MR SEDDON'S BUGGESTIOM.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7392, 2 May 1902, Page 1

MR SEDDON'S BUGGESTIOM.

; LONDON COMMENT.' [Fkom Our Correspondent.] ■ LONDON, March 27. In Reuter's Mr Seddon has a zealous advance agent. Almost daily our morning papers" tell us in large 'type. what Mr Seddbn has been saying and' doing. "Vanity Fair " has, I 'believe, ■ his . cartoon ready against the day of- his arrival* and one'almost expect? the hoardings to blossom into many coloured announcements of- the; early production at the Imperial Theatre, Westminster, of the stupendous drama, " Bichard of the Lion-heart, or the Colonial Crusaders," with. R. J. Seddon in the title role. Even Mr Chamberlain, hardly buffis so largely in the public eye just now 'as Mr Seddon./ Certainly^ as. the "Standard. points out, New Zealand's Premier has, a distinct talent for saying .things' which attract attention, and his programme for discussion at the Coronation ; Conference /has called, forth plenty ,of comment, most of it characterised by • extreme caution. While his proposals will, it is. said, receive "sympathetic attention and business-like '. discus? sion," it is evident that the" leader-;writers consider that such complex questions of economics and finance as an Imperial Zollverein will require ,' far .deeper, consideration than can be given them ' at a brief round-table meeting of. Imperial statesmen.. , ■ : .' : --. ..... ■• ■ ' ; ,. "The Mother, ttouhtry," says the" Standr ard," "stands in a Very different position from that of any ,df her. colonies' in regard to. commercial policy, and such an arrangement as the Premier of New Zealand appears to contenipTate would present many difficulties. We must wait to. see what. the colonies have to offer before expressing an opinion on ; the advantages or' disadvantages of the proposed Imperial Zollverefti." The "Telegraph," says:-— "The fact that the problem 1 of int'er : lmperial tariffs should be raised at last in an urgent and practical form, means that a development of supreme sighificance Las taken place. , Before the war, the notion, of laying down the- ques? tion of preferential Cuatoms as the basis, ot business-like debate at a Colonial Conference -would have been unthinkable. It does not follow that we shall burn what we have adored because the Prime, Ministers of .the self-governing Skates of the Empire request, us to consider out insular economic system in the Jighti of Imperial interests as a ; whole. But v not even Freetrade can be get up as a fetish. The fiscal system, of t-he Mother Country" roust" be maintained or modified according to its actual business merits, and cannot be treated as though invested' with the abstraefc^jbetity of a religious, dogma. Xwtperjfixjpipde must 'be 1 ' re B ula^^E^^ peri»l^«^e|ts , alojie. Every . one^ofSo^ gr^at, csi^§rcial rivals, is' armed with tariffs to theTteeth. . . ; . . In every direction abroad the British i merchant, is- confronted by new. obstacles to the sale .of his gb6ds. In the meantinie,. the "strange pretension has ■■ been raisedv in come quarters that England alone is. not to be free to adjust -her fjseaT arrangements as she pleases/ but that ' her ■ action is :to be fettereid by a foreign veto, upon the • vital issue' of : trade relations within tae Empire between- the Mother Country 'and her colonies.' .1 . * The' Empire^ ,not tf^^^ general philarith^>p ; ic ■ajlienoi^ubutran inßtiftiti°fr 'which, exists,' buEO^ens^^fUpon-.the preservation vbt 'our .mercantile supremacy. andSoiif permanent predominance in colonial commerce >the vvery existence of the linpe»al syatem depends, and we can no longer relUEe to consider whether, our present.practice is best calculated to preserve it," ■..'.. , On the question of an Imperial. Zollverein the Secretary of the Cobden Club has va word or .two to cay in the '"St, James's Gazette ": —-. "Qur:cpjo©ial, trade," he holds, ''is comparatively, unimportant, our trade 'with British possessions is about a third of our tojal. twdjjaii^'ffi^ larger portion. 6f^Jp|f^^^ ii^wvtfiiDQictia and .the. Crown dotdniesrThe tarifiE of India is already a-Freetrade tariff, specially; arranged to suit the" interests .of English exporters. The same consideration applies to most Grown Colonies, and in tlie main to South Africa^^and Newi found/land. The ,on 3y i British possessions where the question, of a' pfefeir-en'tial tariff can give rise to discussion, on the basis of give_and t«ke, are Canada and Australasia, the onljr parts of the Empire that exclude the goods of the Mother <J6untry in order artificially to foster colonial industries. Our exports to Australasia last year were 10 per cent, our exports to Canada 2^06^, .0^0^ while our. exports to foreign countnea were 64 per cent Of our total expert tradfc < «Odgh i t' ; we to risk 64 per cent of our "export trade in the hope of further liJ per cent? ThY. population. of Canada is stationary, tjhat of Australasia increases very slbwljf. It is the Austra/Kan working man's policy, toeatelnd© immigTants ' in the belief that the fewer people; there are in. the country the rbher it is. There is little ground for hoping that Canada or Australasia will have for many generations a Uj-rge enough, population to make good the injury we might do to our foreign tr^de by any preferential arrangement wiiih these colonies.- '■■'.'■ . -I If Canada and Austrailiteia were to contribute to the cost of the Navy in proportion to their population, trade and j wealth, their joint contribution would be about £6,000,000 a year. The taxpayers of the United Eangdom pay an incDme tax j of about 3d in the pound; because Qanada and Australasia refuse to face their share of the burdtms of ,tiue Empire." .Mr; Cox therefore thinks that it will be intolerable j to impose further' taxation on the people of the United Kingdom ; and^^ix».^ risk a, serious reduction of out trade, solely to increase the profits of Canadian and Australasian .ex- | porters. ■ : The "Westminster G-azette" considers that the contribution on a population basis ought to be to " the costof .the Navy as a whole. It becomes increasingly cleajg. that if the colonies claim a vote or veto in.. Imperial questions in which' they are not directly and peculiarly interested, they .will I infallibly raise the whole; question of the cost of Empire. As it .is,, the .Mother Country bears nearly the whole, ©fjbhe cost, an. arrangement which can hardly continue to exist if a good many of the. contentions now advanced are assented to." . - The " Standard " approves of the suggestion for the formation of an Imperial .Reserve, and thinks 'there is much to be -said for Australasia having its own naval force. "A common purse for naval purposes might cause administrative complications. . If the character of the war required the presence of a naval force in Austrailasian waters, the ships would be there to meet the call: Should, this not be the., case, the colonists | could be trusted to see that it was in I their- own interest to send; their vessels to any point where they could be required." Mr.Seddon's suggestion, for a triennial meeting of Imperial statesmen, the "Standard" thinks, may contain the germs of a practical form of Federation,, while the *• Qlobe " says thereon :— " An assembUge of representatives of the Imperial and colonial Governments would speak with a weight of authority surpassed by. no body of men in the Empire, and.it is -difficult to put any limit to the influence , it would «xer"cige upon public opinion. But "whether the Triennial- Conference grew into an Imperial Council or not, the regular exchange : of Tiews between Home and colonial Min-

isters could not fail to have the happiest results for the interests of the Empire." The "Pall Mall Gazette" considers the idea "a most original and fertile suggestion ,"• and the "Chronicle" believes that our Legislature would derive "no little behest from the stimulus of the more practical methods and greater energy of our colonial administrations."