THE CONFERENCE

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10249, 27 May 1911, Page 5

THE CONFERENCE

SIRJ.WARQ'SJIESOLUTIQN. (Received Last LONDON, May 26. In proposing his £t two o the greatest Dominion" S already embarked on naval pot cies emphasised the need tor an ImSrial Council to co-ordinate and hTrmoniae naval defence. Independent policies would not, he said, make for the strongest positron in maintaining Imperial ties. He prefer,ed to cafl body an 'lmpenal Parliament of Defence," as defence wis a vitally paramount question, r e S n mora important to Britain than to the overseas Dominions, considering her naval burden. PARTNERSHIP WANTED.

Proceeding, Sir Joseph said that the day for a partnership had arrived The question was on what basis the partnership should rest. It could not rest on the ures.mt lelationship, which was not giving the partners a voice in the management for the protection of British ships, goods, and people on the seas. Canada's and Australia s local provision, however good, was inadequate. . An Imperial organisation was necessary on the present lines. There was a natural divergence of opinion in regard to the proposil. It presupposed the autonomy of the national divisions of the United Kingdom, placing them on the same footing as the Dominions.

BORROWING TO BUILD. -. If £50,000,000 was borrowed on a basis of six per centum, including a three'per centum sinking fund, 25 Dreadnoughts could be built to protect the Dominions and British trade routes. On the basis of their being thirteen million whites in the overseas Dominions, the taxation would be 10s per head. It would require three ...millions per annum to pay the inter- ./ est and' sinking fund on the construe-, tion of vessels. Thei remainded 'would provide docks and naval yards ;for < Canada. Australia, New .Zealand,,.arid South Africa. QUESTION BY MR ASQUITB. The Right Hon. H. H. asked what would be the position of the British Government. Were they to conduct negotiations with Foreign Powers and then, if they came to a point of rupture, should the matter be held over for decision by the new Iwdy ? Sir Joseph Ward said the Executive would be responsible to the Defence Parliament, in which Britain would have the greater representation. The Dominions would be expected to share in the burdens of any war, and were entitled to a voice. ,

AN INDEFENSIBLE SCHEME. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, said the resolution favoured a Council advisory to the Imperial authority. Sir Joseph Ward's argument/; favoured something different—a legislative body with, power to create expenditure and no responsibility for providing revenue. Such a scheme was indefensible and impracticable. VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE. Mr A. Fisher said the plan was impracticable. It wonld violate every principle of responsible Government, ..rand the very basis of British Govetn- } ment. The systems of defence adopted in New Zealand and Canada could better be discussed on another occasion. Australia relied on the British Government to generally safeguard the whole of the naval interests of tm> Empire, and the Commonwealth would defend Australia by its own naval and -military forces. He would not say there was no possibility of an Advisory Council to deal with matters arising from time to time, and communi- ■„. eating with representatives on the . spot.. .That was an ample question, involving the whole reconstruction of the Empire, and could not bo considered and decided off-hand. A MEDDLESOME SCHEME. "General Botha declared that "the scheme would become meddlesome. It would interfere with the domestic conjf eerns of the various Parliaments, and would occasion friction and worries. He sympathised with the underlying motive of Sir Joseph Ward. Representation would be practically valueless. The naval defence would increase -as the Dominions - grew to their full stature. Unless British statesmen promoted a partnership, with representation on a Council, they could only deal with the Imperial essentials. *¥he framework of these should be elastic as their efficiency and durability demanded. There should be no interference by one portion of the Empire with another in regard to local land forces. Proper naval unity would secure the peace of the world for generations.

Mr Fisher asked whether the Council would have power of coercion hy a * Legislative Act. X Mr Laurier said he understood the Council would have power to vote contributions, which woxrfd have to be fixed by the different Dominions. He had previously objected to that. SIR JOSEPH IN REPLY. Sir Joseph Ward replied that he wanted uniformity, to preserve the whole of the overseas interests. Mr Asquith said that apparently the Council would have power to impose contributions and a policy upon dissentient communities. Sir Joseph Ward, continuing, saur that under the scheme Britain would have two hundred and twenty members of the House of Representatives, €anada thirty-seven, Australia twen-ty-five, South Africa seven, New Zea- / land six, and Newfoundland two, while the Imperial Council would consist of two members of each. Mr Asquith asked if, on a Council of twelve, Britain would have two representatives and the Dominions ten. Sir Joseph stated that the Council would be mainly consnltive. The Advisory Executive would consist of not more that fifteen, of whom not more than on© would be from the Senate., The Defence Parliament would deal exclusively with matters common to the Empire, including peace or war -treaties and foreign relations generally, Imperial defence, and the provision of revenue for theso purposes. For

(the first ten years Parliament would | have no power of taxation, but the amount payable by the Dominion would bo taken as a debt by them. Afterwards the amount would be pro- ; vided as the Dominions agree upon. MR ASQUITH'S SNUB. Mr Asquith, who communicated the j memorial to till*- House of Commons, said Sir Joseph Ward, had brought forward a concrete proposal that no other representative was able to accept. His scheme would impair, if not altogether destroy, the authority of tiie Imperial Government in the conduct of its foreign policy, in the conclusion of treaties, and in the •v maintenance of peace or declaration |of war. The responsibility of the i tilie.se matters could not be shared, j Government and Parliament in these matters could not be shared. The proposal would impose upon the Dominions a policy from which one or more might dissent. It involved expenditure and taxation. The people of the Dominions might not approve of this. Speaking for the British Government, lie could not assent to tie proposal, which was so opposed to the fundamental principles on which the Empire- was built and carried on. I SIR JOSEPH RETIRES CRACEI FULLY.

Sir Joseph, in face of tihle unanimous opposition, accepted the position with equanimity, and withdrew his resolution.