ECONOMIC UNITY OF EMPIRE.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18614, 9 July 1930, Page 9

ECONOMIC UNITY OF EMPIRE.

Challenge To Labour,

CONSERVATIVE MOTION IN PARLIAMENT.

United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright (Received July 8, 9.30 p.m.) LONDON, July 7. Following a meeting of the Conservative leaders, Mr Baldwin and Mr Neville Chamberlain gave notice of motion—

“That the House, believing that J a return to prosperity can best be t promoted by safeguarding home markets against unfair foreign competition, and the expansion of the export market by reciprocal c trade agreements with the Empire 1 overseas, regret that the Govern- c ment reversed, instead of extending safeguarding, and arbitrarily excluded from consideration the £ imposition of duties on foreign foodstuffs, devised to obtain < equivalent advantages for British £ manufacturers and agriculture in ‘ Empire market and elsewhere.” ‘ Mr Baldwin is demanding an early ( debate, udiich will definitely establish whether the Government is prepared to bring the matter up for discussion • at the Imperial Conference in the au- j tumn, and also to afford the frankest and most definite statement regarding policy on Empire economic unity. i Growing Agitation. The Empire Industries Association’s ] executive passed a resolution cordially , welcoming the bankers’ manifesto, and ( demanded an united effort towards im- ( perial economic unity. NOTTINGHAM BY-ELECTION. GREAT CONSERVATIVE VICTORY LONDON, May 30. Whether the Labour Party liked it or not, the Nottingham by-election centred round the question of safeguarding. The verdict of the people there is clear. The Conservatives expected a victory, but they hardly counted on success in so striking a degree as is revealed by an analysis of the figures. In his final appeal the Conservative candidate declared: “It is in our power to strike a decisive blow for the safeguarding of Nottingham’s workers, and of British industry. “ Let us strike with our full strength, confident in our cause, and inspired by the knowledge that the whole country aw r aits the decision.” The result of the poll was;— Mr T. J. O’Connor (Cons) .. 14,946 Mr A. E. Waterson (Soc.) .. 7,923 Capt. R. C. Berkeley (Lib.) .. 4,648 Majority over Socialist .. 7,023 Majority over Liberal • • 10,398 Majority over Socialist and Liberal .. • • • • 2,375 No Change. At the General Election the figures were:— Sir (then Mr) A. J. Bennett (Cons.) .. .. • • 14,571 Mrs E. Barton (Soc.) .. 11,573 Mr Brampton (Lib.) . • 8,738 Conservative majority .. 2,998 Mr Baldwin sent the following message to Mr O’Connor: “Heartiest congratulations on your wonderful victory. Nottingham has given a great lead which the country will follow.” Tyranny Of Labour. “This revolt of the Nottingham laceworkers against the tyranny of Labour politics,” says the “Morning Post,” “is not merely a local phenomenon, but j is sympathetic of the trend of thought ! in Trade Union circles. We see it in , the confidential report of the Economic j Sub-Committee of the General Coun- ; cil Qf the Trades Union Congress, I which has somehow or other got into } the papers. That report is the logical j development of what Mr Ben Tillett - proposed at Belfast last year—the or- > ganisation of the British Empire as an - economic group. There is an attempt - to deny that these conclusions involve a change of economic faith; but in 5 view of the definition which the report supplies these disavowals seem to us t useless.”

That the usually accepted definition of an economic group is a combination of nations maintaining as far as possible a balance between supplies of raw materials and manufactured goods, observing Free Trade within the group, but Protection against outsiders if necessary.

“As Mr Tillett was one of the signatories of this document, its premature publication placed him in rather an awkward position, for he had rashly consented to preside over the Free Trade Conference. In the circumstances, there will be an attempt to stifle these views; but it can hardly succeed, since they are being forced upon our working classes by the devastating logic of the unemployment figures. Mr Macdonald may still refuse, as he refused yesterday to include safeguarding in his scheme of political co-operation, but in the end these dismal totals will be too much for him, and for his Party. No nation can afford to contract out of the struggle for existence. British production and the British Empire must defend themselves or perish.”