Page images
PDF
EPUB

is an Empire in itself, and manifestly destined to become the wealthiest and perhaps the most populous of the Imperial nations. If Cobden were alive to-day he would take the business man's opinion of the situation, and decide that freedom of trade within the Empire is a necessary condition of the ultimate realisation of his larger ideal. He was a keen and sympathetic student of American affairs, and the success of the Union as a business undertaking would not have escaped his notice, nor would he have ignored the German object-lesson. If it is profitable for California and Massachusetts to give one another a preference over foreign countries (despite the costs of transportation, which are equivalent to the effects of moderate tariffs), it must be profitable for Lancashire and Quebec to enter into a similar arrangement. These and other lessons from the economics of Empire have not been made known to the people of Western Canada, and their Party leaders-excepting Mr. W. S. Fielding and Mr. R. L. Bordenare not competent to teach them, having become wrapped up in the petty issues of a transition age which is chiefly concerned with the details of industrial development. There is no longer a voice in Great Britain that carries across the Atlantic-as Mr. Chamberlain's did. But we have sent over missionaries of Imperialism, Lord Milner and Colonel G. T. Denison and others, who have done good work. We can and should send more. The talk of interfering in Canadian politics need not frighten us from so doing. Wherever the issue of Cobdenism v. Chamberlainism is raised a decision of vital importance to the Empire must be rendered, and every Imperialist is directly concerned in the controversy. It is high time the Unionist Party told Canada what they are prepared to give and what to receive when they are again in power. All the talk about political etiquette must not prevent the whole Empire from intervening whenever and wherever Imperial questions are raised. No doubt there would be an outcry from the professional politicians. But Canadians would listen to the vox Imperii, and that is what matters, and only that.

E. B. OSBORN.

GREATER BRITAIN

AUSTRALIAN AFFAIRS

AUSTRALIA, July 13, 1910 A FAIR proportion of my last letter was taken up with an explanation of the meaning and objects of the progressive land-tax, as proposed by the Federal Government. To clinch the statement then made that it is "the fulfilment of a people's demand, not of a party's "—I quote a few sentences from the speech delivered by Mr. Deakin, as leader of the Opposition, in the still-continuing debate on the address:

For years past I have been amazed at the neglect of other Australian Governments, both prior to and since Federation, to impose fair and reasonable land taxation. With exceptions, they still remain blind to the opportunities afforded by this legitimate source of revenue, and to its other promises of development. Many times during the last nine or ten years have we called the attention of the Premiers to the fact, and, on one occasion in particular, I remember coming into conflict with State Ministers on the subject. In consequence of the hesitancy and delay of the State Governments in respect to land taxation, and of their imperfect use of their powers in this respect, the verdict of the last election was distinctly in favour of the Commonwealth's exercise of the powers in that regard which it has always possessed.

Add to that declaration the fact that throughout the debate Oppositionists seemed to have only one argument against the proposal-that the States were just going to impose such a tax, and Federal action would hinder them—and no further proof is needed of the widespread popularity of the tax. The allegation about the States, of course, has been made any time these ten years; it was successful in delaying Mr. Deakin's action-and therefore, probably, in ensuring Mr. Deakin's downfall-but the new Ministry is safe from such palpable traps.

The proposals are, as I have said before, purely a practical

[ocr errors]

remedy for a local ailment. But, should some such proposals find favour with British electors for any reason, there is a word of warning that may be spoken from Australian experience. If you get an " unimproved value" tax levied on your suburban lands, take care that a building law accompanies it. For many years Sydney was blocked in with green paddocks; close at hand the older suburbs crowded their dingy cottages up against the city's bounds, while just beyond, perhaps not five miles from the city's centre, spread the unused fields of estates that dated back to the founding of the Colony. Then the first "unimproved value tax, and Sydney's growing prosperity, induced some landowners to split up their estates at a not unreasonable valuation; the outer suburbs, especially those across the harbour, became patches of settlement-red-roofed cottages, each in its island of gardeninterspersed with areas held by the speculator awaiting higher prices. The tax did not touch him sharply; the Government valuer was inclined to let every one off lightly, and in any case there was an exemption of £240, insignificant in comparison with the values of really big estates, but making things much easier for the suburbanite, whether owner or speculator. But a year or two ago a new local government law practically abolished the State tax, and insisted that municipal rates should be levied primarily on unimproved values. There was no exemption; local valuers, under the eye of mayors who knew their districts well, saw to it that every patch of land was valued to its full; and the results have been somewhat startling. The speculator, of course, is becoming uncomfortable, and his land is for sale on very easy terms; that is in many cases a good thing. But the small owner is worried too. He finds his garden as expensive as his house. He sees that, if he were to give up his side-strip of land for another house, he would be saved half his rates, and might make good profits as well. And in many cases he acts on his discovery, does away with the grass-plot that used to keep his neighbour's kitchen a few yards from his back fence, packs another neighbour into it, and-turns his children into the street to play. All over the northern shores of Port Jackson lawn-tennis courts are being built on, houses are packed together chock-a-block, the broad green slopes of ten years ago are broad red masses of roofs covering hundreds of six-roomed cottages, each fitting tightly into its

[ocr errors]

twenty-foot frontage. Even the bigger residences, two-and threestorey houses with ballrooms and garages attached, sit “familiar along the ridges, with pocket-handkerchief lawns in front, backyards barely big enough for the family washing, and two-foot alleyways between house and side-fence.

That is what unimproved value taxation can do in a country where children ought to be nearly always out of doors, as long as no building law prohibits the overbuilding of small frontages. Britain may do well to profit by Australian mistakes.

Immigration—in the abstract-is more than ever the subject of the day. Every one you meet is an immigrationist; and every one objects to every one else's methods or desires. This man want boys, this man adult farming experts, this Britishers, this any sort that will come; and each advocate is more concerned to exclude the other men's protégés than to make his own scheme really effective. The press, being mainly Oppositionist, uses the immigration cry to embarrass the Ministry; indeed, the very papers which not long ago used to denounce Mr. Deakin's entreaties as impudent interference with the States, are now foremost in demanding that the new Federal Ministry shall encourage immigration on a large scale or stand convicted of treachery to Australia. This volte-face, of course, is a consequence of the belief that Labour is in principle anti-immigrationist, and can therefore be safely challenged to promote immigration. The trouble is-one of the troubles, at any rate-that this belief is not wholly unfounded. The less educated townsfolk who control the State Labour parties in most States, lean regrettably to the policy of restricting the labour market in order to raise wages. They take pattern, when you come to think of it, by the half-educated business folk of those same towns, who think the only way to enlarge State commerce is to restrict it to a single port. Both are, of course, wrong in the worst possible way; both are beginning to find that the countryfolk, whether employers or labourers, are tired of protest and have a mind to take matters into their own hands; but both are for the present in control of their political parties, and are to be feared for their aggressive stupidity. In New South Wales, for instance, the present (anti-Labour) Government's immigration policy was not long ago well described by the Melbourne Age as a desultory

[ocr errors]

and very questionable attempt to introduce a horde of penniless farm-labourers."* But there is little hope that a Labour Government's policy would be in any respect more enlightened. In the same way South Australia is in a dilemma between Labourites who object violently to immigrants without money, and antiLabourites who try to use immigration as a source of cheap labour (I am not classifying all South Australians, but specifying two varieties at present prominent).

In this matter, as in so many others, it is absolutely necessary for a clear understanding of Australian affairs to draw a strong line between State and Federal Labourites. Yet the line is not willingly drawn, especially by English observers who think they have studied Australia, because for so many years the anti-Labour party has misrepresented the effect of Federal immigration laws which Labour undoubtedly inspired. Even to this day, if we may trust the reports of recent European visitors, British immigrants are deterred by scares about the dictation test and the supposed exclusion of immigrants under contract. It will, no doubt, take the High Commissioner many years to obliterate the impression wilfully made by reactionary Agents-General. Here, then, follow the latest facts with regard to these bogies.

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

The dictation test is a device forced on the Commonwealth by the British Government, allegedly in the interests of Imperial good feeling. Australians want to exclude certain coloured immigrants; they are not allowed to do so by direct legislation;

* Age, April 26, 1910.

« PreviousContinue »