SIR CHARLES TUPPER'S PROPOSAL.
WE have always held that Imperial Federation, when it means anything, means Protection. That we Vave good ground for that belief is proved by Sir Charles Tapper's article in the October Nineteenth Century. There is a good deal of the usual talk about Federalisation and welding together, but the greatest length Sir Charles Tupper will go in this direction is to make the agents of the three great Colonial possessions of England—the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, and the Union of South Africa—Privy Councillors, and so give them a constitutional ability to attend Cabinet Councils, and discuss matters of foreign policy,—a rather dangerous and entirely inadequate proposal from the point of view of Imperial Federation. The Kriegsverein about which the young lions of the Imperial Federation League roar so enthusiastically is treated even more cavalierly. We are given to understand that there must be no talk of Canada or the other great Colonies contributing to a war-chest. The Colonies have better uses for their money at home. "Does any person suppose it would be strengthening the Empire, asks Sir Charles Tupper, "if for any such purpose the means now used for the oreation of a Navy of her own [the immediate reference is to Australia] for fortifying the country and opening it up for development from one end to the other, were diverted to some other purpose ?" Again, he says in regard to Canada :—" In my judgment, instead of adding to its defence, the strength of a Colony would be impaired by taking away the means which it requires for its develop- ment and for increasing its defensive power, if it were asked for a contribution to the Army and Navy."
We heartily endorse this sentiment, but it must be admitted that from the Imperial Federation standpoint, it is an exceedingly depressing pronouncement. It is not till Sir Charles Tupper gets to the question of differential duties that he begins to brighten up. Then we see what "all this talk of our destinies " really means—a five-shilling duty on non-Colonial corn, and a few other trifling modifications of our fiscal policy intended to give the Colonies com- mand of the Home market. Sir Charles Tupper's notion is not to form a Zollverein. He sees that the Colonies walla not like any interference with their liberty to tax commodities as they please. The practicability of having a common tariff throughout the Empire, he speaks of as a fallacy. "It is not, in my opinion," he declares, . "consistent with the Constitution either of England or of the autonomous Colonies. The tariff of a country must rest of necessity mainly with the Government of the day, and involves such continual change and alteration as to make uniformity impracticable." But though Sir Charles Tupper cries "Hands off !" as regards the fiscal policy of the Colonies, his fingers are itching to put an end. to the foolish economic position adopted in England. He is indignant with Lord Salisbury for declaring that the aims of the -United Empire Trade League could not be accomplished without increasing the cost of living to the consumers in this country. The dictum, "A better price to the pro- ducer means a more disagreeable price to the consumer," appears to Sir Charles Tupper entirely unsound. Into his proof of its unsoundness we cannot, however, attempt to enter. We have not shown ourselves on occasion timid ier our attempts to track home folly to its lair, but we cannot summon up sufficient pluck to tread the laby- riaths of Fair-trade. What is to be done when the Fair- trader begins, as does Sir Charles Tupper, by declaring that, "in the first place, the question of supply has to be considered"? Of course it has. But you may consider it till the earth reels beneath you and the sun grows dark in heaven, and yet not alter the fact that one added to two makes three, and that if you increase the price of wheat, your wheat will cost more than it cost before. It is far better to leave "the question of supply," and find out what Sir Charles Tupper's practical proposals are. "I believe," says Sir Charles Tupper, "that every person who has taken the trouble to get accurate information in respect to Canada will endorse that statement, that it is only a qnestion of time and only a question of development for Canada to be able to produce all the food, both bread and meat, that is now sent from the United States to this country. This meets the question of supply, and the com- petition of India, Australia, and Canada will regulate the price. Who can doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of England could sit down with the then members of the Cabinet representing Australasia, South Africa, and Canada, and devise a fiscal policy, not a common tariff, between England and these three Colonies, that would give an enormous development and expansion to Australasia, to South Africa, and to Canada, and at the same time give a valuable stimulus to the trade of this country ?' As might be expected, we are next confronted with the old argument that a five-shilling duty on corn will do no one any harm. "If," Sir Charles Tupper pro- ceeds, "the Mark Lane prices are examined, or the report of the Board of Agriculture, it will be found that in 1890 and 1891 there was a fluctuation in corn of 10s. 6d. a quarter, and you will find that it had to reach practically 10s. a quarter before it made a halfpenny difference upon the 4-lb. loaf. I am inclined to think that 58. a quarter imposed upon all foreign corn would be sufficient advan- tage to the corn of India, Australasia, and Canada, that it would not affect the cost of bread, and that it would yet give an immense impetus and advance to the development of the Colonies and of their trade with Great Britain."
From these passages it is evident that what Sir Charles Tupper means is this. If England wants to retain her Colonial Empire, she must give to the Colonies the bribe of differential treatment. There must be no talk about a Zollverein, for that would bind the Colonies. There must simply be a concession by England of differential treatment to Colonial products. This, Sir Charles Tupper is kind enough to hint, will not hurt England, for it will not raise the price of bread. We note that Sir Charles Tupper says "bread," and not "wheat." The Fair-trade Imperialists used to argue that a five-shilling duty on American and Russian wheat would not raise the price of wheat. They have apparently been driven from that position by one or two very simple questions :—‘ If the duty does not raise the price of wheat, what good will it do you ? You say in effect that you cannot get com- mand of the Home market because of the competition of wheat not grown in the Empire,—in other words, because you cannot afford to sell as cheap as the foreign growers. If, then, the foreign grower is kept out, and you are to benefit, the price must rise. But if it rises, it does what you say it will not do.' Apparently Sir Charles Tupper has seen the weight of this argument, and has realised that, however much the United States farmers are kept out, the Canadians will not benefit if wheat in Mark Lane is as low as ever. Accordingly, he goes a step on, and says that though wheat may rise, bread will not, and thinks he proves this by showing that bread does not fluctuate in sympathy with every up and down of the market. No doubt it does not, because bakers, like other tradesmen, like to keep a fixed price, and there- fore, as long as they think wheat is only temporarily "up," prefer not to alter prices. If, however, wheat were permanently put up 5s. a quarter, as it would be, and as the Imperial Fair-traders want it to be, the price of the loaf would rise, or its size and quality would be altered. The middleman may take an occasional loss, just as he may pocket an occasional gain, but when once a varia- tion in price becomes permanent, he has to put the burden on, or give the gain to, the consumer, subject only to the possible coincidence of arise or fall in his scale of remunera- tion. Depend upon it, if instead of allowing the whole world to try and see who can sell us wheat cheapest, we fine all but people born in the Empire for their impertinence in wishing to feed us cheaply, we shall be face to face with an increase in the price of food. We cannot eat our cake and have it, and if we buy a federated or semi-federated Colonial Empire, we shall have to pay the price. We should like to ask what good the Imperial Federa- tionists think is likely to be brought about by paying a fraction of a farthing on every loaf we eat in order to buy the sort of connection sketched by Sir Charles Tupper. What good will be an Empire purchased on these terms ? It will certainly set us at variance with one-half of the English-speaking world, and it will increase the difficulty of feeding our people. What is there to set against this ? We believe that there is nothing whatever except the gratifica- tion of a sentiment which can be infinitely better gratified in another way. We have every possible sympathy for those who desire to see the English-speaking communities beyond sea living together in amity with each other and with the Mother-country, and feeling and acknow- ledging the ties of common blood, language, religion, and. law. But to maintain this feeling of brotherhood, there is no need for a five-shilling duty on corn. What we want to see is the whole English-speaking world bound by ties of the most sacred kind,—ties which are not interfered with by political autonomy. Why cannot the Imperial Federationists be content to allow the Colonies to proceed along their present line of development till they are able to enter into an alliance with England, not as feudatories, but as equals,— an alliance in which the United States may ultimately be included. That union of English-speaking freemen is an ideal worth striving for, and one which we believe may yet be realised. Beside it, what are the blunderings and gropings of the men who are going to cement the Empire by a five-shilling duty on corn !
Previous page
