The sun., 1904-08-28

4
| dentally Il might do 90. A duty OF two
shillings quarter might not DO muon TO
induce wheat growing In the United King
DOM II might not even greatly stimulate
| the expansion Of the wheat area in Canada
! In that event It is almost certain that the
! British Empire would follow the course
pursued by other nations that have intro
duced the thin end OF the protection wedge.
| As Mr.. Chamberlain himself has said:
"They began, perhaps, with low tarin'
| They continued 1t 30 long as It was sue
cessful. II they found 1t ceased to DO what
It was wanted to do, they increased It,.
| II the duty OF two shillings quarter should
! be found to give the colonies either no
advantage or a triaing one. 1t is unlikely
that the preferential experiment would
| be abandoned for want Of trying the 'ilttle
more" that might have transformed 1t into
SUCCESS. 1t is probably safe to assume
that soon or late the duty imposed on Tor
eign wheat would be raised sufficiently
to afford material encouragement to wheat
growing not only In Canada but In the
United Kingdom. Thereupon wheat would
| be grown in great sections OF British SOIL
wherein at present prices 1t Is unprohtable
to raise that cereal. Just now all the wheat
lands that pay are under wheat. Ihe IN
centive applied by considerable duty
on the foreign grain could only act py
causing wheat to be sown on lands which
It costs more to cultivate than do the pres
ent wheat fields. Such costly cultivation
would pay 30 long as the price should keep
up: but what would happen when it ca me
down again, as it inevitably would. when
the Canadian exports should have over
taken the exports from the United States,
and when, consequently, the quantity OF
colonial or foreign wheat offered In the
British market would sensibly exceed
| the supply2 The unavoidable fall In the
| price OF wheat would catch British farmers
| Just where the withdrawal OF protection
! caught them sixty years ago.
| Prof. Smart recalls that before the repeal
of the Corn Laws wheat growing, under
the incentive of protective prices, was the
staple Of farming. Indeed, man would
| not be called farmer unless he raised
principally wheat An East Coast farmer
| once told the author that if in ante-repeal
days he had been advised to grow potatoes
| he would have answered that he was not
| a gardener. Not only were lands entirely
unsuitable for wheat put under the plough,
but the old pastures. rich in animal and
| vegetable remains-literally capital ac-
| cumulated in the course OF centuries
| were broken up. Then came the abrupt
| withdrawal of the artificial price 1t was
not everywhere practicable to return to
sheep raising. In many places the sweet,
short herbage 80 suitable for sheep was
gone forever. British agriculturists dis
covered, however, that there were other
crops that would pay IL cultivated on a
large enough scale. They found living
| in pasture and dairy farming, in growing
early potatoes turnips, celery, cabbage,
mustard, peas, beans, flowers and fruits.
They came, in a word, to recognize that
| the function OF agriculture in England
was to grow things that could be better
and more cheaply grown at home than
| abroad Now, on the other hand, II Mr..
Chamberlains preferential tariff should
be adopted, and should have the expected
| results, farming in the British Isles would
be attracted back again into a channel
essentially artificial and dependent for
] its continuance on the continuance Of high
| prices. Ultimately the high prices would
| yanish-and where would British farmers
| be them They would have to take their
| capital out of wheat growing, and again
60 through the long process OF depression
| and loss.
VII.
Before taking leave Of this volume we
should direct attention to chapter in
which the accepted tests of prosperity
are applied with satisfactory results to the
actual condition of Great Britain. Among
these tests may be mentioned those Of ma
| income, pauperism, wages, income tax
returns, savings. banking statistics, ship
| ping and imports OF raw material. To
some Of these we have referred cursorily.
| The reader may like to see some supple
| mental data. According to famous cal
culation made by Sir Robert Giffen, Britain's
| national income in 1875 was El .200,0 900, 900.
His revised calculations ten years later
put it at 1850, 900, 900. In o paper read
by him before the British Association in
| 1908 it was estimated at Gl.750, 900 900
From these proofs OF expanding wealth
| let ls turn to the figures which demonstrate
the shrinkage Of pauperism. In 1852 no
fewer than Al persons per 900 were at
some time or other in receipt Of poor-relief
In England and Wales. In 1901 there were
| only rs persons per 1000.
| Not only are there scarcely more than half
| as, many paupers in England as there wefe
| forty years ago. but those who have to work
| with their hands for daily livelihood are
considerably better of. A Board Of Trade
Blue Book shows that wages have risen
since 1878, in five specified groups Of trades,
from figure indicated by 1927 to 100 in
| 1900. This would be fairly satisfactory
even If the purchasing power OF money
had remained stationary. AS q matter OF
fact. 90 pence to-day buys as much as 100
pence did in the average year around 1873,
or, to put the facts in another way 100 pence
to-day buys as much as 140 pence did twenty
years ago. The same Blue Book compares
the economical situation OF British with that
| Of German workmen. 1t appears that while
German and British wages have risen about
equally since 1885, the purchasing power
Of money in Germany has increased only
~ per cent. as compared with 40 per cent.
In Great Britain. Now let us glance at the
aggregate OF the incomes which people
I with over Elo0 Of income admitted to the
Government that they were earning. In
1850 the total of such incomes was G39s,-
| 7s4 900; in 1902 it was fs8e ,993 900. As
| regards those British subjects whose in
comes are under clOO the evidence of pros-