FOOTNOTES:

“be defensible when imposed temporarily ... in hopes of naturalizing a foreign industry.”[17]

And Cossa allows that—

“At certain times, and under certain conditions, protection has given notable advantages to industrial organization and progress.... Colbert’s system and Cromwell’s Navigation Act, contributed not a little to the economic greatness of France and England.”[18]

There seems to be but little doubt that the political economist of the future will hold up England as an awful warning, but an instructive example, of a country ruined by the persistent misapplication of the principles of political economy.

Alexr. Hamilton, the greatest statesman America ever produced, says:—

Though it were true that the immediate and certain effect of regulations controlling the competition of foreign and domestic fabrics was an increase of price, it is universally true that the contrary is the ultimate effect with every successful manufacture.When a domestic manufacture has been brought to perfection and has engaged in the prosecution of it a competent number of persons it invariably becomes cheaper. * * * The internal competition which takes place soon does away with anything like monopoly, and by degrees reduces the price of the article to the minimum of reasonable profit on the capital. (Treasury Report Dec. 1791.)—Fortnightly Review, 1873.

It is not merely your misapplication of the principles of political economy to which I object; I also object to the over-bearing way in which you thrust down the throat of your opponent the opinions of your favourite political economists, as if they were infallible and settled the question beyond all possibility of further argument. This is especially the case when you quote Mill. Now Mill is no doubt an eminently able and powerful writer; but he is deplorably subject to mistakes. He constantly contradicts himself, and is contradicted by political economists equally able and more reliable than himself. For example, Professor Bonamy Price[19]accuses Mill of introducingutter confusioninto the topic of Wages.

Cossa speaks of Mill’s “ardent concessions to socialism more apparent than real;” of his “narrow philosophic utilitarianism.”

Also, speaking of Thornton, Cossa says:[20]—

“His book on labour is an excellent one; it made a great impression on Mill, and caused him toabandon his theory of wages fund; which has also been opposed by Lange, by the American Economist Walker, and by Bretano.”

Many of the inaccuracies of Mill have been exposed by Professor Cairnes.[21]

Mr. Cook says:—

“Mill, however, is said to haveabandoned the seesaw theoryin his latest and yet unpublished essays.”[22]

Macleod also, in writing on the question of rent says:—

“This does not exhaust theabsurdityof the Ricardo-Mill theory of rent ... but in factMill himself has completely overthrownthis theory of rent.”[23]

Anyone who has carefully studied the writings of Mill cannot fail to be struck with the manner in which he allows that which Herbert Spencer terms “Political Bias,” and which Cossa terms Mill’s “narrow philosophic utilitarianism,” to affect his opinion, and warp his better judgment; and when this is the case, he is guilty of absurdities, inconsistencies, and illogical reasoning that would disgrace a school-boy.[24]

FOOTNOTES:[14]I venture to maintain that political economy is not a body of natural laws in the true sense, or of universal and immutable truths, but an assemblage of speculations and doctrines which are the result of a particular history coloured even by the history and character of the chief writers.—T. Cliffe Leslie,Fortnightly Review, Oct. 1870.[15]Guida Allo Studio dell’Economio Politico.—L. Cossa.[16]Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy, J. S. Mill, p. 156.[17]Mill’s Political Economy, Bk. V. Chap. X.[18]Cossa’s Political Economy, Bk. II. Chap. III.[19]Practical Political Economy, by Profr. Bonamy Price.[20]Cossa’s Political Economy, Bk. II. Chap. III.[21]Some Leading Principles of Political Economy newly expounded by Professor Cairnes. 1874.[22]Labour. Joseph Cook, p. 179.[23]Macleod’s Economics, p. 116.[24]An illustration of this is given inChap. XV.

[14]I venture to maintain that political economy is not a body of natural laws in the true sense, or of universal and immutable truths, but an assemblage of speculations and doctrines which are the result of a particular history coloured even by the history and character of the chief writers.—T. Cliffe Leslie,Fortnightly Review, Oct. 1870.

[15]Guida Allo Studio dell’Economio Politico.—L. Cossa.

[16]Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy, J. S. Mill, p. 156.

[17]Mill’s Political Economy, Bk. V. Chap. X.

[18]Cossa’s Political Economy, Bk. II. Chap. III.

[19]Practical Political Economy, by Profr. Bonamy Price.

[20]Cossa’s Political Economy, Bk. II. Chap. III.

[21]Some Leading Principles of Political Economy newly expounded by Professor Cairnes. 1874.

[22]Labour. Joseph Cook, p. 179.

[23]Macleod’s Economics, p. 116.

[24]An illustration of this is given inChap. XV.

You are very fond, my Friend, of talking about political economy. Suppose, for a change, we discuss a certain political extravagance, of which you are guilty.

“Look!” you say, “at the visible signs of prosperity caused by free trade, our annual imports are in excess of our exports by £100,000,000. This represents the annual accumulation of our national wealth.”

Now, my friend, I want you to try and take a common-sense view of things:—

Mill says, that “savingenriches, and spending impoverishes,the community along with the individual.”[25]Now let us apply England’s action in this respect to the assumed case of an individual. Suppose a farmer should allow his land to go out of cultivation and purchase farm produce, for his own consumption, from the open market; suppose at the same time he has a limited supply of iron ore on his estate, which he sells at a rate that does not quite cover the cost of its production; would you argue that the more food such a one purchased and consumed, and the more iron ore he sold, the greater was his prosperity; and especially so because heconsumedmore than hesold?

In my ignorance of political economy I should have said that such a man was on the highroad to bankruptcy. Now this is precisely what England is doing.

She is allowing her land to go out of cultivation. She is purchasing from foreign countries food which she might produce herself, and which, when consumed, leaves nothing to show for the expenditure. Her manufacturing industries are losing concerns; her shipping is carrying at nominal rates; her iron industry has been losing at the rate of £40,000,000 a year; and she is parting with herlimited capitalof iron at a loss. The excess of Imports over Exports does not represent wealth capable of accumulation, but consists of consumable articles of food.

The annual imports of the principal staples of food in 1881 were:—

Capable of being produced in England.{Corn and flourLive animalsMeat£ 60,856,768[26]8,525,256[27]35,760,286[27]—————£ 105,142,310==========Capable of being produced in England’s dependencies{TeaSugar£ 11,208,601[28]24,288,797[28]—————Total£ 140,639,708==========

Besides these, there are butter, cheese, eggs, coffee, cocoa, and other articles of food, which must probably amount to something between 20 and 30 millions sterling. So that the excess of £100,000,000 sterling isentirely due to consumable food, much of which might be produced in England. If this be not political extravagance, I am at a loss for a definition of Extravagance. My friend, it appears to me that you are burning the candle at both ends.

Mr. Leffingwell, an intelligent American, writes:[29]—

“Should the day ever arrive when most of her mills are silent, her ‘Black country’ again green, her furnaces cold, her shops filled with foreign wares, and her food brought from distant lands, it will add little to her welfare that all other nations find a market on her shores for the products of their factories and fields.”

Let us now hear what America has to say about free trade:—

“If, during the last fifty years, America had permitted a system of unrestricted trade with all the world, she would never have reached that development of her manufactures which has rendered her independent, but would to-day be little more than a huge agricultural colony exchanging the produce of her fields for the manufactures and fabrics of Europe.“Under a system of protection America has been able to develop her boundless mineral resources, to encourage the growth of her manufacturing industries, until to-day she is not only independent and able to supply her own needs, but she exports to foreign nations, and has begun to compete with England for the trade of the world.”

“Under a system of protection America has been able to develop her boundless mineral resources, to encourage the growth of her manufacturing industries, until to-day she is not only independent and able to supply her own needs, but she exports to foreign nations, and has begun to compete with England for the trade of the world.”

A few quotations from the utterances of our own countrymenmay serve to show what Protection has done for America:—

“The edge tool trade is well sustained, and we have less of the effects of American competition. That this competition is severe, however, is a fact that cannot be ignored, and it applies to many other branches than that of edge tools. Every Canadian season affords unmistakable evidence that some additional article in English Hardware is being supplanted by the produce of the Northern States; and it is notorious how largely American wares are rivalling those of the mother country in others of our colonial possessions as well as on the continent. The ascendency of the protectionist party in the States continues to operate most favourably for the manufacturing interests there, and it is no wonder that under such benignant auspices the enterprise in this direction is swelling to colossal proportions. The whole subject is one demanding the serious attention of our manufacturers.” (Rylands’ Trade Circular, Birmingham, March 4th, 1871.)“A leading manufacturer expressed himself startled and alarmed at what he saw (at the Paris Exhibition) as the proofs of successful rivalry on the part of the Americans in branches of his own trade.” (Lectures at the Colonial Institution, November, 1878.)“Unless our manufacturers bestir themselves, the Americans will completely command the markets of Europe.” (Col. Wrottesby’s Letter to theTimes, July 6, 1869.)“Manufactories have beencreated and fostered by a system of protection, which, through enhanced prices paid by consumers, must have been very costly to the nation, but of the result of which they have reason to be proud, since it has made them to so great an extent independent of other nations for their supply.” (Report of Philadelphia Exhibition, Mr. P. Graham, Vice-President of the Society of Arts.)“The worsted manufacture of the United States is comparatively of recent origin, but it has made very rapid progress during the past ten or twelve years, thehigh tariff having greatly stimulated its development.” (Report of Philadelphia Exhibition. Mr. H. Mitchel, Member of Bradford Chamber of Commerce.)“America is not only supplying her own country with goods, but exporting her manufactures to such an extent that she has become a powerful rival to England.” (Mr. Mundella, Nov. 21, 1874.)“There is no time to be lost if we mean to hold our own in the hardware trade.” (J. Anderson’s Report on Philadelphia Exhibition.)“For years Sheffield has supplied not only our own country, but nearly the whole world. The monopoly remains with us no longer. It would be foolish not to recognize the fact that at Philadelphia Great Britain was in the face of a powerful rival in manufactures.” (Report on Philadelphia Exhibition—D. McHardy.)Some idea of the increase of American manufacture may be found in the example of two items—Paper and Carpets.

“A leading manufacturer expressed himself startled and alarmed at what he saw (at the Paris Exhibition) as the proofs of successful rivalry on the part of the Americans in branches of his own trade.” (Lectures at the Colonial Institution, November, 1878.)

“Unless our manufacturers bestir themselves, the Americans will completely command the markets of Europe.” (Col. Wrottesby’s Letter to theTimes, July 6, 1869.)

“Manufactories have beencreated and fostered by a system of protection, which, through enhanced prices paid by consumers, must have been very costly to the nation, but of the result of which they have reason to be proud, since it has made them to so great an extent independent of other nations for their supply.” (Report of Philadelphia Exhibition, Mr. P. Graham, Vice-President of the Society of Arts.)

“The worsted manufacture of the United States is comparatively of recent origin, but it has made very rapid progress during the past ten or twelve years, thehigh tariff having greatly stimulated its development.” (Report of Philadelphia Exhibition. Mr. H. Mitchel, Member of Bradford Chamber of Commerce.)

“America is not only supplying her own country with goods, but exporting her manufactures to such an extent that she has become a powerful rival to England.” (Mr. Mundella, Nov. 21, 1874.)

“There is no time to be lost if we mean to hold our own in the hardware trade.” (J. Anderson’s Report on Philadelphia Exhibition.)

“For years Sheffield has supplied not only our own country, but nearly the whole world. The monopoly remains with us no longer. It would be foolish not to recognize the fact that at Philadelphia Great Britain was in the face of a powerful rival in manufactures.” (Report on Philadelphia Exhibition—D. McHardy.)

Some idea of the increase of American manufacture may be found in the example of two items—Paper and Carpets.

Value of paper imported into the United States—In1870=£145,0001876=4,000Value of exports of paper—1869=7501876=162,000Tapestry carpet imported into the United States—1872=2,754,000yards.1879=23,900”

FOOTNOTES:[25]‘Political Economy,’ by Mill, Bk. I. Chap. V.[26]‘Statesman’s Yearbook,’ 1883, p. 257.[27]‘Whitaker’s Almanack,’ 1883, p. 254.[28]‘Statesman’s Yearbook,’ 1883. p. 257.[29]Albert Leffingwell.

[25]‘Political Economy,’ by Mill, Bk. I. Chap. V.

[26]‘Statesman’s Yearbook,’ 1883, p. 257.

[27]‘Whitaker’s Almanack,’ 1883, p. 254.

[28]‘Statesman’s Yearbook,’ 1883. p. 257.

[29]Albert Leffingwell.

The truth of a religion may perhaps be gauged by the fulfilment of the utterances of its prophets. Let us analyze some of these.

Prophecy.Fulfilment.Even thefreeimportation of foreign corn could very little affect the interest of the farmers of Great Britain.... If there were no bounty, less corn would be exported, so it is probable that, one year with another,less corn would be imported than at present.... The average quantity imported one year with another amounts only to 23,728 quarters. (Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith, Bk. IV, Chap. II.)Total importations of wheat in 1881 = 17,000,000 quarters as against 23,728 prophesied by Adam Smith.The Americans are a very cautious, far-seeing people, and every one who knows them knows that they would never have tolerated their protective tariff if we had met their advances by receiving their agricultural products in exchange for our manufacturing products. (Cobden, 1842.)After receiving the agricultural products of America for thirty-eight years, we find the Americans are as strong protectionists as ever, and the presidential message, 4th December 1883, recommends that America should retaliate on all countries taxing American produce.I speak my unfeigned convictions when I say I believe there is no interest in the country that would receive so much benefit from the repeal of the Corn Laws as the Farm-tenant interest in this country. (Cobden, 1844.)After thirty-eight years of free trade Prophet Bright admits that the agricultural classes, owners and occupiers of land have lost more than £150,000,000. Numerous farm-tenants have emigrated to protectionist America.I believe when the future historian comes to write the history of agriculture, he will have to state:—In such a year there was a stringent Corn law passed for the protection of agriculture. From that time agriculture slumbered in England, and it was not until, by the aid of the Anti-Corn-Law- League, the Corn Law was utterly abolished, that agriculture sprung up into the full vigour of existence in England, to become what it is now, like the manufactures, unrivalled in the world. (Cobden, 1844.) to protectionist countries; landowners had sold their land at ruinous prices, and invested the residue in America. Never was ruin more complete.”The true historian will have to record:—“After the introduction of free trade, although the general advance of wealth due to improvements in science, steam and electricity gave to England, from time to time, the appearance of agricultural prosperity, yet agriculture gradually decayed; and in 1884 millions of acres had gone out of tillage; land had become foul and was badly farmed; hundreds of farms were absolutely untenanted; farmers had emigratedYou have no more right to doubt that the sun will rise in the heavens, than to doubt that, in ten years from the time when England inaugurates the glorious era of commercial freedom, every civilizedcountry will be free-trader to the backbone. (Cobden, 1844.)Not only is no other country free-trader, but even England is getting rather shaky in her adhesion. Mr. Forster, at Bradford, entreated his hearers not to “say anything that might induce foreigners tosuspect that our faith in free trade was shaken” Mr. Bright, in his letter to Mr. Lord, wrote; “To return to Protection, under the name of Reciprocity, is to confess to Protectionists abroad thatwe have been wrong andthey have been right.”I believe that if you abolish the Corn Laws and adopt free trade in its simplicity, there will not be a tariff in Europe that will not be changed in less than five years to follow your example. (Cobden, 1846.)After thirty-eight years not a single country in Europe has been foolish enough to follow our example. France has drawn back from her commercial treaty with us. Mr. Thiers, in his speech of January 18th, 1880, said: “In the first country in the world arrangements are made to protect the different branches of native industry.”Bastiat prophesied that France would adopt free trade in six years after England had adopted it.France has not adopted free trade, and is more strongly protectionist than ever.Bastiat prophesied that, without free trade, no country can prosper.Statistics given in the next chapter shows that the relative prosperity of protectionist countries is greater than that of England.Bastiat prophesied that because Belgium had rejected free trade her ruin was certain.Belgium is enjoying wonderful prosperity.

Professor Cairnes says:—

“The able men who led the agitation for the repeal of the Corn Laws promised much more than this. They told us that the Poor Laws were to follow the Corn Laws; that pauperism would disappear with the restrictions upon trade, and the workhouses ere long become obsolete institutions. I fear this part of the programme has scarcely been fulfilled; those ugly social features, those violent contrasts of poverty and wealth, that strike so unpleasantly the eye of every foreign observer in this country, are still painfully prominent.The signs of the extinction of pauperism are not very apparent.”[30]

Disraeli prophesied in 1852:—

“The time will come when the working classes in England will come to you on bended knees, and pray you to undo your present legislation.”

And it really seems as if the time was approaching for the fulfilment of his prophecy, for I read in a recent Paper:

“It is the intention of the leading men among the Cotton Operatives to move next session for a Royal Commission to enquire as to what extent, if any, we suffer from foreign competition, andwhat bearing free trade may have on the question.”

Sir Edward Sullivan also stated in a recent speech that:

“Already a number of Operatives, far more than is necessary to turn a general election, have, through their delegates, given in their adherence toFairtrade.”[31]

Fair trade is one step in the direction of protection.

FOOTNOTES:[30]Fortnightly Review, July, 1871.[31]The Mail, December 19th, 1883.

[30]Fortnightly Review, July, 1871.

[31]The Mail, December 19th, 1883.

Carlyle has said—“There are thirty millions of people in Great Britain,mostly fools.”

You remind me, my friend, of the Irishman who complained that he never served on a jury without finding himself associated with eleven of the most obstinate pig-headed men conceivable.

Are all other nations, except England, obstinate, and pig-headed? Is the shrewd American blind to his own interest?Are the phlegmatic Dutchman, the thrifty Belgian, the clever Frenchman, the philosophical German, simpletons and idiots, as Mr. Bright is pleased to call all those who do not implicitly accept the gospel of free trade.

Might not Carlyle’s pithy remark teach a little humility?

No country except England is free-trader. Free trade, at the present time, after a trial of thirty-eight years, is either an English, or a barbarous custom. All other civilized nations are obstinate protectionists; and the worst of it is, that they are growing more and more obstinate in their adherence to protection, as they find they are making greater relative advance in prosperity than England with its free trade. Even Mr. Gladstone himself admits that “America is passing us by in a canter.”

Is not Mr. Gladstone somewhat ashamed to admit that the country, in the government of which he has had so large a share during the present century, should be “passed in a canter” by a country so terribly handicapped by protection. Does not it suggest the idea that the country which he has governed may possibly have been misgoverned. “Passed by at a canter!!” What a damning admission of failure!

His excuse is, that America is a young country with abundant room for its surplus population; but this excuse, like the majority of his ingenious evasions, is utterly fictitious.

England, taken as a whole, with its colonies and dependencies, is two and half times as large as America.[32]She has every advantage that America possesses.[33]She had a good start, and if she had only been governed by statesmen ofcomprehensive grasp, she ought to have outstripped America in wealth and progress, quite as much as America has now outstripped us.

If England had but carefully protected the interests of its colonies and dependencies, studied their interests as identical with her own, she would now have been foremost in the race.

She drove America from the union with her by her selfish policy, and she is pursuing the same, or rather far more, suicidal policy now.

What is the use of the colonies? ourLiberal politiciansnow cry. What indeed? I echo; so long as free trade neutralizes all possible benefit to be obtained from them or by them; but, properly governed, they would have enabled us to do to America that which Mr. Gladstone admits America is doing to us—“passing us by at a canter.”

Unfortunately we are lagging in the race with other protectionist countries, as the following statement will show.

Free-traders compare our wealth and commerce with what it was before the introduction of free trade, and claim the increase as the result of free trade. If the claim were just, other nations ought to have stood still, or retrograded under protection; let us see if they have done so. The only fair comparison is to take the condition of each country at a given date; assuming its relative condition at that date as 100, and then comparing it with its advance at the present time.

Relative Advance of Nations.

Commerce generally—Years 18601880Free trade England100to180{France””205Germany””197Protectionist{Holland””216{Belgium””242America””201

Exports—18601882England100to177France””158Germany””200Belgium””274Holland””295America””197Railway Construction—18601882England100to176France””290Germany””322Belgium””318America””343Railway goods traffic—18601882England100to312France””409Germany””654Holland and Belgium””525Production of Coal—18601880England100to173France””237Germany””421Belgium””170America””467Production of Iron—18501882England100to377France””498Germany””789Belgium””377America””719Production of Copper—18501880England100to29France””212Germany””615America””750Consumption of Raw Cotton—Years 18601880England100to123France””158Germany””177America””234General Manufactures—18601880England100to139America””280

Woollen Manufacture—1860 18801881England100 to —122America100 to 331—

Number of holders of National Securities—18501880England “consols”100to83France “Rentes”100”547Legacy probate value—18601880England100to162France100”193Amount of Deposits in Savings Banks—18501882England100to267France””1912Germany””1950Belgium and Holland””405[34]

For many years England did not feel the evils of free trade. She had a good start in the race, with the commerce and markets of the world in her hands. She had been foremost in improvement of machinery, having secured her manufactures by a system of protection, and she was therefore the first to reap the profits of such improvements. It would naturally take years for other nations to overtake her, when she had so good a start; but the capital she recklessly employed in purchasing commodities which might have been produced at home, was expended in arming foreign nations for successful rivalry with us.

It was not until fifteen or twenty years ago, that this suicidal process was sufficiently advanced to tell upon our trade; but it is now pressing on us with alarming strides, and had not our industries been saved, by partial suspension of free trade, in the American and Franco-Prussian wars, we should now feel it still more severely. As it is, we have not seen the worst. Every day foreign industries areincreasing in magnitude and efficiency, and consequently must increase in cheapness of production. At present they have done little more than take up a share from the markets, which were formerly our own. Soon they will invade our own country in force. In the present cotton strike in Lancashire, the employers have given us a reason for the terrible depression of trade, that cloth manufactures from Belgium can now be supplied to the print-works in Lancashire at lower rates than the Lancashire manufactured cloth can be purchased.[35]

You may say the depression of trade is not confined to England, but exists in America. I admit it, but it is very different from that which exists in England. With America it is the reaction of a too rapid increase of new manufacture stimulated by successful enterprise; in the case of England it is the steady decline of old-established industries under crushing competition, of which we have not yet felt the worst.

FOOTNOTES:[32]Area of the United States = 3,602,300 sq. miles. Area of England and its dependencies = 8,982,200 sq. miles.[33]It may be argued that America is a more compact dominion, but steam and electricity annihilate space, and England’s immense superiority in area far more than outweighs the advantage of compactness.[34]It must be understood that, in all the statistics above given, “England” and “America” are intended to mean—the United Kingdom and the United States respectively.[35]The Mail, Dec. 19th, 1883.

[32]Area of the United States = 3,602,300 sq. miles. Area of England and its dependencies = 8,982,200 sq. miles.

[33]It may be argued that America is a more compact dominion, but steam and electricity annihilate space, and England’s immense superiority in area far more than outweighs the advantage of compactness.

[34]It must be understood that, in all the statistics above given, “England” and “America” are intended to mean—the United Kingdom and the United States respectively.

[35]The Mail, Dec. 19th, 1883.

How is it, that the men of the working class, who are nominally free-traders, are practically protectionists?

How is it, to use the words of Mr. Wise, an ardent apologist for free trade, that—

Back to Index Next