The Evening Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. THURSDAY, JULY 30, 1903. THE EMPIRE AND FREE TRADE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIV, Issue 180, 30 July 1903, Page 4

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

THURSDAY, JULY 30, 1903. THE EMPIRE AND FREE TRADE.

For the cause that lacks assistance. For the xcrong that needs resistance, For the future in the distance, And the good that we can do.

It. seems very difficult to get the British point of view on the. subject of Preferential Trade. Aβ a matter of fact

there appears to be no general and uniform conviction held on the subject by either Free Traders or Fair Traders. The opponents of Mr Ohambei-lain's scheme in particular seem to confine themselves to separate and detached aspects of the question without ever regarding it from a broad and comprehensive point of view. Moreover, in some obscure way, the Free Traders are beginning to believe, or at least to assert, that the colonies are actuated by selfish motives, .in offering'their commercial support to Eng' land. The latest utterance on this subject is the remark made by Sir Edward Grey, that he would dread to see a bond of bargain replace the sentimental union between England and her colonies. Why New Zealand should think less of England if we were to 'sell more wool and mutton to her, Sir Edward Grey does not explain; but his argument certainly points to the conclusion that trade between England and her colonies ought to cease once and for all, lest our Imperial relations should become too grovelling and material. However, Sir Edward Grey's opinion is evidently based upon the extraordinary assumption that the colonies, when they sug- ; gested preference to British trade, were thinking first of themselves, and second —and a long way after —of England. Was Canada actuated by purely selfish motives when she offered her 33 1-3 per cent, on British goods? Has she been sordid and mercenary since, all the time that she has maintained this preference in the face of England's refusal to reciprdcate? The colonial Premiers at thdS last Imperial Conference were inspired by a truly patriotic motive —a desire to assist British commerce and to consolidate the Empire. England has not been asked to make a sacrifice on our behalf. It is only because the colonies hold that some modification of England's present fiscal system is necessary for the preservation of Imperial commerce —which is Imperial power —that we have suggested preference to the Imperial authorities. It ill-becomes British politicians to insinuate the charge of selfinterest against those who offered to make concessions to England before there was any hope or prospect of an adequate return.

Bu-fc it is painfully evident that the Imperialistic argument as we hold, it fails to appeal to many of the foremost politicians at Home. Sir Henry Camp-bell-Bannerman cannot see that the Empire will be harmed, if England stands by and sees Germany penalise Canada for offering help to the Motherland, without attempting to retaliateWe have only to examine Germany's defence of her discrimination against Canada io understand how hopelessly many of England's political leaders have failed to grasp the problems of Imperialism. Germany quite accurately points out that England has always preferred to regard her colonies, for commercial purposes, as foreign countries, and that she has therefore no right to resent Germany's fiscal treatment of them. This is painfully and undeniably true. But do the Liberal leaders hold that the Empire is likely to be consolidated and strengthened by a policy that assumes in the iirst place that England's colonies are from the commercial point of view, to be regarded as aliens? We can understand Little Englanders like Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman accepting the position with joy. But it is waste of time to talk Imperialism to men who think that England ought not to defend her children for fear of irritating her rivals and foes. It is impossible to follow in connected or logical order the various misconceptions which seem to obscure the English view of tlie new policy. But we cannot refrain from expressing astonishment at Sir Edward Grey's latest dictum that "Britain would not benefit if the colonies', raised duties to the foreigner, unless they lowered duties to her." It is an open question whether we ought to give preference by levelling up or down on behalf of English imports; but it is sheer nonsense to say that England would not gain by the extension of her commerce if her foreign rivals were shut out of the colonial markets. We are accustomed to observing that British Free Traders constantly ignore the importance of colonial trade to England. The value of British exports to British colonies has risen 30 per cent, in the last five years. The total purchases of twelve million British colonists in Africa. America and Australasia from England are actually greater in value per annum than the whole of England's combined export trade to the 275 millions in Russia, Germany and the United States. Yet Sir Edward Grey thinks it would be no benefit to England to secure her colonial market against her rivals. The worst of it is that England is fallino , behind in the race with her competitors for foreign trade, and the end will be that imle.33 she makes some attempt to defend herself against her rivals she will lose her colonial markets as well.

<But no argument, statistical or theoretical, seems to avail against the fanati-

eism of the obdurate Free Trader. : It is clear that in the agitation now going on in England, free use is being made of the old cry that Free Trade means cheap food." This is the explanation of the tone adopted by the Northumberland Unions and other labour organisations towards Mr Chamberlain's scheme. But if Free Trade deprives a man of employment, while offering him cheap food, how does he benefit? It is work and wages .that .-the labourer requires, and that is why "among the very poor the need for Protection is greatest." A few years ago it was estimated that while <-the cost of living was 10 per cent, more in the United States than in England, average wages were SO per cent, higher in America. One of the Moseley delegates has stated that, "comparing wages and the cost of living, there is an average of at least 25 per cent, in favour of the American workman." And this in the face of the Free Trade argument that Protection leads necessarily to the paralysis of industry and to the destitution of the working classes. Much will have to be done before, the current superstitions on these subjects are cleared away; but it should not be difficult to' prove to the wage-earners of England that their hope.for the future, lie.? in the surrender of the obsolete 'fiscal system, which is discredited and abandoned by the rest of the world, and the acceptance of some form of Imperial Preferential Trade. •'■■•'