i
March 4, 1899.}.
are out of proportion to its advantages, a definition - which would appear to include our recent distinguished visitor, on the strength of his declaration about not want- ing to see any more of the chart painted red; but Lord CHARLES himself would no doubt repudinte the imputation of being a Little Englander, and in the popular estimation no politician or statesman could well be less typical of that class if such class can be said to exist at any the present time. The Empire cannot help expanding, however unwelcome the new obligatious may at first seem, and as regards the general principle no party line of cleavage can be detected. But when we leave the general und descend to the par- ticular, differences of opinion begin to mani- fest themselves as between those in whom caution preponderates and those who are more reckless of consequences. Then it is that the cautions un calls the temerarious man a Jingo and the temerarious retorts by calling his opponent a Little Englander. It is accepted by all parties, however, that our interest in Imperial ex- pansion is mainly commercial and that territorial aggrandisement is not to be de- sired for its own sake.
man
|
Lord FARRER recently had an article in the Contemporary Review entitled "Does Trade follow the Flag?
" in which some remarkable statistics were given which were noticed in this column at the time the article reached us. Mr. CHAMBERLAIN in a speech at Wolverhamptou took occasion to controvert Lord FARRER's arguments and pointed out that in the last forty years the exports of British pro ucts from the United Kingdom to the protectionist States and colonies had increased by 120 per cent., but during the same time the exports of British products to the countries which are free-trade and to colonies whose tariffs are under our control had increased by 270 per cent., or two-and-a-quarter times as much. If Lord FARRER's argument were carried to its logical conclusion, said Mr. CHAM- BERLAIN, you would arrive at this that it does not matter to us one atoin to whom any territory belongs because we shall do just ns much British trade with that territory, even although it be under a protectionist flag, as we should do if it were under the British flag and we had full control of its tariffs. On the other hand it may be said that if Mr. CHAMBERLAIN's argument were carried to its logical conclusion we would
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
175
tariff we may take it for granted that sugar cultivation should have extended British trade with tlie island will increase | largely in recent years. ・ Yet it decreased more rapidly than it would have done from 3,100,000 acres in 1891-92 to 2,651,000 under the corrupt Chinese rule. The ex- nores in 1896-97. Our contemporary very pansion of other Powers, though it may pertinently says:
The advice to buy in not minister to our prosperity so greatly
"the cheapest market does not carry mu as British expansion, is not necessarily
14 far in this matter. inimical to our interests, provided that it
The producer of does not cover territory that Great Britaiu
bo inty-fed sugar aims at getting requires herself. If we are not prepared
"the market to himself, and when he has destroyed the competition of the home to turn any particular derelict country to good account ourselves it is a short sighted
producer, the tendency will be to a return policy to prevent other Powers doing so.
to old prices. There is something unreal, therefore, in the argument tht though "the producer may be ruined by the bounty system the consumer is benefited. The benefit is transient, but the mischief "that is allowed to be done in securing it
THE SUGAR BOUNTIES.
46
14
"
44
44
"
44
"
"
64
is permauent. The Government of India "will do no injustice to the consumer of sugar by seeing that the foreign producer "carries ou his industry under fair condi- 'tions, or keeps out of the market. If a countervailing duty should raise the price at the ports from Rs. 7-2 per maund-the 'present forward rate in Caloutta-to Rs. 10, it will make the burden on the con❤ sumer no heavier than it was six years ngo. No one then complained that sugar "was dear, nor did the price check con- "sumption. The consumer will be none "the worse, but the producer will be spared "from extinction."
"
""
ex-
(Daily Press, 3rd March.)
said in a recent speech that the sugar Mr. CHAMBERLAIN is reported to have bounties were abominable. number of the Spectator to hand there In the last is an article lamenting Mr. CHAMBERLAIN'S he having on several occasions during the fall from grace in the matter of free traile, last eighteen months used language which Fair-traders that Free-trade would be all encourages the dangerous delusion of the very well if it were a game that our trade when it is one-sided, Free-trade is anything rivals would join us in playing at, but that but a blessing. The writer of the article says it is no doubt true that one-sided Free- reciprocal Free-trade, aud that if other trade does not pay us as well as would Most of the bounty giving countries
are already tired of the enormous countries gave up Protection and adopted penditure the policy involves, a policy greatly benefit; but he contends, and with sent of so many millions per annum to the our fiscal policy we should as a uation which simply means making a pre- absolute conviction, that for us the next foreign consumer, and in course of time no best thing to universal Free-trade is one- side! Free-tende of the kind
doubt the evil would cure itself. France enjoy. In that opinion we concur
and Russia are now the only countries op- The posed to the abolition of the bounties, and rticle in question appeared, however, at even they must become convinced of their declaration on the sugar bounties, and tical question for English statesmen is a date anterior to Mr. CHAMBERLAIN'S inadvisability sooner or later. The prac therefore does not touch upon that point. whether we are to wait for the natural.com- The Spectator will probably condemn Mr. version of our friends or are to neutralise CHAMBERLAIN in this also, but to us it the bounties by imposing a countervailing bounties stands alone and that action might the probability is that the bounties would be appears that the question of the sugar duty. If the latter alternative were adopted be taken upon it without infringing the abolished immediately, the countervailing essential doctrine of free trade. The ad- duties would lapse automatically,, and we vocates of retaliatory measures against the should again find ourselves on the basis of the ordinary sense of the term, that is, pro sugar bounties do not ask for protection in Free-trade. tection against legitimate competition, but only that they shall be allowed a fair field and not be condemned to compete with foreign Government bounties.
We now
arrive at this-that Great Britain should
We have heard much of late years annex the whole world, which is impossible of the injury done to the West Indian and absurd. The question of Imperial ex-colonies by the bounties given by pansion as applied to any particular set of circumstances must therefore be dealt with as one of expediency.
It does not follow, because British trade increases more rapidly under the British flag than under foreign flags, that the transfer of any particular territory from one foreign fing to another will necessarily prove detrimental to our in- terests, though it may be less favour able than if the transfer were to our own flag. Mr. CHAMBERLAIN says that if we compare British trade to Burmah and British trade to Tonkin the difference gives us some cause for reflection. It does un- doubtedly give cause for reflection. If Tonkin were under British control the country would be more prosperous than it is and the volume of British trade would be larger. But Tonkin under French control is. more prosperous and affords better openings for trade than under the former native regime. Formosa, again, has passed from China to Japuu, and notwithstanding that the latter is now imposing a protective
Continental States upon the exportation of beet sugar, but it is not the West Indies alone that have suffered. Beet sugar is now finding its way to the East and competing, by reason of the bounties it eu- joys, with locally grown and locally manufac- tured cane sugar. The Times of India in an article on the subject tells us that the Indian sugar trade has been steadily in process of conversion from what was originally in the main an export trade to one that is in creasingly becoming an import trade. The value of the sugar imports of India has in ten years grown from 1 crores to 44 crores, and the increase has been mainly in the particular kind of sugar which is fostered by liberal bounties. The imports of beet sugar have increased from 12,000 cwt. in 1887-88 to 880,000 cit. in 1896-97, while in 1897-98 they considerably exceeded a million cwt. All this time the imports of cane-sugar-the sugar which competes with the Indiau product upon a cost of produc- tiou basis--wore practically stationary. Under natural conditions the area under
THE HONGKONG LAND INVEST- MENT COMPANÝ.
(Daily Press, 27th February.) In another column will be found an artiole entitled "Two Land Investment Companies," in which the results attained by the Hong- kong and Shanghai Land Investment Con- panies are contrasted, to the disadvantage of the former. The discussion of the affairs of public companies is wholesome and it is to be regretted that there is so little of it, but the article in question, though it may not. go beyond the limits of fair criticism, is calculated to mislead rather than to en- lighten the reader, as certain material facts have been overlooked and mistaken de- ductions drawn from the figures that are quoted. We are not concerned with the Shanghai Company, and will contine our remarks to the Hongkong concern. Our cor- respondent excludes the income derived under the heading of "sale of properties and then shews that the Company's income from what may be termed its permanent sources of revenue, namely, interest, rents, and commissions, has increased from 1896 to 1898 by 85,000 only, and that it has cost the company $15,000 to obtain this increase, so that it is really $10,000 worse than it was three years ago.
+
off
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.