There are still some people who try to discourage colonial industries. Professor (Sir) W. Ashley is among these. To indicate his position, which surely carries weight with it, it is necessary to take a fairly long quotation from him. (1)..."If things go on as they are and the colonies drift further and further away economically from Great Britain, they will indubitably follow the example of the countries of Europe, and will seek to manufacture for themselves all that they require. ... The question is whether the colonies... will consent, in return for adequate reciprocal concessions from Great Britain, to abstain for a time from entering upon such branches of manufacture as they have not yet undertaken. In other words, will they consent to a certain slackening in their manufacturing development?" He then goes on to say that the colonies should not imitate the industrialism of England because the social result of England's industrialism has not been worthy of unlimited imitation, for example the thorny "labour question." "It is not physical misery that is the main evil: it is the constant accumulation of ever greater masses of urban population, with their stunted physique and their limited outlook. A policy of protected manufacturing development carried to the same extreme as by the United States will mean for Canada, Australia and South Africa a further rapid development of their large towns... It is surely no mere English notion, put forward to induce the colonies to assent to a policy for England's advantage, that the main interest of the new countries now lies in the distribution of the population over the land..." He then goes back to the long ago discarded policy of expecting the colonies to produce the raw materials for English manufacturers. "Such a wholesale trend to colonial development can evidently be encouraged by such a British preference as will give a better market to colonial agricultural produce. And while in this way the colonies give the mother country time to readjust its industrial activities to the new conditions of competition, the mother country will help the colonies to avoid the evils of over-hasty industrialism."

Alluring as all this looks on the surface, it appears somewhat disingenuous. Moreover, it is not practical at all. Professor Ashley's idea seems to be a cold business proposition. Why does he not care what the colonists do when England grants no preference to them? Why must they return to and remain with the soil when England starts giving preference? How does his argument apply to South Africa? South Africa had ample opportunity to study the industrial progress of

1. Ashley: The Tariff Problem, pp. 156-160.

other nations.

The South African climate, the labour legislation of other countries, the modern mechanical devices and other factors will contribute to make industrialism brighter in South Africa than it happened to be in the case of some of the great European pioneering countries. Then there are times when South Africa has to rely on herself, as was the case during the war. There were things which South Africa, as a civilized community, had to have, but could not get. It should always be remembered, moreover, that modern civilization and industrialism go hand in hand. A century might roll on before one might speak of over-industrialization in South Africa. Then, also, in South Africa the farm is usually divided into equal portions among the children, and industrialism becomes necessary sooner or later. People cannot all become doctors, lawyers, ministers and farmers. Industrialism will not come to the country through high protective duties: the country's geographical position warrants this assertion. Furthermore, a country's development cannot be outlined according to cut-anddried theories: when the occasion demands industrial development it will come. This is exactly where South Africa stands to-day, and it might be impossible for her to arrest her industrial development to help Great Britain to "readjust its industrial activities to the new conditions of competition."

It is hard to see what prevents South Africa from becoming a producer of cotton and woollen goods. The wool supply is large enough to outstrip the domestic demand by far. This will mean cheap raw materials. Upon the potentialities of South Africa as a grower of cotton I have already touched. Then there is intelligent labour. As regards the humidity required for carrying on the cotton-spinning industry, that need no longer be an obstacle under modern mechanical and engineering devices if such an obstacle exists in South Africa. (1). Moreover, South Africa will have to start by producing coarse articles at the start, and the fact that the country has such a large native population which buys very substantial amounts of such articles, will mean that there will be a ready market for such products from the start, and this will pave the way for the manufacture of the finer articles at a later date.

Similarly it will do no harm, but on the contrary a world of good, to encourage the iron-industry in South Africa, as the country is the most backward of the leading British possessions in this industry. Many attempts have been made to start iron-smelting in the country. A blast furnace was being

1. See Dobson:

Humidity in the Cotton-Spinning Industry.

erected at New Castle with a capacity of 120 tons per day. (1). Other successful attempts have been made at the beginning of 1918 at Pretoria and at Vereeniging. Both furnaces work satisfactorily, and the production is now being carried on on a commercial scale. As this industry is of such fundamental importance to the development of the country, it might expect some rigid encouragement.

Several questions come up here at once. For example, what is the quality of the iron-ore? How near are the irondeposits to fuel? Is the South African coal good coking coal? In reply it might be stated that iron-ore deposits appear all over South Africa and have been worked in earlier centuries by people the traces of whose work are still to be seen. (2). Many ores of very good quality occur in' the Union. (3). Coal is found all over the Transvaal and in Natal - - all in the neighbourhood of the iron-ore. It has also been satisfactorily proved that the local coke is quite suitable for the furnaces. (4). Coal is also found in the Cape Colony. In 1918 the coal production of the Union was over 10 million tons. (5). The price of coal at the mouth of the mine in the Transvaal is given at about 5s. per ton. The following table will give the comparative prices of coal in the different coal-producing countries of the world. (6) The figures are for the year 1912:

1. The South African Mining and Engineering Journal, February 21, 1920, p. 555. According to G. H. Blenkinsop, who is quoted by the South African Mining and Engineering Journal as an authority, pigiron can be produced in the Union of South Africa at a cost of 17s. 6d. per ton cheaper than in the United Kingdom and on the Continent of Europe. New York Times, Feb. 12, 1922.

--

In the Union the new industries which are being opened will greatly benefit by the cheap fuel. As water-power is: practically absent, it is not likely that the country can enjoy industrial prosperity if it does not possess an abundant supply of the cheapest coal in the world.

This is especially true of the iron-industry, and men like Mr. Swinburne, Chief Inspector of Mines, thinks that the possibilities of iron-smelting and of an iron-industry in the Union are great. (1).

Whether South Africa will live up to these hopes and expectations remains to be seen. The facts are there, and these are the obvious conclusions which can be drawn from them. Whether the country will develop a protectionistic or free trade policy is not certain either, but this is a matter for the future to decide. There are very powerful interests in South Africa which tend to favour free trade, for example, the mining industry. This is the reason why the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce favoured bounties instead of high protective duties for promoting South African industries. Some of the mines work on a small margin, and they must try to reduce expenses to the lowest possible minimum — and protection, as a rule, does not promote cheap living. Many industries are doing without protection and have reached the export stage. Wool, feathers, maize, hides, mohair, are exported in largequantities, and do not need protection. The wine industry, which is a very old infant industry, might be protected without much harm to anybody.

After

We have now seen that South Africa has passed through several distinct phases of protection. Up till the middle of the nineteenth century the South African market was protected for and by England. South Africa passed through a period of "external" protection, as it were. England had launched upon a policy of free trade, the Cape and Natal started developing their own tariff policies, and as time went on their tariffs became instruments for protecting their industries as well as a means of yielding revenue. With the opening of the twentieth century we find South Africa on the establishment of the general South African Customs Union returning to a policy of protecting the interests of England in her markets, while at the same time she embarked on a more serious policy of protecting her own industries. Whether this policy of protecting British interests

1. See O. Y. B. (3), 1910-1918, p. 586 Dutch Edition. See also the article by Mr. Stanley on "Iron and Steel in South Africa" in the "South African Journal of Industries, i, pp. 296-320, March 9, 1918.

in the markets of South Africa be good or bad, it is the opinion of the writer that much good will accrue to South Africa if the proper authorities help preserve and build up its national economy. Tariff-making should have as its primary object the promotion of the country's welfare, and we believe with Grunzel that "in the economic sense also the truth holds good that he most benefits the world who best serves his own people." (1).

1. J. Grunzel: Economic Protectionism, p. 351.