TOPICS OF THE DAY.
RECIPROCITY AND THE COLONIAL CONFERENCE.
IN spite of the attempts by a portion of the London Press to represent the Prime Ministers of the Colonies as determined to hold a pistol to the head of the British Government in the matter of Preference, we are by no means inclined to believe that any indiscreet or emb mussing action will be taken at the COnference. The representatives of the free nations within the Empire, though no doubt personally strong believers in the principles of Protection, are statesmen of wide experience, and are well aware of the danger of doing any- thing which may in the least savour of interference in a party struggle. ' The moment they see that, whether con- sciously or unconsciously, they are being asked to take sides in a matter of internal controversy, we may be sure that they will move with prudence and circumspection. Our assurance that this is so is derived from two facts,— firet, from the sense of responsibility as regards the future of the Empire possessed by the Premiers, and their deter- mination to do nothing which may prejudice the Imperial cause; and next, from the fact that they one and all hold most strongly that it is an essential principle of the Empire that no one self-governing part of it shall ever interfere with the internal affairs of any other part. The fact that Britons oversea will brook no meddling in their home affairs is a guarantee that they will not meddle in the home affairs of the Mother-country or of each other. Though no doubt they think the policy of Free-trade a mistaken one, they no more desire to force any abrogation of the Free-trade principle upon us than we desire to force upon them any abrogation of Protection. Just as the wise Free-trader holds that freedom is greater than Free-trade, so the wise Protectionist'deems freedom greater than Protection.
But though, as we have said, we have not the slightest fear of the Colonial Premiers attempting to force the hands of the Government by a categorical demand for reciprocity, we have no doubt that the Premiers will discuss the whole question, and will endeavour to gauge the views of the majority of the British people thereon, just as they will endeavour to make us understand their standpoint. At present many of the Prime Ministers of the Colonies seem puzzled to understand how it is that though they are willing to amend their fiscal systems by giving us preference, we seem unwilling to modify ours in order to repay them in kind by the grant of reciprocal privileges. We believe that a little study of the question at close quarters, will soon show them that though apparently they are only asking us to do what they already do, they are in reality asking a great deal more. They can give British goods a certain amount of preference in their markets without in the least breaking down or interfering with the essential principle upon which their fiscal system is based,—the principle of protecting their home manufactures from outside competition. We, on the other hand, cannot give a preference to their goods without violating altogether the essential principle upon which our fiscal system is based,—viz., the principle of a free market, subject to duties for revenue only, the principle, that is, of letting every man who has something to sell sell it freely in our markets, subject only to tolls the object of which is not to keep out goods but merely to raise revenue. Under their systems, Customs are not levied primarily for revenue purposes, and the desire of each Government is not to see as many commodities as possible come into the ports, but the reverse. Under ours, we want to see the greatest possible amount of taxable goods enter in order to increase our revenue. No doubt if self-governing nations like Canada or Australia were willing to take British goods which are now subject to Protective taxation, and to place them on the free list, they would be giving,us a preference which would be a negation of their Protective system, and would be analogous to the derogation from our system of taxation for revenue only which is suggested by those who demand the grant of Colonial Preference on our part. But the Colonies answer, and from their point of view naturally enough: " No, that is a. form of preference which we cannot give you, for it would
interfere with the principles upon which our whole fiscal system is based." So we, when asked for a Colonial preference, are bound to say that we cannot give it because it would destroy the system upon which, rightly or wrongly, our fiscal policy is based, the system of tariff for revenue only.
So much nonsense has been talked about Freertraders . caring more for the foreigner than for their own flesh and blood that it may be as well to point out that Free-traders who hold our views do not in the least support the retention of our present system out of any desire to benefit the foreigner. If it were merely a case of helping the Colonial trader and injuring the foreigner without injuring ourselves, we should be the first to assent to Colonial Preference, for we have no sort of difficulty in saying that we prefer our own flesh and blood to outsiders, and, other things being equal, would be infinitely more pleased to see the Colonial trade returns go up than those with foreign countries. Unfortunately, however, experience as well as abstract reasoning show beyond a doubt that it is impossible to give a preference to Colonial goods without doing an injury to that complete freedom of commerce which is the very life-blood of the Mother-country and which enables her to bear the burden of Empire. It is upon the. principle of the free market, upon the principle of encouraging and fostering the greatest possible number of exchanges instead of attempting to forbid or hamper them, that the British Empire is in the last resort built up. It is our adherence to the principle of freedom of exchange that has given us not only our oversea possessions, but the lordship of the ocean, both from the military and the commercial point of view. It is, for example, not because we are naturally better seamen, or have greater facilities for shipbuilding, or are richer or more enterprising than the Englieh-speaking people of the United States, that we, not they, hold the empire of ' the sea, but because we are Free-tmders and they are Protectionists.
But, it may be argued, would it not be.possible to meet the demands of the Colonies by certain concessions, so small that though they would please Colonial opinion and show our goodwill, they would in effect derogate very little from the principle of the free market and of tariff for revenue only ? For example, if a slight preference were given to Cqlonial wines, Colonial coffee, Colonial sugar, Colonial tobacco, and even to Colonial corn, Britain would still remain in all essentials a Free-trade country, and would still in practice, if not in theory, adhere to the policy of tariff for revenue only. Our answer is the answer that a wise man is bound to give to specious pleas for not mending a leak in a reservoir on the ground that only a few small jets of water are escaping and that they do not greatly matter. Again, if a system of preference for Colonial products were to be set up, it would be absurd to mock the Colonies with a worthless gift. A concession or present made to a member of one's family, if it is made at all, must be worthy of the donor. In other words, if we give a preference, it must be such as to enable a large amount of Colonial produce to come in at the lower and preferential rate. But this must necessarily involve, a very considerable reduction of revenue, and it is a re- duction which will be bound to go on increasing. Our , former experience of Colonial Preference—and we bad a long and a very trying one—was that all sorts of foreign products were transported to the Colonies, and then contrived to slip into our ports under the cover of Colonial Preference. Timber, for instance, went from the Baltic to Canada and was reshipped under the preference as Canadian timber, while coffee from Brazil and other South American States went out to the Cape and came back as Cape coffee. The same thing, no doubt, would happen again with foreign products which could get an advantage by reaching us yid Colonial ports, with the result that our Customs revenue must be greatly reduced. But since we raise no more revenue than we absolutely require, this would mean three or four millions of new taxation. Suppose it to be levied indirectly. It must, in that case, act as a new restriction on trade and commerce, and thus be a waste of our resources. In other words, it must be a special burden upon some portion of the community, and this portion of the community would feel that their interests were being sacrificed to please .the Colonies. But can any one suppose that this would be conducive to good
feeling in the Empire, or to that Imperial sentiment which we all desire to see 'encouraged ? We know how in the past Colonial Preference made men dislike the Empire, and caused a great deal of that impatience with Imperialism and of that desire to get rid of the COlonies which marked public opinion in the " forties " and "fifties." Can we doubt that the effect now would be as then? Surely it will be wiser for the Colonies to leave our fiscal system alone while we leave theirs alone, and to let each section of the Empire manage its own commercial affairs in its own way.
To say this is not to suggest for a single moment that it is impossible for us to draw closer the bonds of union with the Colonies, or to strive after a more closely knit Empire. Though holding the views we do in regard to trade and commerce, we never felt more desirous to maintain the British Empire, or more confident that it can be maintained " in health and wealth long to live." The union to which we look forward is a union of equals, not one based on the exercise of any preferential and political rights or prerogatives on the part of the Mother-country. We believe that in the course of the next fifty or sixty years the great nations of Canada and Australasia, and possibly of South Africa,, will have grown so populous that they will be able to enter an Imperial union or alliance on equal terms, or, at any rate, upon terms which will give them substantial powers and rights in the matter of Imperial policy. We deprecate a premature tightening of the bonds of Empire, not because we are anxious to avoid sharing power with the Colonies, but because we hold that a premature sharing'of political power might end in disappointments and disagreements that would shake the Empire to its foundations. Let us wait till the free nations of the Empire are more advanced in the matter of population• and till they can ask for their share in the direction of Imperial affairs on terms of equality. Till that bay arrives we see nothing derogatory to the Colonies in maintaining our present system. That system has worked well in the past, and will, we believe, continue to work well as long as we scrupulously respect the inalienable and absolute rights of the Colonies to self-government, and they as scrupulously respect the rights of the Mother-country to manage her own affairs. That is a perfectly sound and intelligible position, and one which we are confident is acceptable to the free peoples of all the Britain,.
Previous page
