TOPICS OF THE DAY
SIR 3.11CHAEL HICKS BEACH AND THE PROTECTIONIST IDEAL. THOSE who agree with the views which have been expressed in these columns in regard to Free-trade and the Empire cannot fail to feel very great satisfaction at the speeches made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday and Tuesday. They showed that while the Cabinet is willing to discuss with the Colonial Premiers, as courtesy and good statesmanship demand, all matters of fiscal policy that concern the Empire, they have no scheme in hand for destroying the Free-trade foundation on which the Empire is based, or for plunging into a Protective system. They will, that is, make the Conference a free interchange of views, as it ought to be, but they will enter it with a Free-trade and not with a Protectionist inten- tion. That is how we read Sir Michael Hicks Beach's declarations, and that, we venture to believe, will turn out to be their result. To show that we are not putting into Sir Michael Hicks Beach's mouth what we should have liked him to say rather than what he did say, let us take his specific declarations in order. Sir William Harcourt, said the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had declared that the Corn- tax was a prelude to a Customs Union of the Empire upon a Protectionist basis. "Well," he continued, "I have proposed this duty as a revenue duty and nothing else. I know that Sir Wilfrid Laurier made some observations on the subject in the Dominion House of Commons. I have the greatest respect for Sir Wilfrid Laurier as an able and loyal states- man, but this I must say, that I do not think Sir Wilfrid Laurier's opinions with regard to the tendency or the effect of any fiscal legislation here are of more value than my opinions might be with regard to similar matters in Canada. I disclaim altogether the interpretation which Sir Wilfrid Laurier has plated upon the Corn-duty." How would it be possible to formulate a repudiation more clear and straight- forward of the suggestion that the Corn-tax was only put on in order that as far as Colonial wheat was concerned it might be at once taken off ? But though Sir Michael Hicks Beach made this declaration not merely for himself but for the Cabinet, he was naturally anxious not to give any one an excuse for saying that the Conference of Colonial Premiers was not to promote a free exchange of views. We must all agree that if the Colonies could be induced to adopt a fiscal system less Protective and more guided by Free-trade principles these islands, and the Empire as a whole, would benefit greatly. As Sir Michael Hicks Beach well put it, there is no need to assume that the Empire cannot move in the direction of Free-trade, and that if anything is done it must have a Protectionist intention. "If we could have Free-trade with our Colonies, I do not see why that should necessarily involve increased duties on our part against foreign nations ; but if we could have Free-trade with our Colonies, even some sacrifice in that direction might be made." Let us, said Sir Michael Hicks Beach, carry the matter a little further. "It is not possible, every one who has looked into the matter knows, that there should be Free-trade at the present time between England and her Colonies. Cannot we try so to consider the commercial relations between us that we may make trade freer than it is now, and that without necessarily injuring any foreign country at all? / am bound to say that my idea of dealing with this great and most important question is upon the basis of Free-trade, not upon the basis of Protection." The words we have italicised seem to us to be a most satisfactory indication of the way in which the problem is to be approached, and to govern the whole declaration. We note that members of the Opposition, who are, above all things, anxious to prove that the Government are going to take a " header " for Protection, use the phrase that it might be worth while in order to get Free-trade with our Colonies to make "even some sacrifice" in the direction of in- creased duties as a proof that their contention is valid. But though we confess we cannot exactly define Sir Michael Hicks Beach's meaning, we see no valid reason to assume that the interpretation of the Opposition is the true one. On the contrary, we see every reason to think that they are giving the wrong explanation. Taken with the context, we believe that all that Sir Michael Hicks Beach meant to imply was that the Government did not mean to bind the Conference in deliberative fetters, and to say beforehand that we would not even discuss the question of preferential treatment. If that is the true explanation of Sir Michael Hicks Beach's words, then we hold that he acted most properly, and with the tact and consideration which we, as Imperialists as well as Free- traders, should most certainly demand from the British Treasury. We hold very strong views as to what the attitude of the Treasury should be as regards the matters to be discussed, but the Conference of Premiers must be treated as a Conference of friends and equals, and not of hostile Powers or of subordinates. When you confer with a hostile, or rather a foreign Power with whom you have no common ties, or when you are dealing not with equals but with subordinates, you rightly begin by limiting the discussion. But when those of the same household speak together on their common affairs it would be in the nature of an insult for any member of the Conference to begin by declaring that, come what may, this or that thing will never and can never be done, and that therefore it must not even be discussed. We hold as strongly as any reasoned belief can be held that the Empire is safest and strongest when based on the true Free-trade ideal, and not on the ideal of preferential treatment, but we should never dream of suggesting that that belief should be forced down the throats of the Colonial representatives as something sacro- sanct,—something which it was blasphemy for them to question or discuss. We prefer liberty of thought and of speech and freedom of discussion even to Free-trade, and we are perfectly certain that the principle of Free-trade will never suffer, but must always gain, by free debate. We hold, indeed, that it would be a matter of great practical benefit to have the problem of an Imperial Zollverein fully discussed at the Conference. Nothing, in our opinion, would conduce more powerfully to show the able Imperial statesmen who come to us from over- sea that it is one of those schemes which, though attrac- tive at first sight, when put into operation defeat their own ends. If the discussion of this matter were to be peremptorily and arbitrarily ruled out of order, as we gather is the wish of the leaders of the Opposition, the Colonial representatives might very naturally be inclined to think that the advocates of Free-trade dreaded discussion, and dreaded it because their case was a bad one. New communities are very rightly jealous and suspicious of old conventions. They are inclined to think that Free-trade is a convention or superstition which has imposed itself on the people of these islands. Nothing is more likely to confirm this view than for them to be told that the British Government will not allow its policy in this respect to be canvassed or challenged. It frets them to think that they are confronted, not by the deliberate determination of the nation, but by an abstract principle. If we wanted to convert the Colonies to a policy of Free-trade, as we most assuredly do, we could not choose a worse way than to forbid them thus to touch the Ark of the Covenant. We could not choose a better method than free discussion to make them see the essential benefit:, of Free-trade.
That our interpretation of Sir Michael Hicks Beach's speech is the true one is further borne out by the passage at the end of his speech in which he summarised its general conclusions :—" I know that some persons have suggested that you should impose duties as against foreign nations—duties which do not now exist as against foreign nations—in order to give an advantage to our Colonies. That is not the policy of his Majesty's Government. But it is our policy, adhering to our own principles, to do what we can to make trade between ourselves and our Colonies freer, in order, as we believe, to promote the best relations of the Empire." And as if even this were not sufficiently clear, he added:—" I have proposed this duty as a revenue duty ; I have proposed it absolutely without prejudice to any discussions which may take place between us and the Colonial representatives on the question of commercial relations. I hope those discussions may be fruitful of good results; but it is not with regard to those discussions, but with regard to the necessity of raising revenue for this and future years, that I have submitted this duty to the Committee."
We believe that full and free discussion of the schemes connected with a Zollverein and preferential duties will end in it being discovered that no Imperial objects will be to no reliance upon abstract doctrines, but to observation of one or two plain facts. The first of these is that though the Colonies in many cases profess to be Protectionist States, they in reality levy their duties for revenue pur- poses. They cannot therefore throw open their ports to British goods without a most serious loss of revenue. The goods that pay duty, that is, are not foreign but British goods, and. if British goods were to come in free the foreign trade with the Colonies, even now very small, would cease to exist, and so to raise any revenue. It is true that the Colonies might while levying dues on British goods penalise foreign goods, but the help given to British goods would be small. The only real way of helping British trade is to increase consumption. That accom- plished, British trade will look after itself. Another fact is that though Free-trade both with the Colonies and the rest of the world acts satisfactorily, a system of preference for Colonial goods, though fair in appearance, would be sure to work out unfairly as between various Colonies. To prefer all Colonial corn would, in fact, give a greater preference to Canadian corn, because freights from Canada cost less than freights from Australia. Again, if the corn- growing Colonies are helped by a differential Corn-duty, how can we resist the proposal to do something to help Australian meat, and even butter? But even the wildest advocate of a Zollverein would hesitate to propose that a frozen meat, butter, and cheese tax should be imposed in order that it might then be taken off Colonial produce. We only notice these difficulties, however, by way of illustration. There are plenty of others which will be discovered directly a Customs Union—not for revenue, but in order to pro- duce a form of Protection—is discussed. As, then, the discussion goes on, we shall be greatly surprised if the Premiers do not come to see that, after all, the safest and best plan will be to leave the Empire on its fiscal side alone, and to allow each component part to raise its own revenue in its own way. If any approach to a greater freedom of commercial intercourse within the Empire can he discovered, and adopted without decreasing necessary revenue and without excluding us from the benefit of the foreign markets, well and good. If not, then let us be content with the admirable unity and freedom which our existing Imperial system already affords us.
Previous page
