THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1923. TRADE AND THE EMPIRE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18550, 7 November 1923, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1923. TRADE AND THE EMPIRE.

— ♦ The challenge flung out by the British Prime Minister, in announcing adherence to the policy of Empire preference and Empire development, is being taken up sectionally by different parties. The orthodox Liberal declares that it will not cure unemployment, but omits to say what will, unless possibly a further extension of Free Trade. The spokesmen of the Labour Party have not been quite so unkind to this move toward protection; they contend merely that as a remedy for present economic ills it is far inferior to the Labour programme. From neither source has there yet come anything commensurate with the closelyreasoned common-sense analysis of to-day's conditions given by Mr. Baldwin, when, in his Swansea speech, he proclaimed his belief in protection and preference as the expedient to be adopted in fighting depression and unemployment. A little further comment on the Government's proposals, this time from Mr. J. R. Clynes, one of the ablest Labour members, is contained in to-day's cable messages. With the greater part of his reported remarks nobody outside Britain need be much concerned. They apply to domestic politics which must be adjudicated upon by the British voter. Mr. Clynes, however, said that trade no longer followed the flag, but the current of international amity. That is to say, he places goodwill above a common citizenship as a factor encouraging trade. His contention about amity can be gladly accepted by those who believe in developing Empire trade; where does greater goodwill exist than between Britain and the Dominions? If the argument were left there, it would mean, of course, that no special effort was needed to foster Empire trade, because the existing goodwill was of itself sufficient. The modern conception is, however, that intelligent co-operation should be utilised to increase trade within the Empire, not relatively, but absolutely, through expansion of the markets. Despite Mr. Clynes' disclaimer, it can be shown that trade has followed the flag, because of amity, and that, on reasonable assumptions, its volume can be increased to such a degree that the sceptics will no longer be able to ignore the potentialities of Empire trade. It has many times been contended that foreign, particularly European, trade is of much greater importance to Britain, actually and potentially, than that with the Dominions. Figures have been used in support and made to appear most impressive. The statistics have not been given their true value in many instances for want of a complete analysis. The year 1913, the last under normal pre-war conditions, may be» taken as a case in point. In that year, the total exports from the United Kingdom were valued at £525,253,500. The self-governing Dominions took £91,289,000 worth, the whole Empire £195,311,400 worth. On these figures, it has been asked, where is the possibility of substituting Empire for foreign markets ? Reduction to a per capita basis alters the nature of the argument. In the year 1913 the most valuable single customer the United Kingdom had was the individual New Zcalander, who, in the average, purchased goods worth £10 2s lOd; the next, the Australian I with £7 3s Od; then followed the I ?v U African with £3 lis sd, and pne Canadian with £3 3s 2d.. The

best foreign customer was the Netherlands, to which Britain sent goods at the rate of £2 9s 8d per head of the population. By 1921 the position had changed to some extent, but the Dominions still maintained their value as customers, while the story of lost European markets was inconsiderable evidence. Canada bought less in the aggregate and proportionately than in 1913, but with the others there had been a substantial increase. <ew Zealand's per capita figure had risen to £12 4s sd, that of Australia to £8 7s 4d, and of South Africa to £4 5s lid. Exports to Empire destinations had increased to £298,770,870, out of a total of £703,196,282. It was remarked that all Europe, less France, with a combined population of over 270,000,000 people, showed smaller purchases of British goods for that year than the four Dominions with barely 20,000,000 people among them. Trade does appear to have followed the flag, despite scepticism or denials. If all these possible markets for British exports were of fixed dimensions, -the unavoidable conclusion would be that those within the Empire required no attention. A small per capita increase in sales to the great foreign communities would mean immeasurably more than a similar increase for the Dominions. The theory of Empire development by co-operation is much broader than that, however. In the opinion of most people, Britain contains a greater population than is necessary to maintain production at a constant level, or even to augment it considerablyin short, surplus population. The Dominions are underpopulated. The transfer of people, with careful eye kept on development in the country of destination, promises an expansion of Empire markets, with their heavy per capita purchasing power, in a way that no foreign market approaches. These arc the elementary lines of the policy. Considered in this way, the proposition should appeal to those who are the special audience of men like Mr. Clynes and his Labour colleagues. It carries the whole conception very far away from the narrow limits of Free Trade and Protection. Protective duties at each end are a part, and a very vital part, of the scheme : but they are not all of it. This ideal of mutual help for the benefit of all is destined to undergo the ordeal of serving as an election issue, if it is ever to be given practical expression. Mr. Asquith predicts that it will not survive, any more than did the similar policy propounded by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain in 1903. It may not, but circumstances have changed since then, and the policy has been both extended and reinforced. In any event, it will not ask in vain for enthusiastic advocacy, as has already been proved by the speeches of the British Prime Minister.