand that the feeling of the British Government is that we are in some cases going further than they think we should go, and interfering with British shipping and foreign shipping, also trading to our shores. We put the view that in all the legislative provisions in our shipping law we are only aiming at one thing, and that is this, that neither British nor foreign shipping shall have an advantage over local shipping in our local waters. That is the main desire, and it is the motive animating all our legislation, and we ask in the words of the Resolution, that the self-governing oversea Dominions have now reached a stage of development when we should be intrusted with that power. Surely it cannot be held to be a hardship if we only put British shipping, and for that matter foreign shipping, on the same footing as oxir own and ask them to comply with that requirement. Mr. MALAN : I would like to add a very few words to the discussion. We have listened with a very great deal of interest and sympathy to the statement which Lord Crewe has made, more particularly from the point of view of the Indian Empire. There were two questions raised, or two aspects of this matter —(1) the colour pure and simple, that is, the question.of races, and (2) the question of labour. Now, I understand from the speeches of Sir Joseph Ward, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and Mr. Batchelor, that in their own Dominions it is the labour aspect of this question which troubles them at present. With us in South Africa it is not so much a question of labour as a question of selfpreservation. We have a very large, an overwhelmingly large, African native population to deal with, and we have peculiar colour questions as between the white population and the coloured populations in South Africa. Now, what is in the minds of the people in South Africa is that if you introduce, or allow to be introduced, another colour problem by having a large Asiatic population scattered over South Africa, you will have then the native of South Africa —

A.-4

410

11th Day.] British and Foreign Shipping. [19 June, 1911. Mr. MALAN— eont. the aboriginal native —tiie Asiatic coloured population, and the comparatively small European population. So it becomes a matter of self-preservation for the Europeans, and therefore I think that the Conference will recognise that as far as South Africa is concerned this is a matter of life and death to us. I am happy to say that after a great deal of difficulty in the different parts of South Africa we are now, I believe, on the point of coming to a settlement. The question has been fully discussed between the Union Government and the Imperial Government, and there is practical agreement as to the lines on which we shall legislate in the future. As regards Indians within the Union itself the Union Government has also come to an understanding with them, and all that remains to be done now is to give legislative effect to the agreement which has been come to, and I think perhaps the less we now say on the merits of the case the better. As regards Sir Joseph Ward's suggestion of sending them back to their own zones, or keeping them in their own zones, we know that policy in South Africa under the name of the segregation policy of keeping each one segregated in his own area, so the idea is familiar to us. Probably Sir Joseph's first difficulty will be to define the zones, and to allocate them. He may be brought into historical investigations which would be rather disconcerting perhaps. That may be a question for the future, and I am not going to express any opinion about that now. I agree with Sir Wilfrid Laurier as regards the wording of this Resolution. I first of all wish to say that certainly I never, on reading this Resolution, thought, or could think for one moment, that it referred to an Asiatic labour difficulty in Australia. It is altogether too wide in its terms, I should think, and it also implies a constitutional disability to legislate, which, I think, should be avoided, and, therefore, if Sir Joseph Ward could confine his Resolution to the particular aspect of the question which he has in mind, I think he would certainly facilitate the passing of the Resolution. CHAIRMAN : Lord Crewe would like to say a very few words on the subject of the Lascars. Mr. Sydney Buxton will be prepared to deal with the commercial aspect of the matter, but we shall take that this afternoon if the Conference will be kind enough to return here for that purpose. Dr. FINDLAY : We will dea! then with Resolution No. 12 and the following one. CHAIRMAN : Yes, this afternoon. EARL OF CREWE : I have merely a very few sentences to say on this subject, because Mr. Buxton will deal with the Resolution from the shipping point of view and the commercial standpoint. The general statement of the principles of this Indian question, with which I ventured to trouble the Conference before, applies, at any rate on one side, to this particular Resolution of Sir Joseph Ward, because I was careful, so far as I could, to make it clear that it was a two-sided question —that there was the question of the labour difficulty and the question of the racial difficulty, which, though often interwoven, were essentially separate in character. Now on this particular question of the Lascars in New Zealand and Australian waters the social objection does not in the main apply. This is no doubt principally a labour difficulty, but it will be understood, I think, that from the Indian point of view it does not make the difficulty any less, or from the Indian point of view make the case any better because of the absence of the social objection. Sir JOSEPH WARD : But you will admit that if it is not racial then the India Office or the Indian people have no right to object on the score of race. EARL OF CREWE : No; but it does not prevent the native Indians who are affected, or those who sympathise with them and speak on their behalf, objecting to the regulations on different grounds. In fact, as I say, they might even say that the position is worse, because some Indians might admit that the social objection to a large Indian influx into a particular Dominion had force, and they might be prepared to agree it existed; but where that does not exist they would merely say : " Oh ! we are kept out because we are prepared to ask

A.—4

411

a) June, 1911.J British and Foreign Shipping. [Hth Day. LAKjI O±< ORE WE — com. " for lower wages and are able to ask lor lower wages than tiie seamen wiio live "in New Zealand/ They would surely say tins is in some respects a harder case than that of Indians who had settled in a particular Dominion, because these are men who are domiciled Indians, who ply their work at a distance from their homes, and in some cases directly from their homes, and yet suiter disabilities. Now it. of course, is true that this is a labour diiiicuity, and, as 1 ventured to point out before, it comes from the practical abdication of the old ideas on political economy; but the Indians are not likely to appreciate it more on that account. It is also necessary to say that this is not, as I think Mr. Buxton will point out, a strictly local question. The complaint is not so much that you are entitled to lay down special rules for the men who are working at sea within your waters, as that you desire to apply those rules to men who are taking, so to speak, a through journey, half round the world, and happen to touch in the course of that journey at your ports or at the Australian ports. Sir JOSEPH WARD : You recognise that if is the economic question we are dealing with. EARL OF ORE WE : Entirely. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Very well. The Indians would absolutely have the right, as far as their economic questions are concerned, to c carry them out as they think proper to suit their race in their own territories. Surely they ought not to object to our doing exactly the same to suit our own race in our territory. That is the point. EARL OF ORE WE : But I think it must be admitted that such a point of view cannot be expected specially to appeal to the Indians, and very largely for this reason : The desire that he should be paid the standard rate of wages is one which might in a way be supposed to appeal to him; but on the other hand he has a different and, if you like, a lower standard of comfort. There is nothing morally wrong in a man being a vegetarian and a teetotaller, and his wife and family also, and being able to live very much more cheaply than people who adopt the European standard of comfort. But the standard of comfort it is desired to impose is that of a Briton, or a man of British extraction. That may be a reasonable thing to do, but it is the imposition of that standard and the accompanying rights—l do not see how you can put it in any other way —upon people who, for purposes of their own, are content with a different standard of comfort to which no moral or, indeed, social objection can be made. If a man is content to live on rice and water, and does not require pork, or beef, and rum, he naturally is able to support his family on a very much lower scale. Consequently you have to convert the entire Indian nation to a theory of economics which they certainly do not hold at present, and to which I think it would be extremely difficult to convert them. As regards the general question on which Sir Joseph Ward has touched, as to people remaining, so far as possible, within their own areas, I may remind the Conference that when T was in Mr. Ffarcourt's office I instituted, with a view, as far as possible, of getting - round this difficulty, an important committee, which was presided over by a very eminent ex-official, Lord Sanderson, with the object of seeing under what conditions and in what circumstances emigration from India to the Crown Colonies could best be encouraged—to the tropical colonies of the Crown. That inquiry was with the view, really, of trying to blunt the edge of this particular difficulty as regards the Dominions, and I hope that certain good results have followed from the report of that inquiry. But the larger question as to whether there is any prospect or probability that the many races of which the British Empire is composed can finally be confined, even in a general sense, to their own areas, is one which is not under absolute discussion now, and therefore I will not attempt to pursue it. As Mr. Malan has pointed out, in South Africa, at any rate, the question hinges mainly on the other side, and it is there a race question, and not an economic one, because there the question of coloured labour exists already on account of the native races which are there in such large numbers.

A.—4

412

11th Day.] British and Foreign Shipping. 119 June, 1911. Mr. MALAN : In order not to be misunderstood : 1 would not say that there is no economic side to this question in South Africa. In Natal, for instance, it is an economic question; they want Indians to work in the sugar plantations, and so on, and, therefore, it is an economic question there. EARL OF CREWE : I am glad you made that observation. That is quite true, but in the other Dominions the only rival to the white labourer, and also I may say to the white trader, is the imported Indian, to any great extent. I think that is all I have to say, and I will leave the technical side of the question entirely to Mr. Buxton. CHAIRMAN : Then we will continue the discussion this afternoon. After a short adjournment. CHAIRMAN : I think we can take Mr. Buxton's statement now. Mr. BUXTON : I do not propose to deal with the Lascar question, which has already been dealt with by Lord Crewe, as representing the India Office, but I propose to deal rather with the resolution which Sir Joseph Ward discussed and which he has moved. It has been referred to in terms by Sir Joseph and by Mr. Pearce. The objection which I have to the Resolution is that it is too vague, and if carried as it stands it would not be possible for the Imperial Government to regard it as mandatory, and to introduce legislation founded oh so vague and general a Resolution. If it is desirable to extend the powers of the self-governing Dominions with regard to merchant shipping, it should be possible to state precisely in what direction and to what extent, and subject to what conditions, such extension is desirable. It must be evident that in a matter such as this one should proceed slowly and with great caution. Every one agrees that uniformity in the matter of shipping legislation is most desirable for overseas shipping. But the result of inconsidered action may easily be to substitute for the comparative and advantageous uniformity which now exists to a very large extent under the Imperial Act a chaos of inconsistent and overlapping jurisdictions which it would be the painful and difficult duty of future Imperial Conferences to reduce once more to something like uniformity. The present principle of merchant shipping legislation is fairly plain and simple. Broadly speaking, the code of law that rules the ship is the code of the country of registration, and that code follows the ship round the world. This general principle is modified in its application to the various parts of the British Empire by two other principles. (1) That they have full power to regulate their own coasting trade, even though the ships engaging in it are registered in the United Kingdom or foreign countries. (2) That as regards ships other than their own registered ships, and other than ships enga,ged in their coasting trade, their legislative powers are restricted to their territorial limits, and are, therefore, inoperative on the high seas. There is an exception in regard to certain powers expressly conferred on Australia by section 5 of the Australian Constitution Act, which deals with so-called " round voyages," which begin and terminate within the Commonwealth. There are various points which might be held to be included in, and covered by, this Resolution of Sir Joseph Ward's to which we could readily assent. For instance, if New Zealand desires to have some power analogous to that which Australia now possesses to regulate round voyages, or if New Zealand desires that the Dominions should be empowered to pass reciprocal legislation providing that the labour legislation of each Dominion should apply to merchant vessels registered in such Dominion while in the territorial waters of the other Dominions, we would not stand in the way. Or, perhaps, the Dominion of Canada desires, as Mr. Brodeur mentioned the other day, that steps should be taken definitely to validate certain Canadian laws affecting Canadian shipping and the Canadian coasting trade, the validity of which is in doubt. On all these matters, though there may be difficulties in detail in arriving at a satisfactory understanding, they are not insuperable, nor is there any objec-

413

A.—4

-19 June, 1911 ] British and Foreign Shipping. \llth Day. Mr. BUXTON— cont. tion in principle. But in this case the Resolution should be more definite and restricted in its language. But the Resolution, as I read it, and as it has been explained by Sir Joseph Ward, proposes to go considerably beyond this, and I would beg the Conference not to act with precipitation, but to give heed to the views of the United Kingdom, whose commercial stake and interest in this matter is so very great, representing as they do nearly 90 per cent, of the whole tonnage of the British Empire. I know that the professed object, as stated several times in the course of the discussions of the Conference, is to improve the trade relations between the Mother Country and the Dominions. We much appreciate this object. But in effect will the action proposed carry out the intention ? May it not tend rather to the opposite result ? We want to know exactly how far, and to what extent, the Dominions desire to exercise control over the ships which come on oversea voyages to their ports, which do not take part in the coasting trade, and we have to consider what would be the effect of such legislation. The Australian Navigation Bill, to which reference was made the other day, does not propose to impose on British and foreign oversea shipping the local legislation as regards manning, wages, and conditions of service, accommodation, &c, which is applied to ships registered in the Dominion or engaged in the coasting trade. But T gather from the explanation of the Resolution given by the Governor of New Zealand to the Colonial Office, and from Sir Joseph Ward's speech, that New Zealand at least now wishes to go considerably further, and, to quote the words of the Governor, which was explanatory of the Resolution which Sir Joseph has moved : " desires to be freely permitted to make its labour legislation applicable to all ships, whether registered in Great Britain and Ireland, or elsewhere, while in the territorial waters of such Dominion." As Sir Joseph Ward has pointed out, the question, from the New Zealand point of view, is one largely of economics. T understand their point of view in reference to wages, conditions of labour, and matters of that sort, and certainly I have considerable sympathy with it, and would regret to see it adversely affected. But the Resolution, as far as T understand it, would constitute a very grave departure, and would affect us very seriously over here, and it raises some important considerations which we have very carefully to examine. What does it include, and how far does it go ? What are " labour conditions," to which reference has been made? These, as usually spoken of in New Zealand and Australia, comprise many matters which are not specifically dealt with, or are differently regulated, by the Imperial Merchant Shipping Acts. These "conditions " comprise two classes of questions. In the first category are questions such as the duties of various ratings on board ship, rates of wages, payments for overtime, leave, &c. These in New Zealand and Australia are regulated either by special enactments or by the awards of a court of arbitration, and therefore statutory, whereas they are regarded in the United Kingdom as matters of agreement to be settled between owners, masters, and seamen. In the other category are included questions of manning, of crew space, of accommodation of officers, and of provisions and medical scales, &c, in which the Dominion requirements, as applied to the coasting trade, differ in many respects from those imposed by the Imperial Acts on British ships; or which, as respects their own laws, are imposed on foreign ships. What is the actual proposition? Is it merely that the statutory wages prevailing in Australia and New Zealand territorial waters should be paid while the ship is in those waters ? This might conceivably be done, though it would be difficult to work out, and might be evaded. But do not "labour conditions" go much further, and involve new accommodation, officers' accommodation, load-line, coal capacity, manning scales, &c. ? How can these conditions apply to vessels only while within the territorial waters of a Dominion, as appears to be implied ? How can special obligatory conditions as regards these matters be carried out as regards oversea and round voyages except under a system of uniformity, which can only be obtained by an Imperial Act ? Most of the requirements involved cannot easily be varied, or varied at all, for part of a voyage. A British vessel to sail from the United

A.—4,

414

11th Day.] British and Foreign Shipping. [19 June, 1911. Mr. BUXTON— cont. Kingdom on a voyage which might carry her to one of these Dominions would therefore have either beforehand to comply with the varying conditions imposed in territorial waters, or would have to undergo structural alterations on her arrival in the Dominion port, which would lead to great expense and delay. These additional requirements would, it must be remembered, apply to ships which had already fully complied with all vie requirements of the Imperial Acts before leaving this country, and, after all, the experience of mercantile marine matters in this country is very exhaustive. It is clear that if one •Dominion or Colony is entitled to enforce its own mercantile regulations, each and all must be given the same freedom. Would not chaos then ensue if and when each Dominion or each Colony enforced its particular and varying legislation as regards manning, crew space, load-line, &c. ? We must not confine our attention to liners, the class of vessels usually discussed in this connection, but must consider also the case of the ordinary commercial steamers, which represent the largest part of British and foreign commerce. Take the case of a tramp steamship owned and registered in the United Kingdom which is chartered now for a voyage to Australia or New Zealand, now to South Africa, now to Canada, according to the state of the freight market. The owner often does not know at what port the ship will touch when the voyage is begun. At present he knows exactly the conditions with which his ship has to comply, and unless the ship is to engage in the colonial coasting trade, he knows he has no other conditions to comply with than those laid down in the Imperial Act. But suppose each Dominion could lay hold of that vessel and subject her in its ports to an entirely fresh code of regulations—alter, say, the requirements of crew space, manning, wages and food scale. Suppose, further (which is quite probable), that, the Australian, New Zealand, South African, Canadian, and Newfoundland laws vary on all these different points. How can the ordinary system of shipping be carried on under such conditions 1 Will not the trade be enormously hampered X Then the question must also be considered from the point of view of foreign shipping and British competition with it. The Dominion conditions cannot be so adequately or effectively enforced on foreign shipping as they can on British. For example, there would be no effective means of ensuring, as might be the case with a British ship, that a foreign ship complied with the conditions once she had left the territorial waters of the Dominion. In the case of wages there would be nothing to prevent a foreign ship complying with the requirements while in New Zealand, and then reducing the wages to their original amount after leaving New Zealand waters, and even deducting the excess paid there. This they would do without leaving any trace; while in the case of a British ship, owing to the fact that seamen have to be paid off before a British officer and accounts rendered to seamen, such evasions could not be so effectively concealed. Foreign ships, too, on leaving the territorial waters, could reconvert the additional crew space to cargo space, and they could get rid of the additional men whom they might be forced to carry at their next port of call after leaving the Dominion. Thus to give the powers sought would discriminate to the disadvantage of British ships. That this is not the desire of the Dominions may perhaps be inferred from that part of the Resolution proposed by the Commonwealth Government, and agreed to by the Conference, which refers to the securing to British ships equal trading advantages with foreign ships. No foreign country attempts to enforce her own rates of wages or manning scales or crew space, &c, on the vessels of another country trading to her ports from abroad; nor does the Imperial Government interfere with the arrangements on board of a foreign ship while in a port of the United Kingdom except in matters relating directly to safety, such as cases of overloading, and insufficient life-saving appliances, &c. Those who live in the stress of international competition are convinced that it is not possible effectively to impose on foreign ships regulations affecting their domestic economy. The Dominions appear to think that they can impose these conditions on foreign ships as well as British. What will be the effect of their action ? If they attempt and fail—a preference will be given to foreign shipping. If they attempt and succeed —retaliation will ensue. The Germans, for

415

A.—4

19 June, 1911.] British and Foreign Shipping. \llth Day. Mr. BUXTON— cont. instance, would not tamely submit to the imposition of such conditions on their ships. These foreign countries will say--and what would be the answer?— " You have allowed your Dominions to impose regulations in order chiefly to prevent undue competition with the local industries. We will do the same. You unduly compete in our ports to the disadvantage of our shipping. In future you must be subject to certain regulations and accommodation which will reduce your competition with us." What would be the result? The whole force and brunt of the retaliation would fall on United Kingdom shipping. The Dominions would suffer not at all or very slightly. The entrances and clearances of foreign vessels at Australian and New Zealand ports in 1908, for instance, amounted to nearly 2,500,000 tons, and of this New Zealand only accounted for about 100,000 tons. The entrances and clearances of British ships in trade between the United Kingdom and Protectionist foreign countries alone amounted in the same years to no less than 134 million tons. Sir JOSEPH WARD : 'Where does that apply to? Mr. BUXTON : That is the United Kingdom trade with the Protectionist foreign countries alone—l 34 million tons (the total trade is very much greater than that) —whereas in the case of Australia and New Zealand the foreign clearances and entrances are 2,500,000 tons. These Tariff countries know how to retaliate, and would not hesitate to do so —Australia and New Zealand, as active Protectionist countries themselves, know this full well. The United Kingdom carries for the whole world, and this being so a large section of our carrying trade is very vulnerable to reprisals. I have spoken of the advantages of uniformity of mercantile laws, and in our opinion, based on great and prolonged experience, such uniformity is of the essence of successful long sea trade. I showed the other day when we were discussing the Australian resolution in reference to navigation laws, that we had, especially of late, been successful in bringing about a considerable degree of International uniformity in respect of matters pertaining to the Mercantile Marine. We desire that if possible this uniformity of legislation and of jurisdiction, without conflicting or overlapping regulations, should rather be extended than curtailed. At the subsidiary Conference on Merchant Shipping in 1907, which arrived at most useful and unanimous conclusions, to which Sir James Mills, the head of the great Union of New Zealand Shipping Company to which reference was made, was a party, and agreed to them, it was possible for representative shipowners and others to explain their case as they view it for themselves. Owing to the rules of the Imperial Conference this is not possible to-day, and therefore I am bound to do my best, as the Minister responsible for Merchant Shipping here, to put before the Conference the very grave view sincerely held by those who conduct a great British industry, of the real peril in which they believe they would stand if the proposals foreshadowed in the New Zealand resolutions as explained were adopted by the Conference. These arguments prevailed in 1907. Surely we ought not to depart fundamentally from that policy without full and extended inquiry after very careful consideration by representatives of the different parts of the Empire, and of all the interests concerned. As regards the resolution itself, I am afraid, for the reasons I have given, His Majesty's Government are unable to adopt it as it stands. I have endeavoured to see how far it might be amended so as to meet the various views. But I do not see that it would be possible to amend it as it stands, and I venture to hope that under those circumstances Sir Joseph Ward, having raised the very interesting discussion he has had. and having been able to state his views, may be inclined not to press it, but if he does I am afraid we cannot give it our support. Especially, I may venture to make that appeal to him in view of the ifac.t that this question of the Empire's shipping was one of the points to which reference was made in Sir Wilfrid Laurier's motion for the appointment of a Royal Commission, and therefore it is one of the points which will be discussed by them and in connection with which they will have an opportunity of considering the Dominion point of view as well as the Imperial point of view and the view of those interested in the matter. What I venture to put to the Conference is this : that under present circumstances it is not possible for us to adopt such a wide resolution, that we are anxious as far as we can to maintain uniformity of legislation in this matter of the Mercantile Marine, and I have

53—A. 4.

A.—4

416

11th Day.} British and Foreign Shipping. [19 June, 1911. Mr. BUXTON— cont. put before the Conference the views that we hold here in reference to the matter, and under those circumstances I hope Sir Joseph Ward may possibly see his way not to press the resolution. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Mr. Harcourt, I may say that I have listened with a very great deal of interest to the important speech delivered by Mr. Buxton. May I be allowed just to say that I want to make quite clear the reason for this resolution, and I say this because Mr. Malan, of South Africa, apparently ■ was under the impression that this resolution was intended to deal with a racial matter, and that while the trouble in New Zealand was labour, the resolution did not meet the latter position. I would like to say, with all deference to Mr. Malan, that a resolution of this sort is necessary to enable us to give effect to what the labour conditions of our country require. The Bill, which will be found in the Blue Book which has been presented to the House of Commons submitted by New Zealand, contains clauses the effect of the inclusion of which necessitated the withholding of the Bill for the Royal Assent, so that unless there is power for the overseas Dominions people to legislate on matters of the kind, I am afraid considerable difficulty will stand in the way. I want to say here that I propose to put on record what the powers of the overseas Dominions are in connection with shipping matters, because my friend Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in the speech he delivered to the Conference, expressed the opinion that they had the power in Canada to do what we are seeking to obtain. I am inclined to think that all our powers are alike, and I want to state what the legislation upon the matter is. The powers of the British Possessions to legislate on shipping - matters are conferred by Sections 735 and 736 of the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. These sections are as follows : " 735. —(IV The Legislature of any British Possession may by any Act or Ordinance, confirmed by Her Majesty in Council, repeal, wholly or in part" (it requires to be confirmed in the first instance, and then we can repeal wholly or in part) " any provisions of this Act (other than those of the Third Part thereof, which relates to emigrant ships) relating to shins registered in that Possession; but any such Act or Ordinance shall not take effect until the approval of Her Maiesty has boen proclaimed in the Possession or until such time thereafter as may be fixed by the Act or Ordinance for the purpose. (2) Where any Act or Ordinance of the Legislature of % British Possession has repealed in whole or in part as respects that Possession any provision of the Acts repealed by this Act, that Act or Ordinance shall have the same effect in relation to the corresponding provisions of this Act as it had in relation to the provision repealed by this Act. 736. The Legislature of a British Possession may. by an Act or Ordinance, regulate the coasting , trade of that British Possession, snbiect in every case to the following conditions :—(a) The Act or Ordinance shall contain a suspending clause providing that the Act or Ordinance shall not come into operation until Her Majesty's pleasure thereon has been publicly signified in the British Possession in which it bas been passed: (b) the Act or Ordinance shall treat all British ships (including the ships of any other British Possession) in exactly the same manner as ships of the British Possession in which it is made; (c) where by treaty made before the passing of the Merchant Shipping (Colonial) Act, 1869 (that is to say, before the thirteenth day of May, eighteen hundred and sixty-nine) Her Majesty has agreed to grant to any ships of any foreign State any rights or privileges in respect of the coasting trade of any British Possession, those rights and privileges shall be enjoyed by those ships for so long as Her Majesty has already agreed or may hereafter agree to grant the same, anything in the Act or Ordinance to the contrary notwithstanding." It will be seen therefore that the powers are restricted to the repeal of certain provisions of the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act relating to ships registered in the Possession, and to the regulation of the coasting trade. Even in these two matters the Colonial Acts are not to come into force until assented to by His Maiesty. I want to direct attention to what the general law is. This Resolution conseauentlv is intended to give us wider powers than are contained in the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act to which I have just referred, and in the case of the trouble existing in New Zealand, without the power .to amend our law to meet our particular purposes, concerning which the Pvovaj Assent is withheld in the meantime to that Bill which has passed through both branches of the Legislature in New Zealand, then we are powerless to meet

417

A.-4

19 June, 1911.] British and Foreign Shipping. [11th Day, Sir JOSEPH WARD — cont. that position which l inaicated Dexore tnat nas arisen, and so is each of the sen-governing uonimions powerless to meet a position similar to tnat it it arises in tneir country, n nas arisen in ours and called for legislation, and tnereiore tnat diuicuity exists nere now, and i am very anxious indeed to nave sometnmg done to meet it. 1 want to make tne position quite clear about tins distinction between the racial and tne labour side ol tins proposition, if we were proposing legislation or suggesting by tnis Resolution something that was dealing witn tne racial question of Uritish subjects in India, then tne matter would be upon an entirely different basis, But it is undeniable that this is an economic question, and in all economic questions in our self-governing Dominions, and in India too, each of our countries reserves the undoubted ngnt to have its laws applicable to the economic requirements and conditions of the respective portions, and so does Great Britain. It is from the economic standpoint that iam asking that we should have the power to deal with a question of this sort as meets the requirements of our country. For instance, to show there is no racial question raised in this Resolution, I want to say that if a ship came down to our country manned by white British crews, not by coloured crews at all, but the owners of the ship were able to obtain officers and men at a low rate of wage out of comparison with what the ruling rate of wage was, we want exactly the same power to apply to them, and we have already tried that against a local steamship company with a white crew. We had them brought before the Arbitration Court with a view to having an equal condition of affairs existing on competitive ships manned by white crews to ensure the preservation of the conditions that the labour laws of our country require shipowners to meet in connection with the manning of their ships. Those ships were not registered in New Zealand. . Although it was very interesting indeed to hear what Lord Crewe put before us regarding the general responsibility of the Empire with regard to British subjects in India, I want to again make it clear that that side of the colour question in its application to British subjects in the Indian Empire is not in any way dealt with in this Resolution nor in any way interfered with in the two clauses in the Bill which is awaiting Royal Assent at the present moment. England itself reserves the right to do that very thing; it has on the Statute Book now 7 the power to do it, and puts into operation the power which lam asking should apply to New Zealand. You have an Act upon your Statute Book here under which you can prevent anybody from any other country, or prevent your own people as a matter of fact, within the bounds of Great Britain and Ireland, from living in hovels. You can, under your Public Health Act, prevent Indian subjects who land here from doing what you think ought not to be done in your country, although in India itself they may live under conditions which you take exception to. You pass legislation to enable you to deal with matters of that kind so far as England is concerned. That is not looked upon as being a blow at the colour of the British subjects who are in India, and I want to make it quite clear that this proposal I am submitting to the Conference for consideration is no more a blow at colour than that is. So for that reason I want to remove that aspect of the matter entirely from the consideration of the Conference. In reply to the statement made by Lord Crewe, I desire to say that I recognise, as the right honourable gentleman does, that if you have a section of the British world that can live very cheaply compared with a w T hite man, and whose responsibilities are not so great, and if you cannot preserve the conditions so as to make it possible for the white man to live, and if you cannot alter the laws under which the coloured section of the British race can live, you are certainly going to bring disaster in the wake of the white man. Although that portion of the race may be able to live under good conditions and have no weakening of their physical condition as vegetarians or living upon rice, it does not follow that because they are able to do that verse they should force that condition of living on the white men who cannot. Out in our country they certainly cannot live as vegetarians, except an odd one here and there; I believe those who do get on all right, but hard working men cannot do so, and as a general rule do not; whether they can or not they do not live in that way. So that after all it does come back to the important point which I referred to

A.—4.

418

11th Day.] British and Foreign Shipping. [19 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WAKD—cont. before, that this legislation beyond all question is a menace to the local shipping, and especially their crews in our country; I am not overstating it when 1 say that, and it is recognised to a much larger extent by the officers, engineers, and crews of these vessels than by the owners even, who recognise it too, because, after all, if the owners were forced, owing to the abnormal condition of affairs, to lay their ships up, it is going to mean the introduction of other ships with cheap crews to carry that trade between our respective countries. What I think, after the important statement made by Mr. Buxton, is that there should be something done to enable us to have this condition of affairs altered. I want to say that at the Navigation Conference in 1907, to which Mr. Buxton referred in the course of his speech, generally speaking I supported what was done at that Navigation Conference because I believed it was as far as we could possibly go, and I do not believe as a general principle in having imposed upon people, who have enormous amounts at stake in great shipping or any other organizations, conditions which will make it impossible for them to have a reasonable return on their capital and a full return in the shape of depreciation, and Ido not want to see them injured in any way whatever. But since the Navigation Conference of 1907, as far as the oversea Dominions go — and I am speaking for New Zealand—the condition has been altered in the direction I state. Prior to 1907 we had not that menace against the continuous employment of white crews, because I do want to re-affirm the fact that our laws which have been built up in connection with our industries in our countries make it impossible for the shipowners out there to employ their crews at lesser wages than they are doing now, and I want to point out the absolute impossibility of their standing up against that position which has occurred since the Navigation Conference of 1907, and is already making a serious inroad upon what has hitherto been regarded by the people of New Zealand as a very fine company, catering splendidly for the people generally. It is one of a number to which I am alluding for the moment, because there are several companies in New Zealand, and each of these companies feels that it is being placed in a very difficult position indeed owing to the action of a large British shipping company, a well managed company, a company against which I have not a word to say, and a company we are very pleased indeed to see in New Zealand, but only if the conditions of labour were not likely to be disastrous to the locally owned shipping. I do not want to take up the time of the Conference further, except to sajr that I should like to be able to see my way to comply with Mr. Buxton's request, after having heard the position, that I should agree not to press this Resolution. I am exceedingly sorry, however, that I cannot see my way to do that. This matter I look upon as so important, so vital to the interests of the white crews in our country, so essential for the preservation of the great shippingorganizations that are there—the matter is so great from the standpoint of endeavouring to meet a position that is in conflict with the conditions which exist in our country—that I can only decline to assent to the proposal. lam exceedingly sorry, under the circumstances, that I must ask Mr. Harcourt to put the Resolution to the Conference, as I desire to record my own vote upon it. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : I stated earlier in the day that in Canada we are disposed to support this Resolution of Sir Joseph Ward's, and the discussion which has just taken place has emphasized in that direction the position we said we would take. Sir Joseph Ward has just stated that this question is governed by the Imperial Statute of 1894. That is the reason why, if it is so, I would be more disposed to record our vote for this. The position we have taken up on this question is that by the British North American Act, the Act which constituted the Dominion of Canada, we have received plenary power to legislate on shipping. That position we take up. Mr. BUXTON : Was not that merely a consolidating Act—the Act of 1894 \ It did not give further power beyond what existed before. Mr. BRODEUR : But at the same time it repealed some sections which had been incorporated in our legislation.

A.—4.

419

19 June, 1911.] British and Foreign Shipping. \llth Day. Mr. BUXTON : But it was a consolidating Act, and there was no intention of either limiting or extending the existing powers. Sir WILFRID LAUEIER : Be it that it was a consolidating Act, we take up the position in Canada that we were given plenary power to legislate on shipping. Whether it be a consolidating Act or another Act, I understand that in consequence of that Act our power to legislate would have been impaired and reduced. Of course the British Parliament which has given us our constitution can take it away at any time they please, but I am not prepared to admit the proposition that unless a statute is passed specially taking away from us any of our powers, any court of law would construe any statute as taking away those powers. If it is stated in so many words, "We have given such a power to one of the Dominions, but we take it away from them here," that would raise a very big issue. I did not understand, nor do I understand now, that the Imperial Act of 1894 ever contemplated anything of the kind as to take away from us any of the powers we had. Dr. FINDLAY : It applies to Canada as well as to New Zealand. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : Possibly. If that was so, that seems to have been an infringement of our power granted to us by our Dominion Act, and I would like to have a judicial interpretation as to whether that is so or not, and this makes me all the more anxious to have this question pushed further to see how we stand with regard to it. Mr. BRODF2UE : May I give you an instance, Mr. Buxton, of the effect of the legislation passed in 1894 by the Imperial Parliament? In 1867, as Sir Wilfrid has said, we were given the power to legislate with regard to shipping. Acting upon this power which was granted to us, we proceeded to pass a Merchant Shipping Act, and we incorporated in our statute almost the same provisions as the ones you have in the Act of 1854. 1 might give you an instance of one of those provisions, the one with regard to collisions. I think the old section of the Act of 1854 declared that there was liability in the case where the accident was occasioned by the violation of the regulations. That was the Act of 1854. In 1894 the Imperial Parliament proceeded to change the Act in that respect, and they declared by—l do not remember the exact number of the section —that if any of the regulations were violated the ship was liable. The burden of proof consequently in both cases is absolutely different. What was the effect then of this change in the Merchant Shipping Act? It was simply to repeal our own provisions in our legislation, which was a copy of your own provisions of 1854. We have also the same provision with regard to the assessment of damages. Ido not remember exactly the number of the section, but it was declared in the old Act that the assessment of damages would be made upon the gross tonnage, including the engine room. We have incorporated that provision now in our legislation. Now by your section of the Act of 1894* you have changed the assessment of damages. What is the result? The result is that our own legislation, which was based upon the Imperial Act of 1854, is null and void, and in that regard our power to legislate has been seriously curtailed. Dr. FINDLAY : You recognise that the Act of 1894 overrides you \ Mr. BRODEUR : Yes. Mr. BUXTON : May I say in reply that this is a point which I think Mr. Brodeur raised the other day. I am no lawyer, and I am not able to give a legal opinion with regard to it, but I understood that the Memorandum I sent

* Note.—The reference appears to be to Section 69 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906.

A.—4

420

11th Day.] British and Foreign Shipping. [19 June, 1911. Mr. BUXTON— cont. to Mr. Brodeur largely met his point. The point as I understand it is this : The Act of 1894 was a Consolidation Act, and a Consolidation Act necessarily repeals various Acts in force—in fact, that is the object of a Consolidation Act. It was not intended, as I understand, that that Act should either extend or diminish the existing powers. It was intended to be purely a Consolidation Act. I gather from what Mr. Brodeur has said that in his view some of the clauses have repealed certain provisions of Acts affecting the Dominion of Canada before, which gave them greater powers than the Consolidation Act of 1894 gives them. If a mistake of that kind has occurred—l think Mr. Brodeur was not in the room when I began my speech—l repeat that we should be glad in such cases as that that steps should be taken definitely to validate certain Canadian laws affecting Canadian shipping and Canadian coastingtrade, the validity of which is in doubt. I should be very glad to meet him in respect of that matter. I think Sir Wilfrid will allow me to say that the Act of 1894 was intended—at all events, so I am advised—as a purely consolidating Act, neither giving nor taking away. Obviously it repeals certain Acts, and perhaps my legal adviser may have an opportunity of looking into it in view of what Mr. Brodeur has said, and the same applies to New Zealand. Dr. FINDLAY : It is not a purely Consolidation Act, because there are some changes made in the substantive law by the Act of 1894. Mr. BRODEUR : On the question of collisions. Mr BUXTON : It is a matter of legal opinion in all these Consolidation Acts, and at all events we shall be very glad as far as we can to meet that point. Really, I do not think there is any difference between us. Mr. BRODEUR : We now have a Bill before Parliament with the object of validating all these Acts, with the object of repealing certain sections of the Act of 1894 which conflict with our own legislation, and, of course, this will have to be submitted to His Majesty in Council. Mr. BUXTON : We will look into it., Mr. PEARCE : The view that the Commonwealth Government take up on this question is, that we derive our powers to legislate on this subject from the Constitution Act, and that there is no absolute limit of area, provided that the law is for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth and is not repugnant to an Imperial law applicable to the Commonwealth. Dr. FINDLAY : The effect of this has not been settled by any legal authority. In New Zealand they have settled it the other way. Mr. PEARCE : There is a difference of opinion as to the application of those words. We have taken the advice of our Crown Law Officers on it, and I have their Memorandum here, which is too lengthy to read, the general effect of which is, that unless there is some prohibition placed on some specific things to be done by us this Merchant Shipping Act does not interfere with us. Sir JOSEPH WARD : The Courts of New Zealand have settled it the other way. Mr. PEARCE : So far as the legislation we pass does not come into conflict with any direct prohibition, our legislation has full force under the Constitution Act.

421

A.—4.

19 June, 1911.] British and Foreign Shipping. [11th Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD : The Appeal Court of Zealand, upon that question to which you referred, have decided exactly the other way with all that law before them, and it was fully argued just on the lines you are giving. Mr. FISHER : Ours is a more recent Constitution. Sir JOSEPH WARD : But the question is the same. Dr. FINDLAY : Yes, the question is how far the Imperial Act overrides it. Mr. PEARCE : I will read this portion of the Memorandum* dealing with these limitations : "This legislative power has two limitations. The first is " sometimes expressed to be that Colonial laws—except where extra-territorial " operation is expressly given to them by the Imperial Parliament—only operate " within the territorial limits of the Colony. The limitation is, however, no- " where expressed in any Colonial Constitution. It appears to me that there " may be cases in which it is necessary for the peace, order, and good govern- " ment of a Colony that it should be able to pass a law to operate extra-terri- " torially; and that the grant by the Imperial Parliament of a plenary legis- " lative power for the purpose of such peace, order, and good government is " wide enough to sanction extra - territorial operation in such cases. While " admitting that the cases in which the necessity arises, and in which, there- " fore, the extra-territorial operation can be conceded, are probably rare, I " would prefer to state the first limitation in the words of the Constitutional " grant —namely, that the operation of the laws of a Colony is limited to the " purposes of the peace, order, and good government of the Colony." Dr. FINDLAY : We have the same words in our Constitution. Mr. PEARCE : " The second limitation is that a Colonial law which is " repugnant to an Imperial Act which by express words or necessary intend- " ment is applicable to the Colony—or repugnant to any [rule] or regulation " under any such Act, is, to the extent of such repugnancy, but not otherwise, " void " —this is under the Colonial Laws Validity Act. 'To create the invali- " dity, it is not enough that the Imperial Law and the Colonial law both deal " with the same matter, and deal with it differently; they must be actually " repugnant one to the other —inconsistent one with the other. The Colonial " law may go further than the Imperial law —may require compliance with " further or more stringent conditions—but it is not therefore necessarily re- " pugnant. Moreover, it is not enough that the Imperial Act is worded so " generally that it is capable of being construed to extend to the Colony, or that "it is not in express words limited to the United Kingdom. The application to "the Colony must be either by express words or by necessary intendment— i.e., "it must be incapable of being construed as not extending to the Colony. Sub- " ject to these two limitations the legislative powers of the Colony with respect "to Navigation and Shipping—as with respect to other subjects—is plenary." He then goes on to discuss the Memorandum (in the name of Mr. Cunliffe) that was put forward by the Board of Trade on various points. The Commonwealth Government take and stand by that view expressed in the words I have just read. Sir JOSEPH WARD : May I point out to Mr. Fisher and Mr. Pearce what the position is? The position, even if you legislate upon the assumption that you have the power to do what you say, is, that the Governor-General of Australia would be bound to hold that legislation over, after it had passed through both branches of your Parliament, to be referred to the Home Government in order to obtain the Royal Assent. Mr. FISHER : I regret Sir Joseph Ward should think it necessary to put that statement in the Conference report at this stage.

* See [Cd. 3023].

A.—4,

422

11th Day.] British and Foreign Shipping. [19 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Why I Mr. FISHER : Because it is practically saying that the Governor-General would be bound to do this, that, and the other. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Pardon me. you were not here when I first stated the position. Mr. FISHER : We have just stated our position through Mr. Pearce. You have stated that if a certain thing transpired in the Federal Parliament, and if a Bill were passed, the Governor-General would be bound to withhold it. I prefer that that matter should not be prejudiced by any outside statement. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Then I will withdraw it, so far as Australia is concerned, and will say that, so far as New Zealand is concerned, it has already occurred under exactly the same law; and the Governor-General in your country does not act except under the Instructions he has when he receives his appointment. There was no desire or no suggestion on my part prejudicing the decision of your Governor-General; far from it. In our case we put legislation through both Houses of Parliament with clatises in to meet our purpose, and our Governor held it over and referred it to the Home Government and it has not! received the Royal Assent. Mr. FISHER : I do not wish a statement of that kind to go in unchallenged by the representatives of the Commonwealth. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I am not saying anything against your Government, or as to what might occur with regard to your Governor-General, who will in any case do whatever he considers to be right; but I am entitled to say what has occurred to us under the same law you quote from, and I think you will find, as a matter of experience, I am not far out in saying that it has a general application. Mr. BUXTON : The point raised by Mr. Pearce and the opinion quoted, and so on, were before the Conference in 1907. Mr. FISHER : It is the opinion of the Crown Law Officers of the Commonwealth. Mr. BUXTON : All that was before the Conference in 1907, and was fully considered when they came to the conclusion they did at that time. Sir D. de VILLIERS GRAAFF : I may say we have no objection to the Resolution. . We have not suffered any inconvenience in connection with the shipping law. Our troubles are rather the other way — not the question of shipping law, but rather the shipping that has given us trouble up to now. So far as we are concerned we have no objection to the Resolution. CHAIRMAN : Under the circumstances explained by Mr. Buxton, the British Government feel obliged to abstain from assenting to this motion, though they will not vote against it. We abstain on the ground that it is too wide for us to accept so general a declaration. Sir Edward Morris, who has had to leave, gave me authority to say that he would not vote either way on this subject if he were present. Sir Joseph Ward and Canada both vote for it, T understand. . . , ....... Mr. FISHER: Our position is that we will accept this Resolution. CHAIRMAN : You vote for the Resolution 1 Mr. FISHER : Yes; it does not limit our power.

423

A.-4

19 June, 1911.] British and Foreign Shipping. [11th Day. GENEEAL BOTHA : This is a legal question, and I shall also abstain from voting, because my own view is that we already have these powers, and if I voted for this resolution it might appear as if we admitted that we do not possess these powers. Mr. FISHEE : I take up the same attitude. GENEEAL BOTHA : I take it we have got the power. CHAIEMAN: I take it South Africa, Newfoundland, and the British Government abstain from voting. Mr. FISHEE : I thought it was perEectly clear from the statement made by Mr. Pearce that we are satisfied with the powers we have, and in assenting to this resolution we do not admit that our powers are in any way limited. CHAIEMAN: In fact, you do not want wider legislative powers. Mr. BUXTON : That is the motion. Mr. FISHEE : The point is that we do not say they are limited. CHAIEMAN : I must take from you which way you wish to vote. Mi. FISHEE : We abstain on the ground that if we voted it might be assumed we had limited powers. :; Sir JOSEPH WAED : May I be allowed to say that in New Zealand there is no doubt as to what the position is, because we have the fact on record that our Governor, in connection with legislation of the kind passed through our Parliament last session which this motion affects, held it was overriding the Imperial statute of 1894. That legislation was referred here consequently to obtain the Eoyal Assent. It contains a provision to meet the difficulty which exists as to the employment of coloured as against white labour. That Bill passed both branches of our Legislature and has been referred home for the Eoyal Assent, and is held over. As far as we are concerned we have had a case before the Appeal Court of New Zealand which does not uphold the position suggested under that law which has been read. We are governed by exactly the same law, and under the circumstances I am sorry, even though the other representatives abstain, that I must put on record my vote in favour of this Eesolution. Mr. MALAN : I would like to be quite clear on this point. Is Sir Joseph Ward's position that it was held that their Act was ultra vires, because it was in conflict with the Act of 1894, or was it merely a case of the exerc'se of the King's veto, and that the King said : 'We cannot assent to this." Was it that the Act was ultra vires, or was it that the King refused to give his assent to the policy of the proposed Act? Sir JOSEPH WAED : It was ultra vires according to the Imperial Act of 1894. Mr. MALAN : Who held that it was ultra vires ? Sir JOSEPH WAED : It was referred by the Governor to the Home authorities on that ground, and it has not received the Eoyal Assent. There is no question about that, and in the meantime we cannot deal with the question of the regulation of the rates of pay upon steamers carrying any coloured crew or white crew receiving wages below the labour regulation wages of our country.

54—A, 4,

A.—4

424

llth Day.] Bkitish and Foreign Shipping. 119 June, 1911. CHAIRMAN: The result is that New Zealand and Canada vote for the Resolution, and the other four parties to the Conference abstain. 12. Uniformity in Immigration and Aliens Exclusion Law. That it is in the best interests of the Empire that there should be more uniformity throughout its centres and dependencies in the law of ... immigration, alien exclusion. CHAIRMAN : Do you wish to move Resolution No. 12 now, Sir Joseph, or is it sufficiently covered by the discussion we have had ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : With the concurrence of the Conference, I would be glad if Resolution No. 12 were altered slightly. Before the word " immigration "in the last line I would like to put in the word " alien " and strike out the word between " immigration " and " exclusion." It would read then : " That it is in the best " interests of the Empire that there should be more uniformity throughout its centres " and dependencies in the law of alien immigration exclusion." I desire that to be referred to the Commission to which the Conference has agreed, in order that they may inquire into it as they move around the Dominions. CHAIRMAN : That would be a very reasonable method of dealing with this subject. It is obviously one of much detail and could well be considered on the spot when the Commission is moving round the Empire. Is that agreed to by the Conference ? if* Mr. FISHER : Quite. May I say, as you are referring to it, that the words should be "it is desirable." It is very much too mandatory otherwise. Sir JOSEPH WARD : " And it is therefore desirable that it be referred to the Royal Commission ? Mr. FISHER : I think so, it softens the blow a bit. CHAIRMAN: You would put in : " And it is therefore desirable that it be referred to the Royal Commission." [Agreed.] Commercial Arbitration Awards. That the Imperial Government should consider, in concert with the Dominion Governments, whether, and to what extent, and under what conditions, it is practicable and desirable to make mutual arrangements with a view to the enforcement in one part of the Empire of commercial arbitration awards given in another part. CHAIRMAN : I will ask the Attorney-General to deal with the next Resolution on Commercial Arbitration Awards, which will only take a few minutes. Mr. BUXTON : I ought to have been in the Chair at that particular SubConference, but I think the members know I had unfortunately to be present at a Debate in the House of Commons when some matters were being raised on my Vote, and therefore, I asked the Attorney-General to kindly take the Chair. Sir RUFUS ISAACS : The resolution which is on the Agenda was passed by the Committee, but there was some discussion in reference to it, and some suggestions were made. I have incorporated those in an amended resolution which I now propose to the Conference, deleting the words at the end : " commercial arbitration

425

A.—4

19 June, 1911.] Commercial Arbitration Awards. [llth Day. Sir RUPUS ISAACS— eont. awards given in another part," and substituting certain words which I will read in a moment. The effect of the amended resolution will be that we should consider not only the enforcement of commercial arbitration awards given in one part of the Empire in another, but that also consider whether mutual arrangements could not be made with a view to enforcing in one part of the Empire judgments and orders of Courts of Justice given in other parts of the Empire ; such judgments and orders would include judgments and orders for the enforcement of commercial arbitration awards. It would seem somewhat odd that we should begin by seeking to enforce commercial arbitration awards without taking what would be really the preliminary and more important step of ascertaining whether we could not arrive at some arrangement for mutually enforcing judgments and orders given by our Courts of Justice in various parts of the Empire. In order to carry that out the resolution will now read, as I propose it on behalf of the Imperial Government to the Conference : " That the Imperial Government should consider in concert with the Dominion Governments whether and to what extent and under what conditions it is practicable and desirable to make mutual arrangements with a view to the enforcement in one part of the Empire " —now comes the alteration—"of judgments and orders of the Courts of Justice in another part, including judgments or orders for the reinforcement of arbitration awards." I think that does carry out what the Committee evidently desired when we discussed this matter last Friday. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I am in full accord with what was done by the Committee and I agree with the motion. Dr. FENDLAY : The proposal would, I think, find support right through the self-governing Dominions, particularly if it provided, as no doubt ultimately it will do, that the judgment, order, or award should take effect in the country where operation is sought for it with the sanction of a judge upon notice to the other side—the same kind of provision as exists now. Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The same as exists in our provisions for enforcing awards. Mr. FISHER : I agree. Dr. FINDLAY : It was suggested, and I quite agree that this should be the provision. Mr. MALAN : Yes. I may say this amendment, as now proposed by the Attorney-General, exactly carries out what was agreed in Committee, and we are quite satisfied. CHAIRMAN: Then I may take it the Resolution is agreed to by the Conference. [Agreed.] Dues on Vessels passing through Suez Canal. " This Conference is of opinion that the dues levied upon shipping for using the Suei Canal constitute a heavy charge, and tend to retard the trade within the Empire and with other countries, and invites the Government of the United Kingdom to continue to use their influence for the purpose of obtaining a substantial reduction of the present charges." CHAIRMAN : Are you ready now to take the question of the Suez Canal ? Mr. FISHER : I shall be very brief, and as this Motion does not appear on the Agenda perhaps I had better read it: " This Conference is of opinion that the charges

A:-4.

426

Day.] Dues on Vessels passing through Suez Canal. [19 June, 1911 Mr. FlSHEK— cent. " made upon shipping for using the Suez Canal are excessive and seriously retard "■ the trade within the Empire and with other countries, and invites the Government " of the United Kingdom to use their influence for the purpose of obtaining a sub- " stantial reduction of the present charges." Since 1896 the Commonwealth Government have made repeated and continuous representations to His Majesty's Government to endeavour to get a reduction of the charges made on shipping using the Suez Canal, and reductions have been made in recent years; in 1903, 50 centimes, amounting to sd. ; in 1908, 75 centimes, amounting to 7jd. ; and in 1911 (the other day), 50 centimes, amounting to sd. The present rate is 7 francs 25 centimes, or equal to 6s. per ton. Notwithstanding that representations have been made the Canal Company maintain that the improvements they are making m deepening and improving the Canal, and other facilities, are of more value to the shipping than an actual reduction in the rates. That is a matter, of course, which must be discussed between the shippers, and the' Canal Company, but we in Australia are very nearly concerned with the speed of, and the charges and burden that are placed on, the ships that carry our trade through that great waterway, and we think that a more substantial reduction than any yet made ought to be made by the Canal Company. To give an illustration : a ship of 10,000 tons, say, passing through the Canal at the present time would pay 2,900?. per passage. That amounts to a charge that is really embarrassing. It is true, and we ought to admit it cheerfully, that this is a private company carrying on their business in the ordinary way, and, as was stated during the preliminary discussion here, if the shippers do not desire to use that Canal they can pursue their business by another sea. That, of course, is an obvious answer from a commercial point of view. But I think there are other interests involved, and when it is pointed out that the amount paid in dues exceed the amount of our mail subsidy you will see that the charges are very heavy and very burdensome. It is also, as you will notice by a recent report of the P. and O. Company, stated that the dues paid to the Canal Company by their ships passing through that waterway are more than the amounts paid for the wages of the whole of the crews of those ships. That is a fair illustration of the amount of those charges, and the burden that is imposed by them. It is quite true that the Company may fail with their great works, and their interests may be in danger from some uncertain event. That is always possible, and they demand very high rates of interest on that account. But, on the other hand, we have the statement made to the world by the great engineer who was responsible for the construction of the Canal, De Lesseps, that when the dividend amounted to 25 per cent, they intended to reduce the rate to, I think, about 5 francs per ton. At this time, that would mean a reduction of per cent, on the present rates. Now, as a matter of absolute fact, the average rate paid has been from 25 to 28 per cent., and if that promise were redeemed to the public it would largely help us, and it would not do serious damage to the interests of the Canal Company. That is one side of it. His Majesty's Ministers are large shareholders in this Company, and apart from any commercial aspects of it, I think we are not going beyond our rights and bounded duty now to again bring this matter before them, and ask that they should use their influence in every possible way to get these charges reduced to the amount promised by the great engineer who constructed the Canal. The Suez Canal is our most speedy and convenient route to Europe at the present time, and we desire that it should be used by our mail steamers, but there are other routes which has been discussed at this Conference, and we have now our great sister Dominion of South Africa with us for the first time at this Conference, and it will be undoubtedly the duty of that great Dominion and the Commonwealth to ascertain if they cannot find relief in other quarters. Ido not utter that at all by way of a threat to influence the Canal Company. They, no doubt, know best how to conduct their own business ; but we make an earnest appeal to the Government in the first place, and to the Company in the second place, for a further reduction in rates.

427

A.— 4

19 June, 1911.] Dues on Vessels passing through Suez Canal. [llth Day. Mr. FISHER— cont. These are all the material points I need put forward at the present time. It is a matter of deep concern to us. We hope that if the rates were reduced we might in some small way be able to turn even a larger volume of shipping through that Canal than goes at the present time, and I trust, Mr. Harcourt, that no effort on behalf of His Majesty's Ministers will be spared to bring this proposal to a successful issue. Ido appeal to you and ask you to convey to your colleagues that we are in deadly earnest about this matter, and we hope that immediate and strong representations may be made, and we shall be glad to be associated with you when they are made. I do not think I need say more than to express admiration of the pluck, courage, and foresight of those who constructed that Canal, nor can we withhold some praise for the manner in which the business has been conducted. It is a great waterway, and while I for one congratulate them on the return made on their capital outlay, I do hope that they will give some consideration, to the question as we have presented it. CHAIRMAN : Mr. McKinnon Wood will speak on behalf of the Government for the Foreign Office. Mr. McKINNON WOOD : The British Government entirely sympathise with the view that has been expressed by Mr. Fisher in this matter, and as he has referred to the fact that we are considerable shareholders in the Suez Canal, I might say that we have always regarded the interests of shipowners and of shipping in this connection as more important than our interest as shareholders. We have never allowed our interest as shareholders to deter us for one moment from pressing for such reductions in the dues as we thought were at all possible. The Suez Canal Company were making certain reductions. They gave us a reduction of 50 centimes as from January, 1911. Mr. FISHER: That is sd. Mr. McKINNON WOOD : Yes ; and there is a proposal now for another reduction of 50 centimes as from January, 1912, and it is very encouraging to find that the Administrative Council, in their Report to the General Council of the Suez Canal Company, stated that they were convinced that the reduction was in the interests both of the shareholders and the shipping, since each reduction was a stimulus to the trade, and, they added that their receipts so far this year, though lessened by the reduction of the dues which came into force on January Ist, had been very largely made up by an increase of traffic. Mr. FISHER : That is a good reason for reducing it by a third. Mr. McKINNON WOOD : That is very satisfactory. Of course we can only exercise our influence in the matter. We have no dominant voice ; we cannot dictate to them in the matter. As Mr. Fisher recognised in his speech, we have only about one-tenth representation on the Board of the Suez Canal Company ; but what I want to say to the Conference most of all is that we do look upon this question of reduction of dues exactly in the same light as Mr. Fisher regards it, and the fact that we happen to be shareholders in the Company will not at all induce us in any way to relax our efforts to obtain further reduction of the dues. I would like to ask Mr. Fisher if he can see his way to make a little verbal amendment in his resolution which we could very well accept in that form—if he would put in instead of the words " use their influence " —" continue to use their influence," as a recognition that we have been doing it, to which I suppose he sees no objection. Mr. FISHER: Ido not object.

A.—4,

428

llth Day.] Dues on Vessels passing through Suez Canal. [19 June, 1911 Mr. McKINNON WOOD : And perhaps lie would not mind altering the words in the first line in this way: " This Conference is of opinion that the*'dues " levied upon shipping using the Suez Canal constitute a heavy charge, and tend to "retard the trade within the Empire, and with other countries." Instead of saying : " are excessive and seriously retard," say " constitute a heavy charge and tend to retard." Mr. FISHER: I see no objection. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I think under those circumstances we could accept this Resolution. Mr. FISHER: You do not alter it in any way to weaken that ? Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN: In view of that amendment I agree to the Resolution. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I agree also. I think the amendment meets what Mr. Fisher wants just as strongly as the original Resolution ; but as Great Britain "has only one-tenth of the representation, I quite foresee the desirability of being a little diplomatic in the wording of the Resolution. In New Zealand we take up exactly the same standpoint as Australia. We are not doing anything like the amount of trade through the Canal that we do by direct steamer with England ; but we have for years been giving a considerable contribution for our mails, and we also pay an annual subsidy to steamers to connect weekly with the steamers going through the Canal, and a considerable proportion of passengers go by those steamers from New Zealand. But there is a class of people in our country who know the conditions connected with the Suez Canal, and that is the producers, who have been exceedingly sore for many years owing to the heavy imposts levied on ships, because they look upon it as a route which would be availed of by some of the direct liners if the charges were low enough. I have for years in my own country spoken about the heavy charges, and at previous Conferences here I have brought the matter up. What we feel is that while the Suez Canal is a magnificent asset from a strategical point of view, and reflects the highest credit upon the great intellect which at the proper time stepped in and secured an interest in it for England, yet it was never contemplated to allow it to be used as a colossal dividend-earner at the expense of the ships, their cargoes and passengers, and the extraction of such enormous dividends from the Suez Canal is injurious to trade and detrimental to the best interests of the old country as well as of the oversea Dominions. It is at present a prohibitive toll bar of the sea, and the high charges are so excessive that they should be materially reduced. General BOTHA: We agree. CHAIRMAN: Then the Resolution as amended is carried. Mr. FISHER : I am pleased with the reception which the motion has met with, and I hope it means business. We pay 170,000?. a year to accelerate the mails of Australia and New Zealand. We cannot help New Zealand very much. Sir JOSEPH WARD : No, we pay all our own. You do not pay anything for New Zealand. Mr. FISHER: But very few from New Zealand go that way. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Very few what ?

A.—4.

429

19 June, 1911.] Dues on Vessels passing through Suez Canal. [11th Day. Mr. FISHER: Letters. Sir JOSEPH WARD : We send the bulk of our letters that way. We pay 15,000£. or 16,000?. a year for connecting steamers alone, in order to enable our mails to go through the Suez Canal, and we pay in addition full Postal Union rates for the conveyance of our mails by the Suez Canal route. Mr. FISHER : But some of them go by our boats, as it is more convenient. Sir JOSEPH WARD : We pay for that independently. Mr. FISHER : I know you pay, but I am only pointing out how we are both paying for a quick service. That is the object. Sir JOSEPH WARD : It is not your subsidised service alone that we patronise ; our mails go by every weekly steamer, and we pay full rates for the carriage of our mails by all of them. Mr. FISHER : We want to get a quick service ; we desire speedy communication and comfortable accommodation ; any reduction they make of course will probably give us no advantage as a Government. We shall still continue to contribute to give them bigger ships, better ships, and more trade. There is also other trade which is not so # urgent as the mails, and even if we get a reduction, the route via South Africa will ultimately be a convenient way to send those of our ships which are not in such a great hurry as those carrying mails. CHAIRMAN : The Resolution is accepted unanimously. General BOTHA : Australia and South Africa will stand together, and build their own line. Mr. FISHER : That is a matter which we shall have an opportunity now of considering. General BOTHA: lam quite prepared to consider it with you. CHAIRMAN : We shall only have 11 to 1 o'clock, or a little less, for the final sitting of the Conference to-morrow. There will be the Resolution, in two parts, of the Commonwealth of Australia : (1) " That in the opinion of this Conference " it is desirable that the Ministers of the United Kingdom and the Dominions should " between Conferences exchange reciprocal visits so as to make themselves personally " acquainted with all the self-governing parts of the Empire." The second is : " That " the Government of the United Kingdom should take into consideration the possibility "of holding the next Conference in one of the Overseas Dominions." Then will come the Draft Report of the Committee on Military subjects, which I understand is likely to be ready for submission to the Conference to-morrow ; and then we must discuss at our final meeting the question of the publication of our proceedings, which I hope will be published as rapidly and as fully as possible. Adjourned to to-morrow at 11 o'clock.

A -4

430

12th Day.] [20 June, 1911. TWELFTH DAY. Tuesday, 20th June, 1911. The Imperial Conference met at the Foreign Office at 11 a.m. Present : The Right Honourable H. H. ASQUITH, K.C., M.P., President of the Conference. The Right Honourable L. Harcourt, M.P., Secretary of State for the Colonies. The Right Honourable Viscount Haldane of Cloan, Secretary of State for War. Canada. • The Right Honourable Sir Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G., Prime Minister of the Dominion. The Honourable Sir F. W. Borden, K.C.M.G., Minister of Militia and Defence. The Honourable L. P. Brodeur, K.C., Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Australia. The Honourable A. Fisher, Prime Minister of the Commonwealth. The Honourable E. L. Batchelor, Minister of External Affairs. The Honourable G. F. Pearce, Minister of Defence. New Zealand. The Right Honourable Sir J. G-. Ward, K.C.M.G., Prime Minister of the Dominion. The Honourable J. G. Findlay, K.C., LL.D., Attorney-General and Minister of Justice. Union of South Africa. General The Right Honourable L. Botha, Prime Minister of the Union. The Honourable F. S. Malan, Minister of Education. The Honourable Sir David de Villiers Graaff, Bart., Minister of Public Works, Posts and Telegraphs. Newfoundland. The Honourable Sir E. P. Morris, K.C., Prime Minister. The Honourable R. Watson, Colonial Secretary. Mr. H. W. Just, C.8., C.M.G., Secretary to the Conference. Mr. W. A. Robinson, Senior Assistant Secretary. Mr. A. B. Keith. D.C.L., Junior Assistant Secretary.

431

A.—4

20 June, 1911.] Publication of Proceedings. [12th Day. There were also present : Lord Lucas, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Colonies ; Mr. Atlee A. Hunt, C.M.G., Secretary to the Department of External Affairs* Commonwealth of Australia; Mr. J. R. Leisk, Secretary for Finance, Union of South Africa ; and Private Secretaries to Members of the Conference.

Publication of Proceedings. Mr. HARCOURT : It is proposed to publish the precis of the meetings of the Conference which has been issued from day to day, and which, I am sure, we shall all agree has been admirably done, in a complete form as a Parliamentary Paper, as soon as possible after the close of the Conference. The precis of the Conference of 1907 was published in a similar manner. With regard to the publication of the full proceedings of the Conference, it is proposed that the precis of to-day and the proceedings of the Conference, when published, should contain the following statement r —" The Conference discussed the question of the publication of the proceedings, and decided that they should be published at as early a date as possible." I hope we may be able to get the full proceedings of the Conference out in about three weeks. Naval Defence. With regard to the South African Resolution, No. 3 : " That wherever votes in favour of monetary contributions towards Imperial Naval Defence are made by the overseas Dominions, any naval services rendered or provision for coastal defence, if any, of the Dominions, with the approval of the Admiralty be borne on such votes," I understand the matter is under discussion between the South African representatives and the Admiralty on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and it is agreed by General Botha that he will be satisfied if the conclusion arrived at is embodied in correspondence for inclusion amongst the Papers of the Conference. Imperial Court of Appeal. Perhaps first, we ought to deal with the Paper which is on the table now, a summary of the proposals made by the Lord Chancellor with regard to the Supreme Court of Appeal. If that is approved by the Conference it can go into the papers which will be published in the Bluebook. The PRESIDENT : The Resolution was passed on the 12th June. " That having heard the views of the Lord Chancellor and Lord Haldane, the Conference recommends the proposals of the Government of the United Kingdom be embodied in a communication and sent to the Dominions as early as possible." This is in response to that Resolution. Viscount HALDANE : This is in response to that Resolution and as far as I know, accurately represents, what was decided at the Conference. The PRESIDENT: Yes, it seems to be so. Mr. BATCHELOR : It adds two judges and it alters the practice.

55—A. 4.

A.—4

432

12th Day.] Imperial Court of Appeal. [20 June, 1911. The PRESIDENT : Yes ; it alters the practice as far as the Privy Council is concerned. Mr. BATCHELOR : Any dissentient judge will be free to give his views. Viscount HALDANE : That is so. The PRESIDENT : That is the point to which great importance was attached ; and it further provides that as far as possible a full Court shall sit in all cases—that is to say, sit one week for House of Lords cases, United Kingdom cases, and the next week for Dominion cases. Sir JOSEPH WARD : This carries out exactly what we agreed upon, and it is all right. The PRESIDENT : Yes, we may take it that that puts in form what the Conference really agreed to, and it is approved. Report of Committee on Defence, Mr. HARCOURT : Then there is the Report of the Committee of the Imperial Conference convened to discuss Defence, Military Matters, at the War Office. That is before the Conference now in a Paper. Assuming that that Report is approved, it is proposed that the precis of to-day and the proceedings of the Conference when published should contain the following statement on the matter : " The Conference received and approved the Report of the Committee on Military Defence, which had held two sittings at the War Office, under the Chairmanship of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff " —and the report will be included in the papers of the Conference. (Mr. PEARCE here referred to the question of the Conferences which were taking place at the Admiralty with the representatives of the Dominion of Canada and of the Commonwealth of Australia with regard to the status of the Dominions' naval forces and their co-operation with the Royal Navy, and it was agreed, on the suggestion of Mr. Harcourt, that a memorandum embodying the conclusions reached should be incorporated among the papers published in connection with the Imperial Conference.) Reciprocal Visits of Ministers. (a.) That in the opinion of this Conference it is desirable that Ministers of the United Kingdom and the Dominions should between Conferences exchange reciprocal visits, so as to make themselves personally acquainted with all the self-governing parts of the Empire. (b.) That the Government of the United Kingdom take into consideration the possibility of holding the next meeting of the Conference in one of the oversea Dominions. Mr. FISHER : I have ventured to bring this motion before the Conference for this reason. Great advantage, has arisen through these Conferences having met in London, and the Dominions have benefited by the discussions that have taken place. All the members of the Conference will remember that when it first met there was a doubt as to its utility. I believe the time has come when it should be recognised that greater advantage would arise if this Conference could possibly meet in the Dominions or at other centres. Our resolution that I submit is : " (a) That in the opinion of this Conference it is desirable that Ministers of the United Kingdom and the Dominions should between Conferences exchange reciprocal visits, so as to make themselves personally acquainted with all the self-governing parts of the Empire, (b) That the Government of the United Kingdom take into consideration the possibility of holding

A.-4

433

20 June, 1911.] Reciprocal Visits of Ministers. \\2th DayMr. FISHER— cont. the next meeting of the Conference in one of the oversea Dominions." I do not want to labour it. Ido not want to embarrass the Ministers of the United Kingdom in any way ; but I do say few of them have any conception of the kindly welcome that would be given to them if they were able to visit our oversea countries. Ido impress upon you, Mr. Asquith, and those with whom you are associated as your Ministers, the advantage it would be to us to have these visits. I shall not press that part of it. The time at their disposal I know is limited ; but, at any rate, the advantage to be gained by being personally acquainted and having personal knowledge would be very great indeed. We had the pleasure of meeting Sir Charles Lucas in our Dominion of the Commonwealth, and it has been a great advantage to us to have that visit from him ; but, while that is true of the permanent head of a Department of the Colonial Office, it would be to a greater extent true, regarding any Minister of the United Kingdom who could come and honour us with a visit. The second part of the resolution is one of greater consequence, that the Government might be asked to take into consideration the question of whether a Conference or Conferences should be held outside London, because that is practically what it comes to. lam strengthened in my view in this matter because you do not hesitate to go to other centres to discuss Treaties ; you send your important representatives, sometimes Ministers of the highest standing, to different parts of Europe to discuss, negotiate, and settle Treaties. Now the discussions at this Conference, in my opinion, will have as great an effect upon the government, safety, and progress of the whole Empire as even some of the great Treaties have had ; and it is for those reasons that I venture to submit this resolution, not dogmatically nor demanding that it should be done, but that the matter be taken into your most serious consideration with a view to discovering whether anything of the. kind can be done. I have my own views about the Conference. I believe that the time is not far distant when we shall have even a larger number of representatives at this Conference. In your own words, Mr. Asquith, the genius of the British people seems to have been able to discover a method not only of uniting our own people, but helping in a great many cases to unite other people in peace and amity and to promote progress. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : I altogether approve the suggestion of my friend, Mr. Fisher. He has put the case as admirably as it could be put in everything that he said, and I humbly commend it to your consideration if you can find time to do what he proposes. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Mr. Asquith, I should like to indorse the sentiments so well expressed by Mr. Fisher and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and to say that if it was possible for one of His Majesty's Ministers to visit the oversea Dominions, I am persuaded it would do an immense amount of good. The Secretary of State for the Colonies I know must have heavy duties attached to his office to which he must devote his attention as his work is so widespread over the British Empire, but the people of our countries would hail a visit of that kind from the standpoint of regarding it as being a practical work for the benefit of the Empire, and I know of nothing that would do so much good as if a gentleman in the position of Mr. Harcourt could during his term of office come out to our countries. I am sure it would be an immense satisfaction to the people, and from the practical standpoint would do an immense amount of good. Regarding the second proposition, while I am prepared to support it, still I foresee great difficulties in connection with it. Ido not see how, speaking frankly, it is possible for all the machinery requisite for the Imperial Conference to be transferred to any one of our oversea Dominions, and a conference would be of little practical use without it. If His Majesty's Government can see their way clear to do that, however, I agree with Mr. Fisher that it would be of immense service, and I should be exceedingly pleased to learn that it could be carried out. BOTHA : Mr. Asquith, I agree with what Sir Joseph Ward has said. I have sympathy with the first proposition, but, as to the second one, I doubt whether it is practicable. We come here to England, and we have the opportunity of meeting all

A.—4

434

12th Day.} Reciprocal Visits of Ministers. [20 June, 1911. General BOTHA.— cont. the Ministers and discussing with them, and we have to discuss with the Minister of Defence, the Naval Minister at the Admiralty, and with the various other Ministers. If you have the next Conference in one of the Dominions, I doubt if we could have all the British Ministers there, and therefore I think it would be awkward. I doubt whether it is practicable, although we would be very glad if it could be done. Sir EDWARD MORRIS: I rather agree with this proposal of Mr. Fisher. I am altogether in sympathy with it as regards the desirability of the public men of England from time to time coming to the Colonies, especially those who look forward some day to being Ministers, but as regards the holding of the Imperial Conference in the various Dominions, I think with the others that that would be almost impossible ; for instance, we could not have held this Conference without having Parliament here prorogued, because it would be necessary to have the Prime Minister and the various chiefs of departments and all the machinery and all the material, and all the books and documents transferred. I think besides that, holding it here in the centre of the Empire adds greatly to its strength and really makes it an Imperial Conference. But if it could be held with advantage in the Dominions, then, of course, there could be no possible objection to it. The PRESIDENT : Gentlemen, on behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom I have to thank Mr. Fisher for the very kind and considerate terms in which he proposed the resolution, and to assure him that we heartily reciprocate the sentiments which he expressed. I think this Conference has admirably illustrated the advantages of personal intercourse between the responsible statesmen who are carrying on in different parts of the Empire what is, after all, the same Government, His Majesty's Government. We get to know one another, which is a very great pleasure and advantage in itself. Persons who are represented merely by names become to us living personalities, and I think I may go so far as to say, become not only acquaintances, but friends, and we realise much more clearly than we possibly could by correspondence and by indirect means of intercourse what are the real problems and difficulties of government in different parts of the Empire. There can be no question that personal contact and intercourse for a few weeks like this is an enormous advantage to us all. In regard to the actual proposals in the Resolution, the first branch of it which declares that "it is desirable that Ministers of the United Kingdom and the Dominions should, if possible, between Conferences exchange reciprocal visits " is one with which I altogether agree. I notice, from the type-written Resolution, that Mr. Fisher has not put in the words " if possible " which I have just incorporated. Mr. FISHER: "Desirable." The PRESIDENT : He says it is " desirable." He does not go so far as to say that it is necessary. That it is desirable there can be no shadow of a doubt, and I must say, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, I shall certainly, if I continue to be responsible for the conduct of affairs here, make every effort I possibly can to insure that one or more of my colleagues shall have the opportunity of carrying out your kind wish of visiting the Dominions. It is not, as you know, all of you who are Heads of Governments, easy to spare a hard-worked colleague presiding over a very complicated department for an indefinite length of time. Mr. FISHER: It is a good rest. The PRESIDENT : It would be very pleasant for him, but perhaps not quite so pleasant for those who are left behind. All the same, those are difficulties which ought to be overcome with a little adjustment, and I assure you that we shall do our best to give effect to that part of Mr. Fisher's resolution. With regard to the second part of the resolution I confess that I share the doubts that have been expressed. There, again, if it were possible I think it would be a very desirable thing, but I share the doubts that have been expressed by more than one speaker as to the practicability of carrying it into effect, and yet preserving the full utility of tins institution of the Conference. Here we are in the centre of the

435

A.—4

20 June, 1911.] Reciprocal Visits of Ministers. [\2th Day. The PRESIDENT— cont. Empire. We have close at hand, within a stone's throw of the Foreign Office, the Admiralty, the War Office, the Post Office, the Board of Trade, all our trained staffs, all our accumulated records at our disposal at a moment's notice with regard to any question which arises. Now with the best will in the world you cannot have that, you cannot transport the whole of that apparatus to a remote part of the Empire and without its presence, without your being able to rely upon its assistance and co-operation, I fear that the proceedings of a Conference might be, to some extent at any rate, crippled, if not mutilated. Therefore, while in spirit I entirely agree with Mr. Fisher, and should be very glad if it were practicable to give effect to his aspiration—he does not put it higher than that—l see in practice such enormous difficulties, in view of the real utility of these Conferences, that perhaps he will be content with the first part of his resolution which I am sure will receive universal assent. Mr. FISHER : Mr. Asquith, as members will see the second proposition (b) has been drafted in such a way that it only contemplates consideration of the possibility of holding a Conference, it does not bind you in any way. I would prefer if you would let it go with the statement you have made. Ido not wish to convey to any one the idea that I think it is practicable at the present time, but I do think that the possibility is there. Many things have been proposed in connection with which there seemed to be insuperable'difficulties and they have been given effect to, but at the same time this is a mere expression of opinion. If the Prime Minister holds strongly that he would rather not see it there, I do not mind. The PRESIDENT : Perhaps if you put it in that way, and instead of saying " the next meeting of the Conference," you were to say " a meeting " in that form we could accept it. Mr. FISHER : That was in my mind—" holding a meeting of the Conference." That would cover a subsidiary Conference. The PRESIDENT : It is quite possible that you might have a subsidiary Conference on some specific point. Mr. FISHER : The only other point which I should like to mention is the opinion I expressed earlier in this Conference, that I think those quadrennial Conferences will be too far apart for the future. Ido not debate that. I believe you will have to have biennial Conferences sooner or later, or something akin to them, and I do express the view again as my firm belief, that these Conferences do more to lead to progress and to reduce friction and to help to preserve the peace of the world than anything else that I know of. lam very glad, with that amendment, to have the pleasure of hearing the views of the Minister and yourself, and I wish to thank you for the way it has been received. The PRESIDENT : As so amended it will be the resolution of the Conference. Sir WILFRID LAURIER: Mr. Asquith, I think we have now reached the end of our labours, and, ere we separate, I would claim the privilege, being the oldest member of this Conference, to convey to yourself, Sir, and to Mr. Harcourt, the sense of our gratitude for the manner in which you and he have carried on the labours of the Conference. It was well known in advance that you, Sir, would preside over our deliberations with the dignity, with the fairness, and with the courtesy which has marked your chairmanship all through the proceedings, and which we are most happy to acknowledge, all and every one of us. Mr. Harcourt, young in years, and young in experience, was, if I may say so, under trial. You, Sir, would be the first to admit that upon his shoulders fell the heaviest and the most difficult part of the work—the work of studying, of mastering, of classifying, and preparing for discussion and assisting in the solution of the various questions which came up for consideration, a work which is unseen and unknown by the public and which is to be judged of only when it has fully matured. This work

56—A. 4.

A.—4

436

12th Day.] Concluding Speeches. [20 June, 1911. Sir WILFEID LAURIER,— cont. Mr. Harcourt has carried out to the absolute and most general satisfaction of all the members of the Conference. He has carried it out in a manner worthy of the great office to which you have only recently appointed him, and, I may add, in a manner quite worthy of the great name which he has the honour to bear, of the long line of ancestors which he now represents, who in their age and generation served the King in the councils of the nation, in the Church, and in the Army, and above all of them, the last of the race before him—his illustrious father, Sir William Vernon Harcourt—who, by the dignity of his character, by his great abilities, by his unfailing courage, and by his high sense of honour, has been in our own day the very embodiment of the best traditions of British Parliamentary life. It would afford us, and it does afford us, the greatest possible pleasure to proclaim, as we feel it, the deep sense of our appreciation of the many kindnesses and courtesies which we have received from His Majesty the King, from His Majesty's Government, from His Majesty's Opposition, and from the whole of the British people. Therefore, I beg to move, as the last act of this Conference, this resolution, which I have asked my friend, Sir Joseph Ward, he being, next to me, the oldest of the members of the Conference, to second : " The members of the Conference, representing the overseas Dominions, desire, before they separate, to convey to the Prime Minister and to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, their warm and sincere appreciation of the manner in which they have prepared, assisted in, and presided over the labours of the Conference, as well as of the many courtesies which they have received from them ; they desire also to put on record the deep sense of gratitude which they feel for the generous hospitality which has been extended to them by the Government and people of the United Kingdom." Sir JOSEPH WARD : Mr. Asquith, I want to say with what pleasure I support the motion which my friend, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, has just moved. No one could express in more suitable language what was intended to be conveyed on behalf of the whole of us than Sir Wilfrid Laurier has done. I would like to add that in my opinion the presidency of the Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, at this Conference, devoting such an amount of time as he has to it, has added very greatly to the appreciation of the countries that we represent, in this recognition by the British Government that the first Minister of State should out of his very active and busy life devote such a large portion of his time in order to preside. I acknowledge, with Sir Wilfrid Laurier, how much we are indebted to the kindness, courtesy, and consideration of Mr. Asquith for the smooth running of the business of the Conference in the many aspects of the very important questions that have come before us. May I also be allowed to say how very highly we appreciate all that Mr. Harcourt has done for us, both officially and privately, and we will never forget how he has smoothed the way for us in the many important duties outside this Conference that have come our way, and which it would have been exceedingly difficult to fill had we not had the guiding hand and kindly advice and assistance of Mr. Harcourt, and, if I may be allowed to introduce it here, I do, with very great pleasure, say that his amiable wife, Mrs. Harcourt, has shared those responsibilities to an extent which we appreciate very greatly indeed. Mr. Harcourt has also from time to time in the absence of the President discharged the duties of Chairman in a most satisfactory manner. May I also, as one who has attended ten important Conferences of various kinds in my time, pay a tribute to Mr. Harcourt and to his staff for the care with which the preliminary work, so multifarious in its details, was prepared for the information of the members of this Conference. Speaking with a long experience of Conferences, I can say that I have never known the work to be so well prepared, and so ready for the consideration of the members of the Conference, so that it has been of infinite use to us in discussing the various matters that have come before us. I would for myself, and for the other members of the Conference, like to acknowledge how much we realise the great assistance which has been rendered to us in that respect, and Mr. Harcourt and his staff are to be highly complimented upon what they have done.

A.—4

437

20 June, 1911.] Concluding Speeches. [12th Day. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. May I also say, in supporting this motion, that it is deserving of recognition what a vast amount of good this Conference has done. When one remembers the questions that we have dealt with, it will be seen how important the work has been, and how valuable it is and will be to all parts of the Empire. I do not propose to go at length into the various matters we have dealt with ; but it has just passed through my mind, whilst Sir Wilfrid Laurier was speaking, that on the all important question of defence the information which has been furnished to us has probably never been of greater value to the oversea representatives than upon this occasion. It will be most valuable to our countries. To ourselves the difficulties of the Home Government in connection with Empire Defence are more clearly understood. Then the discussion of the machinery of government on purely Imperial matters has been very interesting. The views of the members of the Conference on record here—differing as they do on many points—are to my mind very valuable in regard to the work we have done in reference to this important question, and even though it be of a negative character so far as a decision is concerned the discussion was a most valuable one. The matter of consultation with the Dominions regarding Treaties is a very important one and marks a great step forward. The Declaration of London has been considered with the Home Government as affecting the oversea Dominions very fully and very carefully by the representatives present, and the decision arrived at was come to without bias, as also without any pressure. The great work achieved in connection with the Imperial Court of Appeal is, I think, an important one, and I hail with supreme satisfaction the action of the British Government in relation to it. Then we have had a discussion upon naturalisation which, to my mind, is extremely valuable to all portions of the British Empire, and to many people who will be affected as the outcome of the efforts to obtain uniformity in that respect. The Imperial operation of Judgments and Awards of our courts which has been decided upon by this Conference is also of very great value. The matter of Shipping and Navigation laws, which we have also discussed, is of infinite importance to the respective countries who are so much concerned regarding it, and who require to see that the products of their countries are carried under proper conditions, and the valuable expressions of opinion coming from the members of the Conference on this point add, in my view, to the weight of the work which this Conference has done. The effort to have uniformity of laws is a wise one, even though it may not produce practical results for some time to come. The important resolution which Sir Wilfrid Laurier moved for the setting up of a Royal Commission would, if nothing else had been done at this Conference, in my opinion show that the calling together of the representatives of the oversea Dominions in conference with His Majesty's Ministers here enables us to take a broad and a practical view of the need for investigating the difficult and complex questions affecting the trade of the different portions of the British Empire. May I also acknowledge the useful work the respective other Ministers have done at this Conference. Sir Edward Grey, in the very important and lucid statement he made, has given us valuable information which we shall all remember with the greatest pleasure in our respective callings and the busy lives we lead in our own countries. It will be of infinite value to us. So also with regard to the statements made to us by Mr. Buxton, Lord Haldane, the Lord Chancellor, the PostmasterGeneral, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Lloyd George. The presence of these representatives of the Home Government at this table has given us from time to time an insight into some of the difficulties which we cannot see, so far away from the Old Country, and that insight into those matters will be of great use to us, and probably I am right in saying that our views, if aot fully concurred in, will yet be of some use to the Ministers controlling the affairs of the Old Country. Finally I want just to say that I indorse very humbly the expressions which fell from Sir Wilfrid Laurier regarding the great kindness that His Majesty the King has shown to us since we have been here. I desire to acknowledge the much appreciated consideration and kindness which the members of His Majesty's

A.—4,

438

\2th Day.] Concluding Speeches. [20 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD— cont. Government, from Mr. Asquith downwards, have extended to us. I also wish to acknowledge the courtesy shown to us by the gentlemen who represent His Majesty's Opposition here. This Conference will, I believe, be productive of great good, and speaking as one who has had the honour of being on former Conferences I do not know of one which has done more valuable work than the present Conference. I most heartily second the motion. General BOTHA : Mr. Asquith, if I may say a few words upon this, I wish to associate myself with every word that has fallen from the lips of my two colleagues, and I can only add that this is the second Conference which I have attended, and this Conference has been a Conference of trust, a Conference of friends, which has brought our work on to practical lines. If we, Mr. Asquith, want to do good work for the British Empire, the only way that we can make the Empire greater is to do it through love and co-operation. This Conference, as far as I have seen, has called into life that friendship which must lead to co-operation, and better co-operation, in the future than we have ever had in the past. Therefore I can only say that my colleagues and myself from South Africa will leave this country quite satisfied with the work that has been done here, and I agree thoroughly with what has been said about it. Mr. FISHER : Mr. Asquith and gentlemen, I have little to add to that which has been already said, and said so well, by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and by the other representatives in this Conference, beyond conveying to you and Mr. Harcourt, and the other Ministers who have been here, our feelings of gratitude for their courtesy and kindness on all occasions during our meetings and in the carrying out of our work here. I should like also to say a word of commendation to the staff, if you will allow me, who have so ably seconded the efforts of the Prime Minister and his Ministers, and to add that I noticed with pleasure this morning that that is not without recognition. This is my first Conference, unlike the other speakers. I am pleased to have had the opportunity with my colleagues of being here. It probably matters little who the representatives of the Dominions are who may assemble round this table, or where another Conference is held. I believe what has been done at this Conference has laid a foundation broader and safer than has ever hitherto been the case. I believe that the people do not yet fully understand what has taken place at this Conference. Hitherto we have been negotiating with the Government of the United Kingdom at the portals of the household. You have thought it wise to take the representatives of the Dominions into the inner counsels of the nation, and frankly discuss with them the affairs of the Empire as they affect each and all of us. Time alone will discover what that means, lam optimistic. I think no greater step has ever been taken, or can be taken, by any responsible Advisers of the King. I hope, as I feel, that there will be no going back on that sound principle. I think it will be ever memorable in the history of the British nation that you have had the wisdom, courage, and foresight to do it. I hope, as I believe, that that confidence will not be misplaced. I feel sure it will not. I feel sure that the people we have the honour to represent will welcome it. At the same time I would like to add these words, not as words of warning, but words, shall I say, of wise reserve, that they should not be too anxious to know all the things that have been said by those who are responsible here to those who are immediately responsible in other parts of the Dominions, but that they should rest content with the assurances that those who have the responsibility of advising His Majesty on questions of moment and of great interest are doing the best they can in the interest, not only of the King himself, but of every subject who has the privilege of being under his reign. I thank you again, Mr. Asquith, for the kindness of your welcome to us here, and for the great courtesy extended to my colleagues and myself during our stay in the centre of the Empire.

439

A.—4

20 June, 1911.] Concluding Speeches. [\2th Day. Sir EDWAKD MORRIS : Mr. Asquith, I desire to very heartily concur in the resolution so very ably proposed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and to indorse'everything that has been said by the other speakers in support of that. I desire merely fo add my own appreciation of the uniform courtesy and kindness extended to me by you, and by Mr. Harcourt, and the various departmental heads of the offices who have been here as well as members of the Staff. I would also like to indorse what has been said in relation to the staffs of the various departments, particularly the Colonial Secretary's Department, and the Secretary to the Conference, and the other secretaries that we have come in contact with, and to express the hope referred to by Mr. Fisher that their efforts will be suitably and properly recognised, as I have no doubt they will. The PRESIDENT : Gentlemen, I thank you very heartily for the terms in which this resolution is couched, for the speeches with which it has been supported, and for the evidence which those speeches and your demeanour afford of the genuine sentiment which it conveys. So far as it refers to me personally I can assure you that I esteem it as great a privilege as has fallen to my lot since I have had the honour of being in this country the First Minister of the Crown, that I have been permitted to be the first Prime Minister of the United Kingdom who has occupied the post of President of an Imperial Conference. That will be a recollection which I shall always cherish with pride and satisfaction. lam confident that the example which it has been my honour to set will be followed by those who come after me, and that the presidency of these conferences will be regarded as one of the obvious and natural, as also one of the most important, duties of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Gentlemen, as your main obligations, so far as you are under obligation at all to persons in this matter, are due to my right honourable friend and colleague, Mr. Harcourt, I associate myself entirely, if I may do so, with every word of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's eloquent tribute. Mr. Harcourt has not been long at the Colonial Office, but I think I may venture to appeal to the verdict of you who know better than, anyone else and with more intimacy and more responsibility what the affairs of the Empire are, that he has already more than justified his selection for that responsible post. And that the work, as Sir Wilfrid Laurier says, not perceived, work carried on behind the scenes, but none the less arduous and responsible, preparing the ground for a meeting of this kind, has never been more efficiently performed. We both thank you very heartily for your kind recognition for any services we have been able to render. I would, if you will allow me, just say two or three words more by way of survey in regard to the work achieved by the Conference itself. If I were asked to define what has been its dominant and governing feature, I should say it has been the attempt to promote and develop closer co-operation through the old British institution of free and frank discussion. Gentlemen, I think you will agree with me that the value of the Conference and its permanent results are not to be judged entirely—although in that respect it need not be afraid of comparison with any preceding body of the kind—by the actual resolutions which it has affirmed and the proposals which it has adopted. I agree with Sir Joseph Ward that some of the most valuable, perhaps the most valuable, use to which we have been able to put our time has been in the consideration of matters which we have deliberately abstained from coming to any, for the moment, definite conclusion upon. We have cleared the air, we have cleared the ground, we have got to a better mutual understanding of our relative and reciprocal requirements. We see, if I may venture to say so, in truer perspective and proportion, the bulk and dominance of not a few of our Imperial problems, and that is a result which could never have been attained in any other way than by the assembling together of the responsible statesmen of the different parts of the Empire to hold a perfectly free interchange of opinion, each presenting those aspects of the case with which he himself, from his own locai experience, was exceptionally familiar. It is the bringing together into the common stock, if I may say so, of all these various contributory

4.-4

440

12th Day.] Concluding Speeches. [20 June, 1911. The PRESIDENT— cont. elements of experience and knowledge which, I think, will make us all go back to our various tasks better equipped for their performance than we could possibly have been if we had not met here. Gentlemen, I again advert to a matter which has been referred to by Mr. Fisher and Sir Joseph Ward, that this is the first time—and this Conference will be significant in memory in that respect—when, in Mr. Fisher's happy phrase, the representatives of the Dominions have been admitted, as it were, into the interior, into the innermost parts of the Imperial household : what in the old classical phrase were called the arcana Imperil have been laid bare to you without any kind of reservation or qualification. You will all, I am sure, remember our meeting in the Committee of Defence, when Sir Edward Grey presented his survey of the foreign policy of the Empire. That is a thing which will be stamped upon all our recollections, and I do not suppose there is one of us—l speak for myself, as lam sure you will speak for yourselves —-who did not feel when that exposition of our foreign relations had been concluded that we realised in a much more intimate and comprehensive sense than we had ever done before the international position and its bearings upon the problems of Government in the different parts of the Empire itself. So, again, our discussions conducted also and necessarily under the same veil of confidence in regard to cooperation for naval and military purposes have resulted, I think, in a most satisfactory agreement which, while it recognises our common obligations, at the same time acknowledges with equal clearness that those obligations must be performed in the different parts of the Empire in accordance with the requirements of local opinion and local need and local circumstances. Those, gentlemen, are matters as to which we cannot take the world into our confidence ; we cannot even take our own fellow subjects and our own fellow citizens into our confidence in the full sense of the term, but we, who have gone into it with the frankness which such confidential discussions admit of, will agree that, even if the Conference had done no more than that, it would have been a land mark in the development of what I may call our Imperial constitutional history. With regard to actual and positive results that are capable of being published in their fulness to the world, Sir Joseph Ward in the speech he made a few moments ago has given, I think, an almost exhaustive summary. I may just, perhaps, recapitulate very briefly what they cover. First of all, as regards what I may call the relations of the Empire, not to its own members, but to foreign countries, we have had the important resolution unanimously affirmed that the Dominions should be afforded an opportunity of consulation, so far as possible, when instructions are being prepared for the negotiation of International agreements which affect them. We have had the affirmation of the Declaration of London, and we had the important resolution passed only the other day on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier that in regard to existing commercial treaties which apply to the oversea Dominions efforts should be made, as they are being made, to secure liberty of withdrawal if and when any particular Dominion so desires. Those are all very important matters in what I may call the international sphere. Then, when you come to the internal relations of the Empire itself, without attempting to give an exact order of precedence to particular resolutions as compared one with another, I confess that, speaking for myself, I attach as much importance to that which was said and which is now agreed to with regard to the Court of Appeal, as, perhaps, to any other. I think in regard to the constitution and practice of our Imperial Court of Appeal the Dominions had well-founded criticisms to make, which were put forward here with moderation but with great point and force, and I believe that the suggestions which His Majesty's Government were able to indicate, and which have now received your approval, will, when they are carried into effect, displace those criticisms for the future and provide the Empire as a whole with a tribunal which, both by its composition, by the numbers in which it sits, and the procedure which it adopts, will secure unanimous confidence. Then, again, gentlemen, still keeping within the sphere of Imperial law, I think your assent to the important propositions which were laid before you with regard to

A.—4

441

20 June, 1911.] Concluding Speeches. \\2th Day. The PRESIDENT— coni. Naturalisation is a very great step in advance. I will not speak of minor points, but there has been a genera] disposition, which I think is very characteristic of the whole spirit of the Conference, that while we must each of us preserve absolutely unfettered and unimpaired our local autonomy, yet where uniformity is possible in regard particularly to matters where the action of one part of the Empire by itself may affect injuriously another, where uniformity, or, if not uniformity, at any rate similarity, of co-operation is possible with regard to legislation as with regard to administration, that should be the keynote of our policy. Then, finally, you have had a number of very important resolutions, which I am glad to say we have assented to with practical unanimity with regard to the improvement of means of communication within the Empire, postal telegraphic, and so forth. Gentlemen, those are all very solid, practical results. They are results none of which I believe could have been attained, or at any rate none of which could have been attained so rapidly or so effectively, except by the procedure of the Conference, and when we survey the situation as it is to-day after the experience that we ha\e had during these few weeks with the situation as it stood when we first assembled round this table, I am perfectly certain, although many of you have come here at very great sacrifice of personal convenience and, possibly, some detriment to the time being of the carrying on of public affairs in your own Dominions —I am satisfied there is not a man seated at this table who does not feel that those sacrifices were well worth while, and, as I said before, we shall all return to our respective spheres of duty with a stronger sense of our common obligations to the Empire, with a more complete confidence in one another, and with a more earnest determination to work together for the good of the whole. Mr. HARCOURT : Gentlemen, I only ask to be allowed to say one word of deep and heartfelt gratitude for the greatly over-generous references which have been made to myself in relation to the Conference, and also to say how deeply touched I am by, and how much I appreciate, the references which have been made to my father and to my wife. It has, I admit, been a matter of pride to me that the preparations for, and the daily conduct of, the Conference should be as complete as I am happy to find they are satisfactory to the members, but I should like to be allowed to add that the satisfaction in this direction is entirely due to the untiring efforts that have been made by the Staff of the Colonial Office, and especially by Sir Hartmann Just and the Secretariat of the Conference. It will always be a pride to me to have been allowed to take part in a Conference which has made so notable an advance in the policy of Imperial co-operation, and in conclusion I hope I may be allowed to thank every member of the Conference sitting round this table for the invariable kindness and courtesy which I have received from them, which alone has rendered possible the success of our meetings in this room.

Authority : John Mackay, Government Printer, Wellington.—l9ll.

This report text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see report in its original form.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/parliamentary/AJHR1911-I.2.1.2.8

Bibliographic details

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE, 1911 (MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE)., Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1911 Session I, A-04

Word Count

289,832

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE, 1911 (MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE). Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1911 Session I, A-04

Using This Item

No known copyright (New Zealand)

To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.

You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.

For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE, 1911 (MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE). Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1911 Session I, A-04

Using This Item

No known copyright (New Zealand)

To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.

Pages 1-20 of 443

Pages 1-20 of 443

Pages 1-20 of 443

Pages 1-20 of 443

Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details

Word Count

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE, 1911 (MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE). Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1911 Session I, A-04

Using This Item

No known copyright (New Zealand)

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE, 1911 (MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE). Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1911 Session I, A-04

Using This Item

No known copyright (New Zealand)