PREFERENTIAL TRADE.

Observer, Volume XXVII, Issue 42, 6 July 1907, Page 2

PREFERENTIAL TRADE.

John Bull Does Not Want It. IT has often been asserted, and as frequently repudiated, that the late Mr Seddon was somewhat premature with his preferential trade policy. But the trend of more recent events has furnished convincing evidence that we were too hasty in making our one-sided bargain. We penalized ourselves by putting an additional duty on all goods that were not manufactured by Great Britain and her dependencies, thereby injuring our trade with foreign countries, and increasing to ourselves the cost of goods that, being indispensable, could not be obtained from Britain. It is true that we made no reduction in the duties on British manufactures, but, nevertheless, we gave practical eflect to our desire for closer trade relations with the Mother Country by taxing foreign goods out of our markets. Also, we did this patriotic thing to the accompaniment of a burst of Ira-' perial sentiment and the vociferous singing of " God Save the King."

But to what end did we do it ? Great Britain has told us now that she has no intention of embarking on any reciprocal policy. If we are prepared to give preference to her manufactures, Bhe has no objection to offer, but at the same time she is. determined not to make any concession in return. It is not business, but sentiment,- that has

prompted us, suggests the dear old Mother Country,, and. from, her point of view there is no sentiment in business. This ia, certainly 'very cold, callous and' calculating, but if it had been left at that, we might have been content to still go on penalizing ourselves for the sake of the silken bonds that bind us closer, and all that sort of romantic sentiment.

But it has not been left at that. Twenty-two trades unionist members of the House of Commons have issued a manifesto that is calculated to deeply touch our national pride even if it does not subdue our Imperial sentiment. Twitting us with the fact that our population is only one-half that of Birmingham and district, and ignoring the recognised fact that we lead the world in progressive legislation, they bold up to scorn and contumely the alleged fact that we assume an equality with Britain, with its forty millions of people, and that we have made threats in the event of our demands being refused. But surely wehave^ not assumed anything of the kind. Sir Joseph Ward certainly did express a hope that some concession in the way of preferential trade to the colonies would be made by Britain, but he did not go so far as demands and threats, which this manifesto alleges.

We are told in this precious manifesto that New Zealand demanded preference for her products and manufactures, not foodstuffs or raw materials only, though knowing perfectly well that this could not be given unless 'Britain alters her whole fiscal system and taxes all foreign imports. Well, and even if we had, what of it ? Have we not, of our own motion, given preference to British manufactures for several years past, to the injury of our own foreign trade ? Also, was this not done by further taxing all foreign imports? However, John Bull .and his trades unionists are teaching us a lesson. If there should be no sentiment in business, and preferential trade is a bad thing for Great Britain, then it ought to be equally bad for New Zealand. Why should we continue to penalize our trade with America and other foreign countries from mistaken notions of sentiment that are misrepresented and repudiated by Great Britain ?