NA TURE 



349 



THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1919. 



THE NURTURE OF KEY INDUSTRIES. 

 ''F'HE Bill "to constitute a Trade Regulation 



-^ Committee, to regulate the importation of 

 goods with a view to prevent dumping, safe- 

 guarding key industries and industries affected by 

 the depreciation of a foreign currency," which 

 Sir Auckland Geddes introduced in the House of 

 Commons on November 19, will no doubt meet 

 with strenuous opposition. It is, of course, 

 anathema to the out-and-out E'ree Trader, and 

 will be viewed with some doubt and suspicion 

 even by those who, while not hide-bound by fiscal 

 shibboleths, are yet distrustful of the bureaucratic 

 control which the Bill would seem to entail. The 

 terms of the amendment for its rejection on second 

 reading, tabled by Mr. Wallace, one of the Coali- 

 tion Liberals, are obviously drafted so as to secure 

 the support, not only of the convinced Free 

 Trader, but also, if possible, of those who object 

 to all departmental control of our commercial rela- 

 tions. 



As regards the Bourbons of the Manchester 

 school, who learn nothing and forget nothing, 

 Mr. Wallace is preaching to the converted ; prob- 

 ably no argument will have the slightest effect 

 upon them. Thev will find nothing in the changed 

 conditions of the world, in the circumstances of 

 the Empire, or in the influence of the war on our 

 home industries to induce them to modify their 

 convictions in the smallest degree. To them the 

 basic principle of F"ree Trade has something of 

 the sanctity of Holy Writ. It has all the force 

 of a natural law as fixed and immutable as seemed 

 to them the law of gravitation. But they may 

 be reminded, as recent events have shown, that 

 even the lavv- of gravitation may possibly have a 

 less stringent universality than we have hitherto 

 been content to assume. How much more prob- 

 able is it, therefore, that a so-called economic 

 law depending upon fallible and transitory human 

 I (jnditions mav be at least equally invalid and 

 tundamentally more unsound. 



The argument against bureaucratic control will 

 no doubt appeal to a considerable body of public 

 opinion. The Legislature, under the direction of 

 the Government, has of late been steadily rivet- 

 ing the chains of this control in a variety of 

 directions, and there is a growing impatience with 

 the policy. It is a sort of aftermath of the war 

 which the country will not tolerate to an indefinite 

 extent. During the continuance of the war, when 

 the free plav of individualism might conceivably 

 interfere with a united national effort, guidance 

 NO. 2614, VOL. 104] 



and control by a Government which we had en- 

 trusted with the safeguarding and direction of 

 our destiny were not only accepted, but also 

 generally recognised as imperatively necessary. 

 But under normal conditions the continuance and 

 possible perpetuation of bureaucratic control is 

 wholly opposed to the genius of the English 

 people, as past experience has abundantly proved, 

 and is certain to be fiercely resented sooner or 

 later. 



It may be argued, of course, that the times 

 are not yet normal, and no doubt this considera- 

 tion will appeal to many who would otherwise 

 be disposed to reject the Bill saus ceremonie. 

 The allegation that it is bound to impose an in- 

 tolerable burden upon manufacturers, traders, and 

 consumers, and that it is calculated to maintain 

 high prices and arrest our rapid industrial re- 

 covery and development, of course, begs the ques- 

 tion. It is at least arguable that the provisions 

 in the Bill against dumping and for the safe- 

 guarding — we purposely omit the word "protect- 

 ing," as a term of offence to some people — of 

 key industries are really calculated to assist our 

 industrial development, even although they may 

 tend for a time to maintain high prices. Exces- 

 sive cheapness has not hitherto proved the 

 panacea for all human ills which some, in the 

 past, would appear to have claimed for it. 



Although the House of Commons is invitecj by 

 the amendment to reject the Bill, it will be 

 observed that in the Trade Regulation Committee 

 which it is proposed to set up, and which is to 

 be responsible for the working of the measure, 

 the majority is to consist of members of that 

 House nominated by the House itself. The 

 measure, therefore, is not, strictly speaking, 

 bureaucratic in the sense in which this term is 

 usually understood. It is presumably intended 

 that the representatives of the people, being in the 

 majority, should exercise an effective control of 

 its operations. It rests with the House of Com- 

 mons to nominate persons of knowledge and ex- 

 perience in commercial and industrial matters, 

 who would keep themselves in touch with the 

 views of the trade organisations in the country, 

 and who may be trusted to check any undue de- 

 partmental interference or restriction, and to ex- 

 pedite, when necessary, departmental activity. Is 

 the House so distrustful of its power, or of the 

 ability of its members to cope with the permanent 

 departmental officials, that it is to be asked to 

 reject the measure on the ground that it is too 

 "bureaucratic "? 



There is much in the Bill of a highly technical 

 character, and even experts are certain to differ 



Q 



