AN IMPERIAL STOCK-TAKING.
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
Sur,—Mr. L. S. Amery is the most industrious member of the Conservative Party. His persistency on the tariff is surprising. I heard him speak some years ago at a dinner in Australia and then formed the opinion that he was so obsessed with one view of the fiscal question that he had no inclination to consider 'national welfare from any other angle. In your issue of July 12th, Mr. Amery was forced to only one comparison—the United States (the others have dis- appeared), and to emphasize his point was compelled to depreciate his' own country. What should be the line of demarcation and criticism will always be difficult to determine. But I must confess that since my arrival in England I have been surprised at the tendency of so many of your politicians to depreciate England. Before the War the protectionist journals of Australia were so constantly asserting that Great Britain was going to the dogs, that her commercial and industrial supremacy was ended, that a great many people began to really believe that England was a decadent and a weary, worn-out nation.
Mr. Amery could hardly have chosen for his case a worse comparison than America. Is not the United States nearly.
as large as Europe! Did not your own statistician, Sir Robert Giffen, say, years ago, that the United States, without internal tariffs, was a striking example of Free Trade ? Has not the United States for the last sixty or seventy years been ripping out nature's reserves of great wealth She has had, and still has, immense coal, iron, copper, gold, silver and other mineral deposits, oil fields apparently inexhaustible. Her timber resources are most extensive and her cotton plan- tations abound with productivity. Her climate is varied and yet most temperate, and her internal water communi- cations admirably adapted for transport purposeS. But perhaps most important of all she had wide tracts of land quickly available for pastoral and agricultural purposes. A country like this would be prosperous under any policy and she is wealthy not because, but in spite of, Protection. Great Britain has with titanic strength and manful energy borne for centuries the burden of Empire. America came Pate into the struggle with great virgin resources. And yet little England, the mother of nations, can still hold her own. There is no need for weeping. The troubles of America have yet to come.
Before the War the Mercantile Marine of Great Britain represented sixty per cent of the world's shipping. And why Did not Lord Balfour point out some twenty years ago in his notes on insular Free Trade that owing to the cheaper cost of raw materials Great Britain could construct ships twenty-five per cent. lower than any other competitor And was it not largely the Mercantile Marine that saved the Empire ?
After all the dictum of Sir Robert Peel still rings true— the best way to fight hostile tariffs is by Free Trade. Mr. Amery refers to railways. Is any comparison possible in this respect ? Can the islands of the 'West Indies be connected by railway I Can Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Tasmania be so joined Then take the scattered units of the Empire in the Pacific.
The eternal remedy of Mr. Amery is Imperial Preference. If Empire Free Trade (or Imperial Preference) is admittedly not practical neither is Imperial Preference. The opponents of both are the Protectionist manufacturers of the Dominions. We all live in a kind of make-believe. In fact this belief is very often essential to happiness. The Daylight Saving Act says it is one o'clock when it is really only twelve. Mr. Amery is equally unsound when he asserts that the obstacle to Empire development lies in this country. As an Australian, and as a close student for years of the fiscal question, I have no hesitation in saying that the Protectionist manufacturers of the Dominions are the greatest objectors to Imperial Preference. Any apparent support on their part is merely a make-believe and used as a lever to obtain further protection.
Take one typical case of fiscal hypocrisy. Two or three years ago the Australian Government, of which Mr. Bruce was a member, brought in duties which practically prohibited the importation of Fijian bananas. This was done to benefit the banana growers of Queensland. The result has been that Fiji—a British possession—is embittered, a considerable amount of trade between Australia and Fiji has gone, and the consumer has to put up with inferior bananas at higher prices. Other instances could be given. The bitter lesson of experience proves that the Australian Protectionists are just as keen in keeping out goods from British as from foreign countries.
Nothing has been more prejudicial to land settlement in Australia than Protection. The best Preference that could be given to assist the Australian farmer, without burdening the English consumer, would be to abolish Protective duties on e gricultural implements and machinery. In any case Australia does not wish to be treated as a spoilt child. As I am visiting England for a holiday I avoid publicity and
Previous page
