MR. PIKE PEASEI bog to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the official report of his address to the Colonial Conference, if he can state what was the value of manufactures imported into this country from British Possessions and from the self-governing Colonies respectively, in 1905.
§ MR ARKWRIGHT (Hereford)At the same time may I ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the official report of his address to the Imperial Conference, if he can state what was the value of food, drink, and tobacco imported into this country from British Possessions and from the self-governing Colonies respectively, in 1905.
§ The following Question on the same subject also appeared on the Paper:—
§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N.W.)To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the official report of his address to the Imperial Conference, if he can state what was the value of raw materials imported into this country from British Possessions and from the self-governing Colonies in 1905, respectively.
§ MR. ASQUITHI dealt in my address to the Imperial Conference with the Colonial returns of exports from the self-governing Colonies to the United Kingdom, which show the values at the ports of embarkation. Our own import statistics show the values as imported, and therefore include the costs incidental to sea-transport. They also differ from the returns of exports published by self-governing Colonies in so far as they do not include the great bulk of the diamonds imported from Cape Colony, such diamonds being not in general declared to the Customs on importation. (See Annual Statement of Trade of United Kingdom with Foreign Countries and British Possessions for 1905, Cd. 2928, Vol. 1, page V. and pages 70 and 71, Note.) The values in our returns are those declared upon importation, which are not the same as those given to the Colonial Customs Departments by the exporter, and there is also probably some difference in the description as between raw materials and manufactured articles, owing to the different arrangement of the 629 Colonial returns. The value of our imports of merchandise, calculated as I have explained, which were consigned from self-governing Colonies and all British Possessions respectively for 1905 are estimated by the Board of Trade to be approximately as follows:—
| Imports of | From Self-Governing Colonies. | From all British Possessions. |
| Million £. | Million £. | |
| Food, Drink, and Tobacco | 33 | 58 |
| Raw Materials and Articles mainly unmanufactured | 32¾ | 52 |
| Articles wholly or mainly manufactured (including a small quantity of unclassified articles and parcels post) | 5¼ | 16½ |
| 71 | 126½ |
MR. PIKE PEASEasked why the Colonial returns had now been taken, seeing that that had not been the case on previous occasions.
§ MR. ASQUITHsaid that the reason why he adopted the Colonial method was because he thought it was right in considering the question whether preference should be given to take the value of the goods at the port of exportation. As the figures showed, however, he deliberately adopted those figures which were least favourable to his own argument.
MR. PIKE PEASEI beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the official report of his address to the Imperial Conference, whether the burden of the Canadian tariff upon United Kingdom produce, as compared with United States produce, has been progressively altered since 1897 in favour of the United Kingdom.
§ MR. ASQUITHThe ad valorem equivalent of the duty actually levied in Canada on all imports (including both 630 free and dutiable goods) from the United States since preferential treatment was accorded to United Kingdom goods in 1897 has remained practically stationary at 12 or 13 per cent. The ad valorem equivalent in the case of goods from the United Kingdom declined from about 20 per cent. prior to 1898–99 to 17 per cent. in 1902–3. Since then it has increased to 19 per cent. I will have the figures for each year printed in the votes. I should add that we have not yet had sufficient experience of the new Canadian tariff' to determine what change (if any) it will produce.
SIR GILBERT PARKERArising out of that, may I ask whether the difference of duty between the United States and Canada is not due to the different class of the imports—that is to say, to the raw material half manufactured, chiefly imported from the United States.
§ MR. ASQUITHI pointed out that to the Colonial Conference.
§ MR. CHIOZZA MONEY (Paddington, N.)asked whether it was not the case that, wherever the preferential tariff of 33¾ per cent. had been shown to be of any decided advantage to British importers, it had been whittled away by subsequent amendments.
§ MR. ASQUITHI would not say that they have been whittled away, but the figures are those I have just stated.