FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198  
199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   >>   >|  
that raw jute to the value of L13,000,000 is exported annually from Bengal, of which only L3,000,000 worth is worked up in Great Britain, and that "a moderate duty" on this article would produce two millions a year. The prospect of obtaining a revenue of L2,000,000 in the manner proposed by Sir Roper Lethbridge appears at first sight somewhat illusory. In the first place, the tax would, on the basis of Sir Roper Lethbridge's figures, amount to 20 per cent, which can scarcely be called "moderate." In the second place, unless an equivalent export duty were imposed at British ports it would appear probable that the process of re-export for the benefit of "the lucky artisans of foreign protected nations" would not merely continue unchecked, but would even be encouraged, for those artisans would certainly not be supplied direct from India with the duty-laden raw material, but would draw their supplies from the jute sent to the ports of the United Kingdom, which would have paid no duty. Is it, moreover, quite certain that a duty such as that proposed by Sir Roper Lethbridge would be insufficient, as he alleges, "to bring in any competing fibres in the world"? These and other cognate points manifestly require further elucidation. The third argument adduced by Sir Roper Lethbridge is based on the allegation that India is in a specially favourable position to adopt a policy of retaliation. It is unnecessary to go into the general arguments for and against retaliatory duties. They have been exhausted in the very remarkable and frigidly impartial book written on this subject by Professor Dietzel. It will be sufficient to say that here Sir Roper Lethbridge is on stronger ground. The main argument against retaliation in the United Kingdom is that foreign nations, by stopping our supplies of raw material, could check our manufactures. We are, therefore, in a singularly unfavourable position for engaging in a tariff war. The case of India is wholly different. Foreign nations cannot, it is alleged, dispense with the raw material which India supplies. There is, therefore, a good _prima facie_ case for supposing that India has relatively little to fear from retaliation on their part. It would be impossible within the limits of the present article to deal fully with all the aspects of this vitally important question. Attention may, however, be drawn to the very weighty remarks of Sir Fleetwood Wilson when he speaks of "the great altera
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198  
199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Lethbridge

 

supplies

 

material

 

retaliation

 
nations
 

United

 

Kingdom

 
artisans
 

export

 
foreign

position

 
article
 

moderate

 

proposed

 
argument
 

arguments

 

unnecessary

 

stronger

 

ground

 

policy


sufficient

 

general

 

stopping

 
written
 

subject

 

favourable

 
impartial
 

remarkable

 

frigidly

 

Professor


duties

 

specially

 

exhausted

 

Dietzel

 
retaliatory
 

aspects

 
vitally
 

important

 

question

 
impossible

limits

 

present

 
Attention
 

speaks

 
altera
 

Wilson

 
Fleetwood
 
weighty
 

remarks

 
tariff