Hawke's Bay Herald. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1836. ENGLAND UNDER " FREE IMPORTS."

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXII, Issue 7547, 22 September 1886, Page 2

Hawke's Bay Herald. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1836. ENGLAND UNDER " FREE IMPORTS."

In the June number of the Nineteenth Century \s a lengthy article entitled "The Lion's Share of the World's Trade," by Mr George AY. Medley. It is in reply to two articles which appeared in the same magazine, from tho pen of Lord Penzancc. Briefly put, Lord Pcnzance did not dispute the advantages of Free Trado. But, lie contended, the term Free Trade implied that other nations besides Great Britain should adopt the same iiscal principles, and that English goods should be permitted to enter foreign ports free, in return for the free admission of foreign goods into English ports. This quid pro quo not existing, Lord Penzance argued that what was called " Free Trade " in England was not really " Tree Trade," but "Free Imports" only— that it was only half Free Trade — and that though whole Free Trade would have answered tho sanguino predictions of Cobden, Free Imports without Free Exports were working Great Britain's ruin. Mr Medley meets Lord Penxance on his own grounds, and putting aside tho theoretical principles of Free Trade, proceeds to show what "Free Imports" havo dono for England. Ho readily admits that under universal Free Trado Great Britain might have made greater advances, but from that point he joins issue with Lord Penzanco, and appeals to ollicial trade returns to prove his case. Lord Penzanco quotes from Mr MufiialPs " Balance-Sheet of tho World" a paragraph in which it is remarked that probably in tho noxt decade tho United .States will outstrip Great lirilnin in the volume of its trade, and adds, "Surely hero is food for reflection. Who is it (hat overtakes and threatens to

tloss.ils iri tile race ? ... Wily the very conisunity ; that lias carried, tl'ie principle of Protection twice as far as any nation— l nieati tlie United States— while .our own colonies are fast jfollpw?ng. in her footsteps.". To this Mr jledley 'replies, ".A moment's reliectiqn serves. to dissipate the y.ngue apprehension which such a remark ,is r apt at first sight .to create. Mr .Mulhall, in the .passage quoted, is speaking of sums tjotal without reference to. t,he numbers of jfche. respective.pqpulajiipns. Is it seasonable; to, supp9.se that in 1890 tho industries of our. thirty-eight millions will rjyal in amount .those of sixty-three millions of our enorgetic cp.usins, helped as they are by the enterprise :and capital of the Old Country?" Mr Medley then quotes from official returns to show that in 1884 the total trade of Great Britain amounted to £19 per head of population ; of France, £7 ISs per head ; of Germany, £6 17s 6d per head j and of the United States, £5 3s 3d per head. Mr Medley continues : —

The table, so far as it goes, speaks for itself, but there are other things which must also be taken into account before we can form anything like an adequate notion of tho position in which the one Free Trading nation stands relatively to her Protectionist rivals and the rest of the world. Onr position is simply unique. We possess more than half the effective ocean tonnage of the world, and we have managed to make the rest of- mankind indebted to us to some 1500 or 2000 millions sterling, from which we draw an annual tribute of from GO to 80 millions. It must bo remembered, moreover, that most, if not all, of this marvellous achievement has been effected under that system of " Free Imports " which Lord Penzance assumes to oe so disastrous. Surely, with such results before us, we. may answer his question, "Are we really, then, wiser than the rest of tho world ?" by an emphatic "Yes l"

After quoting statistics to show the extent of Great Britain's trade even to Protectionist countries, Mr Medley proceeds to quote the export returns for quinquennial periods from 183G to 1885. At iirst progress was slow. Commencing with £50,000,000 in 1836, only £61,000,000 was reached in 1850, but ten years later the record had risen to £124,000,000, and in 1885 to £232,000,000. Next Mr Medley devote 3 several pages to an elaborate argument' to prove that Great Britain's excess of imports over exports does not, as Lord Penzance contended, mean ultimate ruin, but the contrary, the excess of imports being the payment made in kind by foreigners for British money borrowed by them, and for freight to British shipping. Then issue is joined on another point. Lord Ponzanee, quoting from Mulhall's tables, contended that Free Trade had been a comparative failure, inasmuch aa in the last fifty years the percentage of increase in the trade of many other nations was greater than that of Great Britain. For instance, in that period the commerce of the United Kingdom increased seven-fold, that of the British colonies over fourteen-fold, that of Austria fourteen-fold, that of Franco eight-fold, and so on. The average advance was eight-fold. Mr Medley, replies to this t—

Lord Penzance appeals to these figures to show that the progress' of other nations in wealth and prosperity during the last fifty years has not only equalled, but has exceeded onr own. If he supposes that the iigures of Mr Mulhall which he gives bears out this assertion he must he one of tho most simple-minded of men. Without other columns of figures showing the amounts of the trade at the two dates chosen, 1830 to 1878, the figures he.gives, which only tell'hs certain proportions, aro absolutely worthless for comparison. In the figures given the commerce of .Great Britain is said to have increased sevenfold and that' of Australia thirteen-fojd. Are we to understand that both countries started from the same figure ? If not, the seven and thirteen signify two very different quantities ; they have no common denominator) and therefore they convey a false impression. .

Then follows a tabular return of tho world's trade at the years specified, showing that while the commerce of the United Kingdom rose.from £88,000,000 in,1830 to £601,000,000, ..that of Austria rose only from £12,000,000 to £160,000,000. Next to England in volume of trade is France, where commerce rose from £42,000,000 to £365,000,000, the British colonies coming next with a phenomenal increase from £21.000,000 in 1830 to £322,000,000 in 1885, Germany being fourth, Holland next, and the United States sixth. MiMedley's paper, remarkable for the mass of information and close argument it contains, tlms concludes: — "Lord Penzance says we were deluded into ' Free Imports.' Well, be it so. We have been deluded at any rate into a vory good position — a position which' is the admiration and envy of the world. The only possible reason for qnarrelling with it is the supposition that by the adoption of a contrary policy we could have done better. But the onus of proving that lies on our opponents. Until they do that we may rest content where we are— far ahead of any other nation."