The sun., 1904-08-28

the manufacturing districts during the
first part OF the fifth decade; while a. re-
CARDS the agricultural population, In whose
interests the Corn Laws had ostensibly been
imposed, there had been no fewer than i've
Parliamentary committees on agricultural
distress In thirty years The truth Ia that
the British people were driven to free trade
by the agony OF starvation. From the
darkness and misery OF the fearful times
that preceded the repeal Of the Corn Laws,
the reader is invited to turn to the sunshine
and fresh air attained under free trade.
II the actual state OF things be compared
with that which existed under the last
years Of protection 1t will be found that
wages are much higher, that the hours OF
labor In factories are shorter by more than
fifth, and that tho necessaries OF life have
undergone an even greater reduction IN
price. That British artisans are better on
than their fellow workers in France or
Germany is evident from the fact that the
wages Of the former are higher, the hours
of labor shorter and the prices OF the neces-
saries OF life lower. That, In comparison
with the population, pauperism has I'M
mensely diminished in Great Britain during
the last half century Is undisputed. Crime
has decreased, prisons have been closed and
schools opened The deposits in savings
banks have been augmented out OF all
proportion to the increase in population.
Everywhere are seen buildings spring
ing UP, towns expanding, railways con-
structed or extended, and new stations
being built The increasing wealth OF
the country as whole is attested by the
income tax returns.
In a word Lord Avebury's conviction Is
that while there are some cases In which
Britain has reason to complain OF the action
of certain foreign Governments. the griev-
ances are not 30 numerous or 80 grave as 10
call for any change which would amount to
reversal OF the existing fiscal system
w.
1t may almost be described as an ex-
haustive study of the questions raised by
Mr.. Chamberlain and Mr. Balfour that is
made by Prof Smart in the three hundred
pages of his book. "The Return to Protec-
ton" Passing over what is said about
Retaliation, because 1t is not Mr.. Balfour's
but Mr. Chamberlains policy which is the
live question OF the hour, we would fix at
tention on chapter entitled "The Price OF
Empire" in which the author undertakes
to forecast what would be the gains and what
the losses of a preferential policy to the
United Kingdom. In his judgment the policy
Ia based on the assumption that the demands
OF the governing colonies are to dictate
the commercial policy Of an empire which
includes such not insignificant free trade
members as the mother countr.- itself, the
Crown colonies and India. Tho demands
are held over the mother country by way OF
threat, as constituting "the only system by
which the empire can be held together To
Prof. Smart such threat seems poor re-
turn for Britain's concession Of self-goverii-
ment to these colonies. He goes on to sub
nit that the preferential bargain to be i'm
posed by menace on the mother country is
glaringly one sided AS he puts it. "They
fthe self governing coloniesl have protec-
ton; they are to retain it. They have un-
bounded prosperity. they are to have more.
They have cheap bread; they are to have
it cheaper" That is what preference would
mean to the colonies. What would 1t mean
to Great Britain? Prof. Smart answers:
I'VE have free trade; we are to give 1t up.
We have prosperity; we are to imperil 1t.
We have millions to whom cheap food is a
vital consideration we are to tax their bread
and meat their tables and chairs, their pots
and pans, the few poor rags Of bedding and
napery they possess. At last. then. Britain
is confronted with straight issue: This
is the price of empire. The colonies stood
by us in the war. Our hearts warmed with
pride 1t is what we might have expected
OF the native born, and we were glad we
found It, And now the bill comes in.
The demand put forward, not indeed by
Canada herself, but by Mr.. Chamberlain
on behalf Of Canada, for quid pro quo from
a mother country which already gives so
much, reminds Prof Smart Of little girl
he once knew whose mother supplied her
with pans and -four and raisins, in return
for which the child sold the mother her cakes
at shop prices" Did any other mother
country, he asks. ever give her colonies,
not only Parliaments and legislatures of
their own, but liberty to tax her goods. even
to the extent Of prohibition, while all the
time she paid almost the entire expenses for
the defence Of the family" Has she not
lent to them freely? Has she not put their
securities among her trustee investments?
Did any one think that they could borrow
as cheapy as they do unless they were
members OF the British Empire? Is the
preference granted to the mother country
in the tartns OF Canada ana new Zealand not
the least they can do?''
It s pointed out that already the colonies
send to Britain most of their exports. not
because they love and admire her, but be-
cause she is the one great country which ad-
mits their food products and raw materials
duty free They do not need to ask for free
trade for themselves. They have it. What
they want, or are said by Mr.. Chamberlain
to want, Is to have the right Of free trade
withdrawn from all foreign countries, in
cluding the United States, and confined to
the children OF the empire. Those who
make this claim seem not to be aware that,
in taxing foreign purveyors, Britain might
be taxing British capital; for II the labor
OF other countries is foreign, a great part
OF the capital employed there may be hers.
It IL probable, for instance, that more than
ElOO 900 900 OF British money ia invested
in the Argentine Republic The part of
that money which has been sunk in rail-
ways, docks and warehouses depends for
dividends on the handling and transport OF
the wheat, maize. linseed, wool. meat, cat
tie, raised very largely on British owned es-
tates. Is it, asks Prof. Smart, quite rea-
- Al