^ m^ HkiA LI B RA R.Y OF THE U N I VERSITY or 1 LLl NOIS < Free Trade versus Fair Trade. BY T. H. FARRER. Cassell, Fetter, Galpin & Co.: LONDON, PARIS & NEW YORK. 1882. PREFACE For the following pages I am alone responsible. They contain an attempt to illustrate established truths, and to expose exploded though not obsolete fallacies ; but they trench so closely on the politics of the day that I should have scarcely felt justified in writing them for publication without the encourage- ment of the President of the Board of Trade. For the Tables appended I am indebted to Mr. E. J. Pearson and Mr. G. H. Simmonds, of the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade. They will be found to contain useful and interesting information, whatever may be thought of the in- ferences I have drawn from them. Those who have had much to do with statistics will know how difficult it is to use them properly, and how easy and how mischievous it is to use them carelessly and impro- perly. T. H. FARRER. Board of Trade^ December^ 1881. CONTENTS. Prelimtnarj)* CHAPTER I. Difficulty of knowing what to answer .1 CHAPTER H. Proposals of the Fair Trade League : their ambiguity ... 7 Two Principles involved : — 1. To favour Colonies at expense of Foreign Nations . . 7 2. To place retaliatory Duties on Foreign Manufactures . . 7 Assumptions of Decay made by Fair Trade League answered already . 8 Part I.— I^eto Colonial Poltcp. CHAPTER HL General observations : Suspicious Character of New Policy . . 9 CHAPTER IV. Assumptions that our Colonial Trade increases more, and is more steady than our Foreign Trade, considered ...... 10 Customs Report . . . . . . . . . .13 Criticism on this Report 15 Proportions of Colonial, Indian, and Foreign Exports in 1840, i860, 1872, and 1880 16 Proportions of aggregate Colonial and Foreign Trades for each year 1856 to 1880 17 Proportions of Trade with each separate Foreign Country and Colony for fifteen years . . . . . . . . . .18 Proportion of Exports to each separate Foreign Country and Colony for fifteen years .......... 19 Points deserving notice in our Trade with — Russia ........... 22 Germany and Holland — Effects of French Indemnity . . 23 Belgium .......... 24 France . . . . . . . . . . .24 Italy 25 Turkey 25 Egypt ■. . . 25 United States 26 Brazil . . .26 VI CONTENTS. PAGE Chili and Peru 27 China 27 Japan 27 British North America 28 West Indies 28 Australia 28 South Africa .......... 29 India, Circuitous Trade of . . . . . . .29 Foreign and Colonial Trades equally increasing and steady ; inter- mingled ; and influenced by many temporary causes . . • 32 CHAPTER V. Protection in Foreign Countries, Increase or Diminution of . .32 CHAPTER VI. Protection in the Colonies, Increase or Diminution of . . .36 Tendency to Protection as great in Colonies as in Foreign Countries . 38 CHAPTER VII. Dismissing the unfounded Assumptions of Fair Traders, Is a Customs Union of the British Empire possible ?..... 38 CHAPTER VIII. Proposals of Fair Traders for encouraging Colonial Trade are Proposals to restrict Trade "....,... 41 CHAPTER IX. Proposed Tax on Foreign Food 42 Where does our food come from? 43 CHAPTER X. Why is a Tax on Foreign Food objectionable? . . . . .44 Not only because it raises the price of food, but because it hampers manufacture ........ 45 Connection between food, wages, and profits; Cobden misquoted . , 46 CHAPTER XI. Fallacy of supposing that Colonial Markets will compensate us for loss of Foreign Markets ......... 48 CHAPTER XII. Effects which an English Tax on American Corn would have on American Competition with English Manufactures . . '51 CHAPTER XIII. dejection that we are paying for American Corn by sending back Investments 52 If true, nihil ad rem 52 I CONTENTS. Vll PAGE Absurdity of suggestion that the payment of Interest on American Investments goes to find Luxuries for the Rich . . . > S^ The recent Depression has hit the Rich and spared the Poor . . 54 Transfer of Trade to Colonies will not prevent Investments abroad . 55 CHAPTER XIV. Assuming that we are to drive a Tariff bargain with the Colonies, in return for our Tax on Foreign Food, what would be the result ? 1. What should we give and get ? 5^ 2. What would the Colonies get and give ? . . . • 5^ What would be their position afterwards ? . . . "59 CHAPTER XV. Can we make Commercial Treaties such as the French Treaty with the Colonies ........... 61 What have we to give ? . . . . . . . '63 Difficulties of a " most favoured nation " clause . . .66 Conclusion of Part I. — Governments can do much to hinder Trade ; they can do little to promote it. Our Government can do little or nothing to promote Trade with the Colonies, except to leave it alone 68 Part II.— Eetaltation. CHAPTER XVI. Retaliation on Manufactured Goods, as proposed by the Fair Traders, is for England impotent and suicidal 69 CHAPTER XVII. Proposal to Tax Manufactures, and leave Raw Material free. Difficulty of the distinction 7^ CHAPTER XVIII. Other Proposals for Retaliation — J2 Lord Salisbury 73 "X." in the Fa// Ma// GazcUe 76 Misrepresentation in other quarters of the Policy of Mr. Ricardo and the Free Traders of 1840-60 76 Origin of Policy of fighting hostile Tariffs by Free Imports . 77 CHAPTER XIX. Is there anything in one-sided Free Trade which makes a case for Retahation?— 78 Fallacy in thinking of Protective Tariffs as complete barriers . 79 Effect of Protective Duties on one and on both sides in the Trade between two Nations -79 Effect of similar Duties on Trade between three or more Nations 81 The Nation which remains Free \vill get the largest share of the Trade 83 Vlll CONTENTS. CHAPTER XX. PAGE Illustration from English Trade before i860 . . . . 1 84 CHAPTER XXT. English Trade since i860 — Alleged Change of Conditions . . . 85 CHAPTER XXH. What Free Trade means, and what it cannof do . . . . S6 CHAPTER XXHI. Relation of the Prosperity of other Nations to onr o\yn . . .87 CHAPTER XXIV. Recent Commercial Depression 89 CHAPTER XXV. Effect of bad Harvests ......... 92 CHAPTER XXVI. Excess of Imports .......... 95 Investments Abroad . . . . . . . . . .96 Outgoings on Shipping ,96 CHAPTER XXVII. Points to bear in mind in comparing Statistics of Trade of different Nations lOO Statistics of English Exports, 1870 and 1880, analysed into Food, Raw Materials, and Manufactures 10 1 CHAPTER XXVIII. Recent French Trade ......... loi Exports and Imports before and since the Treaty . . . loi Exports in 1869 and 1879 analysed into Food, Raw Materials, and Manufactures 102 CHAPTER XXIX. Recent German Trade 103 Effect of Prince Bismarck's Protective Policy on . . . 104 CHAPTER XXX. United States' Trade .106 Exports in 1 870 and 1880 analysed into Food, Raw Materials, and Manufactures . . . . . . • .106 Exports of United States and United Kingdom in each decade since 1840, in the aggregate and per head .... 107 Causes of United States Prosperity, and Nature of their Exports . 108 CONTEXTS. IX CHAPTER XXXI. Trade of Canada and Australia . 109 Canada — Protective Tariff and subsequent Trade .... 109 Trade of Victoria and New South Wales compared . . . .no CHAPTER XXXH. Special instances of the Effect of Duties on Production — . . .111 Leather . . ■• . . . . . . . .112 Sugar 113 Salt 114 Silk 114 CHAPTER XXXHI. Shipping . . 115 Statistics of English . . . . . . . -US Statistics of French . . . . . . . .116 Statistics of American .116 De Tocqueville's Prophecy 1 17 CHAPTER XXXIV. Bad consequences of Retaliation, supposing it possible, and supposing a case could be made for it — . . . . . . .119 1. We should get inferior English instead of superior foreign goods 120 2. The sale of English Goods would suffer . . . .120 3. We should lose Material for Manufacture . . . .120 4. Our Manufacturers would lose the stimulus of Foreign Com- petition .-. . . . . . . . .121 5. We should nurse Protected Interests, which would be sacri- ficed hereafter, or be powerful and mischievous . .121 6. We should revive Differentia] Duties, and all the practical confusion they cause 121 CHAPTER XXXV. Practical application of the above to Retaliatory Duties on French Silk and French Wine 122 CHAPTER XXXVI. Retaliation on Protective Duties which are imposed for the purpose of checking a too exclusive Development of Agriculture . . . 125 CHAPTER XXXVII. PvCtaliation does not only not effect its object, but has a contrary effect 125 It shows Mistrust in our own Principles . . . .126 It arouses Antagonism . . . • . . .126 Strength of protected Interests 126 Experience of its Failure 126 Negotiations of 1840 127 Dr. Franklin 127 Canada and United States 128 X CONTENTS. CHAPTER XXXVIII. page The French Treaty of i860 130 It gives no countenance to Retaliation . . . . .130 We did nothing we should not have done without a Treaty . 130 Wine the sole exception — if an exception . . . .130 Danger of Retaliation illustrated by the present state of things . 131 Treaty of i860 not to be judged by economical results alone . 132 Result of Treaty not altogether successful . . , .133 Real Objection to it, that it leads to Retaliation . . . 134 Conclusions of Part II. as to Retaliation 135 Retaliation is an impotent weapon in our hands . . '135 There is no case made, either by the state of our own Trade or that of our Neighbours, for a change of our own Policy . 135 Retaliation would injure us, and defeat its own object . .136 Final Conclusions 137 As to New Colonial Policy. Object may be good : all means suggested bad and impracticable ; Governments can check but not create Trade . . . . . . . .137 As to Retaliation, Bad in Spirit as in Effect . . . .137 Hopeful Tendencies . 138 Appendix, with Tables of Statistics 139 For List and Description of these Tables, see Appendix . 139 — 141 FREE TRADE .. FAIR TRADE, CHAPTER I. DIFFICULTY OF KNOWING WHAT TO ANSWER. When I was asked by the president of the Cobden Club to Recognised write something in defence of Free Trade, it seemed to me — Principles, recollecting as I did the instruction in politics which I had received from the Corn Law Controversy — as if I had been asked to prove Euclid, or give a reason for the rules of Grammar. That governments can by protective or prohibitory duties prevent and diminish, but cannot create or increase trade ; that every tax on trade is a diminution of the produce of industry, felt most certainly and probably most severely by the country which imposes it; that it is just as unwise and unrighteous to prevent the number of men who make up a nation from buying their food and their clothes where they can get them best and cheapest as it would be to compel me to buy my bread from the nearest farmer or my coat from the nearest tailor ; that a law which prevents the people of England from buying in France or America is in no essential respect different from a law which prevents the people of Middlesex from buying in Surrey or Lancashire ; that every innocent operation of trade is necessarily an advantage to both parties concerned in it, and that to stop it by law is necessarily an evil to both ; — all these, with the numerous consequences derived from them, appeared to me to be such elementary truths that I did not know where to begin. Nor did I find much help when I looked into the public Vagueness speeches and articles of Protectionists, Fair Traders, and ^Jj^^J^g.^g^ Reciprocitarians. Loud assertions that the British workman princi;les. is disgusted with Free Trade, and a convert to Protection; 2 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. appeals to the prejudices and self-interest of special classes ; allegations of national ruin, which every one knows to be false ; misstatements of historical facts which have happened within my own recollection; suggestions of the superior wisdom of Prince Bismarck or M. Thiers; imaginations of the grand imperial policy which Mr. Pitt or Mr. Huskisson would have followed had they been in the place of Sir R. Peel and Mr. Cobden ; attacks on Cosmopolitanism and praise of Im- perialism; denunciations of poHtical economy, in which the ignorance of the writers was as conspicuous as the violence of their language ; and general philippics against Radicals, Philo- sophers, and members of the Cobden Club ; — in all this I could find httle to answer, though much to grieve at. Allegations As to evidence of facts, I could find little or none. Appeals decay.^^^"^ indeed there have been — e.g., in the October number of the Quarterly — from the general experience which is conveyed by . the National statistics, to special cases founded on the one- sided observations of a single prejudiced observer. To such evidence I might oppose the statement that I too have spent my holiday in visiting various parts of England ; that I have seen business everywhere active, if not everywhere as profitable as it has at some times been ; shipping on the in- crease and fully employed; magnificent docks, harbours and factories, where, within my own recollection, there were only muddy creeks ; streets of palaces, where I remember hovels ; coasts, a few years since solitary, or inhabited only by a few fishermen, now lined with watering-places, and alive with crowds from inland towns — crowds of the middle and lower classes, who, by the increase of their own incomes and by the development of railways and of steamers, are enabled to enjoy comforts and luxuries formerly confined to the richer classes ; — • all this, and more, I and most of us have seen, and might with confidence oppose to the individual cases of alleged depression and suffering on which the Quarterly reviewer relies. But it so happens that I am able to test one or two of his statements, and can from these form some opinion of the value of the rest. Coventry. Coventry is, of course, one of his test cases. The depression of the Coventry ribbon trade, under the influence of French and Swiss competition, is with him, as it has been with others of his stamp for years, a favourite grievance. No doubt that whilst Coventry is prospering with other businesses, the ribbon trade is a weak trade, and has suffered, and is likely to suffer, PRELIMINARY. 3 unless the Coventry weavers can meet the tastes of our ladies as skilfully and well as their competitors at Basle and Lyons. Bat the reviewer has chosen an unfortunate moment to parade the grievance of the Coventry operatives, for it is a fact that the Coventry manufacturers have recently applied to the Home Secretary for leave to extend the hours of labour to which they are limited under the Factory Acts, on the ground that the labour at their disposal would not, without such extension of time, enable them to get through their orders. A Government Inspector was sent down to inquire into the facts ; he confirmed the repre- sentations of the manufacturers, and the time has been extended. Again, the reviewer selects Birmingham as a special in- Birming- stance of suffering, discontent, and decay. He alleges that the ^^"^' artisans complain that their houses are pulled down, and that they are driven to live at a distance from their work. They are doing nothing of the kind. Very few, probably not more than twenty, of their houses have been pulled down, and many of their houses have been much improved. The banks in Birmingham have not, as the reviewer says, been making smaller, but larger, profits in the last seven years. The Bir- mingham Small Arras Company, who supply Government only, owe their bad trade to the competition of Enfield. I might go on to other statements of his with similar results. But the great and convincing proof of Birmingham's decay is what the reviewer alleges to be the enormous number of unlet houses ; this is his strongest point, and he recurs to it again and again. Now what are the facts ? In the year 187 1, the population of Birmingham was 343,000, and it is now 400,000. In the year 1871, the number of empty houses was 5,884; since then 16,626 houses have been built, of which 12,226 have been built in the last seven years ; and in 1881 there are only 6,958 empty houses. Such is the value of the reviewer's principal proof of the decay of Birmingham, when brought to the test of certain and specific facts ; and from it we may judge of the value of all the other alleged facts which he parades as instances of depression and decay at Birmingham and elsewhere. Let me take another favourite allegation of the Protec- Demorali- tionists — it is made by Mr. Farrer Ecroyd as well as by the sation of reviewer — to the effect that " it is the race for cheapness caused ture^by^^" by foreign competition which has demoralised so many of our Foreign own industries, and brought English goods into disrepute in Competi- once valuable markets." I need scarcely say that proof or 4 l^REE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. facts to substantiate this charge are, as usual, wholly wanting. Nor will I pause to ask whether the evil, if it exists, is to be remedied by making English goods dear, which would be the inevitable effect of Protection here, as it is now the effect of Protection in Germany ; but I will quote a passage I have just come across in a letter from Josiah Wedgwood, dated 21st April, 177 1, more than a hundred years ago : — " The potters seem sensible of their situation, and are quite in a panic for their trade, and indeed with great reason, for low prices must beget a low quality in the manufacture, which will beget contempt, which will beget neglect and disuse, and there is an end of the trade. But if any one warehouse distinguished from the rest will continue to keep up the quality of the manu- facture, or improve it, that house may perhaps keep up its prices, and the general evil will work a particular good, and they may continue to sell ware at the usual prices when the rest of the trade can scarcely give it away." We may see from this that the apprehension of competition begetting cheapness, of cheapness begetting badness, and bad- ness destruction of our trade, is not confined to the present generation, and existed when there was no foreign competition and abundant protection. We may also see what the clear- headed, stout-hearted Josiah Wedgwood thought to be the true way of meeting such competition ; and we may judge from the subsequent history of the potteries w^hat the ultimate effects of his mode of meeting it have been — results wider, probably, than he ever contemplated. Reaction But since the time of the Corn Law controversy there has 1 fee^Trad ^^ doubt arisen a new generation, to whom much that was principles, burnt into the minds of their fathers by a mortal struggle has become merely an accepted tradition. There have been downs as well as ups in trade, and these have — not without fault on the part of Free Trade advocates — been attributed to our Free Trade policy. There has been a wave of National, as opposed to Cosmopolitan, sentiment passing over the world ; which, if it has produced its good eftects in the consolidation ot a Free American Union, and in the unification of Italy and Ger- many (effects, it must be remembered, odious to many of our own Imperialists) ; has also produced its bad effects in the Franco- German war, in the Pan-Slavonic movement against Turkey, in the tide of Imperialism which swept over ourselves, in the French troubles in Africa, in the adoption of American protec- PRELIMINARY. 5 tive policy by the United States, and in the partial relapse into a similar policy evinced by some of the nations of Europe and by some of our own colonies. It is not amiss, under such circumstances, that we should be Pious reminded that there is no such thing in politics as an " in- Op™o^s fallible dogma ; " that every one has a right to a " pious opinion ; " that a great political party and its leaders have a perfect right to advocate Retaliation or Reciprocity or Fair Trade, or whatever other name or form a reversal of our existing policy may assume ; and that that policy cannot exist, and ought not to exist, unless it is able to justify itself There are, moreover, certain questions emerging out Questions of the chaos of wild assertions, to which sensible and dis- fn An^swfr interested people, even though they may be resolute Free Traders, may justly require an answer, and which, perhaps, have not been as completely answered as they ought to be; such, for instance, as the following, viz. : — How is it that a period of excessive export, such as 1870-1875, is a period of undoubted prosperity; whilst a period of excessive import, like the late five years, has been a period of comparative depression ? If the French Treaty was right, and was followed by enor- mous increase of trade, is it not right to put ourselves in a position to make similar bargains by putting on duties which we can afterwards take off? How is it that the trade of Protectionist or half-Protectionist nations, such as America and France, have advanced as quickly as or more quickly than that of Free Trade England ? Does not the present attitude of the world towards Free Trade prove that the anticipations, and consequently the reasoning, of the Free Traders was wrong ? Can we do anything to promote Trade with our Colonies ? Questions such as these, taken by themselves, form detached parts of a great subject, and do not afford a satisfactory oppor- tunity of dealing with the merits of Free Trade or of the objections which have been made to it. I was, therefore, very glad when an association was formed, comprising most of the persons who have been putting forward such objections, and when that association placed before the world a programme in which its authors not only professed to state in short terms their reasons for departing from Free Trade, but placed before the world an outline of the new policy which they would have us 6 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. Pro- substitute for the commercial policy of the last 40 years. Such Fall^Trade ^ Programme, however worthless in itself, affords a definite sub- League, ject for discussion, in the course of which we have the great advantage of considering not only whether our present policy is absolutely good, a question which in this incomplete world it is seldom possible to answer with perfect satisfaction, but whether it is, or is not, better than other possible policies. I propose, then, first to state the effect of the programme of the Fair Trade League ; to point out shortly the assumptions on which their proposal for a change of policy is founded: to show the ground- lessness of those assumptions ; and then to criticise at some greater length the two main propositions contained in their programme. In doing this, we shall have the opportunity ot treating the incidental questions which I have mentioned above. CHAPTER 11. PROPOSALS OF THE FAIR TRADE LEAGUE. The programme of the Fair Trade League is not definite in its particulars, but its principal features are as follows : — Fair Trade ^ Raw materials of manufacture to be admitted free. 2. Food to be taxed when coming from foreign countries ; to be admitted free when coming from our colonies and possessions. This taxation to be maintained for a considerable term, in order to give the colonies time to develop their products. 3. Tea, coffee, fruit, tobacco, wine, and spirits to be taxed 10 per cent, higher when coming from foreign coun- tries than from our own colonies. It is not clear whether it is intended that they or some of them are to be free from taxation altogether, when coming from the colonies. 4. Import duties to be levied upon the manufactures of foreign countries which now impose prohibitory or pro- tective duties on our manufactures ; such duties are to be removed in the case of any nation which will agree to take our manufactures duty free. PRELIMINARY. 7 Before dealing with this as a practical proposal, several Their questions would have to be asked and answered, e.g.,, vagueness. 1. What is meant by raw materials, and what is meant by manufactures, and what is the economical distinction between the two ? This is a question which has not always received the attention it deserves, even at the hands of economists. 2. What would be the effect on the revenue of the prac- tical abolition of the duties on tea, and coffee, and fruit ? As a measure of economical and social reform, it would, of course, if the revenue admits of it, be welcome to every Free Trader. 3. Is it intended that food shall be admitted free from all our colonies, even where they levy protective or prohibitory duties on the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom ? And if not, is there to be a tariff bargain in each case ? 4. Are the manufactures of the colonies to be admitted free, even where they place a protective or prohibitive duty on the manufactures of the United Kingdom ? These questions raise serious questions of principle and Two great practice, the discussion of which might prove awkward to the Principles. Fair Traders, and which are, probably from this reason, pur- posely left obscure. But there is sufficient intimation of two general principles, viz. : — First, that we should depart from our present principle of Encourage- neutrality, and that our Trade with our own colonies and ^JJJJj^J^^i possessions should be artificially encouraged by means of an Trade, artificial discouragement of our Foreign Trade. Secondly, that we should place retaliatory duties on the Retaiiaiion manufactures of all countries which place duties on our manu- °^ . f ^ ^ Foreigners. factures. These principles I propose to discuss in the present paper. There is one preliminary difficulty : The advocates of this Assump- new policy, like the other writers and speakers to whom I ^^^^ °f have referred above, instead of prefacing and supporting their decay°^ proposals for so great a change by an appeal to evidence which it might be possible to sift, content themselves with general assumptions, which may be denied by those who disbeHeve them, but which it is difficult to disprove without a wearisome array of facts and figures. Thus it is assumed that our industries are permanently depressed and decaying 3 that the 8 FREE TRADE 7'. FAIR TRADE. These As- excess of imports above exports is a sign of this decay; that the answered^ French Treaty has been a failure ; and that we are losing our already. position as manufacturers in the markets of the world. These assumptions have been dealt with already in the speeches of Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Cross, and Mr. Slagg ; in Mr. Whittaker's article in the October number of the Nineteenth Century ; in many articles of the Times, in the Statist, Economist, and other newspapers, and have been conclusively disproved. It has also been shown that, taking all the usual tests of national prosperity — the returns of trade, of shipping, of the income tax, of banking,. of pauperism, of crime, of the general consumption of articles of food and luxury — the progress of the country as a whole is, beyond doubt, great and continuous, and that any recent depressions and fluctuations are such as have taken place at all times, and as can be easily explained by special causes, to some of which I shall have to recur below. No answer has been given to these figures, except such refer- ence to the well-known depressions in certain businesses, and such appeals from the general experience they contain to the particular evidence of special observers in particular cases, as I have sufficiently referred to already. It would, therefore, be superfluous to enter upon any general examination of the state of the country, and we may proceed at once to examine on their merits the two leading principles of the Fair Traders, viz., anew Colonial Policy, and Retaliation upon Foreign Nations. In doing so I shall have occa sion to touch again on some of the above topics. In dis- cussing these principles, I shall not confine myself to the actual proposals of the Fair Trade League, but shall endeavour to see whether the principles they advocate, which are not devoid of a certain superficial plausibility, are capable of any practical application, even though that application is not contained in the Fair Trade programme. part J. NEW COLONIAL POLICY. CHAPTER IIL GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. The Fair Trade League propose their new policy not only as a measure of economical reform, by which, as they say, Freedom of Trade would be in substance promoted, and our production and wealth increased, but as a " Great national A great policy which, while stimulating trade at home and pro- ^'^tional moting the prosperity of all classes, would bind together ^° '^^'' more closely by the ties of a common interest, the mother- country and her scattered populations, strengthening the foundations and consolidating the power and greatness of the empire." To some of us these words may appear not a little suspicious, imperial- They are not ill calculated to attract those who think that the ^^™' glory of England consists in the extent of territory subject to her imperial sway, in domination over subject peoples, in superiority of strength, and in her power to inspire fear in the other nations of the world. But they are capable of a more innocent construction ; they may mean only that whilst free and peaceful intercourse is to be desired amongst all mankind, it is especially to be desired and promoted amongst those who have sprung from the same origin, who have the same history, who speak the same language, whose lives are ordered by the same laws and customs, and who are subject to the same form of government. If this is their true meaning, it is not for the Cobden Club, whose motto is " Free Trade, peace, good-will amongst nations," to object to such a policy, nor would I say one word against it. To improve and render more cordial the relations between the United Kingdom and our great English-speaking and self-governing colonies would^ indeed, be lO FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. Suspicious a labour worthy of a statesman. But the British Empire is of tWs^^^"^ made up of very different elements. To deal with Canada or Policy. Australia, on the one hand, and with India or Ceylon on the other, as united with us by the same relation, and capable of being dealt with in the same manner, is to confound things which are really distinct. Even in our purely commercial relations with these different countries, there are, as will be seen below, great differences ; and in all the political relations by and through which the proposed new commercial policy is to be carried out, the differences are still greater. There is, therefore, great reason to view with suspicion any plan which proposes to apply one and the same policy, and that an entirely new and experimental policy, to all these different communities, and it is, at any rate, necessary to subject it to the strictest examination. If, upon such examination, it can be shown that the policy in question is founded on a misapprehension of existing facts, that its economical consequences to the colonists and to the mother country will not only not be what its advo- cates anticipate, but will be injurious to them both, and that, so far from strengthening the friendly relations of the colonies to the mother country, such a policy is calculated to cause ill-will and to precipitate disruption, then we may, without hesitation, discard this latest product of Protection and Im- perialism, as we have discarded other follies of the kind. CHAPTER IV. ASSUMPTION THAT OUR COLONIAL TRADE IS MORE STEADILY INCREASING AND LESS FLUCTUATING THAN OUR TRADE WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES. Superior At the bottom of the new Colonial policy lie two assumptions, and^^ ^ which, though stated with the vagueness which characterises steadiness all the Fair Trade arguments, are no doubt to be implied from of^Colonial their programme. These are, first, that whilst our profitable assumed, trade with foreign countries is both unsteady and declining, our profitable trade with our own colonies is steadily increas- PART I. — NEW COLONIAL POLICY. II ing ; and, secondly, that our own colonies are more and more ready and willing to receive our goods, whilst foreign nations are more and more disposed to reject them. I propose to deal with these two assumptions successively, and shall be able to show that neither of them can be accepted as true. Those who are satisfied already that these assumptions are unfounded; that our trade with foreign countries is as valuable to us as our trade with our colonies, and that the trade of all countries is so bound up together that to limit one branch is to limit others also, may pass over the long array of facts and figures contained in this and the two following chapters, and go on to Chapter VII. Let us see what the Fair Trade League say in favour Allegations of the first of these assumptions. They give, in this pro- of superior gramme, as the chief reason for the proposal to tax foreign colon\al° food, and admit colonial food free, that it will " transfer the Trade, great food-growing industries we employ from Protective foreign nations, who refuse to give us their custom in return, to our own colonies and dependencies, where our goods will be taken, if not duty free, yet subject only to revenue duties almost unavoidable in newly-settled countries, and probably not equal to one-third of the Protective duties levied by the United States, Spain, Russia, &c. ; " and to this is appended the following amazing note : — " Even at the present time every quarter of wheat imported from Australia affords us in return sixteen times as much trade and employment as a quarter of wheat imported from the United States, and every quarter of wheat imported from Canada thirty-five times as much as one imported from Russia " !! ' Mr. Farrer Ecroyd, again, who, in his article in the October number of the Ni?ieteenih Century^ has made himself the expositor of the Fair Trade programme, says : — " Had it (viz., the ;£"3o,ooo,ooo of produce which he assumes to have been lost by our bad harvests) been purchased from our own colonists, the money would have come round again, and have given employment to all our industries, as an immensely- increased export of our manufactures would have paid the bill j-' and again — "Our experience teaches us that in buying food from our colonies, we enjoy a return trade in our manu- factures at least twenty times larger per head than ^vith the Americans and Russians ; " and again — " Assuming that we shall purchase food produced in our o\^Tl dominions as cheaply 12 FREE TRADE V, FAIR TRADE. evidence that Colonial Trade is more valuable than Foreign Trade. as it now is purchased in the United States or in Russia, experience assures us that we shall obtain in exchange for the purchase of it a dozen or twenty times more employment for home industries than we now do." Fair Trade It is really difficult to get at what is in the brains of men who make such statements. It would seem that they think that the simple export of British goods without payment is per se a good to this country; that Australia gets (say) sixteen or twenty times as much of our manufactures in payment for a quarter of wheat as Russia or the United States get ; and that, therefore, it is of the utmost importance to us to transfer our custom from Russia and the United States, to whom we pay so little, to AustraHa, to whom we pay so much. But it is the facts, not the reasoning, of these passages with which I have now to do. Mr. Farrer Ecroyd continues : — " In con- nection with this subject, let anyone carefully study not only the very large value of British manufactures purchased annually per head by the inhabitants of our colonies as compared with the Americans, but also the remarkable steadiness of the colonial demand as compared with the violent fluctuations in that of the United States. And, further, let him examine the expansion during the past twenty-five years of the outlet for our manufactures in India and our colonies, compared with the stunted growth, or positive decline, of the trade to foreign high- tariff markets. He will then be able to form some idea of the demand upon our industries that would accompany the gradual transference to India and the colonies of the growing of fifty million pounds' worth of food, now annually imported from the United States and Russia ; and, bearing in mind that the economic gain from that increase of employment, however great, would probably be of far less value than the moral and social results of its superior steadiness, he will begin to appre- ciate more fully the importance of this great question to our labouring population." It is difficult to subject statements so vague as this to any satisfactory test ; but the impression which they convey con- cerning the facts of the colonial trade is shared by many persons who are not members of the Fair Trade League, and there is some evidence which may be fairly quoted in favour of it. There is, especially, one passage much quoted and relied on, which is both specific and accurate, and whichj therefore, it is worth while to give at length. It is PART I. — NEW COLONIAL POLICY. from the last official report of the Board of Customs,* and is as follows : — Exports. Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom. " The value of the produce and manufactures of the United Customs Kingdom exported to foreign countries and British possessions 1881°'^ in the year 1880 was as follows, namely : — Foreign Countries 147,806,267 British Possessions 75>254, 179 Total 223,060,446 showing an increase of ^31,528,688 upon the value of similar exports in the year 1879, o^ ^^J per cent, and by assigning to each of those divisions its proportion of the increase, we find that the value of the goods exported to foreign countries ex- ceeded that of 1879 by ;^i 7, 276,620, or 13^ per cent, and that the value of goods sent to our colonies and dependencies was greater by ^14,252,068, or 23^ per cent, than in 1879. " The following table shows the percentage of difference in a series of ten years between the value of the export trade in goods of home manufacture to foreign countries and British possessions respectively, on a comparison of the figures of a given year, with those of the year preceding, namely : — Value of Value of Proportion Proportion Year. Total Value of Exports to Exports to of Foreign of British Exports. Foreign British Countries Possessions Countries. Possessions. to Total. to Total. £ £ £ Per Cent. Per Cent. 187I 223,066,162 171,815,949 51,250,213 77-0 23-0 1872 256,257,347 195,701,350 60,555,997 76-4 236 1873 255,164,603 188,836,132 66,328,471 74 "O 26 1874 239,558>i2i 167,278,029 72,280,092 69-8 30-2 1875 223,465,963 152,373,800 71,092,163 68-2 31-8 1876 200,639,204 135,779,980 64,859,224 ^J'l 32-3 1877 198,893,065 128,969,715 69,923,350 64-8 35 '2 1878 192,848,914 126,611,428 66,237,486 w 34-3 1879 i9i,53i>758 130,529,647 61,002,111 68-2 31-8 1880 223,060,446 147,806,267 75,254,179 66-3 337 Taking the extreme limits embraced by the table, we find that ♦ rarliamentary Paper, No. 2953, 1881, p. 19. 14 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. Customs Report of z88i. in 187 1, when the total export value was almost identical with that of 1880, the proportion of the goods that found their way to our colonies was represented in value by ^51,250,213, or 23 per cent, of the total sum of ^223,066,162, whilst in 1880 theproportionwas^75,254,i79, out of a total of ^223,060,446, or 337 per cent. ^^ Exports to British Colonies" " We give below a list of the principal articles, with their values, that make up the aggregate of our trade with the colonies, with the view of showing in what respect the increase of 24 millions, which has accrued in the same period of ten years, is chiefly exhibited." Articles. ] mili- Value in the Year 1871. Apparel and slops . . . Arms, ammunition, and tary stores Beer and ale Coals, cinders, and patent fuel Copper, unwrouglit and wrought Cotton yarn ' Cotton manufactures ... . | Iron and steel, unwrought andj wrought Leather, unwrought and wrought Machinery and mill work Paper of all kinds Silk manufactures Woollen manufactures . . . Other articles 1,53^,370 356,845 1,195,663 881,418 817,063 2,258,368 19,166,944 4,591,917 1,133,988 999,401 486,084 320,787 3,172,110 14.331,255 Value in the Year 1880. £ 2,675,766 565,904 1,209,733 1,224,315 1,206,888 3,789,685 27,349,975 8,222,146 1,362,581 2,065,995 959,378 878,089 4414,763 19,328,961 Increase in 1880 as compared with 1871. Total 51,250,213 i 75,254,179 1,137,396 209,059 14,070 342,897 389,825 1,531,317 8,183,031 3,630,229 228,593 1,066,594 473,294 557,302 1,242,653 4,997,706 24,003,966 " The above-mentioned twenty-four millions represent an increase of nearly 47 per cent, in ten years in regard to our trade with the colonies, but, on the other hand, the value of our trade with foreign countries has decreased in the same period from ;^i 7 1,815,949 to ^147,806,267, or 14 per cent, the total export trade for 1871 and 1880 being, as we have said, almost identical in amount, although showing such wide differences when classified under ' Foreign Countries ' and * British Possessions ' respectively." PART I. — NEW COLONIAL POLICY. 15 Now, this passage is, as I have said, perfectly accurate ; the Customs misfortune is that it does not give a complete account of the |^^^^^^^g' case ; that it is capable of being misused, and has been misused ^^t incom- accordingly. P^^^^- In the first place, ten years is far too short a time by which to measure the progress and value of different branches of trade. , In the second place, this table only professes to give the exports of British produce from the United Kingdom; it does not give the imports, and without this it is useless as an index to the comparative values of the foreign and colonial trades, except, indeed, in the opinion of those who think that the value of our trade depends solely on what we give, and not also on what we get. In the third place, by lumping all foreign countries on the one side, and all the different British possessions on the other, an impression is produced that there is some general law governing each class, which produces results differing for the two classes, but identical for all the cases within each class ; and this impression is made use of with great effect by those who contend that the whole object of Trade is to export, and that, since the colonies take more exports than foreign countries, it is our business to encourage the one at the expense of the other. I have already pointed out how different are the circumstances of the different parts of the British Empire, and how much our relations to our self-governing colonies differ from our relations to India. Now, it is not a little remarkable that if we analyse the above comparison of 1880 with 187 1 we shall find that the greatest increase in exports to the colonies, on which the Customs report lays stress, is due to India. Our exports of British produce to India were — In 1871 . . ;^i8,o53,478, or S-i per cent, of the total. ,,1880. . 30,451,314, or 137 ,, „ The exports to the Australian Colonies were : — In 1871 . . ;^io,05 1,982, or 4-5 per cent, of the total. „ 1880 . . 16,930,935, or 7-6 ,, ,, The exports to British North America were : — In 1871 . . ;^8,257, 126, or 37 per cent, of the total. „ 1880 . . 7,708,870, or 3-5 „ „ Further, in 1880 the exports to British India were ;£'9,ooo,ooo more than in 1879, ^^^s accounting for three-fifths of the increased colonial export for that year : so that, whilst the i6 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. Exports to Colonies and Foreign Countries since 1840. exports to India and to Australia have very largely increased in the decade, those to British North America have diminished. Similar differences might be pointed out in the exports to foreign countries. When investigated, they are often very in- structive, as I hope to show below. I mention this now only to prove, even within the narrow limits of the Customs table, how fallacious it is to draw from figures of this description any such general results as Mr. Ecroyd and the Fair Traders have done. It is difficult to give, except in figures so long and minute as to be unreadable, any general view of the comparative results of our trade with the different countries of the world, but I will try to do so as briefly as I can, relegating the more cumbrous tables to an Appendix. First, assuming the position held by the Fair Traders, that what we give, and not what we get, is the standard by which . to judge of the profits of trade, let us see what our exports of British produce have been since 1840. Statement showing the Total Exports of British and Irish Frodtice from the United Kingdom to the undcrmcnticned Countries in each of the Years 1840, i860, 1872, and 1880. 1840. i860. 1872. 1880. I £ I £, To Colonies . . 11,886,167 26,699,543 42,084,603 44,802,865 ,, British India . 5,212,839 16,965,292 18,471,394 30,451,314 ,, Europe : Russia . . 1,602,742 3,269,079 6,609,224 7,952,226 Germany . . 5,579,669 13.491,513 31,618,749 16,943,700 Holland . . 3,416,190 6,114,862 16,211,775 9,246,582 Belgium . . 880,286 1,610,144 6,499,062 5,796,024 France . . 2,378,149 5,249,980 17,268,839 I5,594'499 Spain . . . 404,252 2,471,447 3,614,448 3,222,022 Italy . . . 2,162,931 4,514,287 6.557,538 5,432,908 Turkey . . 1,387,416* 5.064,233 7,639,143 6,765,966 Ot. Countries in Europe . 2,006,555 4,984,956 10,987,309 9,727,887 Un ited States of America . 5,283,020 21,667,065 40,736,597 30,855,871 Total . . 25,101,210 9,108,524 68,437,566 147,742,684 111,537,785 „ Otlir. Countries 23,788,826 47,958,666 36,268,482 Total Foreign 34,209,734 92,226,392 195,701,350 147,806,267 Total . . 51,308,740 135,891,227 256,257,347 223,060,446 * Including Greece, Wallachia, and Moldavia in 1C40. PART I. --NEW COLONIAL POLICY. 17 Putting these figures in the form of percentages, they are as follows : — To Colonies. To India. To Foreign Countries. 1840 . 2Z 10 67 .. 100 i860 . . I9i .. 12\ .. 62, 100 1872 . . i6i .. 7 76^ .. 100 1880 . 20 i3i .. 66| .. 100 There is here no symptom of any permanent increase in the percentage of the colonial exports, but rather the reverse. The percentage of the foreign exports, which rose rapidly with the loans and inflation of 1872, has otherwise remained steady, and there have been great fluctuations in the per- centage of the Indian trade. There is certainly nothing in these figures to lead one to suppose that we should sacrifice the trade with foreign countries in order to nurse the colonial trade. But no view of trade is complete which deals with exports alone, nor is a comparison of one single year at one period with another single year at another sufficient to show the general course of trade. I have therefore annexed to this paper* four Trade with tables, showing for each of the last twenty-five years the amount Colonies and proportions of our trade with foreign countries and with our Foreign own colonies and possessions respectively. The first of these Countries tables gives the exports of produce of the United Kingdom ; ^^ ^^^^ °^ the second gives the total exports, including re-exports oi ^^yll^^^ foreign and colonial produce ; the third gives the total im- ports ; and the fourth gives the total of the imports and exports. For each year is given the percentage of the foreign and colonial trades respectively. From these tables it is clear that whether we take, as the Fair Traders do, the exports of British produce only, or the total exports, or the total imports, or, which is the fairest test, the whole of the trade exports and imports together, there is not the least ground for the assertion that the whole of our trade with our own posses- sions has grown faster than our trade with foreign nations, or that it is subject to fewer fluctuations. Taking the exports of the produce of the United Kingdom, the exports to the colonies were 2)Z millions in 1856, rose to nearly 54 millions in 1866, sank to 48 miUions in 1869, rose to 72 millions in 1874, and fell to 61 millions in 1879. Of the imports, the colonial * See Tables I., II., III., and IV., in Appendix. lb FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. share is smaller, but equally fluctuating. It was 43 millions in 1856, 38 millions in 1858, 93 millions in 1864, since which time it has on the whole declined, being as low as 73 millions in 187 1, and 78 millions in 1878, rising again to 92 mihions in 1880. Taking the whole of the trade of the United King- dom — imports and exports together — which is by far the fairest test, the colonial share of the trade was 80 millions in 1856, 149 millions in 1864, 114 millions in 1867, 165 millions in 1877, 145 millions in 1879, and 174 millions in 1880. If we turn to the tables, we shall see that these fluctuations are as great as those which have taken place in the trade with foreign countries. The proportion which our colonial trade bears to our whole trade has varied between 31*3 per cent, at which it stood in 1863, to 20*9 per cent, at which it stood in 187 1 ; it stood at 2 5 "6 per cent in 1856, and stands at 24*9 per cent now. It has kept pace with our foreign trade, and forms about a quarter of it But it fluctuates as much as our foreign trade, and forms no larger a proportion of it now than it did fifteen years ago. But even these figures, whilst amply sufficient to show that there is no ground whatever for supposing that our foreign trade, as a whole, is either more precarious or less profitable than our colonial trade, lump all foreign countries and all colonies together, and fail to show how different has been the course of trade with different colonies and different countries, and how fallacious it is to include in one and the same class either the one or the other. I have there- fore added to the Appendix some tables,* showing what has Trade with been the course of trade with each foreign country and Foreign ^'i^^ each colony or group of colonies for the last fifteen Country years, giving for each country and for each year the exports CotorT^for ^^^^ imports separately, and the percentage which they con- each of last stitute of the aggregate imports and exports. I have also 15 years, added a tablet giving a summary of the whole, showing, in the form of percentages, what has been the proportion which our trade with each country and each colony in each year, and in each period of five years, has borne to our whole trade. The following summary shows at a glance what proportion of our whole trade has been carried on with each foreign * See Tables V. and VI., in Appendix. t See Table VI L, in Appendix. PART I. — NEW COLONIAL POLICY. 19 country and each colony for each of the three last periods of five years. Foreign Countries. Statement of the proportion Per Cent, of our whole Foreign Trade carried on Tvith each Foreign Country. ; Russia ^^^y iHolIand Belgium France Italy Turkey Eg>-pt ' Pr. Ct. 5 Years ] ending \ 5-3 1870. J j Pr. Ct. 9-0 Pr. Ct. 1 Pr. Ct. 5-4 3-2 Pr. Ct. II-2 Pr. Ct. 1-9 Pr. Ct. 2-6 Pr. Ct. 4-5 5 Years " ending 1875. J 5-0 z-% 5-5 41 IO-8 1-8 21 2-9 5 Years ] ; ending \ ■ 4*2 1880. J| 8-2 518 38 10-9 1-6 1-9 19 Average for ) ..g whole Period. ] ^ 8-6 56 3-8 no 1-8 2-2 ! 3-0 Foreign Countries {continued). United States Brazil Chili Peru China Japan Other C'ntries Total 5 Years ending 1870. Pr. Ct. Pr.Ce. 2-5 Pr. Ct. 1*2 Pr. Ct. 10 1 Pr. Ct. 3-0 Pr. Ct. 03 Pr. Ct. 1 ! I2'2 1 Pr. Ct. 77 -o 5 Years 1 ending I 1875. J 15-5 2-3 II II 2-8 0-4 .3., 77 '3 5 Years \ ending \ 1880. J 17-6 1-8 0-8 0-8 2-8 0-5 ,.3 75-4 Average for whole Period. 157 2-2 10 i-o 2-8 0-4 12-6 76-5 20 FREE TRADE ZK FAIR TRADE. Colonies and British Possessions. Statement of the proportion Per Cent, of our whole Foreign Trade carried on with each Colony, British North America British West Indies Australian Colonies India South Africa Other British Possessions Total 5 Years ) ending > 1870. Pr. Ct. 27 Pr. Ct. 17 Per Cent. 4-8 Pr. Ct. 97 Pr. Ct. 0-9 Per Cent. 3-2 Per Cent. 23-0 5 Years ) ending > 1875. ) 31 1-5 5-3 8-1 1*2 3-5 227 5 Years. ending 1880. 2-9 15 (>'e 8-5 1-6 3'5 24-6 Average for ) whole Period. J 1 2-9 1-6 5-6 87 1-3 3-4 23-5 In order that I may not appear to overlook the facts relied on by the Fair Traders, I give the following summary, in a similar form, of the course of our export trade to each country. The following percentages are the percentages of the total exports, including re-exports of foreign and colonial produce. But the percentages are much the same as they would be if the exports of the produce of the United Kingdom alone were included, and in the tables appended the figures for both kinds of export are given fully. But, whilst I give these figures in deference to the weaknesses of the Fair Traders, I protest against the notion that exports are more important than imports, and also against the notion that the direct trade to or from each country and colony shows the whole character of the transaction. Trade is circuitous, and the debt which accrues to us in consequence of an export to a colony is often repaid to us by our imports from some foreign country. More- over, as we shall see below, temporary causes have an immense effect both on our exports and imports ; and although in the long run trade balances itself, the exports to any one country for any given year, or short term of years, or even the exports and imports together, are often a most imperfect index of the nature of our whole trade with that country. PART 1.— NEW COLONIAL POLICY, 21 Exports to Foreign Countries. Statement of the pi-oportion Per Cent, of Exports from United Kingdom, including Re-exports, to each of the tindermentioned Foreign Countries. 1 Russia. Ger- many Holland Belgium France Italy jTurkey Egj-pt 5 Years | ending \ 1870. J Pr. Ct. 3'5 Pr. Ct. 12-6 Pr. Ct. 6-9 Pr. Ct. 3 '4 Pr. Ct. IO"I Pr. Ct. Pr. Ct. 2-8 3-2 Pr. Ct. S Years 1 ending \ 1875. 3-6 12-6 7-6 4'5 IQ-Q 27 2-5 1-8 5 Years 1 ending I 1880. J 3-6 II -4 6-2 47 10-5 27 2-8 10 Average for \ whole Period. \ 3-6 12-2 6-9 4-2 IO-2 27 2-8 20 Exports to Foreign Countries [continued). United States Brazil Chili Peru China Japan Other Foreign Countries Total 5 Years ] ending I 1870. J Pr. Ct. 117 Pr. Ct. 27 2-5 Pr . Ct. 10 Pr. Ct. 0-6 Pr. Ct. 26 Pr. Ct. 07 Per Cent. 11-8 Pr. Ct. 76-9 5 Years '| ending I 1875. J I2'0 0-9 08 .1-9 07 12-6 767 5 Years 1 ending \\ 9*4 1880. J 2-5 o'6 0-4 1-9 II 12-8 71-6 Av. for whole ) 1 , t • t Period. } " ^ 2-5 0-8 06 21 0-8 12-6 751 2 2 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. Colonies and British Possessions. Statement of the proportion Per Cent, of Exports from United Kingdoin, incbiding Re-exports y to each of the tmdermentioned Colonies, British North America West Indies Australia India South Africa Others Total 5 Years ] ending I 1870. J Pr. Ct. 2-9 Pr. Ct. 1-2 Per Cent. 5-4 Pr. Ct. 8-9 Pr. Ct. 07 Pr. Ct. 4-0 Per Cent. 23-1 5 Years ] ending \ 1875. J Z'3 I -2 5-9 7-5 I "4 4-0 23-3 5 Years 1 ending \ 1880. J 2-9 1-2 77 lO-I 2-2 4-3 28-4 Average for ) whole Period. ) 3-1 1-2 ^•z 8-8 1-5 4-0 24-9 It would take more time and more knowledge than I possess to explain in detail the figures contained in the appended tables. Each foreign country and each colony shows its own fluctuations, both of imports and exports, and these fluctuations have been as great in the Colonial as in the Foreign Trade. It would be most instructive to trace these fluctuations to their real causes. Protectionist tariff's have, no doubt, in some cases, and to some extent, been causes of these fluctuations ; but other causes, such as the cotton famine, the Franco- German war, the French indemnity, English investments abroad, bad harvests in Europe and good ones in America, and the war in South Africa, have probably been still more potent factors. To trace the effect of these causes would throw light on many a delusion, and it is in the hope that some one may be tempted to do this, as much as for my immediate purpose, that I annex these tables. At present I will only call attention to one or two facts connected with the different trades. Otir Trade with Russia, The exports to Russia have, on the whole, increased during the last fifteen years, and are much higher now than they were in 1866. On the other hand, the imports from Russia have PART I. — NEW COLONIAL POLICY. 23 diminished. In the five years ending 1870, Russia sent us 6-8 of our whole imports, and took 3-5 of our whole exports; and in the five years ending 1880 she sent us only 47 of our whole imports, and took 2,'^ oi our whole exports. This ought to gladden the hearts of the Fair Traders. And yet Russia is a strictly Protectionist country, and has lately raised her tariff. The reason for the decrease in her exports to us is, of course, that America has beaten her in the supply of corn ; but this does not account for the increase of our exports to her. Our Trade with Germany and Holland. These two countries may be taken together, since much Germany German trade goes through Holland. Their proportion of our Holland whole trade, including imports and exports, has remained steady during the last fifteen years. The exports increased in the five years ending 1875, especially in the years 1871 and 1872, and have decreased in the last five years. The exports of British produce to Germany were, in 1870, 20 millions; in 1872, 31^ millions; of which considerably more than one-half consisted of cotton and woollen manufactures; and in 1880, 17 millions. The German tariff may have been one cause of the dimi- nution in 1880, and a real decline in the demand for English woollen manufactures may have been another. But in comparing the figures of cotton and woollen manufactures of different periods, there are several circumstances to be taken into con- sideration. There were errors in our Trade statistics up to 1872-73, making the value of woollen exports appear larger than it really was. Further, the price of the raw material constitutes a large part of the price of the manufactured article ; the whole of the raw cotton and much of the raw wool come to us from abroad, and have to be paid for ; and the prices of both have fallen since 1872, that of raw cotton as much as 30 per cent. The apparent loss on exports has, therefore, to be diminished by the difference. But there was another tempo- Effects of rary cause, independent of tariffs and of prices, which, no French doubt, increased our exports to Germany in 187 1 and [872. ^fiden^i^ity* The French indemnity of 200 millions was paid to Germany partly in French cash, partly in French exports, but partly also through England, so that a part, and probably no inconsiderable part, of the large English exports of merchandise to Germany in the period from 1871 to 1875 consisted, in fact, of advances to Germany on French account, to be repaid to England 24 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. by France. This is confirmed by finding that the imports into Germany fi-om the principal European countries — viz., France, Belgium, United Kingdom and India, Italy, and also firom the United States — during the five years 187 1 to 1875, exceeded the exports to those countries by 23 millions a year, an excess which was reduced to eight millions in 1877.* It is also confirmed by the French statistics,! which, after showing a large excess of imports in 187 1, probably to make up losses caused by the war and the defective imports of 1870, show a large excess of exports, especially to Germany, Belgium, England, Switzerland, and Italy, amounting to not less than 24 millions a year during the years 1872 to 1875. I^ short, France borrowed to pay the indemnity; England and other countries made advances in the shape of goods, and France has since been repaying these advances, or the interest upon them. There are, therefore, good reasons to explain the increase of German trade in 1872-75, and its subsequent decrease, without supposing that English industry is on the decline, or that the demand for English manufactures, even in Germany, is failing. Oitr Trade with Belgium. Belgium. '- Our whole trade with Belgium is steady. Our export trade to Belgium is, on the whole, increasing ; but the export of British produce was rather more in the years 1872-75 than in the subsequent years, probably for the same reasons as have been shown to apply in the case of Germany. Our Trade with Fraiice. France. The proportion which our trade with France bears to our whole trade has varied very little. It was rather less in nominal value in the five years ending 1880 than in the previous five years, but has been increasing since 1879. Our exports to her increased very largely in 1871, and have maintained a high average since, being larger now than they have been since 1876. Her exports to England in common with her exports to other European countries, have increased still more largely, giving, as above stated, a * See Table VIII., giving the Exports and Imports of Germany from 1868 to 1877. These figures are taken from the statistics of the several countries. If taken from German statistics, the figures for the imports into Germany would, no doubt, be increased, and those of exports from Germany diminished. f See Tables IX. and X., French Imports and Exports, 1868 to 1877. PART I. — NEW COLONIAL POLICY. 25 surplus of exports over imports to these countries for the five years ending 1875 of 18 milUons a year, a surplus probably due to the payment of the German indemnity. Her exports to the United States have diminished ; whilst her imports from the United States have increased. Our Trade ivith Italy. There has not been much change in the amount or proper- Italy, tion of our trade with Italy. But one thing is remarkable. Italy is one of the few countries where our exports exceed our imports. This they have done for the last fifteen years, at the rate of two millions a year and upwards. Now it is impossible to believe that we are doing trade with Italy at a loss. Nor is it probable that Italy is lending us money and is exporting goods to us. On the contrary, it is certain that we have lent to Italy, and that interest must be owing to us. Is it not more than probable that Italy pays her balance to us in a circuitous way ? Looking to the French statistics (see Table X.), we find that the imports from Italy into France exceed the exports from France to Italy by an amount averaging in the last ten years five millions sterling a year ; and we hear, usque ad ?iausea?n, that France sends us many millions more than she takes from us. It is, therefore, most likely the case that Italy sends us goods through France, and thus pays her balance to us, and increases the apparent French exports to England at the same time. Our Ti'ade with Turkey. Our trade with Turkey has decreased largely, and the Turkey, reasons are too obvious to dwell upon. Our Trade with Egypt. There has been a large diminution in our trade with Egypt. Egypt, but some of it is nominal, because since the opening of the Suez Canal many cargoes to and from the East, formerly entered as to and from Egypt, have been entered as to and from the countries of destination and of shipment in the East. They may thus possibly swell the apparent increase of our Indian and Colonial trade. In the comparative cessation of the import of raw cotton from the East since the American market has been re-opened, and in the cessation of loans to Egypt after 1873, are to be found other reasons for the diminu- tion of our trade with Egypt. 2$ FREE TRADE ZK FAIR TRADE. Our Trade with the United States. It is our trade with the United States which is the pons asinonctn of our Fair Traders, and I shall have occasion to refer to it again in a subsequent part of this paper. Our whole trade has increased very largely, both absolutely and propor- tionately. It constituted 13*7 per cent, of our whole trade in the five years ending 1870, and 17*6 per cent, of our whole trade in the five years ending 1880. But our exports to the United States were 117 per cent, of our whole exports in the former period, and only 9 '4 per cent, in the latter period; and this diminution, together with a considerable addition to the aggregate trade, is made up by an increase of imports. It would be idle to repeat what has been said so often already of our loans to the United States made in the earUer period, and of the payment of interest upon these loans which now appear in our imports. Nor is this the place in which to attempt to disprove the assumption made without the shadow of an argument, and, as I believe, without the shadow of foundation, by Mr. Farrer Ecroyd, that we are now calling back capital from the United States. This point is referred to below in the chapter on exports and imports (Chap. XXVI.); here I will only notice that, in speaking of the reasons for the excess of imports, I have given some figures which, if they approach the truth, show that we are increasing and not diminishing our foreign investments ; that we are still lending rather than recalling capital ; and, if this is so, the United States is certainly one of the countries to which we are lending most. One or two important facts I may point out which are shown by these tables — viz., first, that our exports to the United States have increased from 17 J millions, at which they stood in 1878, to 38 millions in 1880 ; and, secondly, that there are circumstances mentioned below, under the head of Indian trade, which make it in the highest degree probable that we pay for imports of corn from America by exporting manufactures to our own possessions in the East. As an illustration of the way in which this may take place, I may quote a passage from the Econojnist in the week (I am writing 15th October, 1881) : — " Last week the stea.meT At/stralia, from Sydney, landed over a million dollars in gold at San Francisco. Australia, of course, pays this gold on English account." Our Trade with Brazil. Our trade with Brazil has declined, but the imports have PART I. — NEW COLONIAL POLICY. 27 decreased more, and are now considerably less, than the exports. As we have lent money to Brazil and do much of the carrying to her, it is clear that our imports from her ought very largely to exceed our exports to her ; and as her exports to the United States very largely exceed her imports from the United States, there can be little doubt that we pay some of our debts to the United States for corn and cotton, by exporting our manufactures to Brazil. Our Trade with Chill and Perti. Both our aggregate trade and our exports to Chili and Peru Chili and have considerably decreased in the last five years, and for this P^^"* the cessation of our loans to Peru, and the subsequent Peruvian collapse, and afterwards the war between Chili and Peru, are sufficient reasons. Our Trade with China. Our imports from China have maintained their comparative China, position ; our exports to China averaged six millions in the five years ending 1870 ; nearly six millions in the five years ending 1875 ; and something less than five millions in the five years ending 1880. This, however, is a case where nominal values conceal the real facts. Three-fourths and more of our exports to China consist of cotton and woollen manufactures. Now the quantity of cotton goods exported to China during the latter period was 2*6 per cent, more than during the former period, and of woollen goods 18 per cent. At the same time the price of raw cotton, which forms a large proportion of the cost of cotton goods, was 23 per cent, less in the latter than in the former period, and the cost of raw wool also much less. Consequently the real value of the exports of the produce of British labour was considerably greater in the latter than in the former period. Yet this increasing export trade is what the Fair Traders desire to check, by placing a differential duty on Chinese teas. It must also be remembered that Hong Kong, the trade with which swells the lists of colonial imports and exports, is really a depot for China, and that in order to do justice to the trade of China, a great part of our trade with Hong Kong should be added. Our Trade with Japan. The aggregate trade and the exports have both increased. Japan. 28 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. British North America. Our Trade with British North America. British North America is certainly one of the colonies to which our Fair Traders would wish to show special favour. It is Canada which is to profit by their new policy, especially by a tax on United States corn. Now our exports to Canada, so far from increasing in proportion to our greatly increased imports from her, were considerably lower in 1880 than they had been in the years 1871 to 1875. In 1874, they were ^10,210,985. In 1879, they had diminished to ^6,118,862. For the five years ending 1875, they averaged 3-3 per cent, of our total exports ; for the five years ending 1880, they averaged only 2 -9 per cent. West Indies. Otir Trade with the West Indies, The British West Indian trade has been nearly stationary ; but our exports to the West Indies have been slightly less in nominal amount for the five years ending 1880, than for the five years ending 1875. Our Trade with the Australian Colonies, Australia. The imports from the Australian colonies have risen from ;£i 1,423,268 in 1866, to ;£^25,663,334 in 1880, and the rise has been steady, except in the case of a great jump in 1880. But our exports have not risen in nearly the same proportions, nor so steadily; they were ;£"i4,62o,779 in 1866, and only ;£"i8,748,o92 in 1880. They were highest in 1874-78, when they averaged about 21 millions annually. Australia is, however, the one group of self-governing colonies to which the Fair Trader will point as showing a steady progressive increase in the whole trade, and a comparatively large recent increase in the exports they take from this country. But I am not sure that the Fair Trader will be much comforted when he learns that one great reason for the in- of the loans which The amount of her crease of exports, is the larger amount England has been making to Australia. ... i milhons in 1879. It is estimated* that our loans made to Australia in 1880 amounted to 10 millions, and that her aggregate debt to us is not less than 120 millions. The public debt has increased fi'om 27 J millions in 1867, to 78 * See the Economist, Aug, 27, 1881. PART I. — NEW COLONIAL POLICY. 29 advance of the principal probably accounts for a large part of the increase of our exports. But I fear that the Fair Traders, who are so much alarmed at the imports which the United States send us in payment of the in- terest on their debt to us, will at no distant time have to groan over a similar excess of imports from Australia, arising from a similar cause. And if the authority to whom I have referred, is right in supposing that Australia becomes in- debted to us every year, for freight earned by our shipowners, to the extent of many millions, they Anil have an addi- tional source of alarm, for we shall get that amount of imports from them without giving them any visible exports whatever in return. Another thing to be remarked concerning Australia, as concerning India, is that she exports to the United States more than she imports from them. I have already mentioned an instance of the way in which she makes payment to the United States on English account, and there are probably many more ; if we check our imports from the United States, we shall check our exports to Australia as well as to India. Our Trade n'ith South Africa. The imports have risen steadily in fifteen years, from South ;zf 2,700,000 to ;£'5, 640,000. In our exports, there was a Africa, rise till 1876, when there was a drop of nearly a million, viz., from ;£"5,35o,4i2 in 1875 to ;^4,502,739 in 1877. In 1879 and 1880, owing probably to the war, and not to legitimate trade, there was a great rise, and they amounted to ;z^7, 206,000. Our Trade with India. The imports from India have on the whole decreased during India, the last fifteen years. The aggregate for the five years ending 1870, was isomiUions; for the five years ending 1880, 143 millions. The highest year was 1866, 37 millions; and the lowest 1879, 24I millions. Our exports to India have been steady, ranging from 18 to 25 millions, and increasing slightly in each succeeding period of five years. But in 1880 there was a great jump from ;£"22,7i4,682 to ^32,028,055. With such figures as these, and others given above, it is nonsense to say that our colonial trade is free from fluctua- tions; that the demands for our exports is steadily and constantly $0 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. Circuitous Trade of England, the East, America, and other Foreign Countries. on the increase, or that it bears in each case a fixed proportion to our imports. But there is something further to be learnt from the Indian trade. Whilst the exports to India were in 1880, 37 millions, the imports from India were only 30 millions, a very remark- able fact in itself, when we remember that in addition to the freight, charges, and profits, which we ought to receive over and above the value of our exports, India has to pay us about 20 millions annually in the form of tribute, for which she gets no return in goods. If this fact stood alone, it might warm the heart of a Fair Trader, but it would be an embarrassment to the political economist. Let us see if it is capable of explana- tion. Omitting the year 1880, for which the Indian statistics are not yet pubHshed, we find that for the ten years ending 1879, ac- cording to the English statistics, our exports to India were 286 millions, and our imports from India 303 millions, or an annual average of over 28 millions of exports to 30 millions of imports. This, though more intelligible than the figures for 1880, still leaves much to be explained. Two millions a year is far short of what India ought to send us. Turning to the Indian statis- tics, we find that for the same ten years, the imports into India from the United Kingdom, were 351 million pounds, or an average of 35 million pounds a year ; and that her exports to the United Kingdom were 294 million pounds, or an average of 29 million pounds a year; leaving an aggregate sur- plus of imports of 5 7 million pounds, and an annual average surplus of imports of more than five million pounds. The difference between these statistics and our own is accounted for partly by the fact that though the rupee has fallen in value it is converted in the Indian statistics at the rate of 2s., and partly by the difference between the value of goods at the port of shipment, and their value at the port of arrival, but the Indian figures make it still more difficult to understand how India manages to pay her tribute to us, more especially since in the case of India there cannot be the transfer of securities by which in many other cases the balance of trade is settled. The exports of railway material to India, which were in fact loans to India, will account for a part, but only a small part, of the difference. But if we turn to another page of Indian statistics we shall find the explanation. There are many countries to which India, according to her own statistics, exports much more than she receives from them, viz. : France, Austria, Italy, the United PART I. — NEW COLONIAL POLICY. 3I States, China, and Ceylon. Appended is a table* giving her trade with these countries for the same years — 1870 to 1879. From this table it appears that the aggregate imports into India from these countries during that period was 57 millions, and the annual average nearly six millions ; whilst the aggregate export to them from India was 243 milHons, and the annual average above 24 millions ; leaving an aggregate surplus export of 186 millions, and an average annual surplus export of nearly 19 millions; which, curiously enough, is about the amount of the English tribute. This coincidence is, no doubt, ac- cidental, and the real value of the exported goods when they reach the place of exportation must, of course, be much higher. Now all these countries, except Italy, to which I have referred before, are countries to which, according to our own statistics, England exports much less than she receives from them, to the great sorrow of the Fair Traders. Perhaps they will be comforted when they see that the balance is redressed by means of that Indian trade which they are so desirous to encourage. England buys what she needs from America, from France, and from other countries ; India buys from England ; and America, France, &c., in their turn buy from India and the East. The process may be more circuitous still. For instance, India exports to China much more than she receives from China, averaging for the last ten years nearly 10 millions a year; China sends to America, as well as to England, more than she receives from them; England no doubt sends manufactures to India ; India sends opium, &c., to China ; China sends tea to America; America sends corn to England, and thus the accounts are balanced. But however numerous the steps of the process, and however circuitous the channels, trade will find its way and its level. I have dwelt on this case because it is a good illustration of the folly of supposing that the statistics of the direct trade be- tween any two countries give a complete account of their respective dealings, and of the consequent difficulty of fore- seeing the ultimate effect of anything which promotes or impedes a particular branch of trade. In this case it is quite possible that the European demand on America for corn may have stimulated the export trade of India, which, as we have seen, has largely increased in the last year or two. And it is * See Table XIL, in Appendix. 32 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. Conclusion that Colo- nial Trade does not increase more or fluctuate less than Foreign Trade ; that the two are alike, are mixed ; and influenced by many temporary causes. also possible that if our Fair Traders could have their way in checking the supply of American corn to England they might be injuring that Indian trade which they are so anxious to promote. From all the above figures it is abundantly clear, first, that our direct trade with the colonies is not in the aggregate increasing faster than our trade with other countries ; and secondly, that it fluctuates as much as our direct trade with other countries. Some other things are also made obvious by them; for instance — The direct trade with our different colonies and possessions has no uniform character making it to differ from the direct trade with foreign countries. The direct trade either with foreign countries or with the colonies is no complete or real indication of the whole character of the trade. It is often circuitous, and the flow and return of our trade with any given country is often only completed by a roundabout route through one or more other countries. To restrict our trade with a foreign country may be to restrict the trade of a colony, and vice versa. The amount of our exports to and imports from each foreign country and colony is at different times influenced by a large number of causes altogether independent of the perma- nent demand for our manufactures in that country, e.g. by such things as the Franco-German war, the French indemnity, the cotton famine, the Indian tribute, and perhaps, above all, by the character and quantity of British investments abroad. CHAPTER V. Assump- tion that Colonies have less tendency to Protec- tion than Foreign Countries. PROTECTION IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES, WHETHER INCREASING OR DIMINISHING. I PROCEED to consider another assumption of the Fair Trade League — the assumption, namely, that the colonies will receive our goods on better terms than foreign countries ; that they are, so far at any rate as we are concerned, less commercially hostile and less Protectionist. It is not easy to follow the history in the changes of any one tariff, to compare specific with ad valorem duties, and to I PART I. — NEW COLONIAL POLICY. 33 ascertain their several effects on our principal manufactures. Protection Still less easy is it to compare the history of the tariffs of ^^ Foreig:n different countries and their several effects on our trade. But °^^^^'*^^- before any assumption such as I have mentioned was made, this ought to have been done. That it has not been done I need not say. In Mr. Ecroyd's paper there is not a fact given. In the programme of the Fair Trade League it is simply asserted that in our own colonies " our goods will be taken if not duty free, yet subject only to revenue duties almost unavoidable in newly-settled countries, and probably not equal to one-third the Protective duties levied by the United States, Spain, Russia, &c." From this and similar expressions it might be supposed that the tendency of foreign countries generally was to increase their Protective duties, and the tendency of our colonies to diminish them. It is desirable to see what the facts really are. In 1879 two returns* were obtained by Mr. Talbot, giving Returns of the duties levied on the principal English manufactures in the Duties, colonies and in foreign countries in 1859 and in 1879 respec- Jsvo^" tively ; and a return has recently been moved for by Lord Sandon, giving the duties levied on the principal English Lord manufactures in all foreign countries and in each of the fg^turn" ^ colonies. One part only of this return has been issued.! I have also appended to this paper two tables, t the one giving the actual rates of duty levied on our manufactures in the Present different countries and colonies a^ the presetit time, the other Rates of giving the same reduced, so far as possible, into ad valore?n Foreign duties, for the purpose of comparison. The figures in both are Countries probably accurate enough for the purpose of the present argu- ^?^ ^^■°" ment, but it must be borne in mind that every statement of an ad valorem duty is necessarily uncertain. The price of the article at the time, the place at which the value is taken, the modes of estimating it, are all varying and uncertain factors, so that in comparing ad valorem duties with one another, and in reducing specific duties into ad valorem duties, there is always large room for doubt and inaccuracy. Taking the different * See ParL Papers, Nos. 200 and 218, of 1879. t See Pari. Paper, No. 333, of 188 1. X See Tables XIII. and XIV. For these and other tables and information I am indebted to Mr. E. J. Pearson, of the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade. 34 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. rrotection countries In succession, the general features of change seem to ^o^'nlM^ be as follows:- I^iissia. Russia. Russia made large diminutions in her heavy duties between 1859 and 1879. From the ist January, 188 r, they have been raised 10 per cent. ; but not to the extent by which they had previously been diminished. As, however, the duties are now paid in gold, the difference in value between paper and gold makes the duties in many cases as high as or higher than in i860. Germany. Germany. In Germany there were very great reductions between i860 and 1870, so that the tariff previous to the late increase was a very moderate one. In 1879 came Prince Bismarck's well- known Protectionist measures, and the duties on many articles of manufacture, as well as on food and raw materials, were largely mcreased. On some few articles the German duties are now higher than in i860, but in most instances they are much lower; and, high as they are, they are not now on the whole nearly so high as the duties imposed at the same tune by Canada. IloUcind. Holland. In Holland there has never been an increase, and the reductions have been frequent and steady. Her tariff is now one of the lowest in the world, as low in fact as the tariffs of our Free Trading colonies. Belgium. Pelcium. In Belgium, again, there has been no increase, but many reductions. Her tariff, though not so low as that of Holland, is on the whole lower than that of France. It will compare favourably with that of Canada, if not with that of Victoria. France. France. In France there have been several diminutions of duty since i860. 'J'he duty on woollen yarns has been increased. Except in the case of iron, the duties are far lower than those of Canada. Denmark. Denmark. The duties are, with a few exceptions, the same as or lower than in i860. 1 PART I. — NEW COLONIAL POLICY. 35 Sweden and Norway. The duties have been generally reduced since i860, and in Sweden, no case increased, except on spirits and sugar. Italy. Between 1859 and 1879 there were large reductions. The Italy, duties have been lately increased, but not to the extent of the previous reductions. They are, on the whole, lower now than in i860, but on some important articles of British produce they are higher. The tariff is now rather less favourable than that of France, but much more favourable than that of Canada. A ustro- Hungary, The reductions between i860 and 1870 were very large Austro- indeed. A considerable increase has since been made on silk, Hungary, cotton and woollen goods, and on leather, but the recent increases are nothing like the previous reductions. The Austrian tariff is, on the whole, except in the matter of iron, considerably more favourable than that of Canada. Spain. Spain is not yet given in Lord Sandon's return. She Spaia. reduced her enormous duties between 1859 and 1879, but has since placed differential charges on English goods in return for what she considers our differential duties on Spanish wines. The present state of things in Spain, however, holds out a prospect of reduction, if we can satisfy her that we do not deal unfairly with her wines. It is to be hoped that in reforming her tariff, the abuses of her Custom House system will also be reformed, for they are quite as great impediments to trade as her tariff. Portugal. Portugal also made some reductions in her heavy duties Portugal between 1859 and 1879; but her present duties are not yet given in Lord Sandon's return. United States. The United States are, among foreign countries, the one United great exception to the rule that duties are, on the whole. States. lower than before i860. Their present tariff, varying from 35 to 100 per cent, ad valorem, is not only much higher than 36 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. Protection it had ever been in previous years, but is much higher than Countrifs" ^">^ °^^^^^ ^^ '^^ tariffs I have referred to, and is probably as near prohibition as a working tariff can be ; and yet such are the beneficent laws of Providence, that in spite of the folly of man the United States do an enormous trade with us and with other countries, and have, no doubt at an immense and need- less cost to themselves, the use of a large share of the good things of other countries. CHAPTER VI. PROTECTION IN THE COLONIES, WHETHER INCREASING OR DIMINISHING. Protection Let US now consider the case of our own colonies. Lord c lonies Sandon's return of colonial tariffs is not yet presented j but the following appear to be the facts : — Neiv South Wales. New South The tariff here always has been and still remains very low — Wales. lower, except in one or two particulars, than any European tariff. New South Wales is, par excellence^ a Free Trading colony. Victoria. Victoria. Victoria, which had in 1859 a tariff as low as New South Wales, had raised her duties considerably in 1879, ^.nd has raised them still more since. They are now considerable, and are, on many important articles, as high as those of France, Italy, or Austria, and higher than those of Holland or Norway. South Australia. South There were no import duties in 1859; in 1879 she had Austraha. jj^-jpQgg^^j considerable duties on various articles of British manufacture, and these still remain. Western Australia Western Had duties of about 7 per cent, ad valorem in 1859; many Australia. ^^ them were increased to 10 per cent, by 1879, and they have since been still further raised. They are now as high as, or higher than, those of Victoria. PART I. — NEW COLONIAL POLICY. 37 Tasmania. There were no import duties in 1859; in 1879 considerable Tasmania, duties had been imposed, which have since been raised. They are now, on the whole, higher than those of Victoria. New Zealand. There were no import duties in 1859; in 1879, duties amount- New ing to 10 per cent, had been imposed on many English pro- ^^^^^^'i* ducts. These duties have since been raised, and the tarift' is now as high, on the whole, as those of other Australian colonies. Whilst writing this paper, I hear the good news that she has just taken off her duty of 15 per cent, on cottons. Queensland. There were no import duties in 1859; since then duties Queens- have been imposed, which, however, are not as high as those ^^"'^• of the last-named colonies, though higher than New South Wales. Canada Has, as is well known, largely increased her duties by her Canadx. tariff of 1879. It is now considerably higher than those of France, Italy or Austria, and of course much higher than those of Holland or Belgium. It is thoroughly Protective, whatever Mr. Goldwin Smith may say to the contrary. It was expressly so intended by its authors, and bids fair, if the spirit in which it was proposed continues to prevail in Canada, to rival the monstrous tariff of the United States. Cape of Good Hope. In 1859 ^^s duties were 7 J per cent. In 1879 they had Cape, been raised to 10 per cent., at which rate they now generally stand. West Itidies. In Jamaica there are duties of 12 J per cent., which have West not been altered since 1859. Indies. In Barbadoes duties of 3 per cent, have been raised to 4 per cent Maurilius. Moderate duties exist, about 6 J per cent, which have been ^lauritius. very slightly raised since 1859. 38 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. Ceylon. Ceylon. Ii;^ Ceylon there are moderate duties, about 5 per cent., which have remained unchanged. India. India. In India the duties are moderate and few, and, as is well known, have been recently lowered ; but this has been done • not by the people, or even by the Government of India, but by English influence. Conclu- From the figures given in this and the preceding chapter it Protective ^^ clear tendencies First. That with the important exception of the United areas great gtates no foreiojn country has since 18c; 9 raised its duties to a as in point as high as that at which they then stood. Foreign Secondly. That several European countries have gone on continually reducing their duties. Thirdly. That there is no one of the self-governing English- speaking colonies, except New South Wales, which has not increased its duties since 1859, and that some of them, and those the most important, have increased them largely. Fourthly. That the tariffs of several of the Australian colo- nies are as high as, and that of Canada higher, than the tariffs of France, Italy, Austria, or Germany, and much higher than the tariffs of Holland, Belgium, or Norway. Consequently, the assertion of the Fair Traders, that whilst foreign nations are refusing our goods our colonies are ready to take them duty free, or subject to moderate duties, is not only not correct but is the contrary of the fact. If tendencies are to be judged by experience, there is a greater tendency to Protection in our colonies than in foreign countries. Countries. CHAPTER VII. IS A CUSTOMS UNION OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE POSSIBLE? I THINK that it has been satisfactorily proved that the special assumptions on which the Fair Trade League have based their demand for a differential treatment of the colonies, are unfounded. PART I. — NEW COLONIAL POLICY. 39 The direct trade with our colonies is about one quarter of Assump- our trade with the world. '^^'""^ The direct trade with our colonies, and especially our Traders m export trade generally, has not increased faster than our trade ground f^r •xi r • ,. • New With foreign countries. Policy. Even where our exports to our colonies appear large, and those to foreign countries appear small, in comparison to our imports from them, there is good reason to believe that the exports to the colonies depend upon, and are often caused by, the imports from foreign countries. Our trade with our colonies is subject to fluctuations no less than that from foreign countries. The colonies, or at any rate those with whom we must treat as independent and self-governing communities, show at least as great a tendency to Protection as foreign countries. There is, therefore, nothing in the existing facts to call for a reversal of our settled policy of non-interference with trade ; nothing to justify an attempt to check trade with foreign countries in order to divert it to our colonies. On the con- trary, the trade of the mother country with the colonies, and her trade with foreign countries, are both progressing in an equally satisfactory manner, and they are so mingled that any attempt to check foreign trade, whilst it would undoubtedly diminish the whole bulk of our trade, would very probably interfere with and diminish that very colonial trade which it was intended to encourage. But is it possible to do anything by legislation to encourage But is a our trade with the colonies ? If so, by all means let it be done. Sg^rab^e^'^ The motto of the Cobden Club, " Free Trade amongst all on other Nations," is entirely ^consistent with the earliest and utmost grounds ? possible development of Free Trade with our own fellow citizens. If there is to be choice amongst those with whom we are to do business, let us choose in the first instance to do it with those with whom in other ways we have the closest relations. Only let us be sure that we do not injure ourselves or them in so doing, and that in seeking for a closer relation than that which already exists, we do not strain the bonds which at present keep us together. The Free Trader will not yield to the Fair Trader in national pride, in jealousy for British greatness, and in all that constitutes the glory of the British name and character ; nay, he would be willing, where greater interests are at stake, to sacrifice to them some portion of material prosperity ; but 40 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. when restrictions on commercial liberty are proposed in the interests of material prosperity, he requires to have it proved that they will really promote that prosperity ; and when they are proposed in the interests of imperial relations with our colonies, he desires to be assured that they will not strain and weaken those relations. Customs It would, indeed, be an object worthy of the ambition of Union of , ^ . •' r ^ r r the British ^^7 Statesman or generation of statesmen to form a perfect Empire Customs Union, embracing the whole British Empire. If it a dream, ^^gj.^ possible to have no duties whatever in any part of that Empire on goods brought from any other part of it; if, for purposes of trade, India, Canada, Australia, the Cape, and the West Indies were as much one country as Yorkshire and Lancashire, it would be a consummation at least as welcome to the members of the Cobden Club as to the most devoted Imperialist. But such a consummation is a dream. It in- volves the same fiscal system in countries differing widely as the poles in climate, in government, in habits, and in pohtical opinions. It is contrary to the very principles of self-govern- ment. It would prevent any change in taxation in one of the countries constituting the British Empire, unless the same change were made in all. Desirable as it is, it may be dismissed at once from practical discussion. It has, indeed, been said that such a thing was at one time possible, and that it has been lost by want of statesmanship ; that in giving our colonies self-govern- ment, we missed the opportunity of requiring them to adopt our tariff; and that what would now be impracticable as an Imperial interference with their liberties, would then have been wlUingly adopted as a condition upon which those liberties might have been granted. Such an assertion raises no prac- tical question ; but it is, I believe, a complete mistake. Self- taxation is of the very essence of self-government. To have required such colonies as Canada and Austraha to adopt our system of external taxation, and to model their own internal taxation accordingly ; and to continue to insist on that require- ment, whatever their own change of opinion or condition might be, would have been to clog the grant of self government with a condition which would have destroyed its value. Free Trade is of extreme importance, but Freedom is still more important ; and to force Free Trade on a free country is a breach of the fundamental principle which includes Free Trade. PART I. — NEW COLONIAL POLICY. 41 CHAPTER VIII. PROPOSALS OF THE FAIR TRADERS FOR ENCOURAGING COLONIAL TRADE ARE PROPOSALS TO RESTRICT TRADE. Dismissing the notion of an Imperial Customs Union to the Fair Trade limbo of impracticable ideals, is it possible for anything to be proposals done by the British Parliament to promote commercial inter- ferent'ial course with the colonies ? Duties in The course proposed by the Fair Traders and Mr. Ecroyd [^^'°^'". ^^ is to place a differential tax on articles of food which come ° °"'^^* from foreign countries, and to admit food from the colonies free; to charge 10 per cent, more on articles of luxury, such as tea and coffee, tobacco, wine and spirits, coming from foreign countries than is charged on the same articles coming from the colonies ; and to charge adequate import duties on the manu- factures of foreign countries which do not admit our manufac- tures free of duty, whilst allowing colonial manufactures to be admitted free of duty. I presume this to be the meaning of the Fair Trade manifesto ; but I must admit that the document is hazy upon the question whether the duty on colonial tea and other luxuries is to be remitted altogether, and also upon the ques- tion whether colonial manufactures are to be admitted free unconditionally, or only on the condition that our manufactures are admitted free into the colonies. Now, the first observation on these proposals is that they They are have for their object to divert trade by interrupting one of its proposals natural channels, and therefore their effect must be to diminish ^nd^^^"'^^ the whole volume of trade. They are, consequently, open to diminish the fatal objection which makes all Protection odious to Trade. Free Traders — viz., that they hinder people from buying and selling where they find it to their interest to buy and sell — that they limit production by preventing people from using their natural capacity to the utmost in making and selling the things which they can make better than others. They are restraints on trade and manufacture. And when it is alleged that there will be no ultimate loss, because with due encouragement 42 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. Fair the iicw market wiU be as productive as the old one, the answer propose to ^^ ^^^^^ ^'^^ burden of proof lies with those who make such diminish an improbable assertion. Take Canada as an instance, Trade. since Canada is the colony to which the Fair Traders point as able to supply us with corn. Now, so far as Protective duties are concerned, Canada is, as I have shown, fast following the Protectionist example of the United States, though she has a good way to go before her tariff is so obstructive to her export trade as that of her great neighbour. Still, in spite of the advantage Canada thus reaps from her lower tariff, she now sends us only 6*8 per cent, of our imported wheat, whilst the United States send us 65*9 per cent. British North America sends us '^''^ per cent, of our total food supply, whilst the United States send us 35*4. Is it conceivable, with the known advantages of people, soil, and climate which the United States possess, that any restriction on free production which the most audacious of Fair Traders might advocate, would so far change the natural condition of things as to enable Canada to displace her gigantic rival, without diminution of the aggre- gate produce, and without loss to the British customer? It is needless to follow this point any further. To shut out our Foreign Trade must restrict production. Leaving this general objection, let us consider the proposals of the Fair Traders in detail. CHAPTER IX. PROPOSED TAX ON FOOD. Differential Qf all the proposals of the Fair Traders, by far the most Food^he important is that which contemplates a tax on foreign food, keystone of This proposal has been scouted by the working classes, Uie Fair ^jid. is rejected by the Tory leaders, and it seems superfluous proposals, to discuss it. Nevertheless, it is perhaps more defensible than any other part of the scheme. It is the keystone of the edifice of Fair Trade. It is the only bribe which offers a real tempta- tion to the colonist : it is the only threat which has any terror for the United States. And if there is any interest in this PART I. — NEW COLONIAL POLICY. 43 country which demands protection from the legislature, it is Tax on that interest which is at once suffering from bad seasons and ^°°^- from low prices, and which is deprived by foreign competition of the compensation for bad seasons formerly found in high prices. It is, therefore, difficult to discuss the scheme at all without discussing the proposal to place a differential tax on foreign articles of food. The big loaf and the little loaf are good electioneering answers, but they do not exhaust or explain the question, and they do not convey the whole truth. It may be interesting, in the first instance, to see where our Where d^ es supplies of food come from ; and I annex tables* which have ^^^ ^°°^ , been prepared, showing the proportions in which the different ^^^^ ^^"^' countries of the world supply us with each of our principal articles of food, and a summary showing what proportion of the whole each country sends. The following are the general results : — Foreign countries send us 138 millions' worth, or 82*4 per Four-fif.hs cent, of the whole; and our own possessions send us 29!^°"^.^ millions' worth, or 17-6 per cent. The United States send us coimtries 35*4 per cent, or more than twice the whole amount sent to us and one- by all our own colonies and possessions. France sends us 7-6 ^f^l^ ^'"°™ -' ,^ -^ ,,,_,..,-_', Colonies. per cent, and Germany, 8-3 per cent. ; whilst British North America only sends us 3*8 per cent, and Australia only i"9 per cent ; Russia sends us 3*1 per cent ; India sends as much as 5-8 per cent., which is a very little more than China, which sends 5 '3 per cent But India, which is of all our own possessions far the largest purveyor, is beyond our present purpose, since we already arrange her tariff as w^e think best. The above figures include so-called luxuries, such as tea, tobacco, coffee, wines and spirits. But if we exclude these, and confine our attention to articles of food which are not stimulants, the results will be similar. Of wheat, British possessions send us 20'3 per cent ; and foreign countries, 797 per cent Of meat, British possessions send 67, and foreign countries, 93*3 per cent. Of animals for the butcher, British possessions send us 1 2 '4, and foreign countries, 87'6 per cent France sends us 23*3 per cent., and Holland 33*6 per cent, of our aggregate impor- tation of butter — equal to 11 J millions sterHng — whilst British North America only sends us 4-6 per cent Of bacon and hams, * See Tables XV. and XVL, in Appendix, 44 FREE TRADE ZK FAIR TRADE. the United States send us 87-9 per cent, and of cheese, 67*0 per cent, whilst British North America — the only colony which sends us any of these articles worth mentioning — sends only 1-2 per cent of bacon, and 15*1 per cent of cheese. Eggs come to us in large quantities from Germany, France, and Belgium, but only in very small quantities from the colonies. Potatoes come to us in great abundance from France, and in still greater quantities from Germany, but hardly any from British America and none from Australia. Rice, sugar, tea and coffee are almost the only articles of first- rate importance of which large proportions come from our own colonies ; and these come not from Canada or Aus- tralia, with whom it is proposed to make tariff bargains, but from India, Ceylon, Mauritius, and the West Indies, in all of which there are at present moderate tariffs, and in which — India, perhaps, excepted — the power of production, and consequent market for our manufactures, is extremely limited. Looking, then, to the amount of food we get from foreigners, as compared with what we get from the colonies, it is clear that to legislate with the view of changing our source of supply from the one to the other, is a task not to be under- taken lightly or without a clear view of the results. Let us see, therefore, what are the objections to it CHAPTER X. WHY IS A TAX ON FOOD OBJECTIONABLE? The reason why it is not desirable to divert the purchase of food from the cheaper to the dearer market is not simply that it raises the price of food. It will probably do this, and the result would be most serious. According to Mr. Caird's calculations, made in 1878, our whole consumption of agri- cultural produce was then worth about 370 millions; of which 260 were home produce and no foreign. The increase of population requires an addition of about 4 millions annually ; and the proportion of foreign produce consumed has increased considerably since 1877. Assuming the consumption to be PART I. — NEW COLONIAL POLICY. 45 now 390 millions, and assuming, what is probably the case, that Effects of a ■ Tax o Food. two-thirds of this is home produce and one-third foreign, the ^^^ °^ effect of a general rise in price of 10 per cent, would be that our population would have to pay 39 millions for their food more than they now pay, of which 26 millions would go to our own landed interest and 13 milHons to foreigners. This is by itself a startling conclusion. But it is far from being all the evil which would result from a compulsory change of market. An equally important, if not more important, result will be that it will prevent both the purchaser and seller from getting the most they can with the means which Providence has given them. The buyer will have less to buy with, and the seller will it will also have less to sell. If the English people are compelled to buy production their food at home, they mil spend on the production of food here and an amount of energy and capital which, if employed in making abroad, something else, would buy a much larger quantity of food from America ; and they will compel the Americans to divert the capital and energy they now spend in producing food to making things which can be made much better and cheaper in England. The result will be just the same if our Parliament compels English people to buy their food in Canada. If they are to be deterred by a differential tax from buying the cheapest food in the United States, and to be compelled to buy dearer food from Canada, the result will be not only that England will pay more for her food, but the Canadian producer of her food, having to spend more labour and energy in producing it than the United States farmer now spends on it, will have less to spend on English manufactures. To this the Fair Trader makes two answers. First, that Inconsis- the price of food would not be raised, because America has a p^i^Vrade surplus which she must export, tax or no tax ; secondly, that a answers to rise in the price of food in this country would be a cheap price this. for the additional market for English goods which would be acquired in the colonies by buying our food there. It is obvious that these answers are inconsistent with each other. If the price of corn is not raised in this country, and if America is still to supply our market at present prices, there will be no transfer of English purchases to the colonial market, and the whole of the Fair Trade proposal will fail. It is only by giving a higher price that we can encourage a greater growth of 46 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. Effects of Tax on Food. A Tax on Food will raise its price. Canadian corn. If the Fair Traders are consistent, and really wish to effect their object ; if they wish to confine our custom to those nations which buy freely from us, they must absolutely prohibit all goods, food included, from those nations which do not do so. To say we are to stop their selling, and still to receive from them what we now get from them, "is blowing hot and cold. But, in fact, the notion that the price of corn would not be raised by a tax is absurd. The United States farmers are not under any spell to produce a certain fixed quantity of corn. They produce corn because we want it, and will pay them a remunerative price for it. If we check that demand by a tax, they will reduce their supply. The Western farmer is able to send wheat to Liverpool and London because, after paying cost of cultivation and of transport, the price leaves him a profit. If we increase these costs by adding a tax, it will reduce his market, and in many cases destroy his profit. He consequently will no longer produce, and will leave his farm for something else, as we know too well that many emi- grants have done. The result of any tax on American corn, which is to transfer our custom to the Canadian market, must be to raise the price of corn in this country. But, say the Fair Traders, " Even if this is the case, it is no great harm. Food is not a raw material of manufacture ; to raise the price of food will not necessarily raise wages, for, as Cobden said, wages do not rise and fall with the price of food. Our manufacturers, whatever happens to our workmen, will be able to produce as cheaply as before ; and they will be able to sell much more, because the colony will, in return for the corn, receive their manufactures duty free ; whereas the United States, by placing prohibitive duties on them, do their utmost to refuse them." " Even at the present time," so runs this precious argument, " every quarter of wheat imported from Australia affords us in return sixteen times as much trade and employment as a quarter of wheat imported from the United States, and every quarter of wheat imported from Canada thirty-five times as much as one imported from Russia." One really does not know where to begin in dealing with such an argument as this ! *' Food is not a raw material of manufacture ; for Cobden said that wages did not rise and fall with the price of food." It is difficult not to feel indignant at such a use of Cobden's name. What was it that Cobden really did say? The Protec- PART I. — NEW COLONIAL POLICY. 47 tionlsts had accused him of wishing to lower wages for the manu- Effects of facturers' benefit. They said, " You are doing no good to the T^^P^ workmen by lowering the price of com, for wages will be lowered as the price of corn falls, and that is your real object." To this Cobden replied, " You are utterly wrong : wrong in your imputations, wrong in your facts. Wages do not fall with the price of food ; wages have been highest when corn has been lowest Nor am I seeking, nor shall I get, low wages. Low wages do not mean cheap labour. Let us buy foreign corn untaxed. The price of food will probably fall, but the demand for our manufactures at home and abroad will certainly increase, and the workmen's wages and the manufacturers' profits will both rise." Cobden was right, as the workmen well know : and they will no doubt understand the difference between him and his mis-quoters. Cobden said, '' Leave corn untaxed, let food fall, and let wages rise." The Fair Traders say, " Tax corn, let food rise, and let wages fall." x\nd they quote Cobden as their authority ! But let us consider a little what the effect of raising the Effect of price of food to the workman himself really is, and let us "^^J^^g^f omit for the present all consideration of the market for our f^ood on manufactures caused by the purchase of food abroad. The our workman's wages will go less far than they did, and the • °'" "^^"' comforts of his life will be reduced ; if the labour-market admits of an increase in wages, he will demand and get it, and the cost of production will be increased accordingly to the manufacturer ; if it does not, the workman will be reduced to the alternative of either living in less comfort than he has done hitherto, or of emigrating. If he does the former, not only will he and his family suffer, but he will be obliged to spend more upon food and less upon clothing, and this in itself will reduce the market for manufactures. If he emigrates, so much productive labour is lost to the country. To the manufacturer, employer, and workman alike, any artificial increase in- the price of food is per se an unmixed evil, even without considering its effect upon the Foreign market for our manufactures. Much more is it an evil to them when it is remembered that the same measure which increases the price of their food also prevents them from getting the full return for their own expenditure of skill, capital, and labour. 48 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE, CHAPTER XL FALLACY OF SUPPOSING THAT COLONIAL MARKETS WILL COMPENSATE US. Absurdity BuT then, Say the Fair Traders, this evil is to be compensated, °n S^°^ ^^'^ more than compensated, by the additional market for our nial Market manufactures which will be opened to us in the colonies, more ad- Now, in the first place, I have shown that the tendency of than^^^°"^ the colonies is to close, and not to open, their markets. Foreign and that in Canada the duties recently imposed on our Market. manufactures, though not yet equal to the enormous duties of the United States, are approaching them, and are higher than those of many, if not of most, foreign States. But let us assume that the colonial duties on our goods are and continue much lower than the foreign duties, where is the new market to come from ? Does the Fair Trader think that the United States farmer sends us a shipload of corn for nothing, and that if we get it instead from the colonial farmer, we shall still give to the United States what we now give, and also give to the colonial farmer, in exchange for his shipload of corn, many shiploads of manufactures which we now turn to some other beneficial use? If he does think this, does he think that the second transaction is much better for us than the first ? And if he does not think this absurdity, what can be the meaning of the astonishing state- ment I have quoted above from the Fair Trade League circular? He apparently takes from the statistics of trade the quantity of corn imported from Australia and the United States, and the quantity of our manufactures exported to those countries respectively, and, finding that for every quarter of Australian wheat we export to Australia sixteen times as much of our manufactures as we export to the United States for every quarter of United States wheat, comes to the conclusion that for each quarter of Australian wheat we pay sixteen times as much of our cotton and cloth as for an equal quantity of United States wheat, and that PART I. — NEW COLONIAL POLICY. 49 the transaction is consequently sixteen times as profitable, not to Australia which receives, but to England which pays, this wonderful price ! These are the new prophets who are to subvert the doctrines of Cobden and Peel ! The fact, of course, is that for every quarter we import, whether from Australia, from Canada, from Russia, or from the United States, we pay the market value — no less and no more. Whether it is paid for by the export of an equal value of English manufactures to the United States, by the export of English manufactures to India, or to some foreign country, and by a further export from that country to the United States, or even by some route more circuitous still, or by the remittance of bullion, or by a cancellation of interest upon debt, it must be paid for by this country, and the price paid for it will be the value of a quarter of wheat in the English market. The United States farmer does not give us his wheat for nothing; he takes from us whatever the competition of the English farmer, the Canadian farmer, and the Russian farmer allows him to take. The Canadian farmer does precisely the same. If they compete on equal terms they obtain equal prices, and set going an equal quantity of English labour to provide a return. If the United States farmer is able to produce wheat more cheaply and abundantly than the Canadian farmer, he can give us a larger quantity in return for the same quantity of our labour ; in other words, both his labour and our labour go farther ; there is more production, and both benefit. If under these circumstances we forcibly transfer the business from the United States farmer to the Canadian farmer, we do not thereby get a new purchaser for our goods, we only substitute a worse for a better purchaser — a worse for a better supply. But then, it is said, Canada, Protectionist as her tariff is, is less Protectionist than the United States, and does less to keep our goods out of the market. If this is the case, she and we both get the benefit of it now. The Canadian farmer is so much the better off, and so is our manufacturer. All the good we can get by the lower tariff of Canada we are now getting. We shall not increase that benefit one jot by adding to the obstruction now caused by the United States tariff a new obstruction of our own. The United States tariff is doing serious injury both to the English manufacturer and consumer of corn, and to the American farmer and consumer of English so FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. goods j to the former probably less harm than to the latter, because the Englishman has the rest of the world to go to, whilst the American cannot escape from his own tariff. But the injury thus caused will not be diminished, but aggravated, by interposing another obstruction of our own. In short, if, under the existing Protectionist American tariff, the American farmer can compete with all the world in the English market, it is because what England has to pay him with goes farther in the American market than it does else- where. To transfer the custom forcibly to the Canadian market is to make what England has to pay with worth less than it now is. Confusion I sometimes think that there is a fatal confusion in the inSSdual ^^ii^ds of Fair Traders and Protectionists between a commercial commercial treaty, or arrangement between nations, and the individual dealings dealings of commerce. The Commercial Treaty assumes the nationar" niischievous and delusive form of a bargain, in which we, as a arrange- Free-trading nation, appear to give much and receive little, ments. Hence people are misled into a hazy conclusion that the individual bargains made under such a treaty, or under what is called one-sided Free Trade, are in themselves one-sided and unfair, and that in the dealings between the merchants of a Free-trading nation like ourselves and those of a Protectionist or semi-Protectionist nation like the United States or France, the Protectionist tariff causes our merchants to have the worst of the bargain. But this is pure delusion, and confusion of thought. The American farmer is not enabled to drive a better bargain with the English manufacturer by reason of the Protectionist tariff; on the contrary, of the two he is the one more hampered by it. The relaxation of that tariff would be an immense boon to the EngHshman, but it would be a still greater boon to the American. The evil of Protection is not that it benefits one party to a trade bargain at the expense of the other, but that it injures both, and prevents trade bargains from being made. PART I.— NEW COLONIAL POLICY. 5I CHAPTER XII. EFFECTS OF AN ENGLISH TAX ON AMERICAN CORN ON AMERICAN COMPETITION WITH ENGLISH MANUFACTURES. But let us follow the consequences of a tax on American Tax on food a little farther. America has an abundant supply of the American most energetic and versatile labour in the world, and also an woulddrive abundant supply of capital. At present this labour and capital America are largely employed in providing Europe, and England es- J-^^^^^^n^"^^" pecially, with food, because that is the most profitable way in competi- which American labour and capital can be employed. But we tion. are asked to make this employment less profitable for her, and to deprive her of her present market for her enormous agricultural produce. What would be the natural result of such a step ? Why, to divert her energy and capital from providing the food we want to buy from her, and to drive it into providing the manufactures which we want to sell to her. At present, in spite of, possibly in consequence of, her system of Protection, the sale of her highly forced and highly priced manufactures is in a great measure confined, or nearly confined, to her own subjects, and she is no rival to England in our own markets, or in the markets of the world ; whilst even in her own markets our manufacturers com- pete with hers. In 1880, we exported to her 24 J millions of .manufactures, and imported from her 2 J miUions. Out of her total exports, 10 per cent, are manufactures, and 90 per cent, food and raw materials, chiefly agricultural produce. But if we deprive her of her market for agricultural produce, we shall drive her into manufacture, and there is no saying how formid- able a rival she may become. At the time of the repeal of the Navigation Laws, all the best judges thought that the carrying trade of the world must pass into the hands of the Americans. It has passed into our own, as I shall show below (Chapter XXXI 1 1. ). There are probably several causes for this ; but the most important to my mind is, that America has found in her internal development, and especially in her farmmg, and in the railways which farming creates and sustains, an industry more 52 fREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADEa profitable to herself and to the world, than the ocean carryirlg trade. To us the ocean carrying trade has been the more profitable employment. She has done the farming, and we have done the ocean carrying, to the great advantage of both. If we cripple her farming, there is no saying that she may not take from us our ocean carrying. CHAPTER XIII. OBJECTION THAT WE ARE PAYING FOR AMERICAN CORN BY RECEIVING BACK INVESTMENTS. If America " BuT," say Mr. Farrer Ecroyd and his friends, " granting that morfey she America must be paid in some way for the food she sends us, must repay, she is paid not in goods, but by setting against it the loans we whether we iia^yg niadc her. In this way she is not only paying interest upon corno7not. them, butis repaying to us our capital, upon which consequently we are living." The latter assumption, viz., that America is send- ing back capital to us, is utterly without proof, and is probably false, as I will show below (Chapter XXVI. ). The statement that she sends us food in payment of interest on what we have lent her, is to a great extent true. But I am not concerned at present with the truth or falsehood of these statements ; I only mention them for the purpose of showing that they are nihil ad rem. If America owes us money, which, or the interest on which, she is now repaying in corn, she will equally owe us this money if we transfer our custom for corn to Canada, and if she does not repay us in corn, she must repay us in some- thing else. That something else will be something which, ex hypothesis we want less than corn ; it may, as I have pointed out, be manufactures or freight, which will compete with our own. Absurdity And here I have to notice a so-called argument, which, so ir^^"ha°^' '^^"^ ^^ ^^ ^^^ Confined to certain anonymous writers, I was interest on disposed to pass ovcr as too absurd to be refuted ; but which, Foreign In- when appearing under the respectable name of the Member supXs^^ for Preston, calls for a passing notice. It is as follows : " But luxuries even if it could be proved, as it certainly cannot, that all this to the rich, enormous disproportion of imports has been paid for out of our income, and without any diminution of our investments, that PART I. — NEW COLONIAL POLICY. 53 would Still do nothing to reassure our working classes as regards the interests of labour. They are concerned in the acquisition of imports of food in exchange for the production of their industry, rather than in payment of income due to us from our foreign investments. For, suppose such investments to be increased fivefold ; suppose England to contain multitudes of well-to-do people who owned them, and lived upon the income paid to them, let us say in the shape of food from America, and clothing, furniture, and luxuries from France ; is it not evident that the balance of trade might be satisfactorily accounted for by financiers, while our agriculture and manu- factures were alike languishing, and every year affording less employment, and at lower wages, to fewer workmen ? English land might he forced out of cultivation by American competi- tion, or turned from arable to grass to such an extent as to more than half depopulate our rural districts and country t0"vvns, and drive the people into the larger cities and manufac- turing districts, or to emigration. The demand for manufac- tures in the agricultural districts would thus be seriously reduced, whilst the free import of French manufactures and luxuries — preferred by the ever-increasing class who lived on foreign incomes — would curtail the emplo}'ment of our artisans, whose wages would be still further reduced by the competition of the displaced agricultural labourers. " In one word, our imports would be acquired more and more in payment of interest or rents due from abroad to owners of foreign investments living in this country, and less and less in exchange for the handiwork of our industrial classes, and so the former would increase whilst the latter would be driven first to lower wages and diminished comforts, then to destitution, and finally to emigration without resources and under the most painful conditions." I find it really difficult to understand this. What is it that we are importing as interest on our investments, especially from America? Food and raw materials constitute nine-tenths of our imports. How does Mr. Ecroyd suppose that these are consumed ? How much of them does he think the wealthy and the idle put into their own stomachs or on their own backs ? And of the manufactures imported, how many are used by the working classes ? Let any one cast his eye down the list of British imports, and he will see that there is not one of the articles mentioned in the list wjiich is not either ap article to 54 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. be used In our own industries, or an article to be used by those employed in our industries. Silk, woollen and cotton manu- factures, gloves, dressed skins, and wine are almost the only articles in our list of imports which are not simple articles of food or materials of manufacture. Assuming, which is a pre- posterous assumption, that the whole of these are articles of luxury, neither used by nor giving employment to the working class, how much do they amount to? To about 25 millions out of 410 millions of imports. The question raised by Mr. Farrer Ecroyd is not, it must be remembered, a question of whether these imports are spent on reproductive employment, but a question of whether they are used by workers or by idlers. If he is right, they are used by idlers \ and our workers are to be driven to destitution and emigration by the loss of wages and employment. Now, even if employed in unproductive labour, they Avill not be employed in support of idleness. But can it be doubted that the great bulk of these enormous imports is employed in supporting reproductive labour? Every pound of raw material, every article which requires further labour to complete it, is imported for the purpose of employing labour upon it. The food, the clothing, the common luxuries, tea, coffee, tobacco, sugar, are consumed in supporting and making tolerable the lives of millions of artisans in our factories, of labourers in our fields, of workmen who are erecting, extending, and improving our railways, our docks, our mines, our ships, our dwelHngs, our shops, our schools, our churches, our towns. They are employed in extending our reproductive powers, and in making life comparatively healthy and pleasant, not for the wealthy few, but for the toiling many. The contrast between wealth and poverty is sad enough, and the excesses of luxury are lamentable. But the proportion of our national income or of our imports which is consumed in luxuries is a mere trifle compared with that which goes to support useful labour. The fear that the payments which foreign countries are now making us as a reward for former labour will make us poorer and render future labour unproductive, is the wildest of many wild chimeras. The recent The very contrary is notoriously the case. The recent depres- depression gJQj^ \^ business has been markedly distinguished from earlier lich and commercial depressions by the fact that it has affected profits spared the far more than it has affected employment, wages, or the well P°°^- being of the working" classes. Millowners, coalowners, iron PART I. — NEW COLONIAL POLICY. 55 masters, landowners, and farmers have suffered more or less severely. But the mill-hand, the miner, the workman, the labourer, have suffered comparatively little, as is shown by a comparison of the state of the country with its state at former periods of depression, and by the infallible tests of pauperism and of consumption. Capital has borne the brunt of the blow. By the simple expedient of leaving things alone, and repealing the wicked and pernicious laws which made scarce the food of man, and curtailed the rights of labour, we have advanced one step towards the millennium of the economist, the politician, and the Christian philanthropist, viz., the more equal distribu- tion of good things. The workmen are better off than they were, and, as the action of the Trades Unions shows, they know the reason why. But even if investments abroad were the evil Mr. Ecroyd Transfer of imagines them to be, the transfer of our custom from foreign JSonies countries to the colonies would do little to remove it. For we will not are now wasting (as the Fair Traders would say) our sur- prevent In- plus earnings largely in the colonies ; we are lending to abrS? ^'^ Australia and Canada as we have in former years lent to the United States. Our investments in Canada are said to amount to 70 millions: our investments in Australia to 120 millions, and to be increasing at the rate of 10 millions a year, a fact which accounts for the increase of exports to those colonies. But the time must soon come when those colonies will be doing as much to ruin us by paying us interest in the shape of imports, as, in the opinion of Mr. Farrer Ecroyd and his friends, the United States are now doing, and then what is to become of us ? If such a conclusion drives Mr. Farrer Ecroyd to despair, it is some consolation to think that it will carry comfort to the heart of another great Imperialist, Sir Julius Vogel, who also would like to see us exercise a large control over the colonies, but who wishes us to do so in order, inter alia, to encourage those investments of English capital in them which are the terror of the Fair Traders. S6 FREE TRADE FAIR TRADE. CHAPTER XIV. ASSUMING THAT WE MAKE A TARIFF BARGAIN WITH THE COLONIES IN RETURN FOR THE TAX ON FOREIGN CORN, WHAT WOULD BE THE RESULT? bargains with Colonies ? Can we We have hitherto considered the effect of a differential tax on drive Tariff foreign articles of food pure and simple, and ^vithout reference to any reciprocal benefit to be derived from action to be taken by the colonies. But it is possible, for the language of the Fair Traders is very vague, that they mean colonial articles of food to be admitted free only from those colonies and possessions which admit our manufactures free, and that they mean to make the differential duty a means for driving a tariff bargain with the colonies. If so, an important question of principle arises, viz., whether it can be worth our while at any time, or under any cir- cumstances, to impose a duty on imports, which will do us an immediate injury, in order that we may have a weapon where- with to fight foreign countries or British colonies in making tariff bargains. This question is raised explicitly by the further proposal of the Fair Traders to tax foreign manufactures, and I propose to consider it when dealing with that proposal in the Second Part of this pamphlet. If it is to be answered in the negative, as I am sure that it is, the proposal to drive a tariff bargain with the colonies by the bribe of a differential duty on their competitors, must fail at once. But I do not propose to argue this large question here, and will assume that it may be answered in the affirmative. Making this assumption, let us consider what sort of bargains we can possibly drive with the colonies, and let us consider, first, what we must give and what we can get ; and then, secondly, what they must give and what they can get by such a bargain. First of all, then, as our foreign food supply is to be trans- ferred to the colonies, and as they now only supply us with one-sixth of it, we must cut off five-sixths of our present sources of supply, and trust to their being made up by countries which now only furnish one-sixth of it. What the effect of this may What do we Give ? PART I. — NEW COLONIAL POLICY. 57 be on the quantity and price of food and the welfare of the Tariff bar- people it is frightful to consider. gams with Secondly, we shall lose the whole of the custom for our ° °"^^^' own produce arising out of purchases of food in foreign coun- tries, and, as they amount to 138 millions a year, this is a scarcely less serious consideration. Thirdly, we shall cripple our powers of production by making food dear, and be less able to compete for custom in neutral markets. Fourthly, we shall run a very serious risk of retaliation by foreign countries. If we say to France, or to America, "We will not buy corn, or meat, or butter, or cheese, or eggs from you," they will retort by refusing to buy cotton, wool, silk, and iron from us ; not only shall we ourselves cut off a very large pro- portion of our foreign exports, but we shall tempt foreign nations to cut off the remainder. Taking the average of the last fifteen years, our trade with foreign countries has been rather more than three-fourths of our whole trade, and our trade with British colonies and possessions has been less than one-fourth of it. Our whole trade, imports and exports included, is 700 millions a year. We are, therefore, asked to cripple and endanger three-fourths of this, or a trade of more than 500 millions a year. What are we to get in exchange ? What do First, we shall get so much custom for our goods in the^^^^^^'* colonies as arises from the additional purchases of food we make in the colonies. But, as the colonial supply of food will be much less than that which we now get from foreign countries, and as its price will be much higher, this market must be much less valuable than that which we give up. So far, therefore, we are large and pure losers. But we shall get, in addition, what- ever advantage is to be gained by the reduction our colonies may make in their tariffs in return for what we do for them. What will this amount to ? Now, in the first place, we may eliminate India. The Indian tariff we practically make ourselves. We have deter- mined, rightly or wrongly, that she shall not levy duties on our manufactures. Her consent is not asked ; we need no bargain for the purpose. We may, for similar reasons, eliminate all the Crown colonies. In short, the only colonies with which we can make bargains are the self-governing colonies in British North S8 FREE TRADE FAIR TRADE. Tariff bar- America, in Australasia, South Africa, and some of those in the Colonies^^^ West Indies. But of these there are many which now levy very small duties on our manufactures, and those by way of Revenue rather than of Protective duties. With regard to these, all that we can expect to get by way of a bargain, is that their duties shall not be raised, and this is a prospective and con- tingent, not a present and certain, benefit. In fact, the only colonies in which any large reduction of duties -is possible, are Canada, Victoria, Western and South Australia, Queensland, Tasmania, and New Zealand. New South Wales, one of the most important of the Australian group, is free, or nearly so, already. But let us take the whole of our colonies in British North America, in Australia, and in South Africa, and suppose that throughout them all it were possible to get a reduction of duties, what would this advantage amount to? The trade of the United Kingdom with the whole of these colonies, taking, as before, an average of fifteen years, is less than lo per cent, of our whole external trade; not more than our trade with Germany ; not so much as our trade with France ; little more than half as much as our trade with the United States ; about one-eighth of our whole trade with foreign countries. If we take those colonies alone which now levy considerable duties, the trade with them will not be more than one-half this amount. Consequently, it is only about 5 per cent, of our whole trade for which we can expect any substantial benefit by a tariff bargain with our colonies, whilst the trade which we shall injure and cripple by such a bargain is 75 per cent, of that trade. I think we may, then, draw two conclusions, that it is not worth our while to make any such bargains; and, secondly, that if we were to make any such bargains, it would be madness to adhere to them, if foreign countries were to offer to reduce their tariffs on condition of our repealing the differential dues on their produce which such a bargain implies. Now let us look at such a bargain from the colonial point of view. What would they gam and what would they lose ? I think we must admit that if England gave them the mono- poly of her market for food they would gain considerably. Canada, Austraha, and India would send us much more corn if United States and Russian corn were excluded from our ports. India would send us more tea if China were out of the market, and the Cape and Australia would send us more second-class wine if we could not get good wane from France PART I. NEW COLONIAL POLICY. 59 or Spain. Even this would not be an unqualified advantage Tariff bar- to them. The production of the world would be diminished, gams with and they would bear some share of the loss ; their people ^° °"'^^* would be diverted from doing what they can do best, to the providing of those things which the English market demands, and India certainly would lose some of the trade which, as we have seen, she now does directly or indirectly with the United States. But it is idle to talk of such proposals as these. England certainly will not contract her sources of supply to such an extent. Nor will she make a sacrifice at all where she gets nothing in return. She can only get a return from those colonies which now impose restrictions on the import of English goods. We may, therefore, as before, eliminate India and other colonies or possessions which are governed from home. The only colonies which can make a bargain are the self-governing colonies, and those only amongst them which now levy duties on English goods. That they might gain something imme- diately by the bargain, I have admitted. What will they have WTiat to give up ? First of all, there are those colonies which only ^jo^^d they levy a small duty, say 5 to lo per cent, with the bo?id Jide^^''^' object of raising revenue, and without any thought of Protec- tion. To these colonies, with but litde realised property, and with an organisation very different from those of an old county, it would probably be a very serious financial difficulty to raise a revenue in any other way — a difficulty which might in itself counterbalance any gain they might derive from our differential tariff. Those colonies, again, such as Canada and Victoria, which levy heavier duties, and which levy them avowedly for purposes of Protection, would have to make a serious surrender. They would, as Free Traders, be really benefitting themselves by reducing their tariff in our favour ; but in their own opinion, and in the opinion of the Fair Traders, they would be doing themselves harm. They might be tempted to do it, but in doing it they would feel they had made a concession to us, and we should be obliged to accept it as a concession. But suppose the concession made and the bargain com- what pleted. Suppose that we have excluded the United States ^y^ouid be corn from our market, and that Canada has admitted English of^the^^^'°" goods freely to her market, what will be the condition of Colonies things ? The United States may leave things alone. In that ^'^j.^^^J'^ case, as I have shown above, England will find herself suffering made? from insufficient supphes, from a contracted market for her 6o FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. goods, and from the new competition in manufactures which she will have forced upon the United States. She will be discontented and disgusted with her bargain, and with the other party to it. Or the United States may retaliate by pro hibiting English goods. In that case England will be still more discontented and disgusted. Or the United States may do that which it is the desire and object of every honest Fair Trader and Reciprocitarian to make them do — they may offer to throw open their market to English goods on condition that England will again throw open her market to United States corn. In that case England will be more than ever disgusted if her bargain with Canada prevents her from accepting their offer. Indeed, it is scarcely within the limits of possibility that such a bargain could under such circumstances be kept. That England, which now does a trade of 145 millions a year with the United States, even under the present Protectionist tariff, and of 22 millions with Canada, should refuse the proffered trade of a country which has 50 millions of people and the finest soils and climates in the world, for the purpose of nursing a trade with a country which has only 4 millions of people and a far inferior soil and climate, is too much to expect of human nature. And if the bargain is not kept, or if the terms of the bargain with Canada are such as to allow England to accept the United States' offer, what will be the position of Canada when she is thrown over, and the United States are again admitted to free competition in the English market ? She will have been misled into an unnatural course of industry and expenditure, and she will be left to her own resources when it suits the convenience of England so to leave her. The Fair Traders have some hazy inkling of this difficulty, for they propose that the fixed duties on foreign food are to be steadily maintained for a term long enough to develop our own instead of foreign territories. But do they really think that this is possible ; that our own people would submit to years of priva- tion in order to develop a possible future in Canada or Australia when that privation might be at once changed into plenty by admitting foreign produce ? Are any such arrangements as these likely to stand ? Are they desirable in the true interests of Imperial union, not to mention the commercial interests of the parties concerned ? Are they likely in the end to promote that good feehng between England and Canada which it is the professed object of all of us to encourage ? Are the^ npt mpch PART I;— NEW COLONIAL POLICY. 6 1 more likely to cause estrangement, recalcitration, and dis- ruption? To such questions there can be but one answer. We may be quite certain that any forced attempt at unnatural Any forced union, any unbusin ess-like sacrifice of interest to sentiment, will ^"nion "^ ^^ only destroy those feelings of kindness which it is the object of must lead all to promote. J°. I have taken the case of Canada as the most striking illus- tration of the fatal difficulties which v/ould attend any such tariff bargain as we have been considering. Similar argu- ments apply to the other self-governing colonies, and it is unnecessary to repeat them. It seems to me abundantly clear that no tariff bargain with any colony which has for its con- dition a differential tax on foreign produce imported into England is for a moment to be thought of. CHAPTER XV. CAN WE MAKE COMMERCL\L TREATIES WITH THE COLONIES SUCH AS THOSE WE HAVE MADE WITH FRANCE AND OTHER FOREIGN COUNTRIES ? A CUSTOMS union of the empire is then impracticable. An Can we attempt at a closer connection with the colonies, to be effected ^^^^, Com- by imposing differential taxes on foreign produce, is not to the Treaties real interest either of England or, in the end, of the colonies, with and it is much more likely to lead to separation than to union. ^I^^^^'stiie There is yet a third method of improving commercial relations French with the colonies, which is scarcely suggested in the Fair Trade Treaty ? programme, but which may deserve a few moments considera- tion. It is that of a commercial treaty such as we have made with France and other foreign nations ; a treaty in which we impose no differential duties, but only reduce our own duties, and reduce them for all equally. Here, again, we may at once dismiss from consideration all Narrow the colonies or possessions which are practically governed from ^^.^^hj home ; and these, including India, will, so far as trade is con- which such cerned, amount to one-half of the whole. Treaties Our whole trade with our colonies is, as I have shown applicable. 62 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. Commer- cial Trea- ties with Colonies. No reason against such Treaties in existing Imperial relations, for the self- governing Colonies are inde- pendent. above, not one-fourth of our whole trade, and it is therefore only one-eighth of our whole trade that can possibly be affected by such a treaty. Practically it is much less ; because we do not want commercial treaties, or, indeed, alterations of any kind, except with those colonies which levy sensible duties on our goods. The whole affair is, therefore, of less moment to us than it might at first sight appear. Now, with respect to the self-governing colonies, we have, in giving them self-govern- ment, left them free to impose what duties they please, with one restriction — viz., that they shall not make their duties differential ; that they shall, if they place Customs duties on the produce of one country, place the same duties on the produce of all. But even this restriction has been surrendered on two special occasions. Canada, or rather the British, colonies in North America, were in 1854 allowed to make a Reciprocity treaty with the United States,* by which a large number of articles, the produce of Canada and of the United States respectively, were admitted duty free into each of those countries, although the same goods remained subject to duty when imported into those colonies from the United Kingdom, or from foreign countries other than the United States. The denunciation of this treaty by the United States was one of the causes that led to the present Protectionist tariff in Canada; and the resumption by the United States of the policy which dictated that treaty would, no doubt, lead to the resumption of a similar policy by Canada. Another case, rather less striking, because it was between different colonies, and not between a colony and a foreign nation, was that of an arrange- ment between New South Wales and Victoria concerning the Customs duties levied on the boundary between the two colonies in the basin of the river Murray. In these cases, the principle of equal treatment gave way to the still more important principle of self-government, and to the demands for freedom caused by local contiguity. And, no doubt, a similar course must and will be followed when similar cases occur again, as they are sure to do. It may be all very well to say,. as a matter of theory, that when nations are divided by great natural barriers, such as hundreds of leagues of sea or moun- tain, there is all the more reason for abolishing artificial barriers. But this is not the way in which the facts present * Treaty ratified 9th September, 1854. PART I. — NEW COLONIAL POLlCV. 6$ themselves to the ordinary mind. I feel the need of dealing Commer- freely with my neighbour across the street long before I under- ^}^^ ^^r^" stand that the same need exists for freedom in my dealings Colonies, with an alien in China. It was by the obvious absurdity of an artificial barrier between Surrey and Middlesex that Cobden brought home to men's minds the much less obvious absurdity of an artificial barrier between England and France. If, there- fore, any strong case arises again, such as an approach to commercial union between Canada and the United States, or between any of the Australian colonies and their neighbours, we may take it for granted that the one principle of equal treatment, which we have hitherto maintained, v/ill give way, and that in this, as in other matters of taxation, the colonies will exercise and enjoy complete self-government. In short, the colonies in question are, so far as tariffs are concerned, in as free and independent a position as foreign nations ; and if we are tO make commercial treaties with foreign nations, there seems to be no J>rimd/aae tqslsoyi why we should not make similar commercial treaties with our self- governing colonies. In making such treaties we should, of course, be governed by the same rules as have governed us in making treaties with foreign countries. We should give no such differential treatment as is suggested by the Fair 1 mders, and we should make no reductions of duties which we do not consider to be for our own advantage. The question then arises, whether there are any duties which ^^i are we now levy on colonial produce which we could reduce ; Dutfe^^on remembering that if we reduce them for the colonies we must Colonial reduce them for other countries also. Now, what are the ^[°^i"^^p products of the self-governing colonies which we tax ? The could give only articles of this description in our tariff are cocoa, coffee, up? chicory, dried fruit, tea, tobacco, wine, beer and spirits. The exports of these articles from the colonies, according to the latest returns, are as shown on the following pages, 64, 65. 64 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. !5 ^ '^ "b "^ OJ ■< o o u u o C X * +- rooo + +++ + + ">'++ ^ + + COO On C^ U-) n 5 f^co I 1 I I I 1 I Lx^ I I 1 I I I ^1 I 1 1^1 1 ! I 1 i 1 1 I I I 3 1 1 I I I ! I I I i I I i I ■«4- On rO t^ On .00 OnCO 00 0\ On S I I I i I 1 I ? ^"^ I I I I I I 1 s OnvO O ►-• O 00 ro ON >-i CO 1^1 I 1 - i - I gg I 151 1^1 «^ ?< 2 ^ o .Is en h^PPHW PART I. — NEW COLONIAL POLICY. 6s ^ vn LOO M MCONi^ n:^0'-' O '^O io>-< O^LoO c^^^l-'•^ ^ I, 1 r^ ^O t^w 1 t^u-ir^, loi o^>-tLni>. rt 1 r^>:o" cT 1 i^ cT 1 C?l cT T? > --- o C2 h a OO^ofOO C^r^t^a) -t O <^ O r 4) C/2 ^ I r^co row cotj- mmwooco 3 ,ql^rf« Ilo -,1vO (NO C hT or aJ M C^'^ 00 lojO 3 sRi 1 1 ctSS;; 1 i? ^1 1 1 1 I 13 > c^ f ci to M Cn 1-1 ro Cr\ » C 7) tJ 1 1 ^ '? ^. 1 1 ^ ^L I 1 ! 1 1 rt /^ o-S 00 N w >-" ro Cl ro M >-o CnO >-" i-» CO r^ o 1 1 1 10 rOGO 1 Lo 1 CO 1 -"d- 1 1 1 3 s? 1 1 1 <"2 ^ i: 1 "^ 1 "^i. 1 '^'^ 1 1 1 > a rC roocT ro z > -t- - ro CO M CO c ■^: j«i 1 |CO-^Oic^|Lo-h|CN| 1 1 r; o ^111 ^co CO 1 1 « - 1 0^ 1 1 1 rC r^ c?i "+■ M ci c-4 t^ Th r-^ Cn t^ -^ • 1- 00 CTv CN « 3 s?^^ ° ! 1 1 1 1 "^ 1 '- I 1 1 11 ^ CMO 1 1111 CO 1 1 ' 1 d < o H > « 2 S lOX) OO ro « 00 "to cs .ti ,^. c^ '^ ^ "■? ^ ^ -^ c-T N 1 c^r I I 1 1 1 c> 1 ^ ! 1 1 ,4«ol lllll«l^lll i ^t^ ^ O" « '^ •+ N M «j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ^ S? „- u^ 1 1 11 1 11 1 11 1 1 1 > VO HH 0^ < ro ^a .'i . LOLO N 1 •^'^t-f^l'-' >_; t^o 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 o- ^; India Ceylon . Mauritius New South Walc5 . Victoria . South Australia New Zealand . Queensland Natal Cape of Good Hope Canada . Newfoundland. Jamaica . Uarbadoes Trinidad , . . | British Guiana . . ^ 66 FREE TRADE IK FAIR TRADE. India and Ceylon may be excluded, for the reasons above given. I may also remark that there are large re-exports of tea from New South Wales and Victoria, which are, no doubt, re-exports of Chinese or Indian imports, furnishing additional evidence of the circuitous nature of the trade of the East, to which I have adverted above. On spirits, England is not likely to make any reduction. Omitting these, the striking feature in this scanty list is the total absence of any article imported from those colonies with whom we might wish and be able to make a tariff bargain— viz., the North American and Australian group. Indeed, the only article in the list which affords any scope for an alteration, which the colonies would accept as a boon, is wine. We know from the evidence before the Wine Duties Committee that, both at the Cape and in Australia, the high duty of 2s. 6d. per gallon on wines contain- ing 26 degrees of spirit, when compared with the duty of one shilling on French wines, is felt as a grievance. Whether much wine from these colonies would be imported if the duty were reduced is doubtful, considering the cost of labour in the colonies, and the preference in this country for French, Spanish and Portuguese wine. Under these circumstances, whilst ad- mitting fully the expediency of removing any grievances which these colonies may have in the matter of the wine duties, we may conclude that these duties are not of sufficient impor- tance to afford the means of making tariff bargains with them. Putting wine aside, it is quite obvious, then, that we cannot with our present tariff offer any reduction to the self-governing colonies which they would accept as a boon, and that we are unable, therefore, to make tariff bargains of any kind with them. But there is another consideration of some importance, since it illustrates the peculiarity of our commercial relations with our colonies. It is not to be expected that we should conclude any such tariff bargain with Canada without a most favoured nation clause. That clause is the alpha and omega of all our Difficulty in commercial treaties. It is the one point which we retain when toCol'omes. ^^^ Others fail ; the feature on which their upholders mainly rely ; the feature which redeems them in the eyes of those who otherwise dislike them. To make a tariff bargain with Canada without stipulating that we shall treat one another as well as we treat the rest of the world, would be an admission that we are, PART I. — NEW COLONIAL POLICY. 67 or are likely to be, on less intimate terms with our own colony Commer- than with any foreign nation. And yet such a clause might £i^^ . give rise — nay, would be almost sure to give rise — to dangerous ^.jth differences. Canada and England are separated by the Atlantic ; Colonies. Canada and the United States are distinguished rather than separated by a bridged and navigable river or by an imaginary line. Trade between England and Canada has to overcome natural difficulties ; trade between Canada and the United States would be unchecked but for artificial difficulties. The people of Canada and of the United States are similar in race, in language, and in habits, and are becoming more so daily. Temporary and accidental circumstances have made Canada and the United States assume a hostile commercial attitude ; but their disputes are the quarrels of lovers, and it is pretty certain that sooner or later the people of the two countries will desire to trade freely with one another, to the infinite advantage of both. It has happened before, and it will happen again. When it happened before, Canada made a treaty by which United States goods were admitted into Canada on better terms than English goods, and England allowed — ^indeed, could not help allowing — the treaty. There is nothing to prevent such a thing happening again. Indeed, it is of all things the most probable. What, then, would be the feelings excited in Canada if a clause in her tariff bargain with England prevented her from making with the United States a bargain of ten times more importance to her real interests than any bargain she could make with England ? Would not such a clause go far to make her seek for complete separation ? Similar difficulties might well arise in Australia, if we were to attempt to get any one of her colonies to make a separate bargain with us. Their closest natural commercial relations are with one another, and these they will probably prefer to relations with the mother country. Nay, there have been suggestions of special treaties between some of these colonies and countries in America. I have dwelt upon these points, not because I wish to exaggerate or anticipate difficulties which may never arise, but to show how easy it may be, in trying to draw bonds closer, to strain them to snapping. Let us by all means have the utmost possible commercial connection with our colonies, but no such tie as may be felt by either party as a grievance. 68 FREE TRADE V, FAIR TRADE. CONCLUSIONS OF PART I. AS TO A NEW COLONIAL POLICY. Govern- ments can check but cannot create Trade. The general conclusion to which these considerations lead us is that there is little to be done by legislation or treaty to bring us into closer commercial relations with the colonies. Except, perhaps, in the trifling matter of the wine duties, we have already done all that we can to clear the way on our side. It is for the colonies to play their part. Many of them are doing so fairly enough. The others will do so when they feel it to be their interest, without being specially bribed. It is not in our power to do more. Nor is this to be wondered at, when we consider that all which a Government can really do for trade and manufacture is not to impede it. All that Fair Traders and Protectionists are urging as to the duty of Governments in providing markets for their people, and other nonsense of a like kind, really means, when it comes to be sifted, that Governments are to check and prevent trade under pretence of guiding it ; that they are not to allow mer- chants and manufacturers to do that which is their interest to do. Such a course it is contrary to our commercial interests to enter upon, and it is much more likely to weaken than to strengthen the poHtical connections of the different parts of the empire. RETALIATION. CHAPTER XVI. RETALIATION OX MANUFACTURED GOODS, AS PROPOSED BY FAIR TRADERS, IMPOTENT AND SUICIDAL. The second of the two great principles of the Fair Traders is English Retaliation. They desire to impose retaliatory duties on the Retaliation goods of foreign countries which do not admit our goods duty ManufS" free. tures These duties are not to apply to our food imports, which impotent have been dealt with already, nor to imports of raw material, suicidal, but to manufactures only. It is a sufficient practical answer to a proposal of this kind that the weapon is in our hands absolutely inefficacious. Of our imports, ninety per cent, are estimated to be raw materials or food, and ten per cent, only what are called manufactured articles. If we take particular nations, the case is stronger. Our trade with the United States is one-sixth of our whole trade, and their tariff is the most hostile of any; whilst the interest which is affected by their competition is our most suffering interest. But out of their imports into the United Kingdom, which exceed loo millions, about 2 J millions only are manufactures ; whilst out of our exports to them 24 J millions are manufactures. Will they not laugh at us ? or, if not disposed to laugh, will they not treat us as they have treated the Canadians, and place still further obstacles on our imports ? To France we exported in 1880 upwards of 12 millions' worth of manufactured and half-manufactured goods ; 2J millions' worth of raw material; and one miUion's worth of food. From France we imported 23 millions' worth of manufactured and half-manufactured goods, 3 millions' worth of raw materials, and nearly 15 J millions' worth of food. Here there is more to 70 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. Retaliation retaliate upon than in the case of the United States, but the Manufec?'^ proportion of manufactures which we send to France is greater tures. than the proportion which she sends to us. We send her Httle but manufactures, whilst she supplies us largely with food. To Germany we exported in 1880 nearly 14 millions' worth of manufactured and half-manufactured goods, less than 2 millions' worth of raw materials, and less than ij million's worth of food. From Germany we imported in 1880 a little over ^\ millions' worth of manufactured goods ; 2>\ niillions' worth of raw materials, and 16^ millions' worth of food. If we are to play a- game at who can do most to stop each other's manufactures, it is clear that Germany will have the best of the match. What is true of these countries is true of others. We are par excellence the manufacturing country, and for us to play the game of who can best destroy manufacturing industry is simple suicide. CHAPTER XVII. PROPOSAL TO MATERIAL ' TAX MANUFACTURES AND LEAVE " RAW FREE— DIFFICULTY OF THE DISTINCTION, But when we are told that raw material must be admitted free, and that manufactures are to be taxed, I should like to ask what distinction can be drawn between these two classes of goods which would justify a different treatment ? When I look doAvn the list of so-called raw materials, I see nothing which is not both the produce of some previous labour and the means or material of some further labour ; and when I look down the list of so-called manufactured articles, I find the same thing. I am unable to draw any line between the two, or to find any principle by which to distinguish them. If the quantity of labour employed in producing the article is to be the test, the labour employed to produce so-called raw materials may, and often does, far exceed the labour necessary to turn that raw material into a manufactured article. There may be more labour in getting coal, or in growing wool, than in spinning or weaving. If we are to be guided by the operation of the article as a means or a stimulus towards further PART II. — RETALIATION. 7 I production, I am unable to see how the raw produce of the soil Distinc- operates for this purpose more directly or more effectually than {Jgt'J^.ggj^ • the article into which it is subsequently converted by human Raw labour. I do not see why the alkali out of which glass or Materials chemicals are made is not as efficient a means of production as factures^' the salt out of which the alkali is made. Let us take any is it list in which an attempt is made to distinguish between Tenable? raw products and manufactures. We get into difficulties at once. The alkali, for instance, to which I have referred, heads one Hst of manufactured articles, but it is chiefly useful as a material to be employed in subsequent manu- factures. "Apparel and haberdashery,'^ which come next, are, no doubt, manufactures as complete as it is possible to conceive ; but even here the boots of the navvy, the shirt and apron of the operative, the blouse of the French labourer, the jersey of the sailor, or even the neat cloth coat and shirt of the clerk or manager, are as much the means and essential condi- tions of further production as the stone, the iron, or the wool which these persons are employed in manipulating or disposing of. Horses come first in one list of " raw produce ; " but a farm horse is at once the final product of skill in breeding for generations, and is a direct instrument in further production. " Clocks " come first in another list of manufactured articles, and there is certainly no more finished article of human in- genuity than a clock ; but is not a clock the sine qua fion of every place where productive labour is at work ? Is it not the great economist of time, which is the principal of all factors in pro- duction ? I might go through the list in the same way, pointing out how each article of large or general use is, on the one hand, the result of previous labour, and the means for further labour. Nay, the same thing is true of food also. Food is the means of keeping the human machine going, without which there can be no productive labour ; it is the most obvious, if not the most important, of raw materials ; it is to the man and woman what the coals are to the steam-engine. We admit this when we class food and raw materials together as articles which are not to be taxed, or which are to be taxed more sparingly and cautiously than other things. But, like other raw materials, food is not really more necessary to further production than other articles of general human use. The house in which the artisan lives, the clothes which he wears, the tools which he uses, are no less means and instruments in making the articles 72 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. which he produces for sale than the food which forms his blood and muscles, the coal which drives his steam-engine, or the material of fibre, of wood, or of metal which he is converting into use. We may go farther, and say that the so-called ■ luxuries, the tea, sugar, and tobacco, which make life tolerable to himself and his children, are also instruments by which his powers of production are increased. Nay, we may assert, with the most exact truth, that the wine which refreshes the brain of the man of science, the statesman, or the physician, is in the highest degree conducive to the production of wealth. All active and useful human life is one cycle of unintermitted and contemporaneous production and consumption — of pro- duction, in order to procure articles of consumption ; of con- sumption, in order the more effectually to produce. There may, of course, be useless and even mischievous consumption of exces- sive or pernicious luxuries, but these are, economically speaking, a trifle in the vast mass of human consumption ; and there may also be fooHsh and ill-directed production. But, generally speaking, all human consumption is a direct means of pro- duction ; and this makes me doubt whether there is any real sense in the commonly-received doctrine that it is better, on economical grounds, to tax articles of consumption — that is, articles which are in a fit state to be at once eaten, worn, or otherwise used by man — than articles which he has to do some- thing more to before he can use them. But this is, I am glad to say, a controversy on which I need not enter ; from the Fair Traders I am too glad to accept the admission that raw material is not to be subject to a retaliatory duty ; and only mention the point now, because, if we admit that manufactures are to be taxed, we may find it difficult to stop there. CHAPTER XVIII. OTHER PROPOSALS FOR RETALIATION. Arguments The Retaliation of the Fair Trade League is, as we have seen, Retalia-^ ° ridiculous from its irapotency ; but this does not show that all tion. Retaliation would be inefficient, or, if efficient, undesirable. Proposals for Retaliation, if once adopted, will not stop where PART 11. — RETALIATION. 73 the Fair Traders leave them, and there are arguments in favour of the principle of Retaliation which require a more com- plete answer than is to be found in the impracticability of a given plan. I do not know that these arguments have ever been more fairly, clearly, and vigorously stated than by Lord Salisbury, in Lord his recent speech at Newcastle, on the 12th October, 1881. Salisbury at He said:- ^ Ne^vcasHe. " I now only wish to say a word with respect to a matter which, perhaps, through being exciting, occupies some con- siderable portion of public attention at the present moment. It has been said that we of the Conservative active party are anxious to return to the state of things existing before 1840 in respect to fiscal matters, and sundry terrible consequences have been deduced from the assertion. I, for one, do not possess the desire, nor do I think that such a return would be for the public welfare ; but it does not do for the Government to ignore the commercial difficulties under which the country labours by the simple device of accusing their opponents of a desire to return to the state of things to which I have referred. Whenever the evil of the present state of things is pointed out to them, they, instead of replying, call us lunatics, or beat the great tom-tom of Free Trade in order to drown our voices. It is undoubtedly the fact, and I do not think that any one can traverse the statement, that in one respect the apostles of Free Trade thirty-five years ago made a gigantic miscalculation when they said that if the country adopted their principles the rest of the nations of the world would follow their example. (Cheers.) It was repeatedly held out, both by Mr. Cobden and Sir Robert Peel, and undoubt- edly it influenced many minds at the time. I am very far from stating that as their only reason. I do not mean to say that their policy would have been different if they had had a different belief; but they had the belief, and took every oppor- tunity of communicating it to others, that our example would be followed by other nations of the world. That, I take it, is an undoubted fact in history. Well, that has not been the case. The third of a century has passed b}^, and all the nations by which we are surrounded have not only not become more Free Trade, but on the whole have become more Protectionist. America, I believe, is more Protectionist ; the Protectionist feehng is rising in France. Both of them, mind you, are complete democracies, so there is no pretence for saying tliat 74 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. Lord this particular form of opinion has been imposed by the ruhng Salisbury, d^sses. They are countries where it is undoubtedly the senti- ment of the people, and nothing else, which governs the conduct of the Government ; and in both these countries the feeling of Protection has increased, and is increasing. In Russia, on the other hand, a despotism of the closest type, still you have the same phenomenon. A feeling of Protection is in- creasing, and the measures of Protection are multiplying. In a kingdom like Germany, with certain constitutional liberties, but ruled undoubtedly by the acutest brain that this century has seen in Europe, you still see this remarkable phenomenon — that the tendency towards Protection is increasing. In our o^\^l colonies, where, if anywhere, we ought to have some influence, there, too, unfortunately, the Protectionist feeling is strong, and our own productions are shut out from the markets of our own children. Now, that is a fact which I say it is idle to ignore. It is childish to imagine that our example now, after so many years, will alone have any effect upon these nations. They have their own experience ; they have their own philosophers to teach them. Many of them are, and certainly believe themselves to be, as far advanced in intel- lectual culture as ourselves. What is there to induce them to defer to our judgment, and to follow our example in this respect? If we intend to act upon them, we must find other motives ; and I think we have a right to ask, without pledging ourselves to any opinion until the facts are known, that there should be a thorough investigation into the question whether we are now pursuing the right course for the purpose of inducing those other Governments in some degree to lower the terrible wall of tariffs which is shutting out the productions of our industry from the markets of the world. There is no reason that we should pledge ourselves to any particular course until the facts are known. But if you make a suggestion of this kind, you are immediately told, ' This is Reciprocity and Retaliation, and behind it lurks the shadow of Protection.' Reciprocity and Retaliation ! But what are these commercial treaties, if they do not involve the principle of Reciprocity ? Sir Charles Dilke will very soon meet the French Minister of Commerce, and they will be talking over the respective products of their respective tariffs, and practically Sir Charles Dilke will say to the French Minister of Commerce, 'If you will give me this relaxation of duty upon cotton, I will give you this relaxation of PART II. — RETALIATION. 75 duty upon wine.' But what is that but Reciprocity ? And Lord when Sir Charles Dilke finds that the French Minister of Salisbury. Commerce is difficult to deal with, he will say, ' Well, but if •you do not give us this duty, if you do not give us this relaxa- tion upon cotton, I will not give you a relaxation of duty upon wine.' What is that but Retaliation ? " Therefore I say, ever since you adopted the principle of commercial treaties, ever since that memorable date, i860, the principle of what they are pleased in their own language to term 'Reciprocity and Retaliation,' is conceded. " It is merely a question of policy, arising upon the state of facts in each particular case, whether you have the means of any alteration of your tariff which you can with due considera- tion for your own interests adopt, whether you can so do it in the case of the tariff of your neighbour ; and it seems to me that that is a sensible course of conduct to adopt. There is no doubt that by abandoning duties which are useful to you for revenue purposes you confer a great benefit upon foreign countries. Why should you not ask for a price in exchange for that benefit ? Why should you not obtain for your own industries a benefit corresponding to that which you are conferring upon them ? " I do not know, until inquiry has been made and oppor- tunities gained of ascertaining, whether it presses either upon the food of our people, or the raw material of our industry, both of which must be held sacred. I do not know what oppor- tunities we may have of exercising this salutary influence upon foreign Powers ; but in spite of any formula, in spite of any cry of Free Trade, if I saw that by raising a duty upon luxuries, or by threatening to raise it, I could exercise a pressure upon foreign Powers, and induce them to lower their tariffs, I should pitch orthodoxy and formulas to the winds and exercise the pressure." Now, if I wished to find a strong argument against all tariff bargains, I should point to this speech of Lord Salisbury's. He may exaggerate the sanguine views entertained by Sir R. Peel and Mr. Cobden of the prospects of universal Free Trade ; he may also exaggerate the present tendencies of other countries to Protection ; and the Retaliation he suggests — viz., upon that inappreciable part of our imports which consists of luxuries — is, unless he means to include amongst luxuries the tea, sugar, and tobacco which are the comforts of our working people — as impotent as that of the Fair Traders. But, unlike many of the Fair Traders, he states his Pall Mall Gazette, 76 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. case fairly, and he puts in very clear terms the impression which our commercial treaties have made, and are making, on many minds besides his own — an impression from which it is very difficult to escape, especially for a diplomatist. Our minister at a foreign court will tell you, " Don't trouble me with your arguments ; tell me with what force you will back them.'' If the Foreign Secretary is to make a bargain, he must have something to bargain with. X/' in the Lord Salisbury may, however, be thought by Free Traders to be a poor economist, and a diplomatist of a very suspicious type ; but he has support where one would least expect it. I have seen arguments not very different in character in a per- fectly unsuspicious quarter. In the Pall Mall Gazette of the 8th and 12th August, 1881, were some letters signed X., by an ardent advocate of commercial treaties, in which, after pointing out, first, that such a treaty as Cobden's, which only reduced duties and gave no preferences, differs ioto ccelo from such treaties as the Methuen Treaty, which gave a distinct preference and stipu- lated for the maintenance of differential duties ; and, secondly, that exports are as important a factor in trade as imports — two facts which no sound Free Trader would for a moment deny — the writer proceeded to draw the conclusion that it is the business of the Government of this, and of every other country, to do as much for its exports as for its imports, and, after dismissing the notion of differential duties of a protective character, suggested a differential duty on wines as a legitimate means of compelling France to admit our exports. A large part of his letters con- sists in the exposure of the fallacy which he supposes the school of Ricardo to commit when they say, "Take care of the imports and the exports will take care of themselves." He points out with perfect truth that a limitation on our exports is as much a limitation on our trade as a limitation on our imports, and he implies that however free our ports may be to foreign imports it will do us little or no good if the hostile tariffs of foreign countries continue to limit our exports. More reck- A notion similar in substance, but much more recklessly ex- vo^cates'of P^^sscd, finds its utterance in the constant misrepresentations we Ketaiiation have lately heard of the views and objects of the authors of our present policy. We are told that what Mr. Ricardo, Mr. Cobden, Sir Robert Peel, and others had in view, as the principal object and result of their Free Trade policy, was the abolition of foreign restrictions on our exports ; thg,t they believed them- FART II. — RETALIATION. 77 selves, and prophesied to the people, that if we in England would take off our duties, foreign nations would certainly take off theirs ; that in this they deceived and were deceived ; that foreign nations have not followed our example ; and that these short-sighted politicians, were they now with us, would at once admit their mistake and revise their policy. Nothing can be more untrue. Certainly the one leading figure amongst them who is still with us, and still vigorous — Lord Grey — tells a very difterent story. What really happened was this. When Sir Robert Peel had carried his first tariff, and had Real Origin postponed certain further changes on account, amongst other pj^^y of reasons, of commercial negotiations then in progress, Mr. Ricardo, fighting in two successive years, 1843 and 1844,"' brought forward a ^ostiie motion urging the immediate remission of our own duties without p^g" j^^^; waiting to see what other nations would do. In the very inter- pons, esting debates upon these motions, some members defended the principle of Reciprocit)^, and Mr. Disraeli in doing so talked a good deal of characteristic nonsense about the dangers of a drain of bullion, and about the expediency of frightening foreign statesmen by a parade of our Oriental resources. f Sir R. Peel and Mr. Gladstone clearly agreed with Mr. Ricardo in the principle he advocated — a principle on which they subsequently acted, and which Sir R. Peel expressly advocated in his speech of 6th July, 1849 — but objected to its immediate applica- tion, and to the abstract form in which his motion was couched. Mr. Ricardo himself. Lord Grey (then Lord Howick), Mr. Ewart, Mr. C. Villiers, and Mr. Cobden, supported the motion on the ground, which was admitted on all hands to be true, viz., that for 25 years we had been struggling by means of our own duties to obtain reciprocal reductions from other nations, and had failed entirely, a fact which is constantly and con- veniently ignored by the present advocates of Reciprocity. They said, further, that if the great object of this country were to * See " Hansard," Vols. 68 of 1843, 73 of 1844. See also Sir R. Peel's speech, 6th July, 1849 ("Hansard," Vol. 106, p. 1429), in which he maintains against Mr. Disraeli that the true weapon with which to fight hostile tariffs is " free imports." This speech is well worth reading now. t Since writing the above passage I have read the eulogistic mention of this speech of Mr. Disraeli, in Mr. Cobden's life. My sincere respect for anything Mr. John Morley writes has made me read the speech again ; but having re-read it carefully, I leave the passage as it stands. In differing on this, and subse- quently on another trifling point, it would be ungracious not to express my hearty admiration for the noble monument Mr. Morley has raised to the memory of Cobden. 7$ FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE, Policy of obtain reductions in foreign tariffs, the best way to effect it Fighting ;vould be to reduce our own, to show foreign nations that we Tariffs believed in our own principles, and to convince them by our by Free own consequent prosperity that our policy was the true one. In Imports, ^i^g-j. anticipations of the wisdom of foreign nations, and in their under-estimate of the strength of protected interests, they were perhaps too sanguine. But this was not the only ground, or indeed the real ground, on which they supported the motion. That ground was the principle, true then as now, that whether foreign nations maintain their own duties or not, it is for our interest to abolish ours, and that if we would but do this in our own interest our own trade must prosper, let foreign nations do what they will. And they were right. Their policy was adopted, and our trade did prosper. No one of these distin- guished men doubted, as X. seems to suppose, that foreign pro- tective tariffs are a great impediment to our trade, or that it is most desirable that they should be reduced or repealed. What they said was — "A foreign tariff is one impediment; over that you have no power. Your own high tariff is another and a separate impediment, with an additional and camulative effect ; over this you have power. Remove the impediment over which you have power, and do not wait for the removal of the further impedi- ment over which you have no power. You will gain much if you do not gain all. Half a loaf is better than no bread." But the consideration of this fundamental question deserves a new chapter. CHAPTER XIX. IS THERE ANYTHING IN ONE-SIDED FREE TRADE WHICH MAKES A CASE FOR RETALIATION? Fallacies in The fallacy by which X. and Lord Salisbury and many others the argu- ^re misled consists in thinking of a high tariff as a complete above barrier, a solid wall, a watertight sluice which allows of no noticed. passage. If this were the case, it would be quite true that one high tariff is just as great an impediment to trade as two, and that there is no use in removing one unless you can remove both. If every foreign country were to build an impervious wall round itself, so that no trade could enter, it would not signify liow I PART II. — RETALIATION. 79 much or how Httle of a wall there may be round England ; no trade could pass either one way or the other. But even in the pre-Huskisson days of absolute legal prohibition, the wall was broken through by the smuggler ; and, in the present day, no nation practises absolute prohibition, even on paper> The meta- phor of a barrier- wall misleads, as metaphors constantly do. If we are to have a metaphor, Lord Palmerston's metaphor of two turnpikes, one at each end of a bridge, each of which offers some obstacle to the traffic, is a much better one. At the present Protective time every nation, however protective in its tendencies, does pe^dimenTs" what it thinks best calculated to promote its own exports, and not therefore cannot destroy but only check its imports, which are barriers. the necessary concomitants of exports. No existing tariff is such as to keep out foreign goods altogether ; each tariff has its weakest point, its lower and less protective duties. Moreover, as a matter of fact, all nations are not protectionist. In many tariffs protection is a secondary or partial object; and in other countries importation is altogether free. There are, therefore, abundant means of export ; there are even abundant channels, often direct, often circuitous and indirect, by which, so long as a protectionist country exports at all, the exports of a free country can reach, and in the nature of things must reach it. Trade will go on, and does go on, in spite of hostile tariffs, although the number of transactions is, in consequence of such tariffs, less than it otherwise might be; and each transaction is, from its very nature, profitable to both parties engaged in it. Let us, however, consider a little more carefully what the posi- Position of tion of a nation is which opens its ports whilst other nations are ^^"J^ shutting theirs ; what our position would be, on the hypothesis country in (which is untrue) that, whilst we retain a Free Trade tariff, all the midst other nations put heavy duties on our goods. I think it can be J^gctionist proved that, though we shall not have as much trade absolutely countries. as we should have if other nations were free like ourselves, we shall be better off relatively ; the trade and the production of the world will be less, but we shall have a larger share of it. The point, though elementary, is so important that it is Effect of worth while to consider it attentively. Let us first take the Protective simplest case, that of barter between two merchants living beuveen^ in two different countries, and let us think what would be the two effect on their dealings of a tax, imposed in either country Countries on the importation of the commodities in which they deal. ^^ ^' Suppose that A, a Frenchman, makes loo yards of silk in 8o FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. Effect of Protective Duties as between two Countries only. France, and B, an Englishman, makes loo yards of clodi in England. They exchange diese one for die other. Sup- pose that the French Government puts on the English cloth a duty equal to the value of the cloth ; suppose, further, that the cloth is a necessity to the Frenchman, and that it is only to be got from England. The effect of the French duty upon the Frenchman will be, that he will have to pay twice as much for the same quantity of cloth as before ; in other words, he will have to pay 200 yards of silk for his 100 yards of cloth. Then suppose that the English Government puts on the French silk a duty equal to the value of the silk, and suppose, as before, that the silk is a necessity to the Englishman, and can only be got from France. The effect on the Englishman will be that he will have to pay 200 yards of cloth for his 100 yards of silk. The effect of the two duties combined will be that the Frenchman will have to give 200 yards of silk for 100 yards of cloth, and the Englishman will have to give 200 yards of cloth for 100 yards of silk — the extra TOO yards of silk and 100 yards of cloth going into the pockets of the respective governments. Of course, the real thing will be entirely different ; the goods will not be either necessaries or monopolies ; and the effect of the duties will be to transfer the industries, and, in so doing, to reduce both consumption and production. The effect of the Frencli duty on the Frenchman will be to make the Frenchman buy less English cloth, to make him pay more for it, to make him buy inferior cloth from a French maker, and to make him sell his silk to the French cloth- maker for less than the Englishman would give for it. Its effect on the Englishman will be to deprive him of the best market for a part of his cloth, to make him buy less French silk, and to make him buy something with the rest of his cloth which is of less value to him than the French silk. The further consequence of the English duty on silk to the Englishman will be to make him buy less French silk, to make him pay more for it, to make him buy inferior English silk instead, and to make him sell his cloth to the English silk manufacturer at a less price than the Frenchman would give for it. Its effect on the Frenchman will be to deprive him of his best market for a part of his silk, to make him buy less English cloth, and to make him buy French cloth instead at a higher price. PART II. — RETALIATION. 8 1 The effect of one duty, supposing the duties still to be Effect of equal, will be as great as that of the other ; they will act Protective cumulatively in transferring English and French industries from between ^ what they do best to what they can do less well ; the French two Coun- industry from silk-making to cloth-making, the English in- '"^^ only, dustry from cloth-making to silk-making. The aggregate production of the two parties will be diminished equally by both duties ; and if one duty is taken off, the mischief to both parties will be just one-half what it would be whilst both duties are continued. Let us now take the case of two nations who exchange goods with one another; and let us, after the manner of Bastiat, call one of them Libera and the other Vincta. Libera determines to put no duties on the goods of Vincta — Vincta puts a duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem on the goods of Libera. The result will be damaging alike to Libera and Vincta ; Libera will be able to sell less to Vincta, and to buy less from Vincta in return ; Vincta will be able to buy less from Libera, and will be able to sell less to Libera in return. Now, suppose that Libera, irritated by Vincta's conduct, determines to retaliate, and to impose in her turn a tax of 20 per cent, on the goods of Vincta. What will be the result ? Precisely the same as before, only that it will be double and cumulative. Vincta will be able to sell still less to Libera, and to buy less from Libera in return ; Libera will be able to buy still less from Vincta, and to sell still less to Vincta in return. Both duties have had an equal effect in diminishing the buying and selling on both sides. But their action has been cumulative ; the duties imposed by Libera have doubled the loss to each originally caused by the duties imposed by Vincta. Libera has done herself no good, but has done equal mischief to herself and her rival by retaliation. It will even, in this case, clearly be her interest to cease following the example of Vincta, to revert to her original policy, and become Libera again ; and it will not be the less her interest to do so because she is at the same time doing good to Vincta. But now let us consider the case of three countries, which Effect of we will call Libera and Vincta No. i and Vincta No. 2. Protective Suppose that they have a triangular trade with one another, between and that these three trades (that of Libera with Vincta i, that three or of Libera with Vincta 2, and that of Vincta i with Vincta 2) countries are each equal in amount, and that each of them is represented G 82 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. Effect of Protective Duties as between three or more Countries. by 6. Then i8 will represent the aggregate trade of all three, and each will possess an equal share of it, which will be repre- sented by 6. Now suppose that Vincta i and Vincta 2 each put equally heavy duties on their respective imports. Libera remaining free as before. The trade between Libera and each of the others will be subject to one set of duties, but the trade of Vincta i and Vincta 2 with each other will be subject to two sets of duties. The aggregate exchange, and with the exchange the production of all three countries, will be diminished, but not in equal proportions. The trade between Vincta No. i and Vincta No. 2 will be diminished in a larger proportion than the trade of each with Libera. If we suppose that each set of duties has the effect of diminishing the trade on which it is charged by an amount represented by i, the whole diminu- tion will be equal to 4, and the aggregate trade of the three countries will now be represented by 14 instead of 18. Of this diminution, i will fall on the trade between Libera and Vincta No. I, which will now be 5 instead of 6 ; i on the trade between Libera and Vincta No. 2, which will also be 5 ; and two on the trade between Vincta No. i and Vincta No. 2, which will now be 4. Each country will, of course, have half the trade between itself and each of its neighbours, and the whole trade will now be divided as follows : — Libera will have 5 instead of 6 ; Vincta No. I and Vincta No. 2 will each have 4 instead of 6. The following diagram will make this clear : — Before dtities After duties V I In the same way it may be shown that if of three countries trading with one another under three tariffs equally protective, one does away with Protection, the production and trade of all will be increased, but the largest share of the increased trade will fall to the one which opens its ports. When she opens her ports she must do good to her neighbours as well as to herself PART II. — RETALIATION. 83 though not SO much good — a thing which it is important to Effect of remember in examining the consequences of adopting a Free Protective Trade policy. Its adoption by one country is followed by an beuveen^ increase of the trade of other countries as well as of her own, three or though her own trade reaps the greatest benefit. i^ore I am not very fond of illustrations of this kind. They are °""'"^^- apt to appear to be mathematical demonstrations, when they are really only rude and abstract illustrations of one of the many elements which go to make up the infinitely complex and delicate conditions of human business. But taken merely as an illustration, I believe the above formula represents a general truth. So far as artificial restrictions are concerned, The Nat ion and it is only with these we are now dealins;, the country which ^^'^^^^^ f^- 1 -i. L. 1 -1 , .1 i r xi /• mains free keeps Its own ports open whilst the ports oi other countries are will get the shut will not do as much trade as if the ports of all were open, largest but of the reduced trade which is left by the restrictions it will tjje'^pj.^^^^j, do a larger share. If England keeps her ports open whilst the United States, France, Germany, Italy, and other countries shut theirs, the aggregate trade of all of them, and even the actual amount of England's share, will be less than if all of them were open, but her share of what is left will be greater than that of the others. It is to her open markets rather than to those of the closed countries that each foreign country will prefer to export, and return trade is apt to follow in the same channel. To her will come raw materials, half-manufactured goods, food, clothing, everything which aids production directly or indirectly. No market is likely to be so closed against her but that she will be able to get something into it, and in doing so she will, by her command of the materials and instruments of production, be better able to compete than her rivals, who have made the materials and instruments of production dear. To all open neutral markets, and they are many, she will have full access. In all neutral markets, open or closed by duties, she will have an advantage. Her open market will attract imports; her command of all that is needed for production will give comparative cheapness to her exports. She will lose absolutely some of the direct trade with her Protectionist rivals which she might have had if it were not for their duties, but they will lose that trade also, and she will have advantages in com- peting with them in other markets which they will not have. 84 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE, CHAPTER XX. ENGLISH TRADE BEFORE i860. Illustration It is not an easy thing to prove any truth of this kind from from^^^°^^ statistics of actual facts, for it is very difficult to find a test-case in which all the facts are known, and from which all foreign elements can be eliminated, but in the facts so often cited by Free Traders we find an approach to an illustration if not to a proof From the time of the end of the great war in 1815 to the time of Sir R. Peel's tariff reforms, England was first a Prohibi- tive and afterwards a Protectionist country. In 1842 the first great reductions of duty were made. In 1845 followed a great further reduction. In 1846 the Corn-law Bill was passed, and the corn duties came to an end in 1849. In the same year the navigation laws were repealed. In 1853 Mr. Gladstone's first budget made large additional reductions, which were continued more or less in each successive year until i860, when the reductions incidental to the French treaty brought our tariff to its present simple condition, with the exception of the repeal of the sugar duty, which took place in 1874. If, therefore, we can compare the period of Protection in England with the period of Free Trade which immediately followed Sir R. Peel's reforms, and if we find that after these reforms had taken effect, and before i860, when the French treaty was made, there was a great burst of activity in England, we have some evidence that reduction of Protective duties in England alone, and without reduction on the part of other nations, resulted in a great increase of English trade, the effects of which are seen in the statistics of our exports. Our statistics of exports of domestic produce, which are the only statistics on which we can rely for the earlier years of the century, afford such a test. These averaged per annum from 1 82 1 to 1825 .... about -yj millions. 1826 to 1830 .,..,, 36 ,, 1831 to 1835 ....,, 40 ,, 1836 to 1840 ....,, 50 ,, 1841 to 1845 . . . . ,, 54 ,, 1846 to 1850 . . . . ,, 61 ,, 1851 to 1855 . . . . ,, 89 ,, 1856 to 1S60 ....,, 124 ,, PART It. — RETALIATION. 85 thus showing a large and continuous increase as the successive instalments of Free Trade came into full operation. I am aware that there were other factors at work during this period, and those who wish to see what can be said about them should turn to Mr. Gladstone's article in the N'i7ieteenth Centttry of February, 1880. But the above figures show conclusively that an out- burst of successful exportation was concurrent with the installa- tion of a Free Trade poHcy in England, and with the mainte- nance of restrictive tariffs abroad. CHAPTER XXI. ENGLISH TRADE SINCE 1860. But it will be said in reply, " All this happened long ago, and Alleged many things have happened since then. Foreign nations have ^h-cum-^ ° learned from us to manufacture and to rival us not only in their stances own markets but in the markets of the world. Protective tariffs since i860, in this state of things will be more dangerous to us than they ever were before, for we have not only the barriers of hostile tariffs to cross, but shall find within them rivals whom we cannot expect to beat. As a matter of fact, the trade of other nations has progressed as fast or faster than our own. The United States have the most Protective tariff in the world; but their trade, as measured by their exports and imports, and their general prosperity, has grown faster than our own. France, with her tariff less Protectionist than the United States, but still Protective in a high degree, is the marvel of the world in the way she has recovered from the crushing blows of the German war. Germany has not found her Protective tariff destroy her trade. The imports and exports of Canada have increased since she adopted her high duties, and Protectionist Victoria runs a fair race with Free-trade New South Vv'ales. Above all, are not our exports diminishing while our imports are increasing? Have we not had the longest period of com- mercial depression ever known ? and is there any reason for supposing that we shall so far recover from it as to attain again our former prosperity ? " 86 FREE TRADE 7'. FAIR TRADE. The World fo this I proposc to reply at length in the following tective as^t chapters. But in the first instance I wish to observe was. that it is a mistake to suppose that the world is, on the whole, more protective than or even as protective as it was. In the earlier part of this century, nations were prohibi- tive where they arc now Protectionist. Prohibition pure and simple, common enough before i860, scarcely exists now. Many countries — e.g., Holland, Belgium, Norway and Sweden — have since i860 adopted a policy approaching our own. Nowhere in Europe are tariffs now as high as they were before i860. The United States and some of our owai Colonies are the only countries where they are higher. But, secondly, be the tariffs what they may, our freedom still gives us an advantage. We can and do export, even to the most Protectionist countries, manufactures which they are trying to keep out, and we must do so as long as they burden their own industries by a Protective system, and seek at the same time to sell their raw produce to us. In neutral markets, of which there must always be many, we have enormous advantages in our free tariff. Our materials come to us free, and our people live on untaxed food. CHAPTER XXIL WHAT FREE TRADE MEANS, AND WHAT IT CANNOT DO. Free Trade ^T the same time it must be remembered what Free Trade create ; it i^, and what are its limits. It is merely the unshackling of can only powers which have an independent existence. It can produce Nalure and ^^^^^^^g > ^^ ^^^ create no material substance in nature ; it can Man free, beget no positive quahties in man. All it can do, and that all is much, is to leave the powers of nature and of man to pro- duce whatever it is in them to produce unchecked by human restrictions. Free Trade cannot make the maize and the vine grow in England ; it cannot make our sands and clays yield wheat as freely as the virgin soil of the prairies ; it cannot endow the negro and the Hindoo with the ingenuity and thrift of the Frenchman, or the brain and arm of the Anglo-Saxon ; but it can ensure that each shall be allowed to yield and PART II. RETALIATION. 87 do whatever it is best fitted for yielding and doing. Free Traders have been much to blame for attributing to Free Trade consequences which have probably arisen from many causes, and they are now paying the penalty of their exaggerations. It is idle to expect that England shall produce everything, or even that she shall have a monopoly of manufactures. Other countries have their own special advantages of soil, of climate, and character, which will enable them to do many things better than England. The true test of the value of True test Free Trade to England, or to any other country, is not whether ^^^^l^ she is progressing faster, or even doing a larger trade than another, but whether she is doing better herself with Free Trade than she would do without it ; and whether, in her relation to other nations which are not Free Traders, she or they derive the greater benefit from their respective com- mercial systems. Tried by these tests, we need not fear the comparison. CHAPTER XXIII. RELATION OF THE PROSPERITY OF OTHER NATIONS TO OUR OWN. Before attempting to prove anything by facts and figures, Our Trade let us be on our guard against a mistake, by which our can only Protectionist friends are constantly leading us into pitfalls. makingUie It is a very important and a very dangerous mistake, for it Trade of involves the very principle which lies at the bottom of the ^^^^j^^g Free Trade controversy. To read Protectionist literature, one grow too. would imagine that no nation could thrive except at the expense of another ; that trade, at any rate between nations, is a sort of betting or gambling game, where the gain of one is the loss of another. If the list of French exports grows as ours grows, still more if it increases by a percentage faster than our own, we are in danger. If the American export account appears to exceed our own, we are lost, and so on. Unless our sale list keeps far ahead of and grows faster than that of all other nations, w^e are losing our position, and dwindling among the races of mankind. But the truth is, that trade is reciprocal : 88 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. Our Trade our trade cannot grow without making the trade of other can only grow by- Trade of other Nations grow too. nations grow too. Every act of trade is a sale by one man makin? the ^^^ ^ purchase by another, and every such a sale and purchase involves a second purchase by the first man and sale by the last. Every act of trade is an act of barter — or, rather, one-half of an act of barter. Except in the case of transfers of goods made to pay existing debts, every sale by an Englishman to a Frenchman involves a sale direct or indirect by a Frenchman to an English- man. Every English export to France involves a French import from England, a French export on account of England and an English import on account of France. And the whole transac- tion is equally a gain to both traders and to both countries. An increase in the English export list, arising from the removal of our own restrictions, necessitates an equal and corresponding increase in the French export list ; and the increase in the French exports, which follows the removal of our restrictions, is the proof and consequence of an increase in English trade. We cannot do good to ourselves without doing good to our neighbour. Nay, if we are doing much the larger trade of the two, it may very well happen that by removing some artificial restrictions which we have placed on our trade with him, we may arrive at the result of increasing our neighbour's trade by a percentage on his trade greater than the percentage by which we increase our own — a catastrophe which excites the liveliest alarm in the minds of those who think the infant of two years lives faster than the youth of twenty, because in one year the infant has doubled his age, whilst the youth has added only one-twentieth to his. It would be seen to be the height of absurdity if a manu- facturer, a merchant, a farmer were to look on the prosperity of his customers as signs of his own decay. Conceive the village baker saying to the shoemaker, " You are making too much by my custom ; you have enlarged your shop, you are taking an apprentice : you eat more of my bread, it is true, but I cannot bear to see you so rich. I shall do without shoes, and go barefoot, in order that your balance may be less at the end of the year." And yet this is the spirit in which we often look at foreign statistics. The very growth in them which we envy is often the necessary result of the increase of our own trade, which, again, is the result of our own free policy. When we reduced our tariff" between 1840 and i860, we increased our own exports and imports; but we PART II.— RETALIATION. 89 increased those of America and Germany and France at the same time. Consequently, in comparing national statistics, the question is not whether we increase faster than or as fast as other nations, though this question may often be answered in the affirmative, but does our Free system enable us to do trade with other nations which we should not do without it, and does it enable us to do trade from which they cut themselves off by a system of Protection ? In saying that trade is necessarily a mutual benefit, I do Competi not forget Competition, or the partial and local suffering which tion. it occasionally causes. Competition becomes wider, if not more severe, as communication extends. But competition is one form of a higher law, of which in this case we can see the beneficent results, and which neither men nor nations can dis- regard with impunity. Free Trade cheerfully obeys this law ; it has regard to sellers who want to sell what other people want to buy, arid to buyers who want to buy 7vhat other people want to sell. Protection disregards these two useful classes, and tries to encourage at their expense the sellers who wa?it to sell what nobody wants to buy. If in the race of competition we were entirely thrown out ; if, whilst other nations were prospering, our forges were extinguished, our looms idle, our pauperism on the increase, and our consump- tion seriously diminishing, it would be time, not to reverse our policy, but to reconsider our position. But whilst the very opposite of this is the case, it is the height of folly to look with jealousy on the growing wealth of other nations who can sell what we want to buy, and buy what we want to sell. CHAPTER XXIV. RECENT COMMERCIAL DEPRESSION. We have already seen what an impetus our trade received in Burden of the period between 1840 and i860. We know also how much Proof lies ■I ^ , ^,on those the trade of t ranee, as well as of ii^ngland, grew after the who call for treaty of i860 ; and v\^e may fairly ask our opponents, who are Change of calling for a reversal of the poUcy which produced those °"^ ° '^^' 9c FREE TRADE FAIR TRADE. Recent Commer ci il De- pression. benefits, to show not only that we have since that time been deprived of them, but tliat we should not have suffered that loss if we had not been Free Traders. We have a right to call upon them to define the specific evil of which they com- plain, and then to prove that it is due to Free Trade. I need not say that no such definition, no such proof, is forthcoming, and we are left with nothing but a vague shadow to fight with. Let us, however, take such facts as we can lay hold of, and see how far they bear out the notion that Ave have lost our markets in the world. Let us take first of all the recent commercial depression, and let us admit that our exports," as measured in nominal values, have considerably diminished since those roaring years of prosperity, 1872 and 1873. Tiiey were 256 and 255 millions in those years, and 191 and 223 millions in 1879 and 1880. They are now rising again, but are not yet equal in nominal value to those of 1872. Let us admit, too, that this decrease of exports has been the sign and result of a real depression, and that both profits and wages have decreased since those so-called prosperous years. This in itself has nothing to do with the question at issue, unless it can be shown to arise from a permanent loss of market for our manufactures. Nothing v/hatever of the kind has been shown, or can be shown. But it can be shown that the prosperity of the earlier years of the decade is exaggerated; that the depression is exaggerated also; and that there are ample causes to account both for one and the other without assuming any falling off in the general demand for or supply of English goods. The prosperity of 1872 and 1873 has been immensely exaggerated. All persons engaged in producing coal and iron of 1872-73. made, no doubt, enormous profits, but they were led by those profits into an extravagant expenditure, partly on personal expenses and luxuries, but still more on plant and machinery for increasing the output, which has flooded the market with excessive supply, and from which no adequate return has yet been received. This expenditure of capital in fixed and, at first, unremunerative investments is one cause of subsequent depression. But whilst coal and iron masters made fortunes in those years, manufacturers and others who had to use coal and iron had to bear heavy outgoings, and their profits were reduced accordingly. Prices being high all round, people with fixed incomes suffered accordingly. Even the high wages Exaggera tion of Prosperity PAPvT IL — RETALIATION. 9 1 of the time went less far than lower wages do when prices are- lower. A great deal of the prosperity was apparent rather than real. The statistics made the exports appear larger than they Statistics really were, because prices were so high. The quantities of p ""^^^^ ! °'^ goods exported, and the labour necessary to produce them, leading. were as large in the subsequent years of depression as they had been in the years of inflation, but appear to be less because prices are so much lower. The exports of British produce were 255 millions in 1873, and 223 millions in 1880. If the exports of 1880 were valued at the prices of 1873 they would be 311 millions, or the largest on record. Imported raw material, e.o cotton and wool, was much Pnces of ^ ' >b 5 , Raw '' teiial. dearer in the period of inflation than in the subsequent period ^^^^ ^^^ of depression, and consequently that portion of the exports which is due to British labour and capital differed in the two periods much less than appears at first sight by the figures of the total exports. For instance, the raw cotton imported in 1873 ^^'3.5 about the same in quantity as the raw cotton imported in 1879. But the raw cotton used in our manufac- tures exported cost us 14 millions more in 1873 than the same quantity cost us in 1879. The prices and exports of the inflated years were due to Temporary causes which were temporarj' and accidental, and brought with Causes of them a necessary reaction. Amongst other causes may be " ^^'°"' mentioned : — Expenditure of capital in this country on plant and machinery, not even yet fully reproductive. Investments of English capital abroad, some of which were wholly unproductive — e.g., the bad foreign loans ; and some of which were not immediately productive, e.g., American rail- ways, but vrhich are now in various ways bringing us a large return of imports. Advances made to assist France in paying the German indemnity, which caused a large export from France and England to Germany at the time, and large exports from France to England and to Germany at a later time. I have given the figures which illustrate this process in the Tables VIII., IX,, and X. in the Appendix. All these causes have little to do with the permanent demand for goods ; all of them largely increased our exports at the time ; some of them proved in the end losses, whilst others 92 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. have helped that increase in our subsequent imports which Fair Traders seem to dread even more than losses. The infla- tion, as well as the depression, is, therefore, fully accounted for without any reference to closed markets or decrease in permanent demand. Large Ex- It is a complete mistake to suppose that extraordinarily Hi^hPrices ^^^ge exports, very high prices, and a great demand for labour nofneces- are necessarily signs of great and permanent prosperity ; they sariiy Tests are Only signs of great activity. They may be caused by a perity!^ continuous demand, and by good and reproductive invest- ments of capital, in which case they are elements of permanent prosperity. But they may be caused by bad investments, by payment of debt, or by unproductive expenditure on war, or by other causes which may lead to absolute loss. If I employ a thousand men to dig a hole and fill it up again, I shall cause high wages, high prices, and great prosperity in my neighbour- hood for a time ; but my capital will be lost, and when the work is at an end there will be a sad reaction and relapse. These are very elementary truths, but they seem to be forgotten by many popular expounders of statistics. CHAPTER XXV, EFFECT OF BAD HARVESTS. Losses of That the farmers have suffered severely during the last five Farmers due to four Farmers qj. gjj. years, there can be no doubt. The amount of their causes losses it is not easy to estimate ; but competent observers have I, Rise of calculated that, if their present condition, arising from the 2^Rise'of losses of the last six years, is compared with their condition ten Wages ; years ago, they must be the worse by a sum approaching 200 3, Lowered millions, or, taking it by the year, 30 millions a year. Whatever 4,^Deficient ^e the sum thus lost by them, it is due to several factors, of Produc- which bad harvests is only one. A rise in rents — which had tion. i^ggj^ going on long before the beginning of the decade, and which continued until 1872-73 — an increase in the cost of labour, and a heavy fall in the price of agricultural produce, owing to foreign competition, are other factors. Of these four PART II. — RETALIATION. 93 factors, the rise of rents, and the rise of labour — a most uncer- tain item — have been estimated to account for something less than one-third of the whole loss, leaving more than two-thirds of the whole loss to the two factors of bad harvests and lowered prices. In what proportion it should be divided between these two factors, is a matter of controversy. Some persons would attribute the larger proportion to the bad harvests ; others think that this has had a much smaller effect than lowered prices ; but that both factors have had a great effect in causing loss to the farmers, all agree. Upon the questions of what is the total amount of loss. First three and in what proportions it is to be attributed to each of these \^°J^ ^° factors, which will probably be the subject of much dis- interest ^ cussion, I will not enter ; the important point for our present not to ti'.e purpose is that it is only that portion of the farmer's loss wholeCom- • - • • • munitv which is due to bad harvests which is a pure economical loss to the country. The rise of rent goes into the land- lord's pocket ; the rise of wages to the labourer ; and if the farmer loses by the substitution of cheaper food from abroad, the consumers of that food gain in lowered prices. The present agricultural depression has, consequently, been con- fined, to a great extent, to the farming and landowning classes. Farmers have suffered much, rents have been remitted or lowered, but the population generally have been little affected, and trade has begun to revive during the worst times of agri- culture. For the first time since the repeal of the Corn Laws, foreign competition, in supplying food to our people, has been unaccompanied by such a rise in demand as to compensate, and more than compensate, the English agriculturist. Even now it is doubtful whether the recent fall in prices will have as great an effect in lowering the letting value of land as the in- creased demand for food, consequent on Free Trade, has had in raising it in former years. So far, therefore, as lower prices are concerned, the nation what is the is not a loser. The loss of the farmer and landowner is the effect of gain of the rest of the people. But it is worth while to con- ProjSou sider what, under a system of Free Trade, is the effect on the on entire welfare of the entire community of so much of the farmer's loss ^^"^r ^ as is really due to a bad harvest. That it is a loss to the ^ - ^ • agricultural interests, and consequently to the community, which includes those interests, there is no doubt ; but to what extent does it affect the large majority of the population, who m unity. 94 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. Effect of are neither farmers nor landowners ? The loss which they suffer bad Har- \^.^^^ J believe, been both exaggerated and understated. In one v\^i^oie°" ^ of our anti-free-trade journals I find the following passage : — Com- "Mr. Bright explains the depression of trade by the loss of millions through the insufficiency of harvests, and the inability of all persons interested in agriculture to make their accus- tomed purchases. " But the Free Traders denied this. They said that foreign corn would pour in, and must be paid for, and would bring about a profitable exportation of non-agricultural products." Whether the Free Traders said this or not, I do not know. But the real state of the case seems to be as follows : — Suppose that there is a deficiency of lo million quarters — worth, say, 20 million pounds. The agricultural interest will lose this sum, and will be actually so much the poorer. They will be unable to exchange their corn for non-agricultural product;;, and, so far, trade will be injured. The argument above referred to as the argument of the Free Traders, assumes that the same quantity of corn must be purchased abroad at the same price as would have been paid for the corn produced at home, and that the same quantity of non-agricultural produce must be exported to pay for it ; and that, if so, manufacture and trade will not suffer on the whole. But the above assumption is not strictly accurate, as the following considerations will show : — 1. Supposing the conditions of production abroad to remain the same, the corn brought from abroad will necessarily cost rather more than the home-grown corn would have cost, and the goods sent to pay for it will have to pay freight and ex- penses. This loss will fall on the whole community. If, indeed, as has been recently the case with ourselves, the im- porters of corn are also the carriers, the freight will return into the pocket of the nation. 2. The course of trade will be deranged, and this will be a loss to the manufacturer as well as to the agriculturist. 3. The foreign purchaser will not want so much of the same things as the home purchaser, and will probably have to be tempted by a lower price. He may want some things very much, as the United States wanted iron for railways in 1880. In that case, the price of iron would go tip in England, but the price of other manufactures would go down. 4. The demand for corn will be large and immediate. Bills of America on England will be at a discount. Bills of England PART II. RETALIATION. 95 on America will be at a premium. The former will be in excess. There will be an immediate profit to America on the business, till the balance is redressed by the exports to America. Consequent!}', in their different ways, the trading and manufacturing interests of England, as well as the agricultural interest, must suffer from our bad harvests ; but their suffer- ing is comparatively small ; and under present circumstances is largely compensated, if not more than compensated, by the low prices of Foreign food. What their suffering would be if Foreign food were excluded, or raised in price by high duties, it is, in the present state of our population and of their employ- ment, frightful to contemplate. CHAPTER XXVI. EXCESS OF niPORTS. Another subject of panic on which an infinite quantity of Excess of nonsense has been talked, is the recent excess of imports over ™P°^ ^' exports. This nonsense has been so often and so fully ex- posed that it is unnecessary to repeat in detail the many arguments which show that our imports are large, because they include the profits of our present trade, and of our past savings. But it may be desirable to state the outUnes of imperfec- the case shortly, premising that the incompleteness of our statistics as statistical records makes error easy and exactness impossible, statement for, not only do our statistics of exports omit much which is of Balance n 111 ,-1 1 n ^^ ^ of Trade. really produced and sent out of the country, but all attempts to strike an exact balance of imports and exports are confused and baffled by investments, and by the traffic in securities. We know that all exports of goods are made either in exchange for the imports of other goods or bullion, or by way of loan to be repaid hereafter by imports — and we know that imports are made either in exchansre for ejoods or bullion, with the necessary additions for freight and profit, or by way of repay- ment of the principal or interest of loans which we have formerly made. But we do not know how much is due to each of these causes, and we cannot, therefore, strike an accurate balance. 96 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. Excess of Imports. AVe do not know the exact state of our debtor and creditor account with foreign countries. The difficulty is increased by the fact that securities are now used as a sort of international cash, and are transferred from country to country, not as per- manent investments, but in place of bullion to settle the balance of accounts. In consequence there is large room for speculation and for error. But all economists agree that we are a largely lending country, and that we have enormous investments abroad, of which the interest and profit are daily returning to us in the shape of imports. The cise may be put shortly as follows : — The excess of imports over exports in 1880 was Imports Exports ^•4 1 1,229,565 286,414,466 ^124,815,099 Estimate The amount of English capital constantly employed ot Foreign r^\^^Q^^ in private trade and in permanent investments, ments. including Stock Exchange securities, private advances, property owned abroad by Englishmen, British shipping, British owned cargoes, and other British earnings abroad, has been estimated by competent statisticians at from 1,500 to 2,000 millions. Taking the lower figure, the interest or profit upon it, at 5 per cent, would be 75 millions, and at the higher figure, 100 millions. But a large proportion of this amount being employed in active business, would bring in much more than 5 per cent, profit, probably not less than 10 per cent. Supposing one-quarter to bring in that interest, we should have, as the income of 1,500 millions capital, 94 millions; for the income of 2,000 millions capital, 125 millions. The former amount is about three-fourths of, and the latter equals, the excess of imports over exports. But besides this, there is Outgoings the question of freights. A very large proportion of the trade of on Ships, ^i^g XJnited Kingdom is carried in English ships, and these ships also carry a large proportion of the trade of the world which does not come to England. This is, in fact, an export of highly-skilled English labour and capital which does not appear in the export returns, and considering that it includes not only the interest on the capital invested in the ships, but wages, pro- visions, coals, port expenses, repairs, depreciation, and insurance ; and that the value of English shipping employed in the foreign PART II.— RETALIATION. 97 trade is estimated at considerably more than loo millions Outgoings sterling, the amount to be added to our exports on this account °" Ships, must be very large. Add to this the ships built for foreigners, amounting in 1880 to 70,000 tons — chiefly steam ships — the ships repaired for foreigners and the ships sold to foreigners, amounting to 75,000 of sailing and 36,000 of steam tonnage worth altogether several millions, which do not appear in our list of exports. All these outgoings, except the small part spent abroad, with the profits, must either return to this country in the shape of imports, or be invested abroad. From all I can learn, I believe that 50 millions is too low an estimate of the amount of unseen exports, which should be added on this account to the total of exports visible in our statistical returns. In addition, there are the commissions and other charges to agents in this country, connected with the carriage of goods from country to country, which are analogous in their nature to the charges of the ship- owners for conveying goods, all of which appear in our accounts of imports, but none of which appear in the Hst of exports. If there is any truth in the above figures, not only is the excess of imports over exports accounted for, but there is really a large surplus of imports due to us, which can only be accounted for by supposing that we are still investing large amounts of our savings in foreign countries and in the colonies. We need not, therefore, be afraid either that we are con- suming the realised earnings of past generations, or that we are ceasing to be able to earn. Though receiving more, we are still earning ; and we may consume in confidence, because vre produce in abundance. I cannot finish this chapter better than with Cobden's own words * : — " Now, we are met by the monopoHsts with this objection : Cobden's — If you have a Free Trade in corn, foreigners will send you q/ ^^cesT^ their wheat here, but they will take nothing in return. The of imports argument employed, in fact, amounts to this, if it amounts to and Drain anything — that they will give us their corn for nothing. I °^ Gold._ know not what can exceed the absurdity of these men if they be honest, or their shallow and transparent knavery if they be dishonest, in putting forward such an argument as that. If there be a child here, I will give him a lesson which will make * See " Cobden's Speeches," p. 63. Speech in London 8th February, 1844. H 98 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. Excess of him able to go home and laugh to scorn those who talk about Imports. Reciprocity, and induce him to make fools' caps and bonfires of the articles in the Morning Post or Herald. Now, I will illus- trate that point. I will take the case of a tailor living in one of your streets, and a provision dealer living in another, and this busybody of a Reciprocity man living somewhere between the two. He sees this tailor going every Saturday night empty- handed to the provision dealer, and bringing home upon his shoulder a side of bacon, under one arm a cheese, and under the other a keg of butter. Well, this Reciprocity man, being always a busybody, takes the alarm, and says : ' There is a one- sided trade going on there, I must look after it.' He calls on the tailor, and says, ' This is a strange trade you are doing ! You are importing largely from that provision dealer, but I do not find that you are exporting any cloths, or coats, or waist- coats in return ? The tailor answers him, ' If you feel any . alarm about this, ask the provision dealer about it ; I am all right, at all events.' Away goes the Reciprocity gentleman to the provision shop, and says, ' I see you are doing a very strange business with that tailor ; you are exporting largely provisions, but I do see that you import any clothes from him : how do you get paid ? ' ' Why, man, how should I ?' replies the provision dealer, ' in gold and silver, to be sure ! ' Then the Reciprocity man is seized with another crotchet, and forthwith begins to talk about the * drain of bullion.' Away he flies to the tailor, and says, ' Why, you will be ruined entirely ! What a drain of the precious metals is going on from your till ! That provision dealer takes no clothes from you ; he will have nothing but gold and silver for his goods.' ' Ay, man,' repHes the tailor, ' and where do you think I get the gold and silver from? Why, I sell my clothes to the grocer, the hatter, the bookseller, and cabinet maker, and one hundred others, and they pay me in gold and silver. And pray, Mr. Busybody, what would you have me do with it ? Do }ou think my wife and family would grow fat on gold and silver ? ' Now, if there is any litde boy or girl in this assembly, I hope they will go home, and for exercise write out that illustration of Reciprocity, and show it to any of their friends who may be seized with this crotchet respecting Reciprocity and the drain of gold, and see if they cannot laugh them easily out of their delusions." I PART II. — RETALIATION. 99 CHAPTER XXVII. POINTS TO BEAR IN MIND IN COMPARING STATISTICS OF TRADE OF DIFFERENT NATIONS. Let us now take the case of one or two foreign countries, and Compan- see whether what we know of their trade is such as to make us other ' fear that we are losing our hold on the markets of the world. Nations. In making any such comparison, two or three points must be remembered. First, as I have already pointed out, the increase of our Increase of own trade necessarily involves the increase of the trade of ^"^^^^^J^ '^ foreign countries. This must be so, whether they open their increase of ports or not. If they reduce their duties contemporaneously Foreigners with our reduction, their trade will increase by so much the more ; if not, it will increase, but not so much. It is therefore to be expected and desired that the trade of foreign nations should increase when our own increases, and such an increase is not so much taken from us, but so much in our favour. Secondly, in comparing our own trade with that of other Manufac- countries, it is common to take the whole exports of domestic th[n^forus produce as the test. But this is nihil ad refti^ so far as our to compare manufactures are concerned. We export little or no food, and litde or no raw produce of the soil. If we wish to see whether other nations are progress- ing faster than ourselves, or, which is the more material point, beating us out of the market, we ought to confine our attention to what we produce ourselves. I have, therefore, in the follow- ing figures endeavoured to do this in a rough way. Thirdly. It must be remembered that the following Our figures, taken from our statistics of exports, do not include the £xporrdo unseen exports which we make in the shape of ships and not include freight. These are as much the produce of English skill and Freight, labour as our cottons or our woollens, and probably amount annually, as above stated, to more than 50 millions, one-sixth of our whole exports. Fourthly. Even as regards manufactures, it ought to be no We cannot surprise to us that some nations are progressing faster than our- ^J^^j)-^^^,. selves, or even competing with us in some articles in our own tures. markets, if we hold our own as a w^hole. lOO FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. We supple- It seems sometimes as if we entertained the notion that we whrcl7w?^ are to have a monopoly of manufacture, and we are frightened lose by if we See that any article which we make is successfully made new inven- in another country. Nothing can be more absurd. Providence ^°"^' has given us no monopoly of natural gifts, and the very essence of the Free Trade doctrine is that each country shall do what it can do best. It is not a loss, but a great gain to us, if France sends to the world, and to us among the rest, her tasteful stuffs, and if America provides us with her ingenious labour-saving machines. We have been the first in the field with the great metal and textile manufactures, and we are still first in general mechanical skill. But the probability is that other countries will by degrees follow us successfully in the older manufactures and in the coarser productions ; and that we shall still continue to invent and to supply the world with the newer products of scientific manufacture. As some evidence that this is actually the case, I may quote the following passage from Mr. New- march's exhaustive address to the Statistical Society, contained in the ^oc\^if?, Journal of June, 1878, p. 211. "Between 1856 and 1877 supplemental exports (viz., those not included under the great heads of Textiles; Sewed; Metals, Ceramics;&c.), increase threefold, viz., from 13 to 37 milHons, and the pro- portion to the total exports rises from 11 to 19. The progres- sion of the figures is rapid and large, and strongly suggestive of a vigorous and inventive trade in which the rapid appearance of new commodities is proportionally pressing open and enlarg- ing the previous classifications and vocabularies.'' The supple- mental Hst thus referred to contains, amongst a multitude of articles, such as biscuits, medicines, chemicals, painters' colours, musical instruments, telegraph materials, india-rubber and jute manufactures, &c., &c. To find that France, Ger- many and America are making cotton and woollen goods for themselves and exporting them is what we must expect. The question we have to consider is, what is our manufacturing position compared with the manufacturing position of countries which have Protective systems, and whether such success as they have has accrued to them in consequence of their Pro- tective systems, or in spite of them. In the tables appended, I have taken the exports of England, France, Germany and the United States at two different periods, and have divided them roughly into food, raw materials, and manufactures, and have endeavoured to see — first, what is the PART II. ^RETALIATION. lOI amount of manufactures exported by each country ; secondly, what proportion that amount bears to its total exports ; and thirdly, how these proportions are progressing. I have said above, that I do not myself rely on the distinctions commonly drawn between raw materials and manufactures, and that there is a great difficulty in drawing any satisfactory line of dis- tinction between them. The distinctions contained in these tables do not therefore pretend to accuracy. Pig iron, for instance, which is here classed as a raw material, is the product of one of our most important manufactures, is one of our chief exports, and is highly protected in many foreign countries. But I have taken the distinctions as made in tables which are already before the public ; and, generally speak- ing, it may be said that what are here included under manufac- tures are special objects of protection in protectionist countries. The case of England, as shown in these tables, is as follows : Exports of the United Exports of Domestic Produce from England. * Kingdom ^ ^ in 1870 and t88o. Amount, in Thousands of T>^^^»,,.orr^ ^f t^^^i Pounds. Percentage of Total. 70. 1880. 1870. 1S80. Food .... Raw Material . Manufactures . 7,607 13.744 178,236 8,825 j 4 23,272 7 190,963 89 4 10 86 Total . . . 1 199,587 223,060 \ 100 100 CHAPTER XXVIII. STATISTICS OF FRENCH TRADE IN RECENT YEARS. Our direct imports from France, as is well known, exceed our Imports & direct exports to France, and they do this by an amount which fromTndto exceeds anything due to us for freight and profit. But what- France ever the explanation of this excess may be, the proportion before and borne by exported English produce to French imports has Treaty. * See Table XVII.. in Appendix, for the details. 102 FREE TRADE V, FAIR TRADE. French increased rather than diminished since the French Treaty, before and whilst the actual amount of Enghsh produce exported has since the tripled, thus showing that the excess of imports is not due to Treaty. ^^ character of the Treat)^ tariffs. The figures are as follows: — Average of Three Years. Imports from France. 1857 — 1859 . 14 millions. 1878— 1880 . 1 40 In 1880 . I 42 British Produce exported. 5 millions. 15 16 Re-exports to I Total Exports France. I to France. 5 millions. 12 12 10 millions. 27 28 The exports from France, according to the French statistics for 1869, the year before the war, and for 1879, ^^^ ^^^t year for which the statistics are issued, are as follows : — Exports from France in 1869 and 1879. Exports of Domestic Produce from France. * Amount, in Thousands of Pounds. Percentage. 1869. 1879. 1869. 1879. Food Raw Material Manufactures £ 34,017 21,482 70,504 £ 33,159 25,210 69,515 27-0 17-0 56-0 26 19-8 54-2 Total .... 126,003 127,884 100 100 The value of manufactures exported from France has therefore actually decreased in the decade, and its proportion to the value of food and raw materials exported has decreased also, whilst the whole exports have also decreased slightly. In fact, the trade has been stationary, whilst the English trade has largely increased, as shown above. It is, however, only fair to add that the trade of France has probably increased, like the trade of other countries, in 1880, but I have not been able to get the detailed figures. If to the above list of exports we were to add shipping and freights, we should find that the exports of England have increased much faster than those of France. * See Table XVIII., in Appendix, for the details. PART II RETALIATION. 103 Half the articles on which duties are imposed by the Duties French tariff are articles to be used solely or principally imposedby in further manufacture, e.g., yarns of all kinds, cotton, silk Articles and woollen, unbleached cloths, combed wool, iron and used in steel of all kinds, copper sheets and wire, coal, alkali, salt, JJ^"^*^^^' tiles and bricks, and leather ; whilst amongst all the rest are articles which conduce not less materially if less direcdy to production, by improving the condition of the workman, or by facilitating the conduct of business. I beUeve I might go through most of them, and show how France manages by imposing a protective duty to countervail her own natural advantages of soil, climate and human character, or to enhance her natural difficulties; whilst freedom from the weight of duties in our case enables us to take advantage of her deficiencies. The special cases of leather, silk, sugar and shipping, I have noticed more particularly below. CHAPTER XXIX. GERMAN TRADE IN RECENT YEARS. The exports from Germany for the same years are as follows : — Exports from ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Germany Exports of Domestic Produce from Germany.* in 1869 and 1879. Amount, in Thousands of Pounds. Percentage. tiSog. 1879. 1869. 1879. Food .... Raw Material Manufactures . £ 28,356 38,383 43,864 37,948 47,283 53,551 25-6 347 397 27-3 34"o 387 Total 110,603 138,782 100 100 * See Table XIX., in Appendix, for the details. f The values for 1869 are estimated only. I04 FREE TRADE IK FAIR TRADE. German There is iio doubt that German trade increased consider- ^^ ^' ably during the decade ending with 1879, during which time she had the benefit of the French indemnity, and a reasonably free tariff. We know, however, that her commercial condition has not of late been satisfactory. Her case is specially interest- ing. One of the first of European nations, fresh from union and from triumph, with a large, ingenious, and industrious population, but without the enormous natural resources which have made the fortune of America, after making great progress towards Free Trade has thought fit, under the imperious guidance of Prince ^ her great leader, to turn back towards Protection. Her tariff Bismarck's ^f 1879, though not SO high as the German tariff had been in Policy. i860, was professedly and thoroughly protective; it increased the duties on everything from completed manufactures to food and raw material. The same policy was carried out on the railways, which were forced against their own wish and interest to carry imported and exported goods at local rates, just as our advocates of equal mileage would like to see done at home. Under these circumstances the result is a matter of great interest. We have for some time heard mutterings of disappoint- ment. We have been told that the trade of the Baltic ports and of the railways which lead to them and to the Russian frontier, is seriously injured, that the price of corn has been raised to the poor, that emigration from Germany is increasing ; and that the deposits in the savings banks are diminished. Its effects But we have not till lately been able to get any general account oil German Qf German trade. A pamphlet has, however, recently been according published by the Free Trade Association at Berlin, containing to German the reports of the Chambers of Commerce in Germany (eighty- of^c'om-'^^ five in number), on the trade of 1880, and giving in most merce. cases their opinions on the new commercial policy. The general results are very striking. If, instead of drawing my arguments from the teaching of political economy, I had drawn them from this pamphlet, I should have used the same reason- ing and almost the same language.* There is throughout these reports a concurrence of opinion that trade in Germany is depressed; that there was a slight improvement in the beginning of 1880, but that the impulse to this was given by the revival of trade in other countries ; that their trade became depressed again towards the end of the * See abstract of this pamphlet, and translation of the preface, recently- published by the Board of Trade. PART II. RETALIATION. I05 year, when the new tariff had come fully into operation ; that Effects of the internal demand for manufactures is slack ; that the price of Protective raw material is high; that food is dear; and that the working German^ classes are worse off than they were. Trade. The preface to this pamphlet says, " Perhaps no critic of this new system was prepared for the rapidity and the decision with which the consequences of the new tariff have shown themselves — first, in increasing the difficulties of trade ; secondly, in raising the prices of the necessaries of life ; thirdly, in injuring the prosperity of the labouring classes." Most of the Chambers which express an opinion on the new commercial poHcy dislike it, and attribute to it much of the present depression ; some approve it, but even these are dis- satisfied with the actual results, and either seek for more protection, or — what is, perhaps, the severest condemnation of protection — they ask that, when they export their manu- factures, they may have drawbacks of all the import duties which have been paid on their materials. In short, they seek to sell cheap abroad and dear at home ; which, absurd as it is, is not wonderful when we are told that some of the ironmasters in Germany are now taking contracts for steel rails abroad at lower prices than those at which they sell them in Germany, Protection has, indeed, reached its ne plus tcltra of folly, if a Government is first to tax all its subjects in order to enable its own manufacturers to sell dear at home, and then to tax them over again in order to enable the same manufacturers to sell cheap abroad. The result of recent elections in Germany gives additional importance to such expressions of opinion as are contained in this paper ; and they derive additional importance from the fact recently stated in the newspapers, that Prince Bismarck has taken steps to subject any future expressions of opinion by the Chambers of Commerce to his own official control. At the same time, I do not wish to make more of these reports than they are worth. German trade shared in the temporary revival of 1880, and it will, no doubt, share again in the revival now taking place in the trade of other countries. And it will very likely then be said that such revival is due to their Protective system. But the opinions of the Chambers of Com- merce show that hitherto it has not succeeded, and that they expect it to be a disappointment in future. io6 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. CHAPTER XXX. UNITED states' TRADE. Let us next take the case of the United States. They levy, as is well known, enormous duties, ranging up to 50 per cent., and even 100 per cent., on almost everything that is made with hands. With all this, they are at this moment in a state of great prosperity. But it is not long ago that we heard of depression in the towns of the United States far more acute than any which our workmen have laboured under. The recent growth of their trade is very remarkable. The following is an analysis of their export trade in 1870 and 1880, excluding bullion and specie : — Exports of United States in 1870 and 1880. Exports of Domestic Produce from the United States.* Amount, in Thousands of Pounds. Percentage. 1870. i83o. 1870. 1880. Food .... Raw Material Manufactures £ 21,660 45,600 8,609 £ 96,694 57,199 17,763 28-6 6o-i ii'3 56-3 33'3 10-4 Total . 75,869 171,656 100 100 But it is desirable to go a Httle further back, and for this purpose I take the figures from a very interesting article on United States' trade in the Times of the 7th November, 1881. If the figures do not correspond exactly with those given above, it is because the following figures include bullion and specie ; and because, in the figures for 1880, the dollar is taken at 4s. in the Times article, and at 4s. 2d. in the figures given above. * See Table XX. , in Appendix, for details. i PART II. — RETALIATION. 107 The following are the exports of the United States and United Kingdom respectively, since 1840 : — •s* OF D OMESTIC PrODUCI :, IN Ti [QUSANDS OF POUNDS United States. United Kingdom. 1S40 . IS50 . i860 . 1870 . 1880 . . ;^22,779 . 27,389 . . 74.637 . 84,100 . . 166,658 . . ^51,309 . 71,367 . 135.891 . 199.586 223,060 Exports of United States and United Kingdom in each de- cade since 1840. If to these figures were added the figures representing those exports which each country makes in the form of its shipping, the comparative growth of the trade of the United Kingdom would appear to be very much larger, especially in later years, during which the shipping of the United States has been diminishing, and that of the United Kingdom largely increasing. It will be observed in the above figures that the trade of Growth of the United States increased little between i860 and 1870, no i^°fh"J^t^^o^ doubt in consequence of the exhaustion caused by the civil Countries, war ; and that this leeway was made up in the subsequent decade. The most important observation, however, is that during the whole of the periods above mentioned the popula- tion of the United States grew much faster than that of the United Kingdom ; and that, if we take the amount of trade per head of each country in each decade, the trade of the United Kingdom has grown much faster than that of the United States The following are the figures : — Exports per PIead of THE Two Countries. Compari United States. United Kingdom. son of Exports 1840 . £1 11 I . ;^l 18 9 per head 1850 I 6 2 2 II 10 i860 2 10 II 4 14 7 1870 2 6 II 6 7 II 1880 . 3 8 I 695 These are not figures to alarm us. It is idle to expect that 30 million of people shall produce as much as 50 million of the same people. * The exports from the United States include bullion and specie. Those from the United Kingdom do not. But this will make very little difference. Io8 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. Causes of The United States are probably, however, at this moment Staters' °^^^ ^^ ^^""^ most prosperous nations in the world. Prosperity. The source of their prosperity is not far to seek. It is not to be found in those industries which they try to cherish by Protection, but in the raw productions of the fertile soil and climate of their immense territory. They have 50 millions of the most industrious and energetic people in the world ; they have a country as large as Europe, with every variety of good climate, and with an unlimited area of unexhausted soil. They have excellent communication throughout all the parts of this immense area. Besides this, though shut off by their tariffs from the rest of the world, they have absolute Free Trade within their own borders. It is as if there were no custom houses within the limits of Europe. Besides this, they have the Old World wanting food, and affected by bad harvests. No wonder, then, that they supply the world with food and agricultural produce. Only a tenth of their population is concerned in trade. The export of manufactures from the United States in 1S80 was lyj millions sterling, whilst our own export of manufactures in the same year was 190 millions. Even in their own highly protected market, our manufactures are sold to the extent of 24^ milHons a year; whilst in our open market theirs are only sold to the extent of 2-} millions. With great facilities for producing iron and steel, and with a considerable native production, prices were so high in 1880 that, in spite of the duty of 40 per cent, imposed on foreign iron, we were able to send them ;£"! 0,000,000 worth, whilst what they sent us was worth ^^200,000. Nature Their exports were very large in 1880, and have increased ExpSts enormously in the decade ; but of what do they consist ? Ninety per cent, are food and raw materials, whilst the manufactures which they try so hard to foster and protect do not amount to more than 10 per cent. Their shipping, as we shall see below, is not one-fourth — or, if we count one ton of steam as equal to four of sailing, not one-seventh of our own. Of their whole trade they carried 75 per cent, in their own vessels in 1850, and only 16 per cent, in 1880. Food constituted 56 per cent, of their exports in 1870, and the amount of food which they export has increased more than fourfold since that year. If we were to include freights of shipping in the exports of manufactures, their exports of manufactures would show a decrease instead of an PART II. — RETALIATION. • IO9 increase. The things which they have not protected they provide the world with ; in the things which they protect, and we leave free, they are nowhere in the race. So much stronger is Nature than human law — so great are the advan- tages which Freedom has over Protection. The real moral to be drawn from American trade is the Free Trade moral — viz., that the free development of natural advantages, and the free exchange of natural products, are the true sources of commercial prosperity. since new ian CHAPTER XXXI. TRADE OF CANADA AND AUSTRALIA. It is too soon to trace the effect of the Canadian tariff of 1879 Trade of on her trade, and it is especially difficult to eliminate other Canada causes which have affected it. It would have been very canad strange if Canada had not, tariff or no tariff, participated in the Tariff, revival which has taken place in the trade of the American con- tinent ; it would be doubly strange if, with her natural capacity for producing corn, and with the recent scarcity in Europe, she had not very largely increased her exports. For those exports she must be paid, and we should therefore also expect to see her imports increase ver}- largely, and with them her customs revenue. We do find an increase, but by no means a very large one. In 1880, after the new tariff, the amount received as customs revenue had increased over that received in 1878, the year before the new tariff, by a little more than a million of dollars. The duties in 1880 amounted to about 20 per cent, in value of the whole imports of the country. In 1874 and 1875, before the new tariff, the duties constituted only from eleven to thirteen per cent, of the value of the imports, and in those years the customs revenue was much larger than it was in 1880. Comparing the trade of 1878, the year before the new tariff, with 1880, the last year since the new tariff, we find that the imports were 90 millions of dollars in the former year, and 86 J millions in the latter year; whilst the exports were 79 millions in the former, and 88 milHons in the latter. In 1873-74 the I lO FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. Canada has succeeded in making her Exports larger than her Im- ports ! Compari- son of growth of Trade, &c., in Victoria and New South Wales. imports had been 128 millions, and the exports 89 millions of dollars. Considering the immense demand of Europe for corn, it is surprising that even with the check on her industry imposed by the new tariff, the increase of exports in 1880 should have been so small as it is. But Canada has succeeded in reaching the millennium of the Protectionists ; she has considerably reduced her imports, and for the first time since 1868 she has made her exports exceed her imports. She has managed, so far as her statistics tell the story, to give to foreign countries a good deal more than she has received from them in return. This, in the case of a new country seeking for capital from England, a country too, which owns a great deal of shipping, and which must therefore have large invisible exports in the shape of freights, is a truly remarkable result, and one of which Protec- tionists may well be proud ! Canada has, probably, succeeded in calling into existence some weak manufacturing interests which will prove a thorn in her side, but she has done so at the expense of her natural industries, and has checked the flow of capital and labour from Europe, of which she stands in so much need. We have heard whispers in this country of a desire for bargains with England, under which England should either advance money to her, or give some preferential treat- ment to Canada as the price for a reduction of her duties on English goods. Whether such proposals have ever been enter- tained or made by men of influence in Canada, I do not know. But the chilling recepUon all such notions have met with in this country, ought to be a lesson to Canada, and to other Protec- tionists, that if you want to win the favours of your mistress, it is a very bad plan to put on a fit of sulks in order to make your return to good-humour the price for her smiles. The Protec- tionist policy of Canada is deeply to be regretted by all her well-wishers here, not because it injures the trade of England, for to that trade it is a comparative trifle, but because it tends to cripple the industry of Canada, and to create a bad feeling between the two countries. The case of Victoria and New South Wales is particularly interesting, because the two colonies are in many respects simi- larly situated ; and whilst the one, Victoria, has embraced Pro- tection, the other (New South Wales) has remained steadfast to Free Trade. Both have progressed, but New South Wales has made by far the greater progress of the two. The following short resume of the facts derived from official papers was sug- PART II. — RETALIATION. Ill gested by Mr. Baden Powell's paper on the subject, read at the late meeting of the British Association, and I forbear to give my readers or myself the trouble of a detailed criticism of the statistics, because Mr. Powell's paper is published in extenso in the Fortnightly Reinew for January. It appears, on comparing the progress of the two colonies for the last decade, that the following are the general results : — Victoria, New South Wales. Population has increased from has increased from 726,000 to 860,000, 502,000 to 770,000, or or 1 8 per cent. 53 per cent. Excess of Immigrants stationary . has increased from 4,000 over Emigrants to 19,000. The Value of Rateable has increased by less has more than doubled. Property than one-half Customs Revenue stationary . has increased by nearly one-half; and is, with a less population and low tariff, nearly as great as that of Victoria, with a large population and high tariff. Imports have increased from \2\ have increased from 7| millions to 14^ mil- millions to 14 millions, lions, or 1 7 per cent. or 80 per cent. Exports have increased from \2\ have increased from 8 millions to 16 mil- millions to 15^^ mil- lions, or 28 per cent. lions, or 94 per cent. These facts need no comment from me. CHAPTER XXXII. SPECIAL INSTANCES OF THE EFFECTS OF PROTECTION DUTIES ON PRODUCTION — LEATHER, SUGAR, SALT. There are one or two special illustrations of the benefit of free tariffs in forwarding production, which it may be worth while to mention specially. 112 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. Leather, Increase of Manufac- tures of. Free Im- portation of Foreign Hides. At the recent Leather Exhibition in this country it ap- peared that the exportation of boots and shoes from this country was largely increasing, whilst the importations from France and other countries were decreasing, and at the same time the importation of tanned and dressed hides into this country was largely increasing. The follow- ing is the statement in the report in the Timts of the 27th September, 1881 : — " The increase in the number of exhibits this year as com- pared with last is, roughly speaking, proportional to the improve- ment which has in the interval taken place in the trade of our boot and shoe manufacturers, the Board of Trade returns for the seven months ending July 31st, this year, showing that we exported 3,277,740 pairs of boots and shoes in that period against 2,800,992 in the corresponding period of 1880. and 3,071,424 in 1879. Our Australian colonies took 1,309,752 pairs. The imports of boots and shoes, on the contrary, showed a decline. While 1,041,624 pairs were imported from France and other countries in the first seven months of 1879, only 711,420 pairs were imported in 1880, and but 572,232 pairs in the corre- sponding period this year." " From these figures it is argued that our English manu- facturers are rapidly improving the quality and finish of their goods, and are so enabled to compete successfully with Conti- nental makers. Of materials, on the other hand, importations show an increase. In the first seven months of 1879 we imported 21,144,765 pounds weight of tanned and dressed hides ; in 1880 the quantity had risen to 26,516,269 lbs., and in 1881 to 28,686,360 lbs." It further appeared from the speech of Mr. Jackson, M. P., that we import tanned leather to the value of three miUions a year, that much of this leather comes from America, and that live cattle come here from America, that they are killed here, that their skins are sent back to America to be tanned, and that they are then sent back here to be used in manufacture. The reason, as I am informed, is not that we do not tan hides as well as the Americans ; but that they, adopting newer and rougher methods, do the first part of the process more quickly and cheaply than we do, so that it is worth while to commence tanning in America, and then send back the hides to be completely tanned, and then used, in England. If so, it is a remarkable instance of modern division of PART li. — RETALiATION. II3 labour, and of the advantage of free, cheap, and speedy Leather, communication. _ Jnd^Ma^nu- It would, no doubt, save labour and expense if we could factures of. do the whole of the process of tanning as cheaply as the Americans, and it is to be hoped we rnay learn to do so. But our present system gives us both the finer process of tanning and the manufacture for export as well as for home consumption of cheap boots and shoes ; whereas, if we imposed a tax on tanned hides for the supposed benefit of our tanners, we should probably destroy all prospect of improvement in our own tanning, and we should still more probably ruin our manu- factures of boots and shoes, and divert it to our foreign rivals. In turning to the returns, in which attempts have been made to discriminate between raw materials and manufactures, I find tanned hides inserted among manufactures. And in turning to the tariffs of foreign countries, I find that tanned leather is subject to a duty in France, Germany, Russia, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Austria, Italy, and the United States. Mr. Jackson says that France is contemplating a duty of 400 per cent, on manufactured articles of leather. She would become a more formidable competitor if she would give to her skilful and ingenious workers in leatiier the benefit of untaxed hides. Take, again, the article of sugar, of which we have heard so Raw Sujfar much lately. Austria and Germany, at their own cost, niake ^J^^^P^°"^' raw sugar unnaturally cheap by giving a bounty on its exporta- France, tion. On the raw sugar, though much importuned by certain special interests, we do not, and I trust never shall, impose a duty. France, on the other hand, imposes on raw sugar a considerable duty for the benefit of her sugar growers. The consequence is that, though she grows beet sugar, whilst we cannot, her refiners have to pay a comparatively high price for raw sugar, whilst ours get it duty free. The export of refined sugar from France is decreasing, and refining is increasing in England ; and, whilst our refineries increase, our people, at the same time, get cheap sugar. French production of sugar has decreased from 425,000 tons in 1878 to 320,000 tons in 1880, and her exportations from ;^2,o97,526 to ;£i, 556,836 worth. In this country the production of refined sugar is largely on the increase, having risen from less than 430,000 tons in 1864 to upwards of 700,000 tons in 1880. France, it I 114 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. is said, contemplates increasing her tax on foreign raw sugar. She would stand a better chance of competing were she to abolish it altogether.* Take, again, salt. Salt enters largely into manufacture. It is a chief material of alkali, and alkali of glass. France imposes a heavy duty on salt. In this country it is free and cheap. We export a large and increasing quantity of alkali (7,000,000 cwts. in quantity, and p^2, 400, 000 in value, in 1880), and a large and increasing quantity of glass (;^i, 000,000 in value in 1880), whilst neither alkali nor glass appear among the principal articles of French export. Chemicals in the French list may possibly include " alkali," but, if so, I find that the export of French chemicals has increased little, if at all, in the last 10 years, and is now only 58,266,000 francs, whilst the export of English chemicals has increased from ;i/^733,422 in 1866 to ;£2, 384,021 in 1880. In this case we can probably produce salt more cheaply than France, owing to our geological formations. But she enhances her natural difficulties by an artificial one. Again, if we take silk, which is a special French manu- facture, it appears that France exported to us silk goods, the produce of her own manufacture, to the amount of 6J millions sterling in i860 before the French treaty came into operation, and to the amount of loj millions in 1866, whilst the amount she exported to us in 1879 was only 3I millions ; and I am informed that this diminution is due to the protective duty she levies on cotton yarns, which are wanted to mix with the silk, and which her manufacturers have con- sequently to pay dear for, whilst her successful rivals in Switzer- land get their cotton yarns duty free. Meanwhile, I find that the exports of silk manufactures from England, which had dropped from a million and a half in i860 to a million in 1867, have risen in 1880 to two millions. * Ses Pari. Paper, No. 423 of 1881. PART II. — RETALIATION. II CHAPTER XXXIII. SHIPPING. So much has been said about shipping that I am almost Shipping of afraid of referring to it, but it is so striking an instance of Khiedom^ the advantages of freedom and the impotency and mischief of protection, that I must state the figures again. Most of the following are taken from the Appendix to Mr. Chamber- lain's speech, as published by the Cobden Club. Statement of the Percentage of the Foreign Trade of the United Kirigdont carried on in British Ships compared {in thousands of ions). Average of Three Years. Total Foreign Trade (Thousands of Tons). Total carried in British Ships (Thousands of Tons). Proportion of Total Trade carried en in British Ships (Per cent.). 1854-6 19,582 11,537 59 1857-9 22,798 13,299 58 1860-2 25,940 15,094 58 1863-5 27,613 18,193 66 1866-8 32,566 22,095 68 1869-71 37,699 25,632 68 1872-4 44,123 29,485 67 1875-7 49,531 33-051 67 1878-80 54,349 38,025 70 Statement shoioing the Proportion of the Tonnage of the United Kingdom to the Tonnage of certain Foreign Countries at diffcrc7it Dates, multiplying steam tonnage by FOUR to reduce it to a common deno?ninalor with sailing tonnage {in thousands of tons). United Kingdom. Foreign Countries. Total Year. Thousands of Tons. Per cent, of Total. Thousands of Tons. Per cent, of Total. (Thousands of Tons). i860 1870 18S0 5,942 8,950 14,679 42 49 55 8,143 9,217 11,992 58 51 45 14,085 18,167 26,671 The foreign countries included are : — France, Germany, ii6 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. Holland, Belgium, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Sweden and Norway, Denmark, Greece, and the United States (oversea tonnage). Tonnage belonging to the United Kingdom. (In Thousands of Tons.) (3> 397 Sailing. 1850 (The Date of the Repeal of the Navigation Laws) ■> ^^^ Steam. I 3,565 Total. Years. Sailing. Steam. Total. Years. Sailing. Steam. Total. 1869 4,765 948 5,713 1875 4,207 1,945 6,152 1870 4,578 1,113 5,691 1876 4,258 2,005 6,263 187I 4,374 1,320 5,694 1877 4,261 2,139 6,400 1872 4,213 1,538 5,751 1878 4,239 2,3i(^ 6,555 1S73 4,091 1,714 5,805 1879 4,069 2,511 6,580 1S74 4,108 1,871 5,979 1880 3,851 2,723 6,574 Annual \ Average J 4,355 1,417 5,772 Annual Average 4,148 2,273 6,421 Note. — It seems important to notice that while the aggregate of sailing and steam tonnage has increased, the increase is exclusively in steam tonnage, which is more effective than sailing tonnage as three or four to one. Tonnage belonging to France. (In Thousands of Tons.) Years. Sailing. Steam, Total. 1840 652 9 662 1850 684 14 688 i860 928 68 996 1870 921 151 1,072 1879 676 255 932 Over-sea Tonnage belonging to the United States. (In Thousands of Tons ) Years. Sailing. Steam. Total. 1840 896 4 959 1850 1,541 45 1,586 i860 2,449 97 2,546 1870 1,324 193 1,517 1880 1,206 147 1,353 PART II. — RETALIATIOX. 117 Total Trade of the United States cai-ricd in Lliited States and Foreign Vessels respectively, with the Percentage carried by each {in thousands of dollars)* Years. In American Vessels. In Foreign Vessels, Percentage in American Vessels. 1840 1850 i860 1870 1881 198,424 239,272 507,247 352,969 268,080 40, S02 90,764 255,040 638,927 1,378,556 82-9 72-5 66-5 35-6 i6-2 Total Tofinage Ente7-ed and Cleared in the United States, in each of the years 1850, i860, 1870, and 1880 {years ended 2,0th June), distinguish- ing Aniey-ican, British, and other Foreign Vessels* {in. thousands of tons'). Tonnage. Percentage. Years. Ameri- can. British. Other Countries. Total. Ameri- can. British. Other Countries. Total. Per Tons. Tons. Tons. Tons. Percent. Per cent. Per cent. cent. 1850 5,206 2,845 659 8,710 5977 32-67 7-56 100 i860 12,087 4,068 910 17,065 70-33 23-84 5-33 100 1870 6,993 9,246 2,085 18,324 38-16 1 50-46 11-38 100 1880 6,834 20,697 8,523 36,054 18-95 57-41 23-64 100 Our success, it is to be observed, has taken place since we Early- repealed our Navigation Laws, and deprived our shipowners propaise of of every privilege, whilst we have also given them free access states to every market for their materials. In Europe we might have Shipping, expected to remain supreme, but, within my own recollection, the United States were formidable rivals. When I was a boy American liners were the pride of Liverpool, and careful observers prophesied that United States shipowners must become the carriers of the world. The following passage from De Tocqueville's ''Democracy in America" (Vol. ii., Chap. X.), is curious enough to deserve quotation. " From the Bay of Fundy to the Gulf of Mexico the coast of DeTocque- the United States extends for nearly 900 leagues. These shores prophecv form a single, uninterrupted line ; they are all under the same rule. There is no nation in the world which can offer to commierce * From the United States statistics, ii8 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. ports with greater depth, greater width, and greater safety. Europe is, then, the market of America, as America is the market of Europe; and maritime trade is as necessary to the inhabitants of the United States, to bring their agricuUural produce to our ports, as to take our manu- factures to them. The Anglo-Americans have at all times shov/n a decided taste for the sea. Their independence, in breaking the commercial links which bound them to England, gave a new and powerful impulse to their maritime genius. Since that time the number of the ships belonging to the Union has increased nearly as fast as the number of its inhabitants. At this day it is the Americans themselves who carry to their homes nine-tenths of the imports from Europe. It is the Americans, too, who carry to the consumers of Europe three-quarters of the exports of the New World.* The ships of the United States fill the ports of Havre and Liverpool. One sees but few English or French ships in the port of New York. Thus, not only does the American merchant brave competition on his own soil ; he competes successfully with foreigners on theirs. I think that nations, like men, almost always show from their youth the powerful features of their destiny. When I see the spirit with which Anglo-Americans carry on trade, the facilities they possess for doing it, the success which they attain in it, I cannot help believing that they will one day become the first maritime power of the globe. They are impelled to take possession of the sea as the Romans were to conquer the world." Such was De Tocqueville's prophecy in 1835. And now the ships of the United States are not one-fourth or, if steam is taken into account, not one-seventh of those of England ! And whilst American ships carry less than one-fifth of the whole trade of the United States, British ships carry much more than one-half of that trade. England has 55 per cent, of the ocean tonnage and canying trade of the entire world, and America is nowhere. If England has special advantages from nature, other nations have the same. As De Tocqueville truly remarks, — in seaports, in harbours, in human skill and industry, and in natural aptitude for the sea, America is not inferior to ourselves; of coal * At this day, 1881, according to the statistics of the United States, 16 per cent, in value of their trade is carried in United States ships, and 84 per cent, in foreign ships, of which more than two-thirds are British. PART II. — RETALIATION. II9 and iron she has an ample store ; her geographical position is as good as ours. Every port in the world, oar own included, is as free to American ships as to ours, whilst the Union closes her trade between her x\tlantic and Pacific ports to our ships. But whilst we leave our shipowner to buy his materials and build and buy his ships where and Iioav he pleases, America refuses to place a foreign-built ship upon her register, and imposes a duty of 50 per cent, on the materials of shipbuilding. At the same time, whilst she thus protects her shipowners out of existence, she leaves her capital and energy free to devote themselves to the production of food in her boundless realms of virgin soil, and the consequence is that, whilst she is developing with extraordinary rapidity those natural resources of soil and climate, with which her laws have not directly interfered, she has surrendered to us the field in which nature allows us to compete, and vdiich, at one time, she seemed destined to win also. We are accustomed to think our railway interest an impor- Shipping as tant interest, and so it is. But in current expenditure on compared skilled labour our shipping interest is still more important. Railway The fixed capital of the railways is over 700 millions; the interes'. fixed capital in ships is probably not a fourth or fifth of that amount. But the working expenses of the railways in 1880 were ;^;^h millions, whilst the outgoings on shipping, which give employment and remuneration to a great variety of forms of skilled labour, probably amount to nearly double that sum. The gross income of the railways in 1880 was 65 J millions. What the gross income of shipping was we have no means of estimating exactly ; but it must have been very large indeed, probably much more than that sum. Our shipping interest is one of which the nation may well be proud. CHAPTER XXXIV. BAD CONSEQUENCES OF RETALIATION, SUPPOSING IT POSSIBLE, AND SUPPOSING A CASE COULD BE MADE FOR ' IT. We have seen that retaliation would be an impotent weapon in Conse- our hands : that to retaliate on articles of food, or of raw p^^^Jj^! '^ material, is out of the question ; and that to retaliate on manu- tion. 120 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. Conse- factures, as proposed by the Fair Trade League, or on luxuries, Retaliation, ^^ proposed by Lord Salisbury, would have no effect except if it were 'that of exposing us to a far more dangerous retaliation in possible. return. We have also seen that our position as Free Traders in the midst of Protectionist countries is not such as to call for a change in our policy. But, assuming that all these things were unproved ; supposing that a fundamental change is necessary ; and supposing that a retaliatory policy were possible for us, it is worth while to consider what its consequences would be. English- I, One effect of retaliation would be to deprive English buy dearer P^ople of the goods they can buy better and cheaper abroad, and worse This, if confined to luxuries, would, perhaps, be the least of the Goods. evils caused by it. If the only effect of a high tariff were to limit the sums expended on the hothouse, the shrubbery, the game preserve, the hunting stable, the race-course, or the ball- room, there would be comparatively little objection to it. The national loss would be small, but the effect, whether for fiscal or economical purposes, would be small also. If retaliatory duties are to have any real effect, they must touch things which a great many people want and use ; and in this case the comfort and con- venience of a large number of people would be seriously affected. Sale of 2. A second effect of retaliation would be to diminish the Good? ^^^ ^^^ manufacture of English goods. Goods of foreign would be make bought for our use at home are ex Jiypothesi better and diminished cheaper than similar goods of native manufacture. Goods of English make bought for use by foreigners abroad are ex hypotJicsi better and cheaper than similar goods of foreign manufacture. If English people are prevented from buying abroad, and foreigners from buying here, there will be less produced, less profit made, and less to spend in return on both sides. The Frenchman who sells his silk to us makes more profit, and buys directly or indirectly more of our' goods in return than the English silk merchant would do if we were to compel English people agairst their will to use English silk inst'ead of French silk. Materials 3. We should cripple our own trade by depriving it of scarcer and ^""^^-terials. Many, if not most, articles are made for further use dearer. in manufacture. What is a manufactured article in retrospect is raw material in prospect, as I have shown in the case of sugar and dressed hides. 4. We should also stunt and cripple our manufactures, by PART II. — RETALIATION. 121 bestowing the fatal gift of Protection upon them, and depriving we should them of the stimulus of foreign competition. At this moment lose the our leather trade suffers by American competition, because the of ^om- Americans tan hides cheaper than we do. Our Bradford fabrics petition, are or have been suffering, because our wives and daughters have found French or German woollens pleasanter or prettier than Yorkshire goods. If we were to exclude American leather, or French woollens, we should exclude the stimulus requisite for improvement in the tanneries and woollen mills of England, and very likely stop the improvement in these particular manu- factures which is at this very moment in progress. 5. A further and a most serious evil has not been suffi- Last ciently considered. We are not now arguing with Protectionists, protec[ed who wish to keep out foreign goods altogether ; we are arguing interests with people who wish to exclude foreign goods only in order to worse than make foreigners admit English goods. Now what will be the ^ ^ ^^^' position of our unhappy protected interests when retaliation has effected its purpose, and when the foreign nation against whom it is directed offers us a free tariff on the condition of our repealing our protective duties? We shall have nursed up a miserable interest, feeble for purposes of production, as pro- tected interests ahvays are, but powerful in the lobbies, and clinging with tenacity to its protective duties, which will then be seen to stand in the way of other and more important interests. This unhappy interest will either maintain itself to their detriment, or it will be sacrificed for their benefit, and its last state will be worse than its first. The ribbon-weavers of Coventry have time out of mind been complaining of bad trade and foreign competition. Since the French Treaty they have, at any rate, known their fate, and Coventry has other manu- factures and other prospects of prosperity. It would be the height of cruelty to tempt capital and labour back into the ribbon trade by the prospect of a protection against French ribbons, to be withdrawn as soon as the French people become alive to their own true interests, and repeal their duties jon English iron and cotton. 6. A seventh evil of retaliation peculiarly evident to the Confusion official mind, but not the less a great public evil, is that it q^^iI would lead to all the confusions and difficulties which arise House, from duties differing according to the nationality of the goods, and all the mischiefs and frauds attendant on certificates of origin. A generation has passed away since the reforms of the 122 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. tariff swept this troublesome rubbish into the official waste- paper basket. Those who were at work then can remember what a relief that reform was. But the mischiefs formerly caused to trade in its then contracted state were as nothing compared to the evils which such a system would now inflict on trade, considering the infinitely greater number of com- mercial dealings which now take place, and the infinitely greater speed with which they must be conducted. CHAPTER XXXV. PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF RETALIATORY DUTIES TO FRENCH SILKS AND FRENCH WINES. Retaliition l^t ^g see how Retaliation would work in an actual and not im- ofSilk. " probable case. If we should be so unfortunate as to fail in the present negotiations with PYance, there will be a cry for Retalia- tion, and it will be a formidable one, for it will unite in one current special interests which desire Protection, general feelings of in- dignation and political temptation. A heavy tax on French silk will probably be pressed upon the Government. Silk is, comparatively speaking, a luxury, and it is an important French manufacture. According to our own statistics, we imported silk to the value of about lo millions sterling from France in 1880. There is some reason to doubt these figures, as the exports from France to England, according to French statistics, are only 6^ millions, of which 3I millions are French manufac- ture ; but it is certainly an important article of French manu- facture and export. We also make and export a large quantity of silk manufactures, amounting in 1880 to about 2 millions. Let us see what would be the consequence of a high protective duty on French silk imported into England. Silk would I. English people would get their silk goods less good and be worse j^g^ cheap. This, it may be said, is a trifle. Silk is a luxury, and dearer \ ' -',,.,'. ^ ..... . . V inEngiand. and people can do very well without it. 1 will admit that it is not the most important of articles ; but is it a trifle to make the handkerchief, the ribbon, the Sunday gown dearer and uglier ? Is it a trifle to take from our people one of the few articles which add grace and beauty to our somewhat sombre and dreary PART II. — RETALIATION. I 23 life ? Speaking in the interest of those who can spend Httle upon mere beauty and ornament, I cannot come to any such conclusion. 2. It will diminish the quantity of English goods which are Fewer now sent, directly or indirectly, to France in return for French English silk. This is beyond doubt. Whatever France sends us we be°nfade^ pay for, and we pay for it in something we can make better and sold in than she does ; we shall lose a certain quantity of French Exchange, custom, directly or indirectly. But it will be said, " The money now spent by English people on French silk must be spent on something else ; that something will probably be silk made in England, and so English labour and capital will be employed as much and as profitably as if they were employed to pay the French for their silk." The rejoinder is clear : they will be employed, but not as much or as profitably. Ex hypothesl the French make the silk they send us better and cheaper than we do ; they can make more profit out of it, and can therefore spend more on other goods of ours in return. On the other hand, it is equally clear that the English capital and labour which we are going to divert into the silk business is now employed on something which pays better than silk, or they would be employed in making silk. Consequently, by diverting this labour and capital to silk-making we are making it less profitable than it was before the tax. There will be a loss all round. 3. It will deprive our own silk manufacturers of the stimulus Silk manu- for improvement now arising from French competition ; and gnt^nd^ this, considering the value of French taste and ingenuity in wufnot be improving the beauty of manufactures, is no small con- stimulated sideration. by compe- T -11 11 • • 1 ,- tition. 4. it Will call mto existence a protected manufacture, weak p^ ^g^k and sickly as such manufactures always are. Who that remem- manufac- bers the constant distress of the Spital fields weavers in the days ^^^ ^^'^^ ^^ of Protection, can desire to see English money and English workmen again tempted by protective duties into such a business? 5. It will not only coax a miserable trade into existence, And this but if Retaliation answers the purpose of its promoters, and the ?^'^^^ French are induced by our refusal of their silks to offer to J^n^here- take our cottons and wool and iron on reasonable terms, we after be shall be forced to abandon this protected -trade to the tender deserted, mercies of French competition. We shall have indulged it and pampered it only to betray and desert it. on Wine. 124 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. The 6. In the meantime we shall have to distinguish at the House"will Custom House between French-made silk and all other silks ; have to dis- for it is an essential part of the policy of Retaliation and Recipro- tinguish ^i^y that we are not to place these duties on the goods of Country countries which take our goods free. Switzerland, for instance, of origin and probably Italy, send their silk goods to us through France. °^^t^d" French goods may be sent to us through Belgium or Holland. Silk. We must therefore ascertain, before we allow any bale of silk goods to be landed in England, whether they have been made in France or in some other country. Conceive the confu- sion, difficulty, and delay which such official obstructions would cause. They would injure trade more than the tax itself. Retaliation In silk I have taken a manufacture which is carried on both in France and England, and in which, therefore, Retaliation involves Protection to English manufacture. This would not be the case with wines, to which X. (the writer in the Pall Mall Gazette^ to whom I have referred above) points as an article on which we might properly lay a retaliatory duty. If, in con- sequence of the treaty dropping, our hands are freed, and if either fiscal or social reasons lead us to desire to alter our wine duties, by all means let it be done ; but if they are to be purely retaliatory — that is, if we impose duties which we know to be injurious to ourselves for the purpose of injuring France, and thereby compelling her to reduce some of her duties on our goods — then they would be open to all the objections I have pointed out in the case of silk. They would, it is true, not protect our manufactures of wine, as we have none, but they would protect the wine-growers of Spain, Italy, and Germany, which it is certainly not our object to do. In all other respects such duties would be followed by every one of the evil con- sequences I have pointed out as the consequences of a retalia- tory duty on silk. tART il. — RETALIATION. 1:25 CHAPTER XXXVI. PROTECTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHECKING A TOO EXCLUSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURE. There is one attitude of young Protectionist countries towards Retaliation trade which remains to be considered — viz., that of those who where Pro- admit that they are incurring economical loss by their policy, adopted^to but who, notwithstanding, resolutely exclude foreign manu- check factures, on the ground that the cultivation of the soil and the exclusive export of raw produce are not by themselves industries suffi- [^J^^^ " cient to promote national progress ; and that it is the interest and business of the State to foster other forms of industry, in order the sooner and the better to form a completely developed society. These views are probably wrong ; but they deserve more attention than they commonly receive from us, and are less easy to answer than the ordinary Protectionist fallacies. But, right or wrong. Retaliation against this class of Protectionists is still more foolish than against others. Retaliation plays their game exactly ; it is their professed object to force their own labour and capital out of its natural channel — the tilling of the soil — and to turn it artificially into the channels of manufacture. By refusing to take their raw produce we help them in effecting this object ; for we make their natural productions less valu- able. So far from fearing Retaliation as an injury, they will accept it as a friend and an ally ; so far from being frightened into opening their ports to our manufactures by the refusal of their raw produce, they will hail that refusal as the comple- ment of their own policy. CHAPTER XXXVII. RETALIATION DOES NOT ONLY NOT EFFECT ITS OBJECT, BUT HAS A CONTRARY EFFECT. Almost any one of the objections above noticed appears to me Retaliation to be fatal to the principle of RetaHation ; but there is stilP^'^^^ anohter objection, which has as great weight as any of them. R^aHa- Retaliation is not calculated to effect its object; it is calculated tion. nism. 126 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. Retaliation to effect the very opposite. It grows upon itself. It provokes produces further Retaliation, until the nations are hopelessly alienated. * A little consideration will show how natural this is, and how little reason we have to expect a favourable result from it. It shows In the first place, we lead Protectionists to think that we do olr^own ^" "0^ believe in our own principles. " See," they will say, "what Principles. England is doing. She professes to believe that the lowering of import duties is a good thing in itself, and yet she is taking the first opportunity to raise her own. We will follow her example rather than her precepts." It arouses In the second place, a natural feeling of antagonism is n" m°°" aroused ; and feeling is often stronger than self-interest. "We are giving so much, and you give so little ; we will punish you by giving less." Canning's well-known despatch involves a political, if not an economical truth : — " In matters of commerce the fault of the Dutch Is giving too little and asking too much ; With equal advantage the French are content, So will clap on Dutch bottoms 20 per cent." It needs no thought to feel angry at an over-reaching bargainer ; it needs much thought to see that the over-reacher over-reaches himself more than he over-reaches us — that we are the greatest gainers by what we have given him. Strength of But this is not all. The strength of Protection lies in the power FnTere'sll^ of concentrated protected interests. They spend money, time, and trouble in defence of their privileges ; they intrigue behind the throne ; they crowd the lobbies ; and are ready to take the best advantage of the popular indignation caused by an un- Experience successful negotiation. The French Emperor was either unable in France ^^ unwilling to Sacrifice his French iron-masters, though cheap America, iron was one of the first necessities of France. M. Tirard quakes before Rouen and Roubaix. The iron-founders of Pennsylvania are more urgent in the Senate House at Washing- ton than all the western prairies. It needed a most unusual conjunction of political philosophy, public interest, wealthy manufacturers, distress among the working classes, and heroic leaders, to repeal our own Corn Laws. Our ship-owners have scarcely yet forgiven the repeal of the Navigation Laws, though freedom of trade has given them the command of the seas. The recent growls from Preston, from Bradford, and from Lincolnshire, show how soon and how easily, even in thif; PART II. — RETALIATION. I 27 country, partial and self-seeking interests could mislead the multitude and excite a jealous and angry cry, not only for Fair Trade but for Protection. .Once embarked in a war of tariffs, and we are much more likely to arrive at prohibition than at Free Trade. What are the teachings of experience ? We have some Prctec- Protectionist and some half-Protectionist countries. Do they Jj,oDist get better terms from each other than the Free-trading countries? g^t^no^'^^ Does the United States get better terms from France or Ger- better many or Canada than England or Holland ? Are the Pro- ^^™^ ^^^''' tectionist countries ready to fly into each other's arms? We know very well that this is not the case. Lord Salisbury speaks as if nothing had happened before the French treaty ; but the very reason for the adoption of the commercial policy Failure of which we pursued from 1840 to 1S60 was that negotiations for ?3^'>' commercial treaties had been tried and had failed signally. They negotia-^ ^ had been tried by the ablest negotiators, by Sir R. Peel and tions. Mr. Gladstone, and by the Minister who preceded them. They had been tried with the best possible materials for negotiation, with Protective duties on our part such as Lord Salisbury in his wildest dreams can never hope to get ; duties, too, which our own Minister wished for our own sakes to reduce or repeal. When Mr. Ricardo brought forward his motion, in 1844,* his first and strongest point was that negotiations for commercial treaties with Brazil, Portugal, Spain, and France had all been pending and had all come to an end, not only without any favourable result, but with the result of leaving our relations with those countries worse than they had previously been. This no doubt was one principal reason why, though Mr. Ricardo's motion was rejected at the time. Sir R. Peel and Mr. Gladstone subse- quently adopted its policy.f The conclusion of 'Mr. Ricardo's speech consisted of an apt quotation from Dr. Franklin, which may be almost taken as a prophesy. "Suppose X to be a country having three manufactures, Dr. cloth, silk, and iron, furnishing those manufactures to three ^'"^"*^^^- countries. A, B, C ; and that X, to improve the cloth manufac- ture, should lay a duty amounting to prohibition on all the cloth coming from A ; that A, to retaliate, should lay a prohibitory duty on silk coming from X. The silk-workers would begin to • "Hansard," vol.73, p. 1271. t See Sir R. Peel's speech, 6 July, 1849. " Hansard," vol. 106, p. 1429. 128 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRAt)E. complain, and X, to protect them, should lay a prohibitory duty on the silk coming from B ; B, to retaliate, should put a pro- hibitory duty on iron coming from X. The iron manufacturers would complain, and then X, to protect them, should lay a pro- hibitory duty on iron coming from C ; whilst C, to retaliate, should lay a duty on the cloth coming from X. And Dr. Franklin asked, what benefit these four countries would gain by these prohibitions, while all four would have curtailed the sources of their comforts and the conveniences of Hfe." United Our experience is not confined to this side the Atlantic. States and ^^ Franklin's supposed case represents exactly the present Reciprocity relation between his own country and Canada. The United Treaty. States and Canada are meant by nature to do business freely with one another. An artificial barrier between them is to the eyes of common sense, as of political philosophy, absurd and unnatural ; and yet it exists, and has grown into formidable dimensions within the last 25 years. This is no doubt partly due to extraneous circumstances, such as the dispute about the Fisheries and Fenian raids ; but in the main it has been the natural result of endeavours to arrive at Free Trade by the road of Retaliation. In 1854, as I have mentioned above, a commercial treaty was made between Canada and the United States to the mutual advantage of both, under which certain products of each country were admitted into the other duty free, liberty to tax other products being still reserved. In 1865 the United States denounced that treaty. What were the rea- sons they gave for it ? Those reasons were contained in an elaborate report of the Committee of the House of Representa- tives, which was laid before our Parliament.* The Committee admit and assert, in the strongest terms, the importance to Canada and to the United States of the most unrestricted inter- course, and indeed advocate, as the best if not the only method of effecting it, a complete Zollverein, or Customs' Union on the German plan, including all British North America, within the limits of which no Customs' duties whatever should be levied. The same Committee condemn the then existing treaty in terms which remind one of our Fair Traders, because, as they say, it was one-sided; in other words, because the people of the United States obtained under it Canadian corn, and fish, and timber duty free, whilst the Canadians were compelled by their own import duties to pay an extra and unnecessary price for the * See Despatch from Lord Lyons, North America, No. 10, 1862. PART II. — RETALIATION. I 29 sugar, cotton, silk, iron, and wool of the United States. The Canada Committee made special, and apparently not ill-founded, com- ^"^ United plaints that Canada had ever since the treaty constantly Re^d^rocity increased her duties on these articles until her conduct had Trtaty. provoked severe observations from the English Colonial Minis- ter, which again provoked unpleasant recrimination in the Canadian Parliament. What induced Canada thus to increase her duties, I do not know ; but that she should do so in the hope of obtaining still better terms from the United States, was a natural result of the bargaining system. At any rate, the result was that the United States, instead of taking a step in the direction of freedom, said, " If you give us such bad terms, we will give you worse ; " and they consequently withdrew from the treaty, and left Canadian goods subject to their oppressive tariff. The attempts at a bargain went on more or ess until 1879, when Canada, finding herself worsted, determined to re- taliate with greater vigour, and adopted the Protective tariff of 1879, of which we have heard so much, and which, whatever Mr. Goldvvin Smith may say, was distinctly Protectionist in character, and was expressed and intended to be a commercial blow to the United States. What will be the next step no one can say. Sooner or later both parties will probably come to their senses ; but in the meantime, we may well ask, with Dr. Franklin, ''what benefit those two countries have gained by their prohibitions, whilst each has curtailed the sources of their com- forts and the conveniences of life"? But such is the natural result of the use of those dangerous weapons Retaliation and Reciprocity; and to such an end we may be very sure Retaliation would soon come in this country, especially if it were wielded by the hands of those who cannot see the fundamental truth that every separate restriction on commerce, whether imposed by ourselves or others, is a separate and independent evil to •ourselves as well as to our neighbours, and that every removal of every restriction is a separate and independent gain to ourselves as well as to our neighbours. 1^0 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. Retalia- tion. CHAPTER XXXVIII. THE FRENCH TREATY OF i860. Cobden's To Retaliation, whatever Lord Salisbury may say, the French Treaty treaty of i860, properly understood, gives no real countenance, ccmnte- In that treaty we neither imposed nor threatened to impose nance to duties either on French or on any other goods ; on the contrary, we took duties off French goods, and at the same time off similar goods the produce of all other countries. We did In doing this, we were doing what was strictly for our own "h ^^id^ T interest, independently of the action of France. In deference have done to the weakness of France, we put what we did into the form of without a a bargain — Do ut des ; but we were giving nothing we should Treaty. ]^^^g wished to keep. What we did was, with one doubtful ex- ception, what we should have done, and ought to have done, had France made no relaxation of her duties. This is the dis- tinction which Lord Salisbury fails to see. There is a world- wide difference between taking advantage of the accident that what we do for our own sakes is looked on by a foreign nation as a concession, and doing something which for our own sakes we should avoid, in order to have a concession to make. The fact that the form of the French treaty has misled Lord Salisbury and others into overlooking this distinction, is, to my mind, the greatest objection to it. Wine the xhe single exception to which I have referred, if indeed it tion If an*' ^^ ^^ exception, is the wine duty. Strong reasons, founded on exception, considerations affecting the health of the people and the safety of the revenue, were given for the particular duties fixed in 1860-62. So far as these reasons support those duties, there can be no possible objection to them. But there can be no doubt that in fixing these duties the interests of France had also some influence, and there can be no doubt that these duties do give some advantage to French wine over the wines of other countries. Further investigation and experience have led to a doubt whether these duties were properly settled. The Com.mittee of the House of Commons which sat upon this subject in 1879 came to the conclusion that the fiscal and PART II. — RETALIATION. I31 social reasons given for these duties were insufficient, and the Treaty Spanish and Portuguese Governments have strongly and ^^^°' repeatedly remonstrated against them, as creating differential charges on the wines of Spain and Portugal. Spain has even gone so far as to retaliate by differential duties on EngHsh goods. Our own colonies have complained, as mentioned above, in Chapter XV. Without pretending to give an opinion on this vexed controversy, I think it illustrates strongly the danger of ^^"^er of making, as " X." proposes, even such a question as the reduc- niuSrated'^ tion of wine duties, where no question of Protection to English by the interests is concerned, and where the reduction is clearly in Present our own interest, the subject of a tariff bargain. If Sir C. thtngs! Dilke returns from Paris without a French treaty in his pocket, and if France subjects our goods to the increased duties of her general tariff, and if Spain and Portugal offer readjustments of their tariff in return for readjustment of the wine duties, it will be almost too much to expect from human nature that we should not, in making that readjustment, have regard to the interests of Spain and Portugal, and take a vindictive pleasure in sacrificing the interests of France. And yet I believe that the true policy for us to adopt is to have regard only to what we should do if no French or Spanish tariff existed : to admit low-priced French wines at a lower rate of duty ; to reduce the present duty on Spanish and Portuguese wines ; or to increase the wine duties altogether, and repeal some other tax, such as the tea duty ; whichever may be most advantageous to us, with a simple regard to the interests of our revenue and the benefits to be derived by our people from light or strong wines or from tea. If we simply admit Spanish and Portuguese wines because it is our interest to get those wines cheap, and to encourage trade with Spain and Portugal, it will be well. And if the present Spanish Minister wishes to make such a reduction the condition of reducing his own tariff, we shall properly get the benefit of his action. But if we tie our hands by a treaty, we may embarrass ourselves financially ; and if our arrangements are such as to place a differential and vindictive duty on the wines of France, we shall undoubtedly be committing a great economical as well as political mistake, and be starting on a course of policy towards France which will have a bad effect, not only on the trade between the two countries, but on rela- tions which are still more important than trade. Let us not begin a war of Retaliation, whatever may be the conduct of France. 132 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. Cobden's Treaty not to be judged by- economical results alone. " Most favoured Nation " clause. It is not, however, by the balance of economical results, past, present, or future, that the value of the French Treaty can be rightly judged. Its effect at the time in putting a stop to that alienation of the two nations which was then threatening to break out into war, and the kindly personal intercourse which has since been brought about between Frenchmen and Englishmen, are results of still greater importance than increase of trade. If the present negotia- tions should result in failure, the economical result will probably be a matter of little importance to us. It will certainly be a matter of little importance compared with the political evil arising from the consequent irritation and alienation of the two nations. One thing, however, may be said of the French treaty, which, considering the danger of all negotiations of the kind, is perhaps not its least merit — viz., that it cannot be a precedent ; for, by abolishing all or nearly all the duties we can spare, it has left us little or no means to strike further bargains. In speaking as I have done of the French treaty of i860, I am quite aware of the value of the system, w^ell described in the following passage from Mr. Morley's " Life of Cobden." " In these treaties, and in the treaty made afterwards by England with Austria, Sir Louis Malet reminded its opponents in later years that each of them had a double operation. Not only does each treaty open the market of another country to foreign industry; it immediately affects the markets that are already opened. For every recent treaty recognised the * most favoured nation ' principle, the sheet-anchor of Free Trade, as it has been called. By means of this principle, each new point gained in any one negotiation becomes a part of the common commercial system of the European confederation. ' By means of this network,' it has been excellently said by a distinguished member of the English diplomatic service, ' of which few Eng- lishmen seem to be aware, while fewer still know to whom they owe it, all the great trading and industrial communities of Europe — />., England, France, Holland, Belgium, the Zollverein (1870), Austria, and Italy — constitute a compact international body, from which the principle of monopoly and exclusive privilege has once for all been eliminated, and not one member of which can take off a single duty without all the other mem- bers at once partaking in the increased trading facilities thereby created. By the self-registering action of the ' most favoured nation ' clause, common to this network of treaties, the tariff Part n. — retaliation?. 1^3 level of the whole body is being continually lowered, and the road being paved towards the final embodiment of the Free Trade principle, in the international engagement to abolish all duties other than those levied for revenue purposes.' " But it must be remembered that some of the nations have Actual con- drawn back from these treaties ; that Germany, Austria, Italy, and sequences France have recently raised their duties ; and that if it is a great Treaties, advantage to have duties reduced for us behind our back, and without effort on our part, by the operation of the " most favoured nation " clause, there is some inconvenience in having them raised behind our back by action on the part of two foreign nations with which we have nothing to do. It may also be some drawback to the value of this generally excellent clause if one nation — France, for instance — should be prevented from re- ducing her tariff in our favour, because if she did so, she would be compelled by the " m.ost favoured nation " clause to give the same privilege to another nation — say Germany. In short, if the separate action followed by us from 1840 to Result ot i860 was not successful in making other nations reduce their Treaties on duties, I think we must admit that neither has the treaty system Foreign adopted in i860 been followed by unalloyed success, whilst it Nations has certainly set men's minds in a wrong direction. Even the aWether inestimable advantages derived from a better feeling between successful. England and France will not be unalloyed if the failure of the present negotiations should lead to a revival of bitter feeling. In making this reference to the French Treaty of i860, 1 do not wish to be understood as saying that the balance of results, even in an economical point of view, have not been good. I only say that there have been large drawbacks. It may seem ungenerous and out of place, in a paper Cobden's published by the Cobden Club, to say a word which seems to ^^^^s. throw doubt upon the great work of Cobden's later years. But Cobden is beyond any such criticism. His greatness consisted in the way in which he kept his great object in view, aided but not fettered by formulas. When Freedom of Trade could be promoted by separate action, he was for separate action ; when he thought it could be promoted by joint action with France, he was for joint action. If that joint action had been shown to him to have consequences dangerous to Free Trade, he would have been the first to abandon it. If I hesitate about the policy and effect of the commercial treaties, it is certainly not " because they do not sound in tune with the verbal jingle of an 134 FREE TRADE V, FAIR TRADE. Real objec- abstract dogma." My doubts are very practical and concrete. Treaty ^^^ ^ ^^"^ afraid of being led into Retaliation. If it is true, as some that it leads 0^ the thorough-going advocates of the treaty appear to think, to Retaiia- that it is useless for us to abolish our duties on imports, unless foreign nations at the same time abolish their duties on our exports, Lord Salisbury's conclusion is inevitable — we must reimpose our own import duties, until we can get foreign nations to take off theirs. To controvert this conclusion is one of the principal objects of this paper. PART V. — RETALIATION. 1 3$ CONCLUSIONS OF PART II. AS TO RETALIATION. To sum up : the conclusions to which the above reasoning leads us on the subject of Retaliation are as follow : — 1. Retaliation is an impotent weapon in our hands. Retaiia- 2. To lower foreign tariffs was not the sole or principal j^^^jjf'o. object of the authors of our present policy. They would have tent, adopted that policy had they known that no foreign tariff would be lowered. 3. All duties are impediments to trade ; the fewer duties, 2. Un- the fewer impediments. We can remove our own duties ; we ^^^^^'^ ^°'■• cannot remove our neighbours'. 4. No tariff is an absolute barrier ; and a free country has such advantages in production that it can compete with a Protectionist country, even for the home market of the latter. 5. Exports involve imports ; all Protectionist countries de- sire to export, and must therefore import. Where a Protec- tionist country exports to another country; the second country must pay in goods, if not directly to the Protectionist country, indirectly through some third country. 6. There are many free and many neutral markets, and in all of them a Free-trading country has advantages over a Protectionist rival. 7. Protection has not, so far as we can judge, advanced trade and manufacture in France, Germany, or the United States. 8. The trade of a country depends on many things besides Free Trade. Free Trade only removes impediments. What can be claimed for Free Trade is that a country is better with it than without it. The present prosperity of the United States does not affect the question. 9. For the above reasons, there is no fear of our losing our market, and the case for Retaliation fails. 136 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. 3-.^'is- 10. Retaliation must, in its immediate consequences, be chievous. injurious to ourselves. IT. Retaliation is calculated to defeat its own object, and to provoke further Retaliation. 12. The Cobden treaty affords no ground whatever for Reciprocity or Retaliation. FINAL CONCLUSIONS. 137 FINAL CONCLUSIONS. The proposals of the Fair Trade League, worthless as they may be in themselves, have afforded an opportunity for discuss- ing points of some real interest, and for answering some ques- tions which deserve an answer. On the Colonial question it is impossible not to feel New sympathy with the desire to draw closer the commercial bonds poii°y]^ between ourselves and those growing communities of our own Object may lineage and habits which it is England's greatest pride to have ^e good : brought into existence. It has been the object of the first part j^^d. of this paper to show that all the proposals which have been made for effecting this object by legislative means involve either restrictions on our trade with other countries, or re- strictions on colonial self-government ; and that any such restrictions would tend to disruption, and not to closer union. The great fact is that Governments cannot create trade ; Govem- they can only impede and injure it. They cannot divert it ^^"^^ 9^^ without diminishing it. When people talk of its being the not create duty of the Government to find markets for their people, what Trade, they mean is that the Government shall deprive their people of the markets which they find for themselves. On the second great question which I have treated — viz., Retaliation Retaliation — there can be no such sympathy. Retaliation bad m appears to me to be the natural offspring of a state of mind effect.^^ ^^ which regards our gain as others loss — a state of mind which is the hot-bed of Chauvinism, Imperialism, and Protection. A wave of feeling springing out of this state of mind has lately swept over us and over the world ; and it is not surprising that Hopeful it should bring with it a moderate revival of Protection in Tenden- countries where protected interests rule the State, and a feeble ^^^^' attempt to revive it in our own. But the great tide sweeps on its course, and this is but an eddy in the stream. The Alabama treaty, and its present success ; the courage which has dared to give back the Transvaal to the victorious but powerless Boers ; 138 FREE TRADE V. FAIR TRADE. the power of a minority, for the first time in our history, to offer a stout resistance to an impending war ; the rapid reversal of an aggressive poHcy by the constituencies — these are the real landmarks by which to judge of a progress in international morality Cobden could scarcely have dreamed of. In the same way, the great stream of commercial freedom sweeps on ) there are temporary eddies, but time and circumstances are in its favour, and its main course is in one direction. Steam and telegraph have brought the nations of the world together ; Prohibition has been succeeded by Protection, and Protection in many cases by Freedom ; the limits of petty States have been enlarged into Customs Unions and Federations, which embrace whole continents ; and England leads the van in a way which excites the jealousy of those who do not understand the secret of her real progress. It is the misfortune of the state of mind to which I have referred that it fails to apprehend and ap- preciate that moral element in trade which gives to it its greatest value and significance — that element, namely, by virtue of which each act of trade is a good to both the parties to it, and each removal of a national restriction on trade is a good to all the nations concerned. It is twice blessed. It blesseth him that gives and him that takes. It reconciles self-interest with morality — our duty to ourselves with our duty to our neighbour ; and it thus brings the nations a little nearer to the distant ideal of the Christian moralist. I cannot end this paper better than with Cobden's own words : — " I do not think the nations of the earth will have a chance of advancing morally in their domestic concerns to the degree of excellence which we sigh for until the international relations of the world are put upon a different footing. The present system corrupts society, exhausts its wealth, raises up false gods for hero-worship, and fixes before the eyes of the rising genera- tion a spurious if a glittering standard of glory. It is because I believe that the principle of Free Trade is calculated to alter the relations of the world for the better, in a moral point of view, that I bless God I have been allowed to take a prominent part in its advocacy." APPEjSTDIX. TABLES. Comparison of our ForeigJi and Colonial Trade. Statement of the Value of the Exports of British and Irish Produce from the United Kingdom, and of the Amounts and Proportion exported to Foreign Countries and British Possessions respectively, in each of the Years from 1856 to 1880 inclusive ... , , p. 142 Statement of the Value of the Total Exports of British and Irish, and Foreign and Colonial Produce from the United Kingdom, and of the Amounts and Proportion exported to Foreign Countries and British Possessions respectively, in each of the Years from 1856 to 1880 inclusive ......,.../. 143 Statement of the Value of the Imports of Merchandise into the United Kingdom, and of the Amounts and Proportion from Foreign Countries and British Possessions respectively, in each of the Years from 1856 to 1880 inclusive /• 144 Statement of the Total Value of Imports and Exports of Merchandise into and from the United Kingdom, and of the Amounts and Proportion from and to Foreign Countries and British Possessions, in each of the Years from 1856 to 1880 inclusive ^-145 Statement in Detail of the Total Exports of Merchandise from the United Kingdom to each of certain Foreign Countries and British Possessions, in each Year and Period of Five Years since 1866, with the Proportions that the Amounts for each Country and Possession bear to the whole Exports in each Year and Period //, 146 to 151 Statement in Detail of the Imports of Merchandise into the United Kingdom from each of certain Foreign Countries and British Possessions, in each Year and Period of Five Years since 1866, with the Proportions that the Amounts from each Country and Possession bear to the whole Imports in each Year and Period //. 152 to 154 140 APPENDIX. 7. Statement compiled from the two previous Tables, showing the Propor- tion of the Total Foreign Trade of the United Kingdom — Imports and Exports of Merchandise — carried on with each of the undermentioned Foreign Countries and British Possessions . , //. 155 and 156 Effects of French Indemnity. 8. Statement showing the Value of Imports of Merchandise into Germany from the undermentioned Countries, and of Exports thereof from Germany to the same Countries in the Years 1868 to 1877, made up from the statistics of the different Countries named (in the absence of official German statistics) by treating the Exports from them to Germany as Imports into Germany, and the Imports from Germany into them as Exports from Germany . . . . . /• I57 9. Statement showing the Total Value of Merchandise Imported into and Exported from France in the Years 1868 to 1877, according to the French official returns . . . . . . . A 158 10. Statement showing the Value of Imports of Merchandise into France from the undermentioned Countries, and Exports thereof from France to the same Countries, according to the French official returns, in the Years 1868 to 1877, covering the period of the payment of the In- demnity to Germany ....... p. 159 Circuitous Trade between the United Kingdojjt, United States, and India and other Countries. 11. Statement showing the Value of the Imports of Merchandise and Treasure, on Private and Government Account, into British India from the United Kingdom, and Value of the Exports of the same from British India to the United Kingdom, in the Years 1870 to 1879, com- piled from the official statistics of the Indian Government . /. 160 12. Statement showing the Value of the Imports of Merchandise and Treasure, on Private and Government Account, into British India from the undermentioned Countries, and Value of the Exports of the same from British India to the same Countries, in the Years 1870 to 1879, compiled from the official statistics of the Indian Government , p. 161 Duties levied on British Produce in Foreign Countries and Colonies. 13. Return of the Rates of Import Duty levied in the principal European Countries, in the United States, and in the principal Colonial Possessions of the United Kingdom, on the undermentioned Articles of British Produce or Manufacture . . . , 162 to 167 APPENDIX. 141 14. Return of the estimated or actual aa valorem Rates of Import Duty levied in the principal European Countries, in the United States, and in the principal Colonial Possessions of the United Kingdom, on the undermentioned Articles of British Produce or Manu- facture //. 168 to 171 Proportions in which different Cotmtrics supply us with Fooa. 15. Statement showing in what Proportion, according to Value, the principal Articles of Food, except Fruit, were imported into the United King- dom from Foreign Countries and British Possessions in the Year 1880, with the Total Values of such Articles imported from all Foreign Countries and British Possessions respectively . pp. 172 to 173 16. Statement showing the Proportion per cent, of the Total Value of the Articles of Food named in Table 15, imported into the United King- dom from Foreign Countries and British Possessions, for the Year 1880 A 174 Exports from the United Kingdom^ France, Germany, and United States, classified as Food, Raw Material, and Manufactures. 17. Statement showing the Value of the Exports ot British and Irish Produce in each of the Years 1870 and 1880, classified as Articles of Food, Raw Materials, and Manufactured Goods . pp. 175 to 180 19. Statement showing the Proportion of Food, Raw Materials, and Manufactured Articles in the Domestic Exports of France for each of the Years 1869 and 1879, compiled from the French official returns //. 181 to 183 18. Statement showing the Proportion of Food, Raw Materials, and Manufactured Articles in the Domestic Exports of Germany for each of the Years 1869 and 1879, compiled from the official returns of Germany //. 184 to 186 20. Statement showing the Proportion of Food, Raw Materials, and Manu- factured Articles in the Domestic Exports of the United States for each of the Years 1870 and 1880 (Years ended 30th June), compiled from the official returns of the United States . . . //. 187 to 189 142 APPENDIX. TABLE I. statement of the Value of the Exports of British and Irish Produce from the United Kingdom, and of the Amounts and Proportion Exported to Foreign Countries and British Possessions respectively, in each of the Years from 1856 to 1880 inclu- sive; in thousands of pounds, i.e., 100 = 100,000. Exported to Foreign Coun- Exportedto British Pos- Total Value tries only. sessions only. Years. of Exports of British and Irish Produce, Amount. Per Cent, of Total. Amount. Per Cent, of Total. £ £ £ 1856 115,827 82,527 71-2 33,300 28-8 1857 122,066 84,911 69-6 37,155 30*4 1858 116,609 76,386 . 65-5 40,223 34*5 1859 130,412 84,268 64-6 46,144 35-4 i860 135,891 92,226 67-9 43,665 32-1 1861 125,103 82,858 66-2 42,245 33-8 1862 123,992 82,097 66-2 41,895 ZZ'^ 1863 146,602 95,723 65-3 50,879 347 1864 160,449 108,735 678 51,714 32-2 1865 165,836 117,629 70-9 48,207 29-1 1866 188,917 135,198 71-6 53,719 28-4 1867 180,962 131,162 72-5 49,800 27-5 1 868 179,678 129,813 72-2 49,865 27-8 1869 189,954 141,881 747 48,073 25-3 1870 199,587 147,773 74 'o 51,814 26-0 1871 223,066 171,816 77 -o 51*250 23-0 1872 256,257 195,701 76-4 60,556 23-6 1873 255,165 188,836 74 'o 66,329 26-0 1874 239,558 167,278 69-8 72,280 30-2 1S75 223,466 152,374 68-2 71,092 31-8 1876 200,639 135,780 677 64,859 32-3 1877 198,893 128,970 64-8 69,923 35 "2 1878 192,849 126,611 657 66,238 34 ;3 1879 191,532 130,530 68-2 61,002 1880 223,060 147,806 66-3 75,254 337 APPENDIX. 143 TABLE II. statement 0/ the Value of the Total Exports of British and Irish, and Foreign and Colonial Produce from the United Kingdom, and of the Amounts and Proportion Exported to Foreign Countries and British Possessions respectively, in each of the Years from 1856 to 1880 inclusive ; in thousands of pounds, i.e., 100 = ioo,ocx5. Exported to Foreign Coun- 1 Exported to B ritish Pos- tries only. | sessions only. Years. Total Value of Exports. 1 Amount. Per Cent, of Total. Amount. ! Per Cent, of Total. £ £ £ I 1856 139,221 102,525 73-6 36,696 1 26*4 1857 146,174 105,738 72-3 40,436 i 277 1858 139,783 96,570 i 69*1 43,213 30-9 1859 155,693 106,042 i 68-1 49,651 1 3i'9 i860 164,521 117,988 j 717 46,533 1 28-3 1861 159,632 114,493 ! 717 45,139 28-3 1862 166,168 120,744 j 727 45,424 27-3 1863 196,902 141,932 72-1 54,970 27-9 1864 212,588 156,892 73-8 55.696 26-2 1865 218,832 167,285 76-4 51.547 23-6 1866 238,906 181,738 76-1 57,168 23 "9 1867 225,802 172,440 76-4 53,362 23-6 1868 227,779 174,061 76-4 53,718 23-6 1869 237,015 185,123 78-1 51,892 21-9 1870 244,080 188,689 77-3 55,391 227 187I 283,575 228,014 80-4 55,561 196 1872 314,589 248,980 79-1 65,609 20 '9 1873 311,005 239,857 77-1 71,148 22*9 1874 297,650 219,740 , 73-8 77,910 26-2 1875 1 281,612 204,957 \ 72-8 76,655 27-2 1876 256,777 186,627 i 727 70,150 27-3 1877 1 252,346 176,594 ; 70'0 75.752 30-0 1878 ; • 245,484 173,491 1 707 71,993 29-3 1879 248,783 182,274 73-3 66,509 267 1880 286,415 204,887 ! ^"'^ 81,528 i ''■' \ 144 APPENDIX. TABLE III. Statement of the Value of the Imports of Merchandise into the United Kingdom, and of the Amounts and P7-oportion from Foreign Countries and British Possessions respectively, in each of the Years from 1856 to 1880 inclusive ; in thousands of founds, i.e., loo = 100,000. Imported from Foreign Imported from British Possessions only. Countries only. Total Value of Years. Imports. Amount. Per Cent, of Total. Amount. Per Cent. of Total. £ £ £ 1856 172,544 129,517 75-1 43,027 24 '9 1857 187,844 141,661 75 '4 46,183 24-6 1858 164,584 125,970 76-5 38,614 23-5 1859 179,182 139,707 78-0 39,475 22 "O i860 210,531 167,571 79-6 42,960 20 '4 1861 217,485 164,809 75-8 52,676 24-2 1862 225,717 160,434 7I-I 65,283 28-9 1863 248,919 164,235 66 -o 84,684 34-0 1864 274,952 181,208 65-9 93,744 34-1 1865 271,072 198,231 73-1 72,841 26*9 1866 295,290 223,084 75-5 72,206 24-5 1867 275,183 214,449 77-9 60,734 22-1 1868 294,694 227,700 ITS 66,994 227 1869 295,460 225,044 76-2 70,416 23-8 1870 303.257 238,425 78-6 64,832 21-4 1871 331,015 258,071 78-0 72,944 22 'O 1872 354,694 275,321 77-6 79,373 22-4 1873 371,287 290,277 78-2 81,010 21-8 1874 370,083 287,920 77-^ 82,163 22*2 1875 373,940 289,516 77 'A 84,424 22-6 1876 375,155 290,822 77 S ^^,333 22-5 1877 394,420 304,866 77'2> 89.554 227 1878 368,771 290,835 78-9 77,936 2I-I 1879 362,992 284,049 78-3 78,943 217 1880 411,230 318,711 77.5 92,519 22-5 APPENDIX. MS TABLE IV. Statement of the Total Vabie of Imports and Exports of Merchandise into and from the United Kingdom, and of the Amounts and Proportion from and to Foreign Countries and British Possessions, in each of the Years frotn 1856 to 1880 inclu- sive; in thousands of pounds, i.e. 100= 100,000. Total Value Imported from, Total Value Imported from, and Exported to, Foreign and Exported to, British Total Value of Countries only. Possessions only. Years. Imports and Exports. Amount. Per Cent, of Total. Amount. Per Cent, of Total. £ £ £ 1856 311,765 232,042 74-4 79,723 25-6 1857 334,018 247,399 74-1 86,619 25-9 1858 304,367 222,540 73-1 81,827 26-9 1859 334,875 245,749 73-4 89,126 26-6 i860 375,052 285,559 76-1 89,493 23-9 1861 377,117 279,302 74-1 97,815 25-9 1862 391,885 281,178 71-8 110,707 28-2 1863 445,821 306,167 687 139,654 31-3 1864 487,540 338,100 69-3 149,440 307 1865 489,904 365,516 74-6 124,388 25-4 1866 534,196 404,822 75-8 129,374 24-2 1867 500,985 386,889 77-2 114,096 22-8 1868 522,473 401,761 76-9 120,712 23-1 1869 532,475 410,167 77-0 122,308 23-0 1870 547,337 427,114 78-0 120,223 22 -O 1871 614,590 486,085 79-1 128,505 20-9 1872 669,283 524,301 78-3 144,982 217 1873 682,292 530,134 777 152,158 22-3 1874 667,733 507,660 76-0 160,073 24-0 1875 655,552 494,473 75-4 161,079 24-6 1876 631,932 477,449 75-6 154,483 24-4 1877 646,766 481,460 74-4 165,306 25-6 1878 614,255 464,326 75-6 149,929 24 "4 1879 611,775 466,323 76-2 145,452 23-8 1S80 697,645 523,598 751 174,047 j 24-9 146 APPENDIX. «,"^ la ^i Ci S 8 >^ t5 R ^^ ^.:-i oo fO t^oo _b~. ^ _in N 'p ,ro _0> in p .t--p 00 ,in .h- N 5 "in N fo'fo'fo'ro rn V V V 1-^ V '^ in 'tJ- '-s^ V ■-.!- '■^ '^ ^ ro H vo (T) o> N ^ Q M rnin M ro in ~ NO m t^ t^ "^ k (-1 00 00 0\ H ^ On rONO inoooo § V^^^°;^ -^ 00 M ONO t^ 00 t^ rooo Ov 00 NO < VO t^cooooo 5: « CO -f !- invo 00 0_^ On -^-OO t-- M_ I ro X ■« c^ NO NO tCvo^OO no" no" inNO tC W £ u:^ N ro ro Oi O-J 1 Li . CO V ■^-^ ti N >p _m rr> _H P^ CO .l>-pv N M p ,ro -^ p IN ir, N _On 1 ^§H Co >o 't^ 't^ 't^ ^ 't^ 't^ "t^ K "t^ 't^ "t^vb ^3 Co 'm h no ti CO CT, On ro ^ ro ONVOOO -^ t-^ CO roNO ro -^ ■<^ :?; H C3 t-. '^ ONOO On ro (^ ON H N i •< ■* t^ NO -^NO Q y^ „- 5 !2 m" 0" rT CO no" t? in in 0" t^ CO r< M M M (N - J J Ml CO to H ON M- N NO t^ CO t^ ■* ro ro r^ ^ ^ N OnMD C< OS H -*■ N H t^ H m -*- 0\ S? t ^ '^r ". *o^ t^NO <^ C2 " N X 0>ON H d ^>0 no" -i^ ro w" On ON On c5n H" w "£ t^ -^ L-hll 00 >o •>*• ro M Tt- >n ■<♦• N mm ^^?:s^ ro t^o< P CO_ On -^- ro M ^ ^ "^ ►< '^'0 \n io>o'\o">o" 0" t^oo" tCvo'-o" tc no" no" i/;no"vo" a w Ph up:: CO ro ro o» tr> N N y) \ri 'p vp t^cxi CO « p no in On On H ,^ w sp '0 'm Vro M N "ro'ro M M « "(N 'h 'h 'h 'w H 'c') P " " " *J inoo N H ■*• C^co N J moo -+NO tn ft c NO M t^vo N Ovin P< « ro m t^ N m m < ■s^ H oo_ ro q_ q^ 10 t5i cT cTocT ^ M t^ M H r- On MNO >-i tc Tf 00" rovo in •>? tC C>00" c5n c5n ON no" -*- do ct w ro m M ro^ rororo 00 N « N (N N m 00 ro -*• N m ^^^S^ "TT « « t^ N -^ r^ ^ w NO -^ t-, ^ M 00 -^-m o> Tj- "■^ !^ d^ ^"S^ 6- ^NO (NOO N tC m" rC -*: ro ^ NO ^m ON 0" d^ d;oo"No" t^ M C< (N M n N 00 •<^ CTvOO t^ CO rooNomp) 00 •<*- D t^ ■* inNO On 00 Ov t^NO (N CO t^ m ^ m t-~ (ij -^ 1 <^ "„ 1 0; ^ ro CO ^No NO 00 inNO ON t^ H M mNO ON 10 '^ w f^p: -^ no" no" 03" CO co" ON no" ^^" t^ r^ no" ro ON xports of 1 oreign and Dlonial reduce. 0\ t~» 1^.. CT\ CJN M 00 t->oo NO On ro m N>0 NO NO ro mdo t-. t^ -<-^ ^oo 00 tC On ON ON ON S3 "^r "^ ^ " °^ ^ en on N ro ro M rooo^ in 0^ iN^ "^^ •^ t^ no" ro cT « ro ro «" cf cT n" ro ro 1 W Ph UP^ 1 " " ■* ^ ^. _^ ^ '^ _^ , •— . -~N H >H sc « VO t^OO On v2 vi ^n^SnS^^^. rt M N ro ^ m^ 2 H u t^ f-, t^ t^ c-. 00 00 00 00 00 >< 00 CO CO CO 00 ^ HHHHH 1^ >< CO 00 00 00 00 1 ■" APPENDIX. 147 I ^ii m Ulfop .IN w ■« '« V) M M ^ Cv Ov M w b b b H p P IN ^1 ! 1 1 vol ^^ El ^ t-oo vo 00 00 1 tC tCvo" rn rn ^ J t~. t^ -"l-CO 10 cT cT cT cf CO t m w°«l Ov ro CI "nvo tC tCvo" ro N 8 ^f:s;^vS vo N H, M cT cf cT cT m 1 N Llill £1-31 Vj t-^ 00 CO ^ 00 Ov vo t;;?;^v2-2- m "1 • H Vi Vo 'ro 'ro 'ro m r^.'p vp in_m ft N '« N M N _u-) _■* .Ti- jH in "m n m m '« <» 9° in M rooo t^ 00 tC tC rC 1 vo oo"oo tClvo in vo vooo" t^ rC m vo_ i ui CI vo rr-.oo I. 00 in vo. fO t^ moo Ov m m m ov qv'O t^ 0_oo in tC tC tC u^ 1 c^vo t^ c< r~ in 10 tC t^vo" 1 m vo = 5_SS a u. OS, 15 t^vO CTvvO 00 ca ^m^|;5^ 1 Hsl5 ^ VO 1 ^ii =0 'c^ N 'n 'in V) .t- 'm ci N '« "m 'n .- < s ^ 4J s < *o i^ in tCvo 00 vo vo N -*■ m r-^in (N a> vo" ■*; « q^ q^ ov « tc ■< Qi 1 2 CO p .t^.ov_i-^ M "ov'o'cv'ov P .m p 00 jr^co M b b b 'ov '0 CI "o j f^ f) '^ t^ m C< M f^oO ^vo" rr r^ c^ «" W « N C< W c^ 1 1 ni. "H moo m in If Svg.^ 00' t^ tCvo" in i 000 ovm vo 'Hi (,03 000 m ?i ^ ;f c" cT « o~ 00 vg N ro 'l- Ovi/l 'S Ov Ov in M cT m M m \ vo Sv -*■ f^in m 1 1 , — -J^— ^^ji_- _< > ^ yi vo t^oo 0;, u 0" . .2 s < c 3 - I4S APPENDIX. «;-^ • *» V 5 *^ ^ 5 J 5> cr. 5 s ^ o -vTvo Sj I 111 Oi to P-, 1 1=1 \D h- in>o 00 b b b b b NO b co M pop 'p b M b b b CO b in'p MD _-^ H b b b b b b c E < 'I- -^ m 'J- V; '■^ t 1 t=°. VO M Cl p) M 10 (N roco NO S? '■^ ^ 1 ^2 ^ NO m M 000 t^ Tf Tf ro w ro rn r^ra oo_^ "§ f q-Hi On ao|| ■* m in NO t^ IN On On M oo in in in ts" cT cT m" h" g^N^ ^ H 00 to to ui; 00 N mco ro ^- roNo m Tt o^ NO rn f^ t-^ (^ N -^ ri c? ?1 NO t^ in p! NO NO t^ t _. 00 M ON On M b M b b H P 00 M M 00 b H M M b On b 00 NO in -^00 b b b b b NO b b 1 1 < ON 00 ro Tt- t^ i^co '^ 0__ t-. H (N ci oT (n" NO ON On M ■* \ in H ro On'O =:;- -i- ro HI ^5!^ H InS^ I IH w >^ N cT en rn c<~ cf 00 NO PI M On ?^^^5n § to to ui (^ W u-)NO in On '^ ?s^^^ 00 ^22^^ NO t^ i t~~ _ro in in _t-> in N "in 'in 'in 'c^ .- ■pi 'pi 'm n 'pi C •« 3 < 00 m On M ^ in cs oo (N -*- tCin in tC in rn r^ N t^No .vo t-. v^ rn N ro H On ■<1- in M ^No -^ ^ t^ Pj On ON ^ li^ ^ ro ^ ON roON t^oo On 00 On ON ro in ON M ro ro pT in t^ ! 1 NO 1^00 onQ^O rt wiMrO'i-inO J; NO rvoo on ^ NO NO NO NO t^_ I' r^ i^ t^ t-, r^ ^ ^ ii t>. t>. K^ t^co _ u -1 APPENDIX. 149 z 5 H ^ll "ki"?iS ■♦ M W 0000 Co .** P fv _r-i in Vi b b 'm"" t^ t^ t^ 1^ t^ r^ •< qj rri t^ (^ '000 tt S =s °^ ^ ^ # W « M W N in 1^ T^ « -^ t^ VC vo c^ cT -^ 00 t^ r-oo en e^ HI 1 »o « VO CO -^ " !^ t^ t^ CO t-voo CI m « 1000' tC cT r~ CTvoo 10 1 00 eg a = ^'^ t^ 0^ inoo 1.0 1 n' ? .1-1 H CO 00 N t>. 'I- t^ 'J- -*■ « 1-^00 M N n 0> t^ D VO 00 >-_ N q_ ^ U-) vo" r^. «" n" cT ID in IT) in in ^ 1^ in e^ x' 5 si is < 00 _M <>_in M N f> r r r ." ." rn -.i- C< C« 00 "p 8 t^ CI VO en n ro m ro n 0? ? rn H! n t^ rO'O (^ S^o vo q^ q^ 00 4 8«g^a^S ". ". "2 "2°°. 00" o'vcT inocT c« CO M n d I'M! 1 mil Cl' "o olvc tS Jn in in in in in 1 "1^ '0 "0 '0 '0 .r. c b b b b 1 b OS n c< rn b ■« '^H ■« M ■^ b 1 :^ < ^"->.? cT eT cT cT c^ 11 T(- u^ m M ON in oT-ScgcS^^g in o-o rj^ -J; 0:1 r^. m>0 00 M q c<_>c »o c^^ 1 ^^" ?1 ?1 ic 00 cS m ?s^HB. 1^ r^ 1 ll. Per cent. Total. '« M 'm M M 1 M 1 ,^ « vo 'p 00 Vt '« M M M P CO 00 p _« On p- •« u 1 i < Vj CI H. -«- ro 0' r-co CO lo'^o" i/S rf li^ co" Ci ■♦^ ■♦^ rn in in 0^ so 0^vO 00_ .^ 00 « inoo ■* >H m inso 5 .ivii 00 •* r^. ro §f JSf 2" 00 -< c« n -»•* <|: 1 cT oc ca 00 fe cc — ^ > ro'mcoracS"- 2 - «J "" 12 u t- 1^ r^ t^oo^ U W M M « « > ^50 APPENDIX. •lis o >3 Cu ?5 r ^ goo < I j3 ^ S pq §.sc3 s; t« ^ < X en H 1 •Sp ts. M CO CO CI CO o 'okio p\ _t>. _C1 N vp M vb Co 't~«co 'as .m N p p ," N 'o\ b 'os'w b CO CO VjO oo c< in 8 S S ^S 8 i M OO H (^ S O ^ CO ^ in cjv di cT iri in CO VO VO-O tt 1 On c5; ^ H T^ M VO ^ -^ CO C)_ M H M CI C< 1 t inoo t^in M CO c^ t-^ in VO CO CO Ov CO 2 & :3S W til u£ ^jS ? q_ o^ R vo^ S 0_'ov CO (^ VO N H O t-- 0? vo" VO •< 1 °15 H p _fv H _^ .- • 'co VCd Co 't^ .O p inoo N in t^co CO t^vo t^ Co -< M 00 CO N \0 2" 2" :i^ i" 2" CO VO Tj- COVO O -*- VO CO a^-^vg^ -*• in in ov c^ 1 m Tj-vo M OS Tj- M 1^ M o^ loVO^O ^OO CO c> m" rn d\ 1 oo w VO -1- O" 'P t^ c> c> rC cjv c>vo vo" 1 o ^ ■- ^ c 3 (^ Os t^ 0\ OSCO "2 till cC 00 CO N O t^ v| t^ Q CO CO ci" cT CO CI M S ^ VO CO OvOO Os CO o moo s?^- ^- 1 1 ;2 ro CO -<^ M t^ M CO O CO N M Ov cT CO CO CO cT c»o?vo VO ra cT cT cf « cT OO '^^ll,?;^ T^ c^ CO M in in ^ CO CO CO CO CO VO vO_^ OVO t^vooo C< 00 tvOO CO CO N N CO s ^. <: u 2 w s X H erf o 55 X oo H 1 u '^•a ^^§(2 ,M p }n y> H CO "con « CO P^ N p p .■^ :^ CO CO CO CO CO ,CO M ^copvinp 'co'co « w *co ,Ov CO 1 ^ t^ t^ »0 Osui CO H CO CO M VO '-L '^ °., 1 "2 oo'co tCvo-Qo" CO in 111 d VO ->»• vnco 1,00 oooo M r^ 00 Cv CO o t^ i!?2^vS?^S^ 00- o"oo" 6; d; COVO ■* -<^ r^ tC rCvo in tC VO 1 l^-fiil 1^00 CO t^ t^CO in H -^ ovo VO VO VO Sivooo CO 1 « H o CO ^ inc2 Si ^ f^«> OOC HHHHH HHHH.C : HE e APPENDIX. 151 w ^ w Svi HO uw si OH o<; H 1 88888 8 88888 8 88888 8 8 ° JESS'S CO MM ^ 1 t^NO -*- re T^ t^ ■<^oo 00 w tv re -^ t^ -<^ \o" cT inoo no" m in Tj- Tfco N M N c< 1 d; On re 00 c< 00 •>*- t^ HI NO r^ icoo 0; ^00 CO tvoo Ov 0^ vo t-^inoo vo vo mvo inNO rnvo" in c> rn W N M M N ^ ONceONN re 1- reNO NO_co_t» in o_ 'ONCN On c? On ! ~ a a ui; TO N N NO a?^o?g^2- ON On 1 ^ '^■oj N re no' re cT tC re ID m 10 in-o 1 _, w z on crt a tn w i ^P 0>>p ^O* .t^ N CI M 5 N H >0 00\ N M ?8 5'SSf w rep .fn,r-.y) t^ o^b 00 CI re CN| N N CO On i in 10 S In In ill II in in M tCo^ >nvo t^ c^ t^ i NO c< re OS t^ in in ON (M M t^ On m in 0" uS m'no- «- t^ t^ t^NOOO On i X H 2 n < H H ^ min V, t>«oo CO c3 ^ r?5 d; oioo" M re rn m In ts OD CTn c< m re N ! CO_ On N 0_ C^_ no'nOnOnO t^ ? § 10 0- « e « H a fa u£ 00 ro m ONt^ C4 ^ 0\ ^re rn qJcS^'O in 00 M inNo re ONcVin r- in in in inNo" 00 1 t/2 z 00 w to 2 H 2 V V 'm 'n V p CO t^co in M m re ro T^ Tj- p _r^,'p ri M _^ _re P s S (^ r^ 0; ro'0_ ^ cSoo 00 00 M ^ M w m t^ t^vo com 0" M cT rn M d\ 0, ^ t ':; ^ M M " c? in f NO 11 Hi f^ m N m m moo 'O ^ Csoo b-_t-- >o_ "OOONO -^rn d^o-^-cTo- I N 00 reco (M t-^ re reoo t^ w t>^ Tj- re-o 0- 0" d; c?; 0- 0" 1 a H f^ -* M in N NO ■* ! ?S;5n2^ On On ON 0_ M 1 NO Q 2 < a 85 a < I ^ "O CO r^ t^co b b b b b b 00 re invD H M H H .^ CO 03 _c^

S CT> tt Si '^ IP'S- !? l^'S- TO- "§^^^^3 2 M r^ re re cT re -f "f T? 0; re « Oncono ■«^ •.^ t^ ?; hvOO w M s in t^NO t-^NO r<-, 0-, in in m NO r 2 5 i i2 « M « M « C > < 3 » 3 f : i - 152 APPENDIX. -^s it « < s s^^ ^^« >3 I, -X '>' s; 'a III C/) s S^ W ^^"^ ;A ^^ g H «J •S^S § 2; > <^ 5 o UJ li^ U 1 ^R vrT-vT ^ CQ ^S-S O ? ^i? w O -S^ 8 \^ •S ^'« 1 < '^'^S ^^^■p vsi: ,.^-s^ 8 ^ j? a. .->^ P >p 00 M p> in Vrow 'in CO M CO _t^ ^'l- N •^ ro "ro TO On 1 ^ ;o JO rCvo ^ two \0 IT) lO ^ VO ^ 1 s 1 >• ii , CO y^ ." >p _M M H N 'm N C) M yrp >p CO N M M M M .- p .l^.rop p N M H M M .■: .- a 1 < N t-^ r^ t^ t^ 8 Tf- ooo u^ tC inMo" "S^" CO ■<^ M O ro -4- -*- lO t^ (^ t-, -*co t^ ^oo t^Mo" T? ro ro ^ V0_ tC ro 1 •:•:•:•:•: H .■^ w p p .(M r H On(^OT H M b b b On b •h a 3 C ■< 1 V0_ « M \0 ^ -^ T? ro ro -f OO ^ . ^ ro ■*^ -f ro ro ro Tj- 1 tC in u •'^C'm •» -T P OD r- lo ,o ^h 'm 2 'm ■p 'm 'm h 2 2 r "h < M ro o N <3 (-.00 ^n^ oooo ro lo t^ 0> m' rovo'vo" i roco ro ^ On in in Hco" H 1 ro 5 pa _t^co oa n .r^ n N N ro fO p M _t^ yi w p ro _r^_ro_-^p _t^ •^ .■^ c 3 E < O i^ >0 ON ■<*• t^ On m CJ ro (N ^ ? ro d; OO o^ r^vo ■* CO o3 ro r^ (N ;? s" s" 2" d~ NO 8n d z < t 4 p p\ _<7s _r<-) _r^ V 'rn 'ro V V ^ N _t^MO _Op .O _Ti- p CO p _ro V'ln'inCo ^ "" v= < i^ t-~oo ro f^ ro O C< -^ 1^ t-- t^vo ro OS M c<_ ^CO__ ^" 2^ ^" ^' ^ ON 2^ no" ro > < a K o Hi 1 Co -b i) Co in Co CO -J- _-.^ _-^co 'in 'in 'in 'm 'm "in ■p .f-.^P .On inb Co Co in Co _ON "in cf.oo raco in oo vo m c< -^ ro M n CT\ OnCO C> C> On oi m" 8 8 in M in in H r^ t^ m M M in>o ro hTno" ro m" t? vo ON NO ro < •p H CO MD CO Co 00 ^ iriCo Co jM p\ t-^ t-^ y-> 'r^Co "in'in'in Co _t^>p 00 _-<^ Oi V 'in V V "ro f^ " 1 E < ^^^o O ^ vn 8 r; ro M_ o; t-. N O N c< c^ ro" o" in N Tj- t^ ro d; ro 8 r S tt s, K ;t K*- X 00 00 00 oo oo- u o I! <" o j! vo t--ro 0^ V 1* t^ t^ t^ t^oo o o C o - TO APPENDIX. 153 Total from FOREIGN Countries. ^ in t^ t^\o 00 t^ t-. t^ t>« t^ °^ •''?.•;! 00 .in.m.om.in 1^ 3 < S? r^ ^ tC ^;;00- ^ N M « N m N « M « PI co- « N « M W 2 Nvo in M 03 00 CO C^ 1 r. 0^ K) r^; ^ <^ ■?! ■« V, 'r;;! in 90 M .'*-.'^P M » „ M « •^ in t^ ■* t^ V? .c^ ill 1 < 00 00 '^ ■>^ ro 1 ". "^ " T c<" 6~ rn c>oo' M f< m ro Tj- in invo_ <> fC -? ^ « 1" i 3, b b b b 1 b 1 b b b b b b b b b b ■0 b 1 < •>*■ w moo 000 vo 1^ r-. M M m m CO 1 lO Kvo ¥ S m 8 00^ •p _'J-0O _rO -r 'ro m 'r^ 'r^ "ro V>-, p _t^ _<*■ p p S p .-^.t^p .Ov V 'm 'en 'm '« _-i- .- I 1 2 ■5 ro t~ « N ^ 0- 6; -r d; d; I ■tlfll 00 (> -4^^o_ 0_00 c!o t> 1^1 p .r^ n .-^p ■: _m ■„ M M b b .►; •" i 1 N „ g r^ M N 000 ^ ro ro (^ m T? « N >- ■>^ r-» « (N 00 Ov N c<_ inoo 0. w t^ N fn in -f in m cT 1 S I; '3 ill p p in _ci _m .ro M p m _m w c p CO p p 00 M-b b M b b C < oo t^ COM ocnui in N^ H^ tv. -^ ^ < III ..C.^ •^ p .t^p .00 c _M-p _m_m_m .■^ _On 1 S3 "_ "^ '^ "^ 1 00 >n M 1- in>o- -^^ -^ in f 0^ "in WVb ■? c 3 2 < 1 ?1 in tC cS " f^• a t^ f i 2 I UK = • ^ vo 1^00 a* Ot, 2 1 = ".! 154 APPENDIX. ^ 8 rj p PI < H R .-,->i •- S.2 <2-S 8 *?<< ^ ^^^^ ^■^^:.^ ^.^i^ ■«s« >"^ !!^ |P| :ll ^1^ ^.S'§ -S ~ § -^1^ * B ^ 8 § « ^^--^ Total imports FROM Foreign countries and British Possessions. ^P 88888 8 88888 8 88888 8 8 1 ONOO 0^^ 5o 1 -1 in IT) M- lo r*l ^ 0\ [V C3> 0^ d M c< N ro CO m en ro fo i in H w in M tv o> m w_ ^ t-. On N in 4^ in_H _t^CO _^ M N C) C? S ,0 p .-*co n p M P) S N N s^ in t^ H t-^ in "n •* a <; C<_ K 0\ ^OO 'S r^ m ro T^ Osro H ^ cT d; m" cT ^ tv r^oo oo oo ON ro in ON ON in oo CO t-^ t^ On f ^ % OJKO "1 ^P OO moo p\co <^ *c< 'm'ro'iM 'm ,o> CO _min_i^jp-. '« 'tn'c4 '« 'o .t^ 9° < o H § o c -< H \o r^oo oo \o oo o r^ ro ^j o^ ^ ". "2 ^ ^ t^^ 00 00 00 t-- w b H b b b OnO M *- •m h' Q o i H lO^ -^ \o OOOO H t^ ON in M CN a> t^ rT ro -^^ -^ -^ m in H o> On t^CO M m 4 ^ T? -f in < 5 z X P 4^ 's '<^ 2 ';:; °= b 'on 'o\co CO CO p p .On_t)-co _o-) CO 'c^WCd K t^ CO en O Ph 1 a t-- f< "CO r^ moo On o> rn t^NO OO W H o" r^ 6; w p; 1 o" m" tC T? o" NO 00 On ON _t^ fn M -p Vo V V V v ro ^■'f^'^p p .m V V V in 'in CO _ONin_t-^ H N in 'in 'in-b vb ,On C. i < f) CO t-- Tj- t^ invo 04 in in VO CO N N in in ro NO ro in^ ^ On t-^OO On-O C7n NO fe 7) H < H H N p P CI N N n CJ •^ _w 03 _I^ _t^ p V 1 H H H M ON 00 CO .t~- p p 00 On •< i^cnoo in o^o^ ^o invo" in in 1^ 1 no" no' no" tCvo" NO NO tn On 1 _ro in ,rop oo M '« "in "cH 'o M 00 \0 N N _t^ 'm 'o 'ro'm'c) _ON _On m P p, CT) 'n 'fn'w 'c^ *ro p CO ■< 00 f^ t^ t^ m 1^ M H oo o\ n 6\d^ ^^ '^ 1 o m -:^ m h" n c> o" rn NO 1 u '^ iH !2 o -J=>< O0COCOCO0O-^J=>H T3 E ^ H D ro ■* in,, 1) t^ t^ r^ t^ t^ >l 00 00 CO CO CO- 1 ■' APPENDIX, :)D •2 '^ .5^ >?^ ^1 •S s II •S 'f ^ \> R K til ! 1 1 £ Coo p .op JN p « N M - " .t^ .'J- CO p ^. b w b '« 'f- M •„ M M b ■- « M b H b b b >^ " >; :=' u .^."*'.^ r ." N P .M N « p w OCO\C 00 00 00 p 3 ''^ b b b b b b ^ N u .'^ .^ ."^ J^ ^ >0 _N 'P W .f<1 « ro 00 p 00 00 _t^ 00 PI « 1. '14 n t) C< "n Vi 'c< 'ci 'ci N CT *« M N 1- M M ll n c ;il u ^ g l^ 00 CO t^ N p 0_-*- »n ." ." r*' ." 9° "p .f- Is u ■-- Vo N V, V 'n -b 'i/-. \n u-i V Vn "m 'in 'r- '0 'o 't>. in ^X ^ M » « M « ■^ 1 -^,M u~ r^ -i >i^ co >p p _" r Pi M Tj-cO OD a\ p u " V V V V V V t^ Vi Vn 'c< N Vi ■pi 'p* 'iH 'm 'm >-l 'ro w s to " 2 Z J? 3 5 in N t-,00 vo -p N p « p p „ ." P r 9° "P N " "c^ 'ci ■« ":< "c^ M 'ci N N C< C< w P< Pi P) M « •^ '^ D H O u d _>< Spoo Or p> p CO CO _t>. p 00 .000 >p in Ti- ■p 00 a ^ '^ "n m h "m 'r) "^ 11 W M rt W " " o u< 8 g 0_:^. p .r^ o N t^, y-.oo ,^/^' 00 00 " w VO p p 1 u M '►-. '« b b ■„ b b b '-' '- b ';: h 'm 2 2 b "m 1 B ^ 3 3 rs. ?i _-i- .i^ -1 .ro op r .-^ r p: CO _t^ vn 00 00 ■| " ':< V, V/ir-Zr^ "^z V ■^ 'm 'en 'm 'in pn m "^ " n 3 p r .'i-.f-oi •ft P'p y^.-*.^ jin v^.ino." p 00 "P 1 ^. 'lO "in '(O 'u^ '>o 10 'in m in ino O 'in 'in ." ! "" >, = o r' ^ ^ y P" I. 00 '0.0 't^ p ^mppi >n 00 p _in>p _'<^_t^ Pi ^ S "oco CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 'c^ io 03 o '^ •^ \ 1 t^ D 00 m in p CO p\ .0 ." .'*'."*.'^P^ _ei CO r-.-/-^v^ "in \n "m V V V in '■<^ '-4- :5 1 1 ^'— ^— ^'— ^^-^ ill ft ^1 1^ c»"c»c£"(» t»" -1 \o p-co t^ t^ t^ l>.00 CO CO CO 00 00 156 APPENDIX. "?~ c 2 o ^88888 8 88888 8 88888 8 8 CH 1 « H M M M ,^ -■^.2 £ _(S OO H p p p OM^ ro MD _t^ ,M-MO _-*00 _ON MO y, t'% s " V 'n 'r<-i Vo N V) b M b W '(N ■-«■ "in '■<^ 'm '-^ V 'm He= ^ Jj M (N N N N « n M M n N 01 N N N 0) N N 9-( fS it" ^ 1.-C § c ^•S's Jj 0-) _n-) _M _ro _t^ _(N w ^ ^ \n\o in _m_ONN y- rn in _•<«■ o£^ I. 'ro "m 'ro 'm "in 'ro 'ro 'fo m Vo 'ro m ro m rorom 'm ro o (S b Oi . o V. D.-S c So u8l g CO ChOO CO On v< b b b b b _0\ 00 N rncny-i N _->^ _^>p CO 00 f m t/5 w b b '" M "m "m '" " o« CO |l ■■J 5 CO MO p ,t^ l'^ ^ b 'ob 'oco f^ M p^t^y^y-i „ in On inoo _ON in r^ 'on CO W Wco CO CO CO CO CO 't^co CO CO H n>-^ (DM M P-. 5 £Z§ S _Ov^p _op yi N 'p ro ON _^ MO _r^ .ONjn Tj- MO MO '^ V V 'in 'in MO 'in MO Ccb VOMO MO 'in pi 'Ti" ^:i u ^-. _i-~oo \o _r^ JI^ r^ in in ^mMO m vp MO jinvo ^-^ in MO •5 5-3 •e1^ (li m-^ ■ssl' kz| «J _t- _t^ _-.l-'p _On b p w w .rop 'm 'ro "ro 'ro 'm 'm p H .t^.t^M 'm'm'cs 'm 'm ,On 'm ■< !li .li goo (N O p w .rn.t^p .M- MO ^-^MO N w _'*■ in 1 o JiS o V^co r^ Onoo r^MO U-) 'r~. "in Vinvb 'in in MO U O :5 ^5 ^- t- t^ r^ t^ t^ PL, r^ t^ t^ t^ t^ t^ t^ t^ r^ t^ t^ t^ t^ t^ c: 2 jj £ f^^N ON N p _ro p\_m_ov H H H N m_-f OD MO t/2 rS " c " 'in 2 2 E3 2 M 'n 'f<^'ro'm'N Vt) 'm'm'cM "n 'n 'n 'n li] OiJ 5 H z ^ 12 B g O S CO -^ ro r'l m ro m ro -^ ro in ■^ _-^;nMOMO MO y-i ■* U « V, b b b b b b b b b b b b 'o "o 'o "o 'o 'o b z ^ o 3 2i o c V p p-.^ M p\ p P p MO _-^ _ON CO M CO _ONM0 in CO CO tl. 1? u I, rob 'm mb 'o-i'm'iN 'n 'n (N 'm'w 'cN 'n 'cn N ^■-s ,-^ ^'^ ^— , sHtl- ■si M c^ ro^in -S <" lo r-.oo o\ r^ t-^ r^ r^co *" K** CO OO OQ C» 00 CO 00 CO 00 oo ■- .. >- ,, 1 O 1) o ^ o w c f^ t i^.^ (-.> ^ H 1 fo fe fe APrENDiX. 157 TABLE Vlil. Statement s'lozuin^ the I'alue o/I>nJ>orts of Mcrehaiidise into Germany from the iindcr- 7nentioned Countries, and of Exports thereof from Germany to the same Countries in the Years 1868 to 1877, i7tade up from the Statistics of the different Cotintries named {in the absence of official German statistics) by treating tlte Exports from them to Germany as Imports intoGermany, and the Imports from Germany into them as Exports ^rom Germany ; in thousands of Francs an i Founds ster/ing—'ue., 100 = 100,000. i IMPORTS INTO GERMANY FROM EXCESS OF IMPORTS. Years. Gt. Fritain Switzer- land. United Total of la Thou- In Thou- France. Belg^iuir. and Briiish India. Itily. Stat s.' t Enumerated i^ointries. sands of Frai.c_. sand- of Pounds Steiliiig^. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. £ 1868 215,000 107,647 808,654 5,316 110,099 1,246,716 290,160 11,606 1869 305,000 121,276 803,716 c 3,022 139,133 1,372,147 399,488 15,979 187a 104,000 138,535 708,014 > 4,774 174,390 1,129,713 365,617 14,624 1871 199,000 209,085 97i>234 to 8,171 158,079 1,545,569 529,397 21,176 1872 410,000 240,277 1,083,667 ^ 7,600 185,101 1,926,645 662,755 ^^'5^° 1873 463,000 266,064 9i9>239 13,815 271,864 1,933,982 609,705 24,388 1874 414,000 243,120 883,241 ^ 18,569 286,315 1,845,245 607,896 24,316 1875 427,000 244,272 856.539 ^ 23,634 226,558 1,778,003 464,312 18,572 1876 431,000 244,322 748,336 U ' 20,599 224,247 1,668,504 331,881 13,275 1877 395,000 222,767 732,028 16,615 276,639 1,643,049 1 203,647 8,146 E.XPORTS FROM Germany to EXCESS OF EXPORTS. Years. ! Gt. Pritiin S*itz-r- la..d. United Tot^il of In Thou- In Th u- France. Belgium. nd British Inoia. Italy. Staes. T Enumerated Countries. sands of Francs. sanrs of Pounds F. 1 F. F. F F. F. F. £ 1868 266,000 111,549 454,614 8,02s 116,365 956,556 — 1869 256,000 116,160 459,930 s 10,107 130,462 972,659 — — 1870 1 103,000 121,688 386,013 > 12,917 140,478 764,096 — — 1871 1 160.000 230,244 482,421 to 13,019 130,488 1,016,172 1 — 1872 358,000 168,554 481,984 . ^ 14,884 240,468 1,263,890 — 1873 ! 311,000 171,530 498,747 23,710 319,290 1,324,277 — 1874 315,000 166,852 499,266 27,899 228,332 1,237,349 — 1875 349,000 171,597 546,498 c 37,312 209,284 1,313,691 — 1 — 1876 389,000 195,763 528,107 6 40,089 183,664 1,336,623 — — 1877 373,000 1 214,767 657,387 25,202 169,046 1,439,402 — i — *" The values of ihe United States e.xports to Germany have been reduced from currency to specie values. t The returns for the United States are fur yea-s ending 30th June. '58 APPENDIX. TABLE IX. tatement showing the Total Value of Merchandise Imported into, and Exported from, France, in the Years 1868 to 1877, according to the French official Returns; in thousands of francs, i.e., 100 = 100,000. Note. — The figures are those of the French "Special" Trade, viz., Imports for Domestic Use and Manufacture, and Exports of Domestic Produce and Manufacture. Years. Total Imports. Total Exports. Excess of Imports. In Thousands of Francs and Thou- sands of £, sterling. Excess of Exports. In Thousands of Francs and Thou- sands of £, sterling. 1868 Francs. 3,303,700 Francs. 2,789,900 (F.513,800) \£ 20,552) — 1869 3,153,100 3,074,900 f F. 78,200) t^ 3,128/ — 1870 2,781,400 2,802,100 — (F. 20,700) t ;^ 828 ) 1871 3,566,700 2,872,500 ( F. 694, 200 ) \£ 27,768 f — • 1872 3,570,300 3,761,600 — {J-'^r,1^1 1873 3,554,800 3,787,300 — (F.232,500 . \£ 9,300) 1874 3,507,700 3,701,100 „ (F. 193,400) t;^ 7,736) 1875 3,536,700 3,872,600 — JF 335,9001 \£ 13,436) 1876 3,988,400 3,575,600 (F.412,800) t;^ 16,512; — 1877 3,669,800 3,436,300 (F.233,500) I £ 9,340 ) — APPENDIX. 159 TABLE X. Statement showing the Value of Imports of Merchandise into France froiu the under- tnentioned Countries, and Exports thereof from France to the same Countries, according- to the French official Returns, in the Years 1868 to 1877, covering the period of the paytnent of ths Indemnity to Germany ; in thousands of francs, \.^., 100 = 100,000. IMPORTS. excess of Imports. Years. Germany. Bel^um. and British ' ^J^^""' i ,,„\t^A Total of 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 F, F. F. 266,000 1 354,000 679,000 I 256,000 1 316,000 687,000 103,000 272,000 646,000 160,000 476,000 920,000 358,000 440,000 764,000 311,000 ; 475,000 673,000 315,000 J 409,000 697,000 349,000 439.000 , 753,000 389,000 404,000 1 789,000 373,000 409,000 ''■ 724,000 i F. 141,000 133,000 102,000 105,000 97,000 92,000 96,000 94,000 110,000 96,000 F. 327,000 321,000 235,000 441,000 375,000 346,000 289,000 322,000 415.000 ^42,000 F. 156,000 174,000 218,000 190,000 205,000 199,000 241,000 190,000 265,000 258,000 F. 1,923,000 1,887,000 1,576,000 2,292,000 2,239,000 2,096,000 2,047,000 2,147,000 2,372,000 2,202,000 F. 189,000 7.563 EXPORTS Excess of EXPORTS. Years. Germany. Belgium. Gt Britain and British India. Switzer- land. Italy. United States. Total of Enumerated Countries. In Thou- sands of Francs. In Thou- sands of Pounds sterling-. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. £. 1868 215,000 272,000 882,000 263,000 171,000 126,000 1,929,000 6,000 240 1869 305,000 295,000 914,000 261,000 230,000 193.000 2,198,000 311,000 12,440 1870 104,000 311,000 849,000 263,000 201,000 307,000 2,035,000 459,000 18,360 1871 199,000 410,000 823,000 205,000 153,000 313,000 2,103,000 - - 1872 410,000 479,000 937,000 294,000 229,000 333,000 2,682,000 443,000 17,720 1873 463,000 ! 470,000 926,000 337,000 230,000 291,000 2,717,000 621,000 24,840 1874 414,000 ' 524,000 992,000 300,000 204,000 296,000 2,730,000 6^3,000 27,320 1875 427,000 ■ 527,000 1,075,000 315,000 219,000 264,000 2,827,000 680,000 27,200 1876 431,000 446,000 1,036 000 279,000 216,000 230,000 2,638,000 266,000 10,640 1877 395,000 446,000 1,067,000 237,000 185,000 217,000 2,547,000 345,000 13,800 i6o APPENDIX. TABLE XI. Statciiiati showing the Value of the Iinpor s of Merchandise and Treasure, on Private and Goz'erntnent Account, into British India from the United Kingdom, and Value of the Exports of the same, from British India to the United Kingdojn, in the Years ended 21st March, 1871 to 1880; compiled from the official Statistics oj t/te Indian Governmetit ; in thousands of pounds, i.e., 100 = ioo,ocx). Excess of Imports. E.xports. 31st March. Imports. Exports. 187I £ 29,905 £ 32,084 £ £ 2,179 1872 33,739 33,021 718 — 1S73 2^,^Z7 28,667 220 — 1874 30,888 28,832 2,056 ' 1875 35,494 27,972 7,522 — . 1876 34,519 28,371 6,148 — 1877 39,555 29,315 10,240 — 1878 47.198 30,804 16,394 — i8;9 33,140 28,400 4-740 — 1S80 38,440 27,7^^1 10,659 — Total for the 10 Years. } 351,765 295,247 56,518 — APPENDIX. l6l TABLE XII. Statement shinuing the Value of the hnports of Merchandise and Treasure, on Private and Goz'ernment Account, into British India, from the undermentioned Coun- tries ; and the Value of the Exports of the same from British India to the same Countries, in the Years ended ^ist March, 1871 to 1S80; compiled from the official Statistics of the Indian Gorjernment ; in thousands of pounds, i.e., 100 = 100,000, Note.— The figures for the Years 1871-75 in the case of the United States are esti- mates ; and for 187 1 in the case of Austria and Italy are also estimates. I.MPORTS. Years ended 31st March. France. Austria. Italy. United China and States. Hong Kong. Ceylon. Total of enumerated Countries. Excess of Iinpv,rts. 187I 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 £ 423 555 378 362 413 678 592 571 588 £ 67 122 127 93 96 118 120 120 122 156 i 115 147 339 280 527 1,366 435 393 7^5 i 62 98 193 . 201 172 280 349 526 £ 4,290 4,014 2,377 3,141 2,957 2,901 2,127 4,031 4,039 5,587 £ 1,035 1,088 903 909 941 966 987 797 907 1,091 £ 5,947 5,967 3,994 4,942 4,880 5,391 5,364 6,234 6,264 £ Total for the 10 Years. 5»oi4 1,141 4,453 2,020 35,464 9,624 57,716 — Years ended 31st March. France. Austria. Italy. united States. China and Hong Kong. Ceylon. Total of enumerated Countries. Excess of Exports. £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ I87I 2,013 600 700 2,232 12,333 1,620 19,498 13,551 1872 4,175 1,057 1,134 2,079 13,944 2,082 24,471 18,504 1873 2,673 1,100 954 1,821 12,259 2,314 21,121 17,127 1874 3,134 939 1,320 1,643 11,507 2,823 21,366 16,424 1875 4,449 1,321 1,112 1,886 11,751 2,497 23,016 18.136 1876 4,603 1,410 1,224 1,778 11,520 2,695 23,230 17,839 1877 5,437 1,428 1,410 1,896 13,442 3,396 27,009 21,645 1878 6,026 1,466 1,870 1,933 12,791 2,840 26,926 20,692 1879 3,947 1,395 1,673 2,038 13,677 3,787 26,517 20,253 1880 4,870 1,860 2,215 3,286 15,732 2,696 30,659 21,926 Total for the !• Years. 41,327 12,576 13,612 20,592 128,956 26,750 243,813 186,097 l62 APPENDIX. TABLE Return of the Rates of Import duty levied in the ^ri7tcipal European Countries, in the United Articles of British FOREIGN COUNTRIES. Articles. " Gertcany. Holland. Belgium. France. Italy. Austria • United Stat'iS. C s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. Cotton Yarn (single Per cwt.l Per cwt. Per cwt. Per cwt. Per cwt. 1 Per cwt. unbleached) : Up to No. 12. . V 6 I - ' 074 6 I \ Above 12 to 17 • M 17 „ 23 . Vo 6 I |o 8 2 6 I • }o 8 II j- |oS 2 „ 23 „ 30 . „ 30 „ 35 • r 9 2 082 }o 10 7 } i ■ 368 „ 35 „ 45 . ., 45 J, 47 • „ 47 „ 60 . 12 2 Free- ho 12 2 ) f 12 2 16 3 ho 13 ■ -' 15 10 -and 20 % ad val. „ 60 „ 70 . ) Vo 16 3-^ ^ From ' 19 6 Vo 12 2 » 70 „ 77 • \° 15 3 i i (1043 ■j .) 77 » 79 • » 79 • • • ) 18 3 }o 4 o| C to i )6 I II C [145 J Cotton Cloth (un- bleached) : Weighing 13 kilo- grammes and above per 100 sq. mfetres : Of 27 threads or r "1 c 132^ >i 12 \ less per 5 sq. L n . .0.3 1 millimetres Vi 4 I 4 ■< J 6 Exceed- Of 28 to 35 thds. 3 ( ) I ing 5 oz. Of36„38 „ j-i 12 6 I 12 6 Vi 6 ) V to the Over 38 „ 2 10 10 sq. yard: 2|d. per Weighing from 11 to 13 kilogs. ex- sq. yard clusive per 100 or 3d. per sq. mfetres : sq. yard, Of 27 threads or c V ) (' / ") accord- less .... Of 28 to 35 thds. -2 8 ad'vi' ]- I 4 j I 6 10 j... 6 - ing to quality. Of 36 ,,38 „ |i 12 6 I 12 6 /-I 10 6 ) Over 38 ) V 2 10 10 Other Weighing from 7 C From From From \ unblea- to 11 kilogs. ex- Ji 4 5 I 4 5 I 6 10 ched clusive per 100 i to to to ( I 12 6 cotton sq. metres . . . U I 3 413 I 10 6 1 J or tissues Weighing less than 7 kilogs. per 100 sq. metres I C From 3 I 12 6 1 to . (,6 I II From I 12 6 to 6 I II From j I 12 6 to 208/ 1 2 10 10 i as above 35 % ad val. ! Linen Yarn (single unbleached) : UptoNo.5(Eng) I 61 ' ' 5 to 8 . . . 9 ,, 10 . . . II ,, 20 . . . 2 6^ 3 oh |o 6 I 082 i 40% \ ad val. 21 „ 35 • . . 36 „ 40 • 4 61 - Free. Free. - >o 12 2 048 I 6\ 41 ,, 60 . . f 6 I 14 8 61 , , 119 . . Above 119. . . J I 4 5 208^ APPENDIX. 163 XIII. States, and in the principal Colonial Possessions oftJu United Kingdom, on the nndervtentioncd Produce or Manufacture. COLONIAL POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM. New South ' V' Wales. I Sou-h Australia. Western Australia. Zebland. Queensland. Canada. Cape of Good Hope. £ ^. A.\ £ ^. A. £ s. d. Per cwt. Per cwt. Per cwt. 030 Free. Free. Free. £ s. d. ! Per cwt (. adval. 10% I ad val. ) (. ad va val. ad val. 1 (. ad val. '-°\ } ad val. Free by Law of 24 Sept., ad val. I ;^S. d. Per cwt. Under 40's 9 4 and 15% ad val. Other, 2c%adval. 1. 10% i ad val. 5% ad val. C sq. yard, \\\A. to id. ) and 15% ad (.val. f 5% ( I ad val. 20% ad val. 10% ad val. 164 APPENDi:^. TABLE Xtll. RetuDi of tltc Ratis 0/ Import Duty levied in the principal Eti}o/>ean Countries, in the United Articles of British FOREIGN COUNTRIES (coniim 3 Oi 24 thrds. and above Woollen Yarns (single unbleached) : Measuring to the kilogramme less than3o,5oometres 30,500 to 40,500 ,, 40,500 ,, 50,500 ,, 50,500 ,, 60,500 ,, 60,500 ,, 70,500 ,, 70,500 ,, 80,500 ,, 80,500 ,, 90,500 ,, 90,500 ,, 100,500 ,, 100,500 metres and above .... Woollen Cloth (un- printed) : With cotton warp Above 600 grms- per sq. metre 300 to 600 grms, per sq. metre Less than 300 grms. per sq. metre Other Icinds : Above 600 grms. per sq. metre , . 450 to 600 grms. per sq. mfetre. . Less than 450 grms.persq. metre F'Tcelain : While G lass and Glasswares : Common bottles . Window glass: Common . . . Plate glass : I'ohshed. / Sail- cloth J free. 1 Other 5%ad ^ val. £ s. d. Per cwt. 10% ad val. Free. 3 8 7 p% (030^ to ad val. ( 5% (.ad val. 5% d val. I V 10% ad val. 10% ad val. 10% ad val 10% ^ ad val. 3 £ s. d. Per cwt. fo fo 10 o 14 ■-o 12 2 10% d val. 10% I ad val. j 006} { r3 I o o 4 io\ 100 bottles. Per cwt. 033 sq.j-ard. o 2 81 £ s. d. Per cwt. From 35% 40/0 ad val. o I 61 to 082 2 o S 2 10 10 208 3 O II 4 I 3 From 4 13 4 to II 13 4 and 35 % ad val. All cloths weigh- ing 4 oz. and above, per sq. yard, II 13 4 and 35 % ad val. i 45%, ( ad val. [ 35% ad val. fo 7 to (.0 14 ^I'p to 24 / by 30 in. sq., iJd to 4d. per SI. It. Of larger siz--. IS. cid. to as. Ill p r Vsq. ft. APPENDIX. 165 (continued). States, and in the principal Colonial Possessions of the United Kingdom^ on tJit undtrnien 'ioncd Produce or Manufacture. COLONIAL POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM [coniinmd). Nevr South victoria. I , South j Western Xasmaoia. ^^?'^\ 'Queensland. Canaia. i C-Jpe o<- rtales. I Australia. Australia. Z'.a'and. '^ . ^^ "-"» 'g-kxI 11 i>e. ' ! I i I ;^ s. d. ;^ s. d. £ s. d. Per cwt. I Per cwt. Per cwt. Free. Free. )- Free, Free. Free 7\X \ ad val. to y 15% 1 ad va'. J cub. ft. 026 ^ cub. ft. Free. Free. 5% ad val. / 10% ( ad val. 10% ad val. Free -< ^^'^ *'^"- ( ad val. ( ad val. ad val. I2i% ad val. I2|% ad val. Sailcloth free. Other 10 % ad val. 10 /„ ad val. 10% ad val. 10% ad val. Free. 10% ad val. 10% ad val. £ s. d. Per c^v-t. Sailcloth free. Other 15 % ad val. ad val. 15% ad val. Free. 100 sq.ft. 15% ad Vdl. £ s. d. Per cwt. r Sailcloth 5% 3 25% ad val adval, I Other L 20% ad val ( 5% ( ad val 5% ad val. 5% ad val. 5% ad val. I C ad val I 15 o and 20% ad val. and 20 % ad val. i 10% j ad val. 10% ad v.l. 25% ad val. ad va! ad vdl. i66 APPENDIX. TABLE XIII, Return of the Kates of hnport Duty levied in the principal EuroJ>ean Countries, in the United A rticles of British FOREIGN COUNTRIES [^continued). \ Gerrrany. Iron ; i'ig Bar £ s. d. Per cwt. 006 Rails for Railways ^^ - Iron . . . M ^^\-^ I 3i \ Free Rails for Railways —Steel Copper : Inaois, Cakes, or Slabs ..... Hammered, in Bars o 6 Tanned Leather (un- wrough t) : Ox and Cow ) Hides. . . \ Calfskins . . j Alkali ; Bicarbonate of Soda .... From 092 to o 18 3 Crystals of SoJa . o o 9I Soda Caustic . . o 2 05 Paper : For Writing For Printing Seed Oils : Linseed . . Rape . . . Coals >o 2 o\ Free Beer or Ale : In Casks . . . ) In Bottles ... f ° ^ «^'° ° ^ £, s. di.\ £, s. :d. Per cwt. I Per cwt. o o 2a o o 4I Free Free Free Free \- Free £ s. d. Per cwt. o o 9I o 2 5I Free Free Italy. £ s. d. Per cwt. Free £ s. d. Per cwt. 006 O I lOjl 026^ ^o3 3,J Free I o i 7?j ^o I Z\ o o 9< i I o 2 7I -f 5% ,> ( ad Vol. j o o iij Free l\ o *3 Free Free Ton o o ] •" From o 10 2 to o 12 2 002^ i Not '( specified ? Pure J o 2 o^ 1 Impure vo o 2J o 4 o| o 2 5J Free 6i-^ Free 082 (■082 o 3 oi Not specified ■0 4 o| o 3 O5 Free Gal. i Gal. ! Gal. i Gal. Mo o 3 ')" " ^|lo +1 7] I i looBtls.i United Slates. £ s. d. Pt r cwt. / o 4 5 and o 70 according V to size 033 ''Partly Steel 5048 ) Pure Steel V. o 5 10 r I 3 4 i 15% to 25% ( ad val. 070 Not specified 070 ad val. 20 % or 25 % ad val. according as unsized or sized. Gal. .f o I 6 "(012 /Anthracite Free. J Bitumi- 1 nous, ! Ton Vo 3 li Oal. 010] 019' * An additional excise duty on letter paper of 4s. 7|d. per cwt. An additional t Excise duty in addition ; — At 16 degrees APPENDIX. 167 {continued). States, and in the principal Colonial Possessions o/tht United Kingdom, on the undermentioned Produce or Manufacture. COLONIAL POSSESSION'S OF THE UNITED KINGDOM {contititted . New S^-uth Wales. Victoria. South Australia. M'estem | Australia, j Tasmania. New ! Zealand. 1 Queensland. ^-^'^^^ Ic^^Hole £ S. d. Per cwt. £ s. d. Per cwt. £, s. d. Per cwt. £ s. d. Per cwt. ( £ s. d. Per cwt. Free £ s. d. Per cwt. £ s. d. Per cwt. Free \ f ;^ s. d. 1 Per cwt. j 5 :> £ s. d. ad val. i - Free Free Free ( ad val. 10% J ad val. - Free-' ■dl} 15% i ad val. \ 10% r ad vaL / , ; V ; V \ Free to 1883 1 Free .( 25%, ( ad va'. } ^- { 10 to I2i% ad val. 1 Free Free f 5% ( ad val. 10 % 10 % ad val. ; ad val. } -" r =0% 3 ad val. Lad val. r ad val. 12^% ad val. 10% ad val. ^ From JO 9 4 1 to Vo 14 ) 5% ad val. \ ad val. ) 15 to 29% C ad val. 1 10% r ad val. Free 3-0 I Free 020 >o I r 12^% ad val. 006 048 024 >o I ( Not 3 specified /^o I 1 20% f ad val. 10% ad val. Free Free Free 1 I2i% ( adva!. ;. K.« Free i Not "( specified j- Free 094 18 8 f 10% t ad val. 12^% ad val. 1 /UncutX free. | ■I Cut )- >^ ^ '^ ad val. L 5% r ad val. 20% ad val. 10% ad val. V Free 1 Free Free f 10% ( ad val. Free ) Gal. -00 Free Gal. 006 f 12U ( ad val. Gal. ) \ -0 I Ton Gal. 006 Gal. (006 } 5% (, ad val. Ton )' ad val. 20% ad val. Ton /^Anthrct. 02 4 ■^ Bitumi- nous Vo 2 gh Gal. ^ Gal. >o 6 "l Ton. "0 10 Gal. \ Free Free Free Free 010 Free 016 ^G„. Ga!. Gal. Gal. Gal. Gal. Gal. 006 009 |0 9 009 010 (009 "(o I 3 0x3 016 009 010 005 009 ^-0 4 excise duty on other kinds from 2s. i^d to 4s. 2fd. per c>\t, the dutj- v.ould be 4id. per gallon. i68 APPENDIX. .« S 5-^ >^ s>^£^ u5 •s >^ ^^ S,0 §. >? >■? >^- >^ ^'^j^-^s ^"^ ■o 3 ^ S 6" 2 £ t^ ^ j^ ^2 i! 1^" c ■< +t ■»- V in ">) =: p * c^* --* "SS 1^ . ■— s ^ s<° 5s» ^^ i " >• n" s--; >^' 2 N i? ^= ^>^ 5^ "^ k to •So o hw f- w S <; <; # * * « * * » * - ii •S-^ * * ♦ ^ ?> ■C V ^^ ^^ ^•5 1^ ii. •3 ^^° >^ X S-; ^ >,o ^? ^ ^^^ ^^ I \ :- ^ * ^ 2 ^•^ «" '^ H "S ^»-S W 2 r -N ^•s H z O u o s X c til 1 < C 2 ^ * 2 ^i1 2 ^ o> '^ ^v— ' -^ ^ -r -^ UJ ^1 -1 <>^ A K> <■> CD a ? 3 % xll'^^^i 0^; ^? X 0-^ \u ^° ??l '5b M ■■f °^ i^^ ^k i^ sis , — ' — , ^ ' N "^3 V ^ r ^ Ji ^? ll •6 2 « s^ JJ j3 ■■'" J^° i-? >5 11 1 lie ^ ^ fS V ■"3 6 t u* ■■»- •t- ■■•- ° : w rt S ► .■i < y "C S n' ^? >^ v^o X° ^ Sx° ■c ^ > OS iTi CO >0 ^:^ O ^ *" i "h' * *" M * « * "^c ^'— ^— '■ V ^'^ V I 1 ■ 1 i .-5 i -^ 11- 1 >$ ^ l-'s •••5' •• 3 • '^ r~'^ c 3 rC-H "^SA c/T 5 III c C 3 "5 3. "i Is £.5 2 c cT 0^ 0^ . sin c p p 1 ^5 m $dr £ ^ V g ^ M r' ? fS APPENDIX. 169 5N;-yj vntn 0a,O ---T-i O o P-- r?'i.i ■5 s O D, O ^;K 4^ way I ^^ ^ c-^ ^^ •X]np aspxa XBuopippE JS^X ^ 01 pUB >^Ss° o^ 15^ ;. Ti o c U ^ 170 APPENDIX. Si II 1:^ u-^ '/u 'J-? U! « -^ i^ Q H k^>; A X:> .-^^ ^.ri 35 ■•SI J: 1)5 •^ i2 H 1: o o I I ^ g "m ^ O E O = «-^ r:.S to oj ■,:3 "^3 ? f* ph 'O " o; o APPENDIX. 171 ^'— 3 «j •si- ' 3 5^ ^ i-? i-^ ^?>^ o~-? i^ 1; - 5 ^ +- +- . — '— , •*- ^ .%" CO * CO 1 >^ 2 ..: i « ^ >^§ ^ ^ K» >^^"1 5^ 2 >< ^?s^ It >• ■3 2 2 2 -H- ++ in 8 fa 8 ^Sl < fif *"*^ ^i_ /^' — — r-' -O TJ i .:; it: us 1 1 >• ++ N_^ 0"° 5- IS S i < ++ +t ^* * * * § ^ ;z; .-'-> Z •6 ,"^ 5 c fa in N < fa fa Z ;5 5 z ti , / ►- '' h rt ~ u S< ^^jj j^ >-=>5 >? >z>i '^ S > Ji t^ u 00 f CO z H ■d £ ^ ♦^^'^ +- * * » ^^o 55 ^— r^ ^.-^ t/2 on ll II 1 2 M 2 ++++ ++ IN ^ N ++* ++ "H" 2 M ++ +*• -H- 1 p z ^•— ^.~' ►J ^•- •^ u >." ^;s<« ^ V >^>^ 4) ^ II ^ 1 ,2f| l& .V fa * d < .^^ ~— r~' ■c i •a in 0-^ fa;f fa i^ fa fa 1> 1 ^ ^ > < -»- +-+- « ^•^ '-'^ -— r^' ^ = X "rt V « «>; i> ^ ^^5 s >Z>i c^ii > s: !i t: Ji f. Ji ^M ," ^^ Z •3 fa fa fa-^ * fa #"»^ fa * * ^^ . .^^ ' J-' i tr ' rt • ■ ^3 S b ^ "^ rS'"' rs in ri _ t/5 U--U • a I .1 . . ■"<« •• . t: < .Ill yliii « a.) -y, u 111 j; = - g-^ KJ CU i;r;-j'0 afa faj^^?^ 5.- ^'^'~"~' <: P^ C/2 ^ a ^^ 172 APPENDIX. 1! W 2 H Z; Ci o y o w a; o u< 1_ ■< 11 u "t^ *t^ 't^ "w 't^ M N \o ro ro M 1 M lU-^OOMVO ^ COVO CO 1 y^'P 1 1 fo 1 N 1 tj 1 Jl ^ 1 1 1 1 1 v:! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -H 1 V iji II 11. ■t|8 U \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 J ' '^ On ^O I H Vl 1 'c E 3 a: \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -0 -^ 1 -^ 1 1 1 II 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 \ V 1 1 1 1 b -0 1 1 1 1 1 -0 1 -M Pi MM 1 1 1 ^ •;:;; 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i i i i c i i MM 1 1 f H s .2 C g lO 1 1 ro 'fco 1 .'^ 1 1 9° P .■^9° pi 1 .'^~«> 1 P ~ SI 1 M 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 ro '■1 H 1 1 y'P 1 1 ro N 1 I -S ii v s c 1 g -^-Oi^CTir'lH imiDiiroi^voa 3 rooo n -*■ 1- ■^•s^ •^ '^ ^ . CO lOCgH M Ol m ill g O^wMiOio NOONiOOH M rot- ro t^^O 1 P .0 I. t^ Co lO 1 N roCb 1 0\ f^ M Of ^ COM « M .o ror^jn E G g CO .2 g n o3 t^vo III 1 t^ r^ 1 ro »o 1 1 -oil 1 1 1 III ^ -^ b 1 -^ 1 1 1 1 vb M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 itl \ \ 1 1 b 1 1 1 ---o VH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 to u u H < J ■< u 'A 2 p.! ^'-, .. ^ .— ■— ^ ^•— ~ i'r •111 'ill »l 1 Statement sJimving in it Kingdom Jrotn Fo all Foreign Cou?ii ^ ^ o fa ii « ■?Mc3SW cj • s -lis • • - u o-a o u, 3 APPENDIX. 173 J < p c § 888888 888888 8 88 8 8888 8 3 2 c •< ^ vo vo M ri f--*M ci o> " o^oo ■* IT) vb 00 t^ N \0 I^CO ro t^ Ov ro in « t^ -a- ^vo 00 vo t^ (M w 10 •o 0^^«oo c >^ C>l ^03 M o< lO s ■■A "A X H 5 P3 1 1 i-i ^■3 90 "P i/~, r~, 00 .- 1 P ^ r •:^ 1 000 no p s < ^ ^ M r»1 t^ ■>^ ro m moo M f« ►H 10 c^ fg in vo c<_ ■♦ on\o m 00 -.*- M 2>l^8^ ■" V? 1 tm § 1 1 b 1 1 -0 1 1 1 11 c 1 .0^1 P 1 M b :3^ I 'ro

"* '^ c> c3 oo" VO OCX3 10 ro ?:%^^^^ 5;. 00 M N t^ 8 t^ t^ 0^ ^ 0^ Svo c? S*0> CO vn m Tj- U-) « « -^ cT oco t>. m 10 fo 00 r " M t-v mio 00 en t^ M « Cn T^ H, in oo_ 8 « U t 1 ro m M 00 m m roo m « vo rovo t^ •*vo CO N m N IH « o> W invo M ■>^ M N \o » m^O < < 5 > "rt .3 '5 < 1: = 1 H ,~^ "rt ■o H "rt Sheep and Lambs Bacon and Hams. Butter . Cheese , Cocoa . Coffee* . Corn, Grain, and Flout Wheat . . Barley . Oats . Maize . Wheat-meal and Flc Eggs . Meat of all kinds(salted fresh, or preserved Potatoes Kice ... Spices of all sorts, in eluding Pepper Spirits of all sorts Sugar, refined Sugar, unrefined . 'lea Tobacco, manufacturec and unmanufacturec E o o 3-5 -a ^2o u O o 5 -' " 174 APPENDIX. TABLE XV!. statement showing the Proportion per cent, of the Total Value oj the Articles of Food ttamedin Table XV. imported into the U7iited Kingdom fvjn Foreign Countries and British Possessions, for the Year 1880. Countries. Per Centage of Total. A. — Foreign Countries. Russia ........ Sweden ........ Denmark ........ Germany . Holland Belgium France Spain Portugal . . . Roumania ....... China . Foreign West India Islands .... United States . Other Foreign Countries Total of Foreign Countries B. — British Possessions. British India ....... Australia ........ British West Indies and British Guiana British North America Other British Possessions ..... Total of British Possessions . , . Total of Foreign Countries and British Possessions 82-4 5-8 1-9 3-5 3-8 2-6 17-6 APPENDIX. 175 TABLE XVII. Statement showing the Value of the Exports of British and Irish Produce in each of the Years 1870 and 1880, classified as Articles of Food, Raiv Materials, and Majiu- factured Goods ; in thousands of pounds, i.e., 100 = 100,000. Articles Exported. {d) Articles of Food : — Animals, living : Oxen, bulls, cows, and calves Sheep and lambs Swine Beer and ale Biscuit and bread Butter Cheese . . Corn, grain, meal, and flour : Wheat Malt Oats Other kinds of grain Wheat-meal and flour Other kinds of meal and flour Fish, fresh and cured : Salmon Cod and ling Herrings Oysters Pilchards Unenumerated Hops . . Pickles, vinegar, and sauces . . Provisions, unenumerated Spirits, British and Irish Sugar, refined and candy ,, molasses, treacle, and syrup , . Tobacco and snuff, manufactured in the United Kingdom : Snuflf Other kinds of manufactured tobacco W^ine, British made . . Total . . . . {b) Raw Materials : — Clay, unmanufactured Coals, cinders, &c. : Coals . . Coke and cinders . . Product's of coal, peat, or shale, including naphtha, paraffine and oil thereof, and petro- leum, pitch, and tar 1870. 41 26 2 [,882 436 316 no 544 242 160 30 163 6 45 44 723 30 30 44 93 470 926 183 934 58 31 3 7,607 5^290 224 331 60 35 3 1,734 583 202 51 348 162 99 24 74 ■ 12 42 44 1,422 45 47 179 53 679 1,035 544 1,127 186 7 25 3 8,825 163 7,837 492 176 APPENDIX. TABLE XVII. [conti7iucd\ Articles Exported. b) Raw Materials [continued) : — Copper, ore ,, unwrought, in ingots, cakes, or slabs Flax, dressed and undressed . . Grease, not otherwise described Hemp, British dressed Hides, raw Iron: Ore Old, for re-manufacture Pig and puddled Lead, ore ,, pig Plumbago Rags (except woollen), and other materials for making paper Seeds of all sorts Skins and furs : Sheep and lambs, undressed (without the wool) Foreign, dressed in the United Kingdom Unenumerated Steel, cast in ingots . . Tin, unwrought Wood and timber, rough-hewn, sawn, or split Wool, sheep and lambs, British ,, not being sheep and lambs, including | foreign (dressed in the United Kingdom), and \ flocks and rag-wool . . . . . . j Zinc or spelter, ore ,, ,, crude, in cakes Other articles, unmanufactured 1870. £ 796 93 90 I 502 2,229 2 760 8 390 137 257 164 130 12 633 43 581 166 4 84 568 Total I I3>744 [c) Manufactured Goods :— Alkali Apparel and slops Arms, ammunition, &c. : Shot of iron, including shells Gunpowder . . Percussion caps Ordnance stores and ammunition. Cannon and mortars Muskets Rifles Fowling pieces Revolvers unenumerated 1,486 2,205 9 427 54 485 106 98 655 95 APPENDIX. TABLE XVII. {continued). 177 Articles Exported. 1870. [880. {c) Manufactured Goods {continued):— Arms, ammunition, &c. {continued) : Other firearms Parts of firearms Swords, cutlasses, bayonets, and other arms, not 1 being firearms . . . . . . . , ) Bags and sacks, empty Bleaching materials Books, printed . . Brass, manufactures of Candles of all sorts Caoutchouc manufactures Carriages, carts, &c. : Railway carriages . . >} waggons, trucks, &c. . . . . , , Cement . . Chemical products or preparations, unenumerated. . Clay, manufactures thereof . . Clocks, watches, and parts thereof . . Coal, cinders, &c. : Fuel, manufactured . . Copper, wrought or manufactured : Coin . . . . . . . . Mixed, or yellow metal for sheathing Unenumerated Cordage cables, and ropes of hemp or like material Cotton twist and yam Cotton Manufactures : Piece goods, plain . . ,, ,, printed ,, ,, of mixed materials .. Lace and patent net Hosiery, stockings and socks ,, of other sorts Thread for sewing . . Other manufactures, unenumerated Earthen and china ware : Red pottery and brown stone ware Earthenware, china ware, parian, and porcelain Furniture (household), cabinet and upholstery wares Glass : Plate, rough or silvered (including looking- ) glasses and mirrors) . . . . . . / Flint, plain, cut, or ornamental (including I bottles and phials of flint glass) . . > Common bottles Other manufactures, unenumerated M £ 145 254 307 127 6 2 8 39 14 4 914 1,452 177 442 631 970 247 323 133 143 693 834 88 76 388 21S 366 693 1,043 2,384 176 191 146 157 124 197 23 8 796 1,022 1,205 1,250 354 296 14,671 11,902 33,831 34,755 18,137 22,377 339 546 839 1,974 293 402 520 541 1,208 2,073 1,578 994 56 87 1,637 1,978 231 4S1 193 249 147 178 APPENDIX. TABLE XVII. {continued). Articles Exported. [870. 1880. [c] Manufactured Goods {continued): — Haberdashery and naillinery (including embroidery ) and needlework) . . . . . . . . j Hardware and cutlery, unenumerated Hats of felt ,, straw . . ,, other sorts Implements and tools : Agricultural . . Unenumerated Iron : Bar Angle Bolt and rod Railroad : Rails and tie rods Wheels and axles Unenumerated Wire of iron or steel (except telegraph) . . Sheets, and boiler and armour plates Galvanised, other than wire Hoops Tin plates . . Anchors, grapnels, chains, and cables Tubes and pipes, wrought . . Nails, screws, and rivets . . Cast or wrought and all other manufactures, ) unenumerated . . . . . . . . j Steel, bar, of all kinds ,, sheets Manufactures of steel, or of steel and iron combined Lead, rolled and sheet, piping aiid tubing . . Leather, tanned, un wrought . . , , wrought, boots and shoes . . ,, ,, other articles, unenumerated .. Linen and jute yarn . . Linen and jute manufactures : Linen piece goods, plain, unbleached or bleached ,, ,, checked, printed, or dyed, ) and damasks and diapers , . . . ) Sailcloth and sails . . Thread for sewing . . Linen manufactures, unenumerated Jute manufactures . . Lucifer and vesta matches Machinery and miilwork : Steam engines, or parts of, locomotive J. . £ • £ 4,813 3,875 3,812 3,521 344 558 142 395 41 . 53 249 263 n "5 2,252 1,907 62 76 301 393 7,136 4,212 638 276 982 584 366 828 977 1,229 454 1,361 688 793 2,363 4,458 382 265 324 452 332 374 2,369 2,700 98=; 987 107 96 575 827 186 226 850 1,153 1,148 1,282 300 375 2,434 1,212 5,983 4,819 421 150 193 166 283 Zl^ 369 328 790 2,255 169 145 Sio 785 APPENDIX. TABLE XVII. {continued). 179 Articles Exported. [870. l5So. (<:) Manufactured Goods {continued) : — Machinery and millwork [contimied) : Steam engines, or parts of, other descriptions Not being steam engines, agricultural ,, ,, other descriptions Manure, unenumerated Medicines Musical instruments and parts thereof Oil, other than essential and medicinal : Seed Other sorts, unenumerated Oil and floor cloth (including india-rubber cloth) Painters' colours and materials Paper : Writing or printing, and envelopes Hangings ing playing cards) except ) Pasteboard, millboard, &c. (includ Unenumerated (and articles of paper, papier mache) Perfumery of all sorts Pictures Plate, gold and silver . . Plated and gilt wares . . Prints, engravings, drawings, Sic Saddlery and harness . . Saltpetre (British prepared) . . Silk, thrown, twist, or yarn . . Silk manufactures : Of silk only — Broad stuffs Handkerchiefs, scarfs, and shawls Ribbons of all kinds Lace Unenumerated . . Of silk and other materials — Broad stuffs Other kinds Soap Stationery, other than paper . . . . Stones and slates : Slate by tale Grindstones, millstones, and other sorts of stone Telegraph wires and apparatus Turpentine, oil or spirit of . . Umbrellas and parasols Wood and timber, manufactured : Staves and empty casks . . £ 1,188 303 2,993 415 615 146 1,286 119 219 877 428 119 19 84 102 86 59 131 41 327 77 1,154 510 149 96 81 299 231 85 218 489 141 138 2,523 7 253 157 2, CO I 680 5>797 1,128 814 200 1,621 351 383 1,164 856 138 3^ 208 108 310 67 167 97 436 60 6S4 710 409 123 no 251 302 125 440 724 177 84 1,301 10 458 113 i8o APPENDIX. TABLE XVII. {continued). Articles Exported. 1870. 1880. {c) Manufactured Goods {continued) : — Wood and Timber, manufactured {continued) : Unenumerated Woollen and worsted yarn : Woollen yarn (carded) . . Worsted yarn (combed) . . Woollen and worsted manufactures : Broad cloths, coatings, &c., all wool . . ,, „ of wool mixed ) with other materials . . . . . . ) Narrow cloths, coatings, &c., all wool ,, ,, of wool mixed \ with other materials . . . . . . \ . Worsted stuffs, all wool ,, ,, ofwool mixed with other materials Blankets and blanketing Flannels . . Carpets, not being rugs . . Shawls . . Rugs, coverlets, or wrappers Hosiery . . Small wares and manufactures of wool or ) worsted, unenumerated . . . . ) Yam, alpaca, mohair, and other sorts, unenumerated Zinc or Spelter, manufactures of . . Other Manufactured Goods £ 80 98 4,897 2,107 815 979 849 2,052 11,736 645 366 1,393 117 % 190 189 57 3,034 £ 251 107 3,238 2,382 3,077 538 739 1,029 6,213 587 310 1,134 f^ 320 418 878 41 5,917 Total 178,236 190,963 Statoiient shcnving the Total Values 0/ the Exports oj Btiiish and Irish Produce in each of the Years 1870 and 1880, classijied as Articles of Food, Raw Materials, and Manufactured Goods ; with the percentage Proportion that each Class is of .; the Total Exports ; in thousands of pounds, i.e., icx) = 100,000. 1870. 1880. Amount. Per cent of Total Amount. Percent of Total Articles of Food, Drink, and Tobacco Raw Materials Manufactured Goods £ 7,607 13,744 178,236 4 7 89 £ 8,825 23,272 190,963 4 10 86 Total Exports of British and ) Irish Produce . . i 199,587 100 223,060 100 APPENDIX. i8i TABLE XVIII.; statement showing ike Proportion of Food, Ra-u.' Materials, and Mamifac tared A •'tides in the Domestic Exports of France, for each of the Years i86g and 1879, compiled from, tite French official Re tzirns ; in thousands 0/ pounds, i.e., 100 = 100,000. Articles Exported, 1869. 1879. {a) Articles of Food :— £ £ Brandy, spirits, and liqueurs 2,457 4,130 Butter and cheese 3, "6 2,665 Cattle, &c 1,351 893 Eggs 1,455 1,304 Farinaceous substances not otherwise specified 805 1,818 Fish 694 1,519 Fruit, for the table 1,086 998 ,, oleaginous 621 334 Grain and meal : Wheat, spelt, ineslin 661 392 Rye 893 301 Other kinds 1,215 1,066 Hops 475 81 Ice 304 221 Meat of all kinds 398 445 Oil, olive 136 200 Salt 86 102 Sugar, raw 602 537 ,, refined 3,240 4,033 Syrups, preserves, &c 174 195 Tobacco, manufactured 45 70 Truffles 57 298 Vegetables, green, salted, or preserved 166 54j[ Wines of all kinds 13,447 10,308 Other articles of food 533 708 Total of Food 34,017 33,159 (l>) Raw Materials : — Building materials (lime, bricks, slate, &c.) ... 375 504 Cards for carding machines 84 75 Coal and coke ... 178 273 Cotton, raw 3,016 2,675 Fat, oil 66 252 Feathers 143 1,348 Flax and hemp ... , 364 519 Grease of all kinds 689 1,053 Hair of all kinds 489 454 Hemp fibre 127 123 Hides, raw 971 2,110 Horses, mules, &c. 788 638 Madder 519 22 APPENDIX. TABLE XVI II. {continued). Articles Exported. 1879. {!)) Raw Materials [conthmed) : — Native resins Ores of all kinds Pitch and mineral tar . . . Rags for paper making... Saffron ... Silk, raw and waste Silkworms' eggs... Sowing seed Stones, lithographic and other... Wood, for building purposes ... Wool, raw Other raw materials Total Raw Materials {c) Manufactured Article.s : — Arms and ammunition ... Artificial flowers, &c. ... Basketwork of all kinds Books, stationery, &c. ... Candles ... Caoutchouc manufactures Carriages Chemical products not otherwise specified ... Clocks and watches Colours ... Copper, wrought Cutlery French fancy wares Furniture, and other wood manufactures Garancine (extract of madder)... Glass, and glass wares ... Gold and silver wares ... Grindstones Haberdashery, &c. Hats, of felt ,, mats, and other manufactures of straw ) or bark ... ... ... ) Instruments : optical, mathematical, sur- ) gical, &c. ... ... ) ,, musical ... Leather wares Machinery Medicines, compounded Oil-cake ... £ £ 228 137 242 120 62 no 440 611 176 158 6,245 6,344 199 98 823 646 178 263 1,292 869 1,787 4,689 2,001 1,119 21,482 25,210 164 256 1,240 1,205 61 136 82s 956 306 81 166 187 139 116 1,424 1,500 452 627 489 449 346 182 • 59 105 211 246 987 1,203 557 14 911 790 954 2,316 142 283 6,087 5,429 405 405 398 664 163 312 406 399 3,966 5,930 595 921 619 425 564 416 APPENDIX. 183 TABLE XVIII. {continued). Articles Exported. (<■) Manufactured Articles {continued) Paper and cardboard ... Perfumeiy Pottery and porcelain Quinine, sulphate of Skins and hides, dressed Soap, other than scented Tartrates... Tissues: Cotton... ,, Linen, hempen, and jute Silk ,, Woollen Umbrellas and parasols Tools, and other metal wares ... Wearing apparel Works of art .... Yams : Cotton ... ,, Linen, hempen, and jute ,, Woollen Other manufactured articles . . . Total of Manufactured Articles £ £ 779 886 707 315 317 516, 90 224 3>242 3,846 421 362 243 505 2,959 2,535 m 1,048 17,894 9,070 10,732 12,371 133 136 1,510 2,711 3,349 2,710 436 494 "5 98 339 366 1,112 1,748 2,757 4,022 70,504 •69,516 Summary. Amount. Percentage. 1869, 1879. 1869. 1879. Food Raw Materials Manufactures £ 34,017 21,482 70,504 ■ £ 33,159 25,210 69,516 27-0 17-0 56*0 26*0 198 54'2 Total 126,003 127,885 100 100 1 184 APPENDIX. TABLE XIX. Stalcinent showing the Proportion 0/ Food, Raw Materials, and Mami/actured Articles in ihe Domestic Exports of Germany, for each of the Years 1869 and 1879 ; co7npiledfrom the official Returns of Germany; in thoicsands of marks, i.e., 100 = 100,000. Articles Exported. 1869.* 1879. {a) Food : — Marks. Marks. Animals, living — Cattle 32,800 45,350 Sheep 30,000 37,600 Swine 16,400 24,090 Beer 3>400 23,400 Brandy ... 20,700 14,800 Butter 26,800 22,000 Fruit of all kinds 52,000 77,700 Grain— Wheat ... 149,000 127,000 Barley 17,200 40,600 Oats i5>9oo 15,500 Other grain, and flour 104,200 166,900 Hops 18,200 22,300 Meat 6,600 8,970 Sugar, raw 10,600 58,200 ,, refined ... 4,500 21,390 Syrup and molasses 5>7oo 10,190 Tobacco, manufactured 11,800 6,760 ,. unmanufactured ... 8,300 1,380 Wine 22,800 21,910 Other articles of food Marks 10,226 12,930 ( 567,126 758,970 Total of Food I £ 28,356* 37,948 {b) Raw Materials :— Animal produce, &c.... ... 36,500 90,680 Cotton, raw 61,865 65,000 Flax, hemp, and jute 23,208 40,250 Fuel ... ... ... ... 97,200 84,200 Hides and skins, including leather — Cow hides 18,470 22,800 Other kinds 18,034 24,680 Horses 12,745 34,000 Metals, crude- Pig iron 12,814 25,610 The values for are estimated only. APPENDIX. TABLE XIX. {continued). 185 Articles Exported. 1869.* 1879. {b) Raw Materials {continued) : — Marks. Marks. Metals, crude {contimied)— Iron and steel, unmanufactured 12,604 64,650 Other raw metals ... 69,730 60,440 Oil: Petroleum ' ... 7,758 4,480 Ores and minerals — Iron ore 5,400 20,900 Other kinds 84,480 73,200 Rags for paper-making 500 7,480 Silk, raw 17,630 48,300 Wood of all kinds for further manufacture 115,800 70,500 Wool (sheep's) 74,026 66,440 Soap, oil and resins ... 40,000 55,720 Other unmanufactured articles 58,896 86,330 ( Marks 767,660 945,660 Total of Raw Materials ... J I £ 38,383* 47,283 {c) Manufactured Articles :— Books, pamphlets, and other publications... 23,000 22,200 Chemical products, drugs, &c 48,931 120,780 Dye woods 1,496 1,800 Gunpowder 811 3,920 Glasswares and earthenware 51,500 55,000 Guano... 2,600 1,890 India-rubber manufactures 18,780 15,000 Iron and steel, manufactures of 31,882 47,400 Leather wares 31,784 51,750 Machinery 21,212 39,010 Manures (except guano) 4,2x8 22,230 Metal wares 6,104 11,200 Paper and paper-hangings 17,000 26,100 Rails for railways 13,350 23,000 Ships 43,000 32,590 Tissues — Cotton 73,945 95,260 Linen and hempen 22,475 13,560 Silk 86,418 66,690 Woollen 161,502 142,100 Other kinds, and ready-made clothing ... 75,407 98,590 Wood wares and basket work 14,974 43,100 Works of art, ornaments, &c 74,000 54,900 The values for 1859 ari; estimated only i86 APPENDIX. TABLE XIX. {continued). Articles Exported. 1869.* 1879. (r) Manufactured Articles {continued) :— Marks. Marks. Yarns — Cotton . ... 10,692 24,700 Linen and hempen 5,072 4,700 Woollen 32,292 24,400 Other kinds 62 3^700 Other manufactured articles { Marks .4,770 25,450 877,277 1,071,020 Total of Manufactures ... ( £ 43,864* 53,551 Summary. Amount. Percentage. 1869. 1879. 1869. 1879. 1869. 1879. Food . . . Raw Materials Manufactured \ Articles . J Marks. 567,126 767,660 Marks. 758,970 945,660 1,071,020 £ 28,356 38,383 43,864 £ 37,948 47,283 53,551 25-6 347 397 27-3 34 "o 387 Total. . 2,212,063* 2,775,650 110,603* 138,782 100 100 he values for 1869 are estimated only. APPENDIX. 187 TABLE XX. statement showing the Proportion of Food, Raiv Materials, and Manufactured Articles in the Domestic Exports of the United States, for each of the Years 1870 and 1880. (Years ended 2,0th June), compiled from the official Returns of the United Stales ; in thousands of dollars , i.e., icx) = icxd,ooo. Years ended 30th June. Articles Exported. i87o.t iBSo.f {a) Food : — Dollars. Dollars. Animals, living 1,045 15,882 Beer, ale, porter, and cider ... 26 2C9 Bread and breadstuffs : Indian corn 1,289 53,298 Wheat 47,171 190,546 Wheat flour 21,170 Other breadstuffs ... 2,621 8^860 Fruits 543 2,091 Hops 2,516 2,573 Oil, Vegetable 326 3,476 Provisions : Bacon and hams 6,123 50,988 Beef, fresh ,, salted } 1,940 1 7,442 2,881 Butter 592 6,691 Cheese 8,881 12,172 Lard 5,933 27,920 Meats, preserved 314 7,877 Pork 3,253 5,930 Other 2,140 5,142 Spirits 726 3,028 Sugar, refined ,. 555 2,718 ,, unrefined, and molasses 91 541 Tobacco, and manufactures of 22,705 18,442 [ Dollars 129,960 464,130 Total of Food ( £ 21,660* 96,694* (d) Raw Materials:— Coal 1,306 2,058 Cotton, raw ... 227,028 211,536 Furs and furriers' wares 1,941 5,404 Ginseng ... 455 533 Raw hides and skins 365 649 * In the year 1870 the conversions have been made at the currency rate of 3s. 4d. to the dollar, and in 1880 at the average rate of 4s. 2d. t Exclusive of bullion and specie. i88 APPENDIX. TABLE XX. {con'huied). (^) 0) Articles Exported, Raw Materials {continued) : — Naval stores (resin, turpentine, tar, and pitch) Oil, Mineral ... ,, Animal (fat and fish) ... Quicksilver ... Seeds ... Tallow Wool, raw All other unmanufactured articles ... Total of Raw Materials Dollars £ dye t and \ J Manufactured Articles: — Agricultural implements Books, pamphlets, and other publications.. Carriages, railway cars, carts, and parts ' thereof ... Clocks and watches ... Copper, and manufactures of Cotton, manufactures of Drugs, chemicals, medicines, and stuffs (including acids) ... Fancy articles, combs, perfumery, toilet soap Glass and glass wares Hemp, and manufactures of, including ) cordage ... ... ... ... \ Iron and steel, and manufactures of Jewellery, and other manufactures of gold \ and silver ... ... ... J Leather, and manufactures of Manures Marble and stone, and manufactures of ... Metals, and manufactures of, not elsewhere specified... Musical instruments ... Oilcake Ordnance stores Years ended 30th June. I870.+ 1880.+ Dollars. Dollars. 1,920 2,453 32,669 36,219 1,148 1,676 512 1,360 98 2,777 3,815 7,689 55 72 2,285 2,128 273,597 274,554 45,600* 57,199* 1,069 2,246 341 627 977 1,407 589 1,453 1,042 849 3,787 9,981 2,495 3,531 409 876 531 750 582 1,629 13,483 14,716 60 232 673 6,760 115 604 180 653 401 971 267 811 3,419 6,260 1,229 777 * In the year 1870 the conversions have been made at the currency rate of 3s. 4d. to the dollar, and in 1880 at the average rate of 4s. 2d. t Exclusive of bullion and specie. APPENDIX. 189 TABLE XX. [continued). Years ended 30th June. Articles Exported. 1870. t i88o.t {c) Manufactured Articles [continuei) :— Dollars. Dollars. Paper and stationery 515 1,183 Soap, common 623 690 Starch 107 448 Turpentine, spirits of 1,357 2,132 Wearing apparel 619 708 Wood, and manufactures of . . . 13,735 16,237 Wool, manufactures of 124 216 All other manufactured articles 2,922 8,515 ( Dollars 51,651 85,262 Total of Manufactures . . . ] ( £ 8,609* 17,763* Summary. •(•Amount. Percentage. 1870. 1880. 1870. 1880. 1870. 1880. Food . Raw Materials Manufactured \ Articles j Dollars. 129,960 273,597 51,651 Dollars. 464,130 274,554 85,262 £ 21,660 45,600 8,609 £ 96,694 57,199 17,763 28-6 6o-i II-3 56-3 33-3 104 Total . 455,208 j 823,946 75,869 171,656 100 :iOO ♦ In the year 1870 the conversions have been made at the currency rate of 3s. 4d. to the dollar, and in 1880 at the average rate of 4s. 2d. t Exclusive of bulion and specie. Cassell, Petter, Galpin & CO., Belle Sauvage Works, Londo.v, E.C i