Produced by Chris Curnow, John Campbell and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive) TRANSCRIBERâS NOTE Italic text is denoted by _underscores_. Many Footnotes have two or more anchors. Some minor changes are noted at the end of the book. THE BRITISH JUGERNATH. FREE TRADE! FAIR TRADE!! RECIPROCITY!!! RETALIATION!!!! A gruesome huge misshapen monster void of sight.--_Virgil._ BY G. L. M. LONDON: E. & F. N. SPON, 125, STRAND. 1885. _Price Sixpence._ LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS. Dedicated TO SIR EDWARD SULLIVAN, BART., IN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE MANY VALUABLE HINTS THE AUTHOR HAS DERIVED FROM HIS âBUBBLES.â PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. The following squib was written in 1883, with the intention of drawing attention to the serious danger into which we are rapidly drifting, through the suicidal policy of our rulers. Since it was written the evils indicated therein have greatly increased in intensity. The interests of the producers having been completely sacrificed to those of the consumers; the results of such a policy are becoming painfully apparent, in the increasing number of the unemployed, consequent on _unlimited foreign competition_. Working men who are unable to obtain employment can no longer be persuaded, either by the plausible statistics of Mr. Giffen, or by the peevish denunciations of Mr. Bright, that, thanks to Free Trade, they are better off than they were ever before. Cheap food is of little avail if the means of purchasing it be not forthcoming. The cry for _fair_ trade is waxing stronger and stronger. I have endeavoured to show that a light tax on foreign wheat, would, without any appreciable increase in the cost of food, probably enrich England and its dependencies to the extent of about Â£60,000,000 annually; whilst at present a large portion of this is employed in furnishing the sinews of war which will probably be used against us. G. L. M. _March 30th, 1885._ INDEX. PAGE CHAP. I.--To the Votaries of JugernÄth 1 II.--The Blasphemer 2 III.--What is JugernÄth? 4 IV.--A few ugly Facts 6 V.--Axioms for JugernÄthians 9 VI.--Political Economy 12 VII.--Political Extravagance 17 VIII.--False Prophets of JugernÄth 21 IX.--Isolation of JugernÄth 24 X.--Treachery in the Camp 29 XI.--Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat 33 XII.--The wages of JugernÄth 35 XIII.--Pauperism, Crime, and Intemperance 37 XIV.--JugernÄth afloat 41 XV.--Adverse Prosperity 43 XVI.--Sacred Rights of Property 47 XVII.--Selections from JugernÄthâs Sacred Writings 51 XVIII.--The Vampire 54 XIX.--Odimus quos lÃ¦simus 59 XX.--Prosperous Adversity 63 XXI.--Ireland under the wheels 64 XXII.--The Finishing Stroke 68 XXIII.--Little Greatness 71 XXIV.--Blunder and Plunder 73 XXV.--Dear Cheap Food 77 XXVI.--The Pagoda tree 81 XXVII.--I know a Maiden fair to see 85 APPENDIX I.--Discourtesy _versus_ Argument 89 â II.--Unheeded Warning 96 THE BRITISH JUGERNATH. CHAPTER I. TO THE VOTARIES OF JUGERNATH. My Idolatrous Compatriot! Were it not for the gravity of the situation, it would be amusing to watch the self-complacent smile of conscious superiority which you assume, when descanting on the paternal character of our rule in suppressing such abuses as those of Suttee and JugernÄth; unconscious at the same time that the JugernÄth of the wretched Hindoo is dwarfed into complete insignificance when compared with that huge idol which you yourself have set up for worship. My dear fellow! for goodnessâ sake put away the microscope with which you are so patiently investigating the mote in the eye of your Aryan brother, and bear with me, whilst I attempt to extract the huge log which obscures your own visual organs. And should I (contrary to my expectation), succeed in removing so large a mass, you will find that, whilst you have been depriving your Aryan brethren of their comparatively innocent little plaything, which at the most might have crushed some half dozen fanatics, in the course of a year, you have reared up a horrible fantastic creation which you worship, which in its progress is crushing its thousands and even millions every year; which is stamping out the lifeblood of England and its dependencies; whilst all the time you are applauding it, sounding your political tom-toms, blowing your trumpets to shouts of wah! wah! complacently misapplying glib quotations from your sacred Vedas (Adam Smith and Mill), flaunting your banners of political economy while violating every principle of that useful but misused science. CHAPTER II. THE BLASPHEMER. Now, my Friend, I am not sanguine enough to expect a patient hearing from you whilst I revile that idol which you have set up with sound of sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and other kinds of (un)musical instruments. I am perfectly aware that I shall be cast, by you, into the fiery furnace of criticism; I can imagine, in anticipation, the vials of your wrath poured out on my unlucky head; and I donât expect to escape like our friends Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. I am not composed of those materials of which martyrs are made. I know full well that I shall writhe horribly under the taunt of âungrammatical twaddle,â for how can I hope to escape an occasional slip of the pen, of which even the heaven-born âCovenanted Civilianâ is not always innocent. I shall wriggle under the analysis of my âillogical reasoning,â my âexploded theories,â my âfaulty statistics.â I shall squirm under the exposure of my âignorance of facts,â my âwant of knowledge of political economy,â my âantiquated notions.â That I shall suffer severely for my blasphemy I know right well; but I cannot help it. Strike!! but hear me. I am weary to death of the claptrap and imposition with which your votaries applaud their idol, and attribute the evils caused by it to anything but the right cause. I am disgusted with the blind obstinacy with which you close your eyes to the light of facts; besides, I have the selfish feeling that, sooner or later, I may be jostled by admiring votaries under the wheels of your car, whilst I shall not have even the consolation of deluding myself that I am a martyr ascending to the heaven of your JugernÄthian mythology, but, on the contrary, a victim of your confounded stupidity and obstinacy, and of the incompetence or dishonesty of your leaders. If I could only stand on the platform of any other audience and address Americans, Dutch, Belgians, Germans, or say Frenchmen, I might secure a sympathetic hearing. The Frenchman would probably shrug his shoulders and say:-- âI quite agree with, you, mon ami! mais que voulez vous? It amuses these other English, and does not hurt us; on the contrary, we profit by it. We furnish the gilt and gingerbread, the paint and the unmusical instruments; and we are paid for them, vive JugernÄth!! only donât ask us to be fools enough to put ourselves under its wheels.â You, on the other hand, my friend, will naturally say: âBah! these Americans, Dutch, Belgians, Germans, and French are brutally stupid, and beyond the reach of argument; blind to their own interests. We alone stand on the pinnacle of intelligence in our worship of JugernÄth. Has not our High Priest, the G. O. M., swept away all your argument like chaff?â Pardon me, my friend. The exuberant verbosity of the G. O. M., combined with his misleading and incorrect statistics, may easily silence an opponent in debate, but they cannot alter stern facts; and facts are against your idol. Your prophets prophesy falsely, and your people love to have it so. CHAPTER III. WHAT IS JUGERNATH? Well! well!! I have put off the evil day as long as possible; but sooner or later it must come out, even if you have not already guessed it. Stoop low while I whisper in your ear the name by which this destructive fiend JugernÄth is known in England. It is:-- FREE TRADE!!! Yes! it is _Free trade_ that has utterly ruined Ireland; that is rapidly dragging England down under its wheels; that drains the lifeblood of India and Englandâs dependencies. Free trade is that idol which England worships, but which brings in its train disaster, bankruptcy, pauperism, drunkenness, and crime. It is Free trade that is destroying Englandâs industries, and is driving her capital to protectionist countries. It is Free trade that, if not soon abandoned, will soon bring about a national bankruptcy in England. My dear fellow! I know your stale arguments by heart. I have looked into your dishonest and fictitious statistics and discovered their imposture. I know you can make glib quotations from Adam Smith and Mill, and misapply them. It is easy for you to prate about Political _Economy_, and at the same time to practise Political _Extravagance_, of the most ruinous description; but I ask you to leave theory for a short time and look ugly facts straight in the face, divesting your mind, if you can, of all prejudice. These facts I will give you in the next chapter. But now donât misunderstand me. I am not a _rabid_ protectionist. I am not an advocate of Fair trade, Reciprocity, or Retaliation. I hold that Protection, if carried beyond its legitimate limits, is nearly as mischievous in its action as Free trade. And that although âFair trade,â âReciprocityâ and âRetaliationâ are cries that have been evoked by the evils that Free trade has brought upon us, yet they are wrong in practice, as an attempt at a compromise with an utterly false principle; and I am glad that the movement has collapsed. I hold that Free trade is entirely wrong in principle and disastrous in results. Every argument of the free-trader is based on the _misuse_, not upon the _proper use_, of Protection. Every so-called triumphant exposure of the evils caused by Protection has simply been an exposure of the evils of Protection carried _beyond its legitimate limits_. The Corn Laws, to which Free trade owes its existence, were an instance of undue protection; they urgently required _alteration_, not _repeal_. Free trade advocates are unable to distinguish the difference between the use and the misuse of a principle. In their abhorrence of its misuse, they would sweep it away altogether. They are about as reasonable as the man who discovers that too much food will cause indigestion, and therefore proposes, as an infallible law of political economy, the dogma that no food whatever is to be taken. And they stigmatize as âsimpletons without memory or logic,â as men âbeyond the reach of argumentâ[1] those who decline to accept the Free trade gospel of starvation. FOOTNOTE: [1] Mr. Brightâs letter to A. Sharp, Bradford, 1879. CHAPTER IV. A FEW UGLY FACTS. I have said that facts are against your idol, let me advance a few of them:-- (1.) The prophecies made by the originators of free trade have proved to be false. (2.) England stands alone as a free-trader. Free trade, at the present time, is either an English, or a barbarous custom. (3.) France made a partial trial of free trade, but has drawn back and refused to continue the commercial treaty. (4.) Increased wealth,--due to improvements in science, steam, and electricity, although dishonestly claimed the work of free trade,--has been shared by all civilized nations. (5.) Protectionist countries have made _greater relative advance_ in prosperity than England. (6.) The exceptional prosperity of the years 1871-73 was due to a partial _suspension of free trade_ caused by the Franco-Prussian war. (7.) The rise of wages in England,--dishonestly claimed as the work of free trade,--has been shared by Protectionist countries. (8.) The statistics of decrease of crime and pauperism--claimed as the work of free trade--are fictitious and misleading. (9.) Protectionist America is passing Free Trade England by âin a canter.â (10.) Protectionist America contrasts favourably with Free Trade Canada. (11.) Canada having lately departed from free trade principles, is satisfied with the result, and clamours for more protection. (12.) The Colony of Victoria, which has departed farthest from the principles of free trade, is the most prosperous of the Australian Colonies. (13.) Free Trade Ireland contrasts unfavourably with Protectionist Holland, which has every natural disadvantage. (14.) The agricultural industry of Ireland has been destroyed, and Ireland ruined by free trade. (15.) The manufacturing industries of Ireland, which flourished under protection, have become extinct under free trade. (16.) English agricultural industries are rapidly being ruined by free trade. (17.) In the last eleven years, about 1,200,000, acres have gone out of tillage in the United Kingdom, and about 7,400,000 acres are lying fallow. (18.) Numerous farms are untenanted, or let at nominal rates. (19.) The loss to the agricultural classes within the last few years has been estimated at Â£150,000,000.[2] (20.) Many English landowners are realizing what they can from the wreck, and investing the capital in Protectionist America. (21.) English manufacturing industries are, for the most part, on the high road to ruin. (22.) Silk industry is nearly extinct in England. (23.) Cotton and woollen industries are struggling hard for existence. (24.) Iron industries are said to have lost Â£160,000,000 in four years. (25.) Protectionist countries have outstripped England in relative increase of commerce. (26.) The accumulation of wealth is increasing more rapidly in Protectionist France than in England, in spite of a disastrous war, a heavy war indemnity, a civil war, and an unsettled form of Government. (27.) Land cultivation is increasing in Protectionist France and decreasing in Free Trade England. (28.) The relative increase in the production of iron is greater in Protectionist countries than in England. (29.) The relative increase in general manufacture is Greater in Protectionist countries than in England. (30.) The working classes, by whom free trade was carried, though nominally free-traders, are practically extreme protectionists. (31.) The working classes, whenever they have obtained predominant influence, have become protectionists. (32.) âThe revenue returns continue to exhibit a stagnant tendency _under all the heads which are considered tests of national prosperity_.â (Telegraphic Summary of News, _Civil and Military Gazette_, December 7th, 1883.) (33.) âIt is predicted that, unless Freight rates to India speedily improve, a considerable number of steamers now engaged in the trade will be laid up.â (_Civil and Military Gazette_, December 7th, 1883.) (34.) âGloomy predictions are uttered about the immediate future of our iron-trade. Few fresh orders are coming in, and stocks are consequently increasing in an alarming manner.â (_Civil and Military Gazette_, December 7th, 1883.) (35.) âAgain it is alleged that the principles of free trade, which have been adopted in this country, have tended, in a great degree, to produce the disastrous results which we have at present to contend against, and which present a gloomy look-out for the cotton operatives of this country.â (_The Mail_, December 19th, 1883.) (36.) âIt 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, and _what bearing our system of free trade_ may have on the question.â (_The Mail_, December 19th, 1883.) Before I proceed to substantiate the facts above given, I wish to clear the ground by a few axioms which I think few will venture to dispute. FOOTNOTE: [2] By Mr. John Bright. CHAPTER V. AXIOMS FOR JUGERNATHIANS. _Axiom._ _Action of Free-Trade._ (1.) The object of political Free trade attaches more economy is to increase importance to consumption than the wealth and power to productive industries. of a country.[3] (2.) The riches or power of a country is in proportion to its produce.[3] (3.) _Industries_, or the produce Free trade destroys the sources of the land and labour, of employing productive are the REAL WEALTH labour. of the country.[3] (4.) The requisites of production are Labour, Capital and Land.[4] (5.) Parsimony, not industry, Free trade promotes consumption is the immediate source rather than parsimony. of increase of capital.[3] (6.) Capital is wealth appropriated Free trade is rapidly driving to reproductive capital to Protectionist employment.[4] countries. (7.) Industries are limited by capital, and cannot be created without capital.[5] (8.) Increase of capital gives employment to labour without assignable limits.[5] (9.) Productive labour is Free trade makes labour labour employed to produce unproductive a profit.[6] (10.) Emigration of productive Free trade encourages the labour is loss of capital. immigration of productive The Minister of War labour to Protectionist in France asserts that countries. every individual transported to Algeria costs the State 8,000 francs. (11.) Industries carried on without profit, cause loss of capital and credit. (12.) It is demand only that Free trade prefers consumption causes labour and its to demand. produce to be wealth.[6] (13.) To purchase produce is Free trade purchases produce not to employ labour.[5] instead of employing labour. (14.) Capital employed on Foreign trade is less advantageously employed for society than on Home trade.[7] (In extreme cases Adam Smith Free trade encourages Foreign shows that capital might be and Carrying trade, rather twenty-four times more than Home trade. advantageously employed on _Home_ than on _Foreign_ trade.) (15.) Carrying trade is less advantageous than either Foreign or Home trade.[7] (16.) Interest on capital is natural, lawful, and consistent with the general good.[8] (17.) A struggle between Free trade leaders encourage a capital and labour is the struggle between Labour and greatest evil that can be Capital, between Landlord and inflicted on society.[8] Tenant. (18.) Land let out for profit is the capital of the landlord.[9] (19.) The capital of the employers Free trade destroys the capital forms the revenue of the employer. of the labourer.[10] (20.) Nothing can be more Free trade leaders raise this fatal than the cry cry against the capitalist against capital, so often landlord. unthinkingly uttered.[9] (21.) Rent does not affect the price of agricultural produce.[9] (22.) It is to the interest of Mr. Bright says, that rich the labourer that there landlord capitalists are the should be as many rich squanderers of national men as possible to compete wealth. for his labour.[9] (23.) Agriculture is the most Free trade has destroyed advantageous employment agriculture in England and of capital.[11] Ireland. (24.) No equal capital puts in motion a greater quantity of productive labour than that of the farmer.[11] (25.) Cultivated land is more Free trade leaders urge the advantageous than pasture.[11] substitution of pasture for (It has been computed wheat cultivation in England. that wheat cultivation per acre, compared with pasture land, produces eight times the quantity of human food, and employs three times the amount of labour.) (26.) The interests of the agricultural and manufacturing classes are inseparably connected with those of the whole community. (27.) Credit when sound is Free trade is destroying credit capital.[12] by causing industries to work at a loss. (28.) Credit, when it exceeds the present value of future profits, is unsound. (29.) Credit is the anticipation of future profit.[12] (30.) Money is the accumulation of past profits. (31.) Activity of commerce is Free trade causes the commerce not necessarily an indication of Great Britain to be one of of prosperity. consumption rather than production, and consequently unhealthy. (32.) The true Economist pursues Free trade, to avoid a small a great future good present evil, risks a national at the risk of a small disaster. present evil.[13] FOOTNOTES: [3] Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith. [4] Political Economy, by J. S. Mill. [5] Political Economy, by J. S. Mill. [6] Political Economy, by H. D. Macleod. [7] Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith. [8] Political Economy, by F. Bastiat. [9] Political Economy, by H. D. Macleod. [10] Political Economy, by J. S. Mill. [11] Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith. [12] Political Economy, by H. D. Macleod. [13] Political Economy, by F. Bastiat. CHAPTER VI. POLITICAL ECONOMY. Do not suppose, my Friend, that I am opposed to _political economy_; I am simply opposed to _your application of its principles_. Let me illustrate my meaning by a comparison between Mathematics and Political Economy:-- Mathematics may be divided into two classes--âpureâ and âapplied.â Political economy may be divided into two similar classes--âpureâ and âapplied.â _Pure_ Mathematics, being an exact science, is infallible. _Pure_ Political economy, being a matter of opinion, is not infallible; but let us for the moment suppose it to be so.[14] _Applied_ mathematics are not always sound; for example, in applying mathematics to Engineering problems, it is by no means uncommon to find that they appear to err most egregiously; so much so, as to give rise to the saying, that âtheory and practice contradict one another.â The fact, in reality, being that theory has not been correctly applied; that innumerable small factors, which can only be ascertained by practice and experience, have been neglected in the application of theory; and even practice often fails to supply these factors. _Applied_ Political Economy is under similar conditions, but with this difference: _1st_, that _pure_ Political Economy is not infallible; _2nd_, that the application of Political Economy is affected by a greater number of intricate factors than any ordinary problem in Engineering; _3rd_, that the observation of results in a complex question of Applied Political Economy is far more difficult than in the case of those simple materials which are dealt with in Engineering problems. The eminent Italian Political Economist, Luigi Cossa, warns the student of this difficulty; but free-trading âfools rush in where angels fear to tread.â He says:-- âIt is needful to hold ourselves aloof equally from the so-called Doctrinaires who refuse the assistance of practice, and from the Empiricists who obstinately close their eyes to the light of theory. _The Pure science_ explains phenomena and determines laws; the _Applied_ science gives guiding principles, which practice brings into conformity with the innumerable varieties of individual cases.â[15] Mill also says:-- âOne of the peculiarities of modern times,--the separation of theory from practice,--of the studies of the closet from the outward business of the world,--has given a wrong bias to the ideas and feelings both of the student and of the man of business.[16] ... There is almost always room for a modest doubt as to our practical conclusions.â Let us take an example of pure and applied science. You, my Friend, quote an axiom of Pure Political Economy when you say:-- âIt is unjust to tax all for the benefit of _one class_â So far I quite agree with you;--it is to your _application_ of the _axiom_ that I object, when you go on to say--âtherefore protection in any shape is wrong.â Your application of pure science to the complex question of free trade is quite incorrect. I say â_it is just and expedient to tax all for the benefit of all_.â I hold that the employment of home and colonial labour, and the development of home and colonial produce and industries, is for the benefit of the community as a whole; and that, consequently, protection, if _carried only to the extent necessary to secure this, and no further_, is just and expedient. The Corn Laws, as existing in 1846, went beyond this: and their _alteration_, not their _abolition_, was needed. Your free-traderâs argument is like that of a man who has discovered that too much water will drown, and proceeds at once to the other extreme of killing by thirst. _All extremes are bad._ Free trade is an _extreme_. Want of competition is bad. Extreme competition is bad. _Healthy_ competition is that which is wanted. Unlimited competition defeats its own purpose by crushing out weaker industries, diminishing the supply, and enabling the successful competitors to raise their prices as soon as the rival industry has been extinguished. Even Mill admits that protection may âbe defensible when imposed temporarily ... in hopes of naturalizing a foreign industry.â[17] And Cossa allows that-- âAt certain times, and under certain conditions, protection has given notable advantages to industrial organization and progress.... Colbertâs system and Cromwellâs Navigation Act, contributed not a little to the economic greatness of France and England.â[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 introducing _utter confusion_ into the topic of Wages. Cossa speaks of Millâs âardent concessions to socialism more apparent than real;â of his â_narrow philosophic utilitarianism_.â Also, speaking of Thornton, Cossa says:[20]-- âHis book on labour is an excellent one; it made a great impression on Mill, and caused him to _abandon his theory of wages fund_; which has also been opposed by Lange, by the American Economist Walker, and by Bretano.â Many of the inaccuracies of Mill have been exposed by Professor Cairnes.[21] Mr. Cook says:-- âMill, however, is said to have _abandoned the seesaw theory_ in his latest and yet unpublished essays.â[22] Macleod also, in writing on the question of rent says:-- âThis does not exhaust the _absurdity_ of the Ricardo-Mill theory of rent ... but in fact _Mill himself has completely overthrown_ this theory of rent.â[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 âPolitical Bias,â and which Cossa terms Millâs ânarrow philosophic utilitarianism,â 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 dellâEconomio Politico.--L. Cossa. [16] Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy, J. S. Mill, p. 156. [17] Millâs Political Economy, Bk. V. Chap. X. [18] Cossaâs Political Economy, Bk. II. Chap. III. [19] Practical Political Economy, by Profr. Bonamy Price. [20] Cossaâs 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] Macleodâs Economics, p. 116. [24] An illustration of this is given in Chap. XV. CHAPTER VII. POLITICAL EXTRAVAGANCE. 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. âLook!â you say, âat the visible signs of prosperity caused by free trade, our annual imports are in excess of our exports by Â£100,000,000. This represents the annual accumulation of our national wealth.â Now, my friend, I want you to try and take a common-sense view of things:-- Mill says, that â_saving_ enriches, and spending impoverishes, the community along with the individual.â[25] Now let us apply Englandâs 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 he _consumed_ more than he _sold_? 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 Â£40,000,000 a year; and she is parting with her _limited capital_ of 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 { Corn and flour Â£ 60,856,768[26] in England. { Live animals 8,525,256[27] { Meat 35,760,286[27] ------------- Â£ 105,142,310 ============= Capable of being produced { Tea Â£ 11,208,601[28] in Englandâs dependencies { Sugar 24,288,797[28] ------------ Total Â£ 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 Â£100,000,000 sterling is _entirely 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]-- âShould the day ever arrive when most of her mills are silent, her âBlack countryâ 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.â Let us now hear what America has to say about free trade:-- âIf, 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. âUnder 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.â A few quotations from the utterances of our own countrymen may serve to show what Protection has done for America:-- âThe 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.â (Rylandsâ Trade Circular, Birmingham, March 4th, 1871.) âA 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.â (Lectures at the Colonial Institution, November, 1878.) âUnless our manufacturers bestir themselves, the Americans will completely command the markets of Europe.â (Col. Wrottesbyâs Letter to the _Times_, July 6, 1869.) âManufactories have been _created 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.â (Report of Philadelphia Exhibition, Mr. P. Graham, Vice-President of the Society of Arts.) âThe 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, the _high tariff having greatly stimulated its development_.â (Report of Philadelphia Exhibition. Mr. H. Mitchel, Member of Bradford Chamber of Commerce.) âAmerica 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.â (Mr. Mundella, Nov. 21, 1874.) âThere is no time to be lost if we mean to hold our own in the hardware trade.â (J. Andersonâs Report on Philadelphia Exhibition.) âFor 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.â (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-- In 1870 = Â£145,000 1876 = 4,000 Value of exports of paper-- 1869 = 750 1876 = 162,000 Tapestry carpet imported into the United States-- 1872 = 2,754,000 yards. 1879 = 23,900 â FOOTNOTES: [25] âPolitical Economy,â by Mill, Bk. I. Chap. V. [26] âStatesmanâs Yearbook,â 1883, p. 257. [27] âWhitakerâs Almanack,â 1883, p. 254. [28] âStatesmanâs Yearbook,â 1883. p. 257. [29] Albert Leffingwell. CHAPTER VIII. FALSE PROPHETS OF JUGERNATH. 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 the _free_ importation of Total importations of wheat foreign corn could very little in 1881 = 17,000,000 quarters affect the interest of the farmers as against 23,728 prophesied by of Great Britain.... If there Adam Smith. 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.) The Americans are a very cautious, After receiving the agricultural far-seeing people, and every products of America for one who knows them knows that thirty-eight years, we find the they would never have tolerated Americans are as strong their protective tariff if we had protectionists as ever, and the met their advances by receiving presidential message, 4th their agricultural products in December 1883, recommends that exchange for our manufacturing America should retaliate on all products. (Cobden, 1842.) countries taxing American produce. I speak my unfeigned convictions After thirty-eight years of free when I say I believe there trade Prophet Bright admits that is no interest in the country that the agricultural classes, owners would receive so much benefit and occupiers of land have lost from the repeal of the Corn Laws more than Â£150,000,000. Numerous as the Farm-tenant interest in farm-tenants have emigrated this country. (Cobden, 1844.) to protectionist America. I believe when the future historian The true historian will have comes to write the history to record:-- of agriculture, he will have to state:--In such a year there was a âAfter the introduction of free stringent Corn law passed for the trade, although the general protection of agriculture. From advance of wealth due to that time agriculture slumbered improvements in science, steam in England, and it was not until, and electricity gave to England, by the aid of the Anti-Corn-Law- from time to time, the appearance League, the Corn Law was of agricultural prosperity, yet utterly abolished, that agriculture agriculture gradually decayed; and sprung up into the full in 1884 millions of acres had gone vigour of existence in England, out of tillage; land had become to become what it is now, like foul and was badly farmed; the manufactures, unrivalled in hundreds of farms were absolutely the world. (Cobden, 1844.) untenanted; farmers had emigrated to protectionist countries; landowners had sold their land at ruinous prices, and invested the residue in America. Never was ruin more complete.â You have no more right to Not only is no other country doubt that the sun will rise in the free-trader, but even England heavens, than to doubt that, in ten is getting rather shaky years from the time when England in her adhesion. Mr. Forster, inaugurates the glorious era of at Bradford, entreated his commercial freedom, every civilized hearers not to âsay anything that country will be free-trader might induce foreigners to to the backbone. (Cobden, 1844.) _suspect that our faith in free trade was shaken_â Mr. Bright, in his letter to Mr. Lord, wrote; âTo return to Protection, under the name of Reciprocity, is to confess to Protectionists abroad that _we have been wrong and they have been right_.â I believe that if you abolish After thirty-eight years not a the Corn Laws and adopt free single country in Europe has been trade in its simplicity, there will foolish enough to follow our not be a tariff in Europe that example. France has drawn back will not be changed in less than from her commercial treaty with five years to follow your example. us. Mr. Thiers, in his speech of (Cobden, 1846.) January 18th, 1880, said: âIn the first country in the world arrangements are made to protect the different branches of native industry.â Bastiat prophesied that France France has not adopted free would adopt free trade in six years trade, and is more strongly after England had adopted it. protectionist than ever. Bastiat prophesied that, without Statistics given in the next free trade, no country can chapter shows that the relative prosper. prosperity of protectionist countries is greater than that of England. Bastiat prophesied that because Belgium is enjoying wonderful Belgium had rejected free prosperity. trade her ruin was certain. Professor Cairnes says:-- âThe 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.â[30] Disraeli prophesied in 1852:-- âThe time will come when the working classes in England will come to you on bended knees, and pray you to undo your present legislation.â And it really seems as if the time was approaching for the fulfilment of his prophecy, for I read in a recent Paper: âIt 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, and _what bearing free trade may have on the question_.â Sir Edward Sullivan also stated in a recent speech that: âAlready 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.â[31] Fair trade is one step in the direction of protection. FOOTNOTES: [30] _Fortnightly Review_, July, 1871. [31] _The Mail_, December 19th, 1883. CHAPTER IX. ISOLATION OF JUGERNATH. Carlyle has said--âThere are thirty millions of people in Great Britain, _mostly fools_.â 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 Carlyleâs 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 â_America is passing us by in a canter_.â 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 âpassed in a canterâ 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. âPassed by at a canter!!â 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 of comprehensive 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? our Liberal politicians now 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--âpassing us by at a canter.â 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 1860 1880 Free trade England 100 to 180 { France â â 205 { Germany â â 197 Protectionist { Holland â â 216 { Belgium â â 242 { America â â 201 Exports-- 1860 1882 England 100 to 177 France â â 158 Germany â â 200 Belgium â â 274 Holland â â 295 America â â 197 Railway Construction-- 1860 1882 England 100 to 176 France â â 290 Germany â â 322 Belgium â â 318 America â â 343 Railway goods traffic-- 1860 1882 England 100 to 312 France â â 409 Germany â â 654 Holland and Belgium â â 525 Production of Coal-- 1860 1880 England 100 to 173 France â â 237 Germany â â 421 Belgium â â 170 America â â 467 Production of Iron-- 1850 1882 England 100 to 377 France â â 498 Germany â â 789 Belgium â â 377 America â â 719 Production of Copper-- 1850 1880 England 100 to 29 France â â 212 Germany â â 615 America â â 750 Consumption of Raw Cotton-- Years 1860 1880 England 100 to 123 France â â 158 Germany â â 177 America â â 234 General Manufactures-- 1860 1880 England 100 to 139 America â â 280 Woollen Manufacture-- 1860 1880 1881 England 100 to -- 122 America 100 to 331 -- Number of holders of National Securities-- 1850 1880 England âconsolsâ 100 to 83 France âRentesâ 100 â 547 Legacy probate value-- 1860 1880 England 100 to 162 France 100 â 193 Amount of Deposits in Savings Banks-- 1850 1882 England 100 to 267 France â â 1912 Germany â â 1950 Belgium and Holland â â 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 are increasing 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 Englandâs immense superiority in area far more than outweighs the advantage of compactness. [34] It must be understood that, in all the statistics above given, âEnglandâ and âAmericaâ are intended to mean--the United Kingdom and the United States respectively. [35] _The Mail_, Dec. 19th, 1883. CHAPTER X. TREACHERY IN THE CAMP. 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-- âIn 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?â Mr. Syme also says:-- âIn 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.â[36] Free
{'title': 'The British Jugernath: Free trade! Fair trade!! Reciprocity!!! Retaliation!!!!', 'source': 'Project Gutenberg', 'lang': 'en'}