Evening Post. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1932 A GOOD START

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 103, 28 October 1932, Page 6

Evening Post. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1932 A GOOD START

- - - _ — ♦ . The Ottawa Agreements Bill has had an easy passage through the House of Commons, having evidently been put through all its stages on Wednesday—a day ahead of the time-table—and apparently without, a division.' The Government,' which was reportedto be fullysatisfied with the first day's debate on ■ the r.esults of the Ottawa Conference a week previously, had certainly had no cause to change its mind. " Mr. Neville Chamberlain, whc\ on the platform has talked far too extravagantly of the disruption of the Empire as the inevitable alternative to tariff reciprocity, made no such mistake in the speech with which he opened that debate, and the- note . of moderation which he sounded 'appears to have provoked no discord from Mr. Amery or any. other tariff die-hard. Tho Conference, said Mr. Chamberlain, had resulted in. a bettor under: standing by the different members of tho Empire of one another's difficulties. For the first time India had recognised the principle of Imperial preference, whilo Canada and Australia, tho two most industrialised' Dominions, had^ given up the idea that.' their home markets were to be'reserved entirely to homo niunufacturers. A new departure was . that. for tho first time the whole Colonial-Empire had been'brought into the negotiations. The general trend of the agreements reached was a lowering of inter-Imperial tariffs ' and further mutual co-operation. .'."-.

The one outstanding point that was missing from the cabled summary of Mr. Chamberlain's comprehensive survey.was the relation .of Ottawa i policy: to world trade,' but the report which reached us at the same time that Britain had invited Denmark, Norway, arid Sweden to open tariff conversations in London, and that the conversations with the Argentine were continuing supplied practical proof that the Government appreciated this point just as thoroughly as its critics, arid \vas;confident of its ability to reconcile it with its Ottawa obliga-' tipns^'-'vV ':"'■'-■ .-.■■■■'■-.- . .'■■" . . : ■ ' ;, y It is, indeed only in the Dominions that the dependence of Britain, and therefore of the Empire, upon world, trade.has ever been overlooked by responsible authorities. Writing in the "Observer"; on the opening of the Ottaw^. Conference, Mr. Garvin, who has, sometimes seemed to share Lord Beaverbrook's faith in the magical power of a. tariff, put the matter in its true perspective when he said:

It is a prodigious .fact that the Empire comprises a quarter of the globe. But outside it, by the same token, lie the other three-quarters of the globe. Not only.have the Dominions in the persistent demands that they have been making upon Britain for fiscal preferences for. their produce overlooked her relations with the threequarters of the globe not included in the Empire, but each of them has paid little heed to the interests of any part of the other quarter except that which lies within its own ringfence. Ottawa has. certainly contributed something to the education of the Dominions when we find even Mr. Bruce talking about the importance of world trade and the dangers of high tariffs'. But even after her abandonment of Free Trade Britain needed no education; on this point, and it was from her, delegation, and especially from Mr. Baldwin, that the Dominions, learned whatever they know about the matter. The;point on which Mr. Chamberlain ;was silent or not .reported was "cogently treated by Sir; John .Simon, and his argument, like that of Mr. Runciman on the.Abnormal Importations Bill, carried special weight as coming from one who still calls himself a Free Trader. His contention was that, instead of disqualifying Britain for successful tariff bargaining with foreign nations; the Ottawa policy had actually increased her power. Since „the recent changes in the tariffs policy, ho said, the Foreign Office had been visited to quite an' uhusual extent by representatives or" the different countries-desiring to negotiate on trade matters. He recalled the efforts'of the latp Mr. William Graham to promote an international tariff truce, and said that ;they'failed because Britain, then had .nothing with, which to negotiate. As a result of the Ottawa agreements Britain had an opportunity such as she never had before of making bargains with other countries.

Mr. Graham's efforts at Geneva, to arrange a tariff truce, from which, if we are not mistaken, Australia dissented, were handicapped in much the same way as Britain's negotiations for disarmament after, she has unconditionally disarmed right down to the margin of safety, if not lower. Under Free Trade she had nothing either to offer or to threaten, and in advocating a tariff truce was therefore asking for a favour which she was unable to reciprocate. It is very pleasant to learn that it is

the foreigner that is now doing the suing, and that instead of tying Britain's hands Ottawa has improved Imposition. Newspapers favourable to the policy are reported as saying that '"'-■■

maintenance of the most-favoured-nation treatment is quite compatible with the extension of Imperial preference under the Ottawa agreements.

Though Sir John Simon makes no mention of the point, it is covered by implication in what he says, and on a law point his authority is, of course, secpnd to none. But the newspapers are speaking of tariffs only. The quota, like the exchange, is a means of dodging the tariff. The mention of die Argentine among the suppliants makes one wonder what power Britain has to negotiate that 35 per cent, cut in her foreign meat imports, or any part of it, away. In the passage which we have quoted from Mr. Chamberlain's speech special importance is attached to the fact that Canada and Australia, the most industrialised of the Dominions, have "given up the idea that'their home markets are to be reserved entirely to' home manufacturers." It is,' of course, general knowledge that these two Dominions had given the British delegation the most trouble, and that Mr. Bennett's obstinacy on behalf of Canada had brought the , Conference perilously, near to a'deadlock. The belief that in order to avert disaster the British i delegation had accepted grossly- inadequate concessions from Canada , was expressed in both Houses of the British Parliament according to the reports cabled yesterday. We cani not discuss the point now, but may say in conclusion that .the * very i modest claim made by Lord Hailsham, who spoke the last word for the : Government in either House, seems to be fully justified. ' The Ottawa Conference, he said, did I not build an edifice, but laid foundations -which '-would result in.betterl trade I within the Empire. The judicial summing up of, "The I Times" is more specific as to the ''achievement:— Despite criticism, there is general agreement that the Ottawa Conference I enabled the arrest of the' tendency of i economic nationalism foward high tariffs and the establishment of an. I opposite- trend. i Much remains to'be done, but a good 1 start has been made.