Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. SATURDAY, MAY 11, 1901. COMMERCIAL SUPREMACY.

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 11 May 1901, Page 2

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. SATURDAY, MAY 11, 1901. COMMERCIAL SUPREMACY.

, A eeci'xt speech delivered by the I Marquis of Salisbury at a meeting of 3 the London Chamber of Commerce, ■ read side by side with an utterance • delivered by Mr Soddon at Hokitika a ' week ago, affords ample evidence of ' the different-views statesmen take of matters. The subject dealt with is British and Colonial commercial supremacy. At Hokitika Mr Seddou said :—“ It is with some diffidence at ) the present juncture I suggest that in respect to trade, commerce and in- . dusky, etc., a Loyal Commission ' should be set up, and that on such a [ Royal Commission Canada, India, Australia, and New Zealand should be represented. At the present time : there is a serious and dangerous war proceeding. It is a war of commerce and industries, and I am bound to confess that in this battle we are being worsted. The seriousness of the situation has not yet been sufficiently recognised in the Mother Country, and unless some change takes ter must overtake the Empire. 'lake the importation of manufactured goods into the colonies from Germany, America, and other countries. They are gradually but surely increasing. It is no fault of the colonies, as we prefer to obtain our goods from Great llritain and to keep our trade and cimmcrcc within ourselves. But the British manufacturer must give us

what we want and when it is wanted. There seems to be a lack of enterprise on the part of the I British manufacturer. Time after time wo have been . forced to obtain, against our wills, goods from other countries. British territory and population are increasing far more in relative proportion than their output of the Britishmanufactured article. Great Britain is lagging behind in commerce, industry, and technical education. She is slow to move. But there can be no doubt that at the root of the success of German and American manufacturers at the present time is the educational—scientific and industrial—question ; and they are far ahead of Groat Britain in these respects.” Here then is an aspect of the problem generally accepted by the colonies and by a very large section of British authorities, but certainly not by Britain’s Chief Minister. In an address, Lord Salisbury almost ridicules the “ repeated assertion ” that Germany and America are over-reaching us. He declared that “ if ho trusted to public discussion, he should imagine that the trade of England was in a very decadent condition—that she was being beaten by competitors all over the world, and had nothing to look forward to but a rapid and irremediable descent into obscurity. He did not find, however, when he met members of the “ commercial princedom of England,” that any such feeling oppressed them. The spectre of Germany did not drive them off their level and induce them to despair of their country. All that was heard, he thought, of iho German or other rivalry must take its origin in the necessity which fertile and inventive writers found in producing copy than from any real foundation in the fact. Lord Salisbury after discussing the question at great length and accepting for sake of argument that decadence w r as visible—which, however, ho stoutly denied—asked if it was not permissible to conceive that the fault might bo, not in a Parliament that meddled too little, but in a Parliament that meddled too much ?

It was possible, he went on to say, that conditions were a good deal affected by the attitude of Capital, as well as the attitude of Labor. “ Capital may have its strikes as well as labor.” If the sources of capital were dried up—the constant supply which in past generations had been directed to the work of industry—if by the undue action of parliamentary interference the investment of capital should be deterred, evil would be brought about, and a general decay of industries, which no subsequent exertions could wipe out. The “splendid prosperity ” of the country, if it should lose the vigilance and care by which it was formerly nurtured, might pass away in the decay in which other nations have been plunged.” It will bo noted that Mr lleddon declares there arc signs of decay, which the State must at once take steps to stay, while Lord Salisbury denies decay, but declares if any decay is visible it is due to too much legislation on the matter, and that less meddling will prove beneficial. In this matter Mr .Seddon champions the Socialistic and advanced views of the times; Lord Salisbury the Conservative ideas of to-day if not those of the past generation. We certainly prefer the doctrines of New Zealand’s Premier in this matter.