« VorigeDoorgaan »
It was, of course, manufacturing industries that Victoria especially fostered, and in the statistics relating thereto she ought to appear to special advantage ; but even here the comparative figures suggest that 'the game was not worth the candle.'
MANUFACTORIES AND WORKS—HANDS EMPLOYED
The year 1893 was the year when the collapse referred to culminated, and it will be seen that the effect on the manufactories was much more severe in Victoria than in New South Wales. It will also be observed that the Victorian figures represent cheaper labour than the New South Wales figures, since, on the average, they contain twice the percentage of females.
This table bears further evidence to the fact that the Victorian policy was a distinct failure.
The relative growth of public revenue may be referred to. Each State owns the railways within its borders, and the figures are all the more interesting because they include railway receipts.
1,521,952 1,692,597 3,093,444
Increase i 1866-1901.
These figures tell the same story, as do the others already reviewed. The set-back of the collapse in the nineties ' is visible in the 1901 returns for both States, but whilst the Victorian revenue shows a big drop on the decade, the New South Wales revenue shows a substantial advance.
The external trade--the commerce--of the two States compare as follows:
IMPORTS AND EXPORTS, AGGREGATE
The figures are not available for 1866. The average of the three years 1869–1871, and the average of the three years 1899–1901, give a fair comparison. It will be seen that whilst the commerce of Victoria did not increase anything like one-half, that of New South Wales increased about threefold.
In an inquiry of this nature there is no direction in which results should be more closely scanned than in regard to production : PRODUCTION-ALL INDUSTRIES 7
19,260,000 22,750,000 30,320,000 30,807,000 New South Wales 15,379,000 25,180,000 36,740,000 38,954,000
PRODUCTION, PER HEAD
S. d. 26 2 8 30 5 3
d. 26 9 3 32 3 5
$. d. 25 12 2 28 7 9
New South Wales The figures for 1866 are not available. It will be seen that between 1871 and 1891 the value of production increased by 11.4 millions in Victoria, and by 23:3 millions in New South Wales; and that at every period the value ' per head' was distinctly higher in the free trade State. It can, of course, be admitted that the per head' advantage is not so great as it looks, since it has been shown that the percentage of adult male workers in the whole population was greater in New South Wales than in Victoria. At the same time, it ought also to be pointed out that the value of production in Victoria was inflated by protective duties. True, the extra value was obtained, but it represented taxation, not production.
It is worth while noting what the different industries in the two States contributed to the totals of production already given.
? Coghlan's Australia and New Zealand, 1903, p. 911.
THE PRODUCTIVE INDUSTRIES IN 1901
7,472,000 17,867,000 5,468,000 30,807,000 New South Wales 10,082,000 22,285,000 6,587,000 38,954,000
It will be seen that Victoria owes her real prosperity to her natural and unprotected industries, and that in manufacturing, to promote the success of which every family in the State was specially taxed,
her achievement was, to say the least, disappointing.
The failure within the supposed charmed circle, the protected area, could not well have been more complete. What population did, we have seen; as regards capital, it is singular that much Victorian capital found better occupation outside than it could find inside that charmed circle. Gold, and other natural products, made many Victorians wealthy; and probably Victorians have invested more money in other parts of Australia than has been invested outside their own States by all other Australian capitalists. It is not the object of this article to create the impression that Victoria is a poor State, for that would be quite untrue. Natural opportunities have made Victoria a great and prosperous State ; but, none the less, in the history here unfolded is undeniable proof of the signal failure of the policy which Victoria followed for thirty-five long years.
It may well be asked : ‘If the policy signally failed in the one State of Victoria, why was it adopted by federated Australia in 1901 ?' It can only be said that the world's history and all political life are full of instances in which the lessons of experience have been disregarded. The State of New South Wales sent a big majority of free traders to the Federal Parliament, but the restrictionists of Australia were able to command a sufficient vote in the House of Representatives and the Senate to control the tariff.
The Senate, Commonwealth of Australia, Melbourne.
TRADITION VERSUS ENQUIRY IN IRISH
In the Quarterly Review of January last there appeared an article by Mr. Robert Dunlop, dealing in a trenchant manner with a book which I wrote lately, The Making of Ireland and Its Undoing. I regret to take part personally in a controversy where my own credit is brought into question, and I am only moved to do so by consideration of the grave issues which are involved as regards the study of Irish history.
The appearance of my book has raised two questions of a very different order—the important question of whether, with the advance of modern studies, need has arisen for an entire review of the whole materials for Irish history and of the old conclusions, and the less interesting problem of my own inadequacy and untrustworthiness. Mr. Dunlop, in some fifteen pages of discourse, has not so much as mentioned the first. He has treated the second at considerable length. We may here take them in order of importance.
The real difference between Mr. Dunlop and myself lies deeper than the question of my merits or demerits. It is the old conflict between tradition and enquiry. For the last 300 years students of medieval Irish history have peacefully trodden a narrow track, hemmed in by barriers on either hand. On one side they have been for the most part bounded by complete ignorance of the language of the country or its literature. On the other side they have raised the wall of tradition. Along this secluded lane writers have followed one another, in the safety of the orthodox faith. A history recited with complete unanimity takes on in course of time the character of the highest truth. There have been disputes on one or two points perhaps where theologians are concerned, as for example the story of St. Patrick ; but on the general current of Irish life there has been no serious discussion nor any development in opinion. The argument from universal assent has been sufficient. There is a similarity even of phrase. We prefer to think, writes Mr. Dunlop. 'We prefer to abide by the traditional view of the state of Ireland,' writes another critic from the same school. Agreement has been general, individual
speculation has not disturbed the peace, and all have joined their voices to swell the general creed. Under these favouring conditions historians of Ireland speak with a rare confidence and unanimity. * What are novelties after all ? ' cries the sagacious historian of M. Anatole France :'mere impertinences.'
It has happened to me to question the received doctrine. Universal assent of all men of all time is a very useful thing, and for some positive facts it may be decisive. But in Irish history it is used to enforce a series of negations—no human progress, no spiritual life, no patriotism, no development, no activity save murder, no movement but a constant falling to decay, and a doomed lapse into barbarism of every race that entered the charmed circle of the island. However universal the
. consent, the statements of the tradition are of so extraordinary a character, that one may fairly desire an inspection of the evidence. I have ventured to suggest that the time had come to study the sources anew; to see if
any had been omitted, or if in modern research any new testimony concerning Ireland had been brought to light; to give less weight to negative assertions than to positive facts; and to enquire what the whole cumulative argument might imply. Thus the fundamental problem has been raised. If Mr. Dunlop has not a word to say about it, it will nevertheless not disappear. The enquiry will need many scholars and a long time, but I am sure it will be completed, and that Irish history will then need to be rewritten. Meanwhile, as I claim no infallible authority, to fulminate against me does not get rid of the essential problem. The discrediting of a doubter of the orthodox faith is the simplest form of argument and the least laborious. The trouble is that when it is done the real question is no further advanced.
A heretic must take his risks. We have an example of their gravity in this article, in which Mr. Dunlop restores an old custom to controversy. We had almost come to suppose that it was the privilege of theologians to settle the respective platforms from which disputations should be carried on. The higher plane is reserved for the orthodox. The 'querulous' dissentient, on the other hand, is pronounced to be making mere incursions into what is for him a comparatively unknown region, his incapacity is obvious and his want of candour deplorable, and he has forfeited all claim to respect. This is all in the appropriate manner of those who hold an Irish history handed down by tradition.
The permitted belief about Ireland has been summed up dogmatically by Mr. Dunlop in the Dictionary of National Biography, the Cambridge Modern History, and elsewhere. Of the inhabitants of Ireland · two-thirds at least led a wild and half nomadic existence. Possessing no sense of national unity beyond the narrow limits of the several clans to which they belonged, acknowledging no law outside the customs of their tribe, subsisting almost entirely on the produce of