Last week we quoted the significant comments of the Tim
es on the new Australian tariff. These proved too much for the equanimity of their well-known correspondent " Tariff Reformer," who proceeded to rebuke the Times for its faint-heartedness, and to justify Mr. Deakin and Sir William Lyne in the usual way. Since then the engagement has become general, and the true inwardness of the tariff has been exposed in two admirable letters from " Zollverein" and Lord George Hamilton in the Times of Monday and Tuesday. As " Zollverein " puts it, the material point is that this Austra- lian tariff "constitutes an out-and-out Protectionist measure against the United Kingdom scarcely less than against the rest of the world, and, as such, it is a distinct step backwards.
If Tariff Reform is to shed its Imperialist ideals as Mr. Deakin has so quickly shed his, and to be used only as a stalking-horse for Protection buttered with Socialism, as in Australia, it will very soon cease to command the sympathy and support of many Conservative Imperialists" besides the writer. Lord George Hamilton does excellent service by his admirable definition of Colonial Preference. "It is not a proportional reduction of permanent Customs duties ; it is a fluctuating concession upon a sliding scale of duties controlled by a spirit of exclusion." There is not a particle of evidence, he continues, to show that the new tariff was prompted by vindictiveness, or that the duties are more than, in the opinion of the Commonwealth Government, are necessary adequately to protect Australian products and give the revenue required. " This being so, it is clear that, if the preference given to this country was higher, the duties from which this increased preference would have to be deducted would have to be higher also to bring in the revenue required."
Previous page
