A.—6a

114

The discussion was resumed at the Twenty-first Meeting, held on the afternoon of the same day (the 7th November, 1923), as follows : — Attitude of India towards Preference Negotiations. Mr. Innes : I have very little to say, sir, upon the proposals for increasing and extending the existing preference. I should just like to explain that we made no representations to His Majesty's Government in regard to these proposals, and that we have taken no part in the negotiations which have been going on with His Majesty's Government since these proposals were last discussed in the open Conference. That was not due to any modesty on our part; it was merely our own self-respect. India, as I have already explained, under her existing system of revenue duties, grants no favour to any one, and in consequence we are not in a position to ask for any favours. But since there are crumbs falling from the rich man's table T am glad some have fallen our way. India grateful for Increased Preference on Tobacco. I was particularly interested in the announcement made that the preference on tobacco was to be increased to one-fourth. Since the war we have built up quite a large trade with the United Kingdom in unmanufactured tobacco, and I hope that that trade will be further stimulated and increased by this increased preference. 1 should like to repeat what I said before —namely, that we are grateful to His Majesty's Government for these concessions which they have shown to India without asking for any return on India's part, and I do hope that when the time comes for India to consider the question of preference India will not be unmindful of the benefits she has received not only from His Majesty's Government, but also from New Zealand and Canada. India endorses Report of Food and Materials Committee. I now turn to the report of the Committee on Food and Materials. I was a member of that Committee and, naturally, I subscribe to every word of the report. I heard the Prime Minister of Australia suggest that, in the time allotted to it, it was not possible for the Committee to give that exhaustive consideration to those proposals which they required. It is quite true that we were not able to devote very many days to the consideration of the proposals. At the same time some of the members of the Committee were men who had had actual experience of the working of schemes similar to those suggested by the Prime Minister of Australia, and, speaking for myself, as one of those who has had this actual experience, I may say that I do not think it would have made any difference if we had sat for a month on these proposals instead of for three days. It is perfectly true that my experience, and the experience of Sir Patrick McGrath, was experience gained in war conditions, but my experience gained during the war merely reinforced convictions which I have always held. Statesmen may be very wise. They are nearly always assisted by the best brains they can get in the country in the shape of their permanent Civil Service. At the same time international trade is so vast and so complicated that my own conviction is that the loss statesmen and Governments interfere, by way of prohibitions and restrictions, in international trade the better for everybody concerned. lam particularly glad that this Committee's report endorses the resolutions already passed by the very important Genoa Conference, and I hope that this Conference will also endorse those conclusions. Mr. Bruce's General Resolution on Preference. I should have liked more time to consider the general resolutions which have been moved by the Prime Minister of Australia. In particular, I have not been able to consult my leader, the Secretary of State for India, as regards these two resolutions. I notice that they make a special point of the fact that the policy of Imperial preference was accepted in 1917 by all the Governments represented at the Imperial Conference. India was represented at the Imperial Conference of 1917, but there have been very rapid changes in India since 1917, constitutional and otherwise. India cannot be committed to Principle of Imperial Preference at present. When this question of Imperial preference was last discussed in the open Conference I explained the position which the Government of India was compelled to take, and I should like to say that, though I have not been able to consult the Secretary of State for India regarding these present resolutions, the Secretary of State entirely agreed and approved of all I said at that meeting. At the same time I think 1 must repeat what I said then—namely, that I cannot commit the Government of India at present to the principle of Imperial preference. Hitherto we have had purely revenue duties, and we have made no distinction, no discrimination, between any countries. I gave my reasons why I was very doubtful whether we could embark upon a general scheme or system of Imperial preference. I suggested that a more hopeful line of advance might lie in the giving of a preference on selected items, but I pointed out that it would be very unwise to force that issue, and I had to leave the matter there. I must re-emphasize those points. But will not oppose Resolution. At the same time this resolution is drafted in quite general terms, and if my position is clearly understood, then I do not see any reason why I should oppose this resolution in this Conference. Doubts as to Application of First Part of Resolution to India. I should just like to say a word or two about the first part of the resolution. No doubt that statement may be true for the Empire as a whole, and for that reason I do not propose to offer any formal objection to it; but I cannot help feeling doubtful, if you take particular parts of the Empire