FOOTNOTES:

“In 1846, the working classes overthrew protectionism in England, and in 1878 the same classes,wherever they have obtained predominant influence, are carrying into practice the extreme theories of their old opponents?”

Mr. Syme also says:—

“In Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, the party of progress has always been identified with a restrictive commercial policy, while the conservatives are the most uncompromising of free traders. Indeed, it may be said, that one-half of the entire English-speaking race are, in one shape or another, in favour of a restrictionist policy, and of this half the great majority are advanced liberals.”[36]

Free trade was an assertion on the part of labourers as consumers; the protectionist policy of America and Australia is the attempt of the same class to obtain privileges as producers. The working men in those countries are possessed by the thorough belief that, by carrying out their policy,they benefit all. Free trade considered that the interests ofconsumerssuffered by protection; the Americans and Australians, with their eyes open, undergo these private inconveniences because they believe themass of the community is better off thereby. To use the words of an intelligent American:

“We all recognize that a protection tariff forces us to pay for many articles slightly more than they would probably cost us under a system of free trade. We know too that at first our manufactured products, whether of metal, cotton or coal, cost us in general more to make at home than they would have cost us if imported freely from abroad. We know that we are not buying in the cheapest market, but we believe, on the whole, it isbest to impose upon ourselves the voluntary tax[37]for the great ends, not of enriching Monopolists, but ofpromoting the best interest of the nation.”

The average American is neither a fool, nor a knave. To fanciful theories, whose value is problematical, he prefers the solid assurance of experience and fact.

The cause of this apparently inconsistent action on the part of the working classes is easily explained. Free trade was a political job,[38]and the working classes were enlisted, by politicians, into a crusade against their own interests, to assist in the overthrow of those classes which supported the political opponents of the Free-Trading rulers.

For this purpose the working classes were stirred up to class antagonism, and the Free-Traders have kept up the delusion by dishonestly claiming as the work of free trade every advantage which protectionist countries have shared in common with us.

History is repeating itself in the delusion against which poor old Æsop warned us centuries ago by his fable of the “Members and the Belly.”

The members (manufacturing hands) hounded on by Bright and Co. to class antagonism against the belly (the agricultural classes) who were represented as “squandering national wealth,” have now brought England to a pretty pass. The reaction is taking place. Poor old Æsop was, as a political economist, more far-seeing than Mr. Bright; who now, however, seems to be changing his views in the most marvellous manner, for he has at last recognised that the manufacturing interests are affected by the agricultural depression. For he says:—

“Home trade is bad, mainly, or entirely, because harvests have been bad for several years. The remedy will come with more sunshine and better yield of land,without this it cannot come.[39]“I believe the agricultural owners and occupiers of land havelost more than £150,000,000 sterling through the great deficiency of harvest.”

“Home trade is bad, mainly, or entirely, because harvests have been bad for several years. The remedy will come with more sunshine and better yield of land,without this it cannot come.[39]

“I believe the agricultural owners and occupiers of land havelost more than £150,000,000 sterling through the great deficiency of harvest.”

Bravo, Friend Bright! you are approaching the truth. Without improvement in agricultural prosperity “theremedy for bad tradecannot come.”

But England is not celebrated for sunshine, thesunshine we require is that of protection.

Taking the nine years ending 1881, I find that, in only one year, the rainfall of the United Kingdom has been largely (7¼ inches) above the average of the last seventeen years. In five out of the nine, the rainfall has been a little below the average; in one year, ¼ of an inch above, and in another year, not quite 2 inches above, the average.

There is no doubt that the average produce of farming in England has, of late years, been below the average of former years; but theMark Lane Expressreturns show that, in all these years, there has been a considerable percentage of cases in which the crops have been equal to or over the average. From this we may assume that the sun is not wholly to blame, but that want of sufficient capital to farm properly and to recover the results of bad years has been a very important factor in the deficiency of crops. This may be gleaned from the replies to the questions circulated by Mr. Bear as to the condition of the farmers in 1878.

Bedfordshire:—“Farmers are losing heart, and the land is in a much worse state than formerly.... There has been a serious inroad upon capital account during the last few years, and the land has seriously gone back in cultivation.... The condition of the land has sunk.”Cumberland:—“The last season has been a good one; but the present prices are not satisfactory, and the general depression in trade is now having its influence on farming.”Essex:—“Farmers suffering from low prices, general depression of trade, the rise in wages.... The work all round is carried on languidly, and year by year the condition of the land is becoming poorer.... A large quantity of the kind very badly farmed.”Kent:—“More weeds grown last year than I ever saw before.”Monmouthshire:—“Land going out of cultivation, stock reduced in quantity, only necessary work done.”Northamptonshire:—“The results of the two last seasons will not supply means for substantial improvements.”Northumberland:—“An immense deal of land producing nothing, I may say, simply out of cultivation.”Oxfordshire:—“The land is very foul and poor, partly from the continuous rains and the shortness of stock.”Shropshire:—“Very few farmers, if any, paying their way.... Hand-to-mouth farming.”Sussex:—“The land generally is not so clean or so well-cultivated as it was a few years since.”

Cumberland:—“The last season has been a good one; but the present prices are not satisfactory, and the general depression in trade is now having its influence on farming.”

Essex:—“Farmers suffering from low prices, general depression of trade, the rise in wages.... The work all round is carried on languidly, and year by year the condition of the land is becoming poorer.... A large quantity of the kind very badly farmed.”

Kent:—“More weeds grown last year than I ever saw before.”

Monmouthshire:—“Land going out of cultivation, stock reduced in quantity, only necessary work done.”

Northamptonshire:—“The results of the two last seasons will not supply means for substantial improvements.”

Northumberland:—“An immense deal of land producing nothing, I may say, simply out of cultivation.”

Oxfordshire:—“The land is very foul and poor, partly from the continuous rains and the shortness of stock.”

Shropshire:—“Very few farmers, if any, paying their way.... Hand-to-mouth farming.”

Sussex:—“The land generally is not so clean or so well-cultivated as it was a few years since.”

Lord Derby estimates that, with proper farming, we should obtain twice as much produce as we now get.

FOOTNOTES:[36]Fortnightly Review, April, 1873.[37]The false economist pursues a small present good which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come at the risk of a small present evil. (Political Economy—Bastiat.)[38]“I am afraid that most of us entered upon this struggle with the belief that we had somedistinct classinterest in the question.” (Cobden.)[39]Mr. Bright is deserting his free-trade comrades, who say—“It is not only the beneficialworking of free trade that prescribes the agricultural ruin of England: it is the great natural law of the preservation of the fittest that proclaims that, as England is not the best fitted to grow corn, she must grow corn no longer.”

[36]Fortnightly Review, April, 1873.

[37]The false economist pursues a small present good which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come at the risk of a small present evil. (Political Economy—Bastiat.)

[38]“I am afraid that most of us entered upon this struggle with the belief that we had somedistinct classinterest in the question.” (Cobden.)

[39]Mr. Bright is deserting his free-trade comrades, who say—“It is not only the beneficialworking of free trade that prescribes the agricultural ruin of England: it is the great natural law of the preservation of the fittest that proclaims that, as England is not the best fitted to grow corn, she must grow corn no longer.”

I think you will admit, that if a statesman, pretending to govern by rules of political economy, should make very gross, misleading statements regarding the results of a particular line of policy which he had pursued for years, such a man must be convicted of hopeless incompetency or else of gross dishonesty, either of which ought to disqualify him as an administrator; and your Free Trade statesman certainly comes under such an indictment.

Your Right Hon’ble Ruler rises after a public dinner, and holds forth with matchless eloquence, pointing out the blessings and prosperity Free Trade has brought to the country. His statements are received with thunders of applause, and the Right Hon’ble Orator and his audience disperse mutually satisfied with each other.

I wonder whether it ever occurs to the orator, in thequiet of his chamber, that to use his own words, he “has resorted to the simple but effectual plan of pure falsification.”[40]Can he possibly be so ignorant of current events, and of the subjects with which he ought to be acquainted, as not to know that other nations—protectionist nations—have made greater relative advancethan ourselves; that the increase of wealth isuniversal; that it is shared by all civilized nations in common with us; and that it is due to improvements in science, art, and manufacture—to improved communications by railways, steam navigation, telegraphs, &c., which have made such enormous strides since the date at which Free Trade was adopted. Even Mill admits that—

“So rapid had been the extension of improved processes of agriculture, that the average price of corn had become decidedly lower even before the repeal of the Corn Laws.”[41]

There have been short periods of temporary prosperity in agriculture, and your Right Hon’ble Free Trader has been jubilant in hailing them as triumphs of Free Trade; but Adam Smith says:—

Improvements in manufacture tend to raise the value of land.[42]

Dare you, my Friend, after examination of the statistics given in the foregoing chapter, say, that the general increase of wealth is due to Free Trade; when protectionist nations have shared it in common with us? Aye! and taken the lion’s share too! You claim the temporary prosperity of the years 1871–73 as a victory for Free Trade, when in reality this prosperity is the most damning evidence against it. Are you so utterly blinded, as not to perceive that this prosperity was caused by the Franco-Prussian war, which, bypreventing the unlimited importation of French and German commodities into England, caused, in fact, partialsuspension of Free Trade? Don’t you know that, in those years of prosperity, the price of wheat rose to 58s.8d.per quarter, and that, in the present depressed condition of England, it is down to 41s.5d.per quarter? Don’t you know that, during that time of prosperity, the excess of imports beyond our exports was £60,000,000 less than in the present depressed time? In other words, we were depressing our industries by 60,000,000 sterling per annum less than at present. Now, my Friend, give your verdict; is your Right Hon’ble Free Trader guilty or not guilty, either of hopeless incompetence or gross dishonesty in attributing the general increase of wealth in the world to the agency of Free Trade?—Your friend, Bright,[43]naively admits that “to return to protection under the name of reciprocity, is toconfess to the protectionists abroad, that we have been wrong, and they have been right.” Verily! Friend Bright, whether you confess it or not, the truth will out. Friend Bright! you are like the ostrich, burying its head in the sand and thinking no one can see you. The protectionist nations of Europe can see you distinctly, and they are all laughing at your folly.

FOOTNOTES:[40]Applied to the Conservative Party by Mr. Gladstone, in 1879.[41]Mill’s Political Economy, Bk. I. Chap. XII.[42]Wealth of Nations, Bk. I. Chap. XI.[43]Mr. Bright, when brought to bay by unanswerable arguments, is in the habit of pleading that he has “neither time nor inclination” to enter into discussion, and takes refuge in discourtesy. A choice specimen is given inAppendix No. I.—correspondence with Mr. Lord.

[40]Applied to the Conservative Party by Mr. Gladstone, in 1879.

[41]Mill’s Political Economy, Bk. I. Chap. XII.

[42]Wealth of Nations, Bk. I. Chap. XI.

[43]Mr. Bright, when brought to bay by unanswerable arguments, is in the habit of pleading that he has “neither time nor inclination” to enter into discussion, and takes refuge in discourtesy. A choice specimen is given inAppendix No. I.—correspondence with Mr. Lord.

I have not yet done with your Right Hon’ble advocate for Free Trade.

I have another charge, of that which Mr. Gladstone termsthe “simple and effective plan of pure falsification,” in which he himself appears to be not an unskilful adept.

Your Right Hon’ble Ruler ascribes the rise of wages and consequent prosperity to the beneficial action of Free Trade. If this were the case, wages ought to be depressed, or at all events stationary, in protectionist countries.

Let us see if this is the case:—

Relative rise of Wages.

184018501880{Agricultural labourer—100150Gt. BritainSkilled labourer100—153Cotton operative100—133France{Agricultural labourer—100125Skilled labourer—100150Belgium and Holland100—130United States, average labourer—100143

It will be seen by this that the rise of wages has been general; due to the general increase of wealth in civilized nations; and that, in some cases, the relative increase has been nearly as rapid in thirty years in the protectionist country as it has been in forty years in England. Mill says:—

“The labourer in America enjoys a greater abundance of comforts than in any other country in the world, except in some of the newest Colonies.”[44]

Is it possible to conceive a more impudent claim than that which your Free-Trader sets up in claiming the rise of wages as the work of Free Trade? It stands to common sense that Free Trade, or, in other words, unlimited foreign competition, must have a tendency toreducewages. During the agitation preceding the repeal of the Corn Laws, it wasone of the arguments in favour of the movement, that cheap bread would enable the British operative towork for lower wages, and thus be able to compete with the continental operative, who enjoyed the advantage of food at lower rates than those obtaining in England.

The general rise of wages which has occurred throughout protectionist countries, as well as in England, has beenprincipallydue to the increase in the wealth of Europe; but it has also beenpartially due to protectionin the form of Trade-unionism. For what is Trade-unionism but protection in a somewhat extreme form?

The protection ofBritish labourdoes not differ in principle from the protection of theresults of British labourin the shape of its industries. Amongst the resolutions adopted at the International Conference of Trades Unions Delegates, I find the following:—

“There are two ways of attaining the object:—(1) Legislation for theprotectionof the weak against competition;(2) Organization of workmen who should be united and disciplined as in certain countries.”

“There are two ways of attaining the object:—

(1) Legislation for theprotectionof the weak against competition;

(2) Organization of workmen who should be united and disciplined as in certain countries.”

Protection for the “weak against competition.” Is this in accord with Free Trade?

FOOTNOTE:[44]Mill’s Political Economy, Bk. II. Chap. XV.

[44]Mill’s Political Economy, Bk. II. Chap. XV.

I have still another serious charge to bring against your Right Hon’ble Ruler, who pompously lays before you statistics to show that, since the introduction of Free Trade, pauperism and crime have decreased; and this your Right Hon’ble Ruler claims as one of the results of Free Trade.

The figures produced seem to be all right; but really the statistics of your Right Hon’ble Ruler have been found so very untrustworthy, that a careful scrutiny of them is necessary; and on investigation I find in them unmistakable evidence of either ignorance or dishonesty.

These statistics show that the number of paupers under relief in England was—

In 1862890,000In 1880799,000———Apparent decrease91,000

In considering these figures, however, it must be remembered that England has of late years greatly increased the rate per pauper;[45]or, in other words, the relief now given will either relieve worse cases of pauperism than before, or else extend relief to other members of the family of the actual recipient. The present rates of relief in England are now four-and-half times as much as those in France, and seven-and-half times as much as those in Belgium and Holland.[46]

In the next place, your Right Hon’ble Free-Trader omits to mention that the private charities ofLondon alone(orphanages, homes, asylums, hospitals, &c.) have increased, since1859, by £1,159,000,[47]a sum sufficient to relieve 526,000 paupers at the French rate, or nearly 900,000 by the Belgian rate.

It is probable that private charities of the rest of England, including the large provincial towns, have increased in the same ratio as those of London; representing an enormous amount of relief.

Then, again, no mention is made of the relief afforded by Trades Unions and Benefit Societies,[48]which now expend about £4,000,000 annually in relief. This, at French rate, represents the relief of 1,800,000 paupers, or at Belgian rate of about 3,000,000 paupers.

Now, my Friend, what is your fictitious saving of 91,000 in comparison with the enormous figures given above?

Mr. Fawcett says:—

“Mr. Torrens, the Member for Finsbury, sought to prove that pauperism was increasing, that vast numbers of able-bodied labourers were unemployed, and that the normal condition of a considerable proportion of our population was one of abject misery and deplorable destitution.“Mr. Goschen met these statements by a positive and indignant denial. He quoted a number of statistics to prove that the iron trade, the cotton trade, and other important branches of industry were reviving; he was jubilant over the fact that the number of paupers had only increased by 10,000 in a twelvemonth, and he became quite elated when recounting that the working classes wereusing more tea and sugar, and that their average consumption of beer and spirits was augmenting. The speech was loudly applauded, especially by the commercial members. There are many who still think that the well-doing of a country can be measured by its exports and imports.... It is not our intention to dispute the accuracy of Mr. Goschen’s statistics. There is, however, too much reason to fear that they only tell a small part of the truth; and that, if not judiciously considered, they may conceal awkward and ugly facts which it will be perilous to ignore.”[49]“Sir Edward Sullivan alluded to a statement made, he said, by a distinguished statesman, that, out of a population of thirty-four millions seven millions weretoeing the line of starvation.”[50]

“Mr. Goschen met these statements by a positive and indignant denial. He quoted a number of statistics to prove that the iron trade, the cotton trade, and other important branches of industry were reviving; he was jubilant over the fact that the number of paupers had only increased by 10,000 in a twelvemonth, and he became quite elated when recounting that the working classes wereusing more tea and sugar, and that their average consumption of beer and spirits was augmenting. The speech was loudly applauded, especially by the commercial members. There are many who still think that the well-doing of a country can be measured by its exports and imports.... It is not our intention to dispute the accuracy of Mr. Goschen’s statistics. There is, however, too much reason to fear that they only tell a small part of the truth; and that, if not judiciously considered, they may conceal awkward and ugly facts which it will be perilous to ignore.”[49]

“Sir Edward Sullivan alluded to a statement made, he said, by a distinguished statesman, that, out of a population of thirty-four millions seven millions weretoeing the line of starvation.”[50]

And these statements would appear to be in accord with the figures I have given above.

The statistics of your Right Hon’ble Ruler, which you receive with thunders of applause, are not worth the paper on which they are written.

Again I ask your verdict—guilty or not guilty?

Now for Crime. The statistics in this case are less defensible than in the previous case, because they involve a dishonourablesuppression of facts.

The statistics brought forward to show that a diminution of crime has been the result of Free Trade, are as follows:

Convictions in 185913,470”188111,353———Apparent decrease of crime2,117

Now thisapparentdecrease is wholly due to the “Criminal Justice Act” of 1855, which enables Magistrates to pass short sentences; and these, coming under the head of “Summary Convictions,” do not appear under the head of “Convictions,”where they would have appeared but for the “Act” of 1855.

If we take the total cases,including summary convictions, the figures stand as follows:—

Convictions in 1859246,227”1881542,319———–Increase in crime296,092

In other words, instead of your Right Hon’ble Ruler’s decrease of 2,000 convictions, we have actually an increase ofnearly 300,000. Is it possible to conceive a more glaring case of what Mr. Gladstone himself terms “the simple but effectual plan ofpure falsification?”

Now for Intemperance. The number of persons fined for drunkenness in England:

In the year 186088,410In ” 1881174,481

or roughly speaking, the convictions for drunkenness have doubled in twenty-one years.

Truly, my Friend, you cannot congratulate Free Trade on the decrease of pauperism, crime, and intemperance it has produced.

FOOTNOTES:[45]“In fifty years, Great Britain has lifted her estimate on this point so rapidly that she spends five times as much for a given number of paupers? than she did fifteen years after the opening of the century.” (‘Practical Political Economy,’ by Profr. Bonamy Price, p. 237.)[46]Comparative Cost of Relief to Paupers.England£100France22Belgium and Holland13(Mulhall’s Statistics, p. 346.)[47]Expenditure in London Charities.1859.1881.Orphanages£409,000£458,000Homes for aged88,000770,000Asylums25,000156,000Hospitals, &c.301,000596,000——————–Total823,0001,980,000[48]The financial condition of many of the Trades Unions is causing serious alarm. The drain has been so heavy on them, that their capital is greatly reduced, and unless some change takes place, they will become bankrupt. The increase of pauperism will then be enormous.[49]Fortnightly Review, January, 1871.[50]The Mail, December 19th, 1883.

[45]“In fifty years, Great Britain has lifted her estimate on this point so rapidly that she spends five times as much for a given number of paupers? than she did fifteen years after the opening of the century.” (‘Practical Political Economy,’ by Profr. Bonamy Price, p. 237.)

[46]Comparative Cost of Relief to Paupers.England£100France22Belgium and Holland13(Mulhall’s Statistics, p. 346.)

[46]Comparative Cost of Relief to Paupers.

England£100France22Belgium and Holland13(Mulhall’s Statistics, p. 346.)

[47]Expenditure in London Charities.1859.1881.Orphanages£409,000£458,000Homes for aged88,000770,000Asylums25,000156,000Hospitals, &c.301,000596,000——————–Total823,0001,980,000

[47]Expenditure in London Charities.

1859.1881.Orphanages£409,000£458,000Homes for aged88,000770,000Asylums25,000156,000Hospitals, &c.301,000596,000——————–Total823,0001,980,000

[48]The financial condition of many of the Trades Unions is causing serious alarm. The drain has been so heavy on them, that their capital is greatly reduced, and unless some change takes place, they will become bankrupt. The increase of pauperism will then be enormous.

[49]Fortnightly Review, January, 1871.

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

I see, my Friend, that you are bringing out your trump card. “Behold!” you argue “the unfortunate condition to which America has been reduced by her protectionist policy; she has scarcely a ship afloat, whilst Free Trade England is carrying the commerce of the world.”

First, I would ask, are youquitesure that all this is caused by Free Trade?

Don’t you think that it is just within the bounds ofpossibility that our shrewd American cousins may possibly find a quicker and more remunerative investment for their capital, in encouraging their home-productive industries, and in employing their home-labour productively, than in a keen competition with the English for a barren trade that is not worth having?

Are you ignorant of the fact that the shipping trade has been a losing concern for some considerable period?

Are you unaware of the fact that wheat has been frequently carried as ballast, and has paid no freight; that other articles have been carried at almost nominal rates?

In theCivil and Military Gazetteof 7th December, 1883, under the Telegraphic Summary, I read—

“It is predicted that, unless freight rates to India speedily improve, a considerable number of steamers now engaged in the trade will be laid up.”

I also read in theMadras Mail, January 9th, 1884, that an organ of the shipping interests in London has drawn up the probable “results of the gross working of thirteen steamers of a well-known Steam Navigation Company, the result of which is a total loss of £34,000 in one year’s trading.”

Are the Americans to be pitied, because they have no share in this losing concern?

If protectionism has kept them out of it, you can scarcely blame it.

But even without such keen competition, the Americans are justified, by the writings of your sacred shastras, as may be seen by the following quotation:

“The capital, therefore, employed in theHome tradeof any country will generally give encouragement and support to a greater quantity of productive labour in that country, and increase the value of its annual produce, more than an equal capital employed in theForeign tradeof consumption; and the capital employed inthis latter trade has, in both these respects, astill greater advantage over an equal capital engaged in the Carrying trade.”[51]

So you see that the authority of your own sacred writings is favourable to the policy of our American cousins in this respect.

FOOTNOTE:[51]‘Wealth of Nations,’ by Adam Smith, Bk. II. Chap. V.

[51]‘Wealth of Nations,’ by Adam Smith, Bk. II. Chap. V.

I have a few words to say about high wages and prosperity, before I quit the subject.

Although the rise of wages is, in fact, to some extent, the work of protection, I am not proud of it; for trades unionism is protection of an extreme character, generally narrow in its aims, not sufficiently far-seeing, and consequently sometimes mischievous in its results.

The raising of wages within reasonable bounds is desirable; but, in a Free Trade country, it is apt to be attended with serious consequences in raising the cost of the manufactured article, when competing against the manufacture of foreign countries, where wages are lower and hours of work longer.

It is said by Free Trade advocates, that although the cost of provisions has not sensibly increased, yetwages are 50 per cent. higher, and hours of labour 20 per cent. less, than they were forty years ago.

From the political economist’s point of view, this appears to be a decrease of national wealth. Mill says:—

“Saving enriches, and spending impoverishes, the community along with the individual. Society at large is richer by what itexpends inmaintaining and aiding productive labour, but poorer by what it expends in its enjoyments.”[52]

Now if a stalwart race could have existed, and have done 20 per cent. more work on the lower rate of wages,—although, doubtless, some improvement in the condition of workmen was desirable,—50 per cent. appears to be a large margin, when we consider that the price of provisions is said to be unaltered. The British workman is proverbially extravagant and improvident. High wages encourage extravagance, whilst surplus cash furnishes the means, and short hours the leisure, for gratifying a taste for drink.

Setting aside for the moment the serious evils of intemperance, we have practically, with high wages, the causes that lead to the impoverishment of a community.

A glance at the statistics of Mr. Giffen seems to indicate this, for whilst the consumption per head of those commodities which are termed necessaries of life, have only increased 33 to 40 per cent. respectively, the consumption of those which may be considered luxuries—namely, tea and sugar—have increased 232 and 260 per cent. respectively.

Again, statistics show that, whilst the other classes of the community have increased in number by 335 per cent. of late years, the working classes have only increased by 6½ per cent. In other words, the unproductive classes have increased largely, but, whilst there is only 6½ per cent.numericalincrease in the productive classes, their labour has decreased by 20 per cent. from shorter hours of labour.

The drones in the hive have increased very largely, and the workers have not done so, but have developed an alarming taste for honey.

The question of waste of wealth would be comparatively of minor importance were it not seriously complicated by theexistence of Free Trade; but we have now to confront the fact, that, in the present day, we have to pay 50 per cent. more money for 20 per cent. less labour than we did forty years ago; whilst Free Trade brings into the market the products of the keen competition of a thrifty and parsimonious class of workmen who accept lower wages and work longer hours. The result must be a gradual extinction of our industries:

Cotton and woollen industries are struggling hard for existence.[53]

Silk manufacture is dying out.

Iron industries in a bad way.

Gloomy predictions are made respecting the shipping trade.

Agriculture is rapidly becoming extinguished.

English pluck, capital, and credit are struggling manfully against disaster, but the struggle cannot last much longer; capital is sustained by credit; and credit is receiving heavy and repeated blows from unremunerative industries. Meanwhile, high wages and extravagant habits are not the best training for the millions that will be thrown out of employment when the crash comes.

Your prophet, Adam Smith, though an advocate for the repeal of the Corn Laws, foresaw and forewarned you of these consequences, as follows:—

“If the free importation of Foreign manufactures were permitted, several of the Home manufactures would probably suffer, and some of them perhaps go to ruin altogether.”[54]

Verily, my Friend, you are like a shipowner who congratulates himself that his sailors were never so well off before—never went aloft less—never kept fewer watches—never remained so much in their warm beds: meanwhile the devoted ship is drifting slowly, but surely, on to the rocks.[55]

FOOTNOTES:[52]‘Political Economy,’ by J. S. Mill, Bk. I. Chap. V.[53]Mr. S. Smith, M.P., who is connected with cotton industry, has recently stated that “with all the toil and anxiety of those who had conducted it, the cotton industry of Lancashire, which gave maintenance to two or three millions of people, had not earned so much as 5 per cent. during the past ten years. The employers had a most anxious life; and many, after struggling for years, had become bankrupt, and some had died of a broken heart;” and he added that he believed “most of the leading trades to be in the same condition.”The cheap production of Belgian fabrics is stated by the employers to be the cause of the depression in the cotton trade. (Times, Dec. 1883.)[54]‘Wealth of Nations,’ Bk. IV. Chap. II.[55]A writer inVanity Fair, in analyzing the Board of Trade’s statistics for the year ended March 31st, 1883, when compared with those for the year ended March, 1880, or the three years of the Gladstone Ministry, says:“We were promised cheaper Government, cheaper food, greater prosperity. We find that so far from these promises being verified, they have every one been falsified by the result.“Our Imperial Government is dearer by £8,000,000; our Imperial and Local Government, together, is dearer by £10,000,000.“As to food, wheat has become dearer 1s.3d.per quarter; beef, by from 3d.to 5d.per stone; Mutton, by 1s.3d.; money is dearer than 1¾ per cent.“As to prosperity, our staple pig iron is cheaper by 22s.2d.per ton. We have 398,397 acres fewer under cultivation for corn, grain and other crops; 50,077 fewer horses; 129,119 fewer cattle; 4,789,738 fewer sheep in the country. We have, in spite of the Land Act and the allegation of increased prosperity, 18,828 more paupers in Ireland on a decreasing population. We find that 115,092 more emigrants have left the country in a year, because they cannot get a living in it. We lose annually 349 more vessels and 1,534 more lives at sea. The only element of consolation that these figures” (Board of Trade Returns) “have to show is, that we have 778,389 more pigs and 4,627 more policemen in the country. In fact, we are more lacking in every thing we want; more abounding in every thing we don’t want.“The price of everything we have to sell has gone down; the price of everything we have to buy has gone up; and what has gone up most is the price of Government.“Dearer Government, dearer bread, dearer beef, dearer mutton, dearer money; cheaper pig iron; less corn, potatoes, turnips, grass, and hops, fewer horses, fewer cattle, fewer sheep; more paupers, more emigrants, more losses of life and property at sea, more pigs, more policemen.“These are the benefits that three years of liberal rule have conferred upon us!!!”

[52]‘Political Economy,’ by J. S. Mill, Bk. I. Chap. V.

[53]Mr. S. Smith, M.P., who is connected with cotton industry, has recently stated that “with all the toil and anxiety of those who had conducted it, the cotton industry of Lancashire, which gave maintenance to two or three millions of people, had not earned so much as 5 per cent. during the past ten years. The employers had a most anxious life; and many, after struggling for years, had become bankrupt, and some had died of a broken heart;” and he added that he believed “most of the leading trades to be in the same condition.”The cheap production of Belgian fabrics is stated by the employers to be the cause of the depression in the cotton trade. (Times, Dec. 1883.)

The cheap production of Belgian fabrics is stated by the employers to be the cause of the depression in the cotton trade. (Times, Dec. 1883.)

[54]‘Wealth of Nations,’ Bk. IV. Chap. II.

[55]A writer inVanity Fair, in analyzing the Board of Trade’s statistics for the year ended March 31st, 1883, when compared with those for the year ended March, 1880, or the three years of the Gladstone Ministry, says:“We were promised cheaper Government, cheaper food, greater prosperity. We find that so far from these promises being verified, they have every one been falsified by the result.“Our Imperial Government is dearer by £8,000,000; our Imperial and Local Government, together, is dearer by £10,000,000.“As to food, wheat has become dearer 1s.3d.per quarter; beef, by from 3d.to 5d.per stone; Mutton, by 1s.3d.; money is dearer than 1¾ per cent.“As to prosperity, our staple pig iron is cheaper by 22s.2d.per ton. We have 398,397 acres fewer under cultivation for corn, grain and other crops; 50,077 fewer horses; 129,119 fewer cattle; 4,789,738 fewer sheep in the country. We have, in spite of the Land Act and the allegation of increased prosperity, 18,828 more paupers in Ireland on a decreasing population. We find that 115,092 more emigrants have left the country in a year, because they cannot get a living in it. We lose annually 349 more vessels and 1,534 more lives at sea. The only element of consolation that these figures” (Board of Trade Returns) “have to show is, that we have 778,389 more pigs and 4,627 more policemen in the country. In fact, we are more lacking in every thing we want; more abounding in every thing we don’t want.“The price of everything we have to sell has gone down; the price of everything we have to buy has gone up; and what has gone up most is the price of Government.“Dearer Government, dearer bread, dearer beef, dearer mutton, dearer money; cheaper pig iron; less corn, potatoes, turnips, grass, and hops, fewer horses, fewer cattle, fewer sheep; more paupers, more emigrants, more losses of life and property at sea, more pigs, more policemen.“These are the benefits that three years of liberal rule have conferred upon us!!!”

“We were promised cheaper Government, cheaper food, greater prosperity. We find that so far from these promises being verified, they have every one been falsified by the result.

“Our Imperial Government is dearer by £8,000,000; our Imperial and Local Government, together, is dearer by £10,000,000.

“As to food, wheat has become dearer 1s.3d.per quarter; beef, by from 3d.to 5d.per stone; Mutton, by 1s.3d.; money is dearer than 1¾ per cent.

“As to prosperity, our staple pig iron is cheaper by 22s.2d.per ton. We have 398,397 acres fewer under cultivation for corn, grain and other crops; 50,077 fewer horses; 129,119 fewer cattle; 4,789,738 fewer sheep in the country. We have, in spite of the Land Act and the allegation of increased prosperity, 18,828 more paupers in Ireland on a decreasing population. We find that 115,092 more emigrants have left the country in a year, because they cannot get a living in it. We lose annually 349 more vessels and 1,534 more lives at sea. The only element of consolation that these figures” (Board of Trade Returns) “have to show is, that we have 778,389 more pigs and 4,627 more policemen in the country. In fact, we are more lacking in every thing we want; more abounding in every thing we don’t want.

“The price of everything we have to sell has gone down; the price of everything we have to buy has gone up; and what has gone up most is the price of Government.

“Dearer Government, dearer bread, dearer beef, dearer mutton, dearer money; cheaper pig iron; less corn, potatoes, turnips, grass, and hops, fewer horses, fewer cattle, fewer sheep; more paupers, more emigrants, more losses of life and property at sea, more pigs, more policemen.

“These are the benefits that three years of liberal rule have conferred upon us!!!”

I have already stated that Mill, when he allows that which Herbert Spencer terms “political bias,”—and Luigi Cossa terms his “narrow philosophic utilitarianism,” to warp his better judgment,—is guilty of absurdities and inconsistencies that would disgrace a schoolboy. This is notably apparent when he attempts to draw a fundamental distinction between land and any other property, as regards its “sacred rights.”

Mr. Mill greatly admired the prosperity of the peasant proprietors in France and Belgium, unfortunately forgetting that a system, suited to the sober thrifty peasantry of the Continent, might possibly not be equally suitable to the improvident lower classes of Ireland and England,[56]neglectful also of the sensible view taken byM. De Lavergnethat “cultivation spontaneously finds out the organization that suits it best.”[57]He wished therefore to establish an Utopia of peasant proprietors in England and Ireland as a panacea for the evils which Free Trade in the first place, and mischievous legislation in the second place, had brought upon agriculture. Without presuming to offer an opinion on the debated subjects of “Grande” and “Petite Culture,” or peasant and landlord proprietorship, I may say that cultivation appears to have found out spontaneously the organization best suited to it, and that, in England and Ireland, landlordism seems best suited to the improvident character of the lower classes, in providing capital to help the tenantsover bad times, and enabling improvements to be made in prosperous times.

Be this as it may, peasant proprietorship has proved to be a failure in Ireland, and is rapidly becoming extinct.[58]Writers on the subject state that, under that system, labour was so ill-directed, that it required six men to provide food for ten; and consolidation of holdings is recommended. Mr. Mill, however, thought otherwise, and biased by this political conviction, he has propounded the following extraordinary arguments to prove that the sacred rights of property are not applicable in the case of landed property[59]:—

Back to Index Next