PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
C.O.
Reference :-
885
18 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
Fourteenth Day.
9 May 1907.
BRITISH
INTERESTS IN
THE PACIFIC.
126
Mr. WINSTON CHURCHILL: May I say that I did not know that Mr. Deakin was to raise this particular point, or I should have refreshed my memory by a closer study of the facts; but, so far as I recollect, the authority stated by me was Sir Everard im Thurn, our High Commissioner in the New Hebrides, who reported to us that the Australian tariff had injuriously affected British colonization in the New Hebrides. think that has been published.
Mr. DEAKIN: It is published.
Mr. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I think the authority on which I made my statement which is, of course, only a general acceptance of the facts contained in the question--
Mr. DEAKIN I am not quite sure that we had his Report before this; but the point is this: that directly we saw it we challenged it at once by despatch. It was the unintentional misrepresentation of a gentleman recently appointed, who had only paid one visit to the group, and was extremely unfamiliar with a great many of its details.
Mr. WINSTON CHURCHILL: It is perfectly open to Mr. Deakin, with the resources of the Australian Government at his disposal, to differ from the view of the facts which was taken by this Government, with such resources as we have at our disposal.
Mr. DEAKIN : Still there are the facts, we had proposed a preference. The implication in both question and answer is that we have done nothing to lighten our tariff, whereas we had not only referred the case of the New Hebrides to our Tariff Commission (that is, of course, a matter of our internal politics, as to which you need not have any knowledge), but we have also been in correspondence with you to discover whether it was not possible for us to give a preference to these particular settlers on these very products.
>
Mr. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Since when?
Mr. DEAKIN: I read the correspondence at yesterday's meeting, but have not brought it to-day. I read that correspondence and the telegrams yesterday that were sent to us saying that we could not discriminate. Then we asked them about the discrimination to French nationals in New Caledonia.
Mr. WINSTON CHURCHILL: The report was to the effect that the tendency of the tariff over a long period of years had been prejudicial to the development of British settlements in the New Hebrides. It is quite clear that anything done in the last year or eighteen months would not have affected the substantial truth or justice of that conclusion, although I quite agree from the point of view of the Australian Government if a movement had been made, it was desirable that it should have been stated. I say at once that if I had known it, I would have stated it.
Mr. DEAKIN Of course you would, but the statement which was made was wrong, and that which you are now repeating is wrong again. New South Wales never had a closed port, and the business of the New Hebrides
127
? May 1907.
BRITISH INTERESTS IN
was with Sydney only. That is one of the ridiculous insinuations of the Fourteenth Day. writer. The New Hebrides enjoyed an absolutely free port, which was and is the only port with which they have any trade; they sent all their goods to New South Wales, where they were all absolutely free until we imposed the Commonwealth tariff in 1901. Instead of their being liable to duty over a long series of years, they had Free Trade all the time up till 1901. In 1901, 1902, and 1903 our new duties had no effect, because the demand for maize was so exceptional. Instead of operating over a long period of years, our tariff had only operated for two years, 1904 and 1905.
Now, what is the fact? Mr. Whitehead suggests that our policy has limited the number of British settlers. The Commonwealth Government, at an expense of several thousands of pounds, has planted British settlers in the New Hebrides, and endeavoured afterwards to give them a tariff conces- sion. Will it be believed that at the time this answer was given in addition to that I obtained from the House a sum of 5001. to pay to these very settlers? They are only a handful of maize growers, and this sum enabled us to make up to them the difference caused by the effect of our tariff. We are paying out of our own pocket enough to enable these people not to be affected by our duties.
What is the knowledge in this office? All these facts have been published in our newspapers; we are actually spending our own money to prevent these people being affected by our tariff, and have tried to grant them a preferential tariff. Then when a question in the House of Commons directly implies that we who had put settlers there were injuring them, and doing nothing to help them, the only answer given is that we are only proposing to do something in the future. All these circumstances were ignored; the fact is, that we have taken the greatest possible pains to endeavour to help these people, first to put them there, then to keep them there, and then to give them special advantages, finally voting them bounties. Yet not one of these facts is referred to. I am quite content that this incident should be buried, even with regard to those behind the political responsible heads who committed these oversights, but the misfortune is that such slanders tell against us very much. Not only this answer, but other official references on which I do not wish to dwell have created an idea that the Australian Government, while clamouring for everything to be done in the New Hebrides, is at the same time doing everything it can to impede the success of its settlers.
Mr. WINSTON CHURCHILL: No, the only suggestion made for which I have any responsibility is that the policy of the Commonwealth bas not sufficiently considered the interests of British colonization in the New Hebrides. It is quite possible now, in fact it is recognised even in that answer to the question, that the Commonwealth Government is now taking a different view, and perhaps if that view had been taken at an earlier stage, the disproportion between the British and French settlers would not have been as great as it is.
Mr. DEAKIN: Not at all; that is another of Sir Everard's mistakes.
Mr. WINSTON CHURCHILL: We are bound to believe statements made upon the authority of our Governor and representative; it is a great pity that we cannot discuss over the telephone with you in Australia the answers which have to be given in the House of Commons. I am sure I
THE PACIFIC.
(Mr. Deukin.)