THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXX, Issue 8439, 10 May 1907, Page 5

THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Received May 9, 7.32 a.m. LONDON, May 8. At the Imperial Conference, Lord Elgin moved:—"That the conference, recognising the importance of promoting,|greater freedom and fuller development of commercial intercourse within the Empire, believes these objects may best be secured by leaving each part of the Empire liberty of action in selecting the most suitable means for attaining them, having regards to its own special conditions and requirements." Sir Joseph the following addition:—"And that it is desirable that the various parts of the Empire co-operate in all matters of mutual interest." Dr. Jameson (Cape Colony) objected to the resolution in the form proposed. He said it might be considered the abandonment of the Premiers' previous attitude. A deadlock seemed imm inent, but ultimately Mr Deakin moved the insertion, after "conference," of the words:—"Without prejudice to the resolutions already adopted, and the reservations of His Majesty's Government." The embodied resolution was unanimously carried. Sir Joseph Ward moved, instead of the resolution of which he had previously given notice:—"That it is advisable, in the interests of the United Kingdom and the self-go-verning colonies, that the effort in favour of British manufactured goods and British shipping should be supported as far as is practicable." This was carried unanimously. Received May 9, 10.2 p.m. LONDON, May 9. Mr Deakin read a resolution to the effect that the conference recommends that, in order to provide funds for developing trade and commerce by means of communication and transport within the Empire, a duty of one per cent, on all foreign imports shall be levied or an equivalent contribution made by each of the legislative bodies after consultation between their representatives in conference. The common fund in the end shall be devoted to co-operative projects approved of by the Legislatures affected for the general purposes of fostering the industrial forces of the Empire, so a3 to promote the growth of unity. Mr Deakin explained that the resolution was intended to absolutely safeguard the rights of self-government. Mr Lloyd-George at first hotly attacked the scheme, under the impression that it was; a device fm p.i;.pviding a large fqqd. fqy 9§sjstjng colon!?I prpjects, Received May 9, 10.55 p.m. LONDON, May 9. When Mr Deakin had explained, Mr Lloyd-George appeared to regard the proposal as equitable and allowed ics submission. Mr Deakin moved the reaffirmation of the resolution J adopted, on the late Mr Seddon's motion, at the 1902 conference, relative to the desirability of taking steps to promote Imperial trade in the British ship", also the desirability of refusing privileges in connection with coastwise trade to foreign countries not reciprocating. Mr Deakin the injurious effect of the Russian and American extended coastwise regulations. He thought it desirable to ascertain the legal position and what were the practical advantages or disadvantages of taking action with regard to coastwise trade. Mr Lloyd-George considered the resolution was unnecessai'y, and attacked the decisions of the Navigation Conference so far as they affected British shipping. He complained that the great liners would be subjected to heavy losses owing to structural alterations in wages if forced to conform with the standards enforced in the Australian coastal trade. The Australian conditions even applied to where ocean liners picked up two passengers at an Australian port for coveyance to another port. Such provisions do much to hamper the carrying trade to Australia. He thought Australia ought to give the Motherland equality in treatment before discussing preference. Mr Deakir's resolution might seem advantageous, but if examined it would be found to involve great difficulties. Its object was either to exclude foreign ships from our coastings or inter-Imperial trade or to put pressure on foreign Governments to admit British ships to corresponding trade in their dominions. Mr George thought that the restriction on the traders' choice of transport facilities would probably raise cost of carriage, thus proving a disability. He was also positive that an advantage would be given to foreign trade between the Empire and foreign countries as compared with trade within the various portions of the Empire if goods can only travel direct within the Empire in British ships while goods from foreign countries have the choice'of either British or foreign ships. Neither Norway nor Germany excludes us from her coastings or inter-Imperial trade. Yet they supplied the bulk of the foreign shipping engaged in our inter-Imperial trade. The only vessels excluded were Russian and the United States, whose trade was so small that the proposal would confer little practical benefit. If the principle were extended there would be a danger of reprisals to our shipping which was half that of the world. Foreign ships if excluded would compete more keenly in the foreign trade still open to them, which largely exceeds the colonial trade. So far as the United Kingdom was concerned, the interests of British shipping were not prejudiced by a very small amount of foreign shipping entering our coasting trade. Mr Deakin replied that the proposals were those of the Commission, not the Governments, whose policy was still undecided. He also said that the conditions objected to intended to raise the standard in conformity with Australian opinion. Received May 9, 11.58 p.m. LONDON, May 9. Sir Wilfrid Laurier bitterly complainedjthat the colonies with Pacific , Ocean interests were adversely

CABLE NEWS.

United Press Association—liy Electric Telegraph Copyright

affected in a very direct and serious manner. The United States had extended their coasting trade to embrace the trade of Honolulu and the Philippines. Though Canada had offered to reciprocate in connection with the coasting trade, the United States had refused to do so. Sir Joseph Ward strongly complained that Honolulu being regarded as anjAmerican coastal port created an extraordinary position very injurious to New Zealand trade. He urged Great Britain to adopt a system simiar to the American system in reference to the extension of coastwise trade unless reciprocity were granted. Mr Lloyd-George refused to entertain the idea of retaliation. Ultimately the resolution of 1902 was reaffirmed unanimously, except that Britain § dissented when the colonies declined to [limit the enquiry into the position of the intercolonial trade. COMPARISONS DRAWN. SIR JOSEPH WARD'S PRACTICAL IMPERIALISM. Received May 9, 10.5 a.m. SYDNEY, May 9. The Daily Telegraph, commenting on the fiscal debate at the Imperial Conference, says that Sir Joseph Ward is a preferentialist, and that his colony is much more pronounced than is the Commonwealth on that question, but Sir Joseph Ward is less of a dreamer and more of a man of affairs than is Mr Deakin, and while he heartily supported the preferential proposal he refrained from scolding Britain for daring to disagree with« New Zealand, and he submitted other proposals which are of a and acceptable nature. He knew very well that, until there is a change in the British mind, preferential ism is impossible, and he therefore invited co-operation in proposals which do not necessarily conflict with the British policy.