Evening Post. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1917. THE EMPIRE'S INTERESTS

Evening Post, Volume XCIII, Issue 47, 23 February 1917, Page 6

Evening Post. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1917. THE EMPIRE'S INTERESTS

The bald announcement of a week ago that the Post-War Trade Committee had recommended the adoption of Imperial preference was supplemented yesterday by some detailed information regarding the Ccmmittee'B proposals and an. \instrucbive collection of press opinions. Though the general conclusion of the Committee was inevitable, we confess that we do not altogether like the ground upon which it is based. The ■Committee recalls the fact that the Premiers' Conference of 1902 unanimously passed a resolution urging the Imperial Government to grant preference to the products of the Dominions, and expresses tho opinion that "the time has now arrived to grant this request, considering the sacrifices and services, rendered by Hie Dominions in the war." The part played by the Dominions in the war has exercised a wonderful effect upon public opinion in Great Britain, converting Little Englanders into staunch Imperialists by the million, and substituted for the overwhelming prejudice that once existed against Imperial preference a strong desire to. see it .carried out. But it surely has not converted a question of economics into a question .of sentiment, or made public gratitude a sufficient .basis for the permanent reconstruction of a fiscal system. Mr. Chamberlain made a magnificent appeal to British patriotism in the interests of Imperial .preference, and iit very nearly succeeded. It failed, however, because in the period of cool reflection which followed upon the enthusiasm produced by his eloquence the good sense of the nation realised that the question, was one in the first instance and in the main of self-interest, and that^sentiment could not safely he allowed to play more than an incidental and subsidiary part. Britain had first to settle the essential character of her own tariff, as the Dominions had settled theirs, from the standpoint of self-interest. If on this ground she decided, as they had decided, in; favour of Protection, then the way was clear for Mr. Chamberlain's great ideal, but not till then.

The initial mistake of Mr. Chamberlain of putting sentiment first, of asking the British .people to sacrifice their interests to those of the Dominions, was afterwards' amended; and the chief weight was "placed upon the claims of Protection as a domestic . policy. But ten years of persistent agitation failed to shake the allegiance of the British elector to Free Trade, and the way was thus barred to Imperial preference upon grounds of which no oversea Imperialist who conceded to' the Mother Country the same fiscal autonomy which he claimed for the Dominions, could dispute the validity. The war has, however, produced a mighty change. It seems to have stampeded the British people out of Free Trade without any formal agitation, and without the need of any General Election to fonnnlate and confirm the revolution in opinion and sentiment. A powerful contribution to this striking change has undoubtedly been supplied by the intense feeling of comradeship, -partnership, and gratitude which the war has excited. But Lord Balfour of Burleigh's. Committee surely errs both in treating this change of attitude towards the Dominions as the [jsost ;injgoj.-tan;t._siJhjs.. Rsw.,,cls»ent ft , 9 |

the problem, and in seeking to base a scheme of Imperial preference upon the gratitude of Great Britain for the help that she has received from the daughter States during the war.

The most powerful of the new motives dictating a radical change in. Britain's fiscal policy is not her affection for the Dominions but her fear of Germany. The free play of the laws of supply and demand has accomplished marvels for British prosperity, but the most hidebound of Freetraders admits to-day that, whatever abstract economics might have to say on the subject, it would not be safe for Britain to depend in the future upon Germany for guns or rifles or an essential portion of her food supply. No immediate saving in cost would be worth - weighing against the risk of national extinction which might be converted into a certainty under such a policy as soon as Germany was ready to fight again. It was to these considerations that the first and most fundamental of the q\iestions submitted to the Committee was directed: "What industries are essential to the future safety of the Empire, and Hvhat steps should be taken to maintain or establish them?" The Committee answers this question in a vague but otherwise satisfactory fashion when it recommends that "in view of the experience of the war, special steps should .be taken to stimulate the production of foodstuffs, raw materials, and manufactures within the Empire- wherever expansion of production is possible and economically desirable for the .safety and welfare of the Empire." '' Tshis general statement is satisfactory, because it appeals to self-interest just as strongly as . the , old hard-and-dry economists could' desire, while at the I same time it takes a broader view and looks. further ahead than they were accustomed to do. It surveys, the interests of the Empire as a whole, and allows for the, possibilities of war as well, as of peace. On to the general recommendation which we have quoted, and before the subject of tariffs.has been even mentioned, the following rider is attached:

—"Therefore the Imperial Government should declare adherence to the principle of preference for products and manufactures from the Dominions in respect to any Customs duties now or hereafter, imposed on imports to tho United Kingdom." It is in a curiously premature way that this reference to Imperial preference is introduced, but "desirability of establishing a wider range of Customs, duties" is subsequently mentioned as a subject that must shortly be considered; and preference is put in its proper place as. an incident of a protective scheme designed in the interests of the Empire as a whole.

It is unfortunate that, having stated the matter in this unexceptionable fashion in its report, the Committee should have taken up in its letter the fallacious ' ground to which we have already referred, viz., that "the saci'ifices and services rendered by the Dominions in the war" entitle them to tho grant of a favour which they have hitherto been denied. If sacrifices and services of this land are to be the 'criterion, then, as the Manchester Guardian—one of the few remaining stalwarts of Free Trade —pertinently observes, it must not bo. forgotten that "our Allies have done something—even Britain has made a war contribution— and they should not be sacrificed." It is not reajly a matter of past sacrifices or present;gratitude, nor even, as Mr. Massey puts it, of justice to the Dominions. It is a matter of the common interests of the wholo Empire, as to which one happy result of this: terrible war seems likely to bs that all parts of the Empire may see something like eye to eye. . '