The Wanganui Chronicle. "NULLA DIES SINE LINEA.” SATURDAY, JUNE 28, 1924. THE COMMONS AND PREFERENCE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXI, Issue 19049, 28 June 1924, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle. "NULLA DIES SINE LINEA.” SATURDAY, JUNE 28, 1924. THE COMMONS AND PREFERENCE

Among recent happenings in the House of Commons, the most interesting, from the overseas point of view, was the close division which followed the preference debate. The smallness of the majority recorded against the principle of inter-Empire preference—for that was really the issue involved—suggests that not a few members of the House have changed or modified their views since Mr. Ramsay MacDonald first voiced the views of his Govern|inent on the question. The matter came before the House in the form of (ten resolutions embodying the decisions arrived at by the Imperial Conference. The first four proposed preference without imposing any new charge on the foreigner, while the remainder would mean the imposition of such a charge. At the opening of the Im- I iperial Economic Conference in October last Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame, then president of the Board of Trade, expressed Great Britain’s appreciation of the preference received from the Dominions, and said that Britain would certainly approach the question of preference with a strong desire to increase mutual trade, ready and willing to take what action was possible to secure that end. But the general election came, and the Baldwin Government went out. Appropriately enough, it fell to the lot of Sir Philip Lloyd-Graeme to move the first of the resolutions in the House of Commons bn this occasion. It proposed that figs, raisins, plums, and currants grown within the Empire should be imported duty-free. It only required four of the votes in opposition to have gone over to the other side and the resolution would have been carried. The other proposals were also lost by similar narrow majorities. It is reasonable to assume that the disappointment expressed by the Dominion Premiers at the attitude of the MacDonald Government helped to some extent to [strengthen the case for preference. But [another important factor has also been inoted, and that was the split in Labour’s own ranks. As Mr. MacDonald indicated would be the case, the Government voted solidly against the proposals, but a considerable number of the rank and file declined to follow the Government’s lead. A large number of Labour men, members of the newlyformed British Commonwealth Group, recorded their votes in favour of preference. One reason for this was expressed by Mr. Haydon Guest, the secretary of the Labour Commonwealth Group, when he announced his intention of voting for the first four resolutions as a demonstration of their desire to make the British Commonwealth of Nations more united. Another reason was given by Mr. Johnson, also a Labour member, W’ho contended that it was the business of the Government to examine the origin of imports, with a view to protecting the higher standard of civilisation against the lower. Commenting on this argument, and speaking generally for the Dominions, the Sydney Telegraph stated the simple and undeniable fact when it said that the desire for Imperial preference is not a selfish thing. It is a matter for mutual benefit —benefit to Great Britain, and t» the Dominions alike. We already give very substantial preference to Britain, and we '■sk, as a reasonable thing, that Britain shall give us a substantial preference over the foreigner. By so doing, she would benefit herself as well as uSj for once we have the market to absorb our products we can relieve Britain of much of her surplus population, and turn them into producers. But we can only guarantee them the conditions of a higher standard of civilisation if the British Government shows a preference for their products over those of countries of a lower standard. Both from the viewpoint of sentiment, and that of business, the proposals rejected are worthy of support from all who are watching the progress of world events. That a Labour Government should be opposed to preference is a thing difficult to understand. In a speech in the Commons on February 14, Mr. Austen Chamberlain said: “Look where they w T ould, there was only one set of markets in which they could hope, not merely to keep their old trade, but materially to extend it within a time sufficiently short to give them real relief in their present necessities and trouble—that was the market of their Dominions, colonies, and dependencies.” Was it not worth while, he asked, to discard prejudice, and so to adjust the food duties they had got as, wtihout increasing, or even whilst diminishing, the burden they placed on the people of Britain, to make them subserve the great interests of the Empire? This was the sense and meanjing of the resolution of the Imperial (Conference of 1917 in which Mr. Lloyd iGeorge and many of his colleagues concurred. It has to be said of Mr. Lloyd ■ George that, while he was absent from last week’s debate, he paired in favour of the first four resolutions. Mr.

Asquith, on the other hand, simply put partisan expediency before the broader considerations of the Empire’s wellbeing. Let us hope that the Telegraph is not unduly optimistic in its belief that the time is coming when politicians in Britain and the Dominions will be forced to realise that the welfare of the Empire is a greater thing than the temporary welfare of a party, and those who fail to realise it will be lagging superfluous on the stage.