THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXII, Issue 8805, 6 May 1907, Page 2

THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Press Opinions

Press Association-—Copyright,

London, May 4,

The Daily Chronicle asseits that_ Mr Balfour’s alteration of .food taxes is a gigantic scheme for relieving the direct taxpayer at the cost of poorer members of the community. The Times makes a strong onslaught on Britain’s fiscal system which it alleges is the crudest known among civilised men, namely a shilling income tax, is absurd with imports exceeding tho value of things taxed upon a very small number of articles.

The Standard says Government refusing to entertain reciprocal preference has given Mr Balfour the greatest opportunity of his life and ho has lost no time in assuring the country that he is determined to utilise it to the utmost.

The Telegraph says the speech may ! prove a turning point in the fortunes of parties. Henceforth those desiring closer association between sister nations and the Motherland must vote Unionist, and those hostile who are indifferent to maintenance of the Empire must vote Radical. The Westminster, Gazette says. Mr Balfour’s small taxes which no one will feel are chimerical, and would lead into the morass of protection. Tho Westminster Gazette is glad Mr Asquith does not take tho view expressed by Messrs Cox and Wedgwood, Commoners, that the Imperial Government’s participation in such schemes as outlined by Sir Joseph Ward in tho direction of improved communications and reduction in Suez Canal dues, etc., would be worse than preference, and vetos such participation as fatal. A large part of our work Lbs path finders and road makers in new countries. The principle ot freetrade seeks the utmost freedom and facility of trade, and can bo applied by making channels of trade where private enterprise for the moment does not suffice.

The Economist says that Mr Deakin failed to indicate what advantage tho Motherland would receive by adopting colonial preference. The Economist fails to see how England would benefit by the expansion '.of Australian export trade if obtained by passing a self-denying ordinance against foreign goods. Before making a definite offer of preference Australia seems to- be waiting to learn what the Motherland is going to offer.

Mr Sraartt described Mr Asquith s speech as a brilliant piece ot special pleading. The old attachment to the Motherland was diminishing in the colonies, and fresh ties were needed. The Empire would not hold together unless regard was paid to local conditions and local sentiment. Sir Wilfrid Laurier did not sympathise with Mr Deakin’s support of MrHofmeyer’s proposal, fearing its adoption would dislocate the Canadian tariff. _

Sir Joseph Ward hesitated to express' approval. Entertaining the Premiers. London, May 3. The Victoria League entertained the wives and daughters of Premiers and Ministers at luncheon. Princess Louise was present. The British Empire League and British Science Guild gave a banquet at the Hotel Metropole, 300 being present, including Lord Hugh Cecil, Lord Kelvin, and leading scientists and educationalists. Lord Derby, the chairman, on behalf ot the League, proposed the Premiers’ health. The toast was supported by the Chancellor of Oxford on behalf of the Science Guild. The latter declared the Universities of Montreal, Melbourne, Sydney and New Zealand looked forward to an interchange of students andprofessors. Mr Deakin, replying, said the Imperial problem was to retain the principle ot selfgovernment without leaving the self-govern-ing colonies scattered and disunited until the hour of emergency to improvise expedients for unity in war. He referred to tho work of tbe Empire League in New Zealand and was-loudly cheered.

India’s Position. London, May 3. Mr Mackay stated to the Conference that if preference was adopted, Indian manufacturers would press for protection. The Morning Post asks why not ? The Times is doubtful whether the development of India’s possibilities is not fettered in the interests of Britain’s manufactures.

Mr Deakin Emjjhatic. Mr Deakin, in a letter to the Times, emphasises that Australian preference is a mere forerunner, a preliminary overture in no way satisfying Australian desires since a large majority of . the electors on the rolls approye his programme, which in due course *vill be submitted to Pariament.

Mr HofFmeyer’s Proposal. Mr Hoffmeyer, speaking at Wellington, Cape Colony, said the Bond could not be expected to show an idolatrous worship, for the Empire like Britishers, but had a real interest in its maintenance and that of the navy as a means to that end. At the Conference in 1887 he originated 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 because of the Russo Japanese war necessitated a powerful fleet.

The Angry Lyne. The precis of the conclusion of Sir W. Lyne’s speech was only issued on Friday evening. He said means must be found to secure closer unity in commerce. Tho younger generation had not the instinctive attachment to the Mother Coun-. try as tho one' that is now guardian of tho Empire's outposts. He warned the British Government that trade was slipping away. When he left nearly half the shipping of Sydney was foreign. He was confident this question would bo taken up throughout the length and breadth of the Empire despite Mr Asquith’s diacouragment. Though momotarily eclipsed the cause of reciprocity of trade and preference would certainly eventually win. Australians as kith and ■kin to the Motherland resented being treated on the same footing-as foreigners. It was possible in connection with foodstuffs to assist tho colonies at the foreigners’ expense without any cost to the British consumer; perhaps possible to raise revenue and assist old age pensions. A great shrinkage of British trade was inevitable owing to the high foreign tariff walls of foreigners who would not retaliate, since they required our wide market. Consolidation of the United States, the establishment of tho Commonwealth, and the (early federation of South Africa were all examples the British Empire might follow. Mr Asquith’s basic principle was that Free Trade was adopted fifty years ago, and still held tho field. Sir IV. Lyne held that Free Trade is unsuitable now 'and must not bo accepted as an inherited dogma. The Empire was valuable, and must be cemented by ties of kinship and commerce. He recalled Lord Carnarvon’s phrase, “ All products of nature are found within tho Empire,” and the units of the Empire are capable of being marvellously united in sympathy and sentiment. Australia’s preference was a modest step towards tho goal of tho union policy. Blundering, though possible in case off war was probably disastrous in commerce. Australia’s ten per cent preference was really a larger advantage than Canada offered. Ho thought some special consideration might be extended to Australian wine. He emphasized the importance of providing more rapid communication with Austrrlia.

The Primrose League. Mr Balfour, speaking to the Primrose Lgague at Albert Hall asued who, reading Mr Asquith’s Budget Speech could say that the fiscal system is satisfactory ? Who after the Colonial Premiers Could say that the feelings of the colonies were mere transitory emotion? The only - remedy for lessening the fiscal burden of Imperial defence and carrying' social reform was extending the basis of taxation. The existing duties on articles in large consumption were from an ~ad valorem standpoint of preposterous magnitude. What was wanted was small duties on articles in large consumption which would thus yield large revenue without serious dislocation of trade or laying a serious burden on the consumer. When adopted the system should be used to meet the desires of every dependency," strengthening the bonds and bring us together on a commercial basis’. He had he doubt the policy of preference would he ultimately adopted by Britain, but he thought that when adopted it would be less advantageous than if Government had not turned a deaf ear to the. Colonial Premiers’ proposals. Banging the door in their faces was a most foolish form of Imperial stalcsrifanship. The whole spirit of Government and their action in every part, if not inconsistent with the maintenance of the Empire, must drain it of vital force and strength.

Premiers at Manchester. Mr Winston Churchill and Captain Guest, representing the Colonial Office, accompanied Sir Joseph Ward, Sir Robert Bond, Mr Moor, and Mr Botha to Manchester, whore they wore presented with tho I Freedom of the City at tho Town 3 Hall. The ceremony was followed

by a luncheon. The speeches emphasised the necessity of developing the trade between Lancashire and the colonies, i Sir Joseph Ward made an earnest appeal for .reciprocity, warning- his hearers not to neglect Geman competition. ; V