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--
“In 1846, the working classes overthrew protectionism in England,
and in 1878 the same classes, _wherever they have obtained
predominant influence_, are carrying into practice the extreme
theories of their old opponents?”
Mr. Syme also says:--
“In Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, the party of progress
has always been identified with a restrictive commercial policy,
while the conservatives are the most uncompromising of free
traders. Indeed, it may be said, that one-half of the entire
English-speaking race are, in one shape or another, in favour of
a restrictionist policy, and of this half the great majority are
advanced liberals.”[36]
Free trade was an assertion on the part of labourers as consumers;
the protectionist policy of America and Australia is the attempt
of the same class to obtain privileges as producers. The working
men in those countries are possessed by the thorough belief
that, by carrying out their policy, _they benefit all_. Free
trade considered that the interests of _consumers_ suffered by
protection; the Americans and Australians, with their eyes open,
undergo these private inconveniences because they believe the _mass
of the community is better off thereby_. To use the words of an
intelligent American:
“We all recognize that a protection tariff forces us to pay
for many articles slightly more than they would probably cost
us under a system of free trade. We know too that at first our
manufactured products, whether of metal, cotton or coal, cost us
in general more to make at home than they would have cost us if
imported freely from abroad. We know that we are not buying in
the cheapest market, but we believe, on the whole, it is _best to
impose upon ourselves the voluntary tax[37] for the great ends_,
not of enriching Monopolists, but of _promoting the best interest
of the nation_.”
The average American is neither a fool, nor a knave. To fanciful
theories, whose value is problematical, he prefers the solid
assurance of experience and fact.
The cause of this apparently inconsistent action on the part of
the working classes is easily explained. Free trade was a political
job,[38] and the working classes were enlisted, by politicians,
into a crusade against their own interests, to assist in the
overthrow of those classes which supported the political opponents
of the Free-Trading rulers.
For this purpose the working classes were stirred up to class
antagonism, and the Free-Traders have kept up the delusion by
dishonestly claiming as the work of free trade every advantage
which protectionist countries have shared in common with us.
History is repeating itself in the delusion against which poor old
Æsop warned us centuries ago by his fable of the “Members and the
Belly.”
The members (manufacturing hands) hounded on by Bright and Co.
to class antagonism against the belly (the agricultural classes)
who were represented as “squandering national wealth,” have now
brought England to a pretty pass. The reaction is taking place.
Poor old Æsop was, as a political economist, more far-seeing than
Mr. Bright; who now, however, seems to be changing his views in
the most marvellous manner, for he has at last recognised that
the manufacturing interests are affected by the agricultural
depression. For he says:--
“Home trade is bad, mainly, or entirely, because harvests have
been bad for several years. The remedy will come with more
sunshine and better yield of land, _without this it cannot
come_.[39]
“I believe the agricultural owners and occupiers of land
have lost more than £150,000,000 sterling through the great
deficiency of harvest.”
Bravo, Friend Bright! you are approaching the truth. Without
improvement in agricultural prosperity “the _remedy for bad trade_
cannot come.”
But England is not celebrated for sunshine, the _sunshine we
require is that of protection_.
Taking the nine years ending 1881, I find that, in only one year,
the rainfall of the United Kingdom has been largely (7¼ inches)
above the average of the last seventeen years. In five out of the
nine, the rainfall has been a little below the average; in one
year, ¼ of an inch above, and in another year, not quite 2 inches
above, the average.
There is no doubt that the average produce of farming in England
has, of late years, been below the average of former years; but the
_Mark Lane Express_ returns show that, in all these years, there
has been a considerable percentage of cases in which the crops have
been equal to or over the average. From this we may assume that the
sun is not wholly to blame, but that want of sufficient capital
to farm properly and to recover the results of bad years has been
a very important factor in the deficiency of crops. This may be
gleaned from the replies to the questions circulated by Mr. Bear as
to the condition of the farmers in 1878.
_Bedfordshire_:--“Farmers are losing heart, and the land is in
a much worse state than formerly.... There has been a serious
inroad upon capital account during the last few years, and the
land has seriously gone back in cultivation.... The condition of
the land has sunk.”
_Cumberland_:--“The last season has been a good one; but the
present prices are not satisfactory, and the general depression
in trade is now having its influence on farming.”
_Essex_:--“Farmers suffering from low prices, general depression
of trade, the rise in wages.... The work all round is carried on
languidly, and year by year the condition of the land is becoming
poorer.... A large quantity of the kind very badly farmed.”
_Kent_:--“More weeds grown last year than I ever saw before.”
_Monmouthshire_:--“Land going out of cultivation, stock reduced
in quantity, only necessary work done.”
_Northamptonshire_:--“The results of the two last seasons will
not supply means for substantial improvements.”
_Northumberland_:--“An immense deal of land producing nothing, I
may say, simply out of cultivation.”
_Oxfordshire_:--“The land is very foul and poor, partly from the
continuous rains and the shortness of stock.”
_Shropshire_:--“Very few farmers, if any, paying their way....
Hand-to-mouth farming.”
_Sussex_:--“The land generally is not so clean or so
well-cultivated as it was a few years since.”
Lord Derby estimates that, with proper farming, we should obtain
twice as much produce as we now get.
FOOTNOTES:
[36] _Fortnightly Review_, April, 1873.
[37] The false economist pursues a small present good which will
be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist
pursues a great good to come at the risk of a small present evil.
(Political Economy--Bastiat.)
[38] “I am afraid that most of us entered upon this struggle with
the belief that we had some _distinct class_ interest in the
question.” (Cobden.)
[39] Mr. Bright is deserting his free-trade comrades, who say--“It
is not only the beneficial _working of free trade that prescribes
the agricultural ruin of England_: it is the great natural law of
the preservation of the fittest that proclaims that, as England is
not the best fitted to grow corn, she must grow corn no longer.”