FREE TRADE

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 31, 6 February 1931, Page 17

FREE TRADE

A STRONG ATTACK

MR, AMEEY.ON WARPATH

(From "The Post's" Representative.) LONDON, 9th December. At a luncheon given by the Empire' Industries' Association to-day, . the Eight Hon. L. S. Amory, who was the chief guest, made a very effective attack upoa Preo Trade. During the past few weeks he has evidently had the matter much in. mind, and some of the points which he made are new. Sir Henry Page Croft, Bt., presided. In proposing the toast of,"Our Guest, 3? the chairman said that i^lr. Amery had been one of the founders of the association in 1923.' Though it was started in a small way, the association had now so impressed upon the politicians of the country the desirableness of saving tho homo markets and of Empire economic unity that the great political force of tho Conservative Party had adopted their slogan, "A free hand in securing tho Home markets, and a free hand in bringing about the economic unity of the Empire." There was a very great change in the political situation, even in the past two or threo weeks. A section of tho Labour Party, led by Sir Oswald Mosley, had diagnosed the national disease in exactly the same manner as their association had done ten years ago. Not only had they diagnosed the disease but they regarded the association's remedies as the only ones they could adopt. Ho b'elievod that the umbrolla. of tho association was sufficiently large for members of all political parties to come under. There was no time to waste \t they would achieve their object and save the Empire from disaster. They could only do this if all nion of good will would strive together. Mr. Amery explained that after the 1923 election the Empire Industries Association had been formed to implement in the field of action that great constructive policy ho had always believed to be essential to the progress of this country. But tho idea went back to 1903, when Joseph Chamberlain preached the doctrine that only by creating common economic bonds could tho British Empire be kept together. T,hal was, the .motive, pf th,e association —to keep that policy before the country and to work till wo dropped of until that policy was carried through. They believed that tho Enrpiio was doomed to dissolution unless they created new bonds of unity to take the place of the old bonds of military and naval power. At the Imperial Conferenco of 1926 nothing was done to create new bonds. At tho Conference of 1930 the Govornmont of this country had met with contemptuous refusal tho Dominion's suggestions to replace the old bonds, and so prevent tho Empire from drifting apart. Nothing could be dono until this country broke away from the Tree Trade superstitution, for, 'after all, Free Trade did rcfuso to recognise thcro was any community of interest between the citizens of this country or the Empire which could bo expressed in itself. Free Trade was begun as a. disruptive influence. Cobden himself had said that tho colonies could never be got rid of without tho process _ of freo trade which would imperceptibly loosen the bonds which bound them under a mistaken motive of self-interest. Providence, however, had watched over tho Empire, even in its moments of folly. COST OF FREE TRADE. What had Free Trade cost us? asked " Mr. Amery. Free Trade in England had destroyed agriculture. In Ireland it .had destroyed a ' whole community. There was no doubt that this compulsory Free Trade reinforced by religious and national passions had brought about the, break-up of the United Kingdom. Look at India! There was no doubt the enforced Freo Trade there; had destroyed tie older native industries and prevent* cd' any further industrial: development in India itself. It was?"now too late' to save -the- world's -greatest marketj India, at any rate, until a very different*tenvper had.ariaen in Indian affairs. Free Trade was founded on the principle of the plea of the first murderer, "Am I my brother's keeper?" It was an appeal -to individual selfishness. The great new dyestuff industry was to be jettisoned because its protection meant a small sacrifice on the part of the textile industries. Yet it had been clearly shown that if. dye was 6d a 1b more because of protection—and there was no possibility of this —-it would mean only an extra l^d placed upon a whole suit of clothes. The principle of Free Trade was unintellectual. It was made up of the shallowest generalisations. It was colossal stupidity. How weak and how futile wore the ordinary arguments upon which Free Trade was based. None of them could bear analysis in face of the living processes of industry. Free Trade was not only unintellectual, but it bred unin^ telligence in tho nation. It killed col^l lective thought and national thought with regard to industry. The FreQ Trader very naturally said: "Why think at all when we can buy the rer suits of other people's thoughts ready made? Why produce chemists when you can buy the products of other poople's'thinking at a farthing less per pound?" The'deadly paralysis of' Free Trade killed though* and killed action; They had to get rid of it immediately. They had a great work beforo thorn to educate the nation, and they could not afford to fail. ■