PREFERENTIAL TRADE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIV, Issue 171, 20 July 1903, Page 2

PREFERENTIAL TRADE.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —A great variety of opinions on the above subject has lately found expression both through the press and at public meetings, involving, as it does, the question of the free-trade policy, which has been the foundation of Great Britain's great and tinrivalled commercial success and prosperity, and which, according to the supporters of preferential trade, between Great Britain and its colonies, has become disadvantageous and unsuitable to the requirements and conditions of the present time. They plead that the adoption of free trade on the part of Great Britain has not induced other nations to follow Great Britain's example, which, according to their opinion, was one of the principal aims and expectations of the founders of the free-trade policy, Cobden & Co. I confess I cannot bring myself to believe that these great men were so shortsighted as to expect anything of the kind, even if in the endeavour to meet the existing prejudice at the time against t-he introduction of tbe new policy they

gave expression to that argument. Surely—it is at leasi very questionable— whether, if other nations had followed the example of Great Britain, it would have caused greater advantage and benefit to Great Britain or to themselves. If other nations had adopted the same policy of free trade, it certainly would have impaired Great Britain's commercial supremacy, and its position as the world's market and centre of commerce. If America, France or Germany would adopt free trade, the same as Great Britain, 1 fail to see what benefit this would be to Great Britain or to themselves. On the other hand, if Great Britain should decide to cease and abolish its free-trade policy, I can conceive nothing which would be so advantageous for France or for Germany and Holland combined as to adopt the very policy Great Britain had discarded, and" thereby obtain the position of commercial supremacy which Great Britain now occupies, and I believe that nothing would offer a' greater inducement to Holland and Germany for a closer union. It seems to me that the greatest possible advantage to any nation which has adopted free trade is that no other nation should follow its example and beconvj a rival in the commercial advantages which free trade affords. When New South Wales was following the example of Great Britain its greatest advantage was to be the only Australian colony which carried on their commerce under the free-trade policy, while on the other hand it was wise and prudent for Victoria, Queensland and South Australia to adopt a policy of protection, because these colonies could not reasonably expect the same "special" advantage which New South Wales enjoyed as the only free-trade colony. And this is also the reason why New South Wales has been the greatest sufferer through the newly-established federation of the several colonies, by which it was obliged to accept a protective policy in common with the other colonies, and lose the commercial supremacy of Australia. No doubt the change may prove advantageous and beneficial to some of its industries, but the question is—Will this compensate New South Wain" for the Loss of the benefits it would have enjoyed if it had retained its commercial supremacy under a free-trade policy—that is, if it be a question at all. To me it seems that no greater calamity could fall on Great Britain if it were carried away by the kite which Mr. Chamberlain has thought expedient to fly for political purposes, mainly to divert public opinion from Home reforms, and the dissatisfaction against his Government with respect to the Education Bill, and the sacrifice of free trade, for no other reason but that some other countries have been comparatively successful by following a policy of industrial protection. Mr. Chamberlain himself is reported to have said that Great Britain, as well as every part of the Empire, must be prepared to make serious sacrifices by the adoption of preferential trade, with the object of bringing the several parts of the Empire into closer union, meaning, no doubt, that an increased taxation of every part will be necessary to achieve that object. I must confess I fail to see how the sacrifices of every part of the Empire could be considered beneficial to these parts, or to the Empire as a whole, excepting for the sentimental satisfaction of having made a sacrifice, the only gainers of which would be the several Governments which would be enabled to dispose of a greater amount of revenue, to assist their friends and purchase a greater support for themselves and their party. An increased taxation all round, the apparent necessary result of the preferential trade, as advocated by Mr. Chamberlain and our Fremier, seems to me to be the very op i posite to what is beneficial to the mass of the people of the British Empire. Tbf only way in which a policy of pieferen- - tial trade could be applied by Great Britam to its colonies without losing its commercial supremacy would be to pay a bonus on all imports from the colonies, and for the colonies to reduce the duties on imports of British manufactures to such an exteut as would not seriously interfere with colonial industries. As to the merits of either free trade or protection, it seems to me that they entirely depend on the geographical position, tho industrial and commercial condition and requirements of the country to which either free trade or protection is applied. If a country can obtain greater benefits fiom its commerce than its industries it would be suicidal to impair its commercial activity for the sake of fostering and protecting its industries, or vice versa, for a country which has for its prosperity mostly to rely on the development of its industries to adopt free trade and open its ports to compete with these industries for the sake of increasing their commerce. -So, for anyone to say that he is in favour of either free trade or protection in the abstract, no maiter what the special requirements of the country to which they are applied may be, shows a most lamentable prejudice, and a very superficial conception of the objects and purposes of either free trade or protection. Much also has been said with respect to preferential trade, of Imperialism, of drawing the silken bonds which bind the several portions of the Empire more closely together, which means that it is desirable that these silken bonds should become more unto iron fetters and chains, which. I think, would in no wise add to the real strength and unity of tho Empire. The loss of the United States should be a sufficient warning to all to whom the future greatness and strength of the British Empire is dear to know what it mean?; to draw these silken bonds closer and convert them into tyrannical fetters and iron chains. What the colonies would do cheerfully and without stint, voluntary for assisting the Motherland, if any real or imaginary danger threatened its existence or its dignity, the late war in South Africa has sufficiently shown. But I question if it were made compulsory for the people of the colonies to sond their sons, their brothers and dear ones to fight the battles of the Empire—the purport and importance of which they could have no possible understanding — whether there would be the same heartful asd enthusiastic response. —I am, eta,