tures to the value of 10 millions. It almost looks as if the method of levying customs duties had been specially devised for the purpose of ruining British industries -anyhow, that is the effect it is having on our silk manufactures.

are

With such facts and figures before us, it appears to be almost a waste of time to attempt an answer to the theories of politicians who, to their eternal disgrace, have, for political purposes, so cruelly misled the people of this country. But as some of these appear still, notwithstanding that they found to be in conflict with the teachings of experience, to be regarded as infallible, we shall proceed to show how fallacious and misleading they are. The contention, no longer, we believe, held by political conomists, that "there never was a duty that was paid by the consumer," is perhaps the most misleading, and, from its appeal to self-interest, the most dangerous of all. It is, in fact, the kernel of the whole free-trade question; for if it can be shown that the consumer does not always pay the duty, by as much as he does not do so, the foreign producer, and not he, is relieved of a duty repealed, and to that extent free imports become a tax on the British public.

as great in other countries. But the United States during the first not only has there been a great seven months of 1886, against revival in the States, shown by 72,685 in the same months of the increase in railway traffics; 1885, goes far to confirm Mr. but if we refer to the report to Strachey's report of German prosour Government of Mr. Strachey, perity. During the same period her Majesty's chargé d'affaires at 7300 more emigrants left England Dresden, on the effect of the rais- and Scotland than in 1885. ing of the German tariff in 1879, and again in 1885, we find these words: "Nothing indicates that the burden of protection laid on the population is oppressive, that national impoverishment is in process, or that saving and accumulation have been arrested. On the contrary, the imperial and local revenue receipts, the estimates of property liable to income-tax, and similar State and municipal returns, are symptomatic of fair public prosperity." In another part of the report, he says: "If it be asked what signs there are in Germany of that incipient free-trade reaction which some of our politicians contrive to discern on the continent of Europe-especially in the countries most wedded to protection -there can be no hesitation in replying that there are none. The political constellations of the empire, the highest personal influences, the most powerful industrial and commercial forces-all are on the side of the existing system. The belief is widely diffused that the tariff reform of 1879 saved Germany from a great ruin, and that that empire is now on the road to industrial greatness, perhaps to the successsion of that hegemony which Great Britain, it is thought, now with difficulty holds in her hands. Protection is in the national air, and it will not be dissipated by foreign arguments." The fact that only 46,818 emigrants left Germany for

not

It must be carefully kept in view that there are two distinct classes of imports: 1. Those which do not come into competition with British products; 2. Those which directly do so. At the threshold we are confronted with this curious anomaly that free-trading England, at the present day, levies from import duties more than any other nation in Europe.1 The

1 Why this country selects for the purpose of taxation only imports which do not come into competition with her products, is inexplicable. It cannot be because she regards these as luxuries; for she annually admits free silk manufac

tures to the value of 10 millions. It almost looks as if the method of levying customs duties had been specially devised for the purpose of ruining British industries -anyhow, that is the effect it is having on our silk manufactures.

24 millions, the consumption, is to 15 millions, the quantity imported, so is 10s. to 6s. 3d.

But even this amount would not fall to be paid by him. The imposition of a 10s. duty would cause a fall in price in the countries which send us wheat, a rise in prices here in anticipation of smaller supplies, and an increase in wheatcultivation, especially if the revenue derived from the duty were applied to relieving agriculture of a portion of the taxation it now has to bear. This increase in home production would in some measure make up for the shorter supplies from abroad; and to the extent it did so, it would check the rise in value. The fact stated by Mr Harris, that after the repeal of the Corn Laws there was a sudden advance in the price of land in near corn-growing countries, shows they felt the repeal had relieved them, in whole or in part, of a burden they had previously paid. If it be true that a duty is always paid by the consumer, and that it is iniquitous to tax the people's food, on what principle is every quarter of wheat grown in this country made to contribute to the revenue 3s. 6d. ? If the consumer pays in the one case, he must pay in the other; and if, as Mr Gladstone so absurdly contended in Edinburgh, a duty of 5s. would raise the price all round 5s., it inevitably follows wheat is in this country to-day 3s. 6d. dearer than, but for the tax, it otherwise would be. In the name of common-sense, why don't we take it off the land and put it on imported grain?

increased cost of home, and decreased cost of foreign production. Let us take, for instance, pianos, which come largely from Germany. We shall suppose a manufacturer to have turned out 500 pianos annually, for which, before it was invaded by those of German make, he had found a ready sale in the home market. He no longer does so, and has, in consequence, to reduce his production to 350. As his rent, taxes, &c., remain the same, each piano he now turns out costs more. In other words, decreased production means increased cost of each article produced. But the mischief does not end here, for the home producer is additionally handicapped by the rates and taxes he has to pay, while the foreigner, from whose market he is excluded, not only escapes these, but has his cost of production decreased by having the additional market he is so generously provided with by our system. Suppose the right conceded to Birmingham and Sheffield of imposing, as against each other, a duty of 25 per cent; and further, let us suppose that Birmingham imposed the duty and that Sheffield refused to do so. Birmingham, safe from the competition of Sheffield wares, would manufacture not only what she required for the wants of her people, but having the Sheffield market open to her as well, she would manufacture largely to supply it. Birmingham would thus have her cost of production decreased; conversely, that of Sheffield would be increased. How long would Sheffield trade flourish under such It is most important, as bearing circumstances? We have here, in on this question, and more especi- a nut-shell, precisely the position of ally on the present depression of German and British trade at the trade, we should try and realise present time. It is no answer to what our standing alone with open say, the manufacturer of pianos ports to receive the surplus stocks can reduce his establishment and of the world means. It means take smaller premises; for that

United Kingdom, 51s. 4d.; France, 51s. 4d.; Germany, 48s. 8d.; Austria, 48s. Last April we saw the rate month in this country. quoted at 30s. 1od. in France, is a case in which against 30s. d. in the same French consumer did

"There is also evidence that in respect of certain classes of products the reputation of our workmanship does not stand so high as it formerly did. The intensity of the competition for markets, while in many respects it has legitimately diminished the cost of production, has also tended to encourage the manufacture of low-priced goods of inferior quality, which have not only failed to give satisfaction themselves, but have also affected the reputation of other classes of goods to which no such exception could be taken. "-Final Report of Royal Commission, page 22.