EMPIRE PREFERENCE

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 31, 5 August 1925, Page 9

EMPIRE PREFERENCE

DEBATE IN THE COMMONS! GROWING LABOUR SUPPORT BUDGET PROPOSALS CARRIED. (FROM OUK OWN CORRESPONDENT.) LONDON, 16th June. A debate on Imperial Preference in the House of Commons revealed the fact that the question is passing out of the realms of party politics. Tho House was in Committee on the | Finance Bill, and on the clause dealing with the preferential rates in the case of tobacco, currants, dried fruits, and wine. Twenty Socialists voted with the Government and ten more would have voted in the same lobby if they had been present. Mr. Thomas showed both by speech and vote that the Colonial Office has not been wasted upon his political education ; Dr. Haden Guest had the courage of sana and honest opinions, and Mr. Kirkwood showed that the seeds of Imperialism sometimes bear fruit and blossom in unexpected places. The debate opened with a Free Trade amendment, moved by Mr. Lees Smith from the Socialist benches, postponing the operation of the preferences. ' He was quickly answered by Colonel Walter Guinness, for the Treasury, who laid down the basic principle that Preference, by developing alternative sources of supply, would redound to the advantage of the consumers. The most interesting part of Colonel Guinness's speech was the definite announcement that the price of tobacco would consequently come down. "We have assurances from the large producers of manufactured tobacco," he said, "that although these preferences necessarily cannot, from their limited scope, decrease the cost of mixed blends, the producers do intend to give the full benefit on Imperial tobacco to those who smoke it in its pure form. As a result we shall have on the market a class of tobacco chaper than that at present available. DR. HADEN GUEST The amusing feature about Dr. Haden Guest's speech was that he not onlysupported the Government, but reproved Mr. Churchill for "the rather tepid way" in which he had approached the problem, because, he said, the Chancellor was never less convincing in his Budget speed| than when he was justifying preference. Preferences were not a gift. ' They helped to increase the amount of trade inside the Empire, and trade inside the Empire was much more valuable than trade outside. We could not hope to reestablish the position we held before the war as exporters in large areas of. the world; the increase of competition, in other countries and our exclusion from markets outside the Empire would become more potent in the future. We must change our methods. Our position in the future would depend on organisation, skill, and power to keep the markets of the Empire for ourselves. These were enormously more valuable to us than other markets. In British territory we were certain of not less than 50 per cent, of the trade. In 1924 our exports to foreign countries fell by four millions of pounds and our exports to the Empire rose by 32 million pounds. It was of great value to trade with people who had a high standard of life. Asia, with 700 millions of people, took, in 1924, 75£ million pounds' worth of exports only, whilst seven millions of people in Australia took 81 million pounds' worth. Was not that a sound reason for encouraging in every way trade with Australia? An Australian family of five bought from Great Britain yearly over £50 worth of produce; a similar family in Turkey bought from us £1 10s worth. For a family in South Africa the figure was £21 16s 3d and for a family in Spain £2 7s 6d. NOT A COMPLETE SOLUTION Members on the Labour benches did not hold that preference was a complete solution. They wanted to see all taxes oh food products abolished, and it would not be impossible to remove the preference in the future if soma other measure could then be taken. By transport, marketing, and other organisation he believed it would be possible to give to Empire trade advantages of greater value than could be given by prefarence. Dr. Guest hoped the time would come when they would go over from this first step in organisation to a bigger step, and make their position in regard to Empire trade more secure than it ever could be while it was only buttressed by these money preferences. They had gt to have something more than preference; they had got to guard the standard of life of their own people; they had got to guard against a r.ise. in prices. They must organise to get rid of unnecessary intermediaries between the producer and the consumer. They must also guard health conditions and the conditions under which some of the food products were produced in competing countries. "THOSE FEET!" "I will gfve a description," proceeded the hon. member, "of what i. saw in Smyrna in -a warehouse where sultanas destined for the European market were being packed. There were a number of Turks, with very dirty clothes, bare feet, and rolled-up trousers, engaged in walking about and trampling over heaps of sultanas on the floor, getting those sultanas packed into boxes by trampling them down with their feet. lam an experienced medical inspector, but I have never seen any feet, at any time, in any place, which came up to those feet in dirt and filth. Those hon. members who care so much for the consumer might turn their attentions to health conditions. I do not say that happens everywhere; considering the amount of plum puddings and buns I have eaten I hope it does not." MR. THOMAS A CONVERT This speech was much interrupted by friendly foes of the speaker's own household, but Mr. J. H. Thomas announced his intention of voting for the preference resolution. He said he was in favour of a free breakfast table, and if a tax was borne by the consumer it followed that the consumer must benefit by a reduction of the tax. To his Labour colleagues, who pointed out that only 6 per cent, of our consumption of dried fruits and tobacco came from the Empire, he retorted. that that was an added reason for supporting the resolution, in orcler to make thi3 country less dependent on the foreigner. Othe.i 1 Labour supporters of prefer- J ence were Mr. Robert Young and Mr. Kirkwood, the latter of whom defended the Empire with a power and vigour second only to his defence of Clydebank. An astonished House heard and applauded the contention that if wo could not make peace with our own kith and kin, we could not hope reciprocally to understand foreigners, and therefore could not hope for world peace. The Commonwealth of British Ration* was £ha. corner-atone. p{ peace

and better working conditions. "That," finished Mr. Kirkwood triumphantly, "will show you what Clydebank thinks of the Empire." AN AUSTRALIAN OPPONENT Mr. Harvey, having been anti-prefer-ence, even in Australia, was able to make more than a theoretic speech. There was a division of opinion in the Dominions on the question) he said, just as there was here, and he believed now, as he believd then, that economically this preference would prove futile, and politically it would prove unwise. One thing was certain, and that was that the Dominions would never be'allowed by their own people to advance an inch further than was requisite for giving perfect shelter to their home industries. ' The real competitor in the Australian market was the English importer, and if Australia gave a real preference to this country it would be at the expense of her home manufacturers. Australia obtained a few things from the foreigner, and what they were willing to do was to give preference not by lowering a brick of the tariff wall 1 against the Mother Country, but by raising that wall by a brick against the foreigner, j Unless we gave an advantage to the J Dominions over the' foreigner with regard to wool, meat, and wheat, our preference was really useless. The position was that the Mother Country and the Dominions could advance towards one another a little way, but then they had to stop, and practically they would not be a whit nearer the ultimate purpose of a self-contained Empire. MR. CHURCHILL'S REPLY Mr. Chun hill, in reply to a "most remarkable" debate, asked these critics whether they seriously challenged the resolution of the brotherly days of 1917 to develop Imperial trade by every possible means. He pointed out that since those days, in which they still lived, there had been the radical change of the solemn dropping of the proposals for taxing food. Imperial preference was therefore free to advance without the clog of '* threatened general tariff. Taking up the parable, Sir Robert Home also asked whether these critics would like the Dominions to drop their preferences on British goods and whether they were prepared to face General Hertzog's. threat to drop South African preferences unless he obtained a quid pro quo. Those courageous enough to answer in the affirmative numbered 93, but those who responded to Mr. Churchill's appeal to treat Empire matters as nonparty outnumbered them by 184.