Manawatu Evening Standard. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1923. EMPIRE ECONOMIC UNITY.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIV, Issue 804, 6 September 1923, Page 4

Manawatu Evening Standard. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1923. EMPIRE ECONOMIC UNITY.

The prospects of Empire Economic Unity are interestingly discussed by Lieut.-General Sir Travers Clarke, K.C.B.', K.C.M.G., deputy-chairman of the Board of Edrectors of the British Empire Exhibition, and Quartermaster General to the British Armies in France, 1917-19, in the current issue of the Nineteenth Century and After. The vital question, and one that the coming Economic Conference can alone decide, is whether the British Empire throughout is ready to adopt a policy of economic unity. Our own Prime Minister has more than once stated liis belief that the Empire has, within itself, all that is necessary for both the sustenance., bodily comfort, and even the luxurious living of its peoples, and that, if we would direct pur trade and market our productions within ‘the Empire on the right lines there would bo no need to spend our money or substance outside the Empire, except in almost negligible measure. The British Empire Exhibition, iSir Travers Clarke says, 6 ' ; aims to be a peace stocktaking of oar Imperial position in production, manufacture and merchanting; and the measure of its success (he says) will give a clear indication of how our Imperial fabric has stood the test of the Great War and, perhaps, the severer test of certain illusory promises of an earthly paradise, with the subsequent inevitable disillusionment.” Of the capacity of the British Empire, expressed in terms of territory, of capital, of labour, to organise for itself, in spite of war losses, a prosperity greater even than that v/hicli marked the opening of this cenfcury, ho has no doubt, and he expresses the opinion that “if there is any place at all for doubt, it is on the point 'whether the sentiment of unity and the capacity to take the ‘big view,’ remain sufficiently strong to overcome promptings of territorial jealousy, or short-sighted selfishness, so as to enable the British Empire to act., as an economic unit in the peace construction of the world.” There are many people who hold that the British Empire is the great steadying force amongst civilised nations, and that its Continuance is absolutely necessary to the preservation of the world’s peace. The Russian Bolsheviks recognise this, and their Government lias, consequently, directed much revolutionary literature and propaganda against the British Government and Empire, flooding Afghanistan and India with tons of propaganda and sending their emissaries from town to town, and village to village, urging Afghanistan to make war upon us and India to drive us into the sea. They 1 have had their emissaries at work in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, promoting strife and dissension, and providing the funds to carry -on their subtle warfare to bring about the downfall ?df the British Empire and the world revolution. There is no need to enlarge upon these things. They have been too plainly set out from time to time, and it would have been a very good thing for the Empire had the British Government, instead of concluding the very onesided trade agreement with the Soviet, authorities, followed the example of France and America, in refusing to have any dealings with, or to even recognise officially the Russian Government, until such time as it definitely

abandoned its furtive warfare against the world’s civilised Governments. The very fact that we have, in the Britisli Empire, to fight the Bolshevism that Russia is endeavouring to force into our social fabric, should make us work together in greater unity, and with more sincerity of purpose for its preservation. And that can be most effectually accomplished by definite economic unity within the Empire.

WHAT THE WAR YEARS SHOWED

Sir Travers Clarke puts the matter very shrewdly when he says that the events of the Great War proved the real strength of Imperial sentiment. “They showed that our British settlements overseas had bred true to stock; that they were as British in their ideals, and as tenacious in holding them, as the people of the Home Country; that they were willing to make the full sacrifice of blood and treasure to maintain those ideals.” But the problem is “whether the Empire can show the same unity, and the same sense of a common purpose in facing the hard workaday problems of peace reconstruction.” The real test is found there. We can' make great sacrifices when we are called upon to defend our homes, our couutry, and the Empire itself, against the aggressions of a foreign foe, but can we make the smaller sacrifices in matters of trade and trading facilities, which preferential trading within the Empire indy necessitate? “The idea of Empire economic unity may (as Sir Travers Clarke points out) demand in one quarter a temporary sacrifice of cheapness, in another a postponement of a cherished plan to found a new local industry. In all quarters (Sir Travers Clarke says) it will need the ‘long view’ and the ‘big view.’” The need for the economic development of the Empire to be carried out on wellbalanced lines is shown in Sir Travers Clarke’s references to three industries, the first being the sugar industry, "in which we held a complete supremacy during the time of the Napoleonic wars, but which “was allowed to drift almost entirely out of our hands” because ‘ ‘the interests of the British manufacturer seemed to call for cheap sugar. To serve that interest, the canefields of the West Indies were allowed to fall back into jungle to a great extent, and the new sugar lands that we had acquired in Northern Australia and the Pacific were left almost undeveloped. If,” Sir Travers says, “during the nineteenth century the British Empire, as an Empire, had set itself to maintain an Imperial balance in the matter of the sugar industry, it is possible that there would not have been so great a concentration of manufacturers of confectionery and the like in the Home Country, but there would have been a greater prosperity for the West Indies, for Northern Australia, and for the Pacific settlements under our flag.” Taking cotton, the position is that a marvellous organisation was built up in Lancashire for manufacturing cotton, but no adequate provision was made for the supply of raw material within the Empire. This was “not that we lacked cotton-growing lands, but that there was no settled Imperial econotoic policy which surveyed the Empire as a whole, and sought to establish a balance between manufacture and supply of raw material.” The one great and truly Imperial industry, on the other hand, is an example or what “areally well-balanced industry” should be—that is, wool textiles. “There, both the manufacture and the growth of wool were developed side "by side within the Empire. Whilst Yorkshire perfected machinery for the production of the finest wool textiles, the scanty wool resources of the British Isles were supplemented by the development of the magnificent sheep runs of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Thus, this truly Imperial industry enriches to-day almost every part of the Empire.” Taking the figures showing the value of the exports of manufactured goods and of the imports of raw materials from the Empire, and from foreigners of both cotton and woollen goods, Sir Travers Clarke shows that, where the cotton industry in a pre-war year (1913) drew only 3 per cent, of its raw material from the Empire, the wool industry drew about 75 per cent. The war taught the necessity of Empire cotton, and, in the post-war year 1921, the Empire contributed about one-third of the raw material supply, and there is no doubt that the Empire could, if called upon, contribute the whole of the raw material for the Lancashire mills, and this, too, though Egypt can no longer be regarded as part of the Empire. .