House of Representatives
14 December 1904

2^nd Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- RIVERINA AND MELBOURNE ELECTIONS
QUESTION
- CASE OF MAJOR CARROLL
PROPOSED NEW TEMPORARY STANDING ORDERS
QUESTION
- NEW HEBRIDES
QUESTION
- PREFERENTIAL TRADE
AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORT
SEA CARRIAGE OF GOODS BILL
PAPUA (BRITISH NEW GUINEA) BILL
PAPERS
ADJOURNMENT
- Prorogation: Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta Railway Survey Bill: Seat of Government: English Mail Contract
- Company-

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 8474

QUESTION

RIVERINA AND MELBOURNE ELECTIONS

Mr WATSON:
BLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to know from the Prime Minister if he has had time to consider what position he will take up in regard to the question which I raised last evening concerning the reimbursement of the the two members I then mentioned?

Mr REID:
Minister for External Affairs · EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · Free Trade

– The leader of the Opposition last night, after the adjournment of the House was moved, brought under the notice of the Government the cases of members concerned in elections . which had been voided owing to irregularities on the part of ‘Government officials. There was a general feeling amongst honorable members then present that the Government, because of the long delay which has occurred, and the approach of the recess, would be justified in recognising these claims in anticipation of the proper vote of Parliament

QUESTION

CASE OF MAJOR CARROLL

Mr McDONALD:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– I wish to ask the Minister of Defence the following questions, which have been on the notice-paper of the Senate for about a week: -

Will the Minister for Defence ascertain from Colonel J. C. Hoad whether the following letter was written by him : - “ Military Forces of the Commonwealth, “ Head-Quarters, Melbourne, “27th May, 1903. “ Captain and Hon. Major J. W. M. Carroll,

Retired List. “ Sir, - With reference to your letter of the 14th inst., I am desired by me General Officer Commanding to inquire whether you are prepared, in the event of being placed on the Unattached List as requested, to refund the gratuity awarded you on retirement. - I have the honour to be. Sir, your obedient servant, “j. C. Hoad, Colonel, “ D.A.G. and C.S.O.”

Will the Minister for Defence ask Colonel Hoad to state on sworn affidavit was he, as the letter states, desired by the General Officer Commanding to inquire if Captain Carroll was prepared to refund gratuity if placed on the Unattached List?
Will the Minister lay Colonel Head’s reply on the table of the Senate ?

Mr McCAY:
Minister for Defence · CORINELLA, VICTORIA · Protectionist

– I think that notice should be given of questions of this kind. It is unnecessary for me to ascertain whether the letter referred to was written by Colonel Hoad, because it is stated in the evidence given before the Select Committee of .the Senate, which inquired into the case of Major Carroll, that the letter was so written. The question whether it was written with the knowledge of the General Officer Commanding was also investigated by that Committee. If I recollect aright, the General Officer Commanding stated that he was not aware of the letter being sent. He has now left Australia, and I do not think it proper that matters of this kind should be brought up in his absence, because he has his rights as other people have theirs. To determine it would only mean fresh inquiries.-

Mr Watson:

– Then is Colonel Hoad’ to rest under the stigma of having made a misstatement?

Mr McCAY:

– So far as the phrase “I am desired by the General Officer Commanding” is concerned, I might explain that those are merely formal words, from whose use it does not follow that the superior officer actually saw the letter.

Mr Watson:

– Still the general tenor of the letter would be either authorized or not authorized by the General Officer Commanding.

Mr McCAY:

– If the question whether Major-General Hutton’s evidence was truthful or not is raised, I do not propose to investigate it until he has an opportunity, as well as those who question the accuracy of his statement, to give evidence on his own behalf.

Mr WATSON:

– Can the Minister ascertain from Colonel Hoad what authorityhe had for sending the letter? If Colonel Hoad insists that the letter was sent by the authority of the General Officer Commanding, the matter should be referred to the latter for any remarks that he may have to make. The letter contains the clear statement that the authority of the General Officer Commanding was given for its despatch. The trouble seems to be that it is affecting the position of a man who some who have gone into the matter think has been treated rather badly, and until this question is cleared up it seems to be impossible to deal with the other issue.

Mr McCAY:

– The question whether this letter was or was not written with the knowledge of the General Officer Com manding in no way affects, so far as I can jud’ge, the position of either Major Carroll or Colonel Hoad.

Mr McDonald:

– Colonel Hoad was not able to give evidence before the Select Committee. That is the difficulty. If he had been here, there would probably have been a different assumption.

page 8475

PROPOSED NEW TEMPORARY STANDING ORDERS

Mr REID:
Minister of External Affairs · East Sydney · Free Trade

– With the concurrence of the House, I should like to move a motion such as is generally moved at this period of the session, in order to enable Government and private business to be taken up next session at the stage which it reached at the time of prorogation.

Sir William Lyne:

– Can that be done by resolution?

Mr REID:

– Yes. The House has control of its own business to that extent. I desire to move -

That, until permanent Standing Orders are adopted, the following be temporary standing orders of this House : -

Lapsed Bills. 214A. If in any session the proceedings on any

Bill shall have been interrupted by the prorogation of Parliament, the House may, in the next succeeding session, by resolution, order such proceedings to be resumed at the stage to which the Bill had been advanced in the previous session, provided a periodical election for the House has not taken place between such two sessions. 214B. Any such Bill may be sent to the Senate as if it had been introduced and passed by the House in the second session.

page 8476

QUESTION

NEW HEBRIDES

Mr SALMON:
LAANECOORIE, VICTORIA

– In asking, upon notice, the following question, I desire to say in explanation that I placed it upon the businesspaper because of a report, appearing in the Age newspaper of Friday last, stating that a Select Committee of the Chamber of Deputies had brought up a report recommending that the New Hebrides either be annexed or have a protectorate established over it by the French Government : -

Whether, in view of the recent reports of the expressed desires of members of the French Legislature regarding the ultimate destiny of the New Hebrides, he is in a position to re-assure those Australians who view the position with much anxiety ?

Mr REID:
Free Trade

– There is a fixed definite understanding between the Governments of Great Britain and France that no such annexation is to take place on the part of either power, and that understanding has been the subject of earnest representations from time to time from the Commonwealth Government to the Imperial Government. The Home authorities are in no doubt as to the views we hold, or as to the earnestness with which we oppose any such step as that referred to. I can assure the honorable member that there is no possible doubt in the minds of the Imperial authorities as to the sentiments of Australia on this question.

page 8476

QUESTION

PREFERENTIAL TRADE

Debate resumed from 13th December (vide page 8354) on motion by Mr. Deakin -

Inasmuch as every increase in trade between the mother country and the Colonies or any of them would be of mutual advantage commercially, while collectively, by multiplying their production, profitable employment, population, and exchanges, such increases must enhance the unity and power of the Empire, this House resolves that -

The encouragement of industry and commerce within the Empire is a high national aim of paramount importance to all its peoples.

The proposals of the Secretary of State for the Colonies at the Colonial Conference of 1902, as then approved and since tentatively defined in order to foster inter-Imperial trade, outline a patriotic and statesman-like policy of internal development and external influence, whose details should be discussed by a further Conference at the earliest opportunity.

The Prime Minister be requested to consider the existing openings for preferential trade relations between Australia and other colonies.

The Prime Minister be invited to obtain all data necessary for the preparation of a measure granting a preference to British imports into Australia which compete solely with imports from foreign countries.

The Prime Minister is hereby authorized for and on behalf of the Commonwealth to offer to the Government of the United Kingdom a preference upon its exports to Australia in return for a preference upon our exports to Great Britain and Ireland, such preference to be reciprocally adjusted according to Schedules sanctioned by Parliament.

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

– I regret that a policy so far-reaching in its possibilities for good or evil should be pressed upon the attention of a House wearied with the waste of ten months comparatively fruitless discussions. It can scarcely be hope that at this stage of the session either time or energy adequate to the importance of the issue raised remains, or that recent episodes in the play of parties have left us with that morale and disposition that would enable us to rise, above mere considerations of self, to the height of a great Imperial question. A matter of this kind should’ not be precipitated to a decision. Most great questions of politics are settled without serious consideration. . A few fetching platitudes often prove more effective than deductions drawn from the closest study and the widest experience. Each particular trader is tempted to frame the laws of production and exchange from the suggestions of selfinterest in his own particular line, and yet it is upon wisdom of this sort that the fate of Empires is made to depend.

When a man like Mr. Chamberlain comes into the field, so many allowances have to be made for selfinterest, ambition, the disinclination to test the worth of plausible theories, the facts that consideration of remote consequences seldom pays men who live longest and best from hand to mouth, and that the rest that tend’s to recoup a nation often spells death to the would-be leader - allowances have tobe made for so many sinister influences before the true weight of authority upon which an opinion rests can be tested - -that wisdom lies in taking nothing for granted, except that blundering has no limits. No man knows better than the honorable member for Birmingham the usefulness of being active in politics.

Preservance, dear, my Lord,

Keeps honour bright : to have done is to hang

Quite out of fashion, like a rusty mail

In monumental mockery.

As a matter of fact, it is a strange thing that the condition of the Empire, which, in the opinion of Mr. Chamberlain, and occasionally of Mr. Balfour, who takes his cue from Mr. Chamberlain, is so bad, was only recently discovered by the honorable member for Birmingham after his return from South Africa in 1902. One is, therefore, inclined to be a little suspicious as to his proposals at this stage. The Edinburgh Review, referring to the possible motives that may have been operating, said, in its issue of 5th July, 1903 -

Where, then, except in the position of the Imperial Government, lies the need for fiscal experiment’s, even if, as a remedy, their efficacy were undisputed. It is the case again of political hypocrisy, party and power being preferred to national nobility.

The honorable and learned member for Ballarat, in the course ofhis eloquent speech, acknowledged that preferential trade was advocated as a means to an end, the end being the political consolidation of the Empire. The substitution of a more

Or less rigid Federal arrangement, with its consequent diminution of local autonomy, is the ideal - from whatever motives it may be cherished - of Mr. Chamberlain, and the revival of the policy discarded about fifty years ago as pernicious is advocated as a condition of its realization.

Mr Ewing:

– Is that so?

Mr GLYNN:

– I do not wish, having a due sense of the necessity of economizing time, to accumulate proofs ; but in view of the challenge of the honorable member, I will make one or two quotations. At Luton, on 4th October last, Mr. Chamberlain, again assuming that the initiative came from the Colonies, said -

They are calling upon you to evolve out of your present conditions some closer, more permanent union, that shall make us once for all a great and united nation. “ United” ! Here again, as in the case of so many great orations, the question is begged at almost every point from exordium to peroration. A little earlier, on 4th August, at Welbeck, Mr. Chamberlain said -

Let us unite the Empire, the great aspiration of the best and wisest of our statesmen.

– Where is the compulsion in this case?

Mr GLYNN:

– We should have the compulsion of a central body operating upous whenever a majority of that body determined that it was necessary to exercise such compulsion. Upon the occasion in question, Burke said -

My resolutions, therefore, mean to establish the equity and justice of a taxation of America, by grant and not by imposition. To mark the legal competency of the colony assemblies for the support of their government in peace, and for public aids in time of war. To acknowledge that this legal competency has had a dutiful and beneficial exercise ; and that experience has shown the benefit of their grants, and the futility of parliamentary taxation as a method of supply.

I propose now, having dealt with the end, to say something as to the means. The policy of preference, as has been pointed out by Mr. J. A. Spender, in the October number of the Fortnightly Review, page 588-

In the hands of a skilful exponent, has every element of superficial attractiveness. It is highly combative and anti-foreign ; it promises immediate material gain to large classes; it claims both to create employment, and to mitigate competition. On the other hand, the answer to these direct appeals to the pocket can only be conveyed in an argument, which, complete though it be, is necessarily elaborate and difficult, and which makes large demands on the reasoning faculties of the average elector. Here is certainly a severe test for democracy - a test to which neither the European nor the Colonial democracies have proved equal.

The honorable and learned member for Ballarat has submitted a motion, some of the paragraphs of which contain mere general declarations of principle. We do not need to be continually making general declarations of principle, which mav be affirmed by men differing widely as to means. It is superfluous to affirm that -

The encouragement of industry and commerce within the Empire is a high national aim of paramount importance to all its peoples.

The second proposition embodied in his motion declares that we ought to adopt the suggestions made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies at the Colonial Conference of Premiers, which was held in London in 1902. The method suggested by the honorable and learned member for Ballarat is one which is intended to foster Imperial trade. But what was the method suggested by Mr. Chamberlain upon the occasion to which I have referred? It was free-trade within the Empire. Is the honorable and learned member for Ballarat, or are those who sympathize with him, prepared to adopt that principle? Mr. Chamberlain, I would point out, was very explicit as to what he meant. He declared that there may be some necessity for Colonial taxation, but that it must be based upon purely revenue lines ; that instead of adopting the colonial principle of taxing articles which can be produced locally, we must tax only those articles which cannot be produced locallyHe said -

But in my mind, whenever Customs duties are balanced by Excise duties, or whenever they are levied on articles which cannot be produced at home, the enforcement of such duties is no deviation whatever from the principle of free-trade, as I understand it.

I think we ought to ask the honorable and learned member for Ballarat to say whether he really means what he says in the motion - that we ought to adopt Mr. Chamberlain’s then policy of LiterImperial free-trade. If he does not wish us to at once adopt it, is he advocating this scheme merely as a means towards that ultimate end ? If he is, I ask my honorable friends who advocate preference, whether they are prepared to follow him? Let us not deal merely with ambiguous propositions, but with what Mr. Chamberlain has actually stated. If the honorable and learned member for Ballarat wishes us to adopt Mr. Chamberlain’s declaration, I must ask honorable members to consider what that would mean. The honorable and learned member strengthens the inference to be drawn from paragraph 2 of the motion by his reference, apparently with a preference for it, to the German Zollverein. That ZoIIverein, as I have stated, is based on Inter-State free-trade. In referring to this matter, the honorable and learned member for Ballarat seemed at the same time to think that we might adopt a system of Inter-Imperial treaties. He appeared to throw out two suggestions, which cannot be reconciled. Without dwelling on the question of the efficacy of these treaties, I would point out that they have been tried in AustroHungary and have failed. Doctor Petritsch, an eminent Austrian economist, in an article cited by the Edinburgh Review of October, 1904, from the Economic Journal of, I think, July, 1904, writes that the Austrian system is closely analogous to one of the suggestions made by Mr. Chamberlain’s party -

It must be observed, too, that Mr. Chamberlain’s preferential scheme would entail as entangled network of treaties far more complicated than the negotiations of the Austro-Hungarian Zollund Handels-bundniss. There does not seem to exist the faintest ground for believing that the difficulties in conciliating so manifold divergent interests will be less.

Neither of the schemes suggested by Mr. Chamberlain will recommend themselves to the substantial parties in this House. I presume those in favour of preferential trade would not accept it on the basis of Mr. Chamberlain’s scheme in 1902, and I certainly do not think many would agree to that system of Inter-Imperial treaties which, in the case of the Austro-Hungarian Empire,has proved the opposite of beneficial. To come a little closer to the question of preferential trade itself, I cannot see how, with any sense of selfrespect, we could pass a resolution asking the British people for further concessions in respect of whatever we may do in this direction. It would be the height of meanness to call upon the people of the United Kingdom to do more for us in this matter than they have done. Their ports are absolutely open to our exports. We are interested jointly with the people of the rest of the Empire in about a fourth of the external trade of the United Kingdom. There is, in addition, a considerable trade of the British Empire which never touches the shores of the United Kingdom. The fleet which protects that trade is supported by taxation upon the slender earnings of the British working classes, which it is now proposed to tax to a still greater extent, in return for so-called concessions to be grantedby us. If our true contributions to the navy were based on any proper proportions, upon representation, or even upon our capacity to pay according to wealth or population.

I it would be measured not by hundreds of thousands, but by millions of pounds.

Mr Ewing:

– It would be£4,000,000.

Mr GLYNN:

– Canada does not. at the present moment, pay a cent towards the cost of that fleet.

Sir John Forrest:

– And other parts of the British Empire do not.

Mr GLYNN:

– There are doubtless other reasons to be taken into account. I wish as well as I can to impress upon honorable members the great obligations we are under to the mother country in respect of her vast expenditure on naval defence. It is no wonder’, in these circumstances, that a prominent labour representative in the old country wrote to the honorable member for Bland stating that the supposed . benefits which Australia offered the people of Great Britain in return for preference were illusory, andadded -

Every representative gathering of organized labour, including two trades union congresses, and our own annual conference, speaking in the name of from one million to one million and a half wage-earners, have condemned the proposals with marked unanimity.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT; IND from 1910

– Has not a powerful Labour Congress since approved of the proposal ?

Mr GLYNN:

– I have read exactly what took place, but I hold that the quotation which I have just read is a strong pronouncement coming, as it does, from a representative of organised labour in the United Kingdom. It is a derogation from our selfrespect to ask the people of Great Britain to do more for us than they are doing - in other words, to base our loyalty upon material considerations. If such be the basis of our loyalty, if with some of the Celtic strain in it the tone of British patriotism has sunk in these States so low, all I can say is that we had better import some of those eastern races whom, by ourlegislation, we profess todespise to inoculate our stock with a little of that temper that teaches men to live and die for an ideal. Canada is gradually awakening to common sense and decency in this matter. She acknowledges, if we may judge from some of her representative speakers, that whatever else is done must be a tribute of gratitude, and not a mean demand for more. The Toronto Globe resents, as I shall ask the House to do by passing the amendment which I have foreshadowed, the imputation upon their loyalty and self-respect in the following word s: -

Every self-respecting Canadian resents the argument used on scores of platforms in Britain, and published in scores of British newspapers, that Mr. Chamberlain’s protectionist policy, even though it may raise the cost of food to millions of wage-earners in Britain, should be adopted by the British people, because it would secure and retain the loyalty of the Colonies.

The Solicitor-General for Canada, Mr. Randolphe Lemieux, speaking at a garden party of the Harron Division of the Willesden Liberal Associations, said in effect that -

Canadians had given the mother country a preference, and intended to keep that preference ‘without asking for anything in return. The Canadians were not going to put their loyalty up for sale. He would apply to the present position the old dictum, “ Let well alone.” Speaking especially in the French Colony of Quebec, he declared that Canada is [loyal, happy, and satisfied to live under the British flag, but if we wished to tighten the tie we should break it.

In a little book published by Montagu and Herbert, two writers who went to Canada some months ago to make a special study of the question, I find it stated that at an electoral meeting attended by ninety accredited French and English delegates, from various parts of Canada, a speech was made on the question of preferential trade by one of the successful candidates. The following is the writers’ commentary upon it : -

The adopted candidate, in the course of a lengthy address on Canadian politics, referred to the suggested scheme of Mr. Chamberlain, and none of his remarks were more enthusiastically applauded than those in which, with considerable indignation, he repudiated the suggestion that farming in Canada required any artificial advantages in the British market.

When the proper time comes, I shall there fore move -

That the following paragraph be added : -

The continued loyalty to the Empire of the people of the Commonwealth to no extent depends upon the preferential fiscal treatment of their products on importation into the United Kingdom.

What do the working classes of England who, by bearing taxation, have done so much for the Colonies, request us to do? They simply ask us to leave them alone. They know that the Mr. Chamberlain of 1885 spoke . with far greater accuracy than did the Mr. Chamberlain, of 1902, when, referring to the policy of preference and retaliation - to join the Prime Minister of England with Mr. Chamberlain - under its then alias of fair-trade”, he said, it meant -

Taxing the food of the people of England in order to raise the rents of the landlords.

That was the statement of the Mr. Chamberlain of 1885, and it also represents the opinion of the Edinburgh Review, of October, 1904. It is somewhat reassuring to find that the great periodicals of the United Kingdom, which for so many years have been somewhat antipathetic to the best of democratic aspirations, are now taking up the cause of the people. The Edinburgh Review wrote as follows: -

The only real beneficiaries of this policy would be the agricultural landlords. A sum of money equal to the increase of prices, multiplied by the amount of home-grown agricultural produce would be transferred to them from the pockets of the consumers of the produce, This is the main direct result to be expected from the pro-, posed taxation.

I think that very few will be inclined, upon examination, to dispute the accuracy of that statement of the position. To cite a few of the objections to the preferential system, I would point out that, as the Prime Minister said last night, it has been tried, and has failed within the Empire itself. If is also being tried in respect of possessions of some countries of Europe at the present . time, but does it indicate that the colonial system of those countries is better’ than our own? At one time American fish and lumber were excluded from the British West Indies to give Canadians a monopoly of the trade. At the same time the West Indies declared, to quote from an article in the Contemporary Review for December, 1903, that: -

We (the Canadians) fleeced them ; we retorted that we were fleeced through having to buytheir sugar at a fancy price, when Brazil and Cuba were offering a cheaper article ; and there was nothing but bad blood between us and them. At last they took the matter into their own hands, and indefinance of Downing-street opened their markets to American competition.

How are we going to work this system ? It is impossible to pick out for general treatment a few articles in the way that Mr. Chamberlain has urged. An examination of British imports and colonial exports shows that it is impossible to have a preference upon a few special articles, inasmuch as none which are at once of general export from all Possessions and foreign countries can be found. A preference in respect of wheat would operate far more beneficially to Canada with its greater productiveness, its proximity to the United Kingdom, and better freights between the United States and Canada and the United Kingdom. The quantities exported differ also. The exports from Australia to England differ in quantity from those from New Zealand1 and from those from Canada. So that, unless you introduce the wretched principle of differentiation between Colony and Colony, you cannot, under any taxation of wheat, treat them all alike. Thus you will sow at once the seeds of subsequent discontent. The principle approved in the Colonies, so far as it has been affirmed in Australia by any great body of people - and the same may be said for the other places in which the question of preference has been discussed - is to impose greater taxation against the foreigner, but not to lower the existing taxation in favour of Great Britain. That is the policy of the New Zealand legislation and of the Canadian legislation, because, although Canada lowered her Tariff in favour of the mother country, she had previously raised it generally for the purpose. There were two acts. In South Africa the principle which has found favour is increased” protection against the foreigner. The Canadian Manufacturers’ Association said at one of their representative meetings that under all conditions the minimum Tariff should afford protection to Canadian producers,, and they recently passed a resolution affirming that -

While pleased that the Government has favorably considered the necessities of the woollen industry, the Association considers that the measure of protection afforded is insufficient, and does not approve the departure made by the Government in increasing protection by decreasing preference. Such action will probably be misinterpreted in England, whereas an increase in the regular duties would still maintain the principle of uniform preference for British goods.

The woollen manufacturers object to the continuance of preferences. They say that their industry has been threatened with ruin through the severe competition with Great Britain brought about by preference. As a matter of fact, a recent traveller in Canada has said that he found there that the man who advocated preferences generally wished to give them through some other fel 13 m 2 low’s products. Mr. Chamberlain, ten years ago, saw the weakness of iris system, and pointed out that the benefits which the United Kingdom would receive from it Vere illusory. He stated, as I have already mentioned, that about threefourths of the external trade of that country is with foreign countries, and’ that he did not believe that the working classes would consent to the making of a revolutionary change for what they would consider an infinitesimal gain. Yet, with the versatility of some politicians, he now advocates that a change should be made. The method of giving preference, as adopted by Canada, seems to be that advocated by preferentialists out ‘here, if I rightly understand the resolution passed at the Melbourne Town-hall, on the 17th November last, which declared that, while the meeting ‘ cordially approved of preferential trade relations between the mother country and Australia, due regard must at all times be paid to the industries of the Commonwealth. We know what that means. I do not propose to examine in detail the conditions of English trade, though, as I have said, only one-fourth of the external trade of that country is with British’ possessions. As the Spectator has put it, the colonists who are to be preferred as citizens number less than one-third of the population of The United Kingdom, less than one-tenth of the white men with whom the United Kingdom deals, and less than one-sixtieth of the world-wide population, which free-trade enables the United Kingdom to approach. Therefore, there is not much from the British point of view in the system of preferences. Then consider what the taxation of raw materials and food means. About 28 per cent, of the imports of raw material, food, and drink - nonalcoholicof the United Kingdom comes from British possessions, so that over 70 per cent, comes from outside the Empire. Seventy-seven per cent, of her wheat is imported from foreign countries, and so is about four-fifths of her dairy produce. As regards raw materials, £40,500,000 out of a little over ,£41,000,000 worth of cotton is imported from outside the Empire. We have been told by Mr. Chamberlain of a preference of 2s. a quarter in favour of colonial wheat. We know what a preference of that sort must lead to.. Are the farmers of the United Kingdom likely to be satisfied, if the principle is once introduced, with a duty of 2s. a quarter, seeing that the rate in France is over 12s., and in Germany, 8s. ? Mallock, writing on this question, has said that it would be futile to expect any results from duties of less than 14s. a quarter on foreign wheat, and 12s. a quarter on colonial wheat. That is the kind of preference which I think will not recommend itself to the farmers of Australia. Do not honorable members acknowledge that under these conditions of trade, there must be taxation of raw materials and food? Have they seriously considered the result in loss of employment, and in lower wages, to the masses of England, which must follow from the adoption of this policy? Do they know what a contraction of employment, or a diminution of pay, would mean to the masses of England, who, while their wages may perhaps be the highest in Europe, have to earn them amidst the din of manufacturing centres, and very often in the pestiferous surroundings of city slums? Do honorable members realize what it must mean to a man who, on wages of 25 s. a week, has to support a family of six, to meet the many little innocent importunities of his children with an eternal negative ; what it must mean to the sweated seamstress in her garret? And can they then say that a policy which means such an exploitation of the wages of the poor contains in it any source of healthy inspiration? I regret that our patriotism has been put before the Home people in such a way as to make it appear that we are asking the English masses to go back, as some have said, to the days of the corn laws, to the times described by Mr. Chamberlain in 1885, as times when protection starved the poor, and the country was brought to the brink of revolution. He said then that that was not a retrospect which would be favorable to any party or statesman who should have the audacity to propose that we should go back to those evil times. Still, he now seems to have arrived at that point of reprobation himself. The venerable George Jacob Holyoake, writing recently on this policy, says that the condition and dietary of the poor under protection seems incredible now, and will be to many of this generation. Let us look at the Australian trade. Why should we endeavour to hamper our growing trade with foreign countries? If we send our exports to Germany, does it not enable them to go further in realizing sums to pay interest than if they were sent direct to England? We send to Germany, because the purchase money paid there is greater, the demand being greater, than we would obtain elsewhere. The purchase money obtained at times by certain of our exports there1 is greater, and, consequently, we obtain greater power for the payment of interest. If England wished to give a bigger price, the export would go there. As a rule, an indication is given of where the greater price is paid by the direction in which the conditions of commerce send produce. It would be cutting down our power to pay interest to block the avenue of trade via foreign countries. We have a growing trade with foreign countries, and a profitable one, and it should not be imperilled. In 1901 our total exports and imports amounted to ^109,000,000. ^82,000,000 of that trade was done with British possessions, so that in respect of our trade the Empire cannot be in a bad way, as I think the honorable member for New England will show, when he speaks, by most carefully compiled statistics. The total volume of our foreign trade is ^28,000,000, but it is a growing trade. In 1883 almost, all European trade was clone with the United Kingdom. In the decade ending in 1891, the increase of trade with the United Kingdom was 27 per cent., and with foreign countries 120 per cent. In the decade ending in 1901, the increase with the United Kingdom was about 5 per cent., and with foreign countries about 74 per cent. Take the wool trade. While in 1881 we exported only £53,000 worth of wool to Germany, in 1902 the exportation reached ,£4,750,000. Our general exports to Germany in 1902 were over £6,000,000 worth, and it may comfort our protectionist friends to know that we imported from Germany only £2,250,000 worth. I do not wish to go into an analysis of that trade, but the figures which I have given indicate a sound and healthy condition, and show that it is profitable alike to Australia and to Germany. Mr. Chamberlain originally asked, as part of ‘his policy, that we should not start any new industries which might interfere with British exports. Are the preferentialists of Australia ready to accept that suggestion? Mr. Chamberlain is a man who sometimes speaks rather hastily. He made that suggestion in early speeches, but when he published those speeches, he cut out the paragraphs referring to the stopping of colonial “manufactures. Therefore I suppose his original policy may be regarded as receiving his own denunciation by the sinister method of omission. Hi? knows the reason why some

British imports have not kept up the old proportionate rate of increase. When some years ago he asked for an explanation, he was told by the Collector of Customs in New South Wales that -

The Colonies of Australasia are gradually increasing -their manufactures, and any falling off in the importation of British-manufactured goods is to be accounted for by the development of Colonial industries, and not by the importation of similar goods from foreign sources of supply.

Nevertheless, Mr. Chamberlain recently asked that we should stop initiating any new industries which might compete with British exports to us. Has England really shown such symptoms of decline as to necessitate this so-called stimulus to her commercial prosperity? Has she passed the meridian of her commercial greatness? I cannot see any indications of her coming decrepitude. In 1902 ‘her imports amounted to £528,000,000. Her exports, exclusive of ships, amounted to £227,552,000. Four-fifths of these exports were manufactured, or partly manufactured, articles, and I may mention in passing that England built more ships last year than France, Germany, and the United States combined. As it is pointed out by Mr. Spender in the article in the Fortnightly Review from which I have quoted, we were told years ago by Mr. W. R. Greg, in an article entitled the “ Warnings of Cassandra,” that twothirds of British industry and population must disappear, and that the vast proportion of British imports then paid for by millions of exports would have to be foregone or purchased by other fund’s. We see what the trade of Great Britain is now. It was stated by Sir John Lubbock, in a recent lecture, that in 1903 the trade of Great Britain was the largest that was ever transacted by any country in the world, and that in this year it showed a substantial advance. In 1902 Mr. Chamberlain himself, speaking at Birmingham before he went to South Africa, said - 1 see no signs of any imminent or pressing danger to the prosperity of this country. During the past five years we have been engaged in building up an unparalleled condition of trade, and although we cannot expect that this will last for ever, although there are some signs that trade is not so brisk as it was, still, to my mind, the prospects are extremely good, and I am not at all disposed to take a pessimistic view of the situation.

He went to South Africa, and he came back converted to the opposite opinion.

Mr Ewing:

– He had become educated.

Mr GLYNN:

– I do not appreciate the education of a politician who has such a variety of moods as has Mr. Chamberlain. I prefer to think that some bias had been given to his judgment by the condition of affairs brought about by his policy in South Africa. I should like to again refer to the article from which I quoted at the beginning of my speech, published in the Spectator of October 1st, 1904. In speaking of the true basis of Imperialism, as one which should be in sympathy with colonial nationalism, the Spectator said -

– It certainly is greater. Once we arouse a healthy sentiment as between the workers of Great Britain and Australia we shall quickly succeed. Our object is to obtain all that we cannot make for ourselves from the manufacturers of Great Britain, and so increase employment there, while in return Great Britain will give us a preference that will give our people increased opportunities to till the land, and so to supply the wants of the people of the old country to a far greater extent than at present. The Prime Minister asserted last night that there was really nothing in the question, “ Where will Great Britain obtain her food supplies in time of war?” I join issue with him, for in my opinion the point is one of the utmost importance. I do not think that there is any probability of a war between Great Britain and the United States, from which the mother country at present derives 45 per cent, of her food supplies ; but what would be the result of an outbreak of hostilities between the two countries, if Australia and the other parts of the Empire were not growing sufficient food to satisfy the demands of the United Kingdom? In that event, where would England obtain her supplies? In reply to an interjection, the Prime Minister asserted that other nations would furnish them. At the present time, however, both the Japanese and the Russian forces in the Far East are. experiencing great difficulty in obtaining the necessary food supplies, and it seems to me that England would find herself in a like position in time of war, unless she could satisfy her needs from within the Empire. It is highly desirable, therefore, that she should be able at all times to depend upon obtaining her food supplies from her Colonies. Advocates of preferential trade are frequently confronted with the argument that a large portion of this continent can never be devoted to agricultural purposes. I dp hot altogether agree with that contention. I am in a position to say that large areas of land have recently been put under the plough, the enhanced value of property requiring that a greater return shall be received from these lands than has hitherto been the case. But if we had a steady market in- Great Britain, where we should always be able to place our produce, would not our area of cultivated lands be enormously increased? It would be an incentive to the States to give special attention to water conservation. On the fringes of our rivers, where water could be conserved or pumped up for irrigation purposes, we should find the farmers placing larger areas under cultivation than they do at present. The want of a proper water supply during times of drought is the main obstacle in the way of our enlarging t’he extent of country under cultivation. Australia, as we all know, from time to time suffers from droughts of a very serious character, and at some future period we shall have to turn our attention to water conservation and distribution as being the only solution of the problem of how to keep our lands regularly tilled. Preferential trade, to my mind, will result in increased employment to our people. Mr. Chamberlain, in one of his speeches, points out that the increase of employment in Great Britain, consequent on the adoption of this system, would be of a remarkable character.

Mr Wilks:

– Does the honorable member support the scheme because he wishes to help the mother country, or because he desires to help Australia?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I believe that it will be mutually beneficial. 1 am sure the honorable member would not suggest that, in supporting this proposition, I am looking only to the interests of Australia. I certainly am not doing so, although I do not think we can afford to ignore the interests of the Commonwealth. We should not devote our attention solely to the interests of Great Britain, any more than we should confine our attention to the position of Australia. I believe that an agreement can be entered into which will be beneficial to the producers of Australia, and helpful to the manufacturers of the old country. We could enter into an agreement which would enable us to obtain from Great

Britain rather than from other parts of the world, all that we cannot produce for ourselves. Mr. Chamberlain said, in the speech to which I have referred -

The Board of Trade assumes that of all manufactured goods one-half the value is expended on labour. I think it is a great deal mere ; but take the Board of Trade figures - thirteen millions ‘a year of new employment. What does that mean to the Uni ted Kingdom? It means the employment of 166,000 men at 30s. a week. It means the subsistence, if you include their families, of 830,000 persons. And now, if you will only add to that our present exports to the British Possessions of 96 millions, you will find that that gives employment, at 30s. a week, to 615,000 people, and it finds subsistence for 3,075,000 persons. In other words, your Colonial -trade, as it stands at present, with the prospective advantage of a preference against the foreigner, means employment for three-quarters of a million of workmen, and subsistence for nearly four millions of our population.

The increase of employment in Australia which would result from the adoption of this, scheme would be proportionately greater than would the advance which Mr. Chamberlain says would be likely to take place in Great Britain. This is a gigantic proposal, which would be far-reaching in its effects. It would enable us to increase our output of natural products and manufactures, and also to secure an augmented population, such as could be achieved in no other way. I have heard the honorable and learned member for Ballarat dilate upon the desirableness of securing a larger population for Australia, and give strong reasons why we should endeavour to attract people to our shores. But we can never hope to secure an increased population unless we can offer the people something to do when they come here. Our avenues of employment can only be enlarged by extended cultivation of the soil and the development of our manufacturing industries, If we do anything to destroy one or the other we can never hope to see our population grow as it should do. Mr. Chamberlain points out that, as the result of this policy, a greater number of persons would be supported by the growth of British manufactures, while an increased population in Australia would be supported by the consequential expansion of our own manufactures and productivity. The speech delivered by Mr. Chamberlain, from which I have already quoted, is a most instructive one. The Prime Minister last night quoted certain figures regarding the growth of imports in the British Empire, but I think that the following statement by Mr. Chamberlain gives us the true position. I donot think that any one would accuse him of saying or doing anything, that would be detrimental to the welfare of the British Empire, or would suggest that he would knowingly tell an untruth regarding thedecline of British trade. He said -

During this period of thirty years, in which, our exports of manufactures to foreign countries have fallen 46 millions, what has happened with their exports to us? -

That is a very important question -

They have risen from 63 millions in 1872 to- 149 millions in 1902.

Mr Kelly:

– Were not the operations of trade interfered with in 1872 owing to the Franco-German war?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

- Mr. Chamberlain was speaking of the average for a number of years.

Mr Lonsdale:

– Were not the years 1870 and 1872 boom periods in British trade ?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– British trade did not then increase to such an extent as> to seriously interfere with the average for a number of years. Mr. Chamberlain continues -

They have increased 86 millions. Well, that may be all right. I am not for the moment saying whether that is right or wrong; but when people say we ought to hold exactly the same opinion about things that our ancestors did, my reply is that I dare say we should do so if circumstances had remained the same.

That is a very forcible statement. The world is progressing in every direction. In manufactures, in production, in the output of a better class of machinery, and in science generally the world is going ahead by leaps and bounds, and if Great Britain does not move with other countries its exports will continue to decline. We shall have something in the nature of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. I sin- ‘cerely hope, however, that we shall never see anything of the kind so far as Great Britain is concerned. Two or three quotations have been made from speeches delivered by Mr. Chamberlain, with a view to show . what is the proposal that he makes to the Empire. It has been said that in one case he expressed a desire to stop further manufactures in Australia. Honorable members, however, should look at the correction which he made. When that statement appeared in cold type, he recognised that it was erroneous, and at once corrected it. He said in the course of one of his speeches -

We understand all that-

He was referring to the claim that there is still time to intervene - and, therefore, we will not propose to you anything that is unreasonable or contrary to this policy, which we know is deep in your hearts, but we will say to you, after all, there are many Tilings which you do not now make, many things for which we have a great capacity of production. Leave them to us, as you have left them hitherto. Do not increase your Tariff walls against us. Full them down where they are unnecessary to the success of this policy to which you are committed. Let us, in exchange with you, have your products in all those numberless industries which have not yet been created. Do that because we are kinsmen, without regard to your, immediate interests, because it is good for the Empire as a whole, and because we have taken the first step, and have set you an example. We offer you a preference, we rely on your patriotism, your affection, that we shall npt be the losers thereby.

That is the offer which Mr. Chamberlain makes. Then, on page 40, he says -

You Have heard it said that I propose to put a duty of five shillings or ten shillings a quai tei on wheat. I propose to put a low duty on foreign corn, no duty at all on the, corn coming from our British possessions. But I propose to put a low duty on foreign corn, not exceeding two shillings a quarter. I propose to put no tax whatever on maize, partly because maize is a food of some of the very poorest of the people.

Mr Poynton:

– That is an acknowledgment that duties increase cost to the consumer.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– A duty might do so in that instance, but only to a very small degree. Mr. Chamberlain continues -

I propose that the corresponding tax which would have to be put on flour shall be a substantial preference to the miller.

Those are the main points to which he refers. One thing that I think we might expect from Great Britain is the reduction, if not the abolition, of the duties on Australian wines. Australia will be a great wine-producing country, and we should obtain an advantage by the reduction or abolition of the English duties on Australian wine, and their increase on foreign wine. In return, we could take off duties on raw material, which have been imposed for revenue purposes, so far as they affect English manufacturers. But it is absurd to speak of lowering our duties in the way that Canada has done, because, as is well known, the Canadian duties commence at rates between 20 and 30 per cent., and gradually increase, whereas ours commence in some instances at 5 per cent., with a maximum of 32 per cent., and an average of 15 or 16 per cent. Therefore, if we followed the example of Canada, and generally reduced our duties in favour of Great Britain, no protection would be left to our manufacturers. I do not think that it is necessary to make the duties on many of the things which Great Britain would send us higher than they are at the present time. That would be a matter for discreet revision of the Tariff. But we might impose very much higher duties against foreign imports, which would give to Great Britain an opportunity to supply us. I wish now to quote two or three extracts relating to the history of this question. At the Imperial Coronation Conference of 1902, the following resolutions relating to Preferential Trade were carried : -

That this Conference recognises that the principle of preferential trade between the United Kingdom and His Majesty’s dominions beyond the seas would stimulate and facilitate mutual commercial intercourse, and would, by promoting the development of the resources and industries of the several parts, strengthen the Empire.

The next resolution, which is in diametrical opposition to the statement made by the Prime Minister last night is this -

That the Prime Ministers of the Colonies respectfully urge on His Majesty’s Government the expediency of granting in the United Kingdom preferential treatment to the products and manufactures of the Colony either by exemption from or reduction of duties now or hereafter imposed.

Finally the Premiers undertook to - submit to their respective Governments, at the earliest opportunity, the principle of the resolution, and to request them to take such measures as may be necessary to give effect to it.

Yet in 1904 Australia has scarcely advanced a step towards the carrying out of this arrangement. That is one reason why we should not allow the settlement of the question to be longer delayed. We should make it a live and active question, and endeavour to ascertain whether the people are ready to carry into effect the proposals of the Conference. What we suggested in regard to New Zealand was that she should give a general preference of 10 per cent, an all round’ reduction of the present duties on British manufactured goods, or an equivalent in respect to lists of selected articles on the lines proposed by Canada, either by further reducing her duties in favour of the United Kingdom - and- New Zealand can do that, because she has higher duties than the Commonwealth - or by raising the duties against foreign imports, which is what we want to do, and by imposing duties on certain foreign imports now on the free list. Canada was to further reduce her duties in favour of the United Kingdom, and raise her duties against foreign imports, and by imposing duties on certain foreign imports now on the free list. That was to be over and above the existing 33 per cent, difference. I was surprised, and it is gratifying, to find that the first Australian to suggest the giving of preference to Great Britain was the present Chief Justice of the High Court. In May, 1,887, the voice of Australia was first heard in the councils of the Empire on the subject of Imperial reciprocity, and the honour rests with the first Chief Justice of Australia, Sir Samuel Griffith. At the Colonial Conference held in London on the occasion of Queen Victoria’s Jubilee, Sir Samuel Griffith, then” Premier of Queensland, proposed for discussion -

Whether -it should not be recognised as part of the duty of the governing bodies of the Empire to see that their own subjects have a preference over foreign subjects in matters of trade ; and 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 than those coming from foreign possessions.

In supporting this proposition, he said -

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 dufy is to his family, and then to his country ; and by country I mean it in the larger sense - the whole .British Empire. The first duty of every one of us in every country in Ihe Empire is a duty to the Empire before our duty to any foreign country.

That statement calls to my mind a passage in the speech of the Prime Minister last night, in which he so eloquently described the hardship which Great Britain suffered through giving freedom to her Colonies to impose taxation designed to exclude her imports. The right honorable gentleman for- got, however, that the steps now proposed are to improve the position of the British people. We are considering whether mutual concessions shall not be made to increase the commerce between Great Britain and Australia. Although in the past we have enacted laws to prevent her manufactures from obtaining access to our markets, we are now attempting to do something to better her position. Therefore, the argument of the Prime Minister in that respect falls to the ground. In Ottawa the following resolution was passed in 1894, ten years ago: -

That this Conference records ils belief in the advisability of a Customs arrangement between Great Britain and her Colonies, by which trade within the Empire may be placed on a more favorable footing than that which is carried on with foreign countries.

– That is not a. parallel case at all. That particular point is referred to in some utterances of Prince Bismarck, who, in. 1875, found it necessary to awaken his countrymen to the danger of unrestricted imports, as Mr. Chamberlain is now doing. Let us see what he said. His opinions are full of interest and instruction since in many respects they were prophetic, and, unlike those of the freetrade seers, his prophecies have been amply fulfilled. Writing on 13th October, 1875, he remarked : -

Nothing but reprisals against their products will avail against those States which increase their duties to the harm of German exports. The objections raised against such steps in the name of political economy seem untenable for reasons of policy.-

On 28t’h October, 1878, he said -

The duties raised on foreign imports will either not be borne by the florae consumer at all, or such duties will be borne by him to a small extent only. , These duties will diminish the profit which the foreign producer has hitherto made from us, and will, perhaps, also affect the middleman.

In November, 1878, with great wisdom and foresight, he said -

The proposal to impose duties on our im ports may be viewed with suspicion by consumers, and chiefly by those consumers who live on their assured income free from care. But the means of those people will also give out, if they do not make up their mind to consider the position of the producing part of the population. If the producing part of the population is impoverished, the whole State is impoverished. Who, after all, is to carry the whole burden of the State? The producer alone?

Again in the same year he observed -

The return to the principle of protection oil round has become necessary owing to .the altered economic position of the world. In the revision of our fiscal policy, we can be solely guided by the interests of Germany.

On the 13th April, 1879, he said -

German fiscal policy, in taking up free-trade, had entered upon a phase during which the ellbeing of our national industries, and the retention of the home market for the benefit of our own industries, were almost completely left nil of consideration.

The policy outlined by that great man, and carried out after his death, has brought about a great increase in the manufactures and production of Germany, and it will compel Great Britain to take steps in the direction of consolidating her great Empire. The exports from Germany in 1872 were valued at £116,000,000; in 1890 at £166,000,000 ; in 1900 to £230,000,000 ; and in 1902 to £241,000,000. That shows the wonderful improvement that has been made by that country.

Mr Poynton:

– What is the position of the working classes in. Germany?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– It is far better than it was. I do not say that the conditions of life in Germany are as favorable to artisans as they are in Great Britain ;. but I would point out that a marked improvement has taken place under the protective policy, and that in that regard a greater advance has been made in the United States than in any other country in the world. In 1872. the United States export!were valued at £89,000.000 ; in 1890 at £176,000,000; in 1900 at £285,000.000; and in 1902 at £282,000,000. The increase in that case is greater than is to be found in any part of the world. We find that the exports of the United Kingdom, not including ships, amounted in 1872 to £257,000,000; in 1890 to £263,000.000; in 1900, including ships, to £291,000,000 ; and in 1902, also including ships, to £283,000,000. These figures show a comparatively small increase. I admit that it is not correct to say that Great Britain is not increasing her trade, but we are justified in stating that she is not making progress at the same rate as are other nations.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honorable member propose to connect his remarks with matter under discussion?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– Yes; I am endeavouring to show that other nations have increased their trade to such an enormous extent that it is necessary that some special steps should be taken to secure to Great Britain a larger proportion ,of the trade which properly belongs to her. In thirty years under protection the exports of Germany increased to the extent of £125,000,000. The exports of the United States during the same period increased by £193,000,000, whereas the exports of the. United Kingdom showed an increase of only £26,000,000. I do not wish to weary honorable members by a lengthy discussion of this matter, but I think that the problem here presented to us calls for our most earnest attention. I wish that time would permit of my dealing, with this question with greater fullness. I wish to quote a few more figures in answer to those which were given last night, by the Prime Minister.

These figures are taken from the statistical tables prepared by the Board of Trade, and are as follows : -

I also desire to quote a few figures with regard to the external trade of the Commonwealth. These do not agree with the figures quoted by the Prime Minister. I am indebted to Mr. Coghlan for the very interesting information which is contained in the following table, which shows the direction of the external trade pf the Commonwealth in 1891 and in 1902. These will afford us some basis for considering our position. The table is as follows: -

I find that in 1903 the total imports amounted to ,£37,81 1,471 ; the exports to £48,170,164; and the total trade to ^85,981,635.

I submit these figures, in answer to the tables which were quoted last evening. Even the advocates of preferential trade have consoled themselves with the fact that whilst the exports of British manufactures to foreign countries have been steadily declining, those of the British Possessions have increased, and partly compensated for the loss. But that has not been- the case in regard to Australia, for we find that our imports from the United Kingdom have declined from £26,453,841 in 1891, to £23,848,562 in 1902 - a decrease of £2,605,279. This is not to be accounted for by any diminution of the total volume of our imports, for they increased from £37,7”>°53 in l89* to £40,678,239 in 1902. During the same period, our imports from foreign countries advanced from £6,927,941 to £11,444,775, an increase of £4,516,834. I find also that our exports of wheat, flour, butter, meat, and wine have not increased very much. In 1898, the value of wheat and flour exported amounted to £82^0,000; but in 1902 it was £1,496,000. Under a system of preferential trade, I claim that our production of wine will be greatly increased. Quoting again from Mr. Chamberlain, I find that he said -

It remains to ask, “What will the Colonies say ?” I hear it said sometimes by people who, I think, have never visited the Colonies, and do not know much about them, that they will receive this offer with contempt, that they will spurn it, or that, if they accept it, they will give nothing in return. I differ from .the critics. Do not do this injustice to the patriotism or the good sense of the colonists. When the Prime Ministers, representing all the several States of the Empire, were here this was the matter of .most interesting discussion. Then it was that they pressed on the Government the consideration of this question. They did not press - it is wrong, it is wicked to say that they pressed in any spirit of selfishness. They had no idea of exclusive benefit for themselves. No; they had Mr. Rhodes’ ideal in their mind. They asked for it as a practical tie which should prevent separation, and I do nut believe that they will treat, ungenerously, any offer we may now be able to make to them. They have no such idea, for they have offered you advantages all round. Canada has given you a preference of 33^ per pent. South Africa has given you a preference of 25 per cent. New Zealand .has offered a preference of 10 per’cent. The Premier of Australia has promised to bring before Parliament a similar proposal.

That is the impression which was left on Mr. Chamberlain’s mind after the Conference of Premiers, which met in London in 1902. Consequently it seems to me that we have a duty to perform in reference to this matter without further delay. Though we cannot offer to the mother country an absolutely free market for her manufactures, we can accomplish a great deal in that connexion by preventing our imports from other countries from increasing, and bythrowing a great proportion of our trade into her hands. By that means also we can increase the production of Australia to an enormous extent, and at the same time provide profitable employment!, not only for our own people, but also for the people of Great Britain.

Mr. POYNTON (Grey). - I wish to preface . my remarks upon this motion by a brief reference to the attitude which has been adopted upon it by the leader of the Opposition. I was very much surprised last night that he should exhibit a desire to force a division upon it without allowing members of his own party’ an opportunity of expressing their views. It is true that the honorable member has already given expression to his own opinions upon the matter, and that those opinions have been made known throughout the civilized world.’ But I wish it to be clearly understood that he has expressed merely ‘ his own views, and not those which are entertained by the Labour Party. The question of preferential trade has never yet been considered by that party, and when the honorable member submitted to that body his reply to certain trade unionists in the old country, it was clearly understood that he was replying to their appeal in his private capacity. Upon a later date, a further communication was received by him, which partook of the nature of a counterblast to the appeal from the workers across the waters. Subsequently a certain paragraph appeared in the newspapers, upon which I desired to question the honorable member. I wished to ascertain from him whether the statements contained in the following paragraph, which appeared in the Age of 24th November last, were correct: -

The manifesto published in the Age of yesterday, signed by a large number of pro-preference British trades unionists, sent to Mr. Watson, leader of thi Federal Labour Party, in opposition to the anti-preference declarations of Messrs. John Burns, Richard Bell, and Ramsay McDonald, was considered yesterday by the Iabour Party caucus. Gratification was expressed that the British unionists who favoured M/. Chamberlain’s scheme had not allowed the freetrade appeals to go unanswered, and the existence f-f a growing sentiment amongst the workers of England in favour of Tariff reform had been demonstrated. After discussion, it was decided to forward to the senders the resolution passed by the caucus last week in answer to Mr. Ramsay McDonald’s letter, to the effect that the Labour Party,’ as such, had taken no corporate action in connexion with preferential trade apart from “a premise to discuss the matter with its LiberalProtectionist allies, with a view to future action. Mr. Watson will probably send a personal acknowledgement of the letter by a subsequent mail.

The resolution referred to was to the effect that the Labour Party had never considered the matter. At the particular meeting referred to, no gratification was expressed in reference to Mr. Chamberlain’s proposals. I regret that the leader of the Opposition, haying given publicity to his own views, should desire to force this motion to a division, without affording honorable members an opportunity of presenting the other side of the question. It has been stated that the result of the last general elections demon:strated that there is a large majority of this House in favour of granting a preference to the mother country. I ask whether that fact proves anything at all? Is it not bordering upon hypocrisy to blazon it forth to the world that because a majority of honorable members are in favour of granting a preference to British goods, they are willing to grant the preference which is asked for in England today ? Let us take the case of the leader of the Government, and of a large number of honorable members who Told similar views. He would reduce the duties which at present prevail. I would ask the honorable and learned member for Ballarat, the Minister of Trade and Customs, and the honorable member for Hume, whether such a proposal would meet with their approval? No doubt, as the result of a combination of those who are in favour of granting preference to British goods, by way of a reduction of the duties which exist to-day on revenue lines, and of those who would grant it by increasing the present duties as against the foreigner, we should have a majority in favour of the motion. But if it were carried by such a combination it would net convey to the people of the old world a true conception of the position, so far as honorable members of this House are’, concerned. I wish, if possible, to get away from the sentimental glamour” of this proposition. I freely admit that, from a sentimental stand-point, the speech delivered by the honorable and learned member for Ballarat was an eloquent one; but when I suggested, by way of interjection, that he should come down from his airy flights to practical details he scouted the idea. In his opinion, we have no right to consider the’de.tails of the question. We are invited to carry this series of proposals, and to affirm something which a majority of the House really does not desire to affirm. I hold that it is absolutely necessary that we should consider the details of the proposition. No question that has ever been brought before the Parliament of Australia is of greater importance than that which we are now considering, and I hold that it should not be dealt with at the fag end of a session. It is a question that should not be discussed in an almost empty House, when practically half the members of the Chamber, who reside in distant States, have left for their homes, believing that a division on the motion would not be taken. Why all this anxiety to press the motion to a division? The present leader of the Opposition stated, in the course of a speech delivered by him at Wagga, when he held office as Prime Minister, that, in his opinion, we should not take any part in the controversy until the question had been decided by, the mother country. He said that he would not raise his little finger to make the fight more difficult on the other side of the world. It seems to me, however, that he has now become entangled in the meshes of Imperial Federation. This proposition has been known by many names. We have heard it referred to as a proposal for fair trade, as preferential trade, as a proposition for an Imperial Zollverein, and we have also heard it described long ago as a proposal for Imperial Federation. In ‘my opinion the last of these is the true definition of the aspirations of those who are behind the movement in the old country. I desire,, if possible, .to lay bare its underlying principle. Cablegrams from Great Britain have recently informed us that Earl Rosebery described it as a gilded pill designed to throw on. the British dependencies the burdens of Empire. That this assertion is correct was made very clear by a deputation which recently waited on the Prime Minister .of Great Britain, and represented to him that the incidence of the burdens of Empire should be one of the primary consideration’s placed before the proposed Conference. If the object of the movement be to compel Australia to share the burdens of Empire - if it be to make Australia share the responsibilities of

Great Britain’s aggressive policy - the sooner the Commonwealth knows it, the better. If, on the other hand, it is simply a proposal to bring, about a better feeling than exists to-da between the mother land and the various parts of the Empire, then no one will wish it ill. I do not know, however, that there is any cause for alarm as to ih<» Keeling which the people of any part of the British Possessions entertain for Great Britain. I take this opportunity to deprecate the way in which Mr. Chamberlain has placed the question before British audiences. He has said that unless Great Britain is prepared to do something in the way of granting preference to the Colonies it will mean the parting of the ways. He suggests, in short, that the loyalty of the Colonies depends on their obtaining the proposed preference, and that unless it be granted they will cut the painter. That is a very unfair way in which to state our position, and one that is calculated to cause greater friction between England and the Colonies than anything else could do. In order that honorable members may see the underlying object of this movement, I should like’ to read a few sentences from a speech delivered by Lord Farrer, and published in a book edited by Mr. Chomley, under the title of Free Trade versus Fair Trade. The marginal note of the passage which I shall read is Imperial and Colonial Ideals. I venture to think that we all are anxious to know what are the ideals at the root of this movement. Lord Farrer says -

My second reflection was, a wider and more serious one. I asked myself, what this ebullition of Imperial feeling really means. Does it mean that the whole Anglo-Saxon race - I use the word advisedly - shall endeavour to live, act, and feel as if they were one people; that they shall join in spreading free institutions - freedom in thought, freedom in speech, freedom in government, freedom in trade - over the face of the world ; and that they shall be prepared, when such interests as these are imperilled, to stand shoulder to shoulder in defence of them ? If so, God speed the cause !

That sentiment is one that will be re-echoed by every member of this Parliament if it truly indicates the only object of the movement. But Lord Farrer went on to suggest the ulterior object -

Or does it mean that England and her Colonies are to enter into a league for the purpose of excluding, brow-beating, over-awing, or fighting the rest of mankind ? Does it mean that England is to cease to buy her food and raw materials, and our Colonies their manufactured goods, under any flag but our own ; that English artisans are to be taxed in order to sweep United States fishermen out of the Bay of Fundy, German .colonists out of South Africa, or French or German settlements out of the islands of the Pacific, and that, on the other hand, the blood of Canadians, of Australians, and of Hindoos, shall be poured out to help England in filibustering or muddling in Turkey, in ..Egypt, or in Afghanistan? If this is the object, we shall have need of a new Cobden !

It strikes me very forcibly that that is the true object of the proposal, and that we must consider it from that stand-point. The deputation which waited on the Prime Minister of England the other day put the matter very clearly. It was said that the Colonies were practically receiving assistance for which they were not paying, and that the time would come when “these children” would have to bear their full share of the burdens of Empire. In an able article the Age replied very fully to that assertion. ‘ It showed that, as the result of our actions, the burdens of Empire had been considerably reduced, and it urged that in this way, as well as by our contribution of £200,000 per annum to the cost of the Imperial Squadron on the Australian Station we were taking upon ourselves a very fair share of those burdens. The question that we have to consider is whether we are prepared, for the sake of the questionable advantage that we should derive from this scheme, to give up to a certain extent the local autonomy which we enjoy - whether we are going to allow ourselves to be trammelled to such an extent that we shall not be able to take action in regard to fiscal matters without consulting all other parts of the Empire. The matter is a very serious one. In regard to the spirit of bargaining, to which Mr. Chamberlain has referred, and the threat that unless certain privileges be conceded to the Colonies they will cut the painter, I should like to read the opinions expressed in Canada a little while ago by representative men. “Under the heading of The Difficulty of Fiscal Union, the following statement has been published : -

The representatives -of the Canadian industries at the Montreal Congress did not conceal their views. The spokesman was Mr. Ellis, a former president ,of the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association. He said - “ The new fiscal policy is advocated as a bond of Imperial unity. A preferential tariff on conditions very onerous to the mother country, and not conferring any sensible advantage on the Colonies, is a feeble link, in comparison to the ties of racial sympathy. If these were weak, it were vain to look for a rally round the old flag in the hour of national peril. The true links of Empire are the racial sympathies, the language and litera hire, the history which we. all share, the constitution under which we all live, the religion we all profess. The bonds ot such a union, are silken bonds, but they are strong and adamant, and they give powerful moral support Co the motherland.”

I desire now to refer to an article dealing with the same question written by Mr. H. L. Outhwaite, and published’ in the Argus a few days ago. It is headed “ Preferentialism in England.” The writer deals with, the candidature of Sir John Cockburn for West Monmouth, under the auspices of the Chamberlain Tariff Reform League, hisopponent being Mr. Richards, a labour candidate, and speaks of the bitter feeling engendered amongst the working classes of England towards the Colonies, because of what seemed to them their association with Mr. Chamberlain’s policy. They have been made to believe that it is the Colonies who are forcing on the demand for Imperial preference. The writer says -

It is almost impossible to convey in words to Australians what the question of food taxation means to the workers of England. They know from the dukes and lords ana great land-owner* who are supporting Mr. Chamberlain what is intended for them. Memories of the past still survive in the old people. Grey-bearded men tell the tale of the loaf at a shilling, of the rye and barley bread, and the 10s. a week wage of “ the hungry forties.” Statistics of to-day tell the tale of the German workers’ rye bread, of the scanty wage, and the fact that the Imperial Bureau figures show that in 1901 there were slaughtered in Germany for human consumption 78,000 horses, comes as a warning to the British workers of what may be their fate if once they surrender the principle of untaxed bread and meat. Down in West Monmouth I heard old men solemnly call on the workers in the name of God “ never to allow a tax to be put upon bread,” arid the appeal always went home. My own experience showed me how great is the wrong that is being done to the cause of unity by the Chamberlain campaign.

Mr POYNTON:

– I desire to show the extent to which a man can change his views in order to suit the political exigencies of the hour. At the time of which I am speaking, Mr. Chamberlain was condemning the taxation of food. He said-

The condition of the farmer was never so hopeless, and the state of the labourers was never so abject, as when corn was kept up at a high value by a prohibitative protective duty, when it was 64s., or even rose to 120s. per quarter.

Later in the same year, at Birmingham, he said -

I wonder whether in this vast audience there are any people who have any conception of the state of things which existed forty or fifty years ago? At that time, the whole of the labourers in the agricultural districts were on the verge of starvation. The’ poor rates in some districts were 20s. in the pound.’ At the time of which I am speaking, the large towns were described by eyewitnesses, as bearing the description of beleaguered cities, so dreadful were the destitution, and the misery which prevailed in them. People walked in the streets like gaunt shadows, and not like human beings. There were bread riots in almost every town. There were rick burnings on all the country sides.”

In the same year, at Birmingham, he said: -

Do not suffer yourselves to be turned aside at the next election ; do not be diverted. The owners of property, those who are interested iri the existing state of things, the men who have privileges to maintain, would be glad to entrap you from the right path, by raising the cry of fair trade, under which they cover their demand for protection, and in connexion with which they would tax the food of the people, in order to raise the rents of the landlords. Protection very likely might, it probably would, have these results. It would increase the incomes of the owners of great estates, it would swell the. profits of the capitalists, who were fortunate enough to engage in the best protected industries, but it would lessen the total production of the country, it would diminish the rate of wages, and it would raise the prices of the very necessaries of life.

– It is going to be used as a whip with which to scourge those who are opposing the preferential trade proposals in the old country. The resolution will be pointed to as an indication of what Australia is demanding. I object to the action of Mr. Chamberlain in representing from the outset that Australia was demand- ing preference. The demand has come from him all along. Now let us see what he has to say about taxes upon food. He was very emphatic upon the subject at that time. Speaking in the House of Commons, he said :-

Is any one bold enough to propose that we should put duties upon food? The honorable member of Preston, no doubt has the courage of his convictions. He has referred to the sacrifices which he would require from the working classes, and he does not hesitate to make the demand upon them, that they should pay an extra price of 10 per cent., upon the most important articles of their daily consumption. Well, sir, I can conceive it just possible, although it is very improbable, that under the sting of great suffering, and deceived by misrepresentations, the working classes might be willing to try strange remedies, and might be foolish enough to submit for a time to a proposal to tax the food of the country,; but the one thing I am certain of if this course were ever taken, and if the depression were to continue, or to recur, is that it would be the signal’ of a state of things more dangerous and more disastrous than anything which has been seen in this country since the repeal of the Corn Laws. With the growth of intelligence on the part of the working classes, and- with the knowledge which they now possess of their own power, the reaction against such a policy would be attended by consequences so serious, that I do not like to contemplate them. A tax on food would mean a decline in wages. It would certainly involve a reduction in their productive value, the same amount of. money would have a smaller purchasing power. It would mean more than this, for it would raise the price of every article produced in the United Kingdom, and it would indubitably bring about the loss of that gigantic export trade which the industry and energy of the country, working under conditions of absolute freedom, have been able to create.

Food taxes will fall heavily upon all consumers, and most heavily on the poorest. Bread become;; the more essential in the ratio of the poverty of the consumer. Those on the verge of starvation can give up tea and sugar. They cannot give up bread. At a time when the necessity of promoting the physical vigour of the people is becoming more and more urgent, it is not statesmanship to check the consumption of wholesome food. In the words of Sir Robert Peel - “ If there be, from any cause, a tendency for the consumption of articles of the first necessity much more rapid than the increase of population, the responsibility of undertaking to regulate the supply of food by legislative restraints, and the difficulty of maintaining those restraints in the event of any sudden check to prosperity, or increased price of subsistence will be greatly augmented.” So, too, Sir John Gorst-“ A number of those who are now above the poverty line would sink below it, and those already below it would sink yet lower. Free importation of food is vital to the physical and moral well-being of the nation, and is, therefore, at the root of true Imperialism. A great Imperial power cannot be founded on a starved and degraded population.”

Lord Goschen, speaking in the House of Lords, said -

Who will take the responsibility of saying - “ Let us put a tax on food, and I will guarantee that your wages shall be raised ?” I say that is a tremendous responsibility, and one which’ I, for one, would be most reluctant to undertake.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Lord Goschen does not know anything about economics.

Mr POYNTON:

– He probably does not know as much as some honorable members in this House. Germany seems to be the chief point of attack in connexion with these proposals. We hear of the extent to which the markets previously monopolized bv Great Britain are being inundated with German goods. When the honorable member for Hume was quoting statistics relating to imports and exports he selected a period which would show results most favorable to his own argument. In 1861 our imports from foreign countries were valued at £3,160,888, whilst in 1902 they represented a value of £11,444,775. The countries from which these imports came were Belgium, Prance, Germany, Netherlands and Java, Italy, Sweden and Norway, China, Japan, the United States, &c. If we look at the table showing our exports to these countries we shall find that they amounted in 1861 to £8,726,852, and that in 1902 they represented a value of £11,492,862. I invite honorable members to look at the despised country of Germany.

Mr Isaacs:

– Germany is certainly not a “despised country.”

Mr POYNTON:

– The whole trend of the debate has been in the direction of a condemnation of German goods. From an article, entitled “ Imperial Union and Fiscal Reciprocity,” which was written by the honorable and learned member for Angas, and published in the Adelaide Register, I extract the following: -

Germany, (hs bug-bear of Imperial pessimists, is a country with which Australasia has developed a premising trade during the last twenty years. Between 1891 and 1901 the total trade with Germany increased 15. So per cent. ; but as the exports increased 19.69, and the imports only 13.81 per cent., it is a trade ‘.hat protectionists” ought to be the last to attack.

He continues -

At present, like most of our exports, wool is admitted free; but, should the British Empire differentiate against foreign products, a duty may be imposed. The German returns show an importation of Australian products of the value of, in 1897, £4,283,650; and in 1902, £6,008,550.

These figures show a big increase in the trade of that country. Germany, I maintain, is the last country to which protectionists should point as an ideal one. I have taken the trouble to obtain a few figures in regard to the rate of wages paid there-

Mr Isaacs:

– We are not discussing the advisability of establishing preferential trade relations with Germany.

Mr POYNTON:

– The Minister - of Trade and Customs was permitted to refer to the rate of wages paid in various^ countries last evening. In this connexion, I find that the working people of England may, with advantage, compare their present earnings, not only with those paid in their own country during past generations, but with those now being paid in Germany. For instance, the mean weekly wage in fifteen skilled trades in London is 42s., whilst that paid in Berlin is onlY 24s. In other towns in England the mean weekly wage is 36s., whilst that in Germany is 22 s. 6d. I find that the average annual family income in the cotton trade in the United Kingdom is £115 17s., whilst that in Germany is £62 19s. Similarly, in the woollen trade, the average family income in the United Kingdom is £107 9s., whilst that in Germany is £57 10s. In the steel trade the average family income in the United Kingdom is £122 15s., while that of Germany is £52 2s. The average level of industrial wages in Germany and France is two-thirds and three-fourths respectively of that which obtains in the United Kingdom. Of the 4,000,000 workers in Germany, twothirds of the number earn less than 50s. per week, 55 per cent, less than £40 per annum, and 85 per cent, less than ^£1 per week.

Mr Isaacs:

– Has the honorable member a corresponding percentage in the case of Great Britain?”

Mr POYNTON:

– I have not. Mr. Chamberlain suggests that though the cost of living may be increased by* -his protective proposals, the wages of the workingmen will be raised in a higher proportion. In support of this_proposition, he appeals to the cases of the United States ‘and Germany. No doubt, in regard to the matter of wages, a very different condition of affairs obtains in the United States, but Germany is about the last country that should be quoted in this connexion.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order. The honorable member is not in order in discussing that phase of the question.

Mr POYNTON:

– Upon the Prussian States railways, the wages paid vary from 2s. 4jd. to- 2s. 6d. per day. ‘ The daily wages of general labourers range from is. 7jd. to 3s. It is interesting to note, by way of contrast, the wages which are paid in the “mother country. In this connexion I wish to quote from the report of the Commission which investigated the depression of trade in Great Britain in 1886. Having referred to statistics, and shown that, exclusive of those engaged in agriculture, the number of those assessed as being liable to income tax were increasing, the Commissioners observe -

There is a distinct evidence that profits are becoming more widely distributed among the classes engaged in trade and industry. While the larger capitalists may be receiving a lower return than that to which they nave been accustomed, the number of these who are making a profit, though possibly a small one, has largely increased.

Mr Isaacs:

– Was that the Commission which was presided over by Lord Dunraven ?

Mr POYNTON:

– I think that it was. The report continues -

There is no feature of the situation which we have been called upon to examine so satisfactory as the immense improvement which has taken place in the condition of the working classes during the past twenty years. The workman in this country is, when fully employed, in almost every respect, in a better position than his competitor in foreign countries, and we think thai no diminution in our productive capacity has resulted from this improvement in his position. ‘

The Labour Commission in its final report, which was issued in 1894, expressed an equally reassuring view. Its members stated -

The impression left by the evidence, as a whole, is that among the’ more settled and stable population of skilled work-people, there has, during the last half century, been considerable and continuous progress iu the general improvement of conditions of life, side by side with the establishment of a strong trade custom adapted to the modern system and scale of industry. Experience may fairly be said to have shown that this part of the population possessed, in a highly remarkable, degree, the power of organization, self-government, and self-help. Work-people of this class earn better wages, work fewer hours, have secured improved conditions of industrial and domestic life in other respects, and have furnished themselves, through trade unions and friendly societies, with means of providing against the various contingencies of sickness, accidents, and temporary want of employment. The classes who compose the lower grades of industry, regarded as a whole, have probably benefited no less than the skilled workers from increased efficiency of production, from the advantages conferred by legislation, from the cheapening of food and clothing, and from the opening out of new fields for capital and labour. In their case also, the improvement manifests itself in better pay and more favorable conditions of work, but chiefly in this, that of the mass of wholly unskilled labour, part has been absorbed into hig”her grades, while the percentage of total working population, earning bare subsistence wages, has been greatly reduced.

I wish now to deal with some of the effects of the system of preferential trade which has been adopted in Canada. The honorable member for Hume, in dealing with this matter, implied that a great expansion had taken place in the trade between the Dominion and the mother country as the result of preferential trade. It is rather singular that he should have told only half “the tale. The Minister of Trade and Customs last evening, in speaking of British and other imports, fell into a similar error. What is the position ? Canada has granted a preference to the mother country upon three occasions.’ In 1897 she gave a pre ference of 12^ per cent, to British goods, in the following year she increased that preference to 25 per cent., and in July, I9Q3> to 33$ per cent.

Mr Wilks:

– That makes the preference very small upon the value of the goods.

Mr POYNTON:

– Mr. Chamberlain, singularly enough, made the same mistake.

Mr Lonsdale:

– Is it a mistake?

Mr POYNTON:

– I do not say that the error has been wilfully, made. Mr. Chamberlain says -

To put it in a word, the trade between our colony of Canada and the mother country, which, was ^6,500,000 in 1897-1898, is now carried on at a rate of j£i 1,000,000 - probably a good deal more - but I will, to be safe, say of £11,000,000 sterling in the present year; and the increase is chiefly in textile goods - cotton, woollen, and goods of that kind - and in the manufactures of hardware and iron and steel. And, at the same time, whereas the percentage of the total trade had fallen from 40 per cent., I think - or, at all events, from a large percentage- - to 23^ per cent., in these last two years it hasbeen gradually climbing up again, and it has now reached for the present year 26£ per cent.

I repeat that it is a singular coincidencethat the honorable member for Hume made a somewhat similar statement to-day, but neglected to show the volume of trade, so that honorable members might be in a position to institute a comparison. I have here a table by Lord Farrer, .dealing with the imports into Canada, both before and after the adoption of the British Preference Tariff. From it I find, by striking an average for five years, namely, from 1893 to 1897, that, whereas the average Canadian imports from the United States were valued at £11,921,000, they had increased to £23,018,000 in 1901, notwithstanding the Preference Tariff - an increase of £115097,000. I come now to the figures showing the value of imports into Canada from the United Kingdom. The average for the five years 1893-97 was £7,308,000, while the imports in 1901 - after the British Preferential Tariff were £8,962,000, or an increase of £1,654,000. In the one case the trade between the United- States and Canada shows an increase of 93 per cent., while that between the United Kingdom and Canada shows an increase of only 23 per cent. Although the omission on the part of honorable members who support the motion to mention that trade between Canada and the United States has increased to a far greater extent than has that between Canada and the United Kingdom may be due to a simple mistake, it is nevertheless regrettable,, for when we are told that the imports into

Canada from the United States have increased four times as much as have those from the United Kingdom, we see at once that the granting of preference has not had the effect which those who support the proposal would imply. It is pointed out in Free-trade versus Fair-trade that -

For the year 1902 the Canadian imports for home consumption from the United Kingdom were £10,114,000 against £8,839,000 for 1901 ; these being the figures given in the Board of Trade returns for August, 1903, and differing from those in the French report taken from the Canadian returns and quoted above. But, in the same year, while exports from the United Kingdom increased by 1-3 millions, those from America increased by *-i * millions - from £22,702,000 in 1901, to £24,834,000 in 1002. Since 1897, w.hen the preference was instituted, Canada has increased her imports from America by more than £12,000,000; she has increased those from the United Kingdom by more than £4,000,000.

I think that that is a complete reply to the statements which have been made regarding the increase of trade between Canada and the United Kingdom. There has been so much talk about the way in which the trade of the Empire is being manipulated that I think it desirable to quote certain figures bearing on the question. I have here a statement of the proportion per cent, of Great Britain’s whole foreign trade carried on with each foreign country. The table deals with the returns from 1870 until 1902, the object of it being to show that British trade is practically holding its own, notwithstanding the advantages possessed by that of other nations. A remarkable feature of the table is that it shows that Great Britain has lost very little of her trade with foreign countries. For the five years ending 1870 the total percentage was 77, in the next five it was 773, an.d in the succeeding five years period it was 7 5” 4. For the following five years period the percentage was 737, whilst the percentages for the remaining five years periods were 742 , 74’9 and 754. In 1901 it was 74”8, and in T902 7 4’ 3. The average for the whole period covered by this return is 754 per cent. I wish now to show our dealings with the old country . during the same period by quoting from a statement of the proportion per cent. of. the whole of Great Britain’s “foreign trade carried on with each colony.” The return gives Great Britain’s exports to British North- America, British West Indies. Australian Colonies, India, South Africa,- and other British Possessions, and it shows that for the five years ending 1870 the total percentage was 23”o. For the five years ending 1875 it was 22’7, while for the following five years’ period it was 24-6. It subsequently increased to 26 per cent., and then fell to 258, while for the five years ending 1895, the percentage was 25’L For the two years, 1901 and 1902, it was 252 and 25^6 respectively, while the average for the whole period was 246. These figures show very conclusively that the old country is not losing her trade with her dependencies, and I think they afford a sufficient reply to the assertions made from time to time that Australia has been deluged with foreign goods, which constitute a menace to the industries of Great Britain. The Board of Trade returns do not prove anything of the kind. Another question which has a very important bearing on this proposal is that of the lines on which we. should be able to grant a preference to British manufacturers. What goods do we import, and whence do they chiefly come ? The Minister of Trade and” Customs recently” had a report prepared, a summary of which was published in the Argus, under the heading of “ Australian Trade.” This return shows the export of Victorian manufactures, and is described by the Argus as a very instructive one. It is stated that -

At the request of the Comptroller-General of Customs, Mr. T. A. Coghlan, the Government Statistician of New South Wales, has prepared a very valuable statement, analyzing the trade of the Commonwealth for the year 1903.

I thought that the Minister would have referred to some of these figures in the course of the speech which he made last night, and I certainly should be pleased to obtain a copy of .the complete return, in order to see if it affects in any way the facts that have been published. The article continues -

Dr. Wollaston has received an advance copy of this publication, and the subjoined figures, which are taken from it, have an interesting bearing upon the alleged fiscal “ revival “ and the preferential trade campaign.

The return shows the principal imports into the Commonwealth for 1903. I find from it that .the value of the imports of apparel and attire was £1,162,449, and that of these goods £983,654 -worth came from Great Britain, £79,567 worth from Germany, and none from the United States. The value of boots and shoes imported during this period was £162,580, of which £81,430 worth came from Great Britain, and only £5,586 worth from Germany. The imports of infants’ boots and shoes for the year represented a total value of £52>637, of which £50,053 worth came from Great Britain, and the balance from Germany. The value of the furniture imported during this period was £143,129, of which £47,962 worth came from Great Britain, £29,522 worth from Germany, and £41,696 worth from the United States. This is the first evidence we have of trade with the United States. The imports of hats, caps, and felt hat* were of the value of £126,397, and of these ,£93,087 worth came from Great Britain, £17,568 worth from Germany, and £2,620 worth from’ the United States. The value of hats, caps, and bonnets imported during this period was £179,180, of which £169,876 worth came from Great Britain, leaving only a few thousand pounds’ worth of goods to be accounted for by imports from other countries. These figures show that

Avith one exception the granting of preference would not be of any value to Great Britain, because she already enjoys practically the whole trade in these lines. But I desire to go further than this. It will be remembered that a large deputation recently waited on ,the Minister of Trade and Customs, and urged that the duty on jewellery should be increased, the complaint being that the Commonwealth was being swamped by importations from various parts of the world. As usual, the cheap goods of Germany came in for much condemnation. But what are the facts? This official return shows that during 1903 jewellery and imitation jewellery of the value of £291,064 was imported into Victoria, and that of this, £251,243 worth came from Great Britain, £19,499 worth from Germany, and £7,778 worth from the United States. The position in regard to leather is somewhat different. That is one of the lines on which a preference might be given with advantage to the British manufacture. I find that the value of the imports of leather, n.e.i., during 1903 was £193,624, and that the imports from Great Britain represented £61,683 ; those from Germany being of the value of £10,434, and those from the United States, £108,152. The total importation of engines of all kinds into Victoria was equal in value to £407,828, of which £358,511 worth came from the United Kingdom ; £3,248 worth from Germany, and £8,190 worth from the United States. The total importation of engines, n.e.i., and parts thereof, was £531,379, of which £352,693 worth came from the

United Kingdom, £31,321 worth from Germany, and ,£137,148 worth from the United States. Our total importation of manufactures of metals, n.e.i., was worth £582,235; of which £453>4°9 worth came from Great Britain ; £56,663 worth from Germany ; and £60,848 worth from the United States. In all these cases, practically eleven-twelfths of our trade is now being done with Great Britain. Mr. Chamberlain has spoken of the ruin of the English woollen industry. Our total importation of woollens and articles containing wool, was £1,377,789; of which £1,288,052 worth came from Great Britain; £48,288 worth from Germany; and £7 44 worth from the United States. These figures speak volumes, and bring us down to the bed-rock of facts. If we gave a preference to Great Britain, only in regard to certain classes of machinery and leather, her gain would be practically nothing; whereas, if we proposed to reduce our duties in order to give her an .advantage in regard to other lines, the protected manufacturers of Australia would be up in arms at once. I wish now to deal with the question of food supplies, and to show what a comparatively small proportion our exportation to England form. In 1902, there were imported into the United Kingdom, £132,000,000 worth of foreign corn, including barley, rye, oats, and maize ; £20,000,000 worth of which came from the Colonies and from India, whereas about £^158,000,000 worth was produced in Great Britain and Ireland. A tax on the foreign importation would raise £3,300,000. Assuming that the Colonial and Indian growers got their share, it would come to £700,000. I have my doubts as to whether they would get that amount, though I have no doubt that the English consumer would have to pay it, because the price of grain in England would be regulated by the great bulk of foreign trade. In- my opinion, the middle-man would derive the benefit. It is estimated that the consumer would have to pay £8,000,000 extra. A balance of £4,000,000 would go into the pockets of the British landlords. The total quantity of butter, cheese, and eggs consumed in the United Kingdom in the same year was £26,000,000 worth from foreign countries, and £7,000,000 worth from the Colonies. A tax of 5 per cent, on that importation would produce £1,300,000 worth, and it is assumed that the Colonies would benefit to the extent of £350,000 worth. But the writer from whose work I have taken these figures says -

If our own produce of the same articles amounted to the same sum - and it is supposed to be a great deal more - the price of that will rise equally, and an extra £1,650,000 worth would go to the agricultural interests, that is, to the landlords.

– What has that to do with the export trade? The farmers of the Commonwealth would be very foolish if they allowed themselves to be gulled by the assertion that a Tariff would be beneficial to them. No Tariff can possibly help them, and the same may be said with regard to the producers of flour, meat, and other articles. Those who are supporting this scheme, and who profess to love the old land, wish to increase the price of wheat in England in order to benefit the farmers in Australia. They desire that the Australian farmer shall reap an advantage at the expense of the poor workmen of England. That is the Australian stand-point. Could a meaner proposal be made? They wish to make it more difficult for the masses in England to live, in order that the position of the farmers out here may be improved. The price of the wheat to the consumer in Great Britain is to be increased, so that the rents of the landlords - the marquises, earls, and lords who are supporting Mr. Chamberlain, should be increased, whilst the unfortunate masses would have less to eat. If any one could tell me of a meaner proposal, I should certainly like to hear it. I may repeat at this stage a conversation that I had on one occasion with Lord Jersey. I always held a very good opinion of him as Governor of New South Wales, and that opinion was strengthened by a conversation which I had with him about the time when President Cleveland was elected. Lord Jersey was then travelling by railway through trie district in which I lived, and I handed him a telegram which I had received announcing President Cleveland’s election. We had a conversation as we travelled along the line, the news leading us to the consideration of the question of the effect of the removal of the duties imposed by Great Britain. Lord Jersey remarked, “ I will admit that the removal of the duties imposed by England, and especially of those which were levied on farm produce, has led to the reduction of the rent rolls of the landlords. My rent-roll is much less because of this, but the comforts and the blessings of the masses of England have been improved.” I have often thought of that statement. “ The man who would dare to place a duty on foodstuffs in England would be a cruel man, “ he went on to say, “ because the only result of such a duty would be to increase the rent-rolls of men like myself. It would give us greater luxuries, if that were possible, than we now enjoy, and at the same time would make it more difficult for the masses of England to live.” I honour Lord Jersey for such a declaration, and I am pleased to know that in England to-day he is fighting against Mr. Chamberlain’s ‘ proposal. Preferential trade must result in increasing the prices of foodstuffs. It has been suggested that that would not be the effect of the introduction of this system. It was stated, by way of interjection, this afternoon, that the tax of is. per quarter on corn had not increased the price of bread in England. What did Mr. Chamberlain say on this point? -

The other day a duty, a moderate duty of is., was placed upon corn. It is a very small duty. It had no effect upon the price of bread.

A writer in the October number of the Westminster Review points out -

Now a tax of is. per quarter on corn is equivalent to one-eighth of a penny on the four-pound loaf. But, as a matter of fact, in London, very generally throughout the provinces, and even in the faithful Birmingham itself, the price of the four-pound loaf was raised, and that not by oneeighth of a penny, but by 1/2d. - just four times the amount of the duty.

Then he went on to point out the position of Germany -

The case of Germany is far more to the point, though Germany imports only 34 per cent, of the wheat she consumes. But in Germany (as Mr. Gerald Balfour was forced to admit on August 9, in reply to a question in the House by Dr. Shipman), while the duty is 7s. 7d. per quarter, the price of wheat is gs. 3d. more than in this country - that is to say, is. 8d. over and above the duty.

Mr EWING:

– I am endeavouring to prove that the great causes which have produced these results are to be found quite outside the reasons which have been urged. Some honorable members exclaim, “Let us consider the foreigner.” May I point out that the foreigner has never considered British industries. An industry is only of value to a country if it be stable. Incidentally I referred to the sugar industry. Under free-trade conditions it would be right to allow fair competition between man and man in that industry. But when the German Government steps forward and places £1,000,000 worth of bountyfed sugar upon the market, does that permit of fair competition between man and man? Certainly not. Every freetrader should fight against that as strenuously as he would against protection itself. I have already shown that it is impossible for the British people to get back to the position which they occupied in 1846, and which was depicted by the Prime Minister in his speech last . evening. To discuss the motion from that aspect is therefore absolutely idle. It is necessary for me to make my remarks as brief as possible, recognising that we are in the twilight of Parliament. We can hear the recess “ calling,” and I am called upon to do nothing beyond enunciating a few sound principles, disclosing the manifest errors of honorable members opposite. We are all in agreement with regard to the needs of the Empire, so long as they cost us nothing. We are all prepared to profess, any political principles which are not too costly. A large number of honorable members believe in following the line, or rather, the curve, of lease resistance. Nevertheless, we all have the same end in view. If there be any individual so demented as to believe that Australia has any future except as a part of the British Empire, I should like to hear from him, because he must possess the sort of intellect that one would expect to find in a free import camp, but nowhere else. We possess a population of a few millions, and we have only a few thousand fighting men to defend us. We know that sooner or later every nation is tried by the arbitrament of war, and, without discussing from what quarter trouble may come, we must recognise that we cannot successfully defend Australia unaided. Our allies must be our own kith and kin.

Mr. King O’Malley. The honorable member does not believe that.

Mr EWING:

– I cannot enter into a dissertation with regard to fiscal possibilities in detail because I should be out of order in doing so. The Prime Minister, in the course of his speech last night, pointed out that nationality did not depend upon trade. We all grant that : Mr. Chamberlain has never said that it does. Underlying the question of nationality are many considerations far removed from the question of trade; ‘but we can say, in reply to the right honorable member’s suggestion, that nationality does not depend on free imports. When was English character formed?

Mr ROBINSON:

– As the honorable member for Parramatta remarks, it is safe to deal only in vague generalities. It is not safe for the protectionists to give up their generalizations, and come down to what is practical.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– I am prepared to vote on the subject.

Mr ROBINSON:

– The honorable member says he is prepared to vote. I regret that an attempt was made last night to snatch a vote before honorable members had had an opportunity to exhaustively discuss this question. The point is : Are the people of Australia prepared to give to Great Britain such preference as will afford her manufacturers freer access to their markets, or only a nominal preference which will be of no advantage whatever to the mother country? The present position is summed up in a very clever cartoon by Mr. Carruthers Gould, published in the Westminster Gazette. He represents John Bull as pointing to a Tariff wall, which has been erected by a colonist. John Bull says, “ I say, my colonial friend, are you going to lower the wall ?” The colonist replies - and no doubt he is a protectionist colonist - “ Not exactly lower it, but I am going to raise the other part, so that it will be comparatively lower for you.” John Bull replies, “Then I shall need the same length of ladder as before.” Is the preference we are going to give such that-will make it imperative upon Great Britain to use the same length of ladder as before, or is it to be such as will enable her to obtain admission to our markets by using a much shorter ladder? I am not prepared to vote for any scheme of prefer ence which will keep British goods out of our markets. I refuse to be tied to the heels of the party which desires to use the proposals for preferential trade as a means of exciting public sympathy. The people of England have been led to expect that Australia is prepared to give them such preference as will improve the position of the British manufacturer by enabling him to send more goods into our markets. The complaint of the people in the mother land is that our Tariff is too high, and the best way in which we can give them preference is by lowering ‘it in their favour. A book has been published .under the title of All Sides of the Fiscal Controversy. It contains twenty-one speeches which were delivered in England between 15th May and 7th November of last year. I propose to quote one or two passages from these speeches, to show that the people of England hope- and trust that we are prepared to concede to them a generous preference. I shall first refer to the speech delivered by Mr. Balfour at Sheffield on the 1st October. In speaking of the Colonies, Mr. Balfour said -

And we have seen our own Colonies, our own flesh and blood, the very sinews of the Empire that is to be, building up one vested interest after another, a system of protection which, when it reaches its logical and natural conclusion, will make it as hard for us, their mother country, pledged to defend them, bound to them by every tie of affection and regard - will make it as hard for us to export to them the results of our in. dustry, our enterprise, and our capital as we now find it to export those results to America or to other protective countries.

Therefore, his complaint was that our Tariff was too high. Mr. Chamberlain also made a statement to the effect that he relied upon the Australian Colonies to make a genuine and substantial offer to the mother country. Speaking at Birmingham, on the 15th May, immediately after his return from South Africa, he referred, in the first place, to the good work done by colonists during the South African war, and, as was pointed out by the Prime Minister last night, remarked that -

If they (i.e., the colonists), value Empire and its privileges, they must be prepared to take a greater share of its obligations.

That is to say, they must be prepared to contribute much more than they do at present towards the expense of defending the Empire. He then stated that Canada had given certain preferences, and he went on to say -

Last year, at the Conference of Premiers, the representatives of Australia and New Zealand accepted the same principle. They said that in their different Colonies there might be some difference of treatment, but, so far as the principle was concerned, they pledged themselves to recommend to their constituents a substantial preference in favour of goods produced in the mother country.

Then again, when speaking at Newcastle, on the 20th October, 1903, he referred to the Colonies as follows : -

They will have to give us preference over the foreigners, and review their Tariffs, in order to see whether, without injuring their manufactures, they cannot open their markets more widely to us.

At Liverpool, on the 27th October, 1903, he set forth that the true ideal was, of course, to “bring about free-trade within the Empire, and that the preferential trade proposals formed a step in that direction. He said -

You must proceed to it step by step, and the proposal which I make to you is a step - and a great step - towards Imperial free-trade throughout the Empire, which is, no doubt, the ultimate object of our aspirations, but which at the present moment is impossible.

Mr Isaacs:

– Is that all he says about free-trade? Does he not condemn the ideas of free-trade that are prevalent in this country ?

Mr ROBINSON:

- Mr. Chamberlain pointed out that the ultimate aim was Imperial free-trade, and that preferential trade, providing for substantial preference to Great Britain, would be a step in that direction. Then again, when speaking at Welbeck Abbe)’, Mr. Chamberlain is reported by the London Standard of 5th August as having referred to the Colonies in the following terms: -

They have proved their sincerity by offering to us preferences on everything that we produce, and that we send to them. They ask us to meet them half-way. They ask us to grasp the hand which they hold out to us. They ask us to contribute to their prosperity without injuring ourselves. They ask us to give them the trade that we now give to the foreigner. In return, they will do morefor us even than they have already voluntarily done. They will take more of our manufactures ; they will find work for the people of our towns.

I have quoted these statements for the express purpose of showing that the representations which have been made by the leaders of the preferential trade movement in Great Britain is that the preference we are prepared to concede is of a genuine and substantial character, which will considerably improve the position of the British manufacturer. I am prepared to vote to-day, or at any other time, for such preference. We mustguard ourselves against any misapprehension as to what will constitute a sub stantial preference. Mr. Chamberlain has specifically referred to the Canadian preference as having proved distinctly disappointing to the mother country.

Mr Watson:

– Was that the statement made in 1902 ?

Mr ROBINSON:

– Yes. He said-

The net result, which I desire to impress upon you, is that, in spite of the preference which Canada has given us, their Tariff has pressed, and still presses, with the greatest severity, upon its best customer, and has favoured the foreigner, who is constantly doing his best to shut out her goods.

In another place he says -

The substantial results have been altogether disappointing.

Mr ROBINSON:

– From a handbook to the Tariff question, which was published by_ the Free-trade Union. I may mention that I have checked the resolution from the files of the Argus and the Age. The same book also sets out the views of the Melbourne correspondent to the London Standard upon this question. To my mind, that gentleman aptly and accurately sums up the present situation. He says -

It must not be supposed that the Protectionist Party, though rejoicing that England appears to be prepared to adopt protection; will be ready to make any concessions in regard to duties on British manufactures. It is the British manufacturer they fear. Had it not been for the efforts of the Free-trade Party, the duties on British manufactures would have, in many cases, been twice as high as now. It is British hats, woollen goods, apparel, starch, furniture, and tobacco that the Australian protectionist fears.

Mr Isaacs:

– Who is the author of that statement ?

Mr ROBINSON:

– The Melbourne correspondent of the London Standard. There is no doubt that he is a trustworthy man.

Mr Hutchison:

– Rubbish !

Mr ROBINSON:

– His statements are absolutely correct, as I shall prove later on. He continues -

What the Australian protectionist hopes is that the United Kingdom will impose duties on the food products and raw materials received from foreign countries, and remit them in the case of her Colonies. That he will joyfully accept, and he would also gladly increase the duties on manufactured goods received from foreign countries, but he will not reduce those duties in favour of England. The practical effect of the proposals here will be to strengthen the hands of the Protectionist Party, which has always done its best to shut out the manufactures of England from Australia.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– If the honorable member will help us to increase the duty against the foreigners, we shall see what we can do to help him.

Mr ROBINSON:

– I am not to be caught with protectionist chaff. I have seen too many Parliaments duped by statements of that kind to allow myself to be a party to raising the duties under any pretence whatever. I have often fought the Protectionist Party in Victoria, and am familiar with their little ways. Let me turn to other items in the Tariff. Two of the staple products of Great Britain are iron and steel manufactures of various kinds. Of iron and steel - bar, rod, girders, plate and sheet, galvanized plate and sheet, and pig and scrap - Great Britain sends to Australia about £1,300.000 worth out of our total imports of £1,430,000. The Protectionist Party proposed a duty of 10 per cent, and 15 per cent. on galvanized plate and sheet iron, but, thanks to the efforts of the Free-trade Party, the duty was reduced to 15s. per ton. Pig iron and scrap iron is to be dutiable. There is a Bill on the notice-paper in the name of the honorable and learned member for EdenMonaro, in favour of establishing the iron industry, and of shutting out as far as possible the imports of pig iron and scrap iron and similar articles. The Government proposed a duty of 20 per cent., but the Free-trade Party secured a reduction to 12½ per cent. The value of machines, machinery, and machine tools imported into Australia is about £1,850,000, out of which Great Britain supplies us with £1,226,000 worth. The protectionists proposed that these should be dutiable to the extent of 20 per cent, and 25 per cent., but as the result of the efforts of the Free-trade Party, they are now for the most part dutiable at 12 </inline> per cent. For the last month or two demands for increased duties on these articles have rent the air. We have been told in the protectionist press and elsewhere that unless machines and machine tools are kept out of the country the trade will be ruined. Let me now deal with the manufactures of metals such as nails, wire, pipes and tubes, tanks, barbed wire, netting, axles and springs, bolts and nuts, and mixed metals. The value of the imports of these goods is £1,800,000, and of that trade about £1,100,000 worth goes to Great Britain. The Free-trade Party succeeded in reducing the proposed duty in regard to nearly every one of these items; but, unfortunately they were not successful in securing a reduction of the duty on wire nails. As the result of the action taken by the Free-trade Party, the proposed duty on axles and springs was reduced from 25 per cent, to 15 per cent., and on bolts and nuts from 20 per cent, to 12J per cent. Other reductions were also made, which were opposed” toy the Protectionist Party, who desired to keep out British goods. As from three-fourths ,to five-sixths of our imports in these lines come from Great Britain, the benefit of any increase of our imports in this direction would have been largely reaped by the mother country. The Protectionist Party have sought to prevent Great -Britain from sec ring the great bulk of the trade. When the Tariff was under discussion, it was proposed by the protectionists to place a duty of 15 per cent, upon railway material. That duty was reduced by thi? efforts of the Free-trade Party to 12$ per cent. If it had not been reduced, it would have had the effect, to some extent, of keeping British imports out of this market. At the present time, our imports in this line ire valued at £464,000, of which £412,000 worth come from Great Britain. Our importation of vehicles of all kinds, including carriages, bicycles, and motor-cars, is worth about £400,000, of which about £516.000 worth come from Great Britain. A Protectionist Government proposed fixed and composite duties on vehicles, which ranged from 20 per cent, to 80 per cent., and would have largely excluded vehicles of British manufacture. But through the efforts of those who were in favour of a more reasonable Tariff, those duties were very considerably reduced. The instances which I have given show that the Protectionist Party were, during the consideration of the Tariff, seeking to practically exclude from this market not only foreign, but also British goods. It was only by the efforts of those whose fiscal views are the same as mine, that this attempt was frustrated. Therefore, I am justified in looking with a great deal of suspicion on the genuineness of the offer of preference now being made by protectionists. Moreover, I cannot shut my eyes to another manifestation of the manner in which the industries of Great Britain are regarded by the protectionists. The British shipping industry, which was responsible for the settlement of these Colonies, and is the chief glory of Great Britain, so that with its decay British prestige and rule would come to an end, is one to which the Protectionist Party through its leaders, in the last Parliament, promised to give favorable consideration. It was a promise of this kind that **Mr. Chamberlain referred to in the great speech on preferential trade, which he made at Liverpool. He took the promise of our protectionists seriously, because he did not know them as well as we know them. At the Colonial Conference, the visiting Premiers passed resolutions, affirming that special concessions should be granted to British ships in the coastal trade of the Colonies, and in the trade between the Empire and the Colonies; and Mr. Chamberlain,** in a great speech at Liverpool, appealed to the patriotism and sentiment of the people of that city on this subject. He pointed out that their motto was " Ships, Colonies and Commerce," and he told them that they did right to place colonies in so close a juxtaposition with ships and commerce, and referred to the promise of the then Prime Minister of Australia, that he would regard and assist the interests of British shipping. But when he was making that speech, the Australian Government had on the stocks a Bill whose aim and object was to hamper British vessels engaged in the coastal trade of Australia. 'The most casual perusal of that measure shows that it was the intention of the Government which introduced it, and which made a placard of its loyalty to the British shipping interest, to deal a deadly blow at that industry. The provisions of the Navigation Bill, if * assented to, would have precluded British ships from engaging in the coastal trade of Australia. That Government had shown by their action in taxing ships' stores, that they wished to hamper British ships engaged in their Australian coastal trade, and the passing of the Navigation Bill would practically have prevented British shipping from trading in our waters. So that, not only; has the Protectionist Party endeavoured to shut out British imports, but they have endeavoured to prevent British shipping from engaging in our coastal trade. Had the Navigation Bill been carried, serious injury would have been inflicted upon the British mercantile marine. I do not think that proposals of the kind to which I have referred are consistent with a regard for the loyalty and safety of the Empire. What Australia should desire is to see Ohe British mercantile marine prosperous and progressive. The British Navy is recruited from her mercantile marine, and the more vigorous and prosperous the latter is, the tighter will be the bonds which unite us with the mother country, and the better the opportunities which the British Navy will have to obtain able and skilful seamen. Not only would the Navigation Bill have inflicted injury upon British commerce, but it would have done great harm to our own producers. The insertion of provisions similar in their nature in the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill were moved, but that proposition was defeated by a narrow majority. These facts should be made known to the British people. They should understand that a large section of the party which says that it favours preference, favours a most one-sided and delusive preference, and one which will not increase British exports to Australia, or British, trade in Australian waters. We should make a straight out declaration of what we mean. ' The honorable member for Hume has done that by the amendment of which he has given notice, and the amendment which I am about to move is a plain, straightforward declaration of my views on the subject. I believe, not in a sham, but in a genuine preference. It was such a preference as that which **Mr. Chamberlain** had in view, when he said, " Give work to the British workers, and increase the imports into Australia of British manufactures." I would not vote .for any motion on this subject which did not contain some such provision as that moved by the honorable and learned member for Angas. I have read

Mr. Chamberlain’s speeches on the Tariff question, and have been struck with the reiteration of the statement that, unless there is. a preference, there will be no. Empire. These views have really been crystallized into the epigram “ No preference, no Em pire.” He has said that unless a tax is put on food) separation cannot be prevented, and I think that we cannot make it too plain that that is not our view of the case, that although we believe that a tax on food would be greatly to the advantage of our farmers, their loyalty would not be diminished if the British people abstained from so taxing themselves. I represent a producing district, and I say that the loyalty of the farmers in my district would not be lessened in the slightest degree if Great Britain decided that preferential trade is not in her interests.

Mr Webster:

– What about the honorable member’s loyalty to his constituents ?

Mr ROBINSON:

– I am loyal to the farmers of my district. The best way for us to obtain preference is by reducing our duties in favour of the mother country. Does the honorable member think that British manufacturers and’ ship-owners are so stupid that they will be taken in by a preference which will not give them freer access to our markets? If they do not get anything substantial, they will not give us anything substantial. I believe that we can get something substantial, and I believe that if preferential trade on the lines of my amendment is carried, it will bring about substantial gain to the Commonwealth and to the mother country. I do not, however, believe in increasing the duties against foreign countries. The honorable member for Richmond, in his usual facetious manner, referred to the trade of France and Germany with Australia. A lot of nonsense is talked about the injury which* foreigners are doing to Australia. Take our trade with Germany, for instance. We import less than £2,500,000 worth of goods from Germany, and export to that country £6,000,000 worth, of which over £5,000,000 worth is the produce of our soil. Our exports to France are worth about £3,250,000, and our imports from that country about £^1,000,000. Our trade with those two countries is, therefore, on a satisfactory basis, and while I should prefer to trade with Great Britain”, I do not think we should discourage other customers. It is to ‘the advantage of Australian woolgrowers to have as many buyers as possible for their wool, just as it is to the advantage of our wheat-growers to have as many buyers as possible competing for their wheat, and of our dairy farmers to have as many buyers as possible competing for their butter. We should not discourage other nations from buying our goods. To raise our duties against them would be an act of hostility, which I believe they would resent, even at some cost to themselves. Believing as I do that a real, genuine preference cannot be obtained unless a substantial reduction is made in our existing duties in favour of Great Britain, I move -

That after the word “kingdom,” paragraph 5, the word “ such “ be inserted, and that after the word “ Ireland “ the words “ as will afford exports from the United Kingdom substantially freer access to the Australian market than now exists,” be inserted.

– When a reciprocal arrangement is suggested, and a tentative scheme to facilitate it is adopted, with the result that nothing further eventuates, those who are concerned in helping to maintain reciprocal relations lose their enthusiasm, and the more selfish members of the community obtain their own way. What does

Mr. Fielding say upon this point? His statement is a significant one. We are told that we should do as other parts of the Empire have done, and offer Great Britain certain concessions without asking for anything in return. I contend that, if nothing be given in return, the inevitable result will be a falling-off in the concessions already made. Mr. Fielding, speaking on the 7th June last, referred in the course of his Budget statement to the position in Great Britain, and said -

What should be our own action in the matter? We may be influenced in our own preferential policy by what may occur in the mother country in the hereafter. We shall claim a free hand in that respect, but, for the present, we think it is wise policy to adhere to the preferential system, in the hope that it may be adopted more generally throughout the Empire, and that by-and-bye a better understanding may be come to in the mother country, and that it will be adopted there as well.

In present circumstances he did not see the necessity of having any conference in London from the Colonies. Our position was to wait until the mother country had made up her mind upon this great and important question. He had always believed in an Imperial Zollverein - in an attempt being made as far as practicable to encourage trade among our own people in preference to other nations. But the first move must come from the mother country, because she had the larger interest at stake. Willi Australia it was a question of surplus products. With the mother country it was largely a question of life and death as to how far she would be justified in interfering with her ordinary channels of trade. That was a question for those intrusted with the Government of Great Britain, and for the electors of the mother country to decide - not for us in far-off Australia. If the mother country came to a decision that preference was desirable then it would be the proper thing to call a conference to consider the direction it might take.

– That is the position of some honorable members here.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Exactly. It is a fact that most honorable members who are ardent protectionists strongly support Mr.’ Chamberlain’s proposals. The two things may not be inconsistent from their standpoint, but they certainly are from mine.

Mr Higgins:

– How does the honorable member explain the fact that so many good men are deserting the true fiscal faith ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I do not blame the honorable member for changing his opinions. I changed mine many years ago, but, I am glad to say, before I came into public life. The point I wish to make, however, is that honorable members who talk of preference, and ask free-traders to join with them, express the determination that, so far as they are concerned, preference shall mean protection, and nothing more. Honorable members will , recollect the report of an interview with the honorable and learned member for Ballarat which appeared in the Age on Tuesday last. After debating the pros and cons of the question the honorable and learned member said in conclusion, “ In short, we want to perfect protection for Australia, and to secure protection for the Empire.” ‘He has the effrontery to appeal to free-traders to join with him to achieve that object. These honorable members are playing upon the credulity of the Australian people, and particularly upon the credulity of the people of the old country, when they endeavour to make them believe that they are yearning with a desire to assist them, their real object being to make themselves more secure from them in their trading relationship.

Nine-tenths of the speech delivered by Mr. Chamberlain at Luton was pure protection. He concluded with a reference to preferential trade, and of course dragged in the old gag - I can describe it by no better name - that if the people of Great Britain did not vote for his preferential trade proposals they would be in danger of losing the Colonies. A greater slander was never perpetrated upon the people of Australia. Listen to his peroration -

We shall be saved from a great danger - a danger to which I have called your attention - that if we do not meet the wishes of our colonists they may be driven into arms which are eager to embrace them. They may make arrangements with other countries less pedantic, less antiquated than we are ourselves, and we may lose the trade upon which we are already becoming more and more dependent. We may increase that trade and increase the bonds which it involves, or we may lose that trade and lose with it the friendship and affection of our Colonies, and we may lose and have to mourn the loss of an occasion which can never be repeated.

I can conceive of no greater libel upon Australia and Australian institutions than declarations of this kind on the part of prominent politicians in the old country. In view of these statements we need to have some such declaration as that which the honorable member for Angas proposes to add to the motion. We should say clearly and distinctly that our loyalty does not depend upon our trade connexion with the mother country. It would have been a poor look-out for us had it been so in the past, and we should emphasize that point as strongly as possible. I wish now to quote a few words bearing on the attitude of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I have not risen to argue this question, but to indicate what my attitude is. Lord Rosebery, speaking of the colonial offers made, said-

I am quite aware that in some of our Colonies preferences have already been granted to British products. In Canada, in South Africa, and in New Zealand that has been the case. In Canada it was specially stated some time ago that it was granted, not as a matter of barter, but as a matter of grace and favour and loyalty to the mother country, and in that case, as in other cases, I think we are entitled to consider these offers as free gifts, free concessions from the Colonies, in return for the enormous burden of national representation and national defence, which falls almost entirely 011 the over-taxed taxpayers of the United Kingdom.

Now, gentlemen, I pass to the utterances of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and I observe that they are very cautions, very guarded statements, purposely vague statements, as to his general wish for commercial relations between the mother country and Canada. I know that Sir Wilfrid Laurier is in the throes of a general election. I do not know the circumstances in which he is speaking, except so . far as regards the general election, and I should like to see the text of all these speeches before I comment too closely on the extracts which are furnished us through not unbiased channels. But there is a speech of Sir Wilfrid Laurier’s bearing on these questions which I recommend you to cut out and lake to your homes and preserve as the best possible statement of the situation and relations of the British Empire in its various parts which has ever been uttered by a British statesman. “ There are parties who hope to maintain the British Empire on the lines of restricted trade “ - there were not many people when he said this of that kind ; there is one very eminent one now. “ If the British Empire is to be maintained it can only be by the most absolute freedom, political and commercial, in building up this great Empire. To deviate from the principles of freedom would be by so much to weaken the ties and bonds which now hold it together.”

Mr McDonald:

– She draws £14,000,000 a year by way of interest from us.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

I wish nil good luck to your old-age pension scheme. I am fearing an awful winter for our poor. There is something wrong somewhere ; what is to be done? Two days’ road work were given last month by the labour bureau to a man at Hackney ; he went at six in the morning, lifted his pick axe, and tried to begin, then sunk to the ground and died. The doctor said there was not a trace of food in the stomach, or fat on the body ; he could not have eaten for days.. Many more of the men were the same, and yet read of the millions held by some. It is awful and wicked.

A splendid article which appeared in the Age of Saturday last, contained statements which go far to support the arguments used by the Prime Minister, when he warned honorable members against taking any action to increase the price of food to the poor people of Great Britain. The writer of the article says -

There is nothing in Greek tragedy more pitiful than the spectacle of a British working man, it this stage of civilization, looking for work, and looking for it in vain.” No spectacle is more common here at present. Here is a typical instance reported during the last few days : - The coroner for the Hackney district held an inquest on the death of George Palmer, aged 43, labourer, who had been out of work for two years. The widow stated her husband had applied for work at the labour bureau of the Hackney Borough Council, .ind on Thursday night received a post card saying he could have two days’ employment. He left home at 5 a.m. on

Friday morning without having had anything to eat. Later in the day she heard of his death. Wm. Neale, a fellow labourer, who went to work with him, stated that on the way they each had a pennyworth of tea. While Palmer was picking the roadway he said, “ Bill, I feel wonderful queer; I think I shall have to give this job in.” He advised him to have a rest, and he did so for about five minutes. He then returned to work, but after raising his pick twice, he said, “ I can’t do any more,” and rested against a wall and died. A medical witness gave evidence that death was accelerated by want, and exposure to cold that morning. Cross-examined by coroner : You think he must have lived very hard ? Medical witness : I think he must have had a terrible life of it. There was no sign of food in the body. Philip Jacobs, an unemployed cabinet maker, said he had seen a few friends that morning, and had collected 6s. 6d. for the widow. The case was only typical of many in HackneySixteen men were taken on by the bureau last Tuesday, and it was found that ten had had no food at all that day, nor yet the day before ; nor had they any money to get it. The remaining six men had just is. 4d. between them to live on all day.

If preferential tirade will have the effect of adding one farthing to the cost of the little food which human beings like that can buy, I shall endeavour to prevent its being brought about. According to Mulhall, during the five years ending 1880, 630 persons died of starvation annually, and in the five years ending 1895, 335 persons died of starvation in England. It is stated that only ten persons died of starvation last year, but I can scarcely regard those figures as truly representing the facts, in view of the conditions described in the letter and article I have quoted. In the issue of the Age which contained the article to which I have referred, there was also published a statement to the effect that the Marquis of Anglesey, who never did a day’s work in his life, was scattering about thousands of pounds. There is no doubt that if the people of England had the same privilege that we enjoy in the matter of the franchise, they would soon bring about a great change for the better. I have no doubt that they would be prepared to enter into negotiations with us for the establishment of Imperial free-trade. Those who now hold the power in England, do not intend to give the vote to the working classes, their sole desire being to keep them in subjection. I do not wish to be misunderstood upon this question. I am a protectionist right up to the hilt, believing as I do that no goods which can be locally manufactured should be admitted free to our ports. I cannot forget that it was Mr. Chamberlain who promised the white residents of South

Africa that he would endow them with the franchise, and who, upon the expiration of the war there, swamped that country with Chinese labour.

Mr Johnson:

– It is Mr. Chamberlain who is “ booming “ this movement.

Mr MALONEY:

– I say that I should require everything in black and’ white from that gentleman. I admit that in’ the early eighties, when in Birmingham, the home of Radicalism, I admired him. But since then I have learned to view anything that he touches with suspicion. In that respect, I share the opinion of the workers of Great Britain. In speaking of France this evening, the honorable member for Richmond did not do justice to that country. I propose to put before , the House certain figures in this connexion. From the Courier Australien, which is published in Sydney, I Jearo that whereas Australia taxes 71 per cent, of all goods imported from France, that country . taxes only 2 per cent, of Australian imports. The journal in question states that the French imports into Australia are taxed up , to 27.3 per cent, of their value, whereas Australian imports into France are taxed, at less than 4 per cent, of their value. If we are to grant a substantial preference to British goods, we might at least ask the Imperial authorities to endow the manhood of England and Ireland with the same political rights which we enjoy in Australia to-day. We might also urge them to employ white workers in the South African mines, instead of the yellow peril. I regard Mr. Chamberlain as the black angel of Great Britain. Can any honorable member honestly declare that we have ever gained one reform for which we have to thank the Conservatives? When the honorable and learned member for Ballarat was speaking on Friday last, somebody made an interjection concerning the change of front which has been effected by Mr. Chamberlain. Thereupon, the honorable and learned member declared that he knew of no man who was better fitted to explain away his action than was Mr. Chamberlain.

Mr Johnson:

– He has betrayed every principle with which he has been identified.

Mr MALONEY:

Mr REID:
Minister of External Affairs · East Sydney · Free Trade

Mr ISAACS:

– At this stage of the session we should make an effort to give expression to our views in one way or the other. We do not wish to go into recess with an admission either that we are unable to say what the country has declared or that we are unable to make up our own minds. I therefore think that the question should not be left in a position, of doubt. Voting as I did last night to secure the taking of a division on the motion, I must, to be consistent, vote against the adjournment to-night. I am speaking not only for myself but for others. We shall vote against the motion for adjournment with no other desire than to protest, as strongly as we can, against delay on the part of this .Parliament in expressing the views of the Australian people on a subject which we consider to be of the highest moment to the Commonwealth as an integral part of the British Empire. I ask the Prime Minister not to allow an adjournment. He will tomorrow have more than ample time for the consideration of the business which yet remains to be done. The amendments in the Sea Carriage, of Goods Bill are a purely formal matter, which should take only a minute or two to consider, while the other measure can be dealt with without discussion, and by means of a vote. We should, however, give as much time as remains for the consideration and determination of the question of preferential trade to-night, whatever is to be done to-morrow.

Mr. REID (East Sydney - Minister of External Affairs). - I am anxious to study the wishes of the House in this matter. We are not dealing with Government business, and Ministers are divided in regard to the motion. Therefore we are not exercising any sort of pressure as a Government upon it. If a majority desire, to sit late, in order to finish the discussion, I will vote against the motion, for adjournment, though I have been informed that at least six speakers desire to address themselves to the main question.

Mr McDonald:

– The right honorable gentleman can add my name to the list.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The amendments will all be debated, too.

Mr REID:

– I can quite understand the utility of continuing the discussion for several hours, and, if necessary, I am willing to remain here to allow the debate to go on, but it would be useless to continue the debate for only another half-hour. As an old parliamentarian, I say, too, that it will be better to adjourn this debate now, and deal with the Sea Carriage of Goods Bill and the Papua Bill, and then have to-morrow clear for its further discussion. Some honorable members hold strong views on the liquor question involved in the Papua Bill, and if we begin its consideration to-morrow, there is not likely to be much time then for the continuation of the preferential trade debate. It is the general feeling of honorable members that we should go on and finish this debate to-night ?

Honorable Members. - No.

Mr Isaacs:

– There is only one way to test the feeling of the House on the subject.

Mr REID:
Free Trade

– I understand that if the motion for the adjournment of the debate is negatived, the honorable member for Gwydir, who moved it with the concurrence of the Government, will be prevented from speaking, and I am not prepared to take a course which will have that result.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The rights of both the mover and seconder of the motion for adjournment will be preserved, even if that motion be defeated.

Mr REID:

– I am glad to hear that that is so. In the New South Wales House, the result would have been- as I have stated. If honorable members generally desire to proceed with and finish this debate to-night, 1 am willing to remain, but I think that very few honorable members favour that course being taken.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable and learned member for Indi has announced that he wishes to speak on this subject, but is quite prepared to vote without speaking. That is not the position of other honorable members. His reason for objecting to an adjournment of the debate is that it is an urgent matter, and that there should be a division on the main question, whereas we have been told by the honorable and learned member for Ballarat that he has given his motion the most abstract form it could have. If the honorable and learned member for Indi thinks that the British people will attach the slightest importance to so absolutely abstract and academic a motion as appears on the businesspaper, he is looking through the wrong end of the telescope. He really gave no good reasons for opposing the motion for the adjournment. I wish to speak to-morrow, and I am not prepared to vote to-night without speaking. I do not see what urgency there is for prolonging the debate any further to-night, seeing that the Prime

Minister wishes to deal with two completed Bills which have come down from the Senate. If they are dealt with to-night we shall have to-morrow for the continuance of this .discussion. I hope that the Prime Minister w’ill not allow honorable members to terminate the debate to-night.

Mr SALMON:
Laanecoorie

– I desire to speak on the motion which has been brought before the House by the honorable and learned member for Ballarat, and have gone to some pains and trouble to prepare a statement of my views on the subject ; but I am ready to refrain from speaking in order that we may take a division on it to-night.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– There are others in the same position.

Mr SALMON:

– Honorable members have made up their minds on this question, and so have” those who sent them here, and I do not think a long, drawn-out debate will be of advantage to any one. In my opinion, it will be well to settle the matter at once. Most of those who are arguing that there should be a further succession of long speeches have already committed themselves by stating that the motion is a purely abstract and academic one, and therefore would not be understood by the people of Great Britain. ‘

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I said, not that it would not be understood by the people of Great Britain, but that it would have no effect with them.

Mr SALMON:

– Honorable members fear it will have an effect which they “do not desire it to have. Those who are most anxious that we shall not proceed further to-night have already spoken, and therefore have no real interest in prolonging the discussion. I hope that they will consider the convenience of their fellow members, and allow the motion to go to a division tb-night.

Mr JOHNSON:
Lang

– I am not prepared to give a silent vote on this question. I propose to speak at considerable length in regard to it - possibly for two hours or longer. I am perfectly prepared to go on to-night, although I should prefer to speak to-morrow.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Monaro · Eden

– This question is of great importance, and I am afraid that if the debate is adjourned until tomorrow we shall have no chance of arriving at a decision. I do not wish to force matters to a division to-night, but I think that the honorable and learned member for Indi is on solid ground when he asks that an opportunity should be afforded to register the decision in this House before the session closes. The honorable and learned member is prepared to give up his right to speak, and there are others who are also willing to record a silent vote. These facts give the answer to those honorable members who say that the discussion upon this subject is in the clouds. We invite those honorable members to come to earth, and give their vote. If, as they argue, the motion can have no effect upon the people of Great Britain, why are they afraid to pass it? Why should they object to a motion giving expression to a principle in favour of which the majority of the electors have declared themselves. I hope that if the debate be adjourned until to-morrow, some arrangement will be made by which we can come to a decision.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– An arrangement with whom ?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– With honorable members. I know that we cannot ask the Prime Minister to give any undertaking in the matter. I understand that he has the Appropriation Bill in his pocket, and that therefore our only chance of controlling the House is by preventing you, sir, from leaving the Chair until we have had an opportunity to register our opinion. This is not a party question, and I think that it might be disposed of if honorable members who view it from different standpoints were prepared to make mutual concessions.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Darwin

– I do not see why any heat should be displayed over this question. We have been debating it for some time, and it appears to me that the more we talk the more honorable members seem disposed to lengthen the debate. I suggest that the Prime Minister should arrange for a special session of Parliament three months hence to enable the motion to be fully considered. The Prime Minister has, I think, actedvery fairly in affording an opportunity for discussion, and therefore we should endeavour to come to a vote as soon as possible. I am prepared to vote for the motion. I believe in preserving the British Empire. There are only two free nations in the world, the American and the British, and we should do all we can to increase the power and influence of the Empire.

Mr McCOLL:
Echuca

– Honorable members who are opposed to the motion have complained that the discussion has been merely of an abstract character, and mostly in the clouds. They are doing their very best to keep the subject there by, placing obstacles in the way of recording a vote upon it. I desire to say a few words, which will occupy only about ten minutes, and I feel that if the debate is adjourned until to-morrow I shall have very little chance to express my views. The short time at our disposal will probably be taken up by three or four honorable members, to the exclusion of all others. If it be understood that we are to go on to-morrow until a vote is taken I shall be prepared to vote for an adjournment of the debate this evening, but otherwise I shall oppose the motion.

Question - That the debate be now adjourned - put. The House divided.

AYES: 22

NOES: 17

Majority … … 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to ; debate adjourned.

page 8552

AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORT

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received from the Auditor-General, under section 53 of the Audit Act, his annual report for the financial year ended 30th June last.

page 8553

SEA CARRIAGE OF GOODS BILL

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have to announce the receipt of a message from the Senate, intimating that it has agreed to amendments Nos. 1, 4, and 6 of the House of Representatives, that it has agreed to amendments Nos. 2 and 5 with amendments, and to amendment No. 3 with a consequential amendment.

Mr REID:
Minister of External Affairs · East Sydney · Free Trade

– As the amendments which have been made by the Senate are practically consequential amendments, I move -

That the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the amendments forthwith.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

In Committee (Consideration of Senate’s amendments) :

Clause3-

This Act shall apply only in relation to ships carrying goods from any place in Australia to any place outside Australia, or from one State to another State, and in relation to goods so carried, or received, to be socarried in those ships.

House of Representatives’ Amendment - Insert the following new sub-clause : -

This Act shall not apply to any bill of lad ing or document made before the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and five, in pursuance of a contract or agreement entered into before the passing of this Act.

Senate’s Message: - Insertion of new sub-clause agreed to, with the following amendment : - “Leave out ‘passing of this Act,’ insert ‘seventeenth of November, 1904.’ “

Mr REID:
Free Trade

– Honorable members will notice that the amendment of the Senate has the effect of making the disability imposed by clause 3 applicable from the date upon which the Bill was read a firsttime in the other Chamber, instead of from the date upon which it becomes law. I see no objection to that proposal. Consequently, I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 4 -

Where any bill of lading or document contains any clause, covenant, or agreement, whereby -

The obligations of the owner or charterer of any ship to exercise due diligence, and to make and keepthe ship’shold, refrigerating, and cool chambers, and all other parts of the ship in which goods are carried, fit and safe for their reception, carriage, and preservation, are in any wise lessened, weakened, or avoided.

House of Representatives’ Amendment. - In line 2, after the word “diligence,” insert the words “ and to properly man, equip, and supply the ship, to make and keep the ship seaworthy.”

Senate’s Message. - Insertion of words agreed to, with the following consequential amendment : - “ in paragraph b, leave out the first word ‘ the ‘ and insert ‘any.’”

Mr REID:
Free Trade

– The object of this slight alteration is not to use language which may seem to create new obligations. The word “any.” is the widest which can possibly be employed, so that we cannot object to it. By adopting the amendment of the other Chamber, we shall be simply giving effect to the policy of the Bill.

Mr Knox:

– It does not interfere with the original purpose of the measure?

Mr REID:

– Not at all; it leaves things exactly as they were. I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 6 (Penalties) -

House of Representatives’ Amendment. - After clause 6 insert following new clause : - “6a. (i) In every bill of lading or document, with respect to goods, a warranty shall be implied that the ship shall be, at the beginning of the voyage, seaworthy in all respects, and properly manned, equipped, and supplied.

In every bill of lading or document, with respect to goods, unless the contrary intention appears, a clause shall be implied, whereby, if the ship is, at the beginning of. the voyage, seaworthy in all respects, and properly manned, equipped, and supplied, neither the ship, nor her owner, master, agent, or charterer, shall be responsible for damage to or loss of the goods resulting from - -
1. faults or errors in navigation, or
2. perils of the sea or navigable waters, or
3. acts of God or the King’s enemies, or
4. the inherent defect, quality, or vice ofthe goods, or
5. the insufficiency of package of the goods, or
6. the seizure of the goods under legal process, or
7. any act of omission of the shipper or owner of the goods, his agent or representative, or
8. saving or attempting to save life or property at sea, or
9. any deviation in saving or attempting to save life or property at sea.”

Senate’s Message. - Amendment to insert new clause 6a agreed to, with the following amendments : - “In line 1, leave out ‘or document’; in line 6 leave out ‘ or document.’ “

Mr REID:
Free Trade

– I think that good reason has been shown for the omission of these words. The position in this case is quite different from that in clause 4, where the. words “or document “ are included. Inthat provision we have to guard against evasions of prohibitions by means of placing contracts in separate documents. The position, however, in the present case, is very different, and upon reflection, I agree with the Attorney-General that it would be wise to omit the words to which I have referred. Therefore, I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Isaacs:

– The words were inserted in two sub-clauses, and I understand they remain in one of them.

Mr REID:

– They appeared in two subclauses of the same clause, but they have been left out in both cases. At the beginning of clause 4 we have the words -

Where any bill of lading or document contains any clause covenant or agreement, whereby -

And so forth. It was proper to include the words “ or document “ in that case, because that which we desired to prohibit might otherwise be done in a collateral document that was not a bill of lading. It was proper to insert these words in order to provide against our object being defeated by the wrongful thing being done by means of a document that was not a bill of lading. Then we come to the new clause 6a, which is what we have called the ship-owners’ clause. The honorable and learned member will see that there is no necessity in that case to insert the word “ document,” because the clause reads something into a bill of lading, and no collateral document could defeat legislation which reads into an actual bill of lading all that we desire. ‘We had the words in sub-clause 2 -

In every bill of lading or document, with respect to goods, unless the contrary intention appears, a clause shall be implied. .

– I do.

Motion agreed to.

Reported that the Committee had agreed to the Senate’s amendments.

Report adopted.

page 8555

PAPUA (BRITISH NEW GUINEA) BILL

Bill returned from the Senate, with amendments.

Motion (by Mr. Reid) proposed -

That the consideration of the amendments be an Order of the Day for to-morrow.

Mr McDONALD:
Kennedy

– I think that before we proceed to consider this Bill again, we should be furnished with copies of the Senate’s amendment. It is a very bad practice to deall with measures at the end of the session in the manner in which we have just dealt with the Sea-Carriage of Goods Bill. No one knows the effect of the amendments just agreed to. When members of the legal profession differ, it makes one doubtful if he is doing the right thing in allowing a matter to be dealt with which he has not had an opportunity to fully understand.

Mr REID:
Free Trade

– The honorable member’s request will be complied with, and copies of the amendments of the Senate will be available to-morrow.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 8555

PAPERS

Mr. DUGALD THOMSON laid upon the table the following papers: -

Amendment of regulations 88, 152, 199, 209, 220, 253, and 256 under the Public Service Act.

Incremerts paid under section 19 of the Victorian Public Service Act.

page 8555

ADJOURNMENT

Prorogation: Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta Railway Survey Bill: Seat of Government: English Mail Contract

Mr REID:
Minister of External Affairs · East Sydney · Free Trade

– I move -

That the House do now adjourn.

– Do not make the matter more difficult.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– I suppose that on the principle that “ a soft answer turneth away wrath,” it is better for the present that I should say no more about the matter. I desire to bring under the notice of the Prime Minister and the Postmaster-General another very important matter. A good deal of discussion has taken place, both in this House and outside, with regard to the English mail contracts, and it appears to me rather strange that, whilst we have expressed” our determination not to patronize mail companies employing black labour, we should have entirely lost sight of the claims of an enterprising company which employs white men and pays them good wages, and carries the mails over a section of what has been described as the “All Red Route.” In other words, the mails are carried throughout upon British ships, or through British territory. I refer to the CanadianPacific route. I have taken the trouble to secure a chart, showing the distances that will have to be traversed between Sydney and Vancouver, and thence across the Dominion of Canada and the Atlantic, also a time-table, showing the time that will be occupied in carrying the mails if sixteen-knot steamers are em ployed crossing, the Pacific. I have a letter from Mr. William Clarke, a merchant of Sydney, which clearly explains the position, and I cannot do better than quote it. It reads as follows: -

Dear Sir,

Referring to recent conversation re English mail contracts, I have the honour to place before you a few particulars regarding the “ All Red Route “ from Australia .to England, via Canada, which can be discussed and enlarged upon at a preliminary meeting between the Honorable the Postmaster-General and the manager of (he Union Steam-ship Company in Sydney. In my private capacity as a merchant, I shall be pleased to render the Government any assistance I can in the matter. From information, gathered by personal travels through Canada, &c, in this connexion, you can satisfy the Minister. The Canadian-Pacific Railway Company (Union Steam-ship Company, Sydney, agents) are very progressive, as also are the Union Steam-ship Company, and with the help of the Canadian Government, I have no doubt but that an efficient service can be carried out. When speaking to the Minister on the above subject, please impress upon him that it is of the utmost importance to have a quick and regular service in the interest of British-Australian and New Zealand trade. Under no circumstances harass our commerce ; foreign competition is very keen, and a slow, defective mail service would result in very serious consequences ‘to the trade and welfare of these Colonies. I enclose a track chart, which I copied from one on a steamer, showing distances, which with a sixteen-knot service from Sydney to Vancouver, eighteen days, detention Suva and Honolulu one day, rail Vancouver to Quebec four days, Quebec to Liverpool nine days, would land the mails from Sydney to London in thirty-two days. New Zealand would, no doubt, avail itself of a weekly mail service by the “All Red’ Route “-from Auckland to Fiji sixteen-knot service three days, Fiji to Vancouver thirteen and a half days, half day’s detention at Suva, Vancouver to Quebec four days, Quebec to Liverpool nine days; thirty days Auckland to London. The transfer of mail matter from the Southern States and Queensland, as arriving at Redfern station, would beboth simple and expeditious. Mail vans would” be run to the siding to the left facing the Redfern station, thence passed right into a van on the electric trams specially constructed for the purpose, necessitating a short deviation of the tram line only, and the mails carried direct to the mail steamer at her berth at Circular Quay, and passed direct to the mail room. The inward Southern States and Queensland mails would be treated with the same despatch upon arrival of each mail steamer. Facilities for quick despatch are fully available at Vancouver, Quebec, and Liverpool. Brisbane would cease to be a port of call. Ample rolling stock is available by the Canadian-Pacific Railway Company to carry the mails to- time. Means are also provided for keeping the lines clear of snow in “winter, and where snow is likely to fall in large quantities from the mountains, the track runs through covered sheds. Mails would be carried throughout by British ships, and over British territory.

He also refers to the fact that arrangements might be made to make Brisbane a port of call. I have travelled over this route, and I know from personal experience that the company possess good steamers. If its vessels were run at sixteen knots an hour, they would be able to deliver the mails between Sydney and London in thirty-two days. The company pays the highest rate of wages, and employs only white labour. I am convinced that if we offered it anything like the encouragement which we are prepared to offer to the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation

– It is too late now for this sort of thing.

Mr McDONALD:

– Perhaps it is. The Prime Minister declared, during the discussion upon the no-confidence motion, that he and his party were banded together for the express purpose of wiping the Labour Party out of existence. I have not forgotten that declaration, and I regret that the Government did not obtain a dissolution and give us an opportunity to show whether they are able to carry out their threat.

Mr Reid:

– The honorable member can go to the country now for six months.

Mr.McDONALD.- I shall go round the country as much as I can, and do whatever I can to prevent the wiping out of our party by the right honorable gentleman. I hail with delight the action which he has taken. I hope that we shall not hear any more clamour from New South Wales members concerning the Federal Capital. Now that the people of that State have practically decided that the capital shall remain in Melbourne, the people of Victoria will be pleased at the news.

Mr Johnson:

– The action of the New South Wales Parliament is not capable of the construction which the honorable member has placed upon it.

Mr McDONALD:

– I have given my opinion, but the honorable member can place his own construction upon the action of that Parliament. We have been sent here to defend our rights. The Federal Parliament have passed a certain Act. determining that the Federal Capital shall be in a certain place, and the New South Wales Parliament say, “ We will not have that.” My answer is, “ Then let us remain where we are.” I am prepared to stay here as long as the New South Wales members deny our right to legislate on this important matter.

Mr REID:
Minister of External Affairs · East Sydney · Free Trade

– In replying, I shall refer only to the very important subject which the honorable member for EdenMonaro has brought under the notice of the House. I have no intelligence, except the statement in the Melbourne evening newspaper, which is not necessarily accurate, of the action taken in the New South Wales Parliament, but I understand from that source- that a series of resolutions were submitted to the House of Assembly, one of which embodied an offer of certain sites to the FederalParliament, and that a majority omitted from the list submitted by the Government of New South Wales the name of Dalgety.

Mr Webster:

– And Tooma too.

Mr REID:

– That name was not submitted by the Government. They submitted four sites.

Mr Webster:

– That showed their ignorance of the question.

Mr REID:

– I understand that the Government of New South Wales submitted to the Legislative Assembly of that State a list containing the names of four places which might be offered by the Parliament of New South Wales to the Federal Parliament. The Parliament of New South Wales would be absolutely within its rights in any offer that they might make to us. The proposal submitted to the Legislative Assembly of that State was that one of four sites should be offered, and that body,

I understand, decided to omit from the list of sites the name of Dalgety. In other words, it ‘determined not to offer.Dalgety as a site for the Federal Capital. If., that has happened, it does not in the slightest degree alter the decision arrived at by us, and embodied in an Act of Parliament. It may amount to an expression of a desire to ask this Parliament to reconsider the decision at which it has arrived, but the omission of the name from a proposed offer does not alter the decision of this Parliament. If it should turn out that a majority of the members of this Parliament are prepared to repeal the’ Act which we passed, and choose some site other than Dalgety, t’he object which I suppose the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales had in view in omitting the name of that place from its list might be secured. So far as I am concerned - and I think that I may speak for my colleagues - we arc satisfied to act upon the choice which ‘Has been arrived at by this Parliament. If it be impossible to arrange any voluntary understanding between the State and the Commonwealth, another situation may arise, but it will be time enough to deal with that situation when it arises. I strongly deprecate the use of any language which will make a difficult task more difficult, and I. ask those who have the interests of the choice which this Parliament has made at heart to give its opponents no opportunity to increase the difficulties which may now arise in consequence of the step which has been taken by the “New South Wales Assembly.’ Although I represent a New South Wales constituency, and will always loyally respect the just rights of that State in every way.; I am not likely to forget t’he duties which I owe to this Parliament in regard to a matter about which I think we have the largest share of choice ; because it seems to me that the selection of the Federal Site belongs more properly to the Federal Parliament than to a Parliament which is not to occupy the Federal Capital. At the same time, I wish to speak with the utmost respect of any action which may be taken, or any wishes which may be entertained on the subject, by the Government or Parliament of New South Wales. I hope that we shall be able to arrive at a satisfactory settlement of the difficulty. If that settlement is impossible, we shall have the consolation of remaining in a very comfortable city, surrounded by many advantages. It is ray earnest wish that the provisions of the Constitution shall be carried out loyally on both sides. If thev are, the Federal Capital will be established in New South Wales at no distant date, but, just as it is possible for the Federal Parliament in its treatment of the subject to so act that there will be no capital in New South Wales within a reasonable time, it is possible for the Government and Parliament of New South Wales to so act that there will be no Federal Capital in New South Wales within a reasonable time, unless we have an inherent right to select the capital by our own will. That is a question of serious importance, which I hope will never have to be considered. I hope that those who have this matter at heart will rest satisfied that the Government will loyally regard the decision of this Parliament, unless it is rescinded, and, so far as I am concerned, any attempt to rescind it will meet with- my strongest opposition.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Then may we take it that the Government will not order General Finn out just yet?

Mr REID:

– Not yet.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 12 o’clock (midnight).

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 14 December 1904, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1904/19041214_reps_2_24/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives14 December 1904

QUESTION

RIVERINA AND MELBOURNE ELECTIONS

Mr WATSON:BLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr REID:Minister for External Affairs · EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · Free Trade

Mr REID:

Mr Skene:

Mr REID:

Mr Thomas:

Mr REID:

Mr Ewing:

Mr REID:

Mr Ewing:

Mr REID:

QUESTION

CASE OF MAJOR CARROLL

Mr McDONALD:KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

Mr McCAY:Minister for Defence · CORINELLA, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr Watson:

Mr McCAY:

Mr Watson:

Mr McCAY:

Mr WATSON:

Mr McCAY:

Mr McDonald:

PROPOSED NEW TEMPORARY STANDING ORDERS

Mr REID:Minister of External Affairs · East Sydney · Free Trade

Sir William Lyne:

Mr REID:

Sir William Lyne:

Mr REID:

Mr Glynn:

Mr REID:

Mr BRUCE SMITH:PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr REID:

Mr BRUCE SMITH:PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr McCay:

Mr REID:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr McDonald:

Mr REID:

QUESTION

NEW HEBRIDES

Mr SALMON:LAANECOORIE, VICTORIA

Mr REID:Free Trade

QUESTION

PREFERENTIAL TRADE

Mr GLYNN:Angas

Mr Ewing:

Mr GLYNN:

Mr Ewing:

Mr GLYNN:

Mr Ewing:

Mr GLYNN:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr GLYNN:

Mr Ewing:

Mr GLYNN:

Mr Ewing:

Mr GLYNN:

Mr Ewing:

Mr GLYNN:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr GLYNN:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT; IND from 1910

Mr GLYNN:

Mr Ewing:

Mr GLYNN:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Hume

Mr Poynton:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Lonsdale:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Lonsdale:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Lonsdale:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Lonsdale:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Lonsdale:

House of Representatives
14 December 1904

Mr WATSON:
BLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr REID:
Minister for External Affairs · EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · Free Trade

Mr McDONALD:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

Mr McCAY:
Minister for Defence · CORINELLA, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr REID:
Minister of External Affairs · East Sydney · Free Trade

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr SALMON:
LAANECOORIE, VICTORIA

Mr REID:
Free Trade

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT; IND from 1910

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Hume

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917