The Press. Monday, April. 9, 1917. Imperial Preference.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 15870, 9 April 1917, Page 6

The Press. Monday, April. 9, 1917. Imperial Preference.

One of the most striking results of the, wurjs the manner in which it has converged staunch freetraders in England inio advocates of Imperial preference. The case of tho "Spectator" is not the least remarkable, but is fairly typical of what we hear. Our readers will remember that at the election of 1906 when "Mr Balfour reluotantly gave way and consented to embody a modifiod form of Mr Chamberlain's Imperial preference policy in his platform, the "Spectator" was so horrified that it advised its readers to voto for the Radical party, headed by Sir H. Camp-bell-Bannerman, although it was opposed to nearly every important plankin tho policy of the latter except freetrade. Its theory then was that if England could only be saved from a protectionist policy nothing else really mattered. It is true that it afterwards weakened in this view when Mr Lloyd George produced his famous Budget and Sir Asquith proceeded to ; ' emasculate the House of Lords, but that it was quite sincere in the advice it gave at the time, and even perceptibly relieved when Mr Balfour and tho party it had already supported were dismissed from office is. we think, beyond question, the war, as we havo said, has changed many things, and "inter alia" it has changed many English freetraders, including tho Editor of the "Spectator," into believers in Imperial preference. Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Committee on Commercial and Industrial Policies included some leading freetraders, yet, after.mature consideration. it came to the following conclusions which, in tho form of resolutions. have been issued as a Whito Paper:— • . "(1) In tho light of experience gained during the war wo consider -that special steps must be taken to atisralate the production of food-

stuffs, raw materials, and manufactured articles within tho Empire wherever the expansion of production is possible and economically desirable for the safety and welfare of the Empire as a whole. . "(2) "We therefore recommend "that H.M. Government should now declare their adherence to tho principle that preference should bo accorded to the products and manufactures of tho British Overseas Dominions in respect of any Customs duties now or hereafter to bo imposed on imports into the United Kingdom. "(3) Further, it will, in our opinion, be necessary to take into early consideration as ono of vlie methods of achieving the above objects a wider range of Customs duties which would be remitted or reduced on the products and manufactures of tho Empire, and which would form the basis- of commercial treaties with Allied and neutral Powers."

A more complete justification and practical endorsement of Mr Chamberlain's policy could not ho imagined. In fact, if that great and far-seeing statesman could havo had tho drafting of tho resolutions, he would probably have been quito content to accept them as they stand. Tho "Spectator" very frankly admits its conversion, and gives its reasons. It now regards tho three resolutions, which it heartily accepts, as forms of national defence. It still holds, apparently, that th'ey derogate from tho pure economic principles which give wealth to nations. But " Security is moro than opulence." Even Mr Chamberlain probably did not foresee how important was his policy from the point of view of national defence. Ho did not realise that, even although wo might retain the command of tho sea, to tho extent of keeping the enemy's capital ships bottled up in port, our supplies of food and raw material could bo seriously interfered with by submarino attacks conceived and carried out by a foe having no regard for international law, or the most elementary dictates of humanity. Tho " Spectator" accordingly comes to tho conclusion that:— Whether wo like, it or 7iot, and whother or not it will diminish tho total wealth of the countrv, we haYO got either to run risks which the , Power-House of the Empire has no right to run, or else greatly induce our dependence for our daily bread on soa-borno supplies. Our islands are too small and too 'thickly-populat-ed to grow all our food supplies, but we can and must, through methods of intensive cultivation and the payment of subsidies to agriculture m some form or other, greatly diminish the risks of ever again becoming a beleaguered city.

Tho second resolution—that in favour of preference—is also regarded by our contemporary as being based on. the "state of siege" argument. The war has taught us that we must not again be at the mercy of neutrals—i.e., subject to the risk, of such Powers being intimidated by our enemies. We must make the Empire as -well as the British Islands as nearly as possible self-sup-porting and self-sufficient for its own needs in time of war. The third resolution, in favour of a widor range of Customs duties, is assented to by tho " Spectator," first, bccauso of 'the necessity for malting tho whole population of the country- share in tho burden of tho war expenditure, and secondly, because it realises that a wider range of duties is necessary if Great Britain is to havo the tariff material to enable hor to make concessions to her Allies and to hor Dominions. Lord Balfour's Committee stated very plainly that, although to some of them "measures "which may act in restraint of trado " are in tho abstract distasteful," they thought it necessary, for tho unity of tho Empire, "a serious attempt should "now be made to meet the declared "wishes of the Dominions and Colo"nioB for the development of their "economic relations with the United "Kingdom." It may be taken for granted, wo think, that one of the results of the Imperial Conference about to be held will be the adoption of some scheme of Imperial preference on the very lines that Mr Charaborlain desired.