FREETRADE.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 275, 13 August 1908, Page 7

FREETRADE.

SPECTATOR" LECTURES COBDEN CUB

HOURS AND WAGES. NO STATE INTERFERENCE, (dt telegraph—mess association—corißianT.) London, August 11. The "Spectator," in'a remarkable article, condomns tho Cobden Club for not opposing the Trades Dispute and Eight Hours Bills, and for not protesting against the recommendations by the Home Work Committee of the House of Commons in favour of wages boards aud the extinction of parasite industries paying small wages In neglecting to oppose these proposals, the Cobden Club is, says the " Spectator," failing to maintain tho principles of Cobden. The journal also blames the club for

neglecting to opposo non-contributory old age pensions, which it declares will enormously increase taxation and pave the way for a protective tariff.

GOVERNMENT "ENCOURAGEMENT." WORSE THAN A TARIFF. In lecturing th£ Cobdeu Club (the convener of the Freetrade Congress) for_ lukewarmness, tho "Spectator" apparently carries, the doctrine of Freetrade to the extent,of complete non-in-terference with trade. It does not merely say that non-contributory old age pensions aro bad because the cost of them will supply an argument to its opponents for a higher tariff. It goes farther, and objects to regulation of liours by statute, and to regulation of wages by wages board. Such, at any rate, i£ tho sense of the above message, and it is not in fact an undue straining of what tho "Spectator" wrote on May 2, when it declared that "wo aro not sure that wo would not as soon see Freetrade abandoned for a tariff as abandoned for a system of 'encouragement by Government action.''" In the article referred to, tho "Spectator" was lecturing Sir John Brunner for his "New Liberalism" speech in much the same way as the paper has lectured the Chancellor of the Exchoquer (Mr. LloydGeorge), for his disposition to regulate railway rates. As the "Spectator" honestly sets out the_ enemy's as well as its own argument, the article is worth quoting from:— .

THE "NEW LIBERALISM." "As we havo pointed out elsewhere, we are by no means dismayed by the result of tho North-West Manchester olection. What, however, does fill us with dismay is tho attitude of the Liberal party towards Freetrade as indicated in tho speech of Sir John Bruuner at the meeting of the party (held at the Eeform Clnb on' Thursday) to endorse Mr. Asquitli's promotion to the Premiership. To

preside over a gathering so important, a very prominent and a typical member of the party is always chosen. Iu this case the choice fell upon Sir John Brunncr. What had this representative Liberal to say. to the assembled hosts of Liberalism? Astounding as it sounds, ho considered it appropriate to present to his friends the shibboleths of the Tariff Reform party—and ho did so without the slightest protest from tho so-called Liberal Freetraders who were gathered to hear him. These aro his words:—"Might he be permitted, as a man of business, to tender ono piece of hard practical advice to tho Government? He had been all his life a man of business, and he claimed to know something of tho business community. He wished to advise the Government to give up that pa,rt of tho policy of the Manchester school which was called the laisser faire policy. (Hear, hear.) The Manchester school of sixty years ago considered, that the best thing that could be done for trade , was to let it alone. Now of this one thing ho was convinced—that the Tory party, whether their efforts were good or bad—he believed them to be bad—had absolutely convinced tho mercantile community that they meant to make a big effort for tho benefit of trade when they came into power. Ho askod the Government, and advised them to adopt a liberal trade policy—a sane, a wholesome, and a sound trade policy for the j'eascm that, knowing his fellows in trade in England, ho was convinced that when a bad time came they would accept the offer from the other side'if tho Liberals made none."

A DANGEROUS DOCTRINE. This is either nonsense, and mischievous nonsense, or olso it means that tho Liberal partytiro advised by their typical representative to abandon tho policy of maintaining free exchange and free contract wherever possible, and to enter upon tho futile and dangerous task of attempting to encourage trade by Government action,—l.o., the protection of commerce and industry. Translated into action, this means bounties, for industry either through uneconomic railway rates, such,as Mr. LloydGeorge is always feeling after, or else by some other equally undesirable instrument. Bountyfed industries are always demoralised industries, and wo are not sure that we would not as soon see Freetrade abandoned for a tariff as Preetrade abandoned for a system of "encouragement by Government action." Tho ono is quite as likely to onorvatc and to corrupt as tho other. ,No doubt we shall bo told that Sir John Brunner could not have meant bounties in any shape or form. If that is so, what in tho name of commonsense did ho mean?. Can it be seriously suggested that he wished to assert that his colleagues in the trading world want Government interference puro and simple and Board or Trade inspectors worrying thom all tho day long, but without bringing in any pecuniary assistance? Of course lie meant nothing of tho kind. What he was hitting at was getting somothing out of the Government for tho trader. But that somothing will have to bo found by the general taxpayer,—that is, the consumer. So hero we are back again at the old mad paradox: "Take care of the producer and the consumer will take caro of himself."