16th Nov. A RECENT article by Mr: J..A. Hobson in the -Contemy on " Free Trade and' Foreign Policy". deserves the careful attention of everyone whose endeavour it' is to follow intelligently the tendencies of our foreign policy in general and our Far Eastern policy in partioular.- Writing from the standpoint of a\Free Trader of the old school, bya series of logical and well-founded arguments he endeavours to show that. the attitude and actions of recent British Governments are based upon a false conception of the causes. and results of expansion in tions of their trading interests, insist upon obtaining exclusive ownership of foreign markets by a ruinously expensive parade of force, we are not compelled to follow their example, unless we have rejected utterly the counsels of the Free Trade thinkers. We can wait and obtain cheaply, peaceably, and indirectly, our full share of the commercial benefits of these adventurous and expensive projects.
If it be urged that these indirect gains are merely hypothetical, we may reply that England is ina far stronger position than any other nation to practise this peaceful policy of abstinence, because she possesses guarantee that she will obtain an adequate hor shipping, industry 0. most effective share in the net gains of opening up new markets. Though no complete statistics are available, measuring the quantity of the carrying trade for foreign nations which England undertakes, it is known that a very large proportion of the trade, not only between England: and foreign coun-prevailing "fallacies in our international trade and upon widely trading with each other, la cariod by tries, but also between foreign countries Sonomye Undariing Lis, Mahon e my Rogan en etn politico So long as this continues very powerful reasoning there lurks eve opening up of foreign markets the omission' to recognise one of the Schieved' by our Buropean trade compe-strongest factors in our national titers. policy, viz, the race instinct which is Following up this reasoning, Mr. at: the root'of Imperialism, and this Hobson brings statistics to bear. omission to a great extent invalidates a series of extremely interesting his conclusions. Nevertheless many tables he shows of his ents are so striking that 1,—That in the last forty years our they deserve the fullest attention.
is-usual for Britishers in China, trade with foreign countries has increased in proportion to the. trade as well as for their legislators at home, with British possessions to dwell mainly upon the commercial 2.—That our trade. with British side. of our Far. Eastern policy, to possessions, whose area in 1896 was Rrreign territorial aggression threatens int out the dangers with.which 11 millions of miles, was of a smaller total value than in 1883 when the our trade interests and to estimate area was 7 millions of miles those interests by, comparative statis-whose appeals fora strong policy are tics of tonnage and cargo. To those based solely on such grounds, Mr. Hobson's arguments must come home with crushing force, for he shows in the clearest possible manner that the assignment of spheres of influence or even the acquisition of territory by rival powers does'not imply, and has not hitherto resulted in, a corresponding loss' of markets to'England. To give an idea of his line o! ment we cannot do better than to quote the following:—Tt is. indisputably' true that the direct try witch enjoys the, monopoly, but the trading gain will be greatest for the coun-Delief that'all the gain can be retained by her is utterly unwarranted. It is not difficult to conceive cases where another nation might enjoy. even' a Tanger share of the results of trade than the nation which owned the private markets of this: trade. For instance, if Russia and France, drawing supplies of food or raw material of manufacture' from the private estates so found Bngland their best customer for jealously protected by them in China, these goods, we might, by making them compote with one another, suck out of them the bulk of the gain of their monopoly of market. In certain trades this' not unlikely to happen.
This is the Free ie theory which the majority of they members of the Sbetal party in this countzy'still profess. Tt furnishes w peaceable policy of expansive foreign trade. Why is it virtually ignored, or even repudiated by the action of Liberal leaders and by the rank and file of the party? If other nations, seized by a lust for empire and inspired by narrow concep-
8,—That from 1875 to 1895, our trade with the United States, France, Germany, and Russia combined, increased from a total value of 256 million pounds to 293 millions, while that with British colonies increased only from 161 to 171 millions; and 4.—That whereas in 1873 our national diture on armaments was 24 millions sterling, in 1897 it had risen to 41 millions.
To sum up Mr. Hobson's reasoning, it amounts to the plea for a return to the Free Trade doctrines of Cobden and Peel, and a refutation of the assumption now underlying our foreign policy that England requires continual expansion of foreign trade. He cods later in a series of arguments, well worthy of study, to advocate the development of home markets, combined with internal social and industrial reforms, in substitution for that external expansion which he has shown to be unremu-!nerative.
As a matter of theory Mr. Hobson's; views are wonderfully convincing. Were the choice of national life a question to be controlled by Parliament and essayists, there could searcely be two opinions as to the superior advantage of "a peaceful democracy, engaged upon.the development of its national resources " as compared with "g militant Imperialism animated by the lust of quantitative growth." History, - however, is not the result of! the disclosures in the case of the theories but of stern facts, and, as we have stated above, the weak point in Mr: Hobson's armour lies in his aput inability to realise that the militant Imperialism " of our foreign policy is not in reality based upon the necessities of our commerce but upon an ineradicable instinct of the race; the same instinct which sent Cesar's legions to the ends of the earth, which has to-day led the "peaceful democracy" of the United States to Cuba and the Philippines. It is this instinct, the racial craving for supremacy and pride of place, the silent working of that endless struggle in which the fittest only survive, that calls our ever-growing armaments into being: our commerce is but a by-product and a fitting excuse for further journeyings afiel Mr. Hobson's policy is that of the dismemberment" party of the sixties; the policy of the Little Englanders of to-day; in theory, possibly faultless; in practice, impossible so long as the temper and genius of the In ace remain wi they are. And, viewing the matter in another light, may it not be that, when the instinct of " militant Imperialism" shall have left us, it will be only because the destinies of the race, including its commerce, will have reached their time-appointed end?
But we may at least learn from Mr. Hobson to lay less stress upon our commercial necessities in matters of foreign policy and'more upon the exigencies of our Imperial interests. The Empire upon which the sun never sets should have the courage of its convictions and of its destiny.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.