FREE TRADE AND EMPIRE

Hokitika Guardian, 2 November 1929, Page 6

FREE TRADE AND EMPIRE

(Auckland Star.)

Toward the end of .June, Lord Beaverbook, one of the most powerful o! British newspaper proprietors, created a. .sensation by publicly announcing in the “Sunday Express” that though lie bad hitherto neglected the duty of promoting the unification ol the Empire, he now proposed to devote himself to this great task. A ifortnight later he endorsed Lord Alelchott’s dictum that “ Free Trade within the Empire is not an unattainable ideal,” and proceeded to argue that it would be possible to bind the Empire together more closely than ever by the ties of common material interest if Britain’s traditional, prejudice . against import duties were once allayed.

With characteristic energy Lord Bea verb rook has already organised a movement on the lines that his letters have indicated. Last July he quoted with approval a statement by Air Reginald AlcKenna that “he would he willing to concede a tax on foreign wheat and meat if we could obtain free entry for bur goods to the markets of the Dominions and the Colonies.” This is the objective towards . which these “ Empire Crusaders ” are now supposed to be working; and their manifesto, which has just been published in Canada, discloses their purposes and in general terms their methods.

The keynote of the new Imperial po 1 - icy is that “ food ifroin the Empire shall enter Britain absolutely free and unhampered.” But to provide Britain with an adequate food supply, the agriculturists and pastoralis'ts of the Empire must he encouraged to enlarge their

output, and this can be effected only by providing for them a secure footing and a permanent demand in the British market. This means the practical exclusion of their foreign competitors, and this can he done by “imposing a tax on foreign wheat and meat,” in return for which tlie Dominions are to admit British goods into their markets duty (free. This programme is, in effect, a revival of the proposal for Imperial Reciprocity "which Air Chamberlain advocated a generation ago, and though Lord Boaverbrook cannot claim originality for his scheme, he deserves credit forbiis cdurage in resuscitating the movement.

It is obvious at tlie outset that one of tlie great difficulties is the proposed import duty on foreign'food supplies. It is true, as Air Chamberlain showed 27 years ago, that’ tlie increased production of the Empire would ensure a fall in food prices; that the Dominions could afford to sell their food products at a lower price and yet make a great profit on an enlarged turnover; and that the British consumer, could afford to pay even a higher, price 'for food, if that were necessary, oil the assumption that a tax on foreign'lmports improved British industrial conditions, provided more employment and distributed more purchasing power among the workers. Yet the traditional dislike to food taxes at Home represents an obstacle that may still prove insurmountable. On the Other hand, Lord Boaverbrook and his friends seem to have under-estimated' the difficulties involved in any attempt to remove protective duties in the Dominions. It Is easy to say that tlie Crusaders do not propose “to destroy any industry now existing in any part of the Empire.” But it will he virtually impossible to persuade the colonial worker and the colonial manufacturer that the protective duties by which their industries have been built up should now be reduced or abolished to suit Britain’s needs. With all respect for Lord Beaverbrook’s intentions, we cannot see that his policy Inis even as good a chance of success as the Chamberlain programme which failed 25 years ago.