PREFERENTIAL TRADE

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1640, 5 August 1903, Page 20

PREFERENTIAL TRADE

SOME “LIONS IN THE PATH.” (By T. M. Wilford, M.H.R.) At tho outset let me say that I am heartily in accord with the idea of reciprocal tariff’s within the Empire, believing, as I do, that somo combined action is necessary to protect and further the trade interests of Great Britain and lier colonies. Before, however, any step can be taken towards that end the nuind of the voter in Great Britain must realise that such a state of things is to his advantage. There can be no question but that it is an advantage to New Zealand, for it has hitherto given much and received little, but can it be shown here in Great Britain, and can the people here be made to believe that such an arrangement would better their condition? Let me put before your readers some of the points of their side of the story, and then you will be able better to judge whether there is any possibility resolution, even uf carried in tho Commons, being assented to by the people. First of all, the proposals of Mr Chamberlain are indefinite and unshaped, and their very indefiniteness makes them alarming to the general taxpayer. His proposal is to place a tax on foodstuffs, and in return for the higher price paid consequently by the poor to give them 5s per week as an old age pension when they are sixtyfive years old. Not a very alluring bait; for it is a present patent extra cost of living, and that is their chief concern and terror. Aioreover, he is quite vague as to the necessity of taxing raw materials, and in his answer to the secretary of an organisation, which answer is published in the “Daily Malik of yesterday, he replies for the third time that it is not certain that any tax will be required to be imposed on raw materials. Is he, therefore, demanding a freetrado or a free hand with trade, no doubt some will ask. Now, what is tho effect of such a vague proposition on the minds of the many here? Alereiy this: that it is to cost them more to live under the new proposal. Let mo point out also an argument used by several writers against the proposal. Of the food imports of Great Britain not 25 per cent, comes from the colonies or British possessions; in fact, £IBO,000,000 comes from foreign countries. Now, this plainly shows that in the consideration to be given to the colonies countries supplying 75 per cent of Great Britain’s imports wall suffer, and it is not to be supposed that they will not retaliate. Why, at the present time, here, in fact almost daily, letters appear from people interested m the Scottish lierring trade asking what kind of embargo Chamberlain expects Germany will place on that [industry, and there are scores of others wntmg in reference to different trades which will no doubt be affected. To my mind, before the public generally here wlill agree to this proposal ’ someone will have to show them where the increase of wages is to com© from to meet the increased cost of living. It is no use answering this question

with an economical platitude, for a’ man’s pocket must find his brains. 1 have told you what the proportion of the import trade of Great Britain British possessions find. Now, look at tho exports: no less than 62 per cent, oi them are for foreign countries. Her oversea trade is valued at £600,000,000, of which £600,000,000 is transacted with foreign countries and about £200,000,000 with British possessions; and half -of the latter trade is freetrado within the Empire, for only the self-governing colonies have protective tariff's against Great Britain. We must also realise that geographically or in superficial area we are laager than England and Scotland. We have not in New Zealand as many people as there are in Manchester, which means that our purchasing power is limited indeed, and, moreover, much that we buy we cannot buy from Great Britain, for she has not the articles to sell.

Now, let me turn again to Mr Chamberlain’s statement—that it may he unnecessary to tax raw materials. How will the new regime benefit Australia or New Zealand in their wool export without a tax on raw material ? And the very suggestion of a tax on raw material would, it is contended here, close the woollen factories in Yorkshire at once. Mr Wilson, MJP. for Hull, contends that five or ten per cent, on raw cotton would close every cottou factory in Lancashire. Whether that is trfue or not I do not know. I merely instance the remark to slioav the interests that are being stirred into advance action here, and are forming a great army of public prejudice before the definite details are laid bare or arranged for discussion. Now, again, some contend that the proposals will have the effect of losing Canada’s trade, for America will not sit quiet if there is any chance of impairment of her traffic, and already I have read in one paper an extract from one of the leading American journals recommending a reciprocity treaty with Canada; for the United States, it is contended, can give Canada more than England; and trade preferences are certainly not sentimental as far as America and Canada are concerned. One writer in tho “Irish Times” says the people of Great Britain are to unite as one; for what ? “To take money from consumers of bread and meat in the United Kingdom and give it to the raisers of cattle and sheep in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, in order to n\ako their farms pa/y better, and in order that in return wo may have tho warm and intense affection of jthe colonies.” And in conjunction with this latter sentiment the same paper has an article headed “Smashing the Zoilverein,” in which it congratulates New Zealand on its threat that if the scheme is not adopted the colonies will instead secure reciprocal tariffs with foreign countries; and, as the article ironically concludes, this resolution comes “while the British people are conjured in the sacred name of Empire ” to favour Mr Chamberlain’s proposal. That influential journal, tho “Spectator,” which oue writer avers did so much' to bring about the Liberal split in 1886, has bitterly condemned tlie.scheme, calling upon all Imperialistic freetraders to organise in order to secure its defeat, because it is a danger to the Empire. In the face of the tremendous aud poAverful opposition locally, it seems to mo from hero that the proper course for tho colonies to pursue is the only one that is helpful to Mr Chamberlain, namely, that of steadfast approval and earnest co-operation; for, as he stated a feiv days ago, Avithout the cooperation of the colonies the scheme cannot be successful. There is one other thing I should like to say in reference to tho suggested reciprocity treaty between the United States of America and Canada. There is already in Canada something like a tax of 24 per cent on English goods, though the United States do well with Canada, as they sell raw material which is not dutiable, while practically only manufactured articles go from England there. Will that duty be lightened by Canada?,lt is a question; for a Avriter in the “Glasgow Herald” says (and I have quite a collection of writings on the matter) that Canadian manufacturers complain .that the duties against British manufacturers are not high enough, and there is no doubt that the colonies must also,in the terms of 1 any treaty, see that their manufactures do not stfffer. I write, not with a desire of weakening the colonial feeling towards the movement, but because I think we should realise that ive are very small after all, and that our proper course is to back up to the best of our small might any reciprocal tariff treaty within the Empire, at the same time understanding that many interests are concerned and there are two sides to every question. Edllarney, 9th June, 1903.