Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

The proportion which the trade with Denmark bears to the total trade is stated in the report for the years 1895 and 1896. The figures are given in the following table: TRADE OF ICELAND WITH DENMARK.

[blocks in formation]

It may be added that the report records an export to Britain somewhat greater than that to Denmark in each of the two years, while the imports from Britain were approximately one-third of the value of those from Denmark.

[blocks in formation]

The returns of German exports to Southwest Africa are separated from those from other possessions on the West African coast for the first time in 1897. For that year a recent foreign office report (Miscellaneous Series, No. 474, 1898) and the statement of "Trade and shipping of Africa," already referred to, enable the following tables to be compiled for the African colonies of Germany:

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

No sufficiently complete statement of the trade of the other German possessions can be given to show the proportion of that trade carried on with Germany. The tables given appear to show that the German share of the colonies' trade does not much, if at all, exceed 40 per cent.

A REVIEW OF THE GENERAL SITUATION.

After so long a series of tabulations it is quite out of the question to attempt to rearrange the material for purposes of direct comparison of what is really comparable. Further, only totals of trade have been dealt with, not details and the commodities entering into the trade. Again, for the most part the direction of the trade has not been indicated except in the one point of its extent with the metropolitan State. I am aware of these omissions and of the very limited usefulness of a paper omitting such facts as these, and also neglecting to consider such matters as the singling out of the most and least prosperous of each group of colonies, leading to inquiries such as that into the reasons for the superiority of Indo-China in the progress of its trade and industry over other French colonies. I have only placed before myself on this occasion a limited inquiry, namely, into the materials for finding an answer to a part of the question, "What are the facts?" The question, "Why are things as they are?" is probably far more important, but can not be entered upon on this occasion.

I will only bring together one portion of the facts for the purpose of indicating where some application of such materials might perhaps begin." No. 4 32

I do not propose to comment on this table beyond pointing out that, as some of the estimates of population are quite rough, those of Cuba and Porto Rico, to wit, the deduction of trade per head is also only approximate. The nature of the trade of St. Thomas makes its amount exceptional, and many other qualifications are necessary before any very useful results can be deduced from such a comparative statement. It would not, however, be impossible to institute some useful comparisons between portions more similar and comparable than the units of this last table. Any such use of the records must be postponed. The reference to them may suffice to show that I do not suppose that such a collection of tables as is contained in this paper constitutes something worth seeking as an end in itself, but rather that it, or something like it, may serve as a means to attain ends not here aimed at. Were they more perfect they would serve such ends better, and the lack of completeness has been a source of great regret to me in preparing the paper. I can only trust that it is not so far lacking in this and other respects as to be considered unworthy of the attention of this society.

[blocks in formation]

(1) The proportion which colonial trade bears to total trade is, except in the case of our own country and Spain, not large. It is, however, on the side of imports, considerable in the cases of Holland and Portugal, and important on both sides in both these cases and that of France. It is, too, apparently of growing importance.

(2) The external trade of the various British colonies and possessions takes place to the extent of over one-half with the mother country, to the extent of 65 per cent within the Empire.

(3) If Algeria and Tunis be included among French colonies, some 60 per cent of the colonial trade is with the mother country. If they be excluded, this proportion falls to 42 per cent, a figure not substantially increased if to the trade with France is added that with other French colonies.

(4) The newer French colonies do the greater part of their trade with other countries than France, in this contrasting with the older colonies.

(5) The Dutch East Indies take rather over one-third of their imports from Holland, and send thither the greater part (so far as the record permits of a definite figure, about three-quarters) of their exports. Dutch Guiana does over half its import trade and about a third of its export trade with Holland.

(6) The Portuguese colonies take something like one-third of their imports in Portuguese goods, though nearly one-half of the total are received from Portugal. Portugal receives near two-thirds of the exports, but mainly en route for other countries.

(7) The Spanish colonies (now lost) took well under half their imports from Spain, and sent her only a small proportion of their exports, except in the case of Porto Rico, which sent nearly one-quarter of its exports to Spain. Spain occupied a less important position in the trade of her colonies than the great trading nations previously considered.

(8) France and Holland stand contrasted with Britain in the matter of colonial trade in the fact that with them it is the colonies' export trade of which they have by far the larger share in most cases. With us the contrast is not so marked between the proportions of import and export trade carried on by our colonies with us. Further, the large share of the import trade of her colonies which falls to Britian contrasts favorably with the corresponding percentages in the records of the colonies of other countries.

(9) Comparisons with periods about thirty years back show that the course of the trade of the British Empire with Britain compares not unfavorably with the corresponding course of events in the cases of France and Holland.

(10) The efficiency of the policy of exclusive trade privileges to the sovereign State, whether in promoting its own trade or the trade of its colonies, is not conspicuous in the records.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

DISCUSSION ON PROFESSOR FLUX'S PAPER, BY MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY. Mr. H. Moncreiff Paul said they must all feel that the society owed a debt of gratitude to Mr. Flux for gathering together, under circumstances of considerable difficulty, very much valuable information regarding the trade of this and other countries with their respective colonies. He wished to add a few figures with regard to Australasian colonies, as Mr. Flux had not segregated them from other British possessions. For that purpose he would take the year 1896, to which special reference had been made in the paper. In the group he included Tasmania and New Zealand. Their population was about 4,500,000 in round numbers, and their total trade (imports and exports) £129,000,000. From that £129,000,000, however, it was necessary, in looking at the matter from Mr. Flux's standpoint, to eliminate the intercolonial figures, because no doubt there was a considerable duplication in the statistics of imports and exports from that cause. He believed that that intercolonial trade represented some £54,000,000 out of the £129,000,000, leaving an external trade of something like £75,000,000; and of that last figure £54,000,000 was with the mother country, £5,000,000 with British possessions, and £16,000,000 with foreign countries. What they had to see to was that the Australasian group should continue to maintain its trade with the mother country, and not allow that trade to go outside of Greater Britain. The trade between the Australasian group and Canada had not increased; but he looked to the results of the proposed Pacific_cable to stimulate trade in that direction by cheapening telegraphic communications. But they knew that the Australasian group had in certain particulars withdrawn from the mother country in respect of trade. A portion of their export trade in their main staple, wool, which formerly went entirely to the mother country, had been in recent years diverted to the continent of Europe and to the United States in consequence of improved transit facilities and increased telegraphic communication; and the same causes, in conjunction with cheapness of production abroad, had affected the trade in manufactured articles imported by these colonies. Still there was in 1896 this very satisfactory feature, that out of the total Australasian external trade-£75,000,000 £54,000,000 was with the mother country. This compared very favorably with the trade of Great Britain with other countries, having regard to the relatively small population of the Australasian group. Thus the trade between the United Kingdom and the under-mentioned more populous countries was as follows: United States of America, £138,000,000; France, £71,000,000; Germany, £62,000,000, and British India, £56,000,000. A comparison of the trade of the British possessions with the United Kingdom showed the following proportions: The Australasian group, 29 per cent; India, 30 per cent; Canada, 114 per cent, and Straits Settlements and Hongkong, 44 per cent. So that, as far as British possessions were concerned, the Australasian colonies occupied a very prominent position.

PROFESSOR MAYO-SMITII.

Prof. R. Mayo-Smith said he considered himself particularly fortunate to have been at a meeting when a subject was discussed which was of very great interest to the people of the United States at the present time, and he must say that that interest was more one of curiosity and inquiry than anything else. He could not expect to give to Englishmen any information with regard to the value of colonies as a source of trade, or on the question whether colonies paid or did not. England had been the great colonial power for so many years, and had had so much experience, and carried out such enormous transactions, that it would be very presumptuous on his part to say anything as to the policy of Great Britain with regard to her colonies. His desire was simply to gain information.

The position of the United States at the present time with regard to this whole question of dependencies was a very peculiar one. They did not know exactly what they were going to do or what were the advantages and the disadvantages. For that reason they were very much interested in this question of trading advantages, and the question whether trade did follow the flag or whether trade went to the cheapest market. One point was whether a country that became a colonial power at the present time could enter upon those colonies and expect to absorb their trade in the way in which the older colonial empires had absorbed the trade of their colonies. Great Britain's colonies were occupied more or less by Englishmen; and the direct connection between the mother country and the colony was very close, and the whole influence was on the side of the mother country. The question then was, Was it possible for the United States, in

acquiring foreign possessions of that sort, ever to occupy a position toward them such as the United Kingdom had occupied through her historical connection with her own dependencies? That point of view was primarily purely American; but he would ask Mr. Flux's attention to this point, whether that consideration did not to some extent invalidate any general conclusion that it was the simple colonial relation that turned trade toward the mother country. The second point they would have to think of in the States was whether geographical situation had not a more potent influence upon trade than the flag; but he did not see that Mr. Flux had dealt with that question at all. For instance, taking Cuba and Porto Rico, Did not the situation of those two islands tend constantly to throw their trade to the United States rather than to Spain? Again, taking the trade of Canada. Her geographical situation threw the Canadian trade to a large extent into the United States; and it seemed to him that even in dealing with the figures as Mr. Flux had, it might possibly be well to study the countries separately and see whether their geographical position did not really tend to counteract the influence of the colonial connection in many cases. The third point was whether the facilities of transportation also did not to a great extent determine the question of trade. Taking the South American countries as an example, the people of the United States had always rather of a notion that they ought to have the trade of South America, as they were nearer to South America than England; they were able to supply the people of South America with many things they needed, and could take a great many things they had. Why was it that the United States did not have the trade with South America which England had? One explanation was that the United States had a protective policy which was choking foreign trade. Another influence was the manning of the merchant marine and the great transport facilities from England to the States of South America. There was not apparently any suggestion as to a personal preference for one nationality; the question was one of transport. If they could get goods to Europe better, if the foreign exchanges were more favorable, and banking facilities were greater, the trade would go to England. Another thing which would occur to an American was that in this colonial trade the character of the products which could be exchanged would count very much. Taking the trade with Australia, England wanted Australian wool and Australia wanted English manufactures. The trade between Australia and the Pacific coast of the United States was very different. They did not want Australian wool and Australia did not want their wheat or raw products. It was a question with him whether England did not hold her own in this colonial trade, to a very great extent, because she was a manufacturing country, having precisely the commodities that the colonies wanted; and, on the other hand, the colonies had what England needed. But the United States was still a new country; its people were producers of food stuffs and raw materials.

It seemed to him that while England might hold on to her colonial trade, it would not be on account of the colonial connection, but on account of the fact that England and the colonies, so to speak, fitted each other. These were the points which he would wish to make; and he must say that most people in the States who had been brought up to English political economy had been rather sceptical about the cry that trade followed the flag. They were inclined to accept the teaching of the older economists that men sought the best market to buy in and the best market to sell in. Though the colonial connection might be a powerful influence socially on trade lines, America and her infant colonial power would not have very much to gain by it commercially.

MR. BIRCHENOUGH.

Mr. H. Birchenough said one's first feeling upon hearing this paper read was one of astonishment at the amount of material it contained. He imagined that in drawing it up the author did not intend to make it at all controversial. He regarded it as a large statistical picture of various countries and various colonial empires, and it would, therefore, be unfair to expect Mr. Flux to have touched in his paper upon more debatable questions than he could help. So far as the indications of his opinions went he cordially shared them. He believed that trade did, to a very considerable extent, follow the flag, and he thought so because it seemed to lie very considerably in the nature of the human mind that purchases should follow familiar channels. Undoubtedly the temptation to the experienced business man was to buy in the cheapest market; but, looking at the statistics, it would be seen that the tendency of people who migrated to the colonies was to purchase those articles to which they were accustomed at home. If one examined the figures of our colonial exports, it would be seen that the United Kingdom did its largest trade with those colonies which were inhabited by true colonists-people of our own racefor the simple reason that they retained the same sort of tastes and wants that they had at home. The great extension of trade was in the great self-governing colonies, so like ourselves in every way. He should like to add a word or two in reply to what had fallen from the last speaker. He felt great sympathy with the difficulties Professor Mayo-Smith expressed as lying in the minds of the citizens of the United States. In reply to his first question, he should be prepared to say that a country could not expect to absorb the trade of existing foreign colonies which it annexed in the same manner as it might expect to absorb the trade of colonies which it founded and built up. He would even go further, and say, in illustration, that the United States could not hope to-day to absorb the trade of the Philippines in the same manner as Great Britain absorbed the trade of the Cape after annexing it in the early years of the present century for the obvious reason that the political and commercial situation had entirely changed. The rest of the world would certainly now expect the United States in annexing the Philippines to maintain something like an "open door." The States could hardly apply their tariff to the Philippine Islands, and therefore those markets would be open to the whole of the rest of the world in a sense in which the earlier markets were not. But, on the other hand, he was perfectly confident the United States would find an enormous increase of trade through their annexation and colonization, because by the mere fact of annexation America obtained a position which enabled her to control the finances of the islands. One of the most potent causes of successful trade between the mother country and her colonies was the control of finance. For instance, all the great undertakings for the development of the Philippines, or Cuba, or Porto Rico-the building of railways, piers, and harbors-would be more or less under the control of the United States Government or of American mercantile companies. That would bring into the United States a large amount of trade, just as the execution of the great public works in Australia and South Africa brought trade to British shores. Being financed here, the loans raised went out in the form of railway materials, telegraphic appliances, and so For that reason he was quite confident that in obtaining political control over territory the country which obtained that control acquired a very strong position for the purpose of trade. Beginning with official control, the connection became commercial and industrial. The United States had had enormous territory to open up, and at present had its hands full in developing its own resources, but by and by it would overflow its borders. If to-day it did not feel any want of colonies for trade purposes, he felt certain that by the middle of the next century it would have such needs."

on.

He agreed with Professor Mayo-Smith that geographical position must of necessity be a very important factor in trade. That one saw illustrated by the trade between France and Algeria, and by the large trade between the United States and the West Indian Islands. But it did not exercise a paramount or dominating influence. Owing to the improvements in communication, the widespread character of modern commerce, and the immense influence of financial considerations, too much importance should not be attached to geographical proximity, except as regards trade in articles which were more or less perishable. Take the case of South America. When the United States became as great a financial power as Great Britain was, they would to a large extent absorb the trade of South America. But, in his opinion, it would be more because they were a great industrial and financial people than because of their geographical proximity. On the general question, he argued that Mr. Flux's tables proved that hitherto, in the case of all empires, trade had very largely followed the flag. There were, however, other factors of great influence. If they had tables showing the business which different countries did with each other's colonies, they would see the strength and power of those influences which lay outside a common country or what was meant by the flag. Some two years ago he made a study of our trade with the colonies of foreign countries, and he was then obliged to admit that if it was true that trade followed the flag, it was also true that it followed any and all civilizing agencies which established order and stability, in which alone trade could flourish. In spite of the barriers which the French Government had set up in order to keep all the trade to themselves (except where there were conventions to the contrary), we did somehow manage to do a very large trade with the French colonies. Taking Tonquin as an example, there was a pause which lasted several years in our trade with that place after the French annexation. But immediately the country was fairly settled, our trade increased, in spite of the French tariffs and attempts to cripple it, and it was still increasing. The same was true even in Tunis. The French did a very large trade with their older colonies, probably because they were largely settled by French people, or people brought up under the influence of French tastes; but

when the French annexed new countries in Africa or Asia, it would be found that they did relatively only a small proportion of the trade, because French manufacturers did not supply the particular articles which were required by an undeveloped country. Where the connection had been a long one, where the tastes of the population were the tastes of France, the figures were growing rapidly.

In conclusion, he expressed the conviction that, although many causes combined to produce successful trading relations between a mother country and its colonies, yet the most important single cause was the fact of political connection represented by the flag. That connection was of immense value in the early years, since it afforded guarantees so necessary to confidence in trade, and the longer it lasted the more important it became, owing to the thousand ties-financial, commercial, and social-which it fostered and maintained.

FURTHER DISCUSSION.

Mr. J. T. Taylor said that to answer the question, Did trade follow the flag? it would be necessary first to answer another question: Was the colony in favor of the flag or did it dislike it? He quite agreed with Professor Mayo-Smith that the mere fact that a colony was a colony would not in itself cause it to trade with the mother country under unfavorable conditions. But in the case of a colony and a mother country, where each felt that a real advantage was to be gained by their continuing to be associated, efforts would be made both by the mother country and by the colony to create such conditions as would be favorable to a common trade. Where you had such conditions and they would always be created where proper relations existed between the mother country and her colonies-there trade would follow the flag, but in the absence of such conditions trade would to only a very small extent, if at all, follow the flag. He did not think, therefore, that it was a question which could be properly answered with a simple yes or no. Geographical and other physical conditions had, no doubt, bearing upon it, but their influence was slight compared with that exercised by the general relations subsisting between a mother country and a colony. The character of those relations, be they cordial or irksome, must be fully considered in each case before a trustworthy reply can be given to the question, Does trade follow the flag?

Mr. P. de Jersey Grut drew attention to a point in connection with the tabulation of statistics of exports and imports between the European countries. Transfers of gold were very properly eliminated in the case of the trade statistics of European countries, none of the European countries, with one exception, being producers of gold, and the transfer of gold between all these countries was almost entirely for the purpose of settling balances of exchange. But the case was wholly different when one of the countries involved in the transaction was a large producer and exporter of gold. That was the case with the Australasian colonies, South Africa, the United States, and one or two other countries. In these figures the gold exports from Australia to the United Kingdom were not included, and it seemed to him that they ought for such a purpose as the present to be included. Gold was as much a trade product in the case of Australia as iron was in the case of Great Britain and had as much claim to be included in the exports.

Mr. J. Barr Robertson called attention to the fact, in connection with France and her colonies, that the importations from the latter came in free of duty or at a much reduced duty, whereas the productions from other countries had to pay a high duty. This was completely protective in the case of French colonial products entering free of duty, and it was at least a differential duty in favor of colonial products entering France at a much reduced duty against foreign products. Similarly French products were favored as against foreign in entering the French colonies. That was a reason why there might be a large importation into France from its colonies and a large exportation from France to the colonies, since they were so much favored in regard to duties at the ports of entry.

Mr. Sydney Young suggested that the large trade done with French colonies was chiefly for the support of the official life in those colonies, and if that were taken off the trade would be very much less. It would throw great light on the trade of the colonies and on the point as to whether they were good for the mother country or otherwise, if some statistics could be afforded as to the comparative cost of French and German colonies and our own.

Mr. Frederick W. Lawrence pointed out that if the Straits Settlements were taken out from the other colonies, the percentage of imports by British colonies from the mother country had actually increased from one period to the other.

Mr. R. H. Hooker remarked that the author's last conclusion, viz, that "the efficiency of the policy of exclusive trade privileges to the metropolitan State, whether in promoting its own trade or the trade of its colonies, is not conspicuous in the records," afforded no evidence that the trade of the United Kingdom had lost ground at the expense of those other countries for which statistics were available over a sufficiently long period. To take France as an instance, the author showed that the proportion of the imports of her colonies from the mother country had certainly not increased, but rather declined during the past thirty years. It would seem to be a fair deduction from this, that whereas thirty years ago the excellence of certain foreign goods was such that the French colonies took them in preference to goods of home manufacture, these colonies were now, in spite of tariff and shipping facilities, still less satisfied with French goods. In satisfying the demands of her colonies, therefore, it would seem that other countries (among which the United Kingdom might not improbably be included) had made more rapid progress than France. It was unfortunate that, owing to their very recent acquisition of colonies, no smilar comparison could be made with the United States and Germany, now usually considered our most dangerous commercial rivals.

Mr. M. Macfie dwelt on the importance of a point which had been brought strongly before him in 1887, the year of the great international exhibition in Melbourne, and frequently since that time. That was the remarkable progress which had been made in the exports from Germany and even from the United States to all parts of Australasia. From recent inquires he found that the ratio of increase certainly did not fall off. If they were to form an adequate idea of the importance of British trade with the other parts of the empire, there was a collateral inquiry of the greatest importance to be made as to whether they were fully alive to the fact that while the ratio of our trade with the other parts of the empire might be maintained, the ratio of the trade with Germany and the United States, and all other countries with certain portions of the empire might be increasing even beyond the ratio of our own exports to the same destinations.

Another question of great importance to England and to the empire at large was the relation of our interimperial trade, with the attempt which was now being made extensively, and on very patriotic grounds, to effect the federation of the empire. The basis of those who advocated imperial federation was undoubtedly that of Zollverein, and consequently they attached greater moment to interimperial trade than to the trade between the United Kingdom and foreign countries. He believed the statistics up to date would not quite favor the conclusion toward which they seemed to tend. It would appear that the proportion of trade which we did with other parts of the empire was considerably below what we did with foreign countries. It should be considered, therefore, whether in their anxiety to promote interimperial trade-which formed a comparatively small fraction of the general trade of this country-they might not be ignoring conditions vital to the trade we did with foreign countries. Without desiring to neglect interimperial trade, it would be unfortunate if they were to take any step which might prejudice foreign countries against their own and excite the notion that they were aiming at interimperialism rather than maintaining the old Cobden idea of free trade with the world and "open doors" wherever they could get them.

Mr. J. Johnston, referring to the point introduced by the last speaker, said, if they were to introduce imperial federation he presumed they would try and carry out the broad principles which that speaker had been telling them should be carried out. It was quite possible that if Australia federated, the free-trade colony of New South Wales would be able to get a great many of her principles carried out in the other colonies as well, possibly the whole of them; and if they could federate the whole empire on a free-trade basis and shut up a great many custom-houses, it would be a great advantage to the trade of the whole empire and of the world at large. Proximity was of great importance, as Professor Mayo-Smith had shown, but he thought facilities of intercourse were of almost greater importance, and they had a specimen of a great commercial market arising within the last twenty years through facilities of intercourse. He was one who fully believed that Germany would not have taken the position in the markets of the world she was taking now had it not been for the action of the German Government in subsidizing lines of steamers to all parts of the world and sending her men forward as commercial travelers to push German trade in all directions. If England would school her young men in the languages of the countries to which they were about to be accredited, it would be of far more importance in increasing trade than annexing territory in West Africa or elsewhere.

« AnteriorContinuar »