The examiner., 1882-02-25
ENGLAND's COMMERCIAL POLICY.

FoR generation it has been the policy of England to control the markets of the world with manufactures. To accomplish that purpose she opened her own market to most of the products of other nations, but not until her improvements in machin- cry and in the details of an industrial sys- tenn enabled her to compete against the manufactures of all nations. Her markets were nominally thrown open, but practi- cally they were closed, as the British manu- facturer could, as a rule, undersell the foreign manufacturer. But Englands weak ness is in her limited territory. She is compelled to import food for her people, and in consequence the staples of life are dearer than in countries which produce their own. This excessive cost, not large in itself, has added to the cost of 1nanufac- turing the small percentage which opens her markets to those of other countries. Under these circumstances free trade has lost much of it's strength. It was all very we'll as long as it enabled England to flood foreign markets with her goods, but by no means so well when other countries began to successfully compete with England, not only on neutral ground, but in her own markets and those of her colonies. In the manufacturing districts and commercial capitals of England there is a growing sem timent in favor of protective tariff, or as it is styled, retaliatory duties." For time the English press had little to say in regard to this sentiment. but they now devoting much attention to it. The Lon don St0ndGrd recently declared that the popular vote would be as much in favor of protection in England as elsewhere. The London Tunes recently admitted that the prosperity of protectionist countries like the United States and France, and the re- action toward TrntootnT in E1r0roo ally demonstrates the real impo icy of the course which was entered upon by Great Britain thirty years ago with so much exultation." The London MornS7aQ Post. as per cable report, directs attention to an article in the Quarterly Recseao in tended to show, from statistics, that Bri- tish manufactures are declining, and that foreigners are cOmpet ng successfully, evt n in the English maj kets, in consequence of the system of free trade. The Post con cludes as follows:
 The Quarterly Reoieao's array of facts deserves the ost considerate attention of every man having the future prosperity of the country at heart. The United States, under the system of protection described by some of our political economists as sui cidal, have paid during sixteen years over e15O, ,OOO, OOC of their debt, and paid e2O, 100000 last year under it. The United oGaLeS nave passed Oy leaps ana DOunOS into condition of prosperity which before long will enable them to cancel the enor- nous debt incurred on account of the civil war. England is by no means in the same hopeful condition. We grant that free trade has done much to benefit the coun- try, but we doubt whether it has not been pressed too far; whether it has not b4come imperative that some resort to retaliatory duties shall be made in order to show that the advantages we offer to foreign states should be met by equivalent concessions on their part"
 It would not be surprising if England, which was the birthplace of the free trade doctrine, should return to protection, or what amounts to the same thing, to 8 re- taliatory tariff.
 Those who pay much attention to politi- cal matters in Europe cannot have failed to observe the tendency on the part of Ger many, France. Austria, and Russia to in crease their tariffs upon imports with view to encourage home industry and en- terprise. In all Europe, the current for twenty years prior to 1876 set strongly toward reciprocal low duties and free trade. Since that time there has been general change of feeling in favor of protective tariffs, and now there appears to be very general demand for it.-M r. Ssspp6aeg LiSt