THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2072, 6 May 1907, Page 2

THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Press Association. —Copyright. PItESS COMMENTS. LONDON, May i.. The Daily Chronicle emphasises and I'm Morning Post admits that rc garding the domain of trade and comimi ideation the results of the Confer once have not been of a negative order. The Post, howover, contends that on the main question the vojee of India is only tho voice of a department of tho British Government which is administering the country. It adds: Tested by tho value l>er head the Australian market is incomparably moro valuable to us than the German. According to tho Daily Telegraph the Motherland stands alone ill desiring less than in 1902. Sir J. L. Mackay stated at tho Conference that if preference was adopted the Indian manufacturers would press for protection. The Morning Post asks why slioul dtliey not do so. Tho Times says it is doubtful whether tho development of India’s possibilities is not fettered in the interests of British manufacture. Mr. Doakin, in a letter to the Times, emphasises that Australianpreference is a mere forerunnor, «' parliamentary overture, in no way satisfying Australian desires, since a largo’majority on the rolls approved of his programme, which in duo course would bo submitted to Parliament.

The Times says Mr. Asquith’s statement was depressing. 'The colonial Premiers’ statements were fun of hope and constructive imagination, suggesting that fight and determination would mould the future to their ends. They contemplated a progressive Empire, united by steadily increasing ties. Mr. Asquith, in reply, was only able to offer on the "essential point rigid adherence to the old position. It is true ho promises attention to communication on the economic standpoint. This subject is a small and political standpoint, fa’smaller compared with preference. He pleads that his hands are tied. Are they tied against moro than a protectionist tariff or preference, based on corn duty? Have the electorates even denied or affirmed the principle of preference? Mr. Asquith’s attitude is the attitude of an extreme fiscal Puritan. The Daily News says Mr. Asquith and Sir J. L. Mackay’s case is unanswerable. 'The people of the Motherland have determined that their prime necessities shall never again be taxed—a verdict whence there is no appeal. The Standard challenges the Government to submit the question of reciprocal preference to a referendum. The leaders of the Imperial 'element of the nation must now show the. colonial Premiers that their message" has not been in vain.

THE TRANSA 7 AAL’S ATTITUDE. LONDON, May 2.

Mr. Hoffmeyer, speaking at AA’ellington, South Africa, said the Afrikander Bond was not to be expected to show the idolatorous worship of Empire like Britishers, but it had the real interests at heart, and its maintenance of the navy as a means to that end. His tariff proposals at the Conference of 1887 originated in the approval of a differential duty by England and the colonies on- foreign goods for the benefit of the navy, such duties working reciprocally. China’s awakening and tho RussianJapanese war necessitated tho maintenance of a powerful fleet.

ALLEGED MISRERESENTATION SYDNEY, May 4.

The Herald, after reviewing the position Mr. Deakiii and his party obtained at the elections, remarks: “For such a Minister to claim ho has a mandate from Australia to offer preference on his own terms, is a course of political conduct which we can hardly define in Parliamentary language. His astonishing colleague, Sir AV. Lyne, nearly equals the effrontery of the Prime Minister when he invites the Imperial Government to institute a referendum on the subject. f LONDON, May 2. Sir AA r . Lyne, in a vigorous outspoken speech, declared that Sir. Asquith had been unnecessarily brusque and uncompromising in his attempts to belittle the advantage of colonial offers. It would be scarcely fair if Australian preference was restricted to 8 per cent, of trade, yielding a profit of £100,000: If it was more widely extended, as was contemplatotd, it might perhaps have yielded a profit of £1,200,000. Sir AV. Lyne, replying to Sir J. L. Mackay, stated it was unlikely the people of Australia, with high social conditions, would place Lascars, earning 4.]d per day, on the same category as Australian seamen earning 4s to ss. Sir J. L. Mackey interjected: The Lascars receive ninepence per day. Sir AA’. Lyne asserted that foreign shipping and trade were increasing in Australia far quicker than British. Ho feared Britain was losing her hold

uu nuauauaii muuvmo. i icieienuu would rectify this. Britain was really more concerned than Australia. He advocated low Australian duties on British goods and higher on freight. Australia did not want a one-sided bargain. If 2s per quarter preference was concerded to colonial wheat, 2'J,000,000 more acres would be planted in the colonies. The concessions would not raise the price of bread. The colonies would be able to supply nearly everything Britain wanted. Sir AV. Lyne continuing, emphasisel the increasing keenness of foreign competition-in-the colonies, citing the latest statistics. Foreign nations gave bounties and concessions of all

Kinds m order to increase trade, thereby increasing the mercantile marine and reserves for naval warfare. If the British - Government were so satisfied that they had got a mandate against preference, why hesitate to appeal to the country by

lciyicjiuum tu imu out ir it was still of the safne opinion? He denied there was a mandate. IMr. Deakin inquired whether the British Government, being' absolutely determined against preference, would consider a proposal, on the lines suggested by Mr. Hofmcycr in 18S7 and

Sir Charles Sydenham Clarke in INI* bourne on November 9, 1903, invol nig the creation of an Imperial fui by one per cent, special import dut, I°'' ( all foreign goods entering I3i tisli ports, the fund to bo applied 1 I he improvement and development < the Umpire, improvement in the ca riage of mails, cable services, an other common Imperial ends, lib dealing with the Suez Canal difficulty

Mr. Asquith said he was not prc pared to answer without consider;! tion. Later, Mr. Deakin asked Mr. Lloyi George if lie was prepared to tak tlieir propositions into consideration lie said Britain could make up he contribution to the Imperial fund h; an> means she pleased, so long as sin provided an equivalent. Mr. JDea'ki;

thought such a proposal well wort) examination, in order to jiscortaii il it was within Mr. Asquith’s unde taking that the Government wen jirepared to look favorably on any proposal for improving inter-imperial communiications and tlie development of commerce and trade. If the Government were favorable to the idea, then the Conference could try' to arrive at a practical agreement. It wculd be better to wait that or some similar scheme than to close itie Conference without being able to show anw advance. His great object was to elicit some positive proposa 1. Mr. Deakin’s suggestion appeared to be received with disfavor on the part of two colonial representatives, also by Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Churchill. The two latter consented to consider the matter. Both will snonk on Mondav.

MORE BANQUETS. LONDON, May 3.

The Victorian League entertained the wives and daughters of the Premiers and Ministers at luncheon. The Princess Louise was present. The British Empire League and British Science Guild gave a banquet ax, the Hotel Mctropolo. There were 300 guests present, including Lord Hugh Cecil, Lord Kelvin, and leading scientists and educationalists. Lord Derby, the chairman, on behalf of the League, proposed the health of the Premiers. He was supported by the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, on behalf of the Science Guild. The latter declared the Universities of Montreal, Melbourne, Sydney, and New Zealand looked forward to the interchange of students and professors. Mr. Deakin, replying, said the Imperial problem is to retain the principle of self-government, not leaving self-government scattered and disunited, or to be left until the hour of emergency to improvise expedients for unity. Sir Joseph Ward referred to the work of the Empire League in New Zealand, and was loudly cheered.

MR. ASQUITH CRITICISED

Received May 5, 5.12 p.m. LONDON, May 4,

The precis of the conclusion of Sir AA’m. Lyne’s speech was only issued on Friday evening. Ho said that means must bo found to secure closer unity in commerce. The younger generation had not the same instinctive attachment to the Mother country as the older generation. As one who knew the guardians of the Empire’s outposts, he warned the British Government of their trade slipping away. AVlien ho left, nearly half the shipping in Sydney was foreign. He was confident this question would be taken - up throughout tile length and breadth of the Empire, despite Mr. Asquith’s discouragement. Though momentarily eclipsed the cause of reciprocity in trade and preference would certainly eventually win. Australians, as kith and kin of the Motherland, resented being treated on the same footing as foreigners.- It was possible in connection with foodstuffs to assist the colonies at foreigners’ expense, without any cost to the British consumer. Perhaps it would be possible to raise revenue to assist old age pensions

A great shrinkage in British trade was inevitable, owing to the high foreign tariff walls. Foreigners would not retaliate, since they required our trade market. The consolidation and the early federation of South Africa were all examples that the British Empire might follow. Mr. Asquith’s basic principle was that freetrade, adopted 50 years ago, still held the field. Sir AVilliam Lyne contended that freetrade was unsuitable now, and must now be accepted as an inherited dogma. The Empire was valuable, and must be cemented by ties of kinship and commerce. Ho recalled Lord Carnarvon’s phrase: “All products of nature are found within the Empire, and the scattered units of the Empire are capable of being marvellously united in sympathy and sentiment.” Australia’s preference was a modest step towards the goal of union. The policy of “blundering through,” possible in the case of war, would probably be disastrous in commerce. Australia’s 10 per cent, preference was really a larger advantage than that Canada offered. He thought some special consideration might be extended to Australian wine.' He emphasised tho importance of providing more rapid communication with Australia.

Mr. Smart described Mr. Asquith’s speech as a brilliant piece of special pleading. The old attachment for the Motherland was diminishing in )'lbe colonies, and fresh ties were needed with the Empire. They would not hold together miles regard was paid to local conditions and local sentiment. Sir Wilfred Laurier said he did not sympathise with Mr. Donkin’s support of Mr. Hofmeyer’s proposal, fearing its adoption would dislocate the Canadian tariff. Sir Joseph AVard hesitated to express approval. Received May 5, 5.38 p.m. The A4 r estminster Gazette is glad Mr. Asquith does not take the view expressed by Messrs. Cox and AAredgwood, Commoners, that the Imperial Government’s participation in such schemes as outlined by Sir Joseph AVard in the direction of improved communications and reduction of Suez Canal dues, etc., would be worse than preference. To veto such participation would be fatal to a large part of work as path-finders and road-makers in new countries. Tho principle of freetrade seeks the utmost freedom and facility of trade, and can be applied by making channels of trade where private enterprise for the moment does not suffice.

SMALL TAXES. Received May 5, 4.40 p.m. ■ LONDON, May 4. Mr. Balfour speaking before Primrose League at Albert Hall asked who on reading Mr. Asquith’s Budget speech, could say that the fiscal system was satisfactory. Who, after hearing the Colonial Premiers, could say that the feelings of the colonies were a mere tranistory emotion. The only remedy for lessoning the fiscal burden for Imperial defence and carrying social reform was an extension of tho basis of taxation. Tlic existin gduties on articles of large consumption were, from an ad vaolretn standpoint, preposterous in

magnitude. What was wanted was small duties on articles 'of large consumption, which would' thus yield a large revenue without serious dislocation of trade or laying a serious burden on the consumer. When adopted the system should meet the desires of every dependency, strengthen the bonds of Empire and bring the component parts together on a commercial basis. He had no doubt that a policy of preference would ultimately bo adopted in Britain, but u hen adopted it would he less advantageous than if the Government had not turned a deaf ear to the colonial I verniers’ proposals. Hanging the door in the faces of the colonies was a most foolish form of Impe-hil statesmanship. The whole spirit of the Government and their action in every part, it not inconsistent to the. maintenance of the Empire must diam its vital force and strength. Received May 5 4.40 p.m.

.... ~ LONDON, May 4. AI. P H y > Cl . lrcmiclc asserts that Mi. Balfour s alteration of food taxes is a gigantic scheme relieving the direct taxpayer at the cost of the poorer members of the community. The limes makes a strong onslaught on Britain’s fiscal system winch is the crudest known among civilised men, namely, a shilling come tax. It was absurd to have imports exceeding the value of tho things taxed, the taxes boiim upon a VC ‘r' sniall number of articles. The Standard says: Tile Government by refusing to entertain rect inoca preference has given Mr. Balme opportunity of his “ 110 has lost no time in assur mg the country that he is determir °"ti° ,se it: t 0 the utmost. m o -ot ,c t egraPh SayS tlle s P«och may of the ° f the fortunes siriiisT T Hcn ceforth those desk to, !-° r aSS ° ciilt:ion between the .mist vnt f° nS ri ai,d the Motherland '.. ote , for the Unionists and those hostile or indifferent to tho mainten- = of _the Empire must vote for tlm

1 lie AA estmilister Gazette says Mr Balfour’s small taxes which no one will feel are chimerical and will lead into the morass of Protection.