NEED OF COMMON ECONOMIC BONDS

Hokitika Guardian, 24 January 1931, Page 6

NEED OF COMMON ECONOMIC BONDS

DEADLY PARALYSIS OF FREE TRADE.

LONDON, December 9.

Aj, a luncheon given by the Empire Industries Association the Right lion. L. S. Amory, who was (lie chief guest, made a very effective attack upon the fetish of Free trade. During the past few weeks lie lias evidently had the matter much iu mind, and some of ITio points which he made are entirely new. Sir FI on cry Page Groff, Hart., presided.

In proposing the toast ol “Our Guest,,” the chairman said that Mr Amery had boon one ol the lounders of the association in 1923. Though it was started in a small way, the association had now so impressed upon tlio politicians of the country the desirableness of saving the home markets and of Empire economic unity that the greatest political force ol the Conservative Party had adopted their slogan, “A free hand in sccur'ng the home markets, and a free hand rn bringing about tho economic unity o'l the Empire.” There was a very gieat change in the political situation, even in the past two or three weeks. A section of the Labour Party, led by feu Oswald Mosley had diagnosed the national disease in exactly the same manner as their association had done 10 years ago. Not only had they diagnosed the disease, hut they regarded the association’s remedies as the only ones they could adopt. He believed that the umbrella of the assocratton was sufficiently large for members or' all political parties to come under. There was no time to waste if they would achieve' their object and save the Empire from disaster. They could only do this if all men of goodwill would strive together.

Mr Amery explained that after the 1923 election the Empire Industries Association ha dbeeti lormed to implement in the field ot action that gieat constructive policy he had always believed to be essential to the progress of this country. But the idea went hack to .1903, when Joseph Chamberlain preached the doctrine that only by creating common economic bonds could the British Empire be kept together. That was the motive of the association —to keep that policy before the country and to work till we dropped or until that policy was carried through. They believed that the Epipire was doomed to dissolution unless they created new bonds of unity to take the place of the old bonds of military and naval uower.

At the Imperial Conference ot 192(1 nothing was done to create new bonds At Llie conference of 1930 the Government of this country bad met with contemptuous refusal the dominion’s suggestions to replace the old bonds, and so prevent the Empire from drifting apart. Nothing could he done until this country broke away irom the Free Hade superstition, for, after all, Free trade did refuse to recognise there was any community of interest between the citizens of this country nr the Empire which could he expressed itself. .Free trade was begun ns

i, disruptive influence. Cobden himself had said that the colonies could never he got rid o'f without the process of Free trade, which would imperceptibly loosen the bonds which hounds them under a mistaken motive of selfinterest. Providence, however, had watched over the Empire, even in its moments ol lolly.

COST OF FREE Tli ADD. What had Free trade cost us? asked Ah- .Vinery. Free trade in England had destroyed agriculture. In Ireland it had destroyed a whole community. There was no doubt that this compursorv Free trade reinforced by religious and national passions had brought about the break-up of the baited Kingdom. Look at India! I here was no doubt the enforced Free trade there had destroyed the older native industries and prevented any further industrial development in India itself. It was now too late to save the world’s greatest market, India, at an\ late, until a very different temper had arisen 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 he jettisoned because its protection meant a small sacrifice on toe part of the textile industries. Tet it had been dearly shown that if dve was Od n Hi more because of protection—and there was no possibility of Urn it would mean only an extra Ud placed uiion a whole suit of clothes. The principle of Free trade was unintcllectual. Tt was made up of the shallowest generalisations. It was co.ossal stupidity. Flow weak and how futile were the ordinary arguments upon which Freetraile was based. None of them could hear analyses in face of the living processes of industry. hreetrade was not only unintellectual, hut it bred unintelligence in the nation. Tt killed collective thought and national thought with regard to industry. “Why think at all when we can buy The Freetrader very naturally said th© results of other people’s thoughts ready made? Why produce chemists when you can buy the products of other people’s thinking at a farthing less ©r 11, ? The deadly paralysis of/Freeirade killed thought and killed action. They had a great work before them to educaete the nation, and they could not afford to fail,