83
T། ། ། །
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O.885
18 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
Fourteenth Day.
9 May 1907.
IMPERIAL SURTAX ON
FOREIGN IMPORTS.
(Mr. Deakin.)
But, in order to fulfil my anything about all those questions of detail. undertaking, I conclude with this brief exposition, and will answer questions as well as I can, if asked to make it complète.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Lord Elgin, and gentlemen, I am exceedingly obliged to Mr. Deakin and the Conference, for allowing me to take this matter first, because I have my Patents Bill in the House of Commons, and have to attend to the piloting of it through Committee.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech last week, stated very clearly that the Government were quite prepared to consider, and to consider favourably, with a view to action, any workable scheme for improving Imperial inter-communications, and I understand that this proposal of Mr. Deakin's is a response to the appeal Mr. Asquith made for a workable scheme. As Mr. Deakin has put it, it is a business proposition.
The first thing I point out-as he has already pointed out in reply to Mr. Churchill's question-is that this is not exactly Mr. Hofmeyr's proposal, and I do not think it is Sir George Sydenham Clarke's proposal.
Mr. DEAKIN: No; both of them had in mind an Imperial Council.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, but from another very important point of view Sir George Sydenham Clarke's proposal, and Mr. Hofmeyr's, were, thought, more or less on the same lines. I understand that they proposed that a fund should be raised for Imperial purposes, but first amongst the Imperial purposes they placed the question of Imperial defence.
*
Mr. DEAKIN Sir George Sydenham Clarke, in the latest development I have seen of his proposal in one of your reviews, withdrew the proposal for defence altogether.
"L
"
Mr. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Do you know what reasons he gave?
44 that the Mr. DEAKIN: The note I have of what he said was difficulty of dealing with naval defence on an Imperial basis is very great. The Navy alone stands in the position of being a ubiquitous guardian and a proof of Empire, but its functions are inadequately understood at home, "and far from being realised in greater Britain and the idea of an Imperial Navy to which all contribute, must, for the present, be abandoned." "That was said in a speech when he was Governor of Victoria, at Melbourne.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I only point out that Imperial defence was an essential part of the scheme put forward by Mr. Hofmeyr, and I thought by Sir George Clarke when he proposed a levy of this kind. Otherwise they would not have dreamt of raising a sum of 5,000,000l. merely for the purpose of cables and matters of that sort.
Mr. DEAKIN : I merely suggest 1 per cent, as he did.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: But that is a rather important element for us. If Imperial defence were part of the scheme, it would be an admirable business proposition for us, because the contribution of the Colonies in
• See "Nineteenth Century," May 1904, p. 707.
Fourteenth Day. 9 May 1907.
IMPERIAL SURTAX ON FOREIGN IMPORTS.
(Mr.
We, at the proportion to population is something like one third of ours. present moment, are contributing about 33,000,000l. to the Imperial Navy. I forget what the Colonies are subscribing; it is something like half a million. So, as a business proposition it would be a very admirable one for us because, if the money is to be brought into a general fund, and we are to divide it in these proportions, we should get about seven or eight millions of money out of it towards Imperial defence. But that I do not gather to be Mr. Deakin's idea, which is that this money should be spent purely for the Lloyd George.) purpose of improving transport communication and cables and matters of that kind. That is a very desirable object in itself, as I have already stated, but I do not want to enter upon that again; I adhere to everything I said before. Mr. Churchill points out, too, that the establishment in the Colonies of a service corresponding to our consular service in foreign countries is another scheme which has for its object the development of the trade of the Empire as a whole. But what does this proposal of Mr. Deakin's really mean?
It means that the United Kingdom would contribute 4,500,000ĭ. My figure was correct yesterday, but I over-estimated the contribution of the self-governing Colonies, and I find that the Australian Commonwealth would contribute 100,000., New Zealand 20,000l., Canada 400,0007.— although the population of Canada is only about 1,500,000 above that of the Commonwealth, they would contribute four times as much-Newfoundland would contribute 6,000l.; Cape Colony would contribute 40,000l.; Natal would contribute 26,0001. Now, it is obvious that is not merely an unfair, but a grossly unfair, contribution as between the Mother Country and the Colonies.
Mr. DEAKIN But each spends its own money.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: And it is also an unfair distribution of burdens as between one Colony and the other.
Mr. DEAKIN Each spends its own money.
We
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We do that now, and are doing it now. are spending 33,000,0001. upon Naval defence. As I said before, we are willing, if there is a working scheme put forward, to assist in developing communications. But this seems to me to be an unfair, unjust, and unbusiness- like response to the appeal made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. DEAKIN: Although you vote your own money for your own purposes?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: But then I do not see the object. Either this means what it says, or it does not. We are to pay 4,500,0001. and the Cape -10,000Z.
Dr. SMARTT: The foreigner pays, and we do not.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If we really drag the fiscal question into it, I do not think we shall come to an end. You are to find 40,0007., and Canada is to find 400,0001. You may depend upon it, if you or Canada thought you could get an extra 40,000l. or 400,0007. out of the foreigner, surely you would try to get it. I do not doubt that at all. But no doubt you have already gone to the limit-the highest point at which you think that revenue is consistent
i