A.—4

334

10th Day.] Treaties. [16 June, 1911. Sir WILFRID LAURIER— cont. which is in these words : " That His Majesty's Government be requested to open negotiations with the several Foreign Governments having treaties which apply to the Overseas Dominions with a view to securing liberty for any of those Dominions which may so desire to withdraw from the operation of the treaty without impairing the treaty in respect of the rest of the Empire." This resolution has been before the public for some time, and it has occasioned a good many comments in the Press, some of them of rather an adverse character. Some of the articles which I have ' noticed in the Press of London were rather excited ; others were fair and reasonable, and amongst others my attention was called to a historical review in " The Times " issue of Wednesday, June 7th. That is a very fair, and, I think, accurate, and on the whole very impartial, article, though I do not agree with the conclusion to which it has come. The conclusion to which it has come is summed up in the last paragraphs, and it is as follows : —" Obviously, Sir Wilfrid Laurier's new resolution, although in a sense it only carries on the policy of Lord Salisbury's Government in 1897, conflicts absolutely with the principle upon which that policy was based. The principle of commercial unity, for the sake of which Lord Salisbury denounced the German and Belgian treaties, and which is manifestly essential to the maintenance of Imperial co-operation, would have to be abandoned if the Governments of the Empire of their own accord decided to adopt separate systems of commercial relations with foreign Powers. Denunciation of the existing most-favoured-nation treaties, even if followed by their resumption on terms, allowing Canada or any other Dominion to stand out when it so desired, could only have the gravest results, since it would destroy for good and all the principle of commercial unity within the Empire re-established by Lord Salisbury and since accepted by the United States." The author of this article has forgotten the circumstances which brought forth this motion of which I gave notice. Our colleagues from Australia represented that the Commonwealth had passed some years ago a preferential tariff to be applied to British products, but to British products only coming through in British bottoms, but they found themselves debarred from proceeding with their intention on account of some old treaties which did not admit of the intention which they had. In other words, His Majesty's Government could not allow this trade to be carried out exclusively in British bottoms, because the same preference, I imagine, would have been claimed by other nations. Therefore, the Commonwealth of Australia finds itself to-day in exactly the same position in which the Government of Canada found itself in 1897 when it introduced the policy of preferential tariffs. We were determined to give to the products of the Mother Country in our markets a preferential tariff ; but we found that, by some existing treaties with Germany and Belgium, we could not extend that privilege to the Mother Country unless, under those treaties, Germany and Belgium were also permitted to participate. Upon our representations these treaties were denounced. To-day the Commonwealth of Australia is in exactly the same position. It wants to give preferential treatment to the products of the Mother Country when they are brought in British ships, but they find they are debarred from carrying out this intention on account of some old treaties. Those who object to this Resolution to-day cannot object to that aspect of it. But it is asserted, on the other hand, that the same privileges may be claimed by the other Dominions which, like Canada, may suffer from the treaties in which there is a stipulation as to the most-favoured-nation treatment. Well, it is a poor rule which does not work both ways, and if it works advantageously in one case it ought to work advantageously in each case. No one can object to Australia, if it chooses, giving the preference which it wants to give, and limiting it to the products carried in British bottoms, and everybody would agree if there is a treaty which prevents Australia from carrying out that intention—which I would call a very laudable intention —it ought not to stand any more in the way of that intention than the treaties with Germany and Belgium in 1897 were allowed to stand against Canada. But, on the other hand, there are treaties with other nations, it is stated, in which there is a stipulation which goes to say that any preference given by one Dominion must be extended to those nations. There are 12 of these treaties existing to-day as far as Canada is concerned. I have not them all at the present time at