PATER'S CHATS WITH THE BOYS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2569, 10 June 1903, Page 75

PATER'S CHATS WITH THE BOYS.

A ZOLLVERKIN'. BKCIPROCITY, OR

WHAT?

Of couise even body who is am body lias something to bay on the Right Hon. Mr Cljamberlfin's rel'ereuce to a commeicial federation of the British Empire against the world. Why, then, shouldn't we have a word to s,iy on this question too? Whether we like il or not, we slwll have lo face it in the immediate future. Time bimgs about many changes. When the Spaniards opened up the Xew World they d : d all they could to confine tho tiade of their colonies to the Mother Country. When Gre.il BnUm first established her colonies her policy was to confine trade as f.vr us possible between them and herself— n.iinly, of couise, to benefit herself. What w,.» {he result"/ Both Spain and Great Britain lost their colonies, and Great Britain began to look upon colonies as a brood of chickens leaving their parent as soon as they could look after themselves. Sj from being governed from the Mother Country and having their industries proI':bitcl or throttled when they came into competition with her:-, they have become ii h } endent in everytliing but name. >So far Britain's attitude to her colonies has L«^r. that of one of two extremes. 1 Now we ar© corning, probably, to what might be called the mean. A straight-out war has caused the crimson thread of kinship to be more recognised ; but before the British Empire is m an absolutely unassailable position the commercial policy of U.e I'.mpire as a whole must be clearly defined in iis relationship to the rest of the world. When it is recognised as clearly that there is a commercial war being car-l-ied on against here as it is that the naval armaments ,of two or three empires aro being massed to measure strength, then we shall be prepared to make sacrifices i» maintain our position.

This column is hardly the place to deal with such a dry question, but still I may be pardoned for referring to it. Tho question of commercial supremacy comes up at all times and in various ways. The struggle for territory is really the btraggle to secure and monopolise markets — at least, it is SO witli every nation but Great Britain. Take an instance or two : You know that France, Germany. Russia, and the United States — if I am wrong I shall be glad of correction — will not allow a foreign ship to carry an ounce of cargo or a single passenger between any of their ports ; nor will they allow foreign traders free access to their colonies. Why? They are protection ists. They believe in keeping their markets to themselves. Take the case of Germany. Here we have a federation of kings, princes, and princelets. It existed to a greater or lt*s<9 extent a century or more since ; but the system was perfected about 30 years ago, just after what is known as the Franco-Prussian war. These kingdoms, duuhies, etc. , found it very harassing to tiude when duties were collected at every frontier, and even at two or three cities controlled by the same ruler ; so they combined, with an immediate advantage to themselves ; and this combination taught them how to combine against the outside world. The same thing occurred in Canada, where the federation of the provinces was made a necessity by the existence of their strongly protective and powerful neighbour, the United States. The provinces found their isolation disadvantageous when trading with one another, and each was helpless when dealing with its neighbour and powerful rival Australia has seen the necessity for combination, and has fallowed suit; and we see tho trend is the same way in South Africa.

But, now we come to the wider question. Great Britain ihas a Freetrade policy, but most of llie other nations — indeed, all the important ones^— are controlled by the protectionist policy. The former, "it appeal's to me, is the ideal policy; the latter an intensely selfish policy, and if carried out to its conclusion lands those advocating it in an absurdity. Great Britain became a Freetrade nation naturally. She had, and still hu,«, abundance of coal and iron, and with these and the manufacturing and maritime genius of her people she speedily assumed the lead ; and commercially and as a maritime nation waa for a long •time without compeer. But her position lias been a vulnerable one. Coal and iron she has produced in abundance, but her raw products — cotton and wool — and her foodstuffs have had to be imported in immense quantities, and from nations which in the course of time have spiung into strong competition with her. These nations have now arrived at a position when it is necessary for Great Britain to seriously consider whether her Freetrade policy mrets the situation. Their foreign trade lias increased at a much more rapid rate than the rate of Great Britain's trade, and a large part of that trade is done with British colonies ; and it now becomes a question of time when her position aa a commercial and a maritime nation — for the one involves the other — is to be challenged. Many &<iy tliat Great Britain must not break through her Freetrade policy. Why not? — because ?he is largely dependent upon foieiguers foi iuypliefc. But look at

il another way. Take down a map and see the extent of the British Empire, the variety of climate and productions it includes and the possibilities of the future. Canada, Egypt (with her immense possibilities through iniqation), India (ditto), Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa enn produce food products of all descriptions, and cotton and" wool. lam told that the South Sea Islands produce the finest cotton in 'the .world. Then see what trade developments ar© possible : far more, I think, than we shall lose by a federation. I read this week that it is estimated that South Africa will absorb £50,000,000 of machinery during the next five years, and that is only one item. At present Great Britain imnorts wheat, cic v from the United States ; but it is said that in a few years, so rapidly is the growth of population and manufactures of the United States increasing, there will be no wheat to export. Seeing that Great Britain is dependent upon foreigners for her wheat and other supplies, why, then, shouldn't she encourage her colonies to produce these now? Ivioney is req\iired ; why not raise it on the things which will encourage the growth of tha colonies, which will ' as a, result become buttresses of the Empire. I spoke of South Africa Just now. Is it reasonable that, after spending perhaps £500,000,000 in maintaining our position there, v. c should throw open the South African market to our onemits — enemies who do a-11 th» % y can Io clos-e their markets against v.-, iiiul to establish navies to tin eaten our very existence?

It svems to me that when there is a commercial barrier all about us we should form a fair trade federation against our opponents ; then, if they care to come to terms we can e&tablkli reciprocity Avith those who will concede to us what they want us to concede to them. I am a freetrader ; but when I see a ring-fence put up against me, then if a ring-fence will bring adversaiies to reason I'll put one up too.