TOPICS OF THE TIMES

Southland Times, Issue 21264, 10 December 1930, Page 6

TOPICS OF THE TIMES

The opinion that the rate of maternal mortality in Britain might be reduced by 60 per cent, was expressed by the Minister of Health, Mr Arthur Greenwood, at the opening of a conference in London, representing about 300 organizations closely concerned with the problem. Mr Greenwood said it was an astonishing fact that, in spite of what had been done, the problem of maternal mortality still remained as stubborn as ever it was. It was one of the black marks against the health service of the country. Infant mortality and the general deathrate had been reduced, and yet the number of deaths from the normal process of motherhood was still as enormous as ever. No one could contemplate that fact with equanimity. It was a serious criticism of what they had been able to do. No one, not even the greatest expert, could convince him that motherhood should be so danger-' ous as it was. It was clear from the information received that a substantial proportion of maternal deaths were really avoidable. When he was told that about half the deaths, so far as a particular number of cases were concerned, were due to avoidable causes, his own instinct led him to the view that the proportion was probably higher, and that the number of avoidable deaths might ever reach 60 per cent. It was .quite clear that they could not be satisfied with the provision that was being made. If the best that obtained in certain localities was put into operation in all localities, they might have a different tale to tell. According to statistics published in the last report of the Department of Health, the average maternal mortality in New Zealand for 1925-29 was 4.71 per thousand births; the rate for England and Wales in 1923-27 is given as 4 per thousand.

A clear pronouncement in favour of safeguarding British industries was made at tho annual dinner of the Lincoln Chamber of Commerce by Sir Felix Schuster, a leading English banker, who said he had been a free trader all his business life. '.‘l must implore everyone to reflect whether present circumstances, brought about in a great measure by the war, are not such as to make it a duty to submit the convictions which we have hitherto held once more to the severest test and to consider whether they are now applicable,” he continued. “So long as other nations are under the impression that we are not prepared to use the one weapon that is in our hands they will not change their attitude, but if they are told that we, their best customers, may be compelled to use defensive measures on our side also, I think a great change may take place, and this I believe to be the method to bring about the universal lowering of tariffs to which we all aspire. Let us remember that nations, like individual traders, can only prosper if their neighbours are prosperous. Cobden’s great effort was to attain this end by negotiation and mutual understanding. Furthermore, Cobden’s teaching was based on the free movement of labour to the localities which held out the best prospects of employment-—he was opposed to the regulation of working hours or wages by Government. Thus our present system is not free trade as he conceived it . . . The standard of life which we all desire to maintain for our working classes is not equalled by our foreign competitors, and their cost of production is, therefore, lower, and we must further remember that, in addition to customs tariffs against our exports, we have to fight against all sorts of subsidies, bounties, reductions of the cost of transport and so forth, all calculated to stiumulate the export of goods to us below their actual cost of production. The safeguarding of our industries against such, artificial and uneconomic conditions does appear to me not only justifiable, but inevitable.”