THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, JULY 3, 1907. BRITISH LABOUR AND TRADE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13480, 3 July 1907, Page 6

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, JULY 3, 1907. BRITISH LABOUR AND TRADE.

The manifesto on > " The Colonial t Conference and Preferential Trade" c which has been issued in London by fc an important group of Labour mem- t bers is chiefly remarkable for its grotesquely mistaken view of the situation. The sneering remarks rj upon the comparatively small popu- g lation of our, Australasian colonies t and the stubborn assumption that s any alteration in the fiscal policy of f the United Kingdom, and of the c Empire, must be proposed solely in , the interest of " capitalists" at ( Home and of self-seeking producers , in the colonies, arc very typical ] examples of the invectives to which { "Free Trade" apologists in the. Mother Country have been reduced. ; Mr. Winston Churchill, despite his ( connection with the Colonial Office, , initiated this campaign of abuse , when speaking at Edinburgh upon , the Imperial Conference, and the ; cue was immediately taken by that , Radical element in British politics , which is dismayed at the prospect . of being left stranded by the chang- , ing tide of public opinion. The Labour party in the Imperial Parliament is largely an offshoot of . Radicalism, holding in idolatrous reverence certain conceptions of I trade which much repetition and , ;long acceptance have fixed in narrow and inexperienced minds. It J will be remembered that after protesting loudly against what was asserted to be an improper attempt by the colonies to influence British thought upon fiscal questions, this section of the Labour Party determined to send a delegation to the colonies in order to preach the dogmas of Free Trade to colonial audiences. The proposed delegation was not wholly arranged, but Mr. Macdonald, chairman of the Independent Labour Party, came out on a little mission of his own, which evidently disabused his mind of, the possibility of obtaining any general organisation among the Labour Parties of the Empire wherewith to antagonise and ultimately defeat Mr. Chamberlain's fiscal reforms. For the nominally sympathetic Labour organisations of Greater Britain, while shrewdly avoiding internal disputation upon fiscal differences, are recognisedly Protectionist in their tendencies, and strongly inclined towards Preference and Reciprocity. It has been impossible for the Free Trade champions at Home to prevent the knowledge of this and the inevitable influence of this from permeating the ideas of British trade unionists. The outcome was inevitable: Either they had to recognise that fiscalism is not a matter of economic certitude under all circumstances, but. merely of temporary and fluctuating policy, or they had to abuse and denounce as wholly evil and vicious | a movement which is being advanced upon patriotic grounds and ,I by overwhelming argument. . That I they have chosen the latter course is highly encouraging, for it means that they are in deadly fear of what will happen if preferential trade is J admitted to be entitled to reasonable consideration and courteous 'attention.

I That " New Zealand's white popu- ' lation is only equal to that of the ' Birmingham district and Australia's ; to half that of London" does not particularly affect the question of the desirability of treating the Imperial dominions as forming with the Mother Country one integral commercial organisation. The suggestion that if the colonial population which is not white were added the proportions might be other than those stated is only what might be expected from parochial politicians who do not know the alphabet of the Imperial problem. What is carefully ignoredwe admit because Ino value whatever attaches to the point in the narrow Radical mind— is that any other great industrial country in the world, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, or the United |States, would eagerly seize upon the opportunity for commercial reciprocity with these colonies of ours and .with, the rest of the British

dominions oversea which is so con temptuously regarded by thest would-be guides of British politica action. We shall be told, of course that the calling attention to , this notorious fact is threatening to biij in other countries if the Unitec Kingdom . does not meet us or reciprocal terms. But it is useless tc waive arguments which must have weight, with impartial and sincere Englishmen of every class, nonestlj endeavouring to arrive at a sounc conclusion on the question, siraplj because abusive opponents deliberately and wilfully misinterpre them. There is the fact which can not be denied. Either we. raus agree that England, alone of all tin nations of the earth, has arrived a fiscal truth, or we must recognisi that she persists in an unbusiness like and unprofitable commercia policy which no other country in tin world will have anything to do with and which only exists in her cast because she blinds herself to the un fortunate results of her adherens to antiquated dogma. What gav< birth to the Free Trade policy o England we all know, or woulc know if we took the trouble to reac intelligently the history of the Latei Georgian and Early Victoriar period. While the Napoleonic War; had left her in command of the world's markets, her terrific sacrifices had crippled her immediate, resources, and she was , driven to produce at high pressure in order to replace her dissipated wealth. The industrial population exceeding her convenient food-producing capacity corn rose to and remained at ''famine prices." The agitation against the Corn Laws, inspired by the belief that the corn duties were the cause of dear bread, developed into the Free Trade movement, which was carried to a successful conclusion. But bread did not fall in price for many years, or until the great prairie production swamped the markets with cheap wheat.; yot it is ignorantly and traditionally assumed that the distress of England, from "ixty to ninety years ; igo, was due to the Corn Laws, and that relief followed immediately upon their repeal. As a matter of [act, the great difficulty in the way )f fiscal reform in the United KingJoin lies in the superstition that 3very national misery of a most distressful period was due to " protection," and that this misery would promptly recur if any protective or preferential tariff were imposed. The moment Englishmen escape by ship from beneath the weight of ;his superstition they take a broader md . sounder view of the whole iscal question. They perceive the :ommon sense that underlies the lational fiscal policies of every jther nation, and begin to ask :hemselves why they also, in theii Imperial fraternity, should nol mare with one another the tnanifesl advantages of preferential trade Foreign nations are closing then Joors against British goods, by the making of which the British work nan earns his wages and the British manufacturer earns his profits. [s it wholly selfish of the colonies, vhich with their vast areas and expensive industries are big producers tnd big consumers, that they should seek to persuade the Mother Country to form a trading "pool" by which the great benefits of trade ind commerce might be retained imong the members and not given :o building up the rival prosperity jf commercially antagonistic national organisations? These British Labour members, like their . coleagues, the other Free Trade memoers, -say that it is wholly selfish. But will Britain say so at the next general elections 1