HL Deb 20 February 1924 vol 56 cc209-28

EARL BEAUCHAMP rose to call attention to the high duties levied upon British goods under the preferential tariffs when they enter the self-governing Dominions and to the Indian tariffs; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in calling the attention of His Majesty's Government to this Question I am anxious not to make a speech which could in any sense be called controversial. The fact of the matter is that before very long your Lordships will probably be asked to discuss the general question of Imperial Preference, and it is very desirable that, when we do so, we should have all the figures available for a full and frank discussion upon the subject. These figures are really very difficult to get at. A few of them are to be found in official Papers, but comparatively few. I have thought that it would be to the, general advantage that before the discussion took place we should have these figures actually available. I have no doubt that the noble Lord who represents the Colonial Office in this House will tell me in what way he thinks it most convenient that they should be circulated —whether it will be sufficient that they should appear in the report of his speech or whether he thinks it more desirable that a White Paper should be issued. I should be quite ready to fall in with whatever ho suggests. But what I wish to do meanwhile is to put forward the figures which I have been able to get after a certain amount of research, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to confirm them.

Take Canada in the first place. These figures are taken from the Canadian Year Book which has all the character of an official document. It appears from them that the dutiable imports from the United Kingdom paid, in the year 1922, a sum of 24.80 per cent. and the total imports from the United Kingdom paid 20.1 per cent. in the same year. These things are, I am afraid, rather difficult to follow, but the difference is between the total number of goods going into Canada from the United Kingdom and those which were dutiable. The second set of figures shows that the dutiable imports from the United States of America paid, in the year 1912, 25 per cent., and in 1922 only 23 per cent., so that between those two years there was a reduction of the duty paid on American goods going into Canada of 2 per cent. The same thing is somewhat reflected in the total number of imports from the United States, because the duty on ail imports, dutiable as well as free, taking it as a total, fell from 14 .9 per cent. in 1912 to 13.9 per cent. in 1922. The comparison which I wish to make, and to which I hope the noble Lord will be able to give his assent, is this, that on all Canadian imports from the United Kingdom, dutiable and free, the average rate of import duty was 20.1 per cent., but the rate upon American goods going into Canada, taken on the same basis, was only 13.9 per cent., or more than 6 per cent. lower. And this is what we are told is the preferential duty upon British goods going into Canada! The rates levied on goods from the United Kingdom going into Canada are therefore, on the average, higher than those on United States goods going into Canada, in spite of the preference. Those are, I think, very remarkable figures, and I have given them because I feel quite sure that they are not generally appreciated, either in your Lordships' House or in the country.

I turn to the South African tariff. The tariff of the Union of South Africa, in force since 1914, was amended in June of last year, and for the purposes of the tariff goods are divided into seven classes. In most of those cases a preference of 3 per cent. ad valorem is given to goods the growth, produce, or manufacture of the United Kingdom. It is obvious that it would be unnecessary to give the figures relating to goods which do not enter South Africa from this country. I will confine myself therefore to the figures relating to imports into South Africa from this country: Coal and patent fuel, duty 3s. per ton and there is no rebate; cement, duty 1s. 3d. per 400 lbs. and the rebate is 3d. ; and so with coke, the duty is 1s., and I think there is the same rebate. The duty on confectionery is 3½d. and the rebate is one farthing. On matches per gross of boxes it is from 2s. 6d. to 5s., with no rebate; on pickles, 2¼d. with a rebate of ¼d.; pneumatic tyres, 1s. a lb., and a rebate of 3d. Then there are mixed rates, with a preference of 3 per cent. ad valorem on United Kingdom produce, on boots and shoes, 30 per cent. ; perfumery, 40 per cent. ; printed matter, 25 per cent. ; vehicles (not driven by motors), 25 per cent. When we come to the mixed rate, with a preference of 3 per cent. ad valorem, on secondhand vehicles the duty is £10 each plus 15 per cent.

Then there are some goods which come in with a duty of 25 per cent. ud valorem and a preference of 3 per cent. on all produce going in from this country. This is a preference of 3 per cent. on the 25 per cent. This item includes blankets, sheets, rugs, gramophones and records, cinematographs, harness, skates, tobacconists' wares, bespoke clothing and leather manufactures. Then there is a duty of 20 per cent. ad valorem, with a preference of 3 per cent. on United Kingdom produce, on goods not elsewhere charged with duty and not in the free list or prohibited. There is a duty of 15 per cent., with another preference of 3 per cent. on United Kingdom produce, on apparel and piece goods of cotton, hair or wool. Another list in the sixth category contains no fewer than 74 items, which include bottles, machinery, iron and steel and paper, on which there is a 3 per cent. ad valorem duty but no duty on United Kingdom produce at all. A final category embraces 46 items which come in free whether they come from this country or any other. The tariff now contains 193 items as compared with 175 in 1911. There has been a large number of increases, including 15 per cent. on boots and shoes and perfumery. Where 20 per cent. is now charged, 15 per cent. was charged in the previous tariff. I told your Lordships just now that the preference amounts only to 3 per cent. ad valorem generally speaking, and it will be seen that the South African duties on United Kingdom goods have been increased in many instances since 1914,

I turn now to Australia. Here there is a little more difficulty in getting hold of exact figures, and I am afraid that I am obliged to rely in this case upon some-telegraphed cables which I found in a newspaper. In this case I think it is necessary to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that in 1913 only 56 per cent. of the goods going into Australia were dutiable, while at the present moment over 62 per cent. are dutiable. They have added largely to the list of articles which have to pay duty. But the real test is in regard to rates paid on dutiable goods. The duty levied on goods of United Kingdom origin in the preferential tariff of 1913 averaged practically 19 per cent. and on foreign goods 35.34 per cent. But in 1921 the average duty collected under the general tariff was 28.69 per cent., and on goods under the preferential tariff—that is, of United Kingdom origin—it was 27.73 per cent. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that the preference on British goods going into Australia practically amounts to a trifle under 1 per cent. The average rate of duty on United Kingdom goods has, therefore, increased from 18.97 per cent. in 1913 to 27.73 per cent, in 1922. Meanwhile, the average duty, or the average rate collected, on foreign goods has decreased by an amount of 665 per cent. Therefore we find as a conclusion that since preference was first started more is paid upon British goods going into Australia than was paid before.

There are a number of single items which I shall venture to enumerate. A new 30 per cent. duty was imposed on United Kingdom telephone and telegraph cables in July last, and a 45 per cent. duty on foreign telephone and telegraph cables. Woollen yarn from this country was free on entry into Australia until January 1 last; now a duty of 10 per cent. has been put upon it, and a duty of 20 per cent. upon foreign yarns. Aluminium cable imported from the United Kingdom now pays a duty of 30 per cent. while foreign cable pays 45 per cent. Aluminium wire from the United Kingdom used to enter free, but since March 31 last a duty of 10 per cent. has been levied upon it while there is a duty of 20 per cent. on foreign goods.

The point is this—and here I am afraid I must be controversial, and that it is a little difficult to follow. In regard to the preference which we get and which is given to our goods, supposing £10,000 worth of goods are imported into Australia, we are told that we get a preference of £1,500 upon those goods because foreign goods pay £1,500 more than we do upon their £10,000 worth of goods going into Australia. Therefore, it is said, we get a benefit of £1,500. It is suggested that we should spend that £1,500 in some form which would be grateful to the particular Dominion. But I am bound to point out to your Lordships that there was no particular reason, from our point of view, for imposing that duty at all, and if the duty had not been imposed we should have found a better market for our manufactures ; and we should not be expected to give further advantages for the £1,500, a figure which, in the opinion of a good many people, is somewhat illusory.

Turning to New Zealand, we find a much simpler tariff. The preference was given to us by New Zealand in 1903 by means of a surtax upon foreign goods, the preferential tariff remaining at the old rates and foreign goods imported paying more than we did. I hope your Lordships understand that in this matter I want to make no kind or sort of complaint. The average amount collected on most of our imports into New Zealand is about 20 to 25 per cent., but in spite of the preference I am sorry to say that the proportion of imports from the United Kingdom into New Zealand is decreasing. The proportion in 1906 was 59 per cent. while in 1919 it was less than 38 per cent. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is indeed lamentable that the result of preference should be to diminish the amount of goods that we send to New Zealand.

There is just a reference to India, which perhaps hardly comes into the scope of this Question, and, therefore, I will only touch upon it in the briefest possible way. I ask the noble Lord whether it is not accurate to say that though, of course, we get no preferential duties upon any goods going into India from this country, India has not, as a matter of fact, given us any preference, although she is at this time enjoying preference on anything which she sends to this country and upon which at this moment duties are being raised. The fact is that while we give India a preference we get none from her. I think I have now covered the various self-governing Dominions, and I must thank your Lordships for the attention with which you have listened to a number of statistics which, I fear, are always difficult to follow in the course of a speech. I hope also that I have said nothing which can really be called very controversial.

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD ARNOLD)

My Lords, in rising to make my first speech in your Lordships' House, I would ask for the indulgence which is, I think, always accorded upon such an occasion. I venture to hope that it may be extended to me in especial measure seeing that it falls to my lot to make a statement on behalf of His Majesty's Government on the extraordinarily complicated matters relating to differential rates and preferential tariffs. The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, who introduced this Motion, always speaks, if he will permit mo to say so, on these economic problems with authority, and brings out points of substance for consideration. To-day has certainly been no exception to his rule, and I shall be well satisfied if, in my reply, I am able in any degree to assist him in his ceaseless quest for fiscal truth. My task is rendered considerably easier than it otherwise would be because the noble Earl was courteous enough to furnish me in advance with certain information regarding at any rate some of the points which he intended to raise to-day.

Before coming specifically to deal with the speech of the noble Earl I would like to state, broadly, what the position is as regards preference, and what the average amount of preference is which is rebated to British goods in the four self-governing Dominions of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. Newfoundland does not accord preference, nor does India, and that is my reply on that point to the noble Earl. However, taking the four self-governing Dominions of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, the preferences acorded vary very considerably. They range from 3 per cent. in the case of South Africa, as the noble Earl has said, up to as high as 25 per cent. in one instance in the tariff of the Commonwealth of Australia. I am speaking, of course, of a preference ad valorem, but the important point for your Lordships to consider is, I think, what is the actual average amount of preferential rebate which is accorded in the aggregate. of the transactions. The average actual amount of duty collected on British goods entitled to preference entering the four self-governing Dominions works out at somewhere about 10 per cent. ad valorem But after this preference has been taken into account and deducted there still remains an average amount of duty collected on British goods entitled to preference entering the four Dominions of a little over 15 per cent. ad valorem. I will now reply move specifically to the speech of the noble Earl, but I must preface my remarks by saying that to find out exactly what has happened in regard to the whole of his points would entail prolonged research. The information already available, however, is I think, sufficient to enable me to deal with his main inquiries and arguments. I will take Canada first, as the noble Earl took it first. I do not think it is necessary to go into the points raised by the noble Earl regarding the comparatively trifling changes in the rates of duty paid on the United Kingdom goods and United States goods entering Canada between the years 1912 and 1922. The alterations in those percentages are so small that I do not think they call for serious consideration.

Therefore I pass to the main inquiry of the noble Earl, which was whether it is not the fact that, in spite of preference, the average rate of duty collected on United Kingdom dutiable imports in 1922 was nearly two per cent. higher than on United States dutiable imports. In his first point the noble Earl was dealing simply with United Kingdom dutiable imports and United States dutiable imports, but he proceeded to ask what is the position if we go further, and inquire what is the average duty on all imports into Canada, both dutiable and free, from the United Kingdom and the United States. He asked whether, if we look at those figures, it is the case that on the average the duty collected on all imports going into Canada from the United Kingdom is about 6 per cent. higher than that paid on all goods from the United States going into Canada. That really, I think, summarises the noble Earl's points in regard to Canada. He asked whether those figures are correct. My reply is that they are.

Such being the case, the question that will at once arise in your Lordships' minds is : How is it possible, in view of the substantial preference accorded to so many United Kingdom goods, that the average rates of duty paid by the United Kingdom goods are higher in both the respects indicated by the noble Earl than the average rates of duty paid by United States goods which enjoy no preference. The explanation is, of course, that there can be, and very often is, a wide difference between what I may call a tariff on paper and a tariff in actual operation. Why is that ? It is because there are different rates of tariff on different classes of goods, and these different classes of goods go into Canada from the United Kingdom and the United States respectively in widely varying proportions. Therefore, looking at trade in the aggregate, the average rates of duty collected by Canada on United Kingdom imports and United States imports respectively depend upon the volume of goods in the various classes going into Canada from each country and the rates of duty on those particular classes. For instance, if the operations of trade so work out that United Kingdom imports into Canada contain a considerable proportion of goods on which the rates are fairly high, while, on the other hand, the United States imports contain a considerable proportion of goods on which the rates are fairly low, then it is in factors of this kind that we find the reason for figures such as those which the noble Earl has adduced, and also an explanation of the otherwise rather baffling disparity between what I may call a tariff on paper and a tariff in practice.

In regard to South Africa I do not think it is necessary to say very much. The position is, broadly speaking, as the noble Earl stated. South Africa affords to the Mother Country a preference of 3 per cent. ad valorem in nearly every case of British manufactured goods, and this preference has not been altered. It is true that the South African General Tariff has from time to time been increased on some articles, but the preference remains the same.

Turning to Australia, I do not think it is necessary to deal in detail with the variations in percentages which the noble Earl gave, showing the proportions between free imports and dutiable imports in the years 1913 to 1922, beyond saying that 1913 was, for a comparison of this kind, an exceptional year. If the noble Earl will go to the year 1912 he will find that the figures work out differently. I now pass to the noble Earl's chief point in regard to Australian tariffs. First, he asks whether, taking the year 1913 and comparing it with the year 1922, it is the fact that the average rate of duty collected on United Kingdom goods entering Australia under preference has, in that period, increased by 8.76 per cent. The reply is that this particular figure is substantially correct. To be absolutely correct, instead of it being 8.76 it should be 8.33. But it is most important to make it clear that the figures which the noble Earl cited in this connection relate only to the increase in the rates of duty which has taken place on dutiable articles under preference. These figures, however, take no account of the fact that there is a considerable volume of goods going into Australia free under preference, because the preference has been such as to remove the duty altogether.

If I take the figures of all goods from the United Kingdom which benefit from a preference, that is, all goods dutiable and free in the manner I have described, the result comes out differently. Taking all such goods into account the average rate for imports of United Kingdom origin into Australia has gone up from 13.22 per cent. in 1913 to 14.89 per cent. in 1921–2. That is an increase of 1.67 per cent., which is, of course, a totally different figure from the other. Certain other figures are frequently cited in regard to Australia and they appear in the message to the newspapers with which the noble Earl was kind enough to furnish me. I will say just one word about them. It is asked whether the average duty on foreign dutiable imports into Australia has, in the same period, that is, from 1913 to 1921–2, decreased from 35.34 per cent. to 28.69 per cent., or a decrease of 6.65 per cent. Those figures are substantially correct, but there is some misapprehension about the precise category of goods to which they relate. Those figures do not relate only to foreign goods, but to a category which includes both foreign goods and also United Kingdom goods on which no preference is given. The category is therefore somewhat different. It does not make a great deal of difference, but it does make a slight difference in these particular figures. I think the position in regard to Australia comes to this: that the contentions of the noble Earl cannot be sustained in full degree. Nevertheless, it is unquestionably true that the development of Australia on the industrial side has led to higher duties on imports which compete with the products of her factories and works.

Lastly, I will deal with New Zealand. The noble Earl contends that the proportion of United Kingdom imports into New Zealand in relation to the total imports of New Zealand has decreased materially. He takes for this purpose two years, 1906 and 1919, and he contends that these years show that the proportion of United Kingdom total imports, in relation to the total imports of New Zealand, have declined from 59 per cent. in 1906 to less than 33 per cent. in 1919. Those figures, so far as I know, are correct ; but 1919 was not a normal year for the purposes of the comparison. I am the last person to suggest that the noble Earl would designedly adduce a year which is not the befit for purposes of comparison. If he will allow me to say so, as an old co-worker in fiscal matters with him, I know how scrupulously fair he is. Hut it does happen that 1919 was an abnormal year. The war was scarcely over and shipping had not been restored to its normal routes. For the purposes of comparison we should arrive at a much truer result by taking the year 1922. If we take that year the result comes out very differently. If we take that year, the year 1922, we find that the proportion of United Kingdom imports into New Zealand, in relation to the total imports of New Zealand, was 55.75 per cent., as against 59 per cent, in 1906. The noble Earl will see that there is very little change in the proportions, and I submit, so far as that argument goes, that there is not sufficient difference in those figures upon which to base any substantial contention.

I am anxious not to trespass unduly on your Lordships' time, but I should like to summarise the position as regards these various matters, and I think I can do so in four sentences. In the first place, I think I have shown that in certain respects the figures of the noble Earl are open to criticism and, therefore, the deductions, or at least some of the deductions, must be to that degree qualified. Secondly, the Dominions may fairly claim to have arranged their tariffs on the whole in such a way as to favour goods from the United Kingdom rather than from foreign sources. Thirdly, it is nevertheless true to say, as the noble Earl indicates in the Notice on the Paper, that the duties levied upon British goods when they enter the self-governing Dominions are, in many cases, high, even after the preference is deducted. Fourthly, it must be freely admitted that where it has been decided to protect Dominion industries high rates of duty have, generally speaking, been imposed and either no preference has been accorded or the deduction of duty has been such as still to leave the preference rate high enough to be protective. In saying that it must not of course be taken that I am suggesting any complaint against the Dominions. In these matters they must do what they think best. They are great self-governing communities and, like ourselves, must have complete freedom and liberty to settle their own affairs. I trust, having regard to the limits of reasonable duration of speech, the noble Earl will consider that the reply I have made to his Motion is not inadequate.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD OLIVIER)

My Lords, I wish to add one word with regard to India. As in the case of the self-governing Dominions, the Government of India is autonomous in this matter. As the noble Earl has said the Government of India decided at present to accord no preference. In the Tariff Commission which sat in India and reported in 1922 no indication was given of any inclination on the part of those interested in India to grant any preference. The present Indian tariff is historically, and still ostensibly, a tariff for revenue, and, that being so, no concession or preference could be made without finding some alternative source of revenue. A Tariff Committee, however, is to be set up to consider the question of altering the principles upon which the tariff of India is settled rather in the direction of a protective tariff, and incidentally, in connection with the deliberations of that Committee, the question of giving a preference may, doubtless, be raised.

But I ought to add that, so far as I can judge, the advantages of the preferences now granted to the Government of India under the existing scheme are not sufficient to offer a very great temptation to the Government of India to make any considerable alteration of their tariff system in the direction of preference, unless a line were taken which, I think the noble Earl will agree with me, is not likely to be taken, and a preference were given on a tariff affecting foodstuffs and other products which are the principal exports of India. That is at present the position of India so far as I can indicate it, and no amount of discussion with the noble Earl as to the wisdom or expediency of any line of preferential tariff in India would affect the question, because, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies has said, it is a matter which rests entirely with the Government of India. So far, however, as any information can be given in Papers, we shall be most glad to do anything we can to meet any desire of the noble Earl.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

My Lords, I am in the somewhat unusual position of being able to offer very cordial and sincere congratulations to two members of His Majesty's Government on their maiden speeches in your Lordships' House. I am confident that the speech which we have heard from the Under-Secretary for the Colonies is one which has been listened to with the greatest possible interest. The facility with which he dealt with a somewhat bewildering collection of figures will suggest, even to those of us who may not have been acquainted with him in the House of Commons, that he will prove a very worthy addition to your Lordships' House.

I do not propose this afternoon to follow the noble Earl who introduced this Motion or either of the noble Lords who have spoken from the Government Bench, in the figures which they have laid before your Lordships' House. I am more anxious to ascertain, if possible, what are the views of the Government, and of the Liberal Party, with reference to this question of Preference. This is not a question which can be decided by figures and by percentages, and I venture to say that the test of the value of Preference is the measure of assistance which it gives to inter-Imperial trade. At this hour, after our experience of twenty years, I do venture most earnestly to deprecate any suggestion that the assistance which has been granted to us by the self-governing Dominions is not appreciated in this country. If he will excuse my saying so, the noble Earl who introduced this Motion is well known to your Lordships as, I think, the most faithful supporter in your Lordships' House of the ancient principles of Free Trade. He was to-day scrupulously careful to avoid any controversial matter and, in fact, taking the speech which he made this afternoon by itself, I should be very much inclined to doubt if any critic would have very much ground of complaint against it. The noble Earl was in search of information. I am inclined to agree with him that we do want a great deal more information in an easily accessible form than we have now ; and I believe that we who are in favour of Preference are perfectly prepared to face any sets of figures which may be produced, as we believe that they provide an unanswerable argument for the case which we are prepared to put forward.

But the noble Earl, apart from his Speech today, has taken an occasion within the last few weeks to issue a manifesto. The noble Earl must have suffered some pain and anxiety from the conduct of those with whom he is generally associated. I cannot help feeling that the speech which was delivered, I think, on January 15 this year by the then Leader of the Opposition in this House, who is now the Leader of the Liberal Party here, must have caused somewhat deep anxiety in the mind of the noble Earl, and I have been wondering if that speech is not in a large measure responsible for the manifesto which was issued, I think, on Monday last. I do not know if it has appeared in any other papers, but I have been able to extract my information from that most reliable of all sources—the true fount, I understand—the Manchester Guardian.

I do not propose to read the whole of this statement, but I may refer to the opening and concluding passages, which may throw some light on the condition of the noble Earl's mind. Here is the opening passage: — Recent utterances of certain politicians hitherto regarded as sound Free Traders have convinced us that it is necessary to re-state our reasons for regarding all forms of fiscal preference granted or promised to the Dominions as incompatible with the doctrines of Free Trade. The noble Earl goes on to elaborate his argument with references to loss of revenue and the creation of vested interests, and winds up his statement as follows :— In order to secure this result we call upon the Free Trade majority returned to Parliament to carry out in its integrity the mandate given to it by the nation and to restore the Free Trade policy which prevailed from the days of Peel to the opening of the great war by securing forthwith the abolition of all protective duties, whether preferential or otherwise. It would not be fair this afternoon to ask His Majesty's Government to anticipate the statement which will, no doubt, be made in the course of a few days when the promised debate takes place on the subject of Preference, but I do venture to utter one word of warning.

I trust that His Majesty's Government will not pay undue respect to the advice which is tendered to them by the noble Earl below the gangway. After all, the real test of what Preference has done for us lies in the volume of our trade. I certainly have no wish to add to the already rather large number of figures and statistics which have been presented to your Lordships' House in the coarse of the debate this afternoon, hut I hold in my hand a long list which contains the information that during the year 1922 Australia purchased a variety of goods from Great Britain, which produced a sum in excess of the purchases of similar goods by all foreign countries put together. For instance, in steel girders, I find that Australia purchased £157,000 worth against purchases by all foreign countries of £104,000 worth. In electric wire insulated rubber Australia purchased £275.000 worth and the total foreign purchases were £129,000 worth. I believe the noble Lord, the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, comes from Lancashire, and possibly these figures may be of some little interest to him. Of made-up cotton goods for household purposes Australia bought, during 1922, £910,000 worth as compared with £599,000 worth bought by foreigners. I could, if necessary, give further instances, but I think I have already stated enough to prove, what I do not think can be seriously contested, that, whatever the incidence of preferential duties may be, the result has been to confer a very considerable advantage on British manufactures and British trade.

But there is another aspect of the question which we have to bear in mind. Let me take, if I may, a comparison between Australia, with a population of five and a half millions, and the Argentine, with a population of eight and a half millions. As your Lordships are very well aware, we are peculiarly well situated in the Argentine. Very large sums of British capital are invested there ; British firms stand very high, and are well repre- sented. Yet I find that in 1922 Australia supplied Great Britain with £64,000,000 worth of goods—almost entirely food stuffs and raw material. In the same year the Argentine sold to Great Britain £56,500,000 worth of produce, all very much of the same character as those which came from Australia. But, on the other side of the account, we find that Australia purchased £60,250,000 worth of goods from us, as compared with £22,660,000 worth of goods bought by the Argentine. It is, I think, something more than a coincidence. I think it is a pretty clear demonstration of the value which the preference given by the Dominions has been to us in the past.

We are, of course, dealing to-day with figures which have actually been accounted for, and which have no relation to any further proposals which were made at the Economic Conference which sat in the autumn of last year, but I should have been much surprised if the representatives of the Overseas Dominions who attended that Conference had been told that the preferences which they had in the past accorded to us were of little or no value. I certainly am not an alarmist, but I think it is my duty to warn your Lordships that there is a feeling of uneasiness in the Dominions to-day. For twenty years, and more, this policy has been a fixed policy with the Dominions. It was not till 1910 that we made a small overture to them, and made efforts in certain directions to help their trade. I have no intention this afternoon of discussing on their merits the proposals which we laid before the Economic Conference—no doubt, on another occasion, they will be discussed on their merits—but I think I am justified in saying that the proposals which were made by the then Government were gratefully accepted by the representatives of the Dominions, not merely as a gesture but as a material contribution to inter-Imperial trade.

It is not my intention to read any lengthy extracts in support of that contention, but I think I am justified in calling your Lordships' attention to passages from the speeches of the Prime Ministers of Canada and South Africa. In the concluding speeches of the Imperial Conference, after the Conference had had a full opportunity of discussing these matters in very great detail, Mr., Mackenzie King said: In the first place, I would like to mention again what I said at the opening meeting, that we appreciated in Canada the difficulties with which the British Government was confronted in this matter, and appreciated sincerely the action of the Government in seeing that the embargo was removed, giving admission to our cattle. We wished to do something more than give verbal appreciation of that action, and we increased the British preference, amongst other things, in the hope that the British public would realise that having met us in a matter in which we were vitally concerned, we, in like measure, would like to meet them in a matter which was of concern to British interests. We increased our preference by giving an additional 10 per cent. discount on the existing preferential duties on all goods coming through Canadian ports. I want to make it clear that this was done largely as the result of the action of the British Government in respect to the admission of our cattle. We intend to hold to what we have done. Our attitude in the matter of preference is one of trying to further as much as we can inter-Imperial trade. Again, if I may, I will read one short extract from the speech delivered by General Smuts, as follows: — So far as we in South Africa are concerned, our policy has been to give a general percentage preference in our Customs system in favour of British products. It has been a general percentage extended to practically all articles. He went on to say, and this is a point to which I should like your Lordships to, have special regard— We are quite prepared to reshape our policy in such a way as to be more beneficial both to the South African consumer and to the British producer. I have given these instances, which could be multiplied a thousandfold from the Report of the Imperial Economic Conference, which I hold in my hand.

There is a further point which I wish to emphasise. The question of Imperial Preference cannot be taken separately and isolated from the whole of our Imperial policy. As is perfectly well known, there exist within the limits of the Empire great spaces, which are still open and still available for white men and women to make happy, prosperous, and contented homes. Those great countries, with their immense natural resources, are going to be developed. It is the wish not merely of the Governments but of the people of the great Dominions that that development should take place by means of British industry, British capital, and British labour. And there is no surer way in which we can help forward their great ideal than by working together in the development of inter-Imperial trade.

The Government in the course of a few days will probably make an announcement of their policy. I can only trust that when they are forming their policy they will look to the essential needs and requirements of the time, and that they will not be fettered and tied by formulas which, however suitable they may have been in bygone periods, bear singularly little relation to present-day facts and present-day life. I hope that His Majesty's Government, in settling the policy which they will lay before the country in the course of the next few weeks, will be guided by the great results which have already been achieved, and that, far from taking any retrograde step, they will do their best, on the lines which have already been indicated and accepted by the country, still further to develop closer and closer imperial trade.

EARL BUXTON

My Lords, may I be allowed to join in the congratulations to my noble friend on the lucidity and interest of his speech on a subject which it is always difficult to make interesting by statistics? I think every member of your Lordships' House felt that in the new Peer we shall have a member who will do much to help our debates. I do not propose to respond to the suggestion of the noble Duke that we should to-day state our views on Imperial Preference. My noble friend who moved for Papers studiously avoided on the present occasion any controversial matter, and it would ill become me to enter into the question on its merits. Speaking frankly, I do not know that I absolutely agree with the views of my noble friend on some of the Resolutions of the Imperial Conference, which we shall have to consider, but I take it that your Lordships will have a full opportunity of discussing the matter on merits. Therefore I do not propose to follow the noble Duke on the present occasion on the merits of the question.

What my noble friend wanted were facts and information, and the noble Duke himself said that he also would like further facts and further information. My noble friend who represents the Colonial Office gave us some very interesting figures in regard to the operation of preference from what I may call the other side, but would it not be of great, assistance to us here, and also to Members of the other House, if we could have in a simple form the actual proposals of the late Government which will come before us for discussion, instead of having to dig them out of innumerable Blue-books and Reports of Conferences? They fall into three classes. It would be a great convenience if those three classes were clearly indicated one from the other. I should be glad if we could have also the various Resolutions of the Imperial Conference dealing with this matter. I think there was one in 1911, and another in 1917 ; the noble Duke has referred to the proposals of 1919, and there was the Resolution passed by the Conference last year. My noble friend has given us considerable information showing how the preference actually affects the import of British goods, and we should like also to have in a simple form both the proposals and the Resolutions of the Conference. I am sure every one of us realises the importance of the speech of the noble Duke, and we shall all desire to deal with this question, not only from the purely economic point of view, but also from the Imperial point of view, which is of the utmost possible importance.

LORD PARMOOR

We have noted what has been said by the last speaker as regards the additional information which might be brought forward in the shape of a White Paper. The suggestions which he has made were very carefully considered. My recollection is that there was a White Paper issued last autumn, which at any rate, contained a large number of the Resolutions to which he refers.

EARL BUXTON

I think that Paper contained the Resolutions of the Conference last year, but it would be of advantage to have the actual proposals and the former Resolutions together, which, after all, are very material for a decision as to whether we can agree to the new proposals or not.

LORD PARMOOR

Every attention will he given to what the noble Earl has suggested, and the information will be furnished in as careful and complete a way as possible. The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, indicated last week that he would confine himself to-day to the terms of his Motion and avoid, I will not say controversial topics, but the larger topics to which the noble Duke has referred. Every one must appreciate how intricate a matter is inter-Imperial trade, and particularly, as the noble Duke said, because you have to consider it in relation to the general features of our Imperial policy. I think the noble Duke himself gave an answer to the question which he asked, because he referred to the fact that the Preference Resolutions of the Economic Conference would be quite shortly discussed in detail in another place, and therefore it is impossible at the present time, before that discussion has taken place, to indicate in a way that would be of any value what the policy of the Government will be. In due course the Government will be prepared to make its statement about the whole matter in your Lordships' House in order that it may be fully discussed. At the present time I could not say more than that, nor do I think that the noble Duke expected that we could on the present occasion.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

My Lords, in asking leave to withdraw my Motion, I hope you will allow me, in the first place, to express my thanks to the Under-Secretary for the Colonies for the very full reply which he was good enough to give. It amply satisfied my requirements. The noble Duke, the late Secretary of State for the Colonies, will, I hope, forgive me if I say that the red rag which he offered to me is one which I cannot really altogether pass by. If he will allow me, although I wished not to say anything controversial, I really must make some attempt at a reply to his statistics with regard to the Argentine. They are, I know, very favourite arguments and very favourite figures of Mr. Bruce, and are always used by him, and they were used again by the noble Duke to-night. He told us—and, of course, those are the figures—that the Argentine sends to us something over £60,000,000 worth of goods, chiefly in the form of food and raw material, and that we send back to the Argentine, I think he said, £22,000,000 worth. Supposing such a transaction happened in private life most people would say that if we got £60 worth and only paid £22 for them we were not doing so very badly. It is not a transaction of which a private individual would very much complain unless he felt unduly and unnecessarily honest.

But I am sure that the noble Duke realises that this £60,000,000 worth of goods coming into this country from the Argentine are paid for by this country in some way. They must be paid for. That may not appear in the actual amount of goods sent out to the Argentine, but they are paid for by way of the employment given to people in respect of the goods sent out. If those goods are sent out to the Argentine they are paid for by goods certainly in an equivalent amount, though those goods may not go direct to the Argentine. They may go to the United States who may pay the Argentine. It does not follow that because, in the account directly between ourselves and the Argentine, there is no direct appearance of those goods there is a disadvantage to us as between ourselves and the Argentine. We may send them to some neighbouring country and that neighbouring country may pay the Argentine. When we come to discuss this question in the future, I hope that the noble Duke will furnish me with a reply to what I have ventured to say on this question as between this country and the Argentine, to which Mr. Bruce attaches and the noble Duke seems to attach, if he will allow me to say so, a somewhat exaggerated importance. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.