The Dominion SATURDAY, APRIL 7, 1923. TRADE AND EMPIRE UNITY

Dominion, Volume 16, Issue 171, 7 April 1923, Page 6

The Dominion SATURDAY, APRIL 7, 1923. TRADE AND EMPIRE UNITY

The Prime Minister of the Commonwealth (Mk. 8. M. Bruce) has promised that HJbe statesmen on “the unreasonable inequalities of and Britain ” It is as well to recognise that the development oi a sound policy based on the frank discussion of such questions offers a very valuable, if not indispensable, means ot strengthening t political unity of the Empire. . . . . M n TT „_ mf>n - A s an example of inequalities in Empire tiadc, Mb. Bruce me tioncd Great Britain’s refusal of preferential treatment to meat producers within the Empire. In matters of this kind a direct and immediate remedy may not be practicable. Allowance has to be made for the peculiar position occupies on account of her specialised economic development. bhe must be free to obtain food supplies from the cheapest available sources, and there are foreign countries in which she is bound meantime to sell coal and manufactured goods, and can only do so by buying in these countries food and raw materials. The Dominions cannot expect that the Mother Country should at once meet them in trading policy regardless of her general trade position, including her dependence on foreign markets and sources of supply. The oversea countries are, however, entitled to expect not only that Britain should give all the preference to Empire trade that existing conditions will permit, but that she should make 1 her settled aim and policy to build up inter-imperial trade in every way that is reasonably possible. On the whole, the advantages of trade within the Empire are perhaps at the moment not ill-balanced. Accorded tariff .preference by the Dominions, Britain offers them a good market for a very great part of their surplus production. Generally speaking, however, there is a much stronger inclination in the Dominions to give preference to British goods than there is in Britain to foster inter-imperial trade. The attitude of the Dominions in this matter is plainly Mefincd in their Customs tariff schedules. That Britain as yet has instituted Imperial preferential duties only on a very minor scale may be ascribed to her peculiar economic circumstances. Serious exception, however, can and should be taken to the fact that many leading representatives of finance and commerce in the United Kingdom persistently refuse to admit that trade -with. other parts of tho Empire can be, at all events for a very long time to come, more than a subsidiary part of Britain’s total trade. This attitude derives some support from the circumstances of the moment. As a policy looking to tho future, it is compact of fallacies. It offers, at the same time, an exceedingly insecure foundation on which to build the future of the. Empire. Financial and commercial authorities in the United Kingdom who belittle or neglect the possibilities of Empire trade point first of all to the admitted fact that Britain at present conducts the larger part of her external trade with foreign countries. They rely, also, upon such facts as were enlarged upon, by Mr. Reginald McKenna in his annual speech, as chairman, to the shareholders of tho London Joint City and Midland Bank. Britain’s oversea trade, as Mr. McKenna pointed out on that occasion, is complex. For instance, before the war Britain had a favourable balance of trade with India, and an unfavourable balance af trade with .Germany. In the aggregate, however, her trade with India and Germany, approximately balanced. The point Mr. McKenna emphasised was that Britain was in part enabled to sell goods within the Empire by selling goods to foreign countries. In the extent to which they have survived the war, these conditions of interdependence in trade cannot be changed suddenly or arbitrarily. They are not, however, fixed and immutable. On. the contrary, there is open scope for sustained, if gradual, progress' in Substituting inter-imperial trade for foreign trade.

What the Dominions are entitled to insist upon is that British resources must be concentrated definitely, by investment, within the 'Empire, and in other ways, upon tho progressive development of inter-imperial trade. The alternative is to allow the various Empire countries to become divided in economic interest, and thus allow needless impediments to be raised to their political unity. This danger does not exist only in theory. Particularly since the war, for iifstance, very large investments of American capital have been made in Canadian industries. Criticism of this development by the chairman of the British Empire Producers was described recently by tho Montreal Gazette as more amusing than startling. Canada, the Gazette observed, invited both men and money from wherever they might come, and could use American money without weakening her allegiance to the Empire.

This attitude fairly reflects that of many prominent representatives of trade and finance in tho United Kingdom, but it ignores tho vital part that inter-imperial trade and tho co-ordination ot 'lmperial ecomomic organisation may play in strengthening the Empire. The members of the British family of nations are held together primarily by kinship and a heritage of common ideals. A wise direction of trade, investment, and related activities, offers them, however, an invaluable moans of so broadening their mutual interests that they will have better and better reason as time goes on to maintain and strengthen their political organisation. Failure to broaden and develop these mutual interests would as obviously tend to, weaken the Empire, if not to make for its eventual disintegration.