TARIFF PROPAGANDA

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 36, 12 February 1931, Page 8

TARIFF PROPAGANDA

(To the Editor.) . Sir,—ln "The Post" of the 4th and 6th instant there uppeared two communications from your London representative, both displayed under striking headlines, the one an epitomised speech by Mr. Baldwin delivered to "a big gathering of people in Glasgow last week arranged by the Scottish- Unionist Association," and the other by Mr. L. S. Amcry on- 9th December, when he was chief guest at a luncheou given "by the Empire Industries AssociaIt is not a little remarkable that though the Press o£ this country is flooded with Protectionist, propaganda, scarcely a linn is ever published in defence of, Free Trade; indeed it' one were guided by the Press he would conclude that Free Trade is dead in England. Nothing could bs more inglorious than Mr. Baldwin's exhibition when he moved a want of confidence motion in the Mac Donald Government in connection with the Imperial Conference, nor could anything be more emphatic than tlip. condemnatory criticism appearing in the official organs of the Liberal and Labour Parties, but your London correspondent omits to send us anything in that connection. On the face of it nothing could be more ridiculous than Mr. Baldwin's speech which your correspondent evidently selects as a masterpiece of /Protectionist argument. He attacks the Mac Donald Government because they did not accept the "offer" of 'the Colonial Premiers, but as Mr. J. H. Thomas very appositely pointed out from his place in the House, of Commons when he characterised Mr. Bennett's so-called offer as "humbug," Mr. Baldwin himself is pledged against the tax. ation of food. Now the taxation of food is essential, not only to the adoption of. Protection in Britain, but it was the in-' dispensable condition on. which Mr. Bennett made his so-called offer. Accordingly, had Mr. Baldwin himself been in office he could not have entertained the offer in the face o£ his own official pledge at the last General Election. Is it not a little ridiculous for Mr. Baldwin to table a vote of censure on the Government for doing what he himself would have been compelled to do had he been in office? Is it not equally, remarkable that the Press' gives no inkling of the fact.that Mr. Baldwin is pledged just as definitely against the taxation of food as the Mac Donald Government?1 ] . ■, It is interesting to compare*' the speeches of Mr. Baldwin- under, notice, with that which your, correspondent supplies onUie 6th instant as indicating Mr. Amery's vifews., 'Notwithstanding his Protectionist diatribe, ■ Mi:l ■: Baldwin ;■ concludes by admitting that he is in favour of lower tariffs./"l.admit at once," he says, "that high tariffs are a check to trade," and he proceeds to .-justify the adoption of a, tariff in, England on the grounds that the effect would be to compel other countries to reduce their tariffs, .concluding, .with a wistful reference, to.'the'treaty madeiby. Cobden withj.France seventy years ago. Mr. "Amery, oh the other-hand, denounces Free Trade as "a superstition," as ','unintellectual," as "colossal stupidity." How interesting to compare the utterances; of these two leaders of the Tory Party! Neither speaker makes any reference to the fact that Britain's policy of comparative, Free Trade was adopted by a Conservative Government headed by Sir Bobert Peel. After he had won the leadership of the' Conservative Party, Disraeli, himself declared ■ that Protection was "not only dead but damned." Nothing could be more absurd than Mr. Baldwin's reference to the Cobden Treaty, inasmuch.as it was negotiated afteivßritain's policy of Free Trade had come into operation, and accordingly it gives no support to the theory that the adoption of a "tariff is-a condition precedent to fiscal negotiations."—l am, etc., ■ ■ P. J. O'BEGAN. 11th February. , ..