The Nineteenth Century , No 182, Apr 1892 [‎21r] (46/244)

fa]
V_7
1892 HOW TO FEDERATE 531
Here again I liave been greatly misunderstood, and charged by my
critics with, asking everything and conceding nothing. I submit
that my statement will not bear that construction, as I proposed the
fiscal policy to be adopted should be settled with the Chancellor of
the Exchequer on mutually advantageous terms. Long ago, in the
Canadian House of Commons, I advocated the policy of a mutually pre
ferential tariff between Canada and England. My mode of arranging
it meets the objection raised by Mr. Groschen in a debate on this
question in the House of Commons in 1891. He said : ' We ought to
have securities from the colonies not merely that they would put a
■5 per cent, extra on foreigners, but that their tariff itself should be
such as would be likely to protect this country from loss.' The
arrangement proposed by me would give that security, as it was to be
made with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would ensure at the
same time a great development in the colonies, and a corresponding
expansion of the trade of this country by the increased demand for
the products of British industry. No one who takes the trouble to
investigate this subject can doubt the advantage of such a policy in
stimulating the rapid progress of England's great fields for colonisa
tion or the consequent expansion of British trade. Even as matters
now stand, the truism that trade follows the flag is placed beyond
controversy by the statistics of the Empire. Lord Eosebery, in the
speech to which I have alluded at the Chamber of Commerce at Leeds,
gives conclusive evidence on this point. He said :—
The United States have taken from us~chiring tlie last ten years an average of
24,350,000/. of home produce. Their population is nearly 60,000,000, and, there
fore, they have taken of our home produce at the rate of about per head. Now
Canada, which, as you know, is coterminous with the United States, and which re
mains to us, has taken from us on an average 7,300,000/. during the past ten
years. Take their population at 6,000,000, and that gives nearly 30s. per head,
or nearly four times what the United States takes from ug. ell, but, gentlemen,
you may say that the United States have a more hostile tariff against us than
Canada has; but, if you think for a moment, you will remember that, if Canada
were to leave us, she would be pretty certain to adopt the tariff of the United
States, and we should not be materially benefited by that proceeding. But let us
consider the case of Australia. Australia takes from us on an average 24,260,000/.,
or about the same as the whole of the United States, although its population is
only about 3,250,000, or at the rate of per head, being more than seventeen
times more than the United States with its population of 60,000,000. Now,
gentlemen, I wish to say that, on that ground of commercial interest alone, the
question is worthy of the consideration of our great commercial communities.
If, therefore, the effect of a duty on corn did slightly increase the
cost of bread, the artisans of this country would, in my opinion, find
abundant compensation in the increased employment resulting from
this policy. But while my critics have challenged the accuracy of
my assertion that the small duty suggested on foreign corn would not
increase the price in the loaf, none of them have condescended to