THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1925. EMPIRE DEVELOPMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18941, 12 February 1925, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1925. EMPIRE DEVELOPMENT.

Unusual vigour and directness mark a declaration on the need for close co-operation in Empire development, made by Mr. Amery, Secretary of State for the Colonies. -No detailed suggestion of ways and means accompanies it, but Mr. Amery is in the right place to produce, them when opportunity offers. His enunciation of principle is worth consideration meanwhile. Breadth is its dominating characteristic. He is not satisfied to contemplate a patchwork policy, or to engage in sporadic activity. A great economic policy, with the energies of Britain and the Dominions concentrated on the one end is implied in his statement. This, in his view, affords the only means of breaking what he terms the vicious circle of high prices and unemployment. To give effect to such a purpose entails much more thau the mere establishment of preferential tariffs. Even if Britain were won away from the established policy of free trade sufficiently to give Empire products an effective degree of preference—thus closing the huge gap in the present rampart against unrestricted foreign competition—the action would not realise the newer ideals of Empire co-operation in development. The conception of Imperial preference has been slowly broadened in the base during the past few years. Recognition that it may mean more than tariff reciprocity has been growing in Britain, but the position has never before been put in terms so uncompromising as those used by Mr. Amery, speaking with all the weight and authority of his place in the Government. Supporting his contention, moreover, he follows the sound course of resorting to history in amplification of his meaning. The lessons of the past, read aright, are full of value.

The part which Britain has played in the economic development of the United States, the Argentine, and many European countries, as cited by Mr. Amery, is one of the most remarkable features of modern times. Compared with the restricted and casual attention given the Dominions and Colonies, it becomes even more arresting. The Argentine is a specially significant case. In that country, as in many other parts of South America, British capital and energy and organising ability have been among the strongest factors making for rapid, successful, progress. Now the process has reached such a point that the Argentine is the most formidable competitor Australia and New Zealand face in the markets where they are most vitally concerned. These Dominions cannot make a special grievance of the circumstance, however, for Britain herself has suffered equally from competition in countries where British action has had much to do with making the beginnings successful. It is true that the capital employed has generally earned much more than ordinary interest. The undertakings as a rule were profitable. The immediate benefits were pleasant to contemplate, so there was little need to consider ultimate consequences. There is good reason now to weigh the results of the economic policy which has dominated Britain for well over half a century. It was confidently predicted by those who insisted upon the removal of all barriers and all distinctions, enabling every country to trade with Britain on an absolute equality, that there would be a general response in kind on all sides, and that the result would be an era of universal and unbreakable peace. These things have not happened. Yet suggestions for a reorientation of economic policy are met by protests that the old way is the traditional British method and is peculiarly suited to Britain's powers and needs. It is a very recent tradition, as traditions go, and the results promised by its inauguration have not been produced. These circumstances surely give justification for reversal of the old order, which means in effect turning specifically to the Empire for material and markets. The protagonists of concentration on Empire development often meet with more than indifference in Britain. Active opposition is not unknown. Those who lay great emphasis on the importance of foreign trade might be expected at least to admit that an equal volume of overseas trade within the Empire would be of equal value. This admission is not always forthcoming. The opposite view is often covered by a denial that trade with the Dominions could ever equal the volume done in foreign markets. The exact factor emphasised by Mr. Amery, the part Britain has played in developing those foreign countries, is not allowed. To admit it would be to give too much to the opposition. This attitude may appear curious, but it has its historical explanation. In the controversy centring round abolition of the old Navigation Acts —which in brief gave Britain a monopoly of trade with the Dominions—the abolitionists cheerfully admitted that the result might be the hiving off of all the colonies. They welcomed the prospect. "Cutting the painter" was a favourite phrase. It was bluntly declared that Britain would be better off without ejnharrassing appendages like growing colonies. Such downright anticipation of Empire disintegration is not voiced now. It is not fashionable. Yet there must linger vestiges of the old incubus theory

when suggestions for Empire development are greeted with comment which is often sceptically critical, sometimes directly hostile. Such feelings must be met and conquered if there is to be realisation of the ideal Mr. Amery has sketched. The task is too onerous to be accomplished without complete unity of effect in Britain and elsewhere in the Empire. Yet it is worth doing, for the sake of the benefits—not all material —that it promises. Mr. Amery has made a statement well enough attuned to feelings strongly held in the Dominions to make it a rallying cry for all who believe in co-operative effort for the development of the Empire.