The Evening Star. WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1903. THE EMPIRE'S NAVIGATION LAWS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIV, Issue 28, 2 February 1903, Page 4

The Evening Star. WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1903. THE EMPIRE'S NAVIGATION LAWS.

For the cause that lacks assistance For the wrong that needs resistance Fer ths future in the distance And the good that we can do.

A full statement of the discussions at the Imperial Conference has not yet been made public, and great interest, therefore, attaches to the "confidential" reports now for the first time published in the Australian papers. It is clear from the9e reports that the Imperial authorities were prepared to consider all reasonable proposals offered by the colonies in a fair and open spirit, and that every facility was afforded for an exhaustive analysis of the questions raised. Among the subjects suggested for discussion was the matter of Imperial navigation laws, and not only because the resolution dealing with this question was tabled by Mr Seddon, but because it deals with a matter of most serious importance to Imperial trade, we submit the main features of the debate to the attention of our readers.

Mr Seddon's resolution was to the following effect:— "That the Imperial Government should enter into negotiations with a view to the removal or modification of restrictions on British trade, failing which it should take steps to protect the trade of the Empire by passing a law declaring that th 3» colonies and dependencies shall come within similar

coasting laws." The Conference was about to consider the question of shipping subsidies when Mr Chamberlain drew the attention of the members to Mr Seddon's resolution and suggested that they should first express an opinion upon it. The question at issue, as Mr Chamberlain pointed out, is whether America or any other country that passes similar navigation laws shall be. allowed to reserve hpr coastwise shipping trade for herself, and at the same time benefit by the "open door" policy of England. "In America," said the Colonial Secretary, "coastwise trade is interpreted as the t'-ade between America and her possessions, trade, for instance, between America and Samoa: and, of course, if we were to adopt a similar principle it would make it impossible for trade between Great Britain and the colonies of Australia, New Zealand, and Canada and the Cape to bo carried in any but British vessels." Such a restriction would amount to a revival of the old navigation laws, which from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century brought England into ceaseless conflict with Holland. Spain, France and America, and which were finally repealed on the earnest representation of the colonies themselves. Mr Chamberlain naturally wished to know in what respects the opinion of the colonies about the navigation Jaws had altered since 1554, and whether they

would now approve of such restrictions. "If we were to take that step," added the Colonial Secretary. "I certainly do not see how any of those countries which have navigation laws of their own, and which confine their coastwise trade to their own vessels, could possibly be justified in complaining."

To clear the ground for discussion. Mr Gerald Balfour, President of the Board of Trade, laid before the Conference a memorandum describing the position taken up on this question by most of the great maritime nations. Tt seems that the United States and Russia are the only countries which reserve both their coastwise and colonial trade for themselves. France. Italy and Spain prevent foreign competition between their own ports, but France. Germany. Holland. Denmark and Portugal have thrown open thp carrying trade between themselves and their colonial dftp^ndenciVs. The coastal trade of 0-ermary, Norway and Sweden and a few small countries is left

open unconditionally or on reciprocal terms. Tt is thus evident that all the

«reat maritime nations but England endeavour to prevent competition in either their coastal or intercolonial tradfi, "or both; and in the discussion that followed it was clear that the members of the Conference felt that thorp was a strong prhna facie case for Mr Seddoxi's resolution. Sir Wilfred Laurier. speaking for Canada, pointed out that commercial conditions had completely changed since the repeal of the Navigation Laws, and strongly supported their re-enactment in some modified form. The Americans, he observed, had extended the operation of their laws so as to apply them to the Honolulu trade; and Canada had in vain offered them reciprocity in respect to coastal shipping. Sir Edmund Barton was entirely of Mr Seddon's way of thinking, and skilfully took advantage of the Morgan combine scare to remind the Conference that the proposed change would effectually check any such attempt to capture the Atlantic trade. But the President of the Board of Trade was obviously uneasy, and, in reply to a question, admitted that he would be seriously embarrassed by existing treaties, if any aitempt were made to carry out the principle of the resolution without allowing for reciprocal action on the part of other nations. TM3 view of the ease was earnestly opposed by Sir Albert Hime (Natal.;, who urged that \

America, Russia, France and Germany would gain by reciprocity, as British vessels would do a comparatively small amount of their coastal trade. Mr Balfour replied that hitherto the share of the countries mentioned in our own colonial trade was very small; but his ■\iews were vigorously combated by Mr Chamberlain. Anyone who has been at all doubtful about the force of Mr Chamberlain's Imperialistic convictions may be fuily reassured by the report of this debate. The Colonial Secretary insisted that reciprocity was impracticable because foreign vessels were not subject to the trade regulations impose! upon British 3hips —an argument that, our readers will remember, has already been applied in a very practical way in the New Zealand coastal trade. In the end,) thei following drafted by Mr Chamberlain was carried: "That it is desirable the attention of the Governments of the colonies and the United Kingdom she-Id be called to the present state of the navigation laws in the Empire and in other countries, and to the advisability of refusing privileges of coastwise trade, including trade between the mother country and its colonies and possessions, and between one colony or possession and another, to countries in which this trade is confined to ships of their own nationality, and also to laws afl'ecting shipping, with a view to seeing whether any other steps should be taken to promote Imperial trade in British vessels."

Even so ardont an Imperialist as Mr Seddon could not complain of the scope

and breadth of this resolution. It defines

British intercolonial trade as coastal trade, it ignore.B the possibility of reciprocal action by other nations, and it provides for such expedients as subsidising British vessels—a question (hat the Conference discussed immediately after. But .the. moat important feature of Mr Chamberlain's proposal is the strong Imperialistic tone that it gave to the question under discussion. The definition of "coastwise trade" in such terms as to cover all trade between England and the colonies and amongst the ! colonies themselves is in itself a frank and vigorous assertion of the solidarity of the Empire, and a recognition of colonial claims to Imperial consideration altogether unexlavned in our experience. The resolution, moreover, is most valuable evidence that, at least in the opinion of our boldest and ablest statesman, the time has come for England to take active steps for the maintenance of her commercial supremacy, and the assertion of her Imperial rights. Tt is well known that we in New Zealand have already insisted that foreign', vessels trading on our coasts must conform to all our maritime laws and regulations; and though this restriction was devised chieilyin the interest of the local

seamen's unions, it, at the same time, pcn-vvs tlw wider purpose of confining our coastal trade almost solely to BritIs!, vessels. Sir Edmund Barton has promised legislation nex.l session on the Hues of Mr Chamberlain's resolution; and the Australasian colonies thus have the satisfaction of' initiating the first practical step taken ia the great work of consolidating and defending the commercial interests of the Empire.