The Dominion SATURDAY, APRIL 28,1917. IMPERIAL PREFERENCE

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3065, 28 April 1917, Page 8

The Dominion SATURDAY, APRIL 28,1917. IMPERIAL PREFERENCE

A kefort that the Imperal Conference has unanimously accepted i.preference proposals, and.that Me. Lloyd George is to announce the decision in the House of Commons mean's, if it is true, that a big step has- been taken towards the settle-ment-of a question which is of the highest importance—a questionwhich bears y not merely on trade, but on the whole future of the Empire. Information is lacking meantime, as to the. exact naturo and • scope of:the ; proposals upon which , the" ■ Conference-. voted, . but • the fact that . the principle of ■ preference . was unanimously ap-. proved in . itself marks ' a milestone in Imperial- progress. As the report stands, it would appear that MR; Lloyd George and his principal colleagues are in harmony with the overseas delegates in regard to inter-Imperial preferand that the policy which the Dominions have long advooite'd, and which the war has shown to bo so necessary', : will be assured of powerful advocacy and support when it is submitted to tho House of Commons. It' should not bo overlooked, however, that a body of op : position to any new departure in trade policy,exists in England, and that it may' be difficult to overcome. Since the war began there have been many conversions from Free- Trade ideas, but that the conversions are not of universal scope was made manifest in February last when the Committee on Commercial and .Industrial Relations, which is presided over by Lord Balfour ov Burleigh, presented the following resolutions on the subject of Imperial Preference: — 1. In the light of- experience gained during the war, we consider that spe--eiul. steps must be taken to. stimulate the production of foodstuffs, raw materials, and manufactured articles within the Empire wherever the expansion of production is possible and economically desirable for the safety and welfare of the Empire-as a whole. • . 2. Wo therefore recommend that H.M. Government should now declare their adherence to the principle that preference should be accorded to the products and' manufactures-of the British Overseas Dominions in respect of any Customs duties •now. or hereafter to bo imposed on imports into the United Kingdom. . 3. Further, it will in our opinion he necessary to take ,into early consideration, as one of the methods of achieving tho above objects, the desirability of establishing a wider range of Customs duties which would be remitted or reduced on the products and manufactures of the Empire, and which would form the basis of commercial treaties with Allied and neutral Powers. These resolutions were accompanied by a-letter to the Prime Minister in which the members of the Committee stated, amongst other things, that they had arrived at the conclusions indicated chiefly on the ground that although to some of them any measures in restraint of trade were in the abstract distasteful, they thought it necessary that for the sake of the .unity of the Empire a serious attempt should be mado to meet tho declared wishes of tho Dominions and colonies for the development of their economic relations with tho United Kingdom. The Committee's resolutions should, obviously have been accepted as an honest attempt to set the problem under consideration before Parliament_ and the public in something liko its full breadth and scope. In fact,- they seem to have dono'very little to promote discussion on broaxl lines, but as soon as they appeared they were subjected to a storm ofhostile criticism (not confined to Lancashire)'on the score that they constituted an unwarranted attack' upon the sacred citadel of ' Free Trade. .- The line of criticism taken by leading Free Trade organs in Great Britain on this occasion is worth surveying only for tho sake of noting that it was to a great extent irrelevant to the issue raised. For instance, the flcoiwmist, in articles which no doubt fairly represent the opinions of tho school of thought to which it belongs, has argued that so far from knocking the bottom out of Free Trade, the war has proved its mightiness as an " cconomioj

weapon. Britain, it points out. has raised about four thousand millions sterling in loans and revenue, it has maintained its export trade, equipped an army of more than 5,000,000 men, enormously increased the strength of the Navy, supplied its Protectionist Allies with money, shells, arms, raw materials, ships, fuel, manufactures—in a word, with all the material resources of warfare. "We have raised a greater proportion of the war's cost to us in taxation than any other country," adds the Economist, "and our factories have been able to supply at once the needs of war and .tho demands of that export trade .which is the basis of Allied credit." . Other items in tho case made out ."or the perpetuation of Free Trade are that if food and raw materials are made dearer in by the imposition of duties an improvement in the standard of living will be impeded and the country will be handicapped in dealing with the burdens h;ft f.y tho war. These contentions can only be accepted with heavy reservations. If the outbreak of war found England immensely wealthy, it.'found her also, extremely vulnerable, and that by reason of industrial as well as military ,unpreparedncss. England might fiave been much less rich and much better placed to fight tbis war, or indeed to discourage the criminal aggression by Germany and her vassal out of which the war arose. With all respect also to Freo Trade doctrine, the experience of the greater part of the civilised world is against the theory _ that A rejection of Free Trade principles tends to lower the standard of living in the country concerned. But the real answer to the Free Trade arguments which have been noted is that they evade the issue raised in the preference proposal. "What is at stake," it has beon justly observed,' "'i3 the existence and survival of the British Empire." The question by which Britain is faced, is. not whether the increase of her national wealth and the serial betterment of her people will be best promoted under Free Trade or the alternative system. ' It is 'whether she desires to continue as a partner in a community of nations or prefers a course which will make ultimately for the ■ dissolution of the ■Imperial partnership. To say,' as the 'Economist does, that the magnificent response made by the Empire in men and money':to'the appeal of the cause of. progress and liberty shows that the unity of tho Empire is already more than secure and needs no.fiscal glue to make it stick, is simply .to adopt the'policy of theiostrich and repudiate an outlook. Trade is only a means to tho end of national welfare, but manifestly we are in a, position to utilise trade as a splendidly effective agent in at once promoting the development of the Empire and cementing its unity. The circumstances which have created the need for a definite Imperial policy have also made it possible. Britain is constrained in any case to depart from her present fiscal policy. She is under a plain necessity of cutting out the tiade with enemy countries which, resulted in her loss and their capture of important key industries. It is surely a natural further step that she should take active measures to promote and foster the trade with her own Dominions which will make not merely for the enrichment, but for • the stability, of the Empire. That such a course will be resented by her Allies,'as has. been, suggested, is not eaß.y to believe, considering that she would merely be copying in part the policy they have all of them long pursued and have no intention of abandoning. The British people have reached a point at which they must dotermino whether they will order their trade in such a way as will conduce to the development of the Empire as a British heritage or embark upon, a course which will gradually destroy the unity of the' Empire by making united organisation imposible and creating divergent interests. It is for Britain to decide whether she can take the placo that is open to her in an Imperial partnership without undue sacrifice of her national interests, but it is to be hoped that, the practical discussion which may now be expected will bring home to those who resent any invasion of their cherished fiscal doctrino that their attitude involves repudiation of the _ ideal of a united and self-sufficient Empire, strong to resist aggression, and on that account tho less likely to be attacked.