The sun., 1904-08-28


dustries.' Latterly, however. 9 feeling has
grown up among tho self-governing COL
onies thse to impose duties for the purpose
OF excluding imports from Great Britain
Is not fair to the mother country Canada
has been the first to translate this sentiment
into legislation, by giving British goods q
preference over those imported from foreign
lands. Not only does Canada now admit
British commodities at rate Of 33 per cent.
below that imposed on similar wares from
foreign countries, but New Zealand also
has made substantial distinction in favor
OF the mother country. 1t is, at the same
time, pointed out In the book before us that
80 strong in both cases has been the political
influence OF colonial manufacturers that
the preference has been given, not by lower
ing the duties against Britons, but by rails
ing them against foreigners The report
OF the Board OF Trade is adduced to explain
how 1t happens that the preference has not
resulted in a more substantial increase OF
Britain's commerce with Canada. British
goods, no doubt, enjoy preference OF ~
per cent, compared with other goods OF the
same character imported from foreign coun-
tries; but the duties are 30 arranged that
they fan Especially on the classes OF goods
sent from Great Britain, 30 that, while the
goods coming from the United States lin
Guiding those on the free list) pay, on an
average, IL per cent, the duties on British
goods are, on an average, no less than IL
per cent
Turning to the crux OF the question,
whether preferential tariff would be ex-
pedient, Lord Avebury notes the impossi-
bility OF giving preference to the colonies
without placing duties on food and raw
materials. 1t is we'll known that Mr.. Bal
four regards such a move as being, under
existing circumstances. out OF the question.
As a matter OF fact, the colonies have not
put forward any such proposal. The reso-
luton adopted by the Colonial Premiers
at the conference held in London in 1902 Ia
reproduced on page 81. 1t runs as follows:
"The Prime Ministers Of the colonies re-
spectfully urge on his Majesty's Govern
ment the expediency OF granting in the
United Kingdom preferential treatment
OF the products and manufactures OF the
colonies, either by exemption from or de-
duction Of duties now or hereafter imposed.
Except In the case Of alcohol, tobacco, tea
and sugar there are, practically, no such
duties, nor do these affect most OF the colo
MES A preference on tea would beneft
parts of India and Ceylon; one on sugar
the West Indies and Queensland; but most
of India, Australia, New Zealand. South
Africa and the other colonies would remain
unaffected
1t is not to be supposed, from the position
taken by him In this volume, that Lord Ave-
bury is a Little Englander. On the con-
trary, he is an imperialist. He recognizes
that to throw down all customs barriers
between different parts OF the British En-
pire would be a grand idea. He simply
AYERS that at present the idea is not within
the range Of practical politics. II, how
ever, the colonies were prepared to modify
their protective systems and to reduce
their duties he holds that the British Gov
ernment should consider any proposals
they might make. with every desire to meet
their wishes He Is convinced, neverthe-
less, that under existing circumstances the
British voters would agree with Mr.. Balfour
in declaring any scheme OF preferential
duties out Of the question.
III.
The next subject discussed in the book 10
Mr.. Balfours policy OF retaliation. Mr..
Balfour has expressly disclaimed any in
tention OF imposing duties on food or raw
materials. His object is he has said. to
break down foreign tariffs, to effect which
he would @do to foreign countries what they
always do to each other, and instead Of
appealing to economic theories, in which
they totally disbeleve, use fiscal induce
ments, which they thoroughly understand
Lord Avebury admits that protection in
lures British trade in the countries which
adopt it, but he insists that 1t does even
more harm to the protectionist countries.
The question Ia whether retaliation would
not do Great Britain more harm than good.
The facts are recalled that France has tried
| retaliation and failed; Germany has tried
II and has failed the United States has tried
1t and failed. They have all put on heavy
duties, but they have not broken down
foreign tariffs Moreover, under the most
| favored nation clause, II any Of the countries
named had succeeded in breaking down
| foreign tariffs, Great Britain would have
shared the advantage.
Blue Book issued in 1904 contained a
series Of reports on three recent cases OF
fiscal war-one between France and Switzer-
land the second between France and Italy,
and the third between Germany and Russia.
The result OF resorting to the policy Of re-
taliation was, In each Of these cases, to
injure the trade OF both parties and to
divert much OF It to their rivals. 1t Is
pointed out. moreover, that while to drive
trade away Is easy, 1t is much more difficult
to recover 1t. In the instance OF France
and Switzerland, although thirteen years
have elapsed since the policy Of retaliation
was abandoned, the trade relations between
the two countries have not even yet re-
gained their former prosperity.
What would be the eneot Of Mr.. Balfours
retaliation programme upon India? To
this inquiry a chapter Is devoted by Lord
Avebury. In order that the reader may
appreciate the importance Of the question.
the fact is recalled that while Britain's
exports to New Zealand are Ee,6O0, 900.
to Canada $4,000 900. to South Africa
ELS, 900 900, and to Australia f25, 100, 900,
those to India are no less than ea2 900. 900.
The exports to India from all other coun-
tries are but sl2 900, 900, one-third OF which
are tropical and other produce, with which
British exporters could not. under any cir
cumstances, compete. 1t follows that Brit
ain could not gain much, and might lose
great DEAL az regards Indian trade by
reversal OF her present policy. Recog-