in law-inaking. the case as I would when he says it is "to repay them," the manufacturers, for the real object is deeper, larger, and more important, viz., to prevent foreigners from abstracting our industries, our invaluable property or potentiality. Cosmopolitan members of the Government appear not to apprehend matters as they are. As to the benevolence justly credited to British philanthropy by the eminent sufferer by it, an unsophisticated economist would Philanthropy argue thus :-There is here an admitted bad effect of British benevolent legislation. We have sought the good of the unprotected employed, but we do not think it fair to attain this at the expense of the employers, and none the less when we learn on this unquestionable authority how serious the effect is, and when we realise the far greater loss, the nation will have yearly more and more to reproach itself for inflicting on itself. The situation is one easily rectified by imposing a slight duty on importation. The farmers' sufferings arise from too high rents, not bad laws. "Then there was a still more important industry, that of agriculture; during the past few years great numbers of farmers had been ruined, and land was falling out of cultivation everywhere. If they considered the interests of classes, the agriculturists should be the first to claim their attention." Land, I apprehend that the cause of the farmers' sufferings lies in the too high amount of rent which they have been paying, sometimes accompanied with deficiency of skill and capital. being limited in quantity within the kingdom, is a sort of monopoly. Nevertheless, if State burdens anywise fall unduly upon it and its cultivators, relief may be fairly claimed, for the nation wishes justice to all classes, proprietors included. "The farmers would doubtless say, ' We have to compete with corn from Canada and the United States, in both of which countries the Government grant large subsidies to promote growth of corn. We claim that there be such a duty as in our opinion would countervail.'" It is not consistent with fact that any Government does give subsidies to farmers. What is alleged by the Board, surely very fantastically, is that free gifts of land and grants for the formation of canals have the same effect as bounties. I do not admit that they have, but at any rate they are not of the same nature. Whatever effect they have tends to reduce rent. "Thus we might go on and break down every portion of freetrade." A very queer way indeed of putting matters. "With which, in his opinion, the prosperity of the country was identified, and, above all, the welfare of the working-classes," etc. All this I have sufficiently answered in the preceding part of this brochure. I only wish I could have executed my work better, foolish? "In the matter of sugar bounties, he thought the action of foreign Whear Governments foolish in the extreme.” No doubt foreign Governments will allege that they should be allowed to judge for themselves without being condemned in this absolute wisdom fashion. Which side is foolish ? "In order to foster a particular trade, they took out of the pockets of their own tax-payers large sums of money." bounties are A shrewd man of business, well posted up in the sugar bounties sugar question, told me some time ago that in his opinion the French are worth their acting wisely, for, as a nation, they gain by them more than they France. lose. In connection with this subject of bounties, the concluding part of the following speech by the Chairman of the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce, who has admirable business opportunities for knowing what he is speaking about, is highly significant :— at Foreign "The Chamber would recollect that there was a special meeting to consider the question, and a memorial was adopted and sent to Her Majesty's Government. No further action had been taken by the Chamber; but in the interval a very influential deputation of shipowners had an interview with Lord Granville. His Lordship suggested that it was desirable the proceedings should not be public, his reason apparently being that he was desirous that as little as possible should be done to intensify the feeling which the French might be supposed to have in favour of a measure whose object was to increase the French shipping interest. His Lordship, however, spoke very strongly in this Shipowners sense, that he and the Government considered it a very improper interview measure; and, indeed, he used some very strong language which was Office. hardly diplomatic; but he deprecated anything being done to show panic or alarm in this country, because, evidently, if we convinced the French people that we regarded their measure as one calculated to give them the traffic of the world, and correspondingly to depress our interest, it was clear they would only be encouraged to go further in the same direction. There had been really nothing new, so far as he (Mr. Currie 1) was aware, since then. The Government were quite well aware of the importance of the subject; they saw it to be a very serious thing, one menacing to a very serious extent-a much more serious extent than the question of the sugar bounties-the position of this country, because not merely did it involve the much larger amount of capital and the much larger number of people employed in the particular branch of industry, but it also involved the question of national security. (Hear, hear.) The Government were perfectly well aware of that, and he did not think it was possible for the Chamber to do 1 Brother of the honourable Member for Perthshire. Shipping bounties popular in France. England an apostle ! French excuse for shipping bounties. Sugar planters. more than it had done. He was quite sure that if the Government could do anything to avert what would practically be a great mischief, they would do it. The objectionable measure was popular with the French; and it was of no avail to characterise their conduct as foolish unless we went further and characterised as foolish the conduct of any nation which chose to keep up a standing army or navy. We had not exactly come to the point at which we could at all events persuade the French people of that." Before concluding the right honourable gentleman said- "He did not think it worth while for the sugar manufacturers to prove the Government inconsistent, because the logical result would be that the Government would cease to do anything to forward their views. . . . They maintained that it was good for all the world that free-trade principles should universally prevail, and England was the great apostle of free-trade. We preached it in season and out of season, in reference to every question, and therefore, even in this case. The Government held it to be their duty to advocate the doctrines of free-trade, and they . . . asked those Governments to furnish them with any information on the subject that they were willing to give as to the extent and the nature of the bounties, and as to their effect upon the foreign trade." On this, extracted from an Edinburgh paper's report, just three short remarks:-(1.) For apostle read martyr; (2.) Again, the propagandist mission, on which I have already animadverted; (3.) What can be expected from Governments? The French coolly, with regard to the shipping bounties, tells the world they are "to compensate for charges imposed on the mercantile navy for recruiting and the military navy." They "keep back 20 per cent. of the bounty so as to increase the retiring pensions of registered seamen." Here note, "the bounty is increased by 15 per cent. for steamers built in France according to plans approved of by the Marine Department," and " in case of war, merchant ships [and I suppose crews] can be requisitioned by the State." Before making the speech on which I have taken the liberty to make these comments, the right honourable gentleman introduced the connection of the West India planters with the sugar-bounty business. It is unnecessary here to call attention to what he said then. All good subjects of the Queen must object to invidious distinctions being drawn between those of them whose happy lot it is to live in Great Britain, and the others who, with no less loyalty and under greater hardships, toil on for the wealth and welfare of the nation in outland parts. III. On Adapting the Relationship between the Mother Country and her Colonies to their Manhood and to the Interests of the Empire and of the People of all ranks, in connection with planting Emigrants on unoccupied National Territories, and with the prospects of Industrial Employment at Home, including a glance at the French Treaty, a Paper read at Social Science Congress, 1880. Limitation of time necessitates compression. The following paper is intended to be practical. It must be more or less disconnected, for in small space it has to deal with at least three great questions of the day :-1st, The prospects of TRADE; 2d, the direction of EMIGRATION; and 3d, the maintenance of the EMPIRE. from pros As to TRADE, it has, happily, for a long period gone on enlarging its volume. It would require to do so, or there will not be found within the British Islands sufficient employment for our constantly increasing population. The prosperity which has swollen our sails Dangers is itself a cause of danger. If this favouring gale has not made perity. operations unduly expensive, and manufacturers, masters and men, careless and too confident, both which natural consequences, I fear, are working harm, it has certainly enabled foreigners, as well as stimulated them, to erect establishments within their own countries, which are steadily becoming more successful competitors, in some cases ousting us not only from foreign and neutral markets, but even the home and colonial ones. We have-I do not say in the spirit of bravado, but with great simple-mindedness-opened our ports to all comers. But the lead-which sanguine politicians hoped it would prove-taken by the United Kingdom has not been followed by any other people, not even by our fellow subjects of the Colonies. After the third of a century has elapsed since the British freeinauguration of our free-trade policy, we find to our disappointment repudiated that, so far from our making converts of them, these all are moving world. in an opposite direction. Look at the ungracious colonial tariffs, which show how little the mother country's example is appreciated. Look especially at France, to propitiate or initiate which neighbour that noble cosmopolitan Mr. Cobden, more or less reluctantly, held in abeyance the previously dominant maxim of trade policy over the France nurses her industries. tors are keen. the school whom he represented so ably, to avoid entering into treaties of commerce, as being inconsistent with commercial freedom, and calculated to embarrass national political action. Our estimable neighbour has, after twenty years of patience and coddling or coaxing on our part, adhered strenuously to protectionism. When she speaks of free-trade, she means trade somewhat liberalised no doubt, but liberalised astutely with a reserve of protective duties sufficient to give or rather to retain-in my opinion wisely-a turn in favour of her own manufactures. Frenchmen appear to know that, in modern times, when operations are more and more being conducted on the principle of a large business with comparatively small margin on each individual transaction, a very small degree of customs protection is sufficient to turn the scale, -not that I can call the turn they aim at a small one by any means. If the United Kingdom is ready to enter into a treaty in which it too magnanimously submits to unequal terms, that is, to having the worst of the bargain, could we wonder that the shrewd statesmen of France cheerfully accepted the proffered terms, and closed with our extremely facile overtures? But indeed Her negotia- they do not. They hesitate, if they do not higgle, in order to secure something better towards their side. Already France enjoys, independently of treaties, free admission into the British market. That is not enough. We must engage for ten years of this liberality, provided we get in return an opening (not very considerable, nor likely to be very long-lived) into markets of which she is to resolutely retain practical monopoly. Anybody acquainted with trade knows how highly must be estimated the advantage which a manufacturer has who can choose either the French or the British market, whichever at a given time happens to be the dearer. Wherever there is the profit-cream to be skimmed, he gets it. Under the treaty, Frenchmen may supply either their own market or foreign markets or ours. Britons must be content with only their own, or some foreign market where they may be able to find customers. Economists issue disquisitions to prove that this is against the interest of the French people; I do not think, with much success. They dare not allege that the French manufacturers suffer by it. Surely we have had enough of this insular conceit, of humiliating treaty bonds. I call all treaties such that are onesided in their favours. Our Gallican friends will no doubt obtain a renewal; yet how absurd is it for Great Britain to address France, as she is in fact doing persistently, thus-" You have doubted whether we will carry out our policy of free-trade in face of so many ominous disappointments. You may have been hesitating Protection not hurtful to French manufac turers. |