The British Side.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXII, Issue 8804, 4 May 1907, Page 2

The British Side.

Defence of Free Trade.

Per -Press Association.-~Copyrigb.fc, Loxmmc, May 3. At the Imperial Conference Mr Mackny, on behalf oJ India, regretted being at Variance .with the autonomous colonies. He thought the Indian Government tried to regard preference from the Imperial as well as the Indian standpoint. Under the existing system India enjoyed a highly advantageous position. Her external seaborne trade increased 66 per eent. in last decade. Some of her best customers were protected countries in Europe* without whose Markets she wduld Be unable td dispone df her produce. If India kept outside preference foreigners might treat her separately, but otherwise they might retaliate, hurting Indian trade. India had nothing to gain by the Empire adopting a system of tariffs discriminating against foreign manufactured products and food stuffs, and the risks and sacrifices involved were too great for India to accept. , Any preference granted to the United Kingdom by the autonomous colonies ought also to be granted to India. Mr Botha personally favoured preferI ence, but he had not been long enough in i office to get a mandate from the TransI vaal, therefore he adhered to the rosoluI tibn of 1902.

Sir P. Bend adhered to the resolution of 1902, though Newfoundland desired to co-operate in a policy of prefersnee. Mr Asquith acknowledged the ability and clearness of the colonial caso presented, and complimented Mr Deakin's able expositions. He gladly noticed that nothing was said which was calculated to weaken the sense of Imperial unity or the determination to cement that unity. He dwelt on the great advantage of discussin > such subjects face to face. Sir Wilfrid Laurier Jhad often emphasised that the basis of unity must be Ithe right of each member of the Empire to first regard its own interests.

Mr Asquith continuing, said an essential characteristic of empire was that it combined loyal attachment to each other with the complotest freedom of selfgovernment. British statesmen had never forgotten the lesson of American ndependence, and' would not attempt again to force a fiscal policy on a reluctant possession. The colonies had been granted full fiscal independence, and even if they used it to build up tariff Walls against the Motherland if the colonies desired to foster industries by a protective tariff, their action would not evoke remonstrance or crititicisin from hiin. Pome had given preference to the Motherland, but they did not admit the Motherland's manufactures to compete on equal terms with local producers. Doubtless the colonies held that this was vital to their interests. Similarly the British Government held that free trade is vital to British interests, even more so than in Peel's day. We have a population of forty-four millions, bearing an enormous debt, and also the cost of Imperial diplomacy and defence, and the population are dependent for food and raw materials on external sources of supply. Britain maintains her supremacy owing to her special productive activity. The profits obtained from the biggest open market in the world, and the onor--mous earnings of shipping, were all based on keeping food and raw materials on tho same basis, and as nearly as possible at the same price. Freetrade is no " Shibboleth," but a principle of vital national interest. After an elaborate tariff reform campaign the British people had declared in favour of Freetrade by a majority unexampled in size, and the British Government are unable to accept any infringment of that policy even by adopting Dr Jameson s idea of experimental reductions in tobacco and wine- Replying to Mr Deakin's complaint that they wtre excluded from foreign markets by a hostile tariff, Mr Asquith declared that we particularly everywhere enjoyed the "most favoured nation" treatment and wc stood in a better position in protected markets than did the nations under the protective system. Next to India and Ceylon, Germany was the best market abroad for the products of tho United Kingdom. Though the volume of British trade had largely increased the proportion as between the colonies and foreign countries remained practically constant. Examining preference, he admitted that South Africa had been very liberal, but it was too early to judge its effect on British J,rade. Canada's .tariffs benefited British trade rather by stopping a decrease than by actual increase. Canadian manufacturers

remain protected. Taking an average on all goods dutiable and free, the ad valorem rate for the United Kingdom goods was 19 per cent, and United States 13 per cent. The Australian 'proposal only applied 8 per cent, to United Kingdom's prodncts, and the maximum profit to tho Br.tish

importer would not exceed ,£IOO,OOO. [Mr Deakin and Sir W. Lyne interjected, " Only an instalment."] Mr Asquith : Perhaps so, but he was dealing with facts. Preference was only given to goods in British ships manned by white labour. This was a serious consideration involving [a policy the British Government must deprecate. He had not intended to criticise, but only wished to show the difficulties in the way of offering a preferential tariff advantageous to Britain whero there was a system of protection. In a. freetrade country, where duties were levied for revenue only, the difficulties of a preferential tariff would be much greater. Mr Asquith complimented Sir J. Ward's able and powerful advocacy of preference and said he thought some of his suggestions were valuable. Mr Asquith remarked that New Zealand's preference covered only 20 per cent, of the import trade, besides which it did not lower the duties, but raised them against the foreigner. Britain at present offers the freest possible market. Preferential tariffs would involve giving less to other people and not more to the colonies. They would involve setting up a system of new duties which would infringe the root principles of freetrade. On a question of principle there is no possibility of such compromises as some suggested. Mr Asquith proceeded to consider on what preference must be given, if given at all. In 1905 Britain imported from the colonies five and a half millions worth of articles wholly or partly manufactured, thirty-two and a half millions of raw materials, and twenty-seven and three-quarter millions of food, drink and tobacco. Preference, to be valuable, must be in respect of raw material If such was granted the very citadel of freetrade would be attacked, the sources of supply restricted, and prices raised. The Government and people of England accepted that view and therefore are unable to accept the principle cf preferential trade by tariff preference. The discussion had thrown light on other methods of improving inter-Imperial He especially referred to Sir Joseph Ward's suggestions of improvement of means of communication, especially steamer services, increase of number of commercial agents in the colonies, desirability of removing or reducing Suez Canal dues, and establishing a fast mail line to Australasia via Canada. On all these matters the .British Government is fully ready to consider and cooperate in any prac.Lcal proposal. Concluding, he saicl this the more earnestly as he had felt it necessary to enunciate a general policy not in accord with the views of the colonies.

The Conference generally considered thai Mr Asquith delivered an exceptionally clear, cogent, and powerful speech from the standpoint of abstract freetrade.