A REPLY TO MR. BALFOUR.
(1) Mr. Balfour implied (p. 8) that at the time when England adopted Free-trade other nations were already Free-traders.
(2) Mr. Balfour states (p. 8) that all Western nations, without exception, are Protectionists. Yet Holland and Denmark and (apart from the formation of the Commonwealth of Australia) New South Wales are practically Free-traders. (3) Mr. Balfour states (p. 11) that the Commission of " 1900 " (sic) reported that the island of St. Vincent could produce nothing but sugar. (4) Mr. Balfour states that no Bradford goods go to America and no British bleach to Russia (p. 19). These statements by the Prime Minister are clearly serious errors. As an historical fact, the great nations of the Continent remained rigid Protectionists up to 1860, when Free-trade tendencies set in, and lasted until Prince Bismarck introduced in the early " eighties " the present reactionary policy, which is already weakening. Both Europe and the United States are nearer Free-trade now than they were in 1846. As to Bradford goods and British bleach, Mr. Cox tells us that £1,514,500 worth of Bradford goods went to America in 1902, and in the same year (apart from the United States which takes the bulk of our exported bleaching powder) Russia took more of our bleach than any [other country in the world. Mr. Cox attacks Mr. Balfour's logic as well as his facts. Mr. Balfour declares that exports are required to pay for imports, and admits that we are not living on our capital. But since our imports more than keep up, and since we are not paying for them with capital, our exports must be in a satisfactory condition. If that is so, the problem we are all asked to inquire into does not in fact exist. In so far as we are falling behind, the fault lies, we may add, not with the laws of trade, but with the imperfection of our technical education.
Previous page
