The proceedings in the Economic Science Section of the British
Association on Friday week were of unusual interest, papers on the Fiscal question being read by three distin- guished foreigners, while the discussion was opened by a fourth, Dr. Pierson, ex-Premier of Holland. M. Yves Guyot's paper discussed the incidence of Protective duties on the industry and food supply of France. Protective legis- lation, which aimed at securing to the landed proprietors the monopoly of supplying bread and meat to the population of France, had simply relieved them and laid the burden on the consumer. He estimated that at most only 8 per cent. of the agricultural class—i.e., about 3 per cent. of the entire active population—were interested in Protection. " With the exception of the small group of cotton and linen spinners, the interest of all the rest lay in Free-trade, which would liberate the industries likely to live from the tyranny of the industries which only existed by favour of Protection." Professor Lotz, of Munich, followed very much on the same lines, showing how the policy adopted in Germany since 1879 had aided certain industries at the expense of others, a body of monopo- lists exercising a tyrannous supremacy over the makers of 'finished articles, though the latter were thirty times as numerous, with the result of high prices at home and " dumping" abroad. " The specialisation of industries," he contended, "could not be developed so intensively as under Free-trade. The natural process of differentiation was checked; and the right course for the Government, if they Wished their 'policy to succeed, would be to exclude Adam Smith's works from circulation in Germany."
Previous page
