A—s

512

Mr. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Do you include Imperial defence among " Imperial purposes " ' Mr. DEAKIN : Not these Imperial purposes, though that was the original proposal. Mr. Hofmeyr put Imperial defence first. That was afterwards deflected to industrial proposals of this sort, because defence was found to raise a great many difficult questions; even so ardent an enthusiast for Imperial defence as Sir George Sydenham Clarke abandoned that side of the proposal and devoted himself to this kind of proposal. My idea, therefore, is that practically the whole sum contributed by the United Kingdom should be disposed of by the Parliament of the United Kingdom as it approved schemes, speaking roughly, to that extent. Certainly none of its money could be expended on anything else without its consent. Without requiring the fund to be kept to a shilling or a penny, each Parliament would control its own contribution and require to give its own consent to its use. Mr. WINSTON CHURCHILL : Supposing the contributions of any particular parties to this agreement were not expended in a given year. Mr. DEAKIN : Carry them forward. Mr. WINSTON CHURCHILL : Or supposing a proposal was made that they were to be expended in a particular way, and the Parliaments refused to ratify it, the sum would be carried over and roll on. Mr. DEAKIN : Accumulated until some project was arrived at which met with the approval of that particular legislature or until the agreement to make such a levy expired. This is very far from being an Imperial federation, very far from creating a body having authority either to raise money or spend money after it is raised. It is quite apart from any proposition to interfere with self-government. I admit that at once, and also admit that any endeavour to bring about co-operation in this way, when a number of legislatures are concerned, is open to all the criticism suggested by our knowledge of the difficulty of getting them to act together. But we give them at least a means and motive to act together; we bring proposals before them and put the responsibility on the proper shoulders. We enable their electorates to say whether they will refuse to combine for Imperial purposes or not. We cannot do more than appeal to the people and the legislatures, and put the responsibility on those who decline to co-operate. As it seems to me, the great value of this proposition or any similar proposition is first, that it points to action, and next, to practical action. It favours immediate action, and if that action is not taken and that co-operation is not brought about, it puts the responsibility on the right shoulders. Let us know which are the peoples who refuse to act and why they refuse to act with their kindred. These are business propositions, and will have no Darty character. To cheapen a cable or make a new cable, establish or not establish a new line of steamers, are business propositions which do not involve any party quarrel between the legislatures or parties concerned. They can only say, " this is not "sufficiently remunerative; that is not sufficiently practical; we are paying " too much for it; here is a better scheme." The whole consideration would turn upon questions of pounds, shillings, and pence. Such projects would not involve fiscal policy or impair self-government, but provide a means for common action, and in that way bring pressure to bear in favour of action I do not discuss who pays the tax, how proportions are to be established, or

Fourteenth Day 9 May 1907.

Imperial Surtax on - Foreign Imports.