The Dominion. TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 1919. EMPIRE TRADE POLICY

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 231, 24 June 1919, Page 4

The Dominion. TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 1919. EMPIRE TRADE POLICY

Within the last few days the question of British trade policy has been discussed from diametrically opposed standpoints by Mr. Asquith and by Mn. W. M. Hughes, Prime Minister of AustraliaEven those who, are least inclined to be dogmatic on the subject, and those who are unable to approve the tendency to hector the Mother Country, toHvhich Mr. Hughes is prone, will perhaps agree that the Commonwealth Pri'me_ Minister directly faced vital issues which Mr. Asquith obviously evaded. If the main -features of the speech in which he opened the Free.-tradc campaign in Great Britain are correctly indicated in the brief report cabled, Mr. Asqui'th relied upon an assertion that the ' Free-trade system "had triumphantly • borne the supreme test of the greatest war in history," and denounced the "minute and pettifogging" preference proposals submitted by the Chancellor in the Budget as the first instalment of Protection. At -a time when the utmost economy in administration was needed, and the greatest possible development in production, it would be a mistake, he declared, to hamper British trade and tariffs. Judging by some of his recent speeches, of which extended reports are available, there is no reason to suppose that Mr. Asquith dealt with his subject from any broader standpoint than the cabled report suggests. So much assumed, it would appear that as regards the definition of his attitude towards the Imperial issues raised, what he had to say on the occasion referred to was much less important and significant than what he left unsaid. Speaking on the previous day, Mr. Hughes had asked Britain to decide definitely for or against a policy which would give certitude in labour, finance, and industry; to decide also whether the Germans were to be helped or permitted to resume trade with Britain as they did before the war. Unless (lie said) a definite policy were adopted, which would give "nritish inanufacturers i preference in their, home markets, and give the oversea Dominions' raw material a larger market within the Empire, not only would Tmporial trade suitor, but th° Einnire would tend to disintegrate. The Dominions were passionately attached to the Emoire, and did not hold the view that - "Empire" was another name for Britain. An economic policy which did not recognise this would destroy the Empire. Mr. Asquith apparently meets these questions by refusing to admit- that they are raised in ' any practical sense. His whole anxiety seems to be to secure the full reestablishment of the policy of unrestricted exchange of commodities which found favour in Britain before the war. That policy admittedly enabled Britain to amass a vast amount of wealth, but it at the same time went ha;>cl-in-hand with a loose organisation, of industry which gave free scope to German | economic penetration, and with a total neglect of the possibilities that are still open of consolidating the Empire- by fostering inter-Imperial trade. A large proportion of the people of Great Britain, as well as those .of the Dominions, now realise, it is to be hoped, that a reversion to pre-war trade conditions is utterly inconsistent with the future welfare and stability of the Empire, but Mr. Asquith- ifj cheerfully oblivious on the point, It is true that in some of his recent utterances .he has so far recognised the 'existence of Imperial interests as to speak with approval of the report_ of the Dominions Royal Commission. Speaking at London, on April 11, he said in part— Let me say at once that we are as sincerely anxious as any body of politicians tn bind more closely the ties, material as well as, sentimental, which unite an Empire whoso common sympathies and aspirations have been made still more intimate by the efforts and sacrifices of the war. The year More the war we appointed the British Dominions Commission. which, after, a local survey of every part of .the Empire, presented in March. 1917, a report full of practical recommendations and suggestions, to many of which, I hope, now that the war is over, steps will lie taken to give speedy effect. Having conceded so much, however, the Liberal leader was in haste to add that he saw no more reason than he had ever done for thinking "that by a policy of tariffs you will cither increase your income, or benefit your trade, or cement ,your Empire." His final observation on the subject was that th 6 self-governing Dominions had rightly been set free to choose and follow their own fiscal systems, and that Britain claimed, and none of the_ Dominions would deny her claim, the same freedom for herself. The striking feature of Mn. Asquitii's treatment of the question of Imperial preference is his persistent refusal to recognise that there are questions affecting the -Empire as a whole upon the settlement of which the futuro fate of all its units depends. In spite of •what he lias to say about the recommendations of the Dominions Commission, his contention that tariffs are in no ease to be tolerated in Britain is simply an assertion that the Mother Country must continue to treat the Dominions in a vital respect on precisely the same footing as foreign countries, including those responsible for the war which has shaken Europe*'to its foundations. Obviously, if this contention found favour in.Great Britain there would be an end not only to Imperial preference, but to the effective organisation of the Empire. To those who are able to view the issues raised dispassionately and in their full proportions, tariffs are only an item in the new order that

is demanded. Much may be done to foster development on Imperial lines by direct ' organisation and planned co-operation, by common measures for the control of transport, the exclusion of foreign mono-polies,-the concentration of surplus British capital and labour upon the development of oversea resources, and in other ways. ■ But it is impossible to believe that those who start back in dismay at the.mention of a tariff are in any effective sense desirous of fostering a maximum development of trade within the Empire. Manifestly they lack a sense of proportion._ What they are asked toU'ecognisc is that a departure from Free-trade principles may be comparatively unimportant when spt against the organisation of a largely interdependent Empire. jThcy reply, in -. effect, that any proposal aiming at Imperial organisation is heretical if.it' contemplates interference with the existence of an open market in Britain. Mr. Asquith, of course, is amply warranted in assuming that the Dominions will not attempt to dictate a fiscal policy to Britain by pressing for the imposition of duties on food and raw material or in any other way. There need be no hesitation, however, about emphasising the fact that' Mr. Asquith and those who sharfc his views are, advocating a policy of drift, which is quite as much opposed to the special interests of Great Britain as to those of the Empire at large. The deadly perils of hostile foreign penetration which tho war brought to light are hardly of greater weight as dictating a bold revision of British trade policy than the international' conditions that are now taking shape. It_ is i all but universally recognised —it is freely recognised in Britain except by irreconcilable Free-trad-ers—that the times upon which we. are entering imperatively demand the greatest possible perfection of organisation in all forms of corporate and 'national enterprise. The extraordinary argument is sometimes used that the effective organisation of the Empire, with Impel'-, ial preference as an integral feature, would bo resented as an injury and an affront by our'allies in the war. On what grounds America, France; and other countries would resent the adoption by the British Emnire of the policy themselves have long developed consistently and with energy it is impossible to imagine. The real question raised is whether the Empire is to undertake a methodical organisation and development of its resources which will enable it to intelligently order its relations with other countries, or rest content _ with a nolicy of haphazard drifting which may undermine its own unity and render it incapable of distinguishing in matters of trade between friend and foe.