sequently the rate of interest which he would have to pay on the money he has to borrow to increase the carrying powers of an established run, or to develope new country.

As I have alluded to Mr. Ecroyd, may I be allowed to point out that I think he has understated the merits of an Australian consumer of: British manufactures ? I understand that the consumption per head in Australasia is computed at 8l. 108., as against 78. 8d. in France, and 78. per head in the United States. It may be said, the production of wool is already so enormous in Australasia that it does not require encouragement. Perhaps not, but it would be desirable to give it for the purpose, as explained by Mr. Ecroyd and Mr. Baden-Powell, of securing those colonies as consumers of British manufactures. But the case of the growth of wheat is more serious and more important. In 1879 there were imported into the United Kingdom 59,591,795 cwts. of wheat. In the same year the imports were from

South Australia

Victoria .

187,733 New South Wales

20,420 New Zealand

1,227,967 Dominion of Canada





amounting to over 7,000,000 cwts., not much more than one-eighth of the total imports—the balance, of course, coming from countries which put heavy duties on any of our manufactures which they may admit into their markets. I have no doubt that the amount of wheat grown in Victoria and New South Wales might be enormously increased with a little encouragement. Let it not be thought that in advocating encouragement to wheat-growing in those colonies I am injuring the farming interest in the United Kingdom with which I am so closely connected. I merely wish that the 59,500,000 cwts. of wheat which we import should be grown by Englishmen instead of by our rivals in trade and manufacture.

The Governments of Victoria and New South Wales (the former to an excessive degree) have adopted measures to take the land out of the hands of the squatters, or crown tenants, who hold it in runs of great extent,100,000 acres and upwards—as sheep and cattle runs, and selling it, in fee simple, in farms of a few hundred acres. In well-watered districts, which have easy carriage to the large towns, many of these farmers have grown wheat at a remunerative price. But in other places the selectors, as they are called, are anxious to sell back their lands to the squatters at prices below what they have paid to, or owe, the Government for the fee simple. With a more certain market for wheat, it would, in many districts, be profitable to bore for, or to store, water, and open railways or make rivers navigable, and thus enormously increase the area of profitable wheat production. In New Zealand it would not seem that they stand in much need of encouragement. For when I was in that country I was told that this year the harvest had been 30 and 40 bushels to the acre, weighing 62 and 64 lbs. to the bushel. The grower considers 4s. per bushel a paying price.' The imports of sugar in England in 1879 were-Refined

148,604 Raw



[ocr errors]

The production of sugar in Queensland in that year was 206,269 cwts. There was an enormous increase last year, but I do not know the amount. I only know that the growers are making large fortunes. With the West Indies and Mauritius, I should think we need not go abroad for sugar.

I need not allude to the enormous amount of gold which has been obtained in Australasia ; but there can be little doubt that much more is to be got than has yet been won; nor to the masses of virgin copper, the square miles of stream tin, the quarries of antimony and bismuth, as well as coal and iron; nor to the maize, potatoes, wine, butter, hides, tallow, fruits and preserves, precious stones, as well as many other valuable articles. I am full of admiration for the colonies I have visited, and I am anxious, in their interest, to contribute a word in support of the policy so ably advocated by Mr. Baden-Powell and Mr. W. Farrer Ecroyd.

I hold that their system is not opposed to free trade. If a trade has a burden on one side, it should be equalised by a burden on the other. If you cannot have real free trade, an equal trade, or a fair trade, is next best. Obstinately to persist in a lop-sided trade cannot be profitable.


· The shippers in New Zealand have found it advisable not to fill up entirely with wheat, but to load about one-fifth of the capacity of the ship with oats on the top of the wheat. This has raised the market price of oats from 1s. 6d. to 28. 3d., which pays the grower, as he gets sixty bushels to the acre.



The Quarterly Review of last April, in a very able and interesting article entitled “The Revolutionary Party,' endeavoured to show, by quotations from the speeches and writings of certain more or less prominent members of the Government or of the party in power, that a faction exists in England, the object and end of which can only be described as revolutionary. In the sense that all change may be figured as the segment of a circle which if completed would involve a complete revolution, and that the progress of a nation implies revolution, this statement is undoubtedly correct. But the writer in the Quarterly means more than that; and seeks to show that great and violent, though possibly bloodless, changes, amounting to what is ordinarily understood as a revolution, are imminent in England.

The Prime Minister is described as being educated, and dragged somewhat reluctantly along the downward path, by more energetic and thorougbgoing members of the Government, whose object is the destruction of the British Constitution. Public opinion among voters is stated to be largely in favour of revolutionary views, and an appeal is made to moderate Liberals to unite with Conservatives in making a final attempt to stem the tide. The argument used is that the Liberal party contains a large element of Radicalism ; that Radicalism aims at the destruction of the Church, the House of Lords, and the Crown, is in favour of the partition of landed property, and holds other communistic theories which are not entertained by moderate Liberals; and that therefore it is high time for these latter to shake the dust from off their shoes and transfer their allegiance to the Tory party. It is also urged that strong feelings of class animosity are entertained by the wage-earners against other members of the community; and that, although the leaders and those who guide public opinion know perfectly well that anything like a division of property would be contrary to economic laws, and as useless as immoral, yet that the masses do not recognise that fact, and that the leaders are perfectly willing, and indeed desirous, to make selfish use of popular delusions and to stir up the “ Have nots' against the Haves' in order to achieve their own private ends. Without disputing the accuracy of the statement that there is a revolutionary party in the country, or defending the weakness of the Liberal as opposed to the Radical element in the Cabinet, I join issue with the writer of the article in the Quarterly on his assertion that Radicalism is so powerful, and the triumph of Radical and communistic principles so imminent, that the time has come for moderate men of all parties to join in combating a common foe.

That Radicalism, if carried to its logical deductions, is destructive of liberty, and incompatible with real progress, is true; and it is equally true that there are in England a certain number of active exponents of Radical doctrines followed by numerous disciples who are ignorant of the principles they profess. But the falsity of these doctrines is not apparent to the people, and cannot be made apparent to them until the conflict between liberty as represented by Liberalism, and equality as represented by Radicalism, is distinctly brought about by some issue sufficiently plain to enlist on the side of liberty the preservative sentiment, and the sentiment of manly independence, which have been and still are the principal features of the English character. The theory of Liberals is that there is no

sense in seeking to deprive the nation of the benefits of Liberal measures merely because the Liberal element in the Government is swayed by the more energetic will and character of the Radical element, and that, as long as the members of the revolutionary party content themselves with airing false theories, they do comparatively little harm. They think that the best time to use whatever power is left to them will be when some measure distinctly placing Radicalism and Liberalism in antagonism is before the country, not when Radicalism conveys a somewhat vague meaning to the ear of the masses.

The Quarterly laughs at a metropolitan journal for saying that Radicals ask simply for the progressive adaptation of the Constitution to the conditions of modern society,' and for asserting that “there is hardly any social envy in the so-called Democratic classes in the country,' and that the desires of the commonalty are not directed to any great and Radical measures either of social or political change.' Against these statements of the Times the Quarterly Review quotes the opinions of Mr. Gladstone, Lord Hartington, Mr. Forster, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Bright, and Mr. Bradlaugh, in proof of the contention that the Crown, House of Lords, Church, and landed system are in danger of destruction.

The Quarterly comments with just severity upon the general tone of Mr. Gladstone's utterances during the Mid-Lothian campaign. The Prime Minister certainly allowed his annoyance at seeing that he was distrusted by wealth and property to get the better of his discretion, and he made use of expressions which bear the construction put upon them by the writer in the Quarterly, and seem to imply a willingness to utilise class animosity for his own purposes. In the same way, he allowed his personal and excited feelings to get the better of sound judgment, and, as a private individual, offered an insult to Austria which had to be effaced by an apology from him as Prime Minister. Certain unfortunate expressions he used about Ireland were easily distorted by unscrupulous persons into an inducement to commit outrages; and his reference to the Boers encouraged them to claim their independence by violence instead of argument—a course which they followed, and thereby cost this country a large sum of money, many valuable lives, and a most humiliating peace which might have been avoided, not by committing the gross immorality of continuing an unjust war, but by abstaining from the war altogether. But all this merely goes to prove that in the heat of a party contest Mr. Gladstone made use of language without considering the consequences which would be likely to ensue. The Quarterly pays him an unnecessary compliment in supposing that his words were a true reflex of public opinion.

Having commented upon the encouragement given to Radicalism in general by Mr. Gladstone, the Quarterly addresses itself to the question of the Church, and quotes a passage from an address delivered at Edinburgh by Lord Hartington in 1877 to show that-to use the words of the article in the Quarterly—when the majority demanded Disestablishment, the leaders of the party would hold that they could not refuse to concede it. The passage, however, does not bear that construction. Lord Hartington merely states that if the majority of Englishmen object to a State Church, their views should and would be respected. What is there to cavil at in such a statement? Does the writer in the Quarterly mean that a State Church ought to be maintained contrary to the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants of the State ? That is, to say the least, a peculiar doctrine to recommend to moderate Liberals. Is it likely that Communism and the whole Radical programme can be successfully contested by a party professing the principle that it is right and expedient that a State Church should be forced upon the necks of an unwilling people? When the question becomes one of practical politics,' it will be the duty of those who have the ear of the public, and who think that an Established Church acts as a bulwark against religious despotism, and is necessary for religious freedom and progress, to expound their views and endeavour to influence public opinion. It is difficult to understand how the authority of such men could be increased by their declaring that the Established Church should be maintained even against the will of the people.

The next subject dealt with namely, the House of Lords-is of a more delicate nature, involving as it does the hereditary principle, which principle is recognised also in the Crown. But there is a great difference between the functions and duties of the Crown, and those of the House of Lords; and it is not likely that many Liberals would disregard the great difference between Tory and Liberal tone of thcught, and join with their former opponents to fight

« VorigeDoorgaan »