TRADE BOYCOTT

Grey River Argus, 24 August 1934, Page 5

TRADE BOYCOTT

LANCASHIRE V. AUSTRALIA. (Aus. & N.Z. Cable Assn.) LONDON, August 22. A deputation from the Lancashire cott/un industry to Mr Bruce dissociated themselves frioin the threatened boycott of Australian foodstulls, bui said that it was unable to influence the grocers. They at the same time made a protest against the recent increase in Australian tariffs on certain classes of cotton yarn and piece goods us being contrary to the Ottawa Agreement by which the Commonwealth Government undertook not to protect industries which had not pound prospects for success, and the United producers were guaranteed full opportunity of reason üble competition. The deputation was neecived by Mr Colville, and stated they had been .sympathetically received by Mr Bruce who had undertaken to forward their rase to the Australian Government. Mr Colville informed the deputa'io.i he has been in tom h with the Pr side nt of the Board of Trade, wh* agreed bo take the matter up at once with the Australian Government. M ■ Bruce contended that Australia hid * treated the Lancashire cotton trade far better than any other country. Mr Bruce warned them that the Australians might retaliate by say ing, “We Iwill not buy from Britain.” whieh was a movement the Government might not. Im* able to «>nW trol, just as the textile, manufactur ’ era were unable to control the grocers.