NO FOOD TAXES.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1659, 28 January 1913, Page 8

NO FOOD TAXES.

UNLESS THE OVER-SEAS DOMINIONS INSIST. IHR. BONAR LAW'S STATEMENT. A CONFERENCE OF THE EMPIRE Mr. Bonar Law, tho Opposition lender, in his important and anxiously anticipated speech at Ashton-under-Lyno on Monday night (December 16) dealt very clearly and decidedly with tho question of Food Taxes (says the "Daily Mail"). Tho subject has recently been- tho. cause of much unrest in the Unionist p 'rty,- and this has been rendered mora acute by Lord Lansdowne's speech at tho Albert Hall on Novomber 14 last. Mr. Bonur Law prefaced his observations 011 tho question by some remarks as to tho impossibility of withdrawing from tho party platform a policy' which has been one ot its planks for nino years; and then, coming to the region of practical politics, ho explained what the procedure of itho party will bo when it is returned to office. "Wo do not propose,"'he said, "if our countrymen return us to power, to impose food taxes." A conference of tho Overseas Dominions will bo called together, and this conference will' bo ■ required to-state what it considers necessary in the interests of Imperial unity. "If thorp is no colonial demand for food taxes, 1 then,", said Mt. Eonar • Law, "thero will be no food taxes." THE SPEECH. , I Before outlining tho Unionist party's proposals with regard-to tariff reform, Mr. Bonar Law alluded to a criticismby Lord Crewe of a speech of his at Oldham. Mr. Bonar Law said.that to, the views ho expressed in that speech on. India he still adhered. The last argument of Lord Crewe was that if wo changed our fiscal system wo should have no moral right'to-demand equality of treatment in India. The ideal fiscal system was Free-trade within the whole Empire. In governing India our first duty must he to India. He was satisfied that the proposals Unionists would propose were better for.. India than the present sysi tern. ' .

Mr. Bonar Law continued: • _ Now, to return -to tho subject of tariff reform. I should like first of_all to lmilio two'general remarks about it.-The first is that the whole experience of the civilised world is hostile to the system wnrich prevails in this country. The second is that in every one of these countries, not excepting Germany—in every single case the men of those countries are most determined to ndliero to the new system. flow, the next , general remark 1 wish to make is in regard to the good trade prevailing in this country at the present time. : We are told that this good trade has destroyed the last argument for Tariff Keform. '1 don't think so. No lanlt E-eformer I have ever met has ever maintained that our fiscal system is so bad that, no matter how great may be the expansions of the. trade of 'the world, we shall never get any share of it. But suppose it were the fact that the expansion in other, oountnes is tar greater- than with us.. Then will anyone maintain that that fiscal-system/is best where the expansion is least and that , that fiscal system is worst where the expansion is greatest? •'■ ■ ■ •A-Contrast,

What are the facts? 1 am going to make a contrast 'between Germany and this country. If'you take any year you like the result will be the same, but 1 shall tako for comparison the year 1902, the year before the" fiscal controversy was started in this country, and compare it with the present year.-. Taking'the first nine months of each of these years our tatal trade, imports and exports combined, inoreascd to the extent, 1 think, of .£54,0011,000. During the same period the ■ total„trja^o,,:.,of» imports' tind • '.'exports combined—ahd£." there' was , an ' , increase ~ greater than ours both in exports and imports the total inoroaso in Germany, was not jj54.0q0.000; it-was .£180,000,000; .' ' Tariff Keform as wo propose it is not frotectton in tho sense in whioli . that word.is generally used. We do not intend to impose any duties which will enable industries in this country to grow up for which the country is not naturally adapted. Wo intend |to impose duties smaller than those now in force in any industrial country of the . world—smaller even than lielgium, which is sometimes spoken of by i'reo Traders as if it .were a i'ree Trade country. ■ We do not intend fo prevent competition from outside; we do not intend to give our manufacturers or to enablo them to secure a monopoly; wo merely intend to give to our own workmen a preference on our own market which willenable them to face more-successfully the competition on that market of their trade rivals. (Gheqrs.) We propose also, and this 6eems to liie not, less important than tho other, to secure for our own' workmen the 1 largest possible preference on the oversea markets of the iimpire, (Loud cheers.). . ;i

' It IS this proposal which. raises thol question of the food duties; duties which now, as always, are filling tho hearts of pur opponents with ■ rejoicing. I happened lately to read an account of tho meeting of the National • Liberal Eedera-tion-or whatever its name is. At that fedoAhon a gentleman, I think it was the chairman, made a speech which cd to me very interesting. , He said, and said truly, that any Government which has been long in office tends to become unpopular, and'he considered it would have been natural for the' Liberal party to look forward to defeat on (hat account at the next election But from such a danger that party had been saved by the incurable stupidity of tho'leadcrs of the Unionist party, who had again'hung the food- duties like a millstone round our necks. (Ljiughter.) Is it stupidity?, Naturally, I do not think so;.but whether or not it is done through stupidity, it is not done in ignorance. Wo recognise just as clearly as they, do how .easily , these ;duties lend themselves to misrepresentation, and what an advantage therefore they are to our opponents. It would also bo easy for us to get rid of them. We could drop them altogether; or we could do as our opponents did in regard to Home Rule. We could .ignore them,, leaving our opponents to try. to make them the issue of the election, while .we said nothing abiut them, and then if we succeeded in obtaining a majority we could, as Mr, Asquith does now, point to the speeches of our opponents as proving that 'they were an issuo at the. election, and .justify us in imposing them. (Laughter.) ; We have, however, had enough, and I think more' than enough, of that kind of political warfare, and if we cannot win the election except by a. course of systematic deception then we cannot win "it. Knowing the disadvantages of these duties, if we still adhere to them we must do so from a reason which seems to us strong. . The Food Duties, Wo have not abandoned the food duties for two reasons. Tho first of these rea-, sons is that in our belief it. is essential purely from the trade point of view to retain, and if possiblo to increase, the preference which wo enjoy in the oversea Dominions of the Empire. There is also another reason. For nine years wo havo advocated the policy of Imperial preference on the ground that it would help to secure Imporial unity. We have advocated it on this ground, and it does not seem to us that the right time to abandon that policy is now, after rTie Canadian elections last year, when the extent and reality of Imperial sentiment were shown in a way which I think impressed tho whole world. ■ And still less_does.it seem, tho right time to. abandon it when the colonies are showing 'so magnificently their readiness to share in tho burden of the defence of the Empire, (Loud chcers.) I wonder if you noticed in. connection with tho speech mado by Mr. Borden wheh announcing his contribution to Imperial Defonco that ho went put of his; way to spctik of tho co-operation of tho Empiro in trade us well as in defenco. We havo kept the flog ol' Imperial Preference flying through nil these years, and if there is any sincerity at all in jxilitical life tho present does not seem to me the time for nanling down that flag, and I at least could not ho responsible lor lowering it. (Prolonged cheering.) Wo do r.ot propose, if our countrymen Mtnru us to power, to impose food duties, What we propose i$ in that eveat

to summon a conference of tho colonies and coMidor with them whether a system of Imperial preference is practicable, nnd what steps aro necessary to secure it. It is only after-thesn negotiations aro complete that the question of tho imposition of food duties will ariso. The Colonial Point of View. Wo are told that there is no colonial offer, that tho colonics do not desire such an arrangement. Woll, if that is true, then food duties will never bo imposed. Tliey are not protective, and wo Uo not propose .them ior the sake of protection. \Ve propuso them solely for tho sake of preference, nnd they will bo imposed only if thay are necessary for that object. If the colonies do not want them; indeed, if they da not regard them as essential, for preference,'then they will nevor' bo imposed.

• Ail that we ask, therefore, is to obtain in advance from our countrvmen authority to enter into'these negotiations with power to impose food duties, strictly limited both in rango and extent, and the limits of which will long before tho election be cloarly defined. Our opponents, who carefully conceal the whole <Jf their policy from tho electocs, ask us to define now in the minutest detail .what our proposals are. That is impossible. The details will depend upan the' icsult of the negotiations with tlio colonies. : 1 think it possible, -I. hope that no -other readjustment- for the' purposo will bo necessary except a duty on wheat; but I do not think it. would be reasonable to begin negotiations without any . further- possibility of meeting the colonies. I have in my.mind, quite clearly someother; foodstuffs on which I think duties for tho snko of. preferenco .might be imposed without disadvantage. I have not, however, discussed such details with my colleagues,'but long beforo-tho election the exact limits of the authority which- we ask for will be clearly.6tated, nndHhese limits.-will not bo exceeded. They will not be eXcewled in the next Parliament, and they will never, bo exceeded by ua unless, we first submit any. proposed change to tho electors-and-havo received their sanction. You ; may bo sure of this, that with us tliere will bo no concealment,• that 'before-the' election occurs.our counhymen w"'ll know, exactly what authority, wo ask and the way in which wo propose to use. that authority. (Cheers.) If, however, the colonics do, not want these duties, if they are not necessary for Prefcrenco,. they will never be imposed j but on the other .hand, if .they, are necessary for that purpose; tben- is it possible' that tho'people of this country would not bo wUling to' make such readjustment of taxation as would bo necossary to secure that object? < . • v No Addition to Burdens. ,! , If this were not a party question, if no party advantage could bo drawn from it, then I venture to say tho.t ; any Government—oven the- present- Governmentwould be. willing to make that arrangement on this condition—that it should be arranged in such a way as ,pot to add to the burdens of the poor in this oountry. And can anyone doubt that it could be ar. ranged in such a way P ("No.") We have promised that if food duties are imposed, any royenuo. derived from- them will be-used ii i alleviating other, burdens which fall upon tlie working classes; but we are told that this cannot be effected. I dare 6ay you have'seen calculations showing how great would be the, burden-which would bo thrown upon the Working classes by' this arrangement.,, . The calculations are : T«jr simple; They are based on this assumption, that ili any duty, is placed on any part of the supply, the'price of the whole of . tho, supply will rise in proportion to ihe duly. All calculations of this kind, are justified only on the assumption' that, it is. an. axiom that the consumer always.pays the duty/That is. not; an axiom, of; tho .study; it.is. an axiom only of the political platform. . Noeconomist has ever neld such a view, and every economist who has ever written on the subject has said tho exact opposite. ; At present,-of the total consumption of wheat in this country, GO per cent, is produced within the Empire, and will, therefore, not bo subject to duty. Forty , per cent.' only comes frohi abroad, and, will pay the duty; 1 and does anyone really pretend that tho.impositioniof a duty,on two-lifths-of, tb9-eUpply >Tvill raise tho price to tho extent of,tile-whole.dutyP- . ■ ' The . extent .to .which a. duty is paid by the .consumer or ;tho producer depends mainly on two 'things.' It depends on tho extent of the compefition between the free and, the taxed supply;, and it depends also upon the possibility of expansion of-the untaxed supply. Hero the bulk of. it, is free, i and the powers of expansion are practically unlimited. Consider it also in the light, of common sense from this point of view: Suppose sixty per cent, of the wheat came from America and forty, .per cient. from tho Black Sea, and that the rate of freight were raised Gd. a cwt. on the.forty por cent, from the Black .Sea. Is there any business man in this room, or out of it, who would say that tho effect of this rise ' in freight on the forty per cent, would bo to raieo tlie selling prico of the whole hundred per cent P ("No.")

. Reduced ,Cost of Living. Such a suggestion seems to liie -utterly childish, ana I believe, • therefore, that using tho revenue derived from , wheat to lower other burdens of the Working classes would probably moan a reduction and not an increase in the'eost of :living; (Cheers.) I havo said before, ninny times, and'l repeat now, that unless tho change could bo mado without adding to the burdens of the poor I should not advocate the change. (Loud applause.) '.There is such a largo proportion .of our. population onthe verge of poverty that they are not in a position to pay any of insurance for tho future, however great'the future advantage may be.

.' Wo do make the; promifo that this change, if it" is carried out, that these food duties, if they are imposed, will not odd to J;ho cost of living in this country. We con undoubtedly fulfil that promise if we please, and.if ou'r.countrymen will not trust us to fulfil that pledge, then they will not trust us at all. : , -• The, Referendum. Sinco it is our policy, not to impose food duties until after negotiations with tho colonies, it may bo asked—it is, I know, aske3 by some of our' friends—why not ro a step further and submit the negotiations when complete, but bofori being;carried into effect," to^a referendum? ,It is, said, by the vroy, by somti of our opponents, and by Mr. Asquith-among others, that in declining. to make the referendum on this subject part of our policy we have broken I faith with the electors. How is that possible ? ' - 1 ' ' -

It wo ild indeed be to break faith with them, to, leave them to suppose that we were going to have a referendum,'and then to carry.out our proposals without it; but how can it! bo'a;breach of faith to tell our countrymen before the election exactly what jwe mean to do, And to obtain their sanction for it? The reason, and it seems to us a valid reason, why wo arc not willing to submit the result of the negotiations to a referendum is that we think such an arrangement" would not be fair, would not be''reasonable, towards tho col-' onies, (Cheers;) -

If such a conference meets the colonies would como plodded, ready if an agreement is come to to'earrv it'out,' subject to.ike approval-ofthoir Parliaments, Wnnld it bp fair, would it even be reasonable to ask them to come IxJUnd to such n conferenco while we are free; to.hsk tk»m to'r»o through all this trouble of making such arrangements'.* while"it would remain uncertain whether anything would come of them? It seems to me that such in proposal would not be fair to 'the colonics, and that is tho reason, and the solo reason, why we have 'riot: proposed it (Cheers.) 1 •