THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1929. EMPIRE FREE TRADE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20438, 14 December 1929, Page 12

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1929. EMPIRE FREE TRADE.

The crusade for Empire free trade, inspired and headed by Lord Beaverbrook, has reached the stage of planning a national convention, based on an appeal to people of all political faiths. The conveners of this gathering say they will take no sides in the controversy between free trade and protection. For all that, the official statement of their objectives leaves little hope that the advocates, at least, of free trade will be placated by such a declaration. Those objectives, recited briefly as a preamble to the appeal for a convention, explained in more detail by a pamphlet Lord Beaverbrook has issued, are claimed to be more than a system of preferential tariffs such as Joseph Chamberlain advocated at the beginning of the present century. They are more, but in the ultimate they are based on a tariff, system, and can expect, therefore, no quarter from the orthodox free trader. Beyond that, there is imagined a carefully planned scheme to develop the Empire as an economic unit. After emphasising that, Lord Beaverbrook says in his pamphlet, " these proposals are something entirely new in the history of British politics." That, they are not. Introduced under different auspices, infused with a very different spirit, the Beaverbrook proposals, nevertheless, are in many ways reminiscent of the laws and regulations actually used, over many years, in an endeavour to make the British Empire—though that name was not then known—a self-con-tained economic unit. They date back, in some particulars, to the whole series of Navigation Acts and cognate ordinances which began early in the days of American colonisation.

The first Navigation Act, passed in 1651, had a simpler and more direct intention than that of fostering trade between England and her infant colonies. Laying it down that all goods imported into England from abroad, including those from the West Indies and the American colonies, must be carried in ships that were English-owned and manned, the Act was intended to strike a blow at the Dutch carrying trade. It was a phase of the prolonged struggle between England and Holland for maritime supremacy. It was also the beginning of a system afterwards developed from both naval and commercial motives. In the next 50 years economic conceptions were shaped, and a deliberate course was set to exclude foreign competition, either in buying or selling, from the colonial markets, to build up a shipping monopoly, and, to a smaller extent, to check the development of colonial industries that would compete with those of England. The terms English and England are used advisedly, for, at this time, and until the Act of Union, Scottish trade suffered all the handicaps imposed on foreign trade. One result of such discrimination was the ill-fated Darien expedition of 1695. Though the colonies were practically prohibited from trading, at all events directly, with foreign countries, though duties were levied on their produce imported into England, they were also protected from foreign competition by high tariffs. Colonial shipping was encouraged, and colonial goods were given a virtual monopoly in their restricted market. All the benefit was not on the side of England. It was not until more than 30 years had passed, when attempts were made to forbid trade between New England and the French West Indies, that bad feeling began to develop. When, by 1764 -and later, the policy of Grenville began the movement which resulted in the revolt of the American colonies, the trade restrictions were only part of the trouble. Up till then the colonists had complained, had evaded the laws when they saw fit, but had paid such duties as were imposed on them without violent protest. The War of Independence did not bring the trade laws to an end,

Repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 was soon followed by the disappearance of all the preferential duties which colonial produce had previously enjoyed. After that the Navigation Laws were doomed, and were, in fact, repealed in 1849. Next an attempt was made to impose free trade on the colonies, but most of them now enjoyed responsible government, and nothing came of it. ■ The issue was placed beyond doubt in 1859, when Canada vindicated her right to impose what import duties she pleased. These episodes in Empire history show clearly that the movement Lord Beaverbrook has sponsored does in effect propose a return to an old system, doomed once Britain became a free trade country.. If anything like the fiscal union which lay beneath the old Navigation Acts and trade ordinances is to be built up again, the process must be a very different one. It can be done only by the consent of all the parties, and the interests of all will have to be adequately safeguarded. In two points the Beaverbrook campaign recognises the changed conditions. It is insisted that Britain will impose no duties on produce from the Dominions, especially foodstuffs — thus making a concession to British feeling against food taxes—and it insists with equal vehemence that the interests of young industries in tho Dominions must be adequately safeguarded. In the old days colonial produce was taxed, whether it was food or not, and there was no hesitation in attempting to discourage colonial manufacturing for the benefit of English. Allowing all that, the campaign is connected, in principles and objectives, with tho old system, especially in that it aims at directing Empire trade, so far as possible, into exclusively Empire channels. If it develops into a movement of serious weight, it will be unique -as an effort to put back the clock.