CO885-5 — Page 584

PUBLIC RECORD

OFFICE

C.O.

Reference -

885/

5 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

p. 476.

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

B

happened to be. I never looked at the matter in that light before, but I have thought about it a good deal since, and I must say it appears to me at present that there is a great deal in that point.

In discussing this question, I see that there is strong tendency to drop into what. I may call Protectionist arguments. I am a Free Trader, and if this question were to be raised now as a Free Trade and Protection question, I would not take any part in the discussion, because I am not prepared to

open up that whole question. I am not, however, one of those Free Traders who believe in Free Trade as a fetish to be worn as a mere phrase round our necks, and who regard it as always indicative of precisely the same condition of things that it was indicative of in the Cobden period, or hold that circumstances might never arise of an Imperial character which might demand a revision of our policy upon that subject. Turning, for example, to the question of the free admission of foreign products into England, if you take the cereal products (which have been so well referred to by Mr. Hofineyr) as an illustration, and assume that you were to put on a duty of-I do not care what-17. a bushel, or any duty you like-upon foreign wheat, I hold that it is quite impossible that the price of wheat could be raised to the English consumer. It might be for the first year or two, because at the moment the products of our own Colonies and dependencies might not be sufficient to supply the English demand for that year or two, but after that time the Colonies could easily supply it. We can raise any amount of wheat in the Canadian territories, the Australian territories, and the Indian territories, and other parts of the Empire, which would effectually prevent the possibility of any increase of price of cereals. So far as that is concerned, therefore, we may put it on one side altogether.

But the point of view that I would like to discuss this question from, or rather to think it over from, is really that of the unity of the Empire, and I think that as between the component parts of this same Empire to talk of Free Trade and Protection is an absurdity. It has been done, I admit, and it has been done by no part of the Empire to a greater degree than by the Australasian Colonies, and I regret it. If I had had my will there should never have been from first to last one shilling of duty as against goods coming from England; but the policy of our Colony unfortunately has been altogether different from the policy that I would have dictated. Whilst I am prepared to discuss this question theoretically from the point of Free Trade at the proper time (although I would decline to take a part in it on the present occasion) I think we may at present fairly set aside Free Trade and Protection, and ask-How would this conduce to the permanent unity of the Empire which we all desire, and that defence about which we have talked so much and done a great deal?

I think nothing would be more advantageous to the unity of the Empire than to establish a greater sympathy in a financial sense, or rather in a tariff sense.

I really think the effect of it would be, even if it was a comparatively impotent cord that was to be tied round the component parts of the Empire, still it would be another cord adding to the strength of the ties which already exist; that is to say, if we could have a recognition throughout the Empire that the products of the various dependencies would be treated on a different footing fiscally from the products of foreign countries, I should be inclined to regard very favourably such a proposal.

The subject is to me comparatively new, and I regard it with great interest, entirely, as I have mentioned, inasmuch as it conduces to the permanent unity of the Empire. (Hear, hear.) I see great difficulties in carrying out such a proposal, because in pur Colony, for example, there would be a great fear amongst the producing classes there that it was going to interfere with their wages, and so on. But of course it is very easy to put it in a light that would commend itself to them. Whether you reduce the English duties five per cent. below the foreign duties, or raise the foreign duties five per cent. above the English, the same effect is obtained so far as the object of the gentlemen who have been advocating the proposai here is concerned; so that, of course, a wise man, in our Colonies at all events, would put it in one way rather than in the other: that is to say, in a Protectionist Colony it had better be put as a proposition to increase the duties upon foreign imports, rather than as a proposition to reduce the duties upon the English imports.

Mr. Deakin. I should like to add that the Victorian delegates did not of course consult with the Victoria Government upon this particular issue, before they came here. I have retrained from speaking, and do refrain from doing so, at any length, chiefly from the same motive that led Mr. Service to shorten his remarks (with most of which I quite agree), namely, that the subject was dealt with so comprehensively and ably by Mr. Hofmeyr (hear, hear) that it seemed unnecessary to add anything. I think it unnecessary,

9

I may say, even to refute the Free Trade fallacies we have heard from time to time uttered round this table, the consideration of which I postpone to a more fitting opportunity. But I should like to say that the Colony of Victoria, which is Protectionist, and proud of being Protectionist, would, I believe, regard the proposition which Mr. Service has just mentioned, in a most favourable light. I believe that there is a strong feeling that this is one of the best and one of the few means of drawing closer the bonds of unity, and increasing, as Sir Samuel Griffith phrased it very properly, the solidarité of the Empire, even without any political body such as Mr. Hofmeyr in his last remarks referred to. believe it would be seen to be such a powerful agent in uniting us together, that the people of Victoria would agree with unanimity and enthusiasm to join in carrying out any such proposal. That, Sir, is my personal opinion.

The question, however, appears to me (and that is why it is not a very practical question for the Colonies to discuss), to be one really for the English people, and not for the Colonies; and so far as I can judge, until a very great change indeed comes over the manner of regarding fiscal questions in this country (a change which may come sooner than we anticipate, it is almost idle for us to raise the issue. It may be well for the Colonies to set it on record that, because they are so Imperialist in feeling, because they are so stirred by every movement that helps to bind together the Empire, and looking upon this proposal as one of the means of uniting its scattered parts, they would gladly avail themselves of it. But it is not for the Colonies to urge the adoption of this proposal as one which would be a benefit to them. It is really an Imperial matter, and until the head and heart of the Empire here become animated by the same feeling, and become convinced that this is a good means to adopt, our voices must be futile; the expression of our views may be considered premature. It may be desirable to place it on record that the Colony of Victoria is heartily at one with the other Colonies in the view they take upon this point, and I would only explain that the reason why we do not go into the details of the question is because we feel it is a question to be dealt with elsewhere and by others who might even regard us as being moved by selfish interests, whereas we are really moved by Imperial interests.

I agree with Mr. Hofmeyr in believing that one of the strongest of the ties that con unite the Colonies or peoples together is the tie of self-interest, with all the other ties which flow from intimate commercial relationship in the way of intercourse and association. All that the Australian Colonies fully recognise, and would gladly take their part in any movement for a common Australasian tariff: or better still (and that perhaps might be brought about by-and-by) an Imperial tariff which would not only demonstrate the unity of the Empire, but assist to make it a potent reality.

Sir F. Dillon Bell (New Zealand).-Any attempt, however scientifically and ingeniously constructed, to change the principles upon which the English trade is now governed, appears to me to be utterly hopeless. I cannot suppose for a moment that the Imperial Government will ever construct the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon proposals such as my honourable friend Mr. Hofmeyr with so much ability has brought before us to-day. After all it is not our place to propose to Her Majesty's Government, in this Conference, the consideration of a scheme which so fundamentally changes the principles upon which British trade is now conducted. We should resent, I think, in Victoria, or New South Wales, or in New Zealand, any such interference by the Imperial Government with our own fiscal system as Mr. Hofmeyr's scheme proposes with the Imperial system, and we must expect that the Imperial Parliament will object to the same kind of interference with theirs by us.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE Reference

UILTI KMC.O. 885 / c.o.

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON