Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T18:30:24.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IV. The British Government and Imperial Economic Unity, 1890–1895

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Luke Trainor
Luke Trainor
Affiliation:
The University College of TownsvilleQueensland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When Joseph Chamberlain launched his striking tariff reform campaign in 1903 he was contributing to a very old debate. At the centre of the discussion had usually been the triangular relationship between free trade, protection and imperial unity. Were preferential tariffs compatible with British free trade? Was imperial preference necessary to maintain imperial unity? Could an empire divided against itself on tariff questions stand? Questions of that type became increasingly pertinent in the last decades of the nineteenth century. Entry for British exports into continental markets had become more difficult in the 'eighties, not only because of the tariff barriers which were more prominent but also because Britain found herself with few bargaining counters in the European tariff negotiations. The Anglo-French commercial treaty of 1860 had provided that neither party would, in its own country, subject the produce of the other party to higher duties than similar produce from other countries. This Most-Favoured-Nation clause had been the basis of a series of commercial treaties linking the European nations. The new network which arose in the ’eighties, covering Europe and the Americas, was negotiated largely without British intervention and the classification and rates were not designed to favour Britain. Britain sometimes even had difficulty in securing renewal of her M.F.N. agreements.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 1970 , pp. 68 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Belgian Treaty, article xv: ‘Articles, the produce or manufactures of Belgium, shall not be subject in the British colonies to other or higher duties than those which are or may be imposed upon similar articles of British origin.’ Zollverein Treaty, article VII: ‘The stipulations of the preceding articles I to VI (i.e. the whole treaty) shall also be applied to the Colonies and Foreign possessions of Her Brittanic Majesty. In those Colonies and Possessions the produce of the States of the Zollverein shall not be subject to any other or higher import duties than the produce of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or of any other country of like kind; nor shall the exportation from these colonies to the Zollverein be subject to any other or higher duties than the exportation to the United Kingdom and Ireland.’ (Parl. Pap. (1888), XCVIII, C.5369.)

2 An exception was made where a colony was contiguous to a foreign nation, such as Canada and the United States or the Cape and the Orange Free State. In these cases preferential trade might be established.

3 36 Viet., ch. 22, S. 3.

4 B. H. Brown, The Tariff Reform Movement in Great Britain 1881–1895, esp. chaps. III, IV.

5 Parl. Pap. (1887), LVI, 473.

6 See, for example, The Times, 15 Jan. 1891; Nineteenth Century, XXVIII (1890), 901–13,Google Scholar and XXIX (1891), 507–22.

7 Hansard, 3rd ser., vol. 350, col. 935.

8 P R.O. CAB 37/29–7, Commercial Union between the United Kingdom and the Colonies.

9 9 CO. 323/391, London Chamber of Commerce to C.O., 25 Oct. 1892, minute by Meade.

10 CAB 37/29–1, The Colonies and the Most Favoured Nation Clause. See also the same paper and minutes F.O. 83/1153.

11 C.O. 323/384, Board of Trade to C.O., 4 Mar. 1891, minutes.

12 Hansard, Parl. Debates, 4th ser., I, cols. 95–116; F.O. 83/1184, United Empire Trade League to F.O., 22 Jan. 1892. See also resolutions from Wolverhampton (18 Feb.), Nottingham (5 Feb.) and Manchester (3 Feb ).

13 The Economist, L (1892), 658–9, 700.Google Scholar

14 Imperial Federation, VII (1892), 183–7.Google Scholar

15 F.O. 83/1153, Second Report of the Trades and Treaties Committee, enclosed in Board of Trade to F.O., 4 Mar. 1891.

16 Munro (Premier) to Berry (Agent-General), 22 Jan. 1891, Victoria Votes and Proceedings, 1891, I, 953; Churchward, L.G., ‘Australian-American Trade Relations 1791–1939’, Economic Record, XXVI (1950), 75–6.Google Scholar For the general policy in these years see Parl. Pap. (1887), LVI, 479; Canadian Sessional Papers (1894), XXVII, 4, 64; C.O. 309/143, Brassey to C.O., II Apr. 1896, enclosure.

17 C.O. 42/811, Aberdeen to C.O., 8 Feb. 1894, enclosure.

18 F.O. to C.O., 3 July 1894, (draft) minute by Bergne.

19 F.O. 83/1304, C.O. to F.O., 22 Mar. 1894.

20 C.O. 885/6–97, Board of Trade to C.O., 31 Mar. 1894. P.O. 83/1304, C.O. to F.O., 22 Mar. 1894.

21 Anon., ‘Colonial Tariffs and Trade Treaties’, Blackviood's Magazine, CLIII (1893), 793.Google Scholar

22 R.B. Stewart, Treaty Relations of the British Commonwealth of Nations, p. 60. For the treaty, see Parl. Pap. 1896, XCV, C 7928.

23 F.O. 800/4, memorandum by C M. Kennedy, 6 Feb. 1893.

24 B.M. Add. MSS 43556, Meade to Ripon, 25 Mar. 1893.

25 F.O. 72/1972, Sir H. Drummond Wolff to F.O, most confidential, 5 June 1894.

26 Ibid., minute.

27 C.O. 42/827, F.O. to C.O., 15 June 1894.

28 C.O. 42/827, F.O. to C.O., 28 June 1894, minute by Bramston.

29 Canadian Sessional Papers (1894), XXVII, 4, 64.

30 C.O. 42/828, Jersey to Ripon, 21 Aug. 1894.

31 C.O. 885/6, miscellaneous, no. 100.

32 Meade Papers (by courtesy of Mr Charles and Lady Aileen Meade), Commonplace Book 1895–7, entry for 6 May 1895; Hansard Parl. Debates, 4th ser., XXXI, cols. 646–7, 699, 968. The Conservative opposition derived from the fear that preferential arrangements would now be made by the Australian colonies with foreign powers, as well as with other colonies. That had been expressly prohibited by the 1873 Customs Duties Act. Now the Australian colonies were to be in the same position as the other colonies with the two treaties as the only impediment to such arrangements.

33 F.O. 83/1306, Law Officers to F.O., 20 July 1894, minutes. These particular minutes were excluded from the Confidential Print (F.O. 412/57).

34 F.O. 83/1369, C.O. to F.O., 7 Feb. 1895, minute by Grey. Grey's figure for the 1894 total British exports by value to Germany (£30 million) and Belgium (£12½ million) was misleading in that it included a considerable element of colonial re-exports.

35 C.O. 42/832, Board of Trade to C.O., 30 Apr. 1895. Bryce's attitude may have been affected by Sydney Buxton, the influential Parliamentary Under-secretary at the Colonial Office, C.O. 42/833, F.O. to C.O., 21 Feb. 1895, minute, and C.O. 323/391, London Chamber of Commerce to C.O., 25 Oct. 1892, minute.

36 F.O. 83/1370, Board of Trade to F.O., 3 May 1895, minute by Bergne.

37 C.O. 885/6, miscellaneous no. 100; C.O. 42/828, Jersey to Ripon, 21 Aug. 1894.

38 F.O. 72/1973, Board of Trade to F.O., conf. 14 Aug. 1894, enclosure.

39 Ibid., minute.

40 Ibid., minute.

41 Ibid.

42 C.O. 42/827, F.O. to C.O., s Nov. 1894, minute by Anderson.

43 Ibid.

44 B.M. Add. MSS 43527, Kimberley to Ripon, private, 18 Jan. 1895.

45 F.O. 83/1369, C.O. to F.O., 15 Jan. 1895; B.M. Add. MSS 43527, Ripon to Kimberley, copy, 23 Jan. 1895.

46 F.O. 83/1370, C.O. to F.O., 12 June 1895. Enclosure, annotation by Kimberley.

47 Parl. Pap. (1895), LXX, C.7824.

48 Parl. Pap. (1895), LXX, C.7824.

49 Buxton MSS, Ripon to Buxton, 8 Aug. 1896 (by courtesy of Mrs E. Clay).

50 Meade MSS, Commonplace Book (1895–7), 26 June 1895.

51 C.O. 323/408, F.O. to C.O., 19 Feb. 1896, minute by Chamberlain.

52 This is discussed in Wyman, K., ‘Canada, Britain and the Denunciation of the Belgian and German Treaties’ (Paper presented at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, London, 1965).Google Scholar

53 Keith, Selected Speeches and Documents on British Colonial Policy, 1763–1917, pp. 51–83.

54 F.O. 800/4, memorandum by Kennedy, 20 Dec. 1892.

55 F.O. 83/1306; memorandum by Bergne concerning draft, 3 July 1894; Canadian Sessional Papers (1894), XXVII, 4, 210, 216–17, 224.

56 Canadian Sessional Papers, loc. cit.; C.O. 42/827, F.O. to C.O., 10 Oct. and 5 Nov., 1894, minutes by Anderson; F.O. 412/57, C.O. to F.O., 16 Mar. and 13 June 1895.

57 Coppock, D.J., ‘British Industrial Growth during the “Great Depression”: A Pessimist's View’, Economic History Review, XVIII,no. 2 (1964), 389–96;Google Scholar W. Ashworth, An Economic History of England, 1870–1939, pp. 139, 147; S. B. Saul, Studies in British Overseas Trade, 1870–1914, p. 107.

58 F.O. 83/1369, C.O. to F.O., 15 Jan. 1895; C.O. 42/827, F.O. to C.O., 5 Nov. 1894, conf. minute by Ripon. Since the substance of this article was written, in 1966, as part of a London Ph.D. Thesis, Professor R. A. Shields has published two significant contributions to the subject in the Canadian Historical Review: ‘Imperial Policy and the Ripon Circular of 1895’, XLVII (1966), 119–135,Google Scholar and ‘Sir Charles Tupper and the Franco-Canadian Treaty of 1895: A Study of Imperial Relations’, XLIX (1968), 1–23.Google Scholar