TOPICS OF THE DAY • " TIED-HOUSE " IMPERIALISM.
WE are Imperialists first and. Free-traders afterwards, for Free-trade is but a counsel of economic perfection, While the Imperial Union is, in our view, vital to the race. If, then, we thought that by abandoning the policy of the free and, open market, under which we have grown so great, we could prevent the decay of the Empire, or could maintain ibm increased "health and wealth long to live," we should not hesitate to sacrifice the principle of Free-trade. But would Mr. Chamberlain's proposals do thie ? Would they found the Empire on the rock ? would they pronounce the fateful words este perpetui ? would they bind the Empire together and. secure its future ? We believe, nay, we are sure, that they would, if carried, do none of these things. Instead, they would bring with them the seeds of ruin and of political decay, of strife rather than of brother- hood, of political trouble, and of material injury and waste. For a moment it is possible, though even this is by no means certain, that the patent medicine we are urged so persuasively to take might bring an apparent, prosperity and strength to the Empire. But the bright colour would be a hectic flush, not the glow of health, and we should find all too soon that the national and Imperial constitution had been shattered, that our vitality had received a deadly blow, and that the Empire had begun to die at the heart.
It is, therefore, because we are Imperialists, and not because we are Free-traders, that we oppose Mr. Chamber- lain in this matter, and urge the nation to reject his advice. It is because we desire with all our heart and with all our strength the welfare of this Imperial realm, because we long to see the Empire grow in might and security, and to behold the daughter nations of the Empire oversee free and prosperous, and the Motherland also free and prosperous, that we would.. warn the British people to avoid 'this poisonous plant whose touch is death.' We are not, of . course, among those who imagine that Free-trade is a worn-out shibboleth. On the contrary, we believe that it has made Britain great, and that it is to freedom and Free-trade that we owe our Empire. We hold that Protection in any form and. under any alias is always economic waste, and that Free-trade always represents the conservation of economic and material energy. We are Free-traders, that is, not because Cobden or Bright or anybody else advocated Free-trade, but because the policy of Free-trade is the policy of economic convenience, because it is politically and materi- ally expedient. We do not, however, wish to join issue on this point, but to consider solely the welfare of the Empire. If we thought that the Empire would really benefit, we would cheerfully endure the economic waste and injury involved in Mr. Chamberlain's scheme. The Empire is worth a great material sacrifice, and we would. make such• a sacrifice to secure so great an end.
But when we are asked to make a material sacrifice which will at the same time shake the pillars of the Empire, which will introduce the rift into the lute, which will undermine the foundations that up till now have been so well and truly laid, and upon which some day we expect to see so noble a building raised,—then we cannot keep silence. In the mood of the moment it is an unpopular and. disagreeable task to say these things, and to point out that what Mr. Chamberlain regards as form and substance is nothing but a glowing mirage; but that dis- agreeable task we must undertake, even though, the pro- fessed leaders among Free-traders who are also Imperialists, suoh as Lord Rosebery, bend .to the gale, and instead of speaking out frankly and openly, prefer to give a half- hearted and balancing reception to Mr. Chamberlain's ideas.
• Our first reason as Imperialists for opposing the scheme is that it will give rise to hopes and aspirations, both here and in the Colonies, which cannot be satisfied with- out inflicting an injury on the mass of our population and on our traders which they will not be able to endure. We see already that the proposal has become mixed up with the schemes of politicians like Mr. -Chaplin and Mr. James Lowther. As Protectionists, they seize on the idea of an Imperial Zollverein to -aid them in their scheme for maintaining taxation on the food of the people. At first, perhaps, -Colonial corn and Colonial wheat may be allowed to come in free';: but when the farming interest and the milling interest are strong enough, what guarantee have we that the home farmer and the home miller will not argue that it is unfair to expose them to the competition of wheat grown on virgin soil or flour groutid by Colonial waterfalls ? But such a demand and such a struggle of interests would do infinite harm to the Empire. While our taxes are imposed for revenue only they can be defended and maintained without causing any heart-burnings. Once levy them for other reasons, and the Colonies will naturally claim to have a right to say how they shall be levied, and to have a voice in deciding whether this or that Colony, "or this or that home interest, is getting too good a bargain. The difficulties of drawing up any preferential tariff which will satisfy the Empire as a whole are enormous,—and if the Empire is not satisfied, our condition will be greatly altered for the worse. No Colony. has a grievance now, or can say that it is unfairly treated when all are free to trade with us. Under a preferential system the accidents of space and material resources must produce inequality, and make certain Colonies aggrieved. and. ready to declare that other Colonies are unduly favoured. But it is of such grievances that disruption comes.
Can it be said that such disputes and disappoint- ments will not break out ? Mr. Chamberlain's speech as we write is not six days old, and already Australia is vibrating with prospective disputes. The Times correspondent tells us that on Tuesday the Argus pointed out the grave objection that Mr. Chamberlain's scheme would mean increased Protection in Australia. The Protectionists might agree to increase duties against foreign countries, but would never consent to reduce the existing tariff in favour of Britain. "It is really against British manufactures that the present Protectionist tariff is levied, and the Protectionists did all they could. to make it higher." No doubt some Important newspapers, and a considerable number of important politicians, as, for instance, the Premier of the Commonwealth, gave a guarded approval to Mr. Chamberlain's speech ; but the Free-traders—and remember the Free-traders in Australia are a most power- ful party—have pronounced strongly against it. For example, Sir William McMillan, deputy leader of the Free-trade Opposition in the Federal Parliament, said in an interview that he was "absolutely opposed to a pre- ferential tariff, which would hamper the trading relations of Australia with foreign countries. Some time in the future there would be an immense trade between Australia and, the western coast of America, Japan, China,' and India; even at the present time the trade of Australia with countries other than Great Britain was increasing by leaps and, bounds, and any embargo on foreign goods would inevitably cause retaliation." The Premier of South Australia, we note,' was by no means enthusiastic in the matter of preferential treatment; while Mr. Routledge, the Agent-General for Queensland, speaking on behalf of the Premier of that great Colony, though tepidly sympathetic with the abstract proposal, saw many difficulties in the way. His remarks were specially memorable, as they introduced at once a difficulty which we have again and again in- sisted on in these columns in dealing with the Zollverein, —the difficulty of inter-Colonial trade jealousy. "If," said Mr. Routledge, "preferential treatment is to be extended to all British dependencies, Queensland will suffer through the importation of West Indian and Mauritius sugar.' In other words, Queensland has no .notion of giving up her Protectionist system, even within the Empire. .Tha Age, the other great Melbourne paper, dismissed the scheme with what Dr. Johnson called "frigid equanimity." "Australia has not had much interest in reciprocity, and does not regard it with the same enthusiasm as Canada." England no doubt saw that it was vital to her to increase her markets, and so looked. to the Colonies. Australia might at a uture time do something in the way of reciprocity on a Protectionist basis, but she could not, "even for the all-important claims of Imperial unity, consent to a policy that might endanger her industrial position." From Sydney the note of alarm is sounded even more clearly. Sydney merchants, we are told, condemn Mr.- Chamberlain's proposals . as retrograde. A portion of the Sydney Press is very .plain- spoken. For example, the Sydney Daily Telegraph, commenting on .Mr. Chamberlain's speech, says :— " The conception of Mr. Cobden proposing a Pro- tectionist tariff for the Empire requires either an heroic imagination or a fine contempt of facts. So far, Mr. Chamberlain has been significantly careful. to abstain from a direct suggestion as to what changes in the tariff should be sanctioned. The only move which Great Britain has made fiscally is to wipe off the Corn-duties, thereby annihilating the fond hopes of the Protectionists." The South Australian Register is even more downright. It comments as follows :—" Mr. Chamberlain is apparently dealing in chimeras. If he is serious, he should be more definite. Preferential trade, with the added obligation of a special Colonial contribution to Imperial defence, would work out badly for the producer, whose outlets would be restricted, while British manufacturers would enjoy a monopoly in the Colonies." The Brisbane Courier opposes the scheme on the same grounds as the Spectator. It sees, as we do, the injury that must be inflicted on the Empire :— " The present unity and affection between the Motherland and the Colonies and the promise of the future will be lessened if an attempt is made to forge iron chains of commercial and political restrictions." Those are wise words, and when all the sophistries founded on ill-digested statistics and well-meaning but dangerous rhetoric have evaporated they will still remain. If we think of the future of the Empire we shall have nothing to do with the new policy. The Perth West Australian says :—" The cable leads one to believe that Mr. Chamberlain misunderstands the situation and the policy of Australia, which, for the development of the people, goes even so far as to place restrictions on imports from the Mother-country. Why exclude America and Germany, if England is to swamp our markets and destroy our nascent manufactures P" Reasons of space forbid any further quotations, but we have given enough to show the very doubtful reception accorded to the scheme by a large section of public opinion in Australia. We admit, of course, that opinions equally strong on the other side could be quoted, but that does not affect our point, which is to prove that it is impossible to expect anything like unanimity in the Colonies. Yet without unanimity nothing can be done. In Canada it is true that the scheme meets with a nearer approach to unanimous approval, but then it must be remembered that Canada has been dazzled by the notion that her corn- growers will somehow be given the complete command of the home wheat market. The Canadians would not be human if they were not greatly moved by such a prospect.
We can only end as we began, by the declaration that Mr. Chamberlain's proposals should be considered not so much on economic as on Imperial grounds. They are essentially disruptive, though they are so well meant and have about them so specious an air of unity. Adopt them, and we shall find that instead of uniting the Empire we have shaken it to its foundations. Reject them, and let the Empire go forward on the old lines of liberty and Free-trade, and the Empire may face her future without fear. To say that the Empire cannot exist as now, we will not say on sentiment, for it is a word much misused, but on the feeling of race loyalty and of a common ideal, is to misread history. Such ties are invisible, but they are none the less strong and commanding. While we keep for our motto imperium et libertae and are true to the kindred principles of freedom and Free-trade we need have no fear. The Empire can be great and strong without the Mother- country making the Colonies, or the Colonies making the Mother-country, a "tied house."
Previous page
