IMPERIAL TRADE.

Waikato Argus, Volume XV, Issue 6044, 18 September 1903, Page 2

IMPERIAL TRADE.

iPKR UNITED PRESS ASSOCIATION] [By ELECTRIC TKI.ROBtPH— COPYRIGHT]

MANIFESTO BY MR BALFCUE. London, September 16. As a prelude to the speech which hei will deliver at Sheffield on October 1„ Mr Balfour's notes thereon were circulated amongst his colleagues at the beginning of August, anil since have been published iu a 32-page pamphlet entitled ' Economic Notes on insular Free Trade.' approaches the subject from the free trade standpoint, but objects to a rigid classification of the world into protectionists and freetraders. A collision, he says, is possible between freetrade and the large issues. Freetrade is a perfect system for an ideal world wherein capital and labour flow freely to places where profits are greatest and wages highest ; but labour is not fluid and capital is viscous. The.nations, as we know them, economically, are possible only because for various reasons mankind is both unable and unwilling to turn the natural resources of the world to the best eoouomic account. Recognising the general truth that there is no pre-established harmony between economic world-interests and national well-being, we must, he goes on to say, accept provisionally the view that the character of our fiscal policy should vary according to varying circumstances. The fight, which, as far as Britain is concerned, ended in 1846, was a fight over an economic theory, and between two opposing ideals, supported by rival interests. The question in 1846 was whether England was to become a mere manufacturing or an agricultural country, aud maintain at whatever cost her ancient predominance. The country rightly decided in favour of the first alternative but this was only realisable on two conditions—first, that as luxuries and necessaries must ba imported, large exports were necessary to pay for them ; and, second, that sufficient capital was always forthcoming for Home investment to provide employment for a growing urban population. The reformers, he adds, committed two mistakes. They failed fully to see the world's rejection ef free trade, and did not reckon on the possibilities of Empire. Had they given us an Imparial free trade, the protective tendencies of foreigners would be of secondary importance. Mr Balfour next discusses whether a fiscal system suited to a free trade nation in a world of freo traders remains suited in every detail to a free trade nation in a world of protectionists. We must consider not what ie, but what is to be. There is a possibility in many directions of losing free trade territories and the absence of probability of gaining trade. Excluding coal and machinery, he argues that the diminution of our exports is not merely relative but absolute. Their rate of increase as a whole htia seriously diminished. Discussing foreign trusts, aiming at the full employment of plant and the greatest economy of production, with the view of obtaining a footing in foreign markets, he shows that protection provides an assured basis of Home market whereon to work. Why a similar policy should not be open to a manufacturer in a free trade country is because free trade makes it difficult for him to obtain control of the Home markets, without which be is unable to fix a low foreign and a high domestic price. Mr Balfour says Britain is unable to secure concessions towards freer exchange except by appealing to self-interest, or, iu the case of the colonies, to self-interest and sentiment combined. It is imperative that Britain should recover her liberty to do to foreign nations what they do to each other—not merely to appeal to theories which they wholly disbelieve, but to fiscal inducements which they thoroughly understand.

In the course of his notes to his colleagues, Mr Balfour declares: 'lam in harmony with the true spirit of freetrade, and am only asking for freedom to negotiate in order that freedom of exchange may be increased.

A Blue Book, covering 500 pages, just issued, shows that between 1890 and 1902 British exports of manufactured and partly-manufactured goods to Germany, Belgium, Holland, France, Russia, the United States and Italy fell from £83.629,000 to £69,837,000, while similar exports to all foreign countries fell from £149,651,000 to £131,688.000. Tha exports to British possessions during the same period rose from £79,154,000 to £95,959,000. A report of the Tariff Committee of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce favours preference to the colonies on the basis of reciprocity, suggesting moderate duties on Britain's foreign imports exclusive of raw materials.

Paris, September 16. The newspaper Temps, commenting on Mr Balfour's manifesto, says the fear of seeing Mr Chamberlain resign keeps the Cabinet on the brink of irreparable quarrels. Mr Balfour treats him with circumspection and finally adopts his opinion. Mr Chamberlain has become Britain'*, first politician. If Mr Chamberlain shatters the Uuiouist party in order to become Premier, Mr Balfour will have wished it. London, September 17. The Freetrade Union, in reply to Mr Balfour's manifesto, has issued a statement declaring that it will be time to consider tha proposals dead when Mr Chamberlain withdraws them. If retaliation becomes au accepted policy of the Government, freetraders will in no wise slacken their resistance. The Times agrees with Mr Balfour in emphasising the contention that coal and machinery, the two main articles of British exports, are used for fostering foreign manufacturers in competition against ourselves. The Financial Times declares that Mr Balfour's position will be endorsed by the bulk of the Unionists. The Financial News says that Mr Balfour goes to the heart of the question in his reference to the permancy of protection abroad, and unless we protect we lose the chance of producing economically. Otherwise wnat is the meaning of his history-making message, which does not support the supposition that l£lr Balfour is hostile "to the partial protection accruing from Imperial preferential tariff ?