Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Lord Penzance, however, is an utter disbeliever in 'Free Imports being in any way an efficient cause in the building up of our commercial prosperity.

If the system of Free Imports' (says he) is really the cause of our prosperity, we alone ought to have experienced that prosperity, and other nations, who repudiate that system, ought not to have experienced the like. But here is the remarkable fact. The progress of other nations in wealth and prosperity during the last fifty years has not only equalled, but has exceeded, our own.

The italics are his lordship's. He then proceeds :

In making this assertion of a fact to which public attention is rarely drawn in this country when 'Free Trade' is discussed, and which is all-important in that discussion, I wish at once to give my authority. In the volume entitled The Progress of the World, by Mr. Mulhall, I find (at page 45) this passage. Speaking of the whole world, he says: "In the last fifty years commerce has grown twelve times faster than population, having multiplied eightfold, as follows;' and he then gives the figures and the rate of increase for each country separately:

The commerce of the United Kingdom has increased 7-fold
The British Colonies

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

141
9

[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

And then, adding the figures together, he brings out the progress of the whole world at eightfold. So that the advance of this country, which was only sevenfold, is rather below than above that of the rest of the world.

Lord Penzance appeals to the figures given to show that the progress of other nations in wealth and prosperity during the last fifty years has not only equalled, but has exceeded, our own. If he supposes that the figures of Mr. Mulhall which he gives bear out this assertion, he must be one of the most simple-minded of men. Without other columns of figures showing the amounts of the trade done at the two dates chosen, 1830 and 1878, the figures he gives, which only tell us certain proportions, are absolutely worthless for comparison. In all such cases we must have actual amounts as well as proportions, or percentages. In the figures given the commerce of Great Britain is said to have increased sevenfold, and that of Austria thirteenfold. Are we to understand that both countries started from the same figure? If not, the seven and the thirteen signify two very different quantities; they have no common denominator; and therefore they convey a false impression.

On turning to Mr. Mulhall's table, I find that Lord Penzance has omitted two columns of figures showing the trade done by the several countries in 1830 and 1878. I append the table as given in the book:

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

An inspection of the table demonstrates the absurdity of the supposition that the figures show that our progress in wealth and commerce has been surpassed by other nations. Mr. Mulhall himself would be one of those most surprised to learn that any such deduction could be drawn. Great Britain, for instance, starts with a commerce of 88 millions which she increases to 601 millions, having added 513 millions to it. Austria starts with 12 millions and ends with 160 millions, having increased only 148 millions; and yet we are to believe that she has progressed nearly twice as fast as we have!

But, assuming for a moment that these figures show that Protectionist nations have progressed in wealth and commerce faster than free-importing England, does Lord Penzance suppose that such a fact settles the question between the two opposing fiscal systems? It does nothing of the kind. The question is not whether the commerce of other nations increases faster, or slower, than ours, for countries vary infinitely in their material resources, and in the physical and moral qualities of their inhabitants, but whether by the adoption of a policy of Protection we should have done better in the past, or should do better in the future. It is on this point that argument and proof are wanting, and until we get them the nation will, I think, be content with the system under which they live, and under which, in fact, such marvellous results have been achieved.

Lord Penzance thinks that his statements and arguments up to this point have established two propositions-first, that it is a delusion to imagine that by increasing our imports we are necessarily and inevitably securing an increase of a similar character to the exports; secondly, that as other countries which have adopted Protection have equalled or surpassed us in prosperity, our prosperity is not to be

attributed to the 'Free Import' system. 'I conceive,' he says, 'that in the establishment of these two propositions the two main supporte of a system of Free Imports' are withdrawn.' Whether he has done so or not I am content to leave to the judgment of the reader.

[ocr errors]

Lord Penzance, having as he imagines overthrown the Free Import' system, proceeds to inquire what are the benefits which it confers upon the community. All that he can see is that these are cheapness, and nothing but cheapness.' He then enters into a long argument as to the comparative value to the working population of cheapness on the one side, and employment and improved wages on the other, into which, consideration of the space at my command forbids my closely following him. His leading idea seems to be that 'cheapness,' whatever he may mean by the term, is incompatible with full employment for our people, whereas dearness' is the best means of providing markets for our productions.

6

[ocr errors]

'Cheapness' and 'dearness,' however, in this connection, mean that in the one case the State does not interfere between producer and consumer in order to raise the price of any commodity by means of duties, while in the other it does so. Lord Penzance thinks that by means of Free Imports foreign competition invades our markets and deprives our workers of their employment, and he gives an illustration of his argument. He takes the case of a pianoforte which cannot be made here for less than 30l., while it can be made in France and imported and sold here for 271. The gain to the consumer would thus be 3l., but the loss in wages to those who make a similar article here would probably be one half the price, say 13l. or 147. But,' he continues, it may be said that he has got his labour unsold and may sell it to some one else. Just so; but this is precisely what he cannot do. His labour then remains unsold, and if so his loss and the loss to the community is measured by the value of it. This is not true. The community does not suffer, the pianofortemaker may, but some other worker profits. What will the Frenchman do with the 277., the price of his piano? Lord Penzance leaves that entirely out of account. He does so, doubtless, on the strength of that wonderful conclusion of his in his first article, that an import of goods into this country 'need not bring about an export therefrom of the like value, or of any value at all.' The truth is that something or other to the value of 271. must eventually be exported, or the Frenchman will have given the community that sum. He will take something which must come under one of these three heads— merchandise, bullion, or securities-and in any case he will stimulate British labour. It is true that the pianoforte-maker suffers, temporarily at least, but his individual interest cannot be allowed to prevail against that of the community. He enjoys the benefits every day of his life of free competition, and he, like every other worker, carries on his trade subject to that condition. The food he eats, the clothes

he wears, the house he lives in, are all cheapened thereby. Others have suffered, and he has enjoyed the blessings which have come from their sufferings. As to inability to turn to other work when his own fails, that is a difficulty which must be met and overcome. We have an instance of what can be done in this way in the men of Coventry. The trade of Coventry in ribbons failed, the fashion changed, and the town was apparently ruined. Protectionists, Fair Traders, and others of Lord Penzance's way of thinking, advocated the imposition of duties. No, said the hard-hearted economists and Free Trade idolaters, if the ribbon trade of Coventry cannot be carried on except by such means, let it perish, and let the workers turn to something else. Of course no duties were imposed, and what took place? Coventry, instead of making ribbons, makes bicycles and tricycles, and does a roaring trade in supplying the world with them.

[ocr errors]

By acting on this principle we establish a number of vigorous self-sustaining industries instead of a lot of weak and coddled ones. Compare the state of Coventry with that of Lyons, and St. Etienne in France, where the system Lord Penzance advocates is allowed full play. There has just been presented to Parliament Extracts from two Reports of a Commission of Inquiry into the Depression of Trade in France, 1884-5.' Is Lord Penzance aware that there is a depression of trade in France and other countries besides our own? There is not one word, I believe, in his whole attack which gives the faintest intimation of any such knowledge on his part! What does that Report say? It tells us that the principal industry of St. Etienne is silk ribbons—the same as in Coventry-that it used to employ 40,000 artisans, but now only 30,000, about 7,000 out of this diminution belonging to the silk manufactures. It tells us also that the export of silk goods, which used to be sixty millions of francs, is now but fifteen millions, while as to wages it says that the diminution has been something extraordinary. Men who were in the habit of earning four francs a day can now command no more than 1 fr. 25 c. How is this? The Report says the manufacturers of St. Etienne have to pay a duty on the cotton yarns which enter into their wares, and they are thus unable to compete with other countries! What greater proof of the virtues of Free Imports' and the vices of Protection could be given than the cases of Coventry in England, and St. Etienne in France?

I now come to that portion of Lord Penzance's article which touches on the project entertained by Fair Traders of imposing discriminating duties in favour of our colonies, and dependencies, and against foreign nations. He does not feel himself competent to uphold or condemn what he calls this great project,' but he cannot help being fascinated, nor his imagination being dazzled, at the possibility of thus binding in the ties of a common interest those who are already bound together in the lasting ties of race, and

enlarging the narrow limits of the British Isles by the wide lands of every clime that lies under the British Crown.'

Coming down, however, from the realms of the imagination to the prosaic region of fact, the proposed new colonial policy involves the following considerations among others :-We should seriously and disastrously restrict our trade. Three-fourths of our commerce is done with foreign nations, one-fourth with our colonies. We should reduce production everywhere, for we should divert capital and labour from where it is most efficient to where it is less so.1 Our best customer is the United States. She supplies us with 42 per cent. of our wheat and 66 per cent. of our flour imports, and sends us 28 per cent. of our total food-supply. If we crippled her agriculture by discriminating duties, the effects might be very serious in many respects. She might retaliate by discriminating duties against our products, or, giving up growing food for us, her people might take to manufactures and shipping, and invade us in our vital interests. Years ago we taxed Saxon wheat; Saxony turned to manufactures, and is now one of our formidable competitors. Do we wish the lesson repeated? If, notwithstanding our former experience, we put on these discriminating duties, we must tax food, and so raise its price, which would throw the burden on those of our population least able to bear it. Lord Penzance talks of the Fair Traders proposing 'a tariff which would strongly tend to unite the mother country to her colonies without increasing the cost of living to the wage-earning classes. . . But their labour is vain so long as the idol of "Free Imports" is worshipped in the land.' The thing, however, is a sheer impossibility. Two factors would combine to raise the price, the tax levied, and the change from the present cheaper fields of production to others which are dearer. But this is not all. Let us suppose that after a while other nations, seeing the error of their ways, abolish their protective tariffs, and offer to trade with us on the basis of Free Trade let us say the United States. In what a position we should find ourselves; in what a position would a colony like Canada find itself! How should we act in such case? Should we throw the colonies over under the temptation of a vastly increased trade with the States, break our plighted faith, and send the deluded colonists back into the cold? These are questions which we Free Trade idolaters are not capable of answering, we can only leave them to our opponents. The truth is that no more wildly absurd project ever entered the mind of man than this one of fostering British and colonial trade by means of discriminating duties.

"

Lord Penzance says he is one of those who approach this subject of Free Imports' with an earnest desire to arrive at the truth. He asks Free Importers' this question :- How and in what direction this

For these and other figures I am indebted to Sir Thomas Farrer's Free Trade versus Fair Trade, 1885.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »