THE COST TO THE COLONIES.
“But,” argue the preferentialists, “German trade with our Colonies has been growing rapidly, and may continue to grow.” Possibly it may, if our manufacturers go to sleep; but what we have here to consider is whether it is worth while to take any political action to stop the possible growth of a competing trade which at present is insignificant in amount. Remember that if such action is taken by the Colonies to please us, we shall have to pay a price for their complaisance—for their loss by the exclusion of German or any other foreign goods would be twofold. In the first place the Colonial consumer would suffer. He now buys certain German goods because they suit him best, either in quality or in price. That privilege it is proposed to take from him. His loss is therefore certain. Secondly, there is a considerable danger of injury to the Colonial producer. If the Colonies close their markets to German goods Germany may retaliate by closing her markets to Colonial goods; and Germany is, so far as the trade goes, a fair customer to the British Colonies. Here are the figures:—
Trade of British Possessions with Germany.
Average of Three Years (1890, 1891, 1892).—In Thousands Sterling.
| Imports from Germany. | Exports to Germany. | |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1,556 | 5,338 |
| Australasia | 1,631 | 1,106 |
| South Africa | 228 | 113 |
| North America | 781 | 113 |
| West Indies | 52 | 85 |
| Other British Possessions | 351 | 691 |
| Total | 4,599 | 7,446 |
WHAT CAN WE OFFER?
This table shows that the Colonial producer stands to lose as much, or more, than the Colonial consumer by cutting off trade connections with Germany. What can we offer in return? It is suggested by the advocates of preferential trade that we should offer better terms to Colonial products in our markets. But already all Colonial products, except tea and coffee, enter the United Kingdom free, therefore we can only give better terms to the Colonies by imposing a tax on those foreign products which compete with the principal Colonial products. What, then, are these competing products? With some trouble I have extracted from the Custom House returns the following list of articles in which there seems to be tangible competition between foreign countries and British Possessions:—
Colonial versus Foreign Goods.
Principal Competing Articles Imported into the United Kingdom in 1895.
Millions Sterling.
| From Foreign Countries. | From British Possessions. | |
|---|---|---|
| Animals, Living | 7·5 | 2·4 |
| Bacon and Hams | 10·1 | ·7 |
| Butter and Cheese | 14·8 | 4·0 |
| Caoutchouc and Guttapercha | 2·9 | 1·2 |
| Copper | 3·9 | 1·1 |
| Corn and Flour | 44·0 | 5·7 |
| Dye Stuffs and Dye Woods | 2·3 | 2·5 |
| Fruits | 5·8 | ·6 |
| Hides, Skins, and Furs | 3·8 | 3·6 |
| Leather | 4·6 | 3·5 |
| Linseed | 2·3 | 1·1 |
| Meat, Salt and Fresh | 6·9 | 4·8 |
| Oils | 2·9 | 1·6 |
| Rice | ·6 | 1·4 |
| Sugar (Unrefined) | 6·8 | 1·5 |
| Tallow and Stearine | ·4 | 2·1 |
| Wood and Timber | 12·4 | 4·0 |
| Wool | 4·6 | 22·8 |
| Coffee | 2·6 | 1·1 |
| Tea | 1·6 | 8·7 |
| Cotton (Raw) | 29·6 | ·8 |
| Jute (Raw) | ·0 | 4·3 |
| Other Articles | 150·8 | 16·0 |
| Total | 321·2 | 95·5 |
It will be seen that without exception the articles in the above list belong either to the category of raw materials or to that of food. Any taxation therefore imposed upon any portion of these articles for the benefit of the Colonial producer would be a disadvantage to the British manufacturer, either by increasing the cost of his raw material or by diminishing the effective wages of his workpeople. Remembering that the main object of the British manufacturer is to keep his hold on the markets of the world, is it likely that he would ever consent to allow himself to be handicapped by such taxation? For all you can offer him in return is preferential treatment in Colonial markets, whereas more than three-quarters of the trade he wishes to retain is with foreign countries.