The sun., 1904-08-28

example--allege that they are free traders
but declare that Britain's present policy
is not really free trade, but only one sided
free trade. No doubt everybody is entitled
to define free trade as he pleases. 1t is
certain, however, that Richard Golden and
his fellow authors OF the kind OF free trade
that has been practised In England for half
a century meant by the term-and Lord
Avebury adopts the meaning they attach
to it-a system under which a country
allows it's commerce and manufactures to
follow their natural course, no one trade or
industry being bolstered up at the expense
of others. We are reminded that free
trade, thus defined, is not inconsistent with
the imposition OF import duties, because
these can be balanced by corresponding
excise duties. Figures are adduced by
Lord Avebury to prove that free trade as
it has been practised In Britain has been
profitable to that country. He compares
the United Kingdom, for instance. with
Germany. The former country has 18,0O0,-
600 fewer people and f6s, 100000 more ex-
ports than the latter. Man for man, Britain
exports more than any other country In
the world. Attention also is directed to the
fact that II we look at the trade OF Con-
tinental countries among themselves We
find that in every case Britains commerce
with them il greater than theirs with one
another The authors deduction from
observed results is that protection can only
divert the energies Of a country from the
direction in which they would be most
profitable into another in which they are
less effective. Everybody will admit that
it would be ridiculous for the inhabitants
OF the British Isles to attempt to grow
coffee or bananas the author OF Free
Trade" holds that although in other cases
the absurdity may be less striking, the
argument against artificial industries Is
not less conclusive. 1t is. in fine. pro-
nounced very difficult IL not impossible,
for any country to protect all its produc-
tions and II is clearly impossible to protect
manufactures which do not exist; 80 that
even in Russia and the United States, not
withstanding tariffs which might seem pro-
hibtive, many of Britain's goods find an
entrance; while on the other hand this
country and Russia find it difficult to
compete with Britain In neutral markets.
Lord Avebury Is one OF those economists
who deem it self-evident that when duties
are imposed they are paid by the consumer.
No country can tax another; II a country
imposes duties on imports the consumers
have to pay them, and this consequently
raises the cost OF living and production.
Prof. Dioey has said that BIitain's manu-
facturers are fighting foreign competitors
with their hands tied; the author Of Free
Trade" on the contrary. maintains that in
! their competition British manufacturers
have the great advantages Of cheap food
and cheap raw materials. 1t is not, Of course,
disputed that the term protection has
friendly and pleasant sound. govern
ment, however has no funds to be friendly
and pleasant with except those which are
raised from the public. Certain industries
may no doubt be benefited. but only at
the expense Of others. To some extent this
Is admitted by many avowed protection
lists. 1t is certain that Mr. Balfour does
not propose to tax raw material, nor did
even Mr.. Chamberlain at first. But many
, things classed as manufactured articles
are really the raw materials OF other manu-
features. Even such things as steam en-
gines are the necessary adjuncts OF other
manufactures, and taxes on them would be
a check on Britain's manufacturing inter-
ests. Lord Avebury points out that the
! Germans have in this way suffered much
| from their own duties. The shipbuiding
interest is brought forward as an example.
, Germany and other countries have by their
! duties raised the prices Of various materials
used British shipbuilders, on the contrary
get them cheap, and the consequence is
/ that the United Kingdom builds more ships
than France Germany, Russia and the
! United States all put together, more. in
deed, than all the rest OF the world. II we
would test by the experience Of British
colonies the relative effects OF free trade
, and protection, the author Of the book
before us points to an instructive object
lesson in Australia. Some years ago Vic
toria and New South Wales were nearly
equal, though the former was rather the
richer and more populous Of the two. The
| hour came, however, when Victoria adopted
protection, while New South Wales adhered
! to free trade. Now the latter country has
, the larger population and the larger COM
| merce. while, even as regards manufactures
! the unprotected industries OF New South
Wales have thriven more and employ more
hands than do the protected industries OF
| Victoria. For similar lessons Lord Ave-
! bury would refer us to the history OF the
! tin plate manufacture and of the sugar
| bounty.
| In our authors eyes Mr.. Chamberlain &
complaint that foreign countries dump"
cheap products upon Great Britain is a pre-
! posterous grievance. II. he asks, Britons
do not want them, why do they buy them?
In private life who wishes to pay more for
! what he wants than he has to pay? One
often hears the complaint that things are
expensive. but one never hears people
complain because things are cheap. Why
should consumers object collectively, any
more than they would individually, to the
! cheapness Of foreign products? Does any
holy wish, inquiries Lord Avebury. to pay
any more for tea or coffee, for cotton or
wool' He proceeds to quote Bastiat's at
tempt to reduce by his "Candlemakers
Petition" the protectionist argument to an
absurdity. Bastiat threw ridicule on pro-
tectonist pleas for high duties by an i'm
aginary petition supposed to be presented
by the candlemakers Of Paris to the French
| Parliament The prayer was that protec-
tionist principles should be applied to the
| sun, and that the sunshine should be ex-
cluded from houses. This, the petitioners
pointed out would benefit the agricultural
interests by increasing the demand for
| IN Inv md waY the iron intarestu hv the