EMPIRE’S TRADE.

Gisborne Times, Volume X, Issue 998, 17 September 1903, Page 3

EMPIRE’S TRADE.

VABIOUS COMMENTS.

By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright London, Sept. 15. Tho Standard deprecates any Ministerial resignations, and declares it would bo needless and inasmuch as moasures to meet tho unfair damping of foreign produots into Britain are not an attack on froetrado, while the increasing critical foroign situation and urgency of army reform demand the energies of a strong united Cabinet. It adds that tho question of a preferential tariff does not press for immediate solution. Moanwhilo Ministers cannot act loyally together in Council if Conducting a campaign against one anothor in tho constituencies. It warns them of the risk of re-opening tho breach and precipitating a formidable secession and revolt.

Sir Michaol Hicks Beach, replying to an Irish correspondent, declared that ho could not imagine how tho fiscal proposals could benefit Irish produco, aiming as they did at the United Kingdom's food supplies, coming not from home sources but from the colonios, instoad of from foreign countries. • Tho Birmingham Post declares there will bo no immediate Cabinet crisis. Sir H. C. Bannerman, acknowledging a resolution adopted at tho recent conference of 00-operativo societies in Glasgow against accepting Mr Chamborlain’s suggested offor of old age pensions, contingent upon tho acceptance of a pro forential tariff, said the protest of the leaders of the working class was a shot against the Government from a Long Tom.

Mr Asquith, in acknowledging tho re solution, rojoiced at the emphatic condem nation of the attempt to revive tho shibboleth of protection.

OPINIONS OF PPBIME MINISTER CHANGING CONDITION OF TRADE By Telegraph. Presß Association. Copyright ' Received 12.15 a.m., Sept. 17 London, Sept. 16. As a prelude to the speech he will deliver at Sheffield on October Ist Mr Balfour’s notes thereon wore circulated amongst his collouguos at the beginning of August, and have since been published in a 62 page pamphlet entitled, 11 Economic Notes on Insular Freetrade.” He approaches the subject from a Freetrade standpoint, but objects to rigid classification of tho world into protectionists and freetraders. A collision, he says, is possible botwoen freetrado and larg r issues. Freetrade is a perfect system tor an ideal world whoreiu capital and labor flow freely to places whore profits are greatest and wages highest, but labor 13 not fluid and capital viscous. Nations, as wo know them economically, are possible only bocause for various reasons mankiud is both unable and unwilling to turn tho natural resoureos of the world to tho best oconomic account. Recognising tho general truth that there is no pro established harmony between economic world interests and national well-being, we must accept provisionally tho view that the character of our fiscal policy should vary according to varying circumstances. The fight which, as far as Britain is concerned, ended in 1816, was a fight over on economic theory, and between two opposing ideals supported by rival interests. • Tho quostiou of 1816 was whether England was to become a mere manufacturing or agricultural country, and maintain atj whatever cost her ancient predominance. The country rightly decided in favor of the first alternative, but this was only realisable on two conditions, first that as luxuries and necessaries must be imported large exports were necessary to pay for them. Second, that sufficient capital was always forthcoming for home investment to provide employment for a growing urban population. The reformers committed two mistakes. They failed fully to see the world’s rejection of freetrade, and did not reckon the probabilities of the Empire. Had they given us Imperial freetrade, the protective tendencies of foreigners would be of secondary importance. He next discussed whether a fiscal system suited to a freetrade nation in a world of freetraders remains suited in every detail to a freetrade nation in a world of proteotionists. We must consider not what is, but what is to be. There is a possibility irr many directions of losing freetrade territories, and the absence of tho probability of gaining that. Excluding coal and machinery, ho argued that tho diminution of our exports was not merely relative but absolute. Their rate of increase, as a whole, had seriously diminished. Discussing a foreign trust aiming at full employment of plant for the greatest economy of production with a view to obtaining a footing in foreign markets, he shows that protection provides on assured basis of a home market whereon to work. Why a similar policy should not be open to the manufacturer of a free trade country is booauso froo trade makes it difficult for him to obtain control of the horns markets, without whioh he was unable to fix a lo.v foreign and high domestic prico. Mr Balfour says that Great Britain is unable to secure a concession towards freer exchange except by appealing to self interest, or in case of the colonies to self interest and sentiment oombined. It is imperative that Britain should recover liberty to do to foreign nations what they do to each other, not appsal to theories they wholly disbelieve, but in tn 9 case of fisoal inducements they thoroughly understand. •