The Daily News. THURSDAY, JANUARY 5. CHAMBERLAINISM.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 255, 5 January 1911, Page 4

The Daily News. THURSDAY, JANUARY 5. CHAMBERLAINISM.

Although the great Chamberlain is politically dead, he occasionally manages to use the remains of his influence with more or less effect, and before the late general election be sought to show that freetrade was bad trade, that Tariff Reform and Protection were the measures that were vitally necessary to Britain, and that the people should take the chance of killing a system that seems to have done fairly well for some little time. Mr. Chamberlain pointed out that a change bad become necessary in the interests of British trade, that the power for good of free imports had become exhausted, and "the success of the policy adopted by other countries and by our own dominions across the seas was such as to encourage us to follow their example." Mr. Chamberlain in his palmy days was looked on by a huge section of the people of this and other dominions

as the very sheet anchor of politics and the illuminated fingerpost pointing to increased business. But he could probably not have chosen a worse year than 1010 in which to seek to illustrate the utter fallacy of free-trade. Here is a little fact that seems to dispose of Mr. Chamberlain's contention. From January to November, 1910, the trade of Britain amounted to over one thousand million pounds sterling. The remarkable feature about these huge figures was that they represented the greatest increase on record, either for Britain or for any country in the world in all ages. The increase was one hundred million pounds sterling! In considering the jettisoning of Free-trade, Britain sees no reason for it unless it increases commerce. To impose tariffs would not increase Britain's output, which is probably now at its summit. To impose tariffs wculd Jacrejjse. individual cspensesj be- • cause Britain is almost entirely dependent on outsiders for raw materials. A tariff wall would handicap British trade ■ by making raw material dearer, it would vastly affect the pocket of the colonist who is so absolutely dependent on British manufactures, and it would increase the price of living to the individual worker both in the Old Country and the dominions. Protection in the dominions has not been adopted because British Freetrade has been a failure. The dominions and the foreign countries which pretead to smile at Britain's stern determination to stick to Free-trade, cannot even oa a per capita basis show so huge a return of the investment of brains, sinews and money. If Britain had a chance of producing ail the raw material necessary for her incomparable trade in Britain itself a tariff wall against all countries would be both reasonable and politic. But Britain has no hope of being able to produce locally one tithe of the material her factories consume. The dominions desire preference from the Old Land, and if it were granted Britain's Freetrade policy would be at once disturbed, but certainly not to the advantage of the Sutherland. Preference for colonial material is reasonable enough when it can he proved that the buyer is better served from Australia and Canada and New Zealand than he would be from the Argentine, from Germany, from China, or elsewhere. Colonial demands for preference represent the idea that Home Britishers should be content to pay higher prices ii order that an odd colonial manufacturer shall hssve a fuller pocket. If the dominions were able to give Britain all she wants, and if it were unnecessary for the Homeland to do business with any other countries than British countries, apart from international diplomacy, it would, be immaterial whether trade between Britain and foreign countries ceased or< continued. Ostensibly, colonial tariff walls are built for the protection ©f infant industries but are mainly useful for the increase of State revenues. The ; public does not demand huge taxes on necessities it cannot or will not supply Itself, because the public is guided by ; "pocket," and not sentiment. If protected infant industries throve to a point where good goods were supplied ;as cheaply as highly tariffed imported goods, ; tariff walls would be reasonable enough. Colonial Chamberlainism aims mostly at • the increase of price to the individual. The folk who protest that cheap goods H should be kept out of Australasia "be-, cause dear goods may be manufactured',

locally may be friend? of the public, but j ■ the public will be pardoned for not seeing the point. Protection is splendid for. a icountry which use 3 up all its available material within its own borders, but it is 1 a weak reed for the country that utterly depends on outsiders. The model New Zealand would be the New Zealand that got so busy supplying the everyday needs of a rapidly-increasing population that no market of any size could be found here for either dear or cheap foreign goods. The model Empire would be an Empire whose component countries had a .system of commercial interchange making It unnecessary for foreigners to supply any of the Empire's needs. If international conflict does not alter the ownership of countries now flying the British flag, the natural expansion of population and commerce must make for a self-sup-porting Empire. Until such a tremendous event occurs, Britain will probably continue to do business in the same way as formerly, undeterred by any consideration of blood ties, the arguments of Protectionists, or the example of the dominions. The Free-trade faith grows in any community which sees that its buying power is lessened by protective legisla-' tion made for the few at the expense of the many. So that at present Canada supplies an illustration of a constantly increasing number of folk who believe they have a right to the best value for their dollars. The average New; Zealand' 'citizen , (.other than he, who owns a pro:

tooted busines'), knows that without stern tarilF wah/f Iris purchasing power would be greatly snhanced, but lie is peculiarly silent on tue matter while borrowed money rolls in over the water. Maybe when the great power schemes for increasing commercial output are in operation, New Zealand will be able to produce cheaply what she now obtains dearly, but the promise of such a contingency is vague and remote, and Protection will possibly remain the substitute for increased manufacture for a few decades.