THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1932 BRITISH CABINET AND OTTAWA

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21296, 24 September 1932, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1932 BRITISH CABINET AND OTTAWA

It is disappointing to find a section j of the British Cabinet disposed to combat the Ottawa agreements. These Ministers are a minority—only a part of the Liberal membership of the Government, with the possible addition of Lord Snowden —but they have power to damp popular enthusiasm in Britain for the policy approved and determined at the conference. From the point of view of the Dominions, their disaffection is to % be deplored. It may not carry them, in spite of certain confident prophecies, to the length of resignation. Their plans are not yet known. Possibly, these are not yet precisely formulated. No declaration is likely to bo made before the Cabinet meets. Nevertheless, the ventilation of their objections and the rumour that they intend to resign are calculated to injure the cause served so well by their colleagues. Fortunately, a realisation of this is being forcefully expressed, even in quarters where partisan sympathy might be expected. They are apparently disinclined to regard the agreements from any angle but that of the United Kingdom. The wider interests of the Empire count lightly, if at all. They are seemingly prepared to part, company with their colleagues of all parties, whose considered policy Avas voiced at Ottawa by Mr. Baldwin. "The real importance of Ottawa," he said at the opening session, "lies in the fact that it marks the point where two roads diverge, the one leading to the development of purely national interests, the other to closer Imperial unity, and to the recognition of advantages in mutual co-operation in trade." If the executive of the National Liberal Federation has spoken for them, they will "oppose the dangerous and vicious principle of the Ottawa agreements to the utmost," and condemn them as unduly surrendering the rights of the British Parliament and operating to the disadvantage of British trade and the British public. This, which is utterly falsified by all that is authoritatively known of the conference and its agreements, betokens a bitter wish to belittle and nullify what has been promisingly done. There must be raised the question as to their right to obstruct the policy approved at Ottawa. That policy was frankly related to the policy of the Cabinet long before the conference met. These Ministers, no less than the rest, accepted office knowing that the Government had been returned to office with a mandate to do what it might deem best in the circumstances created by economic difficulty. The possibility of abandoning Britain's traditional policy of free trade, at all events for the "duration of danger," was plainly enunciated by Mr. MacDonald as Prime Minister; he frankly told the electors, in his broadcast speeches, that to institute protective tariffs might be found necessary. Lord Snowden similarly pleaded for the "free.! hand" policy, riddling the armour of the Labour opponents of this policy. The position was made all the more clear by the implacable attitude of Mr. Lloyd George, who used all his oratorical wiles to induce the country to reject the notion of protection. AH opposition was in vain: the Government, by a victory so complete as to be almost embarrassing, got its mandate, and soon used its conferred right to introduce protective tariffs. The "agreement to differ" allowed the free-trade Liberals to retain their places in the Ministry then; they did so rather than split the National Government. If these members of the. Government then felt that they were under no necessity to resign—by virtue of the "agreement to differ" arrangement —why should they feel - any such necessity now ? It may be urged, perhaps, on their behalf that the Ottawa agreements extend the tariff policy beyond the United Kingdom and therefore are not within the range of any previous understandings reached in Cabinet. That seems to be the view of the National Liberal Federation. This argument, however, ignores facts. At the time of the general election there was clear announcement that the tariffs, if introduced, would be the possible basis of mutually helpful agreements with the Dominions as well as a means of advantageous negotiations with foreign countries. The Imperial aspect was often mentioned in the course of the campaign. When, therefore, the British tariffs were imposed, the Dominions expressly excepted from their operation until a date well beyond the projected conference at Ottawa, and "On to Ottawa!" was made a meaningful slogan that nobody could misunderstand. It was accepted as an intended corollary of the preferences granted to the . Dominions in association with the British tariff policy. The Import Duties Act, with its provisional granting of free entry to a wide range of Dominion com-, modifies, became the basis of further effort to promote trade within the Empire. Ottawa took no step that was not openly contemplated when the British Government produced that measure. There have been expressions of disappointment that the conference did not go far enough. They can be understood. But to be told tjiat it went altogether beyond the mandate entrusted to the Government, and that consequently certain members of the Ministry are absolved from their undertaking to collaborate with their colleagues in the general work of that Government, does violence to facts. Some may prefer to see the political position clarified by their resignation. This, however, would create an unfortunate impression abroad, where the working of the British political system is not fully understood. To avoid even the nernblanco of disunity is highly desirable in days that are still critical, and wiser counsels should lead to a withdrawal of the implied threat to resign*