PATER’S CHATS WITH THE BOYS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2914, 19 January 1910, Page 92

PATER’S CHATS WITH THE BOYS.

FREETRA.DE V. TARIFF REFORM. A month or so ago I promised a Chat upon this topic, but branched off and .gave two or three upon the development of the right of the House of Commons to control financial matters. Now I’ll return, though it is possible that I may repeat a little of what I have already said. Nor will it matter much if I do, because when this appears in print the •elections at Home will be in full swing. The question is a knotty one, and we can learn and advance only by looking at all its sides. Leaving out all questions of party government, the mass of the people in the United' Kingdom may be divided into two closes—Freetraders (who would put no restriction upon commerce) and Preferential Traders (who would tax exports coming into the United Kingdom from outside the Empire, and who would admit all exports free from the British Dominions Beyond the Seas, or would tax them less than the exports of aliens). Among the latter is Foster Fraser, who was lecturing in the Dominion a short time ago. He put the question of freetrade very aptly in one of his lectures, though it was men, not goods, that be used as an illustration. Showing a deck covered with emigrants leaving Great Britain for the United States, he pointed out that these were of good physique and of strong initiative ; then be referred to the inflow to England from the Continent; these he characterised as wastrels. The fit were being exported without let or hindrance, and the unfit imported with equal want of restriction, the result being a steady deterioration in build and brain-power. And I assume that he would argue that as freetrade in men was leading to deterioration in race, so freetrade in goods was leading to a loss of commercial supremacy, and was hindering rather than helping Empire consolidation. “ But,’ it is argued—l am not saying whether rightly or wrongly—“ Great Britain owes her greatness to Freetrade.” Dees she? And if she does, did she get that supremacy under existing conditions? But whether she did or not, because a nation adopts freetrade, protection, preferential treatment, or reciprocity, which is much the same thing as preferentialism, doss it necessarily mean that a nation must not change its policy? If a nation may change its policy, is it the United Kingdom’s time to change its policy now? A gentleman in England some three or four months'ago gave a prize of £IOO for best short and popular eis a ay on tariff reform,” and from the winning essay I am making an extract or two The first extract deals with ([ MOW FREE TRADE STARTED. “ Free” Trad® began in this way. Eng, laud was originally a very poor agricultural country, without manufactures! W-e imported from abroad the manufactured goods we required. Five centuries ago wa began by protective duties to start and foster national productive industries. Wo protected otcr agriculture, our manufactures, and our shipping. That policv accomplished its object, and wo ended by getting the commercial mastery of the world, ane| hold that mastery in the middle of last century. We supplied thp world with our maaufasw-

tur-c-s. _ Wc left that system and took to free imports, because a man arose who thought our supremacy was established so firmly by Protection that we could increase it and further benefit manufacturers and workmen by admitting corn and raw materials free. That man was Richard Cobden. Ho never dreamt that foreigners would be able to send us manufactured goods. He thought that they would bscontont to send us raw materials and to take our manufacturers. To .comfort tho farmers, alarmed by free admission of wheat, ho said the cost of carriage from abroad would form a natural protection for their produce. He won the day, and our tariff gradually grew to what it is now. And at first -lids plan "was successful, because of our tremendous start under Protection. Our manufacturers and workmen, having tho whole world for a market, were able to produce a large and cheap output, and the infant industries of other countries steodl no chance. Unemployment was in those days heavy and incessant in Germany, and even the United States suffered severely. Our farmers did well also, because for over 30 years after the repeal of the Corn Laws wheat was as dear as ever. Why ? Because we got only such wheat as Russia and other European countries happened to bo able to spare. Wheat was not then being cultivated expressly for. England as it is now in Australia, Canada, and the Argentine. Tho writer gees on to show how, through -other nations not being maiuifa-c-------curers, the importing of raw products and rhe exportation of manufactured goods made Great Britain pre-eminent. But Germany, the United States, and other countries began manufacturing for themselves. And the result? For 20 years the woollen trad© has remained practically stationary, and many other industries have disappeared, or have a lessened output, and whereas the United Kingdom used to be a long way ahead in the consumption of cotton, it is now second to the United -States. Again, the United Kingdom used to ba ahead of all nations put together in the iron and steel trades, but now' she is a bad third. As a consequence of this forging ahead of the other nations and, by comparison, the decline of the United Kingdom, many sought a way out, and among them was Mr Joseph Chamberlain. Bear in mind that I am simply quoting history, and not ivist now advocating any particular policy. Regarding Mr Chamberlain I quote again from the essay: Joseph Chamberlain is tho great statesman _ who has realised and taught that tho conditions of tho worlds* trade have completely changed and that OofcdonV plan is out of date and must bo scrapped. His remedy is the reform of cur tariff. Pl® wants to defend British workmen- against the attacks on their labour c.r.d to mako the foreigner pay a market toll in our homo market by taxing such imported foreign manufactures as compete wi.h our labour, and by reducing eomo of the. taxes on tea, -eoffe-e, sugar, .etc., which do not compete with British labour. He wants also to give British workmen a better outlet for their goods, in tho growing colonial markets by making preferential arrangements with our colonics. The colonies have promised that if wo give colonial produce a preference over foreign produce—that is, admit it under a lighter import duty than foreign produce—they will give our manufacturers tho immense -advantage of a similar preference over foreign manufactures. We should put a small tax on foreign moat, dairy produce, and corn, and no tax, or only half that tax, on colonial meat, dairy produce, and corn. This tax would not increase food prices, for three reasons. First, because our preference would -enormously stimulate colonial production. Second, because when foreign produce competes with an -existing duty-free or .nearly freo homo supply (in our ca-c our Imperial supply) the foreigner will pay a small duty himself in order to keep the market (wheat in the United States, owing to the ample home supplies in the United States, is cheaper than here, although th« Americans put a heavy import duty on wheat). Third, because, -even with the tax, our market would still bo by far the largest .and most open market in the world, and foreign wheat-producing countries would necessarily have to soli to us. Are the arguments quite sound in tho last paragraph? I think not.