417

A—s

Mr. ASQUITH : The wine and rum accounts for it. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : How is it explained ? Mr. DEAKIN : The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given the explanation that our wines and spirits—rum particularly—are highly dutiable articles. Nevertheless, it brings out some differences in trade which are rather interesting. It seemed to me that it would be undesirable that the very striking address of your colleague, the Under-Secretary of State, should pass without notice from our point of view, both because it merited criticism in itself, and because it offers so much temptation. May Ibe permitted to say, first, that among the subjects upon which we hesitate to enter are discussions of the methods of business in the House of Commons, of which, I am sure, Mr. Churchill is a master. It strikes me, as an outer barbarian, that it is rather extraordinary even to suggest that the business of the Empire and its transactions, instead of being dealt with on their merits, and sought for their advantages, are to be limited in order that they may not clash with the procedure maintained in the Mother of Parliaments. As I have said, what that procedure may lack is not for us to discuss; but one would suppose that the efforts of members of that most distinguished of all Parliaments would tend to shape their means of handling their business so as to meet the demands of the Empire. Surely it ought not to be considered an impediment of a serious character that, owing to the way in which budgets may be dealt with in the House of Commons, the introduction of any further financial issues is to be prohibited because they might involve delay and possible friction. I merely mention this to suggest that the remedy ought to be applied to the procedure, and not to the business of the country. Passing from that, may I say that a similar argument was pushed even further in the direction of what appears to me, with all respect, an artificial plea, that no preference is possible unless it is complete, uniform, and scientifically perfect. All I can say is that I have never yet seen a tariff, and never expect to, that I have never yet seen a budget, anel never expect to, in any country of the world, which fulfils those conditions. Of course the ideal is one towards which it is desirable to direct attention. Assuredly the method we pursue in Australia, with which I do not profess to be enamoured, is open to very serious comment if that high standard be maintained. We have a tariff which is very defective, and is about to be revised this year, which will continue defective after its revision, and will never be absolutely uniform, or by any means complete. It will be simply the best rule-of-thumb arrangement we can devise. We have a parallel and related bounty system, which I cite in this connection because it may be perhaps more properly contrasted with our proposals for preferential trade. Our bounty system at the present time is merely a rudimentary tentative proposal, covering perhaps some dozen particular interests which the Parliament of the Commonwealth believes it to be profitable to foster. The treatment we are proposing of the cultures to be encouraged is not, and cannot be, made uniform, and is not, and cannot be, made complete. I am not arguing against completeness or against uniformity. We all realise that those are ends to be kept in view, but if we are to delay action until those are achieved we should wait for ever in each and all of our business enterprises. In matters of trade, speaking for ourselves, with our limitations of knowledge, we have no great faith in abstract or even in concrete doctrines, because the fluctuations of commerce are continuous, and our knowledge of them varies so much from, date to date. There are hundreds of different factors, to which Mr. Churchill himself graphically alluded, that come into play irregularly or unexpectedly, and we recognise that these require to be

Twelfth Day. 7 May 1907.

Preferential Trade.

54—A. 5.