manufacturing interests and trade generally. We must look largely in the future to the Colonies and India and neutral markets as our best customers. Foreign countries will not trade with us more than they can help. Everywhere we see tariffs heaped higher and higher against us, barrier upon barrier imposed against our manufactured goods, with the result that our exportation to foreign countries, as compared with that to colonial and neutral markets, is relatively rapidly falling off. High and hostile tariffs undoubtedly create an unhealthy condition of trade. Our industries are subjected to sudden bursts of prosperity when demand in protected countries temporarily overleaps the tariff barriers; but these bursts are invariably succeeded by a period of depression arising from a natural shrinkage of demand or from the addition of an extra foot or two to the protective wall. Healthy trade consists of steady progress and gradual development, and that state of things can only be arrived at by relying less and less on foreign markets, more and more upon neutral markets and upon the development of the internal resources of our Empire. Capital is deflected from its natural channels of investment and natural fields of employment by these iron tariffs. If we cannot manufacture goods here and export them to the United States or some foreign country, capital invested in mills in the United Kingdom is withdrawn and devoted to manufacturing those goods in the United States or in that foreign country. If the mountain won't go to Mahomet, Mahomet must go the mountain. This may be all very well for capital, but how does it affect the working men? They cannot be transferred from place to place as readily as money. It would not be difficult to find instances in support of this point. For example, in the Globe of the 22nd of November last appeared the following: The representative of a large gingham manufactory in Scotland has visited West Port, Connecticut, to seek a site for a factory, and has found one suitable for the purpose. Negotiations for its purchase are expected to follow. The gentleman in question explains that, owing to the new tariff, the removal of the business to America is necessary. In September the Manchester correspondent of the St. James's Gazette wrote of the effect of the McKinley Bill on English textile fabrics as follows: Should it be passed, many important departments of the textile trades of the North-which have already been curtailed considerably owing to the increase of tariff's abroad-will suffer to a serious extent. Preparations are being made by some of the larger firms of manufacturers interested in the American market to establish factories in the States. Lister & Co., Limited, have, it is understood, decided to erect mills on the other side should the tariff on their silk, plush, and velvet be raised (the McKinley tariff would average 90 per cent. on their value). Many of our prominent dress-good manufacturers contemplate similar action, and this fact is used by the Republicans as an argument in favour of the Bill. I have endeavoured briefly, as must be the case within the limits of an article, to give reasons why a discriminating tariff would not raise the price of food or create any disturbance of trade; and I have indicated, as far as space will permit me, that, on the contrary, it is likely to give us better and steadier trade, and to lessen the cost of food: but, after, all those are matters of comparatively trifling importance, worthy of notice principally for the purpose of dispelling some of the clouds of prejudice which still hover over the extinct ideal of universal free trade. Be I right or be I wrong in those respects, my position is unaffected. I stand upon the solid grounds that union is most precious, that it is inseparably connected with community of commercial interests, and will be cheaply bought by some sacrifice of principle, and, if necessary, of immediate welfare. It would be better for us to submit to some temporary disorganisation in our industries-better for us to put up for a time with a slight increase in the cost of food-products-than to allow forces to operate unchecked which must eventually lead to the disintegration of the Empire. Can any reasonable man deny that upon this trade question the future of the Empire rests? There is no doubt whatever of the general loyalty and attachment of the inhabitants of the great selfgoverning Colonies towards the mother-country. They will hold to us if they can, and it will be our fault if they cannot. Discrimination in favour of British subjects means union; but discrimination by a Colony in favour of the foreigner against the mother-country, or discrimination in favour of the foreigner by one Colony against another, or discrimination in favour of the foreigner by the mothercountry against the Colonies, introduces an element of discord that must tend strongly towards separation. It would, in fact, be separation in all but name, and it might produce such a divergence of interests, such a conflict of interests of so hostile a character, as to reduce the national idea to the mere shadow of a shade. No one can foresee the future or can set bounds upon the natural course of development. We cannot, with our short-sighted eyes, perceive what is the ultimate destiny of British North America, Australasia, and Africa. All we can tell is that, as I have already said, two forces, the one towards union, the other towards disunion, are constantly operating. All that we can wisely do is to give a fair field to both these impulses. The question cannot be forced. The Empire cannot bind itself by artificial ties that would burst like packthread under the pressure of natural law; but we can counteract artificial attractions-we can by wise measures guard against any unnatural stimulus to the principle of disunion. We can see that the spirit of union has at least fair play, and then, content that we have done our best, we must abide by the natural course of events. In speaking the other day in the House of Lords, I joined the question of preferential treatment with that of national defence, for, although very different, they may be conveniently treated together. I confined my proposition to one species of defence only. In my opinion we have no right to attempt to relieve ourselves of the responsibility of protecting and defending the integrity of the Empire, or of maintaining the supremacy of the nation upon the sea. That may be called the centralised aspect of the case. That the localised side of the case is recognised, has been amply proved by the willingness which the great colonies have shown in taking steps for purely local defence. So far localisation and centralisation are not in conflict, and can well go hand in hand together; but there is a class of defensive measures which hardly come into either category. Commerce is the life-blood of the whole nation. In its water-borne merchandise, and in the ships of peace that carry it, and in the ships of war that protect it, and in the coaling stations which feed and succour those ships of war, every portion of the nation is interested. to an extent and in a degree much greater and very different to that in which they are mutually interested in questions of local defence, or of the general offensive and defensive power of the United Kingdom; and the time has, I think, come when the Colonies might be asked to recognise a mutual obligation in this respect, and to discharge a mutual responsibility. That any one colony might refuse to contribute to the armament of a strong place designed especially for the protection of some other colony would be natural, but that they should object to forming a fund for the equipment and maintenance of a cruising fleet, and of certain fortresses and coaling stations which belong especially to no particular member of the Empire, but in which all members of the Empire are interested, would surprise me very much. Mr. Hofmeyr suggested at the last conference that a duty of two per cent. on all foreign goods should be levied throughout the Empire for the purpose of forming a defence fund. Such a duty would of course have no preferential effect whatever; and it would raise a sum of money unnecessarily large for the maintenance of a fleet of swift cruisers, and for the purpose of keeping the coaling stations and strategic positions of the Empire in thoroughly effective condition. But the theory is right. My proposition is that a duty of about 10 or 15 per cent. should be imposed upon foreign products, and that a portion of the revenue so raised-one-half per cent., one per cent., or two per cent., or whatever was necessary-should be set aside to form a fund for imperial defence as limited in the way I have suggested. Such a fund would, of course, have to be administered, audited, and accounted for, by a council representative of all the contributory parties. There can be no taxation without representation. But no difficulty would arise in a limited case of that kind. A council conferring some honourable dignity and distinction on its members could be formed of eminent men selected by the Colonies, of the ministers interested here at home, and of the naval and military advisers of the Crown. It would not be necessary for them to meet at very frequent intervals, and their duties would not involve any great sacrifice of time or trouble. The greatest danger to which the Empire is exposed undoubtedly lies in the comparatively defenceless condition of its commerce. All Governments at home are sorely tempted to be negligent of their duties in respect of providing ocean patrols of swift cruisers and in keeping in a thorough defensible condition the sentry boxes and coaling stations of the Empire. By preferential treatment and by the formation of an imperial fund for certain purposes of defence we should accomplish much of immediate practical value in the direction of safeguarding our commerce and of developing our resources; and in addition we shall be introducing into our constitution a germ which, if circumstances are naturally favourable, will largely develop. If it be found that the natural tendency of the Empire, uninfluenced by external pre sure and artificial temptations, is to trade together, and if the universal fitness of free exchange is destined to permeate the brains of mankind, then most assuredly preferential treatment will expand into free exchange among all the communities that are sheltered under the British flag. If, as the great Colonies wax strong and wealthy, the feeling of mutual responsibility and mutual obligations grows stronger and the national instinct gathers weight, then a common fund for the common purposes that I have mentioned will develop into some form of Imperial Federation. But all these matters lie hid in the womb of time and need not now be considered: they are interesting for speculation, but possess no practical value in discussion at present. All that can now be done is to plant a sound principle by providing a fund for certain purposes in which we are all individually and collectively especially interested, and by adopting preferential treatment within the Empire. I maintain that discrimination is not protection, neither is it retaliation. It is the creation of a national policy; a policy having for its object the counteraction of artifical forces which serve in the material world to deflect capital from the most profitable sources of employment, and which in the political world tend to the disintegration of the British Empire. It would develop the internal resources of the nation, encourage exchange on favourable terms within the nation, and supply the one tie which is wanting to strengthen the bonds of national unity that hold the Empire together. I do not blame foreign nations for the course that they pursue; I think no evil of them for trying to seduce British communities from their allegiance, or for endeavouring to cripple British trade and retard the development and destroy the solidarity of the British Empire. Ours is the folly, and upon our heads will be the consequence of the folly, if we do not take timely steps to defend ourselves. The Empire is a mighty edifice, and can best be sustained upon a strong foundation by the strong cement of community of commercial interests. Perfect free exchange is impossible, and in preferential treatment lies the only means whereby that binding principle can be applied. DUNRAVEN. The Editor of THE NINETEENTH CENTURY cannot undertake |