MR. GOSCHEN AND COMMERCIAL FEDERATION.
THOUGH the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech on Mr. Vincent's motion in favour of assembling a Con- ference to consider the development of the trade of the Empire, was in many ways admirable, we are bound to confess to a sense of uneasiness in regard to one or two of his remarks. To us, certain passages had a not altogether pleasant ring, and raise a doubt whether Mr. Goschen's belief in the vital importance of Free-trade is quite as firm and unyielding as it ought to be. His language seems that of a man who considers freedom of exchange rather a pious opinion than an essential political doctrine. Nothing could be better, we admit, than his declaration that the Confederationists must not be allowed to make the Unity of the Empire a stalking-horse for Protection. "I hope," said he, "I shall not offend any one by saying that I hope the Colonial movement as it is called—that is, a movement for closer union with the Colonies—will not be prejudiced by any suspicions that its champions have got a kind of sneaking desire to pro- mote Protection at home. The right honourable Member for Thanet carries his badge upon his sleeve ; others have not been quite so open. I am bound to say we must endeavour to scent out Protection, if I may say so, because Protectionists lurk in many places where you would scarcely expect to find them. Some of them mingle with the bimetallists behind their silver robas ; others join the imperial Federationists and wrap themselves round in the folds of the Union Jack." Not less useful or important was the passage in which Mr. Goschen dealt with Mr. Hof meyer's proposal that England and her Colonies should always add 2 per cent, to their duties in the case of foreigners, and thus give the members of the Empire a 2 per cent. advantage in trade. After referring to an Imperial Zollverein, he went on :—" What chance or hope have the Colonies held out to us that they are prepared to move in this direction ? The most is that they will keep a wall 10 ft. high against us and make it 11 ft. high against foreigners. Supposing we made immense sacri- fices to effect a Customs Union with the Colonies, it might be that the opening made for our goods was on such a small scale that it would be but a slight relief against the immense sacrifices of trade we should be obliged to make." It would be difficult to conceive anything sounder or better put than these two pronouncements. Unfortunately, however, Mr. Goschen let fall certain other expressions which will, we fear, encourage the advocates of Protection in their attempts to confound their nostrums with the notion of a Union between the scattered portions of the English kin. For instance, in regard to the question, 'Will you pay in the shape of somewhat dearer bread for the consolidation of the Empire ? " he declared that he thought it possible "that the advantages of the con- solidation of the Empire may be so great, that if the increase in the price of the loaf was extremely small, the producers, with whom the power now lies far more than with the consumers, might not object." In the abstract, there is perhaps a difficulty in condemning absolutely a tax upon corn in case of national danger, for it is just conceivable that it might be necessary to tax food if no other means of self-preservation could be discovered. That, however, is another matter. Our feeling of regret is inspired by the fact that a Chancellor of the Exchequer should canvass the advisability of putting on a food-tax, not in a moment of extreme national peril, but in times of peace. Even more unsatisfactory was the following declaration made by Mr. Goschen on Tuesday : —" If our Colonies were prepared for a Customs Union in that sense —that there should be Free-trade, with no barriers of customs to keep out English goods from the Colonies, or Colonial produce from this country,—if that were the case, I should say : The Colonies mean business, and let us see how far we can reconstruct any portion of our fiscal system to meet those views.' Even then the difficulties are enormous ; but they ought to be faced for the sake of the great objects to be secured." In other words, Mr. Goschen can conceive himself willing to return to a system of Protection in order to secure an Imperial Zollverein.
Because we express grave dissatisfaction at these portions of what Mr. Vincent described as Mr. Goschen's "sympathetic speech," it must not be considered that we think nothing of the unity of the Empire and of the Anglo-Saxon race. We are as anxious as any Imperial Federationist that the Colonies and England should not drift into the relation occupied by foreign countries towards each other. We must, however, absolutely refuse to believe that the union of the English kin is to be pro- duced by a return to Protection. We readily admit that if all portions of the Empire could be induced to agree to exchange freely with each other and the Mother-country-, a very useful end would be accomplished ; but in order to , accomplish this end, no return to Protection is necessary. We shall be told, however, that though there is no necessary connection between Imperial Free-trade and the reimposi- tion of Protection, there is a practical one, because there is no hope of the Colonies admitting our goods free unless we protect their traders in our home markets. If this is the MSC, then Commercial Union with the Colonies would be purchased at far too dear a price. People talk glibly about nothing being necessary but the imposition of a tax raising some six millions a year. They forget that this tax would be directly levelled against industry, and that the loss of wealth it would occasion would be very great. Every tax is a handful of grit thrown into the machinery of industrial wealth, and impairs its productive powers. Though taxes are necessary, it must never be forgotten that, considered per se, they are pure evils. Still, we admit that if the unity of the English race could be maintained by the imposition of a tax, and in no other way, it might be right to impose the tax. But we must ask,—Is it proved that this great sacrifice would produce the political results proposed ? We doubt it. If tariffs really protected, and so prevented intercourse between the nations employing them, it is conceivable that nothing but the introduction of free exchange would work for political unity. Experience shows, however, that while Protection produces an enormous waste of wealth, it does not in any sense destroy intercourse between two countries one of which is Protectionist and the other Free-trade. Again, experience teaches that under Free-trade countries do not necessarily show any tendency towards political union. England and France, though both benefited materially, were not under Mr. Cobden's treaty politically nearer to each other than they are at present. Again, trade between New South Wales and England is very nearly free, while between England and Victoria it is interfered with by a series of vexatious tariff regulations. Yet it is admitted by all observers that the general tone of Victoria is more loyal and. more friendly to England than that of New South Wales. It is, we hold, an entire mistake to imagine that political union cannot be maintained while different fiscal systems prevail in the Empire. That this is so, is shown by the octroi systems of the Continent. Paris is in as close a political relation with the rest of France as can be conceived, yet a regular-tariff is imposed at the Barriers. Again, while the coal and wine dues existed in London, the Metropolis did not tend to become disunited from the rest of Great Britain and Ireland: In truth, it is a great mistake to mix up the question of Imperial Unity with Protection and Free-trade. Protec- tion is, in reality, only an abominably wasteful. and injurious method of collecting customs which, while it fails to protect, diminishes the wealth of the country subject to it. Its political effects are, however, considered per ae, not necessarily antagonistic to unity. In the same way, while Free-trade is the only system under which commercial intercourse can be carried on without waste and injury, and the wealth of a nation be left unwasted, it cannot in the abstract be said to produce political unity. Political unity may exist under the worst of fiscal systems, political disunion under the best. The two things must, therefore, be considered separately, and on their merits. All proposals for maintaining the political unity of the Empire may and ought to be discussed. wholly apart from the question of Protec- tion. Sooner or later, the Colonies will find Protection intolerable, and will abandon it ; but till this happens, we and they must manage our revenue systems for ourselves. Schemes such as those put forward on Tuesday, whether consciously or unconsciously, are nothing but attempts to reintroduce Protection into the United Kingdom. It was abundantly clear during the debate, that what Mr. Vincent, Mr. Hill, and Mr. Lowther really wanted, was not so much Imperial Unity, as a means for restricting the influx of foreign produce into English markets. It is essential, therefore, to insist upon the fact that the unity of the English kin and Free-trade and Pro- tection have nothing whatever to do with each other.
Previous page
