New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-08-03
RECIPROCITY AND COLONIES.

Tho clcarest explanation which we have seen
of the principles of the new economic party in
England is offered by Mr. w. Farrer Ecroyd in
q letter To The Times London) He dsclaims
advocacy of any scheme for making the
British Empire close corporation, with free
trade between the colonies and the mother
State, and high duties on foreign goods What
he advocates is mn import duty of 10 per cent
on all foreign manufactures and food products
imposed rs measure of self protection for the
United Kingdom and its dependencies. The
duties on foreign manufactures would enable
tho Government to make better terms with
Continental nations like France for common
exchange. The duties on foreign agricultural
products would transfer the growing of orr
food from those who will not take our manu-
fractures in return Ia those who will, aud do
"termine the future movement of our capital,
"cntcrprise and emigration into our own splcn-
did undeveopcd empire, instead of into coun-
tries like the Unitod States and Russia. where
u it goes to build mp forces actively hostile to
"our industries" Canada aud Australia would
thus be encouraged to revise their tariffs so rs
to import British manufactures without artificial
restrictions, in return for the privilege of having
their food supplies admitted free in England
whereas those of rival agricultural States would
be subject to a duty of 10 per cent. He main
tainS that these duties can be levied aud steady
custom given to those who are willing to deal
with British manufacturers without tire Empire
becoming close corporation or losing the repu-
tatlon OF being the most liberal of all nations
iii respect to the worlds trade.
Mr.. Ecroyd contends that English workmen
are menaced to-day with disaster and distress
precisely they were before 1916. but from
the opposite pole of circumstances Real free
| exchange, prevented then by protective dnties
in England, is now, in exactly the Same manner.
obstructed by the high tariffs of other countries.
and especially by that of the United States
During the quarter century that followed
1916, England enjoyed the reality of FREQ OK
change and all classes were enriched. FOREIGN
nations which levied high duties could not dis
pense with British goods, inasmuch rs they had
not acquired sufficient experience to make them
| for themselves. AT present, Englishmen have
barren theory IN place of free exchange-not
| the substance OF free trade, but it's vain
shadow, which now begins to mock our unem-
ploycd workers. What Mr.. Ecroyd and those
who share his opinions advocate is a svstrm of
reciprocity which will enable the United King
dom to discriminate between tho friends and
foes of its economic system, and at the samo
time to set premium upon food growing in its
own dependencies
These views OF the member for Preston seem
to have been adopted without dissent nv thc
new school in English politics, which aims 10
provide tho Conservatives with n nrogrammo
that will take well at tho next general clec
ton with tho manufacturing population and
with the discontinued farmers. Already those
ideas have been reailirmcd in campaign circu
lar issued by the advocates of reciprocitv who
Seem to have succeeded in offectiny formal
organization. We shall be curious to learn
what response TO these OVcrtures will be made
by the colonies which are expected to comDoto
with the United States in furnishing England
With food supplies. Australia and Canada are
now taxing British manufactures, but this
offence is passed over lightly by the now ecopo-
mlsts rs IN indiscretion unavoidable in raw
communities. 1t is assumed that these dutes
which In any event bear tho character or
revenue Duties" will be repealed as COON os
their own exports are placed at An ADVANTAGE
over those of tho United States. We wonder ~
the SFair Traders" are not presumipp unon
the lack Of intelligence of those same coonsts in
expecting them to open their own markets. IN
British manufactures and thus to sacrifice their
own growing Industries in return for tho lin
sorry advantages that are offered to them. Mr..
Ecroyd lays stress on the fact that each inhabi
tant OF Australia is sixteen times as large q mr.
chaser of British manufactures as each inbabi-
tant of the United States. 1t only proves that
while they have begun to levy protective duties
there they have not built up their own indus
tries so as to be independent of the mother
State, whereas we in the United States have
accumulated masses of capital, have acquired
skill in manufacturing, and have furnished tho
composite population within our borders with
an immense variety of industrial occupations.
They are where we were during the first de-
cade after 1916. Will they prefer to renounce
the gospel of self-hclp and thus to add to the