FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[78]Population in Ireland in1841256per square mile.””1880161”””Belgium in”480”””Holland in”312””[79]Population of Ireland in18418,196,597”””18815,174,836————Decrease3,021,761————[80]s.d.Averagerent inIreland103per acre.””United Kingdom199” ”””France300” ”””Belgium300” ”””Holland300” ”[81]I cannot think that, in a country where four millions of acres of valuable land are calling out pitifully for labour,—where thousands of families of agricultural habits and of laborious instincts are pleading for work and hungering for the tenancy of deserted farms,—where labour is becoming scarce,—where the population is deteriorating in quality by the continued exportation of its strongest and most promising elements; that, in such a country, and under such circumstances, Englishmen should resign themselves to accept the continued banishment of the flower of the population to a foreign land as the best and only means of meeting this great national difficulty. (E. Hart,Fortnightly Review, 1883.)

[78]Population in Ireland in1841256per square mile.””1880161”””Belgium in”480”””Holland in”312””

[78]

Population in Ireland in1841256per square mile.””1880161”””Belgium in”480”””Holland in”312””

[79]Population of Ireland in18418,196,597”””18815,174,836————Decrease3,021,761————

[79]

Population of Ireland in18418,196,597”””18815,174,836————Decrease3,021,761————

[80]s.d.Averagerent inIreland103per acre.””United Kingdom199” ”””France300” ”””Belgium300” ”””Holland300” ”

[80]

s.d.Averagerent inIreland103per acre.””United Kingdom199” ”””France300” ”””Belgium300” ”””Holland300” ”

[81]I cannot think that, in a country where four millions of acres of valuable land are calling out pitifully for labour,—where thousands of families of agricultural habits and of laborious instincts are pleading for work and hungering for the tenancy of deserted farms,—where labour is becoming scarce,—where the population is deteriorating in quality by the continued exportation of its strongest and most promising elements; that, in such a country, and under such circumstances, Englishmen should resign themselves to accept the continued banishment of the flower of the population to a foreign land as the best and only means of meeting this great national difficulty. (E. Hart,Fortnightly Review, 1883.)

I have not the slightest doubt, that you will tell me that Ireland isnot ruined, that she was never before in so satisfactory condition, and that you will bring forward ingeniously manipulated statistics to prove your case.

You will tell me that the farms are larger,—that the farm stock is richer,—that the peasant proprietors who were a failure (contrary to Mr. Mill’s theories) are disappearing, and holdings are more consolidated; but, my Fanatical Friend, if Ireland be not ruined, what is the meaning of this frantic legislation, which many of its supporters can only excuse on the ground of expediency, not equity? How is it that, during the last thirty-two years, nearly 1,500,000 acres havegone out of tillage and 677,000 acres have gone out of farming altogether?

How is it that, during the last nine years, there has been a decrease of 1,000,000[82]live stock in Ireland, or nearly one-ninth of the total?

How is it that, during one year, 114,327[83]acres of land in Ireland have gone out of farming, and that with a decreasing population, and that in spite of a better crop in 1880 than in 1879?

What is the meaning of the increase of 18,000 paupers and 115,000 emigrants in Ireland within the last three years?

Mill would have told you that the extinction of peasant proprietors was a sign of retrogression; whether that be so or not, the crushing out of weaker industries is decidedly not a sign of prosperity.

But now tell me, what would you think of the prosperity of an undertaking in which the original shareholders had been ruined and sold their shares at a greatly depreciated price; and this second set of shareholders again being ruined, again sold their shares at a still further depreciated price, whilst the third set of shareholders, obtaining their shares at this enormously depreciated value, were able to make some little show of temporary prosperity. Would any business-man call that a prosperous undertaking?

Now this is precisely the case with Ireland. Under theEncumbered Estates Act, thousands were reduced to beggary,[84]and the new landlords were able to make a temporary show of prosperity on the ruin of their predecessors. When this was over, the still more iniquitous Land Act of 1881 was passed to complete the ruin of landlords.

Mr. FitzGerald, of Dublin, states that there are more than 600 cases before the Court, and that the Judges have, from time to time, adjourned the sales rather than consent to a “wanton sacrifice of property, for which there are no bidders.”

Land, which one of the Judges declared to be worth thirty years’ purchase, was sold for eleven years’ purchase, and the unfortunate owner was told “You must submit to the inevitable.”

But this is not all; the Land Act of 1880 has put a stop to all possible improvement of land, for no reasonable manwill expose himself to the risk of losing his money on improvements, because, notwithstanding any contract he may have made with his tenant, the Land Commission may step in and legalize a breach of the contract.[85]

The typical landlords in Ireland, whom you hold up for public execration, are not rich noblemen; it would be better for Ireland if they were, but they are mostly men of the middle class, struggling hard to escape the pauperism your iniquitous legislation has brought upon them.

Mr. Gladstone on one occasion said:—

“If Great Britain has become a place where the majority can oppress the minority in this way, it has come to be a place of which I should say that the sooner we get out of it the better.”

I repeat Mr. Gladstone’s sentiment with greater emphasis. If Mr. Gladstone, with his majority, are allowed to oppress the minority in this way, England is no longer the place for honest and loyal subjects.

FOOTNOTES:[82]Total livestock in Ireland in 1874, 9,665,700; in 1883, 8,667,000.[83]Decrease of acreage farmed in 1882—Cereal crops20,356acres.Green crops21,072”Flax33,643”Meadow and Clover39,256”———Total decrease114,327acres.Statesman’s Yearbook, 1883.[84]“It forced properties to a general auction, to be sold for whatever they would bring, at a time whenlegislation had imposed new and unheard of burdens on landed property. At a time of unprecedented depression in the value of land, it called a general auction of Irish estates.English History records no more violent interference with vested intereststhan the provision by which this Statute forced the sale of a large portion of the landed property at a time no prudent man would have set up an acre to be sold by public competition.” (Tenant Right in Ireland, Butt, p. 881.)“Estates that would have been well able to pay twice the encumbrances laid upon them, if property was at all near its ordinary level of value, now failed to realize enough to meet the mortgages, and the proprietors were devoted to ruin.... The tenants complain that they have gained little and lost much in the change from the old masters to the new.” (‘New Ireland,’ A. M. Sullivan, p. 88.)At the sale of Lord Gort’s property thirteen years’ purchase was the maximum; many lots were sold at five. Some portions of the property since resold have fetched twenty-five and twenty-seven years’ purchase.Excessive rack-renting has been attributed to sales under this iniquitous Encumbered Estates Act.“In those sales persons buy small portions of property; of course their interest is to get as large a return as they can, and they think of nothing but an increase of rent.” (Minutes of Evidence, Lords Committee, 1867.)[85]See Speech of Mr. W. H. Smith, M.P., Nov. 19, 1883, commencing “No country on the face of the earth has been so misunderstood and misgoverned as Ireland, &c.”

[82]Total livestock in Ireland in 1874, 9,665,700; in 1883, 8,667,000.

[83]Decrease of acreage farmed in 1882—Cereal crops20,356acres.Green crops21,072”Flax33,643”Meadow and Clover39,256”———Total decrease114,327acres.Statesman’s Yearbook, 1883.

[83]Decrease of acreage farmed in 1882—

Cereal crops20,356acres.Green crops21,072”Flax33,643”Meadow and Clover39,256”———Total decrease114,327acres.

Statesman’s Yearbook, 1883.

[84]“It forced properties to a general auction, to be sold for whatever they would bring, at a time whenlegislation had imposed new and unheard of burdens on landed property. At a time of unprecedented depression in the value of land, it called a general auction of Irish estates.English History records no more violent interference with vested intereststhan the provision by which this Statute forced the sale of a large portion of the landed property at a time no prudent man would have set up an acre to be sold by public competition.” (Tenant Right in Ireland, Butt, p. 881.)“Estates that would have been well able to pay twice the encumbrances laid upon them, if property was at all near its ordinary level of value, now failed to realize enough to meet the mortgages, and the proprietors were devoted to ruin.... The tenants complain that they have gained little and lost much in the change from the old masters to the new.” (‘New Ireland,’ A. M. Sullivan, p. 88.)At the sale of Lord Gort’s property thirteen years’ purchase was the maximum; many lots were sold at five. Some portions of the property since resold have fetched twenty-five and twenty-seven years’ purchase.Excessive rack-renting has been attributed to sales under this iniquitous Encumbered Estates Act.“In those sales persons buy small portions of property; of course their interest is to get as large a return as they can, and they think of nothing but an increase of rent.” (Minutes of Evidence, Lords Committee, 1867.)

“Estates that would have been well able to pay twice the encumbrances laid upon them, if property was at all near its ordinary level of value, now failed to realize enough to meet the mortgages, and the proprietors were devoted to ruin.... The tenants complain that they have gained little and lost much in the change from the old masters to the new.” (‘New Ireland,’ A. M. Sullivan, p. 88.)

At the sale of Lord Gort’s property thirteen years’ purchase was the maximum; many lots were sold at five. Some portions of the property since resold have fetched twenty-five and twenty-seven years’ purchase.

Excessive rack-renting has been attributed to sales under this iniquitous Encumbered Estates Act.

“In those sales persons buy small portions of property; of course their interest is to get as large a return as they can, and they think of nothing but an increase of rent.” (Minutes of Evidence, Lords Committee, 1867.)

[85]See Speech of Mr. W. H. Smith, M.P., Nov. 19, 1883, commencing “No country on the face of the earth has been so misunderstood and misgoverned as Ireland, &c.”

M. Merimée writes:—

“That which strikes me most in the English politics of our own times, is itslittleness. Everything in England is done with a view to keep place” (conserver les portefeuilles), “and they commit all possible faults in order to keep twenty or thirty doubtful votes. They only disquiet themselves about the present, and think nothing of the future.”

Unfortunately thelittlenessto which M. Merimée refers is not always attended withlittle results.

In his anxiety to secure the Irish votes, Mr. Gladstone, by his notorious Midlothian speeches, directly encouraged Irish demagogues to agitate.

His advice was followed, and the result has been, as every one expected, anarchy, murder, and assassination.[86]

Froude, the historian, writing in 1880, clearly predicated it:—

“Mr. Gladstone will not willingly allow himself to be foiled. Yet, if he perseveres, he may bring on the struggle so long foretold between democracy and the rights of property, and in a great empire like ours, with such enormous interests at stake, it is not difficult to foresee on which side the victory will be. However this may be, the apple of discord has been flung into Ireland, there to spread its poison.”[87]

Let us charitably hope that the results of Mr. Gladstone’s advice toagitatewere not anticipated by him; but a man who will scatter sparks in a powder magazine cannot be held altogether guiltless of the results of the explosion that may ensue, whether he did it in ignorant folly or with culpable intent. Froude, alluding to the Midlothian speeches, says:—“No statesman who understood Ireland would ever have spoken of the ‘Upas Tree,’ unless he was prepared to sanction a revolution.” Mr. Gladstone must, therefore, be held morally responsible for the blood guiltiness—for the atrocious crimes and murders that have disgraced Ireland; he has sown the wind, and he has reaped the whirlwind; he has sown agitation, and reaped dynamite; he has not only caused anarchy by his advice, but has encouraged it by the weakness of his policy.[88]

An admirer of Mr. Gladstone writes in theWestminster Review, describing Mr. Parnell and his associates as “indispensableto thesuccess of Mr. Gladstone!!” A fitting associate indeed in a work of legalized plunder is Mr. Parnell, whom Mr. Forster denounced in the House of Commons as the aider and abetter of assassins and murderers; who dared not stand up and answer the scathing denunciation, but slunk off to America like a whipped hound.

FOOTNOTES:[86]Lord Beaconsfield, with great foresight, vainly warned us of the dangerous state of Ireland.[87]Nineteenth Century, September, 1880.[88]An admirer of Mr. Gladstone naively writes in theWestminster Review: “During the six years of Tory repression and Tory refusal of remedial measures, they were as mild as doves and comparatively silent in Parliament, because they knew that the Tories would strike with despotic severity and with exceptional laws; but from the moment the magnanimous and friendly Gladstone came into power ... they excited the excitable Irish people to such a degree against this friendly Government, that there were perpetrated a long run of cruel and brutal outrages, &c.” (Westminster Review, October, 1883.)

[86]Lord Beaconsfield, with great foresight, vainly warned us of the dangerous state of Ireland.

[87]Nineteenth Century, September, 1880.

[88]An admirer of Mr. Gladstone naively writes in theWestminster Review: “During the six years of Tory repression and Tory refusal of remedial measures, they were as mild as doves and comparatively silent in Parliament, because they knew that the Tories would strike with despotic severity and with exceptional laws; but from the moment the magnanimous and friendly Gladstone came into power ... they excited the excitable Irish people to such a degree against this friendly Government, that there were perpetrated a long run of cruel and brutal outrages, &c.” (Westminster Review, October, 1883.)

I have already shown the utter failure of the prophecies of your Free Trade Prophets, now let me show the failure of the prophecies of your Right Hon’ble Friends with regard to the Land Act of 1881, and ask if such lamentable want of discrimination is fitting in one pretending to be an administrator.

PROPHECY.FULFILMENT.Mr. Gladstone, in 1880, scouted the warning that there would be no bidders for land, after the Land Act had been passed, and he fixed the value of land at twenty-seven years’ purchase.Judge Flannagan, 1883:—“The rents are so well secured that the property ought to bring thirty years’ purchase.”The owner:—“Three years ago I could have sold the property for £1,775.”Judge Flannagan:—“You must submit to the inevitable. Is there no advance on eleven years’ purchase? This is the first estate I have had to sell on which the rents have been fixed by the Land Commission. I hoped to get twenty-five or thirty years’ purchase.” The land was sold for £875; according to Judge Flannagan’s valuation it was worth £2,386.Mr. Forster:—“My firm belief is, that no damage can be proved. On the other hand, if the landlord were compensated, you would compensate him for conferring upon him a benefit.”In 1840, the rents of Mr. Usborn’s estate in Kerry amounted to £2,376punctually paid. The nearest railway station was then 150 miles distant. There is now a railway station on the property, the landlord has spent money on its improvement, and the the “fair” (?) rent now fixed by the Land Commission is £1,893.Lord Selborne, 1880:—“I deny that it will diminish, in any degree whatever, the rights of the landlord, or the value of the interest he possesses. I should never agree to such a proposal.”Hansard, cclxiv. 252.Irish newspapers teem with similar instances.Judge Ormsby, 1883.The Judge then asked if there was any advance on £2,200. Offers were given until £2,450 was reached. Mr. O’Meara, on behalf of the estate, objected to the sale. In Chancery proceedings connected with the estate it was mentioned that £4,500 had been offered for this lot, and refused.Lord Carlingford, 1880:—“I maintain that the provisions of the Bill willcause the landlordno money-loss whatever.”Judge Ormsby:—“No one could foresee what would subsequently occur to depreciate the value of the property.I cannot adjournfor a third time.”Mr. Gladstone, 1880:—“I certainly would be very slow to deny that when confiscation could be proved compensation ought to follow.”Mr. Fitzgerald, of Dublin, states, that the Judges have adjourned sales from time to time rather than consent to a wanton sacrifice of property, and there are “600 estates in the Court waiting for sale, and for these hardly a bidder.”

Again I ask your verdict of guilty or not guilty? Are your Right Hon’ble Rulers either incompetent or dishonest, to have made such prophesies? It was not for want of warning that they have blundered so hopelessly. The whole country rang with warnings[89]that the measure was one of confiscation. Even Mr. Parnell predicted it, telling his hearers that there would be no buyers, and the tenants would have “an opportunity of purchasing their holdings under the Bright Clause.”

The whole measure is one which commenced by breach of faith and ended in confiscation.[90]

Mr. James Lowther, M.P., has been blamed for saying, that “loyal subjects have been deliberately plundered by the Land Act.”

Let us see how the political economist defines “plunder:”

“When a portion of wealth passes out of the hands of him who has acquired it without his consent and without compensation, whether by force or artifice, to him who has not created it, I say that property is violated, thatplunder is perpetrated.... If the law itself performs the action it ought to repress, I say thatplunder is still perpetrated, and even in a social point of view,under aggravated circumstances.”[91]

Now tell me, my Friend, how do the instances I have given above differ from legalizedPlunderas defined by Bastiat?

When Judge Flannagan says, “you must submit to the inevitable,” he says, in fact, “you must submit to be legally plundered.”

When Judge Ormsby says “no one could foresee what would occur,” he says in fact, “no one could foresee that the law would become an instrument ofplunder.”

No one could foresee it? Why, every one with common sense could foresee it—every one but those wilfully blind. An admirer of Mr. Gladstone naively writes in theWestminster Reviewrespecting the Land Act:—

“The people of the United States would not have tolerated such an interference with the laws of contract as it involved. No member of Congress could be found who would propose anything soindefensiblefrom the American point of view.”[92]

And he might have addedindefensible from every point of view.

Froude, the historian, says:

“It was England which introduced landowning and landlords into Ireland as an expedient for ruling it. If we choose now to remove the landlords or divide their property with their tenants, we must do it from our own resources; we have no right to make the landlords pay for the vagaries of our own idolatries.”[93]

FOOTNOTES:[89]SeeAppendix No. II, in which is a resumé of the unheeded warnings, drawn up in 1880, from the arguments brought against the Bill. Any one not blinded by party prejudices, who read those arguments, could not fail to see that the Bill must be a measure of confiscation; and the subsequent action of the Bill shows that the forebodings have been verified.[90]Froude, the historian, writing in 1880, says:—“The policy has been to make the property of the landlords worthless, and their possession so dangerous, that they would find their estates not worth keeping.”[91]‘Political Economy’—Bastiat.[92]Westminster Review, October, 1883.[93]Nineteenth Century, September, 1880.

[89]SeeAppendix No. II, in which is a resumé of the unheeded warnings, drawn up in 1880, from the arguments brought against the Bill. Any one not blinded by party prejudices, who read those arguments, could not fail to see that the Bill must be a measure of confiscation; and the subsequent action of the Bill shows that the forebodings have been verified.

[90]Froude, the historian, writing in 1880, says:—“The policy has been to make the property of the landlords worthless, and their possession so dangerous, that they would find their estates not worth keeping.”

[91]‘Political Economy’—Bastiat.

[92]Westminster Review, October, 1883.

[93]Nineteenth Century, September, 1880.

Don’t you see, what a fallacy underlies your cry for cheap bread. Does the consumer eat nothing but bread? Is everything to be sacrificed to the consumer? Don’t you see that cheap bread is not all that is necessary to prosperity.

Have not you seen that, during one year of greatest prosperity, the price of wheat rose to 58s.8d.per quarter, far higher than it was in ten years, 1831–40, before the repeal of the Corn Laws, whilst during the present time of depression it is down to 41s.5d., and that, in 1835, before the repeal of the Corn Laws, it was down to 39s.4d.[94]

Cannot you see that cheap food is dear if the causes of its cheapness deprive the labourer of that employment which enables him to purchase it? Cannot you see that, although a healthy competition stimulates production, a crushing competition in the end causes the rise of prices by the lessening of production?

Do you not know that, in the opinion of many political economists, dear food has been considered a cause of progress and prosperity to a nation, by stimulating its inhabitants to exertion and thrift,—notably so in the case of Holland?

Do you not know that, in many countries, where food is cheap, the natives are degraded and wretched?

Cannot you see that the revenue of the country must be raised in some manner, and if a tax be put on corn, it may betaken off some other articleof consumption, almost equally important? and therefore that, if the substitute be judiciously chosen, the tax on it comes back to the consumer insome shape or other? Do you not know that an import tax does not always fall on the consumer?[95]

Cannot you see that the want of alighttax on corn (I do not defend the Corn Laws as they existed, for they imposed an excessive tax) has ruined agriculture, and you are preparing for yourself a serious difficulty? In case of war with any combination of strong maritime powers[96]wheat will rise to famine rates.

Don’t you see that if we transferred a small portion of the tax on tea, sugar, coffee, &c., giving a preference to our dependencies in the case of wheat, we should not only encourage our home, but also our colonial, industries, which are trembling in the balance between existence and nonexistence for want of some slight fostering care.

You are like Nero fiddling while Rome was burning. You are fiddling with your Free Trade, whilst England is going to ruin.

How can it be otherwise? Unlimited foreign competition must necessarily end in disaster. Don’t you see that you are handicapping your people in every way. They have higher wages than other nations. You tax them more heavily, and you pass enactments to prevent their working long hours. You thereby place them at a disadvantage with people who are thrifty and industrious and are not restricted in their hours of work. The same amount of money now buys only half the labour it did forty years ago, this increases the cost of production. Competition forces your manufacturers to work only three or four days a week. This again increases it. Increased leisure gives opportunities for intemperance. This again has a deteriorating effect on produce. Your best hands emigrate to prosperous countries not cursed with free trade,—another cause ofdeterioration in quality of manufactures. The cheap freights, almost nominal, place foreign productions in England at prices very little beyond that at which they can be produced in their native country.

The money spent on foreign produce, instead of being spent in England, is so much capital taken away from this country, helping foreigners to compete with you. You have, in fact, in Free Trade, the most ingeniously devised plan of impoverishing the country. We had a good start, and other countries have been a long time in catching us up, so that we did not feel their competition at first, but they are now passing us hand over hand. English pluck, English capital, and English credit have until now stood the strain bravely, and the general advance of the wealth of the world has blinded our eyes to our real danger, but the struggle cannot last much longer. Capital is draining out to protectionist countries in all directions, but the amount at stake in our manufactories is so enormous that the struggle must be continued at any risk. Credit alone sustains the fabric, and as soon as that is thoroughly shaken, the collapse will be terrible and sudden. The working classes, so long as they receive higher wages than before, are unable to see the danger, but when the collapse comes—and come it surely will before long—the working classes will be the first to demand protection. There are symptoms of it already, for Sir Edward Sullivan has stated:—

“Already a number of operatives, far more than is necessary to turn a general election, have, through their delegates, given in their adherence to Fair Trade.”[97]

FOOTNOTES:[94]Average price of corn for ten years ending 1845 = 57s.10d.[95]Taxes on commodities do not always fall on consumers, but sometimes on producers, and sometimes on the intermediate agent. When a duty is imposed on a foreign commodity, which the importing country has facilities for producing at home, in ordinary cases the duty falls, in the first instance, on the consumer; but when the duty has the effect of increasing competition, the tendency is to a reduction in price, and therefore to the ultimate benefit of the consumers. As the duty equalizes the conditions of production between the local and foreign producers, it enables an entirely new class of competitors to enter the field,—namely, the local producers; and as the circle of competition becomes extended, the rivalry among producers becomes keener, and prices become lower; for competition inevitably leads to this when it is genuine and not a monopoly in disguise, as is often the case. If the duty fails to increase competition, it goes direct into the treasury as revenue; if it fails partially as a revenue tax, owing to the local producer contributing part of the supply, and paying no duty, the competition between the local and foreign producers will cause a reduction in price to the consumer, so that the falling off in the revenue will in some measure be compensated for. If the revenue from duty fail altogether, owing to the local article taking the place of the imported and duty-paying article, a three-fold benefit will be secured. The consumer will gain by a reduction in the price of commodities; the public will gain by increased employment of labour and capital; and, lastly, the State will gain by increased revenue from the additional number of revenue-producing population, supported by the new industry. (David Syme.Fortnightly Review, April, 1873.)So with the English shipping dues, which, as a matter of fact, are not paid by the merchants or consumers, but by the shipowners.In answer to a deputation which waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently, Mr. Lowe,adopting the popular view on the question, attempted to explain that the shipowners did not pay the dues out of their own pockets, that they only advanced the money to the merchant, that the merchant again indemnified himself by raising the price of goods to the consumer. But it appeared that in this particular caseMr. Lowe’s theory did not square with the facts, as the deputation, which consisted of the leading shipowners in England, positively assured him that no such transfer took place.A tax may, under certain conditions, have the very opposite effect from that which it usually has, for instead of increasing the price of a commodity it may have the effect of diminishing it. (This has been the case with cotton in America, as shewn by the evidence given before the Select Committee of the House of Commons, in 1840.) (Fortnightly Review, 1873.)[96]Competent authorities state, that the French navy alone will be far more powerful than that of England, when the ships now in course of construction have been completed, and the French navy can be much more concentrated than ours, which must be distributed over the whole world.[97]The Mail, Decr. 19th, 1883.

[94]Average price of corn for ten years ending 1845 = 57s.10d.

[95]Taxes on commodities do not always fall on consumers, but sometimes on producers, and sometimes on the intermediate agent. When a duty is imposed on a foreign commodity, which the importing country has facilities for producing at home, in ordinary cases the duty falls, in the first instance, on the consumer; but when the duty has the effect of increasing competition, the tendency is to a reduction in price, and therefore to the ultimate benefit of the consumers. As the duty equalizes the conditions of production between the local and foreign producers, it enables an entirely new class of competitors to enter the field,—namely, the local producers; and as the circle of competition becomes extended, the rivalry among producers becomes keener, and prices become lower; for competition inevitably leads to this when it is genuine and not a monopoly in disguise, as is often the case. If the duty fails to increase competition, it goes direct into the treasury as revenue; if it fails partially as a revenue tax, owing to the local producer contributing part of the supply, and paying no duty, the competition between the local and foreign producers will cause a reduction in price to the consumer, so that the falling off in the revenue will in some measure be compensated for. If the revenue from duty fail altogether, owing to the local article taking the place of the imported and duty-paying article, a three-fold benefit will be secured. The consumer will gain by a reduction in the price of commodities; the public will gain by increased employment of labour and capital; and, lastly, the State will gain by increased revenue from the additional number of revenue-producing population, supported by the new industry. (David Syme.Fortnightly Review, April, 1873.)So with the English shipping dues, which, as a matter of fact, are not paid by the merchants or consumers, but by the shipowners.In answer to a deputation which waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently, Mr. Lowe,adopting the popular view on the question, attempted to explain that the shipowners did not pay the dues out of their own pockets, that they only advanced the money to the merchant, that the merchant again indemnified himself by raising the price of goods to the consumer. But it appeared that in this particular caseMr. Lowe’s theory did not square with the facts, as the deputation, which consisted of the leading shipowners in England, positively assured him that no such transfer took place.A tax may, under certain conditions, have the very opposite effect from that which it usually has, for instead of increasing the price of a commodity it may have the effect of diminishing it. (This has been the case with cotton in America, as shewn by the evidence given before the Select Committee of the House of Commons, in 1840.) (Fortnightly Review, 1873.)

So with the English shipping dues, which, as a matter of fact, are not paid by the merchants or consumers, but by the shipowners.

In answer to a deputation which waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently, Mr. Lowe,adopting the popular view on the question, attempted to explain that the shipowners did not pay the dues out of their own pockets, that they only advanced the money to the merchant, that the merchant again indemnified himself by raising the price of goods to the consumer. But it appeared that in this particular caseMr. Lowe’s theory did not square with the facts, as the deputation, which consisted of the leading shipowners in England, positively assured him that no such transfer took place.

A tax may, under certain conditions, have the very opposite effect from that which it usually has, for instead of increasing the price of a commodity it may have the effect of diminishing it. (This has been the case with cotton in America, as shewn by the evidence given before the Select Committee of the House of Commons, in 1840.) (Fortnightly Review, 1873.)

[96]Competent authorities state, that the French navy alone will be far more powerful than that of England, when the ships now in course of construction have been completed, and the French navy can be much more concentrated than ours, which must be distributed over the whole world.

[97]The Mail, Decr. 19th, 1883.

What has become of the Pagoda tree? Is it a myth? Did it ever exist?

These are questions which you must have heard over and over again.

Have you ever tried to answer them? No!

Well! let me do so.

The Pagoda tree isno myth. It exists, but in a deplorably dilapidated condition, and bears but little fruit. Your car of Jugernāth has crushed its roots; your wheels have excoriated its bark; you have torn down its branches to cremate your victims. You have denied it water and manure. Its vitality has been sadly lowered, but it is notquitedead.

Only smash your detestable car of Jugernāth; send your false prophets adrift; and devote a little attention to the cultivation of the Pagoda tree; and it will flourish and bear more fruit than it has ever borne before.

Let us drop metaphor a little.

India has every requisite for the production of unbounded wealth—for the employment of untold capital. How is it then that, with all the advantages it possesses, its industries languish and struggle for bare existence, and in many cases die out altogether? How is it that, with all its material advantages, it does not enjoy unbounded prosperity? I have no doubt that you will point to the increased exports and imports of India, and claim this as an instance of unbounded prosperity due to Free Trade. I contend that it is wholly due to extension in railways, improvement in facilities of transport, and that with these improvements its prosperity ought to have been enormous. If it be prosperous, why dowe have essays on the Poverty of India?[98]Why do Viceroys dwell on the subject of its poverty?[99]Why do its industries languish and die out?

India has untold wealth, and wonderful natural resources, whether agricultural, mineral, or industrial, but they are to a great extent dormant.

It has coal of an excellent character, and inexhaustible in quantity; it has fine petroleum, large supplies of timber and charcoal; it has iron, of a purity that would make an English iron-master’s mouth water, spread wholesale all over the country,—in most places to be had by light quarrying or collection from the surface; it has chrome iron capable of making the finest Damascus blades; manganiferous ore; splendid hematites in profusion. It has gold, silver, antimony, tin, copper, plumbago, lime, kaolin, gypsum, precious stones, asbestos. Soft wheat, equal to the finest Australian; hard wheat, equal to the finest kabanka.[100]It has food grains of every description: oilseeds, tobacco, tea, coffee, cocoa, sugar, spices, lac, dyes, cotton, jute, hemp, flax, coir, fibres of every description; in fact, products too numerous tomention. Its inhabitants are frugal, thrifty, industrious, capable of great physical exertion, docile, easily taught, skilful in any work requiring delicate manipulation. Labour is absurdly cheap; the soil for the most part wonderfully productive, and capable of producing crop after crop without any symptoms of exhaustion.

The present yield of wheat is about 26,500,000 quarters, or about 9,500,000 quarters in excess of the total imports of wheat into England; and in the Punjab alone there is cultivable waste land sufficient to produce 12,000,000 quarters, besides enormous parts in Burmah and other parts of India, only requiring irrigation or population to bring them under the plough.[101]

England imports annually commodities to the value of about £148,500,000 under six heads alone,[102]a large portion of which might be diverted to India by simply adopting a preferential tariff slightly favorable to her dependencies. Take, for example, wheat. If England be determined to persist in the endeavour to ruin its agricultural industry for a political whim, a slight tax on American and Russian wheat would suffice to turn the whole of the wheat import trade to India and Australia. Such a tax would, I believe, tend to lower, rather than raise, the price of wheat, because India would steadily go in for the production of wheat, if its calculations were not liable to be disturbed by a slight fallin the price of wheat in America or Russia, which may throw back a quantity of wheat on the hands of the Indian producers or dealers.[103]

Again, India suffers from a tax which prevents the export of rice except on a tariff which is sometimes as high as 14½ per cent. on the value of the rice. This not only handicaps India in its exports when compared with other countries, but it drives the natives to grow less remunerative crops of oilseeds for export, and the result of this is that, when famine arises, there is no surplus food which might be retained from exports, and thus prevent the painful scenes of starvation and distress that India has witnessed of late years. To take off the tax would prevent depletion, for no foreign country could compete with the demand which failure of crops in any part of India would inevitably cause.

There is about £32,000,000 of English capital invested in Indian manufacturing industries, of which £18,000,000, or more than one-half, is invested in indigo, tea, coffee, jute, cotton, sugar, coal and iron industries, and how are these thriving? Everywherethroughout Bengalyou see the ruins of English Indigo factories.

Coffee and tea are struggling hard for existence. Planters are ruined, and their estates bought at depreciated rates in times of depression. This enables the industries to survive with some show of prosperity in good times. Agricultural industries, such as coffee or tea, draw off surplus population, and employ them on land that would otherwise be uncultivated. Coal is doing fairly, but not nearly so well as it might do if our manufacturing industries prospered.

Cotton manufacture sprung up under a protective tariff, and appeared to be prospering; but selfish Manchester called aloud for the sacrifice of the industry. The tariff was removed, and the industry is left to struggle for life, or perish, as it may. Several capitalists who have embarked capital in cotton manufacture on the faith of this tariff, have lost their money. Everywhere in India, you may see evidences of native iron manufacture crushed out by Free Trade, with nothing but slag heaps remaining to testify to former prosperity. The splendid native iron being superseded by cheap worthless iron of English manufacture. Many attempts have been made by English capitalists to revive, or start, fresh iron industries, but they have one and all been crushed out for want of a little fostering protection. The latest attempt nearly succeeded, but the modest request for a little help was sternly refused:—What!!! Foster your industry? What sacrilege to advocate the violation of every principle of Jugernāth!!! and so the helpless babe was thrown under the relentless wheels of Jugernāth. There was a crunch,—a faint moan from the ruined shareholders,—and then all was over. Hurrah for Jugernāth!!PereatIndia!!!

FOOTNOTES:[98]“India is suffering seriously in several ways, and is sinking in poverty.” (Poverty of India, by Dadabhai Naoreji.)[99]“India is, on the whole, a very poor country: the mass of the population enjoy only a scanty subsistence.” (Lord Lawrence, 1864.)“I admit the comparative poverty of this country as compared with many other countries of the same magnitude and importance, and I am convinced of the impolicy and injustice of imposing burdens on this people which may be called crushing or oppressive.” (Lord Mayo, March, 1871.)“It is not too much to say that the very existence of our rule in India may be gravely imperilled unless the finances of the country are placed in a more satisfactory position.” (Professor Fawcett, Feb., 1879.)“The first thing to do is to point out well that frequent iteration, which alone impresses political masses, that India is of no real use at all to us, that we should bericher, stronger, better, happier without it, that we are cramped, distracted, andimpoverishedby it.” (Why keep India? by Grant Allen.)[100]Dr. Watson’s Report.[101]Government of India Records. Home Agriculture, and Revenue Department, clx. p. 16.[102]Cotton37,300,000Silk2,400,000Grain66,800,000Flax8,700,000Sugar22,400,000Tea10,900,000—————148,500,000[103]“With a more certain market for wheat, it would, in many districts” (of Australia), “be profitable to bore for or to store water and open railways or make rivers navigable, and thus enormously increase the area of profitable wheat production.” (Duke of Manchester,Nineteenth Century, 1881.)

[98]“India is suffering seriously in several ways, and is sinking in poverty.” (Poverty of India, by Dadabhai Naoreji.)

[99]“India is, on the whole, a very poor country: the mass of the population enjoy only a scanty subsistence.” (Lord Lawrence, 1864.)“I admit the comparative poverty of this country as compared with many other countries of the same magnitude and importance, and I am convinced of the impolicy and injustice of imposing burdens on this people which may be called crushing or oppressive.” (Lord Mayo, March, 1871.)“It is not too much to say that the very existence of our rule in India may be gravely imperilled unless the finances of the country are placed in a more satisfactory position.” (Professor Fawcett, Feb., 1879.)“The first thing to do is to point out well that frequent iteration, which alone impresses political masses, that India is of no real use at all to us, that we should bericher, stronger, better, happier without it, that we are cramped, distracted, andimpoverishedby it.” (Why keep India? by Grant Allen.)

[99]“India is, on the whole, a very poor country: the mass of the population enjoy only a scanty subsistence.” (Lord Lawrence, 1864.)

“I admit the comparative poverty of this country as compared with many other countries of the same magnitude and importance, and I am convinced of the impolicy and injustice of imposing burdens on this people which may be called crushing or oppressive.” (Lord Mayo, March, 1871.)

“It is not too much to say that the very existence of our rule in India may be gravely imperilled unless the finances of the country are placed in a more satisfactory position.” (Professor Fawcett, Feb., 1879.)

“The first thing to do is to point out well that frequent iteration, which alone impresses political masses, that India is of no real use at all to us, that we should bericher, stronger, better, happier without it, that we are cramped, distracted, andimpoverishedby it.” (Why keep India? by Grant Allen.)

[100]Dr. Watson’s Report.

[101]Government of India Records. Home Agriculture, and Revenue Department, clx. p. 16.

[102]Cotton37,300,000Silk2,400,000Grain66,800,000Flax8,700,000Sugar22,400,000Tea10,900,000—————148,500,000

[102]

Cotton37,300,000Silk2,400,000Grain66,800,000Flax8,700,000Sugar22,400,000Tea10,900,000—————148,500,000

[103]“With a more certain market for wheat, it would, in many districts” (of Australia), “be profitable to bore for or to store water and open railways or make rivers navigable, and thus enormously increase the area of profitable wheat production.” (Duke of Manchester,Nineteenth Century, 1881.)

Back to Index Next