The Conference.

Te Aroha News, Volume XXVI, Issue 43090, 9 May 1907, Page 2

The Conference.

ME CHUECHILL CONDEMNS PEEFEEENTIAL TEADE. I (By Telegraph —Press Association.) . LONDON, Yesterday. ! Mr Winston Churchill said that many were favouring preference as evidence of goodwill, and would recoil from the necessary schedules of taxation. He appealed to the delegates not to establish any relation- ' ship, interfering with self-govern-ment, ' the root principle of Empire, or consisting of any commercial tie formed by legislative means. He

thought it possible for a good result to come from Sir Joseph Ward’s suggestions, which were deflecting from the direct question of The colonies should 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 the removal of a food tax and found it necessary to consult the Governments scattered over the world, the structure of the Empire would receive a shock such as it had never before sustained. Some day when Imperial unification reached a higher development,!men would regard the decision of the conference of 1907 as a successful avoidance of one grand wrong turn. Sir Wilfrid Laurier preferred to reaffirm the resolutions of 1902 to adopting Mr Deakin’s proposals, though he concurred with the first of Mr Deakin’s two additional resolutions. Sir Wilfrid Laurier stated that preference would certainly have increased Canada’s and Britain’s trade, but admitted the absolute right of Britain to adopt whatever fiiscal system was best suited to her internal conditions. He would be glad to apply Canada’s lower preferential tariff to all British colonies. Sir Wilfrid Laurier had claimed there was no justification on the / ground of sanitation for continuing the injustice of excluding Canadian live cattle. Mr Asquith’s promised Board of Agriculture should seriously consider the subject. Mr Deakin, replying to Mr Churchill, said he thought he allowed hia imagination to run riot unnecessarily in an alarmist fashion. Even if no preference were conceded, the questions of taxation must constantly arise in every legislature Jin the Empire, ■without such destructive results as Mr Churchill extravagantly pictured. The Commons would deal with business on its merits, and adapt the constitutional machinery' to the country’s circumstances instead of making the State’s development to the fit and measure of a mere standing order. Mr Deakin challenged the whole tenor of Mi Churchill’s arguments, because they were based on a series of economic assumptions that were only applicable to particular circumstances and entirely inapplicable to the actual facts of business competition, especially as reflected by national rivalry. Colonial parliamentary experiences showed that the dangers which Mr Churchill predicted were not very grave. Mr Deakin continuing, said Messrs Asquith and Churchill had anathematised everything which even infinitesimally conflicted with the principles they held to be orthodox. Mr Deakin believed the only safe method in practical politics was to apply economic maxima experimentally and be governed by experience. Mr Churchill’s doctrine would be fatal to all discussion of commercial relations. It would mean no preference within the Empire, no commercial treaties outside the Empire, and no negotiations for the most favoured treatment. This involved the absolute isolation of the Motherland, which wodld be treated as a sick man who was kept in an invalid chair, because if he tried to progress he must run the risk of hurting himself. If the British government proposed free trade with the Empire, combined with a tariff wall against the outside world, Australia would consider it with an open mind.