A GREAT QUESTION: THROUGH OTHER SPECTACLES

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1745, 16 August 1905, Page 11

A GREAT QUESTION: THROUGH OTHER SPECTACLES

'The Trade Policy of Great Briia.i ri and Her Colonies Since I 860.” By Carl Johannes Foeths. Macmillan and Co., Lordon. Whitccmbe and Tombs, Wellington.

- There are perhaps few questions of more absorbing inteiest to the man qi' business and the politician at the present time tihan the trade policy >1 Great Britain and her colonies, and the work by Professor Fuohs, although first published in Germany in 1893, has just appeared in English, as translated by Constance H. M. Archibald. Its republicstion by Messrs Macmillan and Co. at the present juncture is at once necessary and opportune. The work is not on the lines o F the fiscal reformers, but it is nevertheless a work that will be cordially received by the more philosophic students of tariff questions. Professor Fuohs points out to his feilowoountrymen the danger to themselves of a British Imperial tariff reform, and bells them the means by which that danger can be avoided. If Germany is to make headway as a colonising country, the first thing the Germans ha ve to do is to hinder the carrying out of the British Imperial tariff un on with differential duties against foreign countries, for that would be a great misfortune to the Germains; the next is to hold fast unconditionally to the 1 clauses referred to in the • tariff treaties with Belgium and the Vollverein; and the third plank of the German platform is to zealously cultivate trade relations with the British colonies, and so create great interests in them which would he hostile to any such scheme. Although, therefore, the work is not iin support of Air Chamberlain’s views, it tells us what one of Germany’s most learned and abl« Professors in economics has disclosed as the moving princiules in the development of Germany as a rival commercial country to Great Britain.

There are some who believe that questions of trade policy ought to be permitted to settle themselves, and that countries should 'take more consideration of the great problems of national organisation of production and of Labour ; but the writer of this book, while endeavouring to set in the background the consideration of that aspect of the economic problem, does not hesitate to show that .tibe protective and other tendencies directed against free trade in England are increasing, and he admits that the necessity has arisen for the adoption of a measure of protection. Inasmuch as continental manufacturing •countries and the United States have attained what Professor Fuchs calls * “their original object of overthrowing England's industrial hegemony,” the high protection of these countries has thus become in a large measure superfluous. Were continental countries and America to adopt a free trade policy, and throw down their protective walls, then there would be no necessity for free trade England to raise barriers against foreign rivals for the protection of her industries and over-sea trade with her self-governing possessions. But these countries are not likely to go so far as to imitate England’s radical free trade, although it is possible should Great Britain insist, on what Mr Balfour requires, the granting to the Government of the jday power to negotiate for better terms, then Professor Fuchs thinks Germany at all events would be pursuing a safe policy if she reverted to a moderate system of free trade, for the. purpose of securing better conditions in her treaties with Great Britain, such as existed, for instance, unde?* the commercial treaties of the sixties. This, we think, is the main idea which the converts of the old Manchester school to Mr Chamberlain’s views, have in their minds. They do not desire so much the imposition of protective duties for the purpose of stimulating English manufacturer®. They desire rather to protect their trade against foreign invasion, and to compel the invader in his own country to adopt a moderate measure of free trade, and allow the natural or indigenous industries of Great Britain to find a.n outlet for their products in those countries which now by high protective tariff bar their entrance.

__ The work of Professor Fuchs is designed to moderate the protective policy of the Continent. He holds that the time has now come when in their particular lands the manufacturers of France, of Germany, and the United States, are able to hold their own with the manufacturers of Great Britain. Philosophic and economic writers are invariably men of peace. War with the implements of force is destructive; war with the implements of industry,

and of legislative enactment is destructive also. All thinking men, therefore, are inclined to approve of any policy that would make for better understandings between rival industrial countries. But in order to secure peace, we must be prepared for war, and by the granting of “power to negotiate, to use Mr Balfour’s phrase, the British GQvernment will be given a lever whereby it may secure better terms and conditions fed’ the expert trade of the Empire. In ill Professor Fuchs work there is little said of the colonial aspect of this great question, hut he observes that “Germany will one day be in a position to draw the proper lessons from England’s experience, and to apply them to a great German colonial possession.” Inferentially then, we discover that the German economist now sees Germany protecting her colonies for the benefit of ;ha Fatherland, and he doubtless realises that the strength of the colonial empire of Great Britain is in their selfgovernment and power of initiative. Their loyalty to the Mother Country is established. It was demonstrated by colonists showing themselves willing and eager to fight the battles of the nation, but this is what the German colonists in German colonies have never shown themselves inclined to do. It is only, however, in the matter of trade protection with the colonies that the great German economist deals, and his pur>os 3 is to conserve the oversea interest of Germany so as to secure the whole of the trad'e of the outlying possessions of the Fatherland. This policy is in striking contrast to the “settled policy” of Great Britain, and in this connection, and in conclusion, it is well to note what Professor Fuchs observes, “That it remains to be seen whether time will raise up for England a statesman who possesses clear-sightedness, courage, energy, and tact enough to bring this question to a happy issue—<a question which is of so much importance for the future of England, as well for her josition among the nations, as for her trade. But it must be soon or it will be for ever too late.”