PUBLIC RECORD
OFFICE
KEKEL
Reference :-
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
C.O. 885/5 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
2
Customs charge for any goods if it does not choose to do so. But I submit for consideration this proposition: That if any member of the Empire thinks fit for any reason to impose Customs charges upon goods imported from abroad, it should be recognised that goods coming from British possessions should be subject to a lighter duty that those coming from foreign possessions (hear, hear); or to put it in, I think, a preferable way, that, the duty on goods imported from abroad being fixed according to the convenience of the country, according to the wishes of its Legislature, as to which there should be perfect freedom, with which I would not in the least interfere, a higher duty should be imposed upon the same kind of goods coming from foreign countries. Mr. Hofmeyr, one of the representatives of the Cape, for whom he will speak, I believe, without any consultation with me, gave notice that he intended to raise a somewhat similar question, with an addition to which I will not refer now. I do not propose to say a great deal about the subject; I think we are all familiar with the arguments about Free Trade and Protection, and Fair Trade and Customs duties, and all those things, and the matter does not really require much explanation.
I submit the question for discussion, because I believe, as I said just now, that material interests have a very great deal to do in keeping a country together; and it would never be suggested, I think, that England should treat the people of France on precisely the same terms as she would treat the people of Scotland. In all matters except those relating to this question of trade that principle is entirely recognised. We do give advantages to our own people that we do not give to foreigners. But in consequence of the prevalence of doctrines in England, which I believe are not recognised in any other country, other rules are adopted in questions of trade; and some people really seem to think that it would be sinful-morally wrong to adopt any principles other than those of universal philanthropy when you come to deal with foreign nations in questions of trade. This is a subject, I venture to subinit, from which questions of philanthropy should be most especially dissociated. I contend that the same principles ought to be applied in dealing with foreign nations in matters of trade as are applied in dealing with foreign nations from any other point of view. A man's first duty is to his family, and then to his country; and by country I mean it in the largest sense-the whole British Empire; the first duty of very one of us in every country in the Empire is a duty to the Empire before our duty to any foreign country. That perhaps is not the highest position that could be taken up.
Some day perhaps human nature will advance so far that we shall regard all mankind as so truly a brotherhood that we sha'l no longer have any feelings of rivalry with foreign countries, aud it will not be necessary to take any steps to protect ourselves against them. But in the meantime, while other countries do not recognise that doctrine, and while we do not ourselves do so, though we may profess to do so, it is desirable that we should give practical effect to the principles that we hold by giving material advantages to the people of our own kith and kin. I believe that doing so would tend in a very large degree to maintain and strengthen the feeling that we are all one nation, and would tend in many ways to bring about a stronger union than can now be said to exist.
4
I have said all that I desire to say now in submitting this subject for the consideration of the Conference. I do not expect that we shall arrive at any practical conclusion, but I believe that the ventilation of the matter may be the means of doing considerable good in the future. (Hear, hear.)
The President.- Might I, before the discussion goes any further, ask you, Sir Samuel, whether you have thought out what kind of material advantage should be given; in what direction Her Majesty's subjects should be favoured as against others?
Sir Samuel Griffith.-I think I suggested particularly that whenever any country in the Empire thinks fit for any reason to impo-e duties upon goods imported into that country, a higher duty should be imposed upon goods of that kind coming from foreign countries than those which are imposed upon goods of the same kind coming from British countries. I am quite aware that the favoured-nation clauses in treaties now in existence interfere with inmediate action. I am not suggesting that it can be done now, but only that it is a subject well worthy of consideration as a matter of future policy.
46
Mr. Hofineyr (Cape of Good Hope).-The fourth of the eight subjects proposed to be brought before the Conference by the Cape delegates in their letter of April the 1st reads thus: ·་ To discuss the feasibility of promoting closer union between the various parts of the British Empire by means of an Imperial Customs tariff, the revenue "derived from such tariff to be devoted to the general defence of the Empire." I find that this is not quite understood by some of the delegates, and therefore I should like to amplify it in this way: "The feasibility of promoting a closer union between the "various parts of the British Empire by means of an Imperial Tariff of Customs, to be
3
"levied independently of the duties payable under existing tariffs, on goods entering "the Empire from abroad, the revenue derived from such tariff to be devoted to the
general defence of the Empire."
I have taken this matter in hand with two objects: to promote the union of the Empire, and at the same time to obtain revenue for purposes of general defence. Everybody will acknowledge that the British Empire is the most unique that the world bas ever seen. It is spread all over the globe, I may say piecemeal all over the globe, the different parts being separated by thousands of unles of sea, or of foreign territory In an Empire of such a nature, one must expect that territorialism will arise, that local interests will make themselves felt, and that those local interests will act as disintegrating tendencies. We have had one instance of the kind before us only the other day. The West India Islands have local interests separate from those of Great Britain. The West India Islands have sugar to scil. Under the present treaty arrangements of the home country, they cannot sell that sugar profitably in the British market. Consequently they have looked across the stretch of sea which separates them from their neighbours of the United States and have tried to find a market there. The United States were prepared to give them a market, but en account of other treaties and obligations of the Empire they were not allowed to avail themselves of the almost unlimited market in the United States. Now, obtaining a market in the United States means prosperity to the sugar-planters of the West Indies, and not obtaining a market in the United States means poverty to the sugar-planters of the West Indies. When one's loyalty and one's attachment to the Empire are thus divided against one's self-interest, it is only reasonable to expect that one's attachment to the Empire is very likely to suffer. Therefore, I was not astonished to hear that in the West Indies there was a feeling arising among the sugar-planters, and spreading from the sugar-planters to other classes of the community, in favour of annexation to the United States, they could obtain it; and that this feeling would spread much faster, if it were not that the United States themselves, for domestic reasons, do not want to annex the West India Islands.
Now this West India Islands case does not stand by itself and alone. Not very long ago Canada, not quite satisfied with her market within the Empire, negotiated with the United States for a differential Customs tariff between herself and the United States, and I was rather surprised to hear that for a number of years such a differential tariff between Canada and the United States was actually in existence. To be sure, subsequently it lapsed, not on account of any interference by the Imperial Government, but on account of the unwillingness of the United States to continue that treaty. Why a privilege was accorded to Canada which is withheld from other parts of the Empire, I cannot understand. But other Colonies also are going to make the attempt. For Sir Francis Bell will follow me by-and-by with a proposal that the Australasian Colonies should also be allowed to enter into differential Customs treaties with foreign countries, in order to obtain for Australasian produce abroad far more favourable terms than it can at present command. In cases of this kind, of course, the Imperial Government can either concede the liberty of entering into differential tariffs, or can refuse such liberty. Now, if it refuses, feeling of dissatisfaction is aroused, by which the unity of the Empire is likely to suffer; but, on the other hand, I almost fear that if the prayer for liberty is accorded the unity of the Empire would run the risk of suffering quite as much.
a
To take the case of the West India Islands in illustration. Suppose that the Imperial Government had not refused to assent to the treaty which had been provisionally entered into between the West Indies and the United States, what would have been the result? If they sold their sugar and found the sources of prosperity and wealth amongst their kinsmen near at hand in the United States, advantages which were denied them in England; it they found that the United States gave them privileges and favours from a fiscal point of view which they could not obtain in the mother country, it stands to reason that they would place their affections where they found their means of support, and that bonds of intimate friendship would be established between them and the States, not to the advantage of their attachment with the home country itself. Such cases I am sure will multiply us a Protectionist spirit is developed in the Colonies such as is already gradually being developed, and as a longing for differential tariff's spreads, as I believe that longing is spreading-as the longing spreads, of course the col esion of the Empire must, and I believe certainly would, suffer. The solidarity of the Empire would suffer all the more if considerable demands were made upon the Colonies for contributions in matters of defence or for any other Imperial purposes.
Now this Conference has devoted a very considerable part of its time to matters of defence, and we have done something; but I take it upon myself to say that, from an A 2