The Dominion. MONDAY, MARCH 27, 1916. TRADE AFTER THE WAR

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2730, 27 March 1916, Page 4

The Dominion. MONDAY, MARCH 27, 1916. TRADE AFTER THE WAR

As his habit is,- Me. Lloyd George spoke frankly and to the ppint whjn the subject of trade relations alter the war was raised in the House of Commons a day or two ago. The immediate topic of the debate inaugurated by Sir Henry Dimikl was the briefing of the British delegates to the impending Paris Conference, but Mil. Lloyd George's speech on that occasion did more to clear up and define the attitude of the Imperial Government, towards the question of post-war trade than had been done by any preceding Ministerial utterance. _ Tne speech cannot be regarded as, in the ordinary sense, a policy statement, but it was in some respects_ remarkably definite and decided in tone, and calculated to sweep, away uncertainty regarding the present attitude of the Imperial Government towards questions of post-war trade. As a leading member of the Government, Mr. .Lloyd George no doubt spoke with full authority, and his speech was remarkable, not for the emphasis he laid upon the necessity of carefully considering the circumstances and conditions fyj which trade policy must be adjusted after the war, but' because of the very decided stand he took in regard to some of tho essential principles at stake. On the subject of trade relations in general he prescribed caution and deliberation, but he ignored his .own counsel in-discuss-ing the broad outlines of an afterwar trade policy. . His statement -that there cannot be a return to the condition of things that.existed before the war is so carefully qualified as to be largely robbed of the meaning it would have coming from such an exponent of Imperial policy as, say, Mr. W. M. Hu&hes. Mr. Lloyd George is careful to explain that he does not desire to see a system of tariffs, or rival commercial federations, which simply perpetuate the war. . Measures must be ta.ken, he rccogniste, to check 'that form of German enterprise which consisted in building up industries, not with a view to trade, but with a view to war, but at the same time he insists that in considering the question of trade, the first thing to do is to obliterate any idea of revenge. To many people it will seem that the questions Mr. Lloyd George has left open are much less important than those upon which he has. taken a stand that can fairly be called dogmatic. The full importance of the Minister's speech will, of Course, only appear when it has been_ shown whether an effective majority in the Imperial Parliament is prepared to endorse the limits he has set down. If this support is assured it _ would seem that Great Britain is likely to adopt an after-war trade policy which will not completely satisfy either her Allies or her own Dominions. The reluctance manifested by Mr. Lloyd George, .as spokesman for the Imperial Government, to. entering upon a commercial contest with Germany after the war, can hardly be said to exist in France or Russia or in tho British Dominions. On the contrary the prevailing sentiment in these Allied countries and in the Dominions seems to be that a strong and aggressive policy '■■. directed against German trade will be the natural sequel t-o the war. It is widely felt that such a policy is necessary not as a means of obtaining rovenge, but bccausc Germany in the past has fostered trade with an eye to war, and, given the opportunity, may do it again. Mr. Lloyd George himself directs attention to the craft with which Germany in the past has built up many industries with a view to war, but ho considers that tho evil and the danger are to be met by special measures. He does not say so in so many words, but the inference is warranted by his expressed opposition to a system of tariffs or rival commercial federations.

From the standpoint of the Dominions, the pronouncement of the Minister of Munitions is one which gives much more profitable food for thought than some even more confident and decidedly more enthusiastic utterances which have been given prominence of late. It need not be pretended, of course, that the situation ' as between the Mother Country and the Dominions in regard to arranging an after-war trade policy has taken absolutely clear and definite shape. But Mn. Lloyd George has done a good deal to give form to the situation, anc! in doing so has pretty thoroughly, swept away any idea that only a round-table conference or two is needed- to,pave the way for the establishment of a common trade policy for tho whole Empire, and so lead on by easy gradations to tho closer organic union about which

there has been a good deal of talk. As matters stand two possibilities nrc open. Either the' views so frankly expressed by Mjt. Lloyd George will be endorsed by an effective majority of both main parties in British politics or the dissent of one party will lead to a, party split. Id. the first alternative, the Mother Country and the Dominions might find themselves somewhat at variance in the matter of trade policy. In the event of. a party split an agreement between Great Britain and the Dominions on trade policy would lose must of its value, even if tho faction favouring an aggressive policy gained the upper hand, since the agreement would bo dependent on the success of- a political party and not on the will of a united nation. The fact, however, that the question is beset with, difficulties does not justify a policy of inaction. It merely points to tho necessity for proceeding with caution towards the desired end.