The " Breadth " of Free Trade
[The letter, "A Politician in a Difficulty," by Mr. Hamilton Fyfe in our issue of June 21st has evoked considerable correspondence; some of which we hope to print in our Letter columns. Mrs. M. A: Hamilton, M.P., replied in an article resisting Mr. Fyfe's conclusion that the Labour Party would be forced into a policy of Protection. The present article by the Duke of Montrose explains the position of those who favour safeguarding as a provisional remedy in present cirmunstances.—Em Spectator.] JUST as it seems difficult for lawyers to draft a will free from ambiguity, so does it seem impossible for politicians to state their views with clarity.
Mr. Hamilton Fyfe appeared to imply in his letter that the Labour Party must finally drift into some form of " protection " ; and Mrs. M. A. Hamilton, by way of reply, says " that Labour is, and remains, broadly a Free Trade Party "—(the italics are mine).
One is tempted to ask at once—" how broadly ? " The recent report of the Trades Union Economic Committee would seem to indicate "not very broadly " ; for there are vital economic reasons that prove that universal free importation in all things, unrestricted and unlimited, must be injurious to the best interests of Labour.
Do we possess Free Trade in Labour ? No—certainly not ; and rightly, because if labour could be bought at any price, even in the name of cheap living, it would be impossible to maintain a high standard wage, and consequently a decent standard of life. Have we Free Trade in all commodities ? No—even at this moment Parliament is engaged in trying to fix a level price for coal, because it is recognized that certain costs of production must be covered, and principal among these costs is wages. If wages are to remain at a comparatively highs level, it is essential that the price of coal should not fall below a basic level also. This applies to all industry and ought to apply to agricultural products as well.
Mrs. Hamilton, one would think, imagines that the sole raison d'être of Safeguarding is to "maintain high prices to the producer." This is only true so far as to enable him to pay high or reasonable wages to the labourer. Does Mrs. Hamilton really believe an employer can, continue to pay high wages out of low receipts ? Such a.
thing is impossible, and is well illustrated by the low wages which have now to be accepted by English agri- cultural labourers. When corn prices were high the Wage Boards could fix high wages, but to-day, with the ruinous state of farming, it is quite impossible.
When Mrs. Hamilton says "Broadly a Free Trade Party," are we to understand that the breadth is limited by the shores of the United Kingdom, and that without those bounds the Labour Party approves the importation of produce or labour below the cost price here ? Surely not, These imports represent in many cases "sweated goods," and to allow their competition in our markets "naked- and unashamed" is to - favour "black leg" labour, which thing is generally . considered to be a heinous crime in-a well-balanced Trade Unionist.
If Mrs. Hamilton's Free Trade is to be considered of any true" breadth," and if she really means as she says that the most far-reaching change since the War is that the average citizen now realizes that he lives in a world inhabited by others, and that to attempt to ;" live on your own " is self-defeating and dangerous, and that national individualism is wholly out of date, then she must accept the fact that to live on imported goods, whether food or raw material, produced below the cost price in this country, and with wages below our standard, is and must be injurious to British social welfare. The only remedy for this state of things is to safeguard our labour market by keeping out, or counter- balancing the unfavourable cheapness and only allowing the distribution of foreign goods on a par basis with British costs.
Mrs. Hamilton in saying that " the interests of the stage-earners in this country are inseparably bound up with those of the wage-earners. in other countries," and that " in the method of co-operating with those others rather than of competing against them lies the road not only to peace, but to an improved standard of living," is stating an axiom accepted by all ; but always provided, of course, that the wage-earners of foreign countries are not under-cutting the wage-earners of this country. It is this ," under-cutting " that Mrs. Hamilton has apparently forgotten about ; and how can one truly co-operate unless one is working on the sonic level ?
If a British miner's day from bank to bank be seven hours, and a . German's 7-; if a British steel worker's average weekly earnings be 72s., and a German's 68s.; if the standard of living by index figures be in Britain 155 and in Germany 147, how can any attempt to win trade in a neutral market take any other form than that of " competition" ? Put Britain and Germany, or for the matter of that, any other country, on the same basic level in wages, hours, taxation, and social standards, then perhaps we can talk about " co-operation being the road to peace."
Mrs. Hamilton is on much more favourable ground when she says " the instrument for meeting unfair competition.' is by action through the International 'Labour Office." It is something to find so distinguished a Labour Parliamentarian admitting that there is any "unfair competition " ; but like her "broad " Free Trade, she does not indicate where the unfairness begins or ends.
I think those in favour of Safeguarding should certainly make clear that their policy applies in particular to foreign countries whose wages and social standards are below ours. If and when any foreign country raises its conditions to a par level with British, let Safeguarding stop tmd Free Trade begin. I do not think we need fear any competition under those conditions, and cer- tainly if our competitors were successful, it could not then be said it was by the aid of" sweated labour."
As a- nation it is not possible for its to take any active steps to improve labour conditions in foreign countries ; our interference would be as objectionable to them as, say, Russian. interference is to us ; but certainly we can, -as- -Mrs., Hamilton proposes, make the International Labour Office in Geneva the instrument for levelling up conditions ; and it would be surprising if this office objected to British policy penalizing sweated conditions wherever they exist. - Mrs. Hamilton is right in saying " if we are to find employment for our people, while maintaining our standards of life, we require int effigent organization." and she is also right in saying " Economic Nationalism is a game we cannot afford to play."
Those in favour of Safeguarding have all along main- tained that one-sided free importing is a silly, suicidal, and ruinous form of trading. They have all along declared that we should take a world-wide view of commerce ; for it is only by putting our business mad labour con- ditions on a footing of fair dealing internationally that we can hope to hold our own, and find continuous and profitable employment for our people.
Previous page
