THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXX, Issue 8435, 6 May 1907, Page 5

THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

LONDON, May 3. Sir Wm. Lyne, in a vigorous, outspoken speech, declared that Mr Asquith was unnecessarily brusque and uncompromising in his attempts to belittle the advantages of the colonial offers, and was scarcely fair. If the Australian preference was restricted to eight per cent, of the trade and yielded a profit of £IOO,OOO, it was more widely extended, as was contemplated, it might pevhaps yield a profit of £1,200,000. ' Replying to Sir Jas. Mackay, Sir Wm. Lyne stated that it was unlikely that the people of Australia, with higher social conditions, would place a Lascar earning 4Jd a day in the same category with an Australian seaman earning 4s to ss. Sir Jas. Mackay interjected: The Lascars receive 9d per day. Sir Wm. Lyne asserted that foreign shipping and trade were increasing in Australia far quicker than were the British, and he feared that Britain was losing her hold on the Australian markets. Preference would' rectify this. Britain was really more concerned than Australia. He advocated low Australian duties on British goods. Australia did not want a one-sided bargain, and if 2s per quarter preference were conceded on colonial wheat, 20,000,000 more acres would be planted in the colonies. This concession would not raise the price of bread. The colonies were able to supply nearly everything Britain wanted. He emphasised the increasing keenness of foreign competition in ' the colonies, citing the latest statistics. Foreign nations gave bounties and concessions of all kinds in order to increase their trade, thereby increasing also their mercantile marine and reserves for naval warfare. If the British Government was so satisfied that it had got a mandate against preference, why should it, hesitate to appeal to the country by a referendum, to'find out if the country was still of the same opinion. He denied that there was a I mandate against preference. i Mr Deakin enquired whether the I British Government, being determined against preference, would consider a proposal on the lines suggested by Mr Hofmeyer in 1887, and by Sir George Sydenham Clarke in Melbourne on/November 9th, 1903. involving the creation of an Imperial fund by a one per cent, special import dv.ty levied oh all foreign goads entering British ports, the fund to be applied to the improvement and development of the maritime communications of the Empire, to improvements in the carriage of mails and in cables, and to other common Imperial ends, like dealing with the Suez Canal difficulty. Mr Asquith said he was not prepared to give an answer without consideration. Later Mr Deakin asked Mr LloydGeorge, President of the Board of Trade, if he was prepared to take their propositions into consideration. Mr Deakine said Britain could make up their contribution to the Imperial fund by any means she pleased, so long as she provided an equivalent. Mr Deakin thought that such a proposal was well worth examination in order to ascertain if it came within Mr Asquith's undertaking that the Government was prepared to look favourably on any proposal for improving inter-Imperial communication, and the developments of commerce and trade. If the Government was favourable to the idea, then the conference could try to arrive at a practical- agreement. It would be better to adopt that, or some similar scheme than to close the conference without being able to show any advance. His great object was to elicit some positive proposal. Mr Deakih's suggestion appeared to be received with disfavour on the part of two of the colonial representatives, also by Mr Lloyd-George and Mr Chu-chill, Under - Secretary for the Colonies. The two latter consented to consider the matter. Both of them will speak on Monday. Received May 5, 5.12 p.m. LONDON, May 4. Sir William Lyne said that a great shrinkage in British trade was inevitable owing to high foreign tariff walls. Foreigners would not retaliate since they require our wide market. The consolidation of the United States, the establishment of the Commonwealth and the earjy federation of South Africa were all examples the British Empire might follow. Mr Asquith's basic principle was that trade adopted 50 years ago still held field. Sir William contended that free trade was unsuitable now, and must not be accepted as an inherited dogma. The Empire was valuable, and must be cemented by ties of kinship and commerce. Australia's preference was a modest step towards the goal of union. Australia's 10 per cent.preferenoe was really a larger advantage than Canada offered. He thought some special consideration might be extended to Australian wine. He emphasised the importance of providing more rapid communication with Australia. Dr. T. W. Smartt described Mr Asquith's speech as a brilliant piece of special pleading. The old attachment for the Motherland was diminishing in the colonies, and fresh ties were needed. The/ 1 Empire would not hold together unless regard was paid to local conditions and local sentiment. Sir W. Laurier did not sympathise with Mr Deakin's suggestion, but would support Mr Hofmeyer's proposal, fearing that the adoption of Mr Deakin's suggestion would dislocate the Canadian tariff. Sir J. G. Ward hesitated to express approval.

A PRELIMINARY OVERTURE. LONDON,'May .3. Mr Deakin, in a letter to The Times, emphasises that the Australian preferene is a mere forerunner, and a preliminary overture, in no way satisfying Australian desires, since a large majority of these on the rolls approved his programme, which in due course will be submitted to Parliament.

CABLE NEWS.!

United Press Association—My Electric Telegraph Copyright.

PRESS OPINIONS. LONDON, May 3. The Tiroes .says that Mr Asquith'* I statement is .depressing. The.coloI nial Premiers' statements were full I of hope and constructive imagination. They suggest a fight in the future, and a determination to mould it to their ends. They contemplate a progressive Empire united by steadily increasing ties. Mr Asquith. in reply, is only abJe to offer, on the' essential point, a rigid adherence to an old nosition. It is true that he promises attention to communications. From the economic stand- ! point this subject is small, and from the political standpoint far smaller, compared with preference. Mr Asquith pleads, adds The Times, that his hands are tied. Are they tied against more than a protectionist tariff? Preference might be based on a corn duty. Has the electorate ever denied or affirmed the principle of preference? Mr Asquith's attitude is" the attitude of extreme fiscal ' puritanism, not to say prudery. The Dai'y News says that the case presented by Mr Asquith and Sir James Mackay is unanswerable. The people of the. Motherland are determined that the prime necessaries shall never again be taxed —a verdict from which there is no appeai. .The Standard challenges the Government to submit the question of reciprocal preference to a referendum. The leaders of the Imperial element in the nation must now show the colonial„Premiers that their message is not in vain. The Daily Chronicle emphasises, and the Morning Post admits, that the domain of trade and communications the results of the Conference have not been negative. The Morning Post, however, contends that on main question the voice of India is only the voice of the department of the British Government which is administering the country. It adds that, tested by the value per head, the Australian market is incomparably more valuable to us than the German. '< According to the Daily Telegraph, | the Motherland 'stands alone in desiring less than in 1902. Sir James Mackay stated that the conference that if preference was adopted, Indian manufacturers wduld 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 and her manufactures.