IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.

Hokitika Guardian, 20 June 1924, Page 2

IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.

[Reuters Telegrams.} mil Macdonald against preference. LONDON, dime 18. On the resumption of the Preference Debate in the Commons. Mr .MacDonald announced that he would vote against all the resolutions. He said the first four were innocent looking resolutions. hut were a preliminary declaration iii favour of a full programme ot British Imperial Preference. The General Council of the British Trade Union Congress and the Executive Committee of the Labour Party passeil a resolution expressing profound idignation at the Matteotti affair, charging the leaders of Fascism with the moral responsibility for lii.s death They also telegraphed wishing .success to the affronts of the Italian Trade ITiioiis movement to recover the light of free combination of political and civil freedom and a judiciary free from Government influence.

VOTES JN COMMONS. LONDON, June 18

The intervention of all tlie Party leaders, except Mr Lloyd George, partially atoned for the dullness of the opening days of the debate on tho preference resolutions of the opposition. There were many comments on Mr Lloyd George’s absence, but it was announced that he had an engagement and had paired in favour of the first four resolutions, and against the rest. The main point in Mr Baldwin's speech was an appeal to separate the resolutions into two categories, and for the House to agree to the first four as to imposing no new duties. However, Mr Asquith rejected this appeal in the opening phrases of his speech, be confessing frankly that he could not Hog himself into excitement over any resolutions. The most telling passage in Mr Asquith’s speech was the following analysis of the ten resolutions:—“Three of them deal with dried fruits; three with apples, honey and limejuiee—(Laughter);—and one with various forms of canned peaches.” (Laughter).

Mr Asquith said:—“When 1 read them, in all their pompous array on the order paper, lam reminded of the Bagdad vendor who perambulated i lie streets of Bagdad, shouting ‘ln the name of the Prophet.’ Loud Liberal and Socialist laughter greeted this remark. Mr Asquith continued :—“Mr Baldwin lias said that the rejection of these resolutions would imperil the Empire. If this is true, what a conception people must have of the stability of the Empire!” Later ill the debate it was evident that, apart from Mr Lloyd George, the Liberal Loader did not carry all bis Party with him. Mr Fisher, former Education Minister. said that Imperial preference on a grand scale was a practical impossibility. but he proposed to vote for the four resolutions which imposed no new (lilt v.

Major Church, a Labourite, advanced similar arguments to Mr Fisher’s.

Mr Campbell Stephen promised Mr Baldwin the support of all the Lab«"r ites if he would give an assurance that his Empire policy would he one for the national buying and marketing of all surplus colonial produce, to the exclusion of the parasitic middlemen. Captain Brass said that, although a Free Trader, he proposed to vote for the first four resolutions, lie thought they should make a gesture to- the Dominions to help the Empire settlement schemes.

.Mr H. Spencer said that lie had served as a “Tommy” in the Australian forces, but lie had never heard his fellows base their loyalty to the Empire upon Imperial preference. Mr Spencer (who is a Bradford woollen manufacturer) continued that ho had a new suit made ot Australian Botany wool, in order to enforce his argument that when he endeavoured to sell some of the doth, he found that Holland and Denmark bail a iarill thereon oT five per cent urn, Switzerland one of six per coni, and Sweden and France each ten but Australia herself bad .'ill per cent, of n duty on this cloth made from her own wool.

Mr Philip Snowden (Chancellor oi* the Exchequer) declared that the last Budgst bad made the greatest reduction in food taxes that was ever known, lie did so intending ultimal--IV to abolish them altogether, but il these preference resolutions were adopted they must say goodbye to the remission of the food taxes during their Parliamentary careers.

Mr A. Chamberlain, in winding up the debate, contrasted the attitudes of those on lln* Treasury honchos. Mr Thomas had felt lie was doing an ungracious tiling in voting against the resolutions, and did not like the lash. Mr MacDonald had felt it was necessary. hut ungracious. Mr Snowden did a disagreeable tiling, and loved it. The controversy, however, was emerging from tin* Parly stage. Support of preference was no longer confined to tin* Unionist benches. Amid opposition cheers, he demanded to know il the Government would dare to face the consequences if the Dominions to-mnr row sent an ultimatum that every preference would he removed il there were

no response. The divisions on the resolutions billowed and were greeted with cheers and counter cheers. Air Baldwin abandoned the remaining resolutions. This course evoked Lab,,,1,. cries of “Oh!” and an unanswered question from (’amain Bonn. "Are we t„ understand that all these resolutions are shams'” The House sneedily rose. Ml- Baldwin ill resuming the debate said that the European. .Japanese and An;..nean markets were now elnsed ,-jiridlv against Britain. The only ciunj D ies u herewith she could make treaties | off *ring prospects o.f improving her trade were the Dominions. He expressed the opinion that the defeat of tho resolution would not l>e a hieaeii of faith, because Parliament was supreme in these matters, hut it would ho a stupid act. AVns it not possible to enter into an arrangement with tho Dominions wlioreEv kin* enormous,' quantity of foodstuffs which Britain ti.i|uiiT*d might lie obtained soloy front the Dominions at cost price, and distributed with the least possible margin of profit? If these resolutions as r whole wore defeated, it would gravely iinrcril the Empire. Mr Aspiith said the resolutions were “an ntenuated. emasculated, anaemic, and even an apocryphal version of the full-blooded go-pel of Ini]),-rial preference.” He continued: “What eoneoption of Empire must those people have who believe that the rejection of a resolution dealing with the fruits and honey ituiifil imperil the Empire’s stability. Mr MacDonald declared that lie did not believe that the Australians and Canadians "anted Britain to change her fiscal system. Preference to Australia meant keeping n*> a tariff wall, hut lowering it only slightlv in Britain's favour against the foreigner. ‘•While grateful to Australia and Canada for taking down one or two bricks in the wall.” he said, “we ought not to come to the audacious conclusion that the Dominions intend Imperial preference as the first -to to free trade within tho Empire. It lias been suggested that the Government is encouraging trade with foreign countries like 'Russia and discouraging

trade with our own kith and kin. That is untrue.” None could feel very happy in discussing these preference resolutions. He was not happy. Ho was much afraid that what was said might be misrepresented in the Dominions. He referred at length to the. schemes for assisting immigration for Australia wherefore the Government was finding large sums. The ' British Government were trying in these ways to bring the Dominions nearer to the .Motherland. .Mr Hal Fisher said that imperial preference on a grand scale was impracticable, but lie did not like to turn down the whole work of the Imperial Conference. He intended to support the first three resolutions.

Mr Church, the Laliouritc, said lie intended supporting the first four in deference to the wishes of the Do-

Mr Lloyd George was absent. Ho paired in support of the first four resolutions for increasing the preference for Empire goods on the existing duties oil figs, raisins, plums, currants, tobacco and wine, and also for establishing preference on Empire sugar at id a pound for ten years. ’I7IE VOTING. AON DON, June 18. In the House of Commons, the first four Opposition preference resolutions were defeated. The remainder were then withdrawn. That in favour of Empire-grown wines was negatived by 285 to 2GB. that for a sugar preference by 283 to 2(53; and that for a tobacco preference by 284 to 271. CLOSING SCENES. LONDON, June 18. In tlio House of Commons, the “Daily Express” says the excitement at the dosing scenes was intense. Many thought preference had just won. There was a gasp of surprise when the figures were announced. “Three cheers for the little Englanders,” shouted someone. The “Daily Telegraph” says: “Among the Unionists alone was there unanimity, as 250 of them voted preference out of a possible of 257. Mr Campion, who already has applied for tho C "hi Ito i'ii Hundreds, therefore was unable to vote.” It is estimated that between twenty and thirty Labourites favoured the four resolutions. Some of them voted accordingly, and the rest abstained. The “Daily Chronicle” (Liberal) commenting on Mr MacDonald’s speech points out that lie blow hot and cold, and seemed to fear that he would be misunderstood in the Dominions. He added: “I may not he happy in resiling these proposals, hut I must.” DEFEAT OF l’B E FEB EX CE. (Received this day at 8 a.in.) LONDON. June 111. In the Commons after the defeat oit the first four preference resolutions, Mr Baldwin announced he did not intend to move the remaining six. An analysis of the show many Labour absentions. Five Labourites voted against the Government, linden, Guest, Church. Rose. Sexton, \Yolllioud and fifteen Liberals voted for tho resolutions. They included Seely, Sirs E. Grieg and Sutherland.