LORD FARRER ON FREE-TRADE.
AMEETING of the Cobden Club is one of those happy occasions on which politicians may cease to be partisans. The doctrines which this institution still finds it necessary to protect and defend are in fact established as an integral part of our national system, and are just as far removed above the clamour of party strife as trial by jury. Sir Wilfrid Lawson, of course, could not refrain from an inopportune endeavour to make political capital out of the Government's supposed attitude towards agriculture, but no one is likely to take the teetotal humourist's quips and cranks very seriously. Even Lord Farrer, however, appears to think that the principle of Free-trade is still subject to the whims of popular feeling, and that its supporters have need of unsleeping vigilance in its defence. His uneasiness on the subject seems to us to be a little exaggerated, and his speech, though as eminently lucid and sensible as are all his pronouncements, may perhaps be described as too sanguine with regard to the outlook for Free-trade abroad, and too anxious on the score of possible attacks upon it at home. The "obvious movement in favour of Free-trade" which he detects in the Australian Colonies, is a tendency which, though real enough as far as it goes, may very easily be exaggerated. Probably the truth of the matter is that the Colonies have been forced by a very unpleasant period of depression, varied by acute crisis, to recognise that there is something rotten in the state of their fiscal systems, and are groping their way towards reforms which may, or may not, be in the direction of free, or freer, trade. New South Wales is evidently inclined to strike the fetters off her commerce, and it is likely enough that throughout the Australian Colonies thoughtful men are turning over the pros and cons of the matter ; but the feebleness of any rays of economic enlightenment that may be shining in that part of the world was only too plainly demonstrated at the Ottawa Conference, when the collective Colonial wisdom urged Great Britain to put back the hands of the clock, and join in walling in the Empire with a protective barrier. There is good reason to hope that Australia, and all the world as well, will adopt Free-trade some day, but the process of develop- ment is likely to be slow. It is, indeed, as Lord Farrer said, a "difficult and delicate" matter to speak of the United States. But here also he seems a little over- sanguine. It is true enough that there is a period of great prosperity before the Republic,—" if the currency difficulties could be got rid of." But this is a large "if," and it does not follow that "with that period of prosperity it would be found that the modifications which were made in the McKinley Tariff had not ruined them, and there would probably be an inclination to proceed in the direction of making further alterations." On the contrary, the revival of confidence in the States, which is due largely to President Cleveland's firmness in keeping up the Treasury's supply of gold, is commonly attributed to the fact that the Republican party, the party of Pro- tection, has ousted the Free-trading Democrats from their predominant position in Congress, and it is argued that prosperity only returned with the prospects of a reversion in the direction of McKinleyism. "Further alterations," as far as it is possible to judge at this distance, seem much more likely to be reactionary than progressive. Meanwhile, the settlement of the currency difficulties seems to be as far off as ever.
Turning to home affairs, Lord Farrer was able to speak more hopefully than in former years on several points, but he seemed to think that our fiscal system is by no means out of danger, and thought it necessary to modify his cheerfulness with various qualifications. For instance, he advised "all Free-traders to keep a careful watch upon Lord Salisbury's doings, and upon the doings of the Foreign Office." Lord Salisbury is to be watched, because he is reported to have once dropped a sentence in favour of protective duties as a means of retaliation against foreign tariffs. Lord Farrer confesses, however, that he expects to hear very little more of this unfortunate obiter dictum. "now that Lord Salisbury is himself in responsible office." And the Times opportunely reminds us that when Colonel Howard Vincent succeeded in carrying his Oxford resolution in favour of Fair-trade, Lord Salisbury declared at once against it as a scheme which no responsible statesman would dream of carrying into effect. The Foreign Office seems rather a curious institution to be marked out as a possible nursery of fiscal heresies, but Lord Ferrer explains that we must keep an eye on it because permanent officials at the Foreign Office and Ambassadors, when they are asked to make commercial treaties on behalf of this country, are very much tempted to say, "We have no weapons in our hands. Have some duties that you can take off, and then we shall be able to make better bargains." We hope that Lord Farrer does our Foreign Office authorities an injustice in imagining that they could be captivated by any such temptations, but we are quite sure that any Minister before whom such representations were laid, would not hesitate to respond with the obvious retort.
another danger alluded to in this speech is the proba- bility that the Trade-Unions, finding themselves unable to "control all the means of production "in the face of foreign competition, may decide that they must "stop foreign importations." This is rather a large order even for Trade-Unions, and our Free-trade mentor himself knocks down his own bogey, expressing his belief that the workmen of England detest tyranny of every kind, and that their leaders lose their importance and power when they propose resolutions " contrary to the common-sense of the country and to the freedom of employer and work- man." We may also point out that if foreign importations are to be "stopped," agriculture, the industry which is more at the mercy of external competition than any other, will certainly have the strongest right to protection, and Trade-Unions are not likely to give serious attention to measures which will begin by raising the price of bread. Agriculture is an object of Lord Farrer's sympathy, but he has no faith in any of the remedies suggested. He considers that it is "an entire delusion to think that by marking on goods the name of the country from which they came, any advantage would be gained," believing that if things were good, whether they came from foreign countries or not, people in this country would buy them. If they are good—as good as the home-grown article—of course they will be bought ; but cases in which foreign goods are palmed of as British, and are thus sold at a higher price than the avowedly foreign article, prove that the marking of foreign commodities as such is sometimes desirable in the interest of the consumer as well as the producer. Another point on which we must beg to differ from Lord Ferrer is the question of the importation of prison-made goods from abroad. He contended that "it could be proved to demonstration that the working classes in England would gain, and would not lose, by the importation of these prison-made goods The stoppage of the sale of prison-made goods was, in his opinion, wrong economically, socially, and morally, and much as they sympathise with the working classes, it was their duty to speak out what was true." Unless the speaker has been misrepresented by his reporter, these sentences are obviously inconsistent. For if it can really be "proved to demonstration" that the working classes will gain by the importation of prison- made goods, what need is there of sympathy in the matter, and why should Lord Ferrer lay such paisful stress on "duty," when he is only engaged in the very pleasant task of supporting a system which benefits his poorer brethren ? From an economic point of view, the competi- tion of prison-made goods with free labour is directly opposed, like all compulsory or artificially stimulated production, to the principles of Free-trade, which aims at the development of industrial enterprise in such a manner that commodities shall be produced by those hands, in those places, and under those conditions, which are best fitted for their successful manufacture. " Socially and morally," we believe the system to be equally indefensible, but it is hard, to decide whether restrictive measures would not do more harm than good in the long-run, and in other directions. This question, as Adam Smith wrote, in an unusually severe moment, on the subject of retaliation, "does not, perhaps, belong so much to the science of a legislator, whose deliberations ought to be governed by general principles which are always the same, as to the skill of that insidious and crafty animal, vulgarly called a statesman or politician, whose councils are directed by the momentary fluctuations of affairs."
Previous page
