TRADE WITH DOMINIONS

Evening Star, Issue 21714, 8 May 1934, Page 7

TRADE WITH DOMINIONS

BRITAIN’S DILEMMA PRESS COMMENT ON SITUATION Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. LONDON, May 7, The 1 Daily Herald’s ’ political correspondent says;—“ The issue of Sir Herbert Samuel’s motion in the House of Commons to-day is between Mr Hunciman’s stand for the development of the world market, in the dominions and foreign countries alike, and Mr Elliot’s policy of securing a closed market for the British farmer, even to the point of discriminating against the dominion producer. Mr Runciraan is backed by Mr Neville Chamberlain, Mr Stanley Baldwin, Lord Hailsham, and the members of the Cabinet responsible for the Ottawa agreement. An acute battle is developing between British industrial and agricultural interests. City opinion is strongly opposed to interference in trade with the dominions. ' Another complication is provided by Mr Thomas, who is becoming "increasingly irritated by the dominion pressure.” The ‘ Daily Express ’ says;—“ Mr Thomas will seek to show that the New Zealand offer was no olfer, but an inquiry, but Mr Forbes’s inquiry was made as the basis of a deal. There was an offer and it was rejectee!. It is monstrous to say that acceptance would harm \ the British farmers. Is British industry to lose the New Zealand mar* ket because the Government prefers to buy Argentine products? The country won’t tolerate a Government which refuses such an offer.”

THE NEW ZEALAND INQUIRY

BRITISH GOVERNMENT CRITICISED.

LONDON, May 7, (Received May 8, at 1,5 p.m.)

In the House of Commons, Sir Herbert Samuel, in moving a reduction in the dominions vote, said that though the New Zealand communication did not amount to an offer, it was an inquiry that no business man would neglect. The Government’s negative response might be the turning point in the direction of British policy in relation to the dominions. The Government’s policy in restricting and contracting trade was causing profound concern in Western Canada and Western Australia. In the latter place tho people were so gravely concerned that there was a considerable secession movement to obtain freedom to make their own commercial arrangements. Mr Lyons had stated that Australia would have to seek markets elsewhere.

Mr Thomas: Do you suggest that the Western Australian secession movement has been caused by what has been done here, or in Australia? Sir Herbert Samuel: To a great extent, both. Cries of “ No.”

Sir Herbert Samuel continued, that if Australia made the same inquiry ns New Zealand and received the same reply it would be exceedingly detrimental to Western Australia and other parts of the Commonwealth. The reply sent to New Zealand naturally was the result of a policy of economic nationalism, which the Government vigorously condemned, but energetically pursued. It was Mr Elliot’s slap-dash, happy-go-lucky policy which caused rejection of New Zealand’s suggestion. The Government should welcome every offer of a reduction or the abolition of tariffs. Freetrade with New Zealand would render the greatest service to the Empire.