THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, APRIL 6, 1891.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8533, 6 April 1891, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, APRIL 6, 1891.

, During some years past therd has been a good deal of talk both in England and in the colonies about a scheme of fiscal federation of the Empire, that is to say, a plan by which the mother country and the colonies would unite in an agreement to prefer each other's products. The chief apostle in England of this new gospel of commerce is Mr. Howard Vincent, who, it will be re-, membered, made a tour of the colonies a few years ago with the view of informing himself of the capacities of the Empire. We may remark, however, that judging by the position he has taken up in leading this agitation, he is not turning his knowledge of the colonies to any useful account. We are informed by the papers by the last mail that Mr. Howard Vincent brought forward a motion on the subject in the House of Commons, but was so conspicuously defeated in argument that he craved leave to withdraw it. It would bo well if colonial writers and talkers would consider the discussion in England, so that we might have done with the subject here.

To begin with, the agitators in England and in the colonies seem to have quite opposite views. It seems to be thought in the colonies that we are to have a monopoly of the English market, while the products of foreign countries are to be excluded, or partially excluded, by being made subject to heavy duties. If the reply is made to this, " Well then, of course, the natural inference is, that all British manufactures would be admitted in our colonial markets free of duty," it will be found that this idea is not entertained at all. Upon this, the whole thing would break down at once. Those who talk on this subject in the colonies are actually absurd enough to think that England ought to let us have a monopoly of her markets while we accorded nothing in return. They would rather take it the other way. The chief object of the fiscal policy of Victoria and (in a lesser degree) of New Zealand and the other colonies, is to exclude British manufactures. To exclude the manufactures of all other countries would be a very small matter indeed. Mr. Howard Vincent asked that a conference should be summoned of delegates from all the self-governing colonies ; but supposing that delegates were appointed, and went to London with a proposal like that, they would soon bo sent away with expressions of amazement at the monstrous nature of " colonial cheek."

But supposing we were to make it a matter of differential duties, and to say that we would admit British manufactures at 20 per cent., while we charged 25 per cent, on all foreign articles, that would immediately be a challenge to England to do likewise. Where would be the advantage to us in such a case, because at present England admits our products absolutely freeA Then, would it be right for England to establish differential duties on behalf of those colonies which are continually legislating against her manufactures 1 Take dairy produce, for instance. Considerable quantities of butter are sent from New Zealand and also, in some seasons, from Victoria, and it is hoped that a large and permanent trade will soon be opened, which will greatly promote the wealth of our small settlers. Our chief rival is Denmark, and no doubt it would be very nice for us to drive Denmark out of the English market and secure it for ourselves. But, then, Denmark is not so eagerly hostile to British manufactures as any of the Australian colonies. It is scarcely possible for sane men to imagine that England would give a monopoly of her markets to people who did their very utmost to exclude her manufactures, while those who acted reasonably and fairly were excluded. Then, under such a system, it would be necessary for Great Britain to discriminate. All the colonies could not be treated alike. If the colonial tariffs remained as at present in respect to the duties on English goods, New South Wales would have an indefeasible claim to a preference over Victoria and New Zealand.

We must look at the proposal also from England's point of view. If she were to alter her policy of universal free trade to one of favouring the colonies as against foreign nations, she would immediately become involved in all sorts of difficulties with these nations. At present she is the " most favoured nation" everywhere. If such a change were made, she would be specially legislated against, for the very good reason that she gave a preference to countries, such as Victoria, who were more hostile than these foreigners. England will look at the fact that her direct trade with the colonies is only about one quarter of her trade with the world. She is not likely to sacrifice the greater for the lesser. Then there is no doubt that the prices of breadstuff's m England would be greatly raised, and, as a consequence, the commercial supremacy of England

would be lost. For it is a fact that, riotwithstanding all the legislation against English manufactures, the foreign trade of England last year amounted to 748 millions sterling, an increase of 130 millions since 1886. It is quite certain that it is not for our interest to destroy England's commercial supremacy. Possibly, "if England were to give us a monopoly of her markets, the colonies would for some time have an advantage. But if England, from that policy were to lose her pre-eminence as an importing country and an emporium of commerce, it would cease to be the market it at present is : and where, then, would be our advantage 1

Then suppose, after the new system of things were established, that any foreign nation were to change its policy, to abolish protection, and admit England's manufactures free of duty, England would, of course, have to reciprocate : and where would the colonies be then, with their whole agricultural system built upon the supposition that they were to have a monopoly of the English market 1 With regard to ourselves, it is simply impossible that such a scheme could be carried out. We import chiefly from the port of London, and the articles brought thence are the products of every country under the sun. How could we possibly discriminate in the imposition of differential duties 1

Why should anybody trouble themselves by laying down elaborate schemes for a war of tariffs 1 Such a war is as mischievous as a war by cannons and bayonets. It would be far better for us to begin at home and reform our tariff in the way of striking off those protective duties which are hostile to England and mischievous to ourselves. It is simply absurd for us to expect England to place duties upon the produce of foreign countries to favour her colonies, whose tariffs are directed against her and her only.