THE WAGES OF JUGERNATH.
I have not yet done with your Right Hon’ble advocate for Free Trade.
I have another charge, of that which Mr. Gladstone terms the
“simple and effective plan of pure falsification,” in which he
himself appears to be not an unskilful adept.
Your Right Hon’ble Ruler ascribes the rise of wages and consequent
prosperity to the beneficial action of Free Trade. If this were the
case, wages ought to be depressed, or at all events stationary, in
protectionist countries.
Let us see if this is the case:--
_Relative rise of Wages._
1840 1850 1880
{ Agricultural labourer -- 100 150
GT. BRITAIN { Skilled labourer 100 -- 153
{ Cotton operative 100 -- 133
FRANCE { Agricultural labourer -- 100 125
{ Skilled labourer -- 100 150
Belgium and Holland 100 -- 130
United States, average labourer -- 100 143
It will be seen by this that the rise of wages has been general;
due to the general increase of wealth in civilized nations; and
that, in some cases, the relative increase has been nearly as rapid
in thirty years in the protectionist country as it has been in
forty years in England. Mill says:--
“The labourer in America enjoys a greater abundance of comforts
than in any other country in the world, except in some of the
newest Colonies.”[44]
Is it possible to conceive a more impudent claim than that which
your Free-Trader sets up in claiming the rise of wages as the work
of Free Trade? It stands to common sense that Free Trade, or, in
other words, unlimited foreign competition, must have a tendency to
_reduce_ wages. During the agitation preceding the repeal of the
Corn Laws, it was one of the arguments in favour of the movement,
that cheap bread would enable the British operative to _work for
lower wages_, and thus be able to compete with the continental
operative, who enjoyed the advantage of food at lower rates than
those obtaining in England.
The general rise of wages which has occurred throughout
protectionist countries, as well as in England, has been
_principally_ due to the increase in the wealth of Europe; but
it has also been _partially due to protection_ in the form of
Trade-unionism. For what is Trade-unionism but protection in a
somewhat extreme form?
The protection of _British labour_ does not differ in principle
from the protection of the _results of British labour_ in the
shape of its industries. Amongst the resolutions adopted at the
International Conference of Trades Unions Delegates, I find the
following:--
“There are two ways of attaining the object:--
(1) Legislation for the _protection_ of the weak against
competition;
(2) Organization of workmen who should be united and disciplined
as in certain countries.”
Protection for the “_weak against competition_.” Is this in accord
with Free Trade?
FOOTNOTE:
[44] Mill’s Political Economy, Bk. II. Chap. XV.