PREFERENTIAL TRADE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2076, 10 May 1907, Page 2

PREFERENTIAL TRADE.

Press Association.—Copyright.

MR CHURCHILL’S VIEWS. LONDON, May S. Continuing liis speech, Mr. Churchill said many favoring preference as an evidence of goodwill, would recoil from the necessary schedules of taxation. He appealed to the delegates not to establish any . relationship interfering with self-govern-ment, the root principle of the Empire, or consisting of any commercial tie formed by legislative means. He thought it possible good results would come from Sir Joseph Ward’s suggestions, which were a deflection from the direct question of j)reference. The colonies sliouM bluntly state what taxes preference would impose on the Motherland. It was highly dangerous to associate the idea of Empire in the minds of the.

masses with enhanced prices. If the

electors ever demanded removal of the food tax and they found it necessary to consult Governments scattered all over the world, the structure of the Empire would receive a shock such as it never before had /sustained. Somo day, when Empire unification had reached a higher development, men would regard the decision of tlio Conference of 1907 as a ’successful avoidance of one grand

wrong-turn. Sir AVilfrid Laurier preferred to I’eaJlirm the resolutions of 1902 to adopting Mr. Deakin’s, though ho concurred with the first of Mr. Deakin’s two additional -resolutions. Sir AVilfrid stated that preference had

certainly increased Canada’s and Britain’s trade. He admitted tlio absolute right of Britain to adopt whatever fiscal system was best suit-

ed to her internal conditions, and would be glad to apply Canada’s lower preferential tariffs to all British colonies. Sir AVilfrid Laurier claimed that there was no justification on the grounds of sanitation for continuing the injustice of excluding Canadian live cattle.

Mr. Asquith promised the Board of Agriculture should seriously consider the subject.

Mr. Doakin, replying to Mr. Churchill, said he thought the latter had allowed his imagination to run riot in an unnecessary alarmist • fashion. Even if no preference was conceded, questions of taxation must constantly arise in every Legislature of the Empire without such destructive results as Air. Churchill extravagantly pictured. The House of Commons would deal with the business on its merits and adopt constitutional machinery to the country’s circumstances instead of making the State s development lit the measure of a mere standing order. Air Deakin 'challenged the. whole tenor of Air. Churchill’s arguments, because they were based on a seiies of ecqnq-

mic assumptions only applicable to particular circumstances and entirely inapplicable to the actual facts of business competition, especially as reflected by national rivalry and colonial experience. Should the dangers Air. Churchill predicted occur they would not he very grave. -Messrs Asquith and Churchill had anathematised everything which even infinitesimally conflicted with the principles they held to he orthodox. Air. Deakin believed the only safe method of practical politics was to apply economic maxims experimentally, and to bo governed by experience. The Churchill doctrine would he fatal to all discussion of commercial relations. It would mean no preference within the Empire, no commercial treaties outside the Empire, no negotiations for most favored treaties. This involved the absolute isolation of the Alotlierland, •which was treated as a sick man who kept an invalid chair becauso if ho tried to progress he must! ruif

tho risk of hurting himself. If the British Government proposed freetrade within the Empire, combined with a tariff wall against the outside world, Australia would consider it with an open mind. Mr. Donkin personally favored improved cable and steam communication, and commjsrcial agencies in all parts ot the world, and preferential trade covered them all. „ ~ .. Mr Churchill left before Mr Deikin’s sarcastic speech was concluded, in order to bo sworn in as a \L nvy Councillor. Mr. Denkin agreed to save time | and to secure unanimity to accept j tho old form of resolution 4 of 1902, j instead of the rather simpler resolu- I tion ho had submitted. Lord Elgin recorded the Government's reservation, declaring ho saw no way of giving effect to, the piefoiontial solution of 1902 by any alteration of tho fiscal system of the United Kingdom. Sir Wilfrid Laurior’s motion of reaffirmation , "as carried, subject to Lord Elgin s reservation. Dr. Jameson again moved bis postponed resolution which ho submitted on Monday. Mr. Asquith opposed, declaring it casus omissus. Genoral Botha and tlie British Government dissented. r llio rest of tho delegates concurred. NON-COMAL ITTAL MOTIONS. LONDON. May S. At the. Imperial Conference, Lord Elgin moved : ’’That the Conference, recognising the importance of promoting greater freedom and the fuller development of commercial intercourse within the Empire, boiSi.We these objocts may best be sesccured by leaving each part of the Empire liberty of action in selecting the most suitable means for attaining them, having regard to its own special conditions and requirements.’ . Sir Joseph Ward moved tho following addition: “And that it is dosirable to co-operate in all matters of mutual interest.” , Dr. Jameson objected to tlie resolution in the form proposed, and said it might bO considered an abandonment of the Premiers’ previous

attitude. A deadlock seemed imminent. Ultimately Mr. Deakiu moved the insertion after “Conference” of the words, “without prejudice to tho resolutions already adopted, and reservations of his Majesty’s Government.” Tho amended resolution was unanimously carried. Sir Joseph Ward moved instead of the resolution he had previously given no'of: “It is advisable in the interests of the United Kingdom and the self-governing colonies that efforts should be made in favor of “the import of British manufactured goods and British shipping as far as practicable.” This was carried unanimously.

SIR JOSEPH WARD’S TACT. (Received May 9, 10.45 a.m.) SYDNEY, May 9. The Telegraph, commenting on tho fiscal debate at the Imperial Conference, says:—“Sir Joseph Ward is a preferentialist, and his colony is much more pronounced than is the Commonwealth on that question; but Sir Joseph is less dreamy and more a man of affairs than Mr. Deakin, and while he heartily supported the preferential proposal he refrained from folding Britain for daring to disgrace N.Z., and submitted other proposals, which are of a more sensible and acceptable nature. He knew very well that until there is a change in the British mind, preferentialism is impossible; and he therefore invited co-operation in proposals which do not necessarily conflict with British policy.