I know a maiden fair to see. Take care!
Trust her not, she is fooling thee. Beware!!
Fair Trade! Reciprocity! Retaliation! Such are the cries that have
been raised by those who have felt the evils of Free Trade, without
fully realising the mischievous principle involved in it.
England, _with its dependencies, if properly governed_, might be
independent of foreign nations for its trade, commerce, markets and
productions.
“Retaliation” is an action at once undignified, inexpedient and
unjust.
Are we to injure ourselves by the imposition of protective tariffs,
which are mischievous when unnecessary, and to attempt to injure
our neighbour, because he declines to imitate our folly in ruining
ourselves for an economic “ignis fatuus?”
The only true and statesmanlike policy of a great nation like
England is to pursue the even tenor of her way, governing the
empire with its dependencies _as one vast country_, the interests
of any one portion of which should be considered inseparable from
those of the whole;--protecting jealously every industry; seeking
every possible means of employing the labour and developing the
resources of _all_;--fostering every industry when it needs
fostering, and releasing the fostering care as soon as such care is
seen to be unnecessary; protecting only to the extent that may be
needed to prevent the decay of an existing industry, or to enable
a new industry to spring up; the primary aim being to utilise the
labour and produce of _the whole_, and to ensure a market for the
produce in our own great United Empire.
With our enormous territory, two-half times as great as that of
America,--with our enormous capabilities and varied productions, we
ought, if governed rightly, to be able to secure this; and holding
such an immense area of territory we should have no want of healthy
competition without _calling_ in foreign nations to compete with us.
We have within our grasp an imperial policy which would enable
us to outstrip America in a far greater degree than she is now
outstripping us.
By an _imperial_ policy I do not mean that narrow insular policy
which takes all it can from its dependencies, and gives nothing in
return;--I do not mean that selfish policy which drove America to
separate from us, and which is now disgusting our Colonies, and
forcing them to federation--the first step towards separation.
I mean a generous enlightened policy, which considers the welfare
and prosperity of each and every dependency identical with its own.
We want the federation of _union with England_, not the federation
of _separation from her_. But where are we to look for such a
policy, surely not to the littleness described by M. Merimée, which
“_commits all possible faults to keep a few doubtful votes_--the
policy that _disquiets itself about the present, and thinks nothing
of the future_,”--not to the politicians who put party before
nation,--not to the petty caucuses of those economic charlatans who
have impoverished the empire. We want an extension of franchise,
but not _mob franchise_ such as Chamberlain and his crew propose.
We want extension of franchise to India and the Colonies. We want,
in the House of Commons, representatives of the interests of
England’s dependencies. We want practical, far-seeing, intelligent
men--those who have seen the world in its different aspects, and
know, by experience, its wants; not mere “globe-trotters” and
travelling M.P.s, who return to their country more ignorant and
puffed up with their partial knowledge than when they started; but
representative men who have lived out of England long enough to
have shaken off the idea that their “Little Pedlington,”--be it
London or Liverpool, or Manchester or Birmingham,--is the pivot on
which the world revolves. We want in fact an Imperial Parliament,
not a wretched caucus of narrow-minded party politicians, whose
view is limited to the horizon of the coming election, and whose
whole business in life is to stump the country, making flatulent
speeches, with exuberant verbosity, to gaping admirers, and
pandering to the fleeting popularity of the mob.[104]
FOOTNOTE:
[104] The old colonial system is gone. But in place of it no clear
and reasoned system has been adopted. The wrong theory is given
up, but what is the right theory?--There is only one alternative.
If the colonies are not in the old phrase, possessions of England,
then they must be a part of England; and we must adopt this view in
earnest.
We must cease altogether to say that England is an island off the
north western coast of Europe, that it has an area of 120,000
square miles and a population of thirty odd millions.
We must cease to think that emigrants when they go to the colonies,
leave England or are lost to England. We must cease to think that
the history of England is the history of the Parliament that sits
at Westminster, _and that the affairs that are not discussed there
cannot belong to English history_.
When we have accustomed ourselves to contemplate the whole Empire
together, and call it all England, we shall see that here too is a
United States.
Here too is a great, homogeneous people, one in blood, language,
religion and laws, but disposed over a boundless space. We shall
see that though it is held together by strong moral ties, it has
little that can be called a constitution; no system that seems
capable of resisting any severe shock. But if we are disposed
to doubt whether any system can be devised capable of holding
together communities so distant from each other, then is the time
to recollect the history of the United States of America. For they
have such a system. They have solved this problem. They have shown
that in the present age of the world political unions may exist on
a vaster scale than was possible in former times.
No doubt our problem has difficulties of its own, immense
difficulties. But the _greatest of these difficulties is one which
we make ourselves_.
It is the false preconception which we bring to the question,
that the problem is insoluble, that no such thing ever was done
or ever will be done; it is our misinterpretation of the American
Revolution. (Expansion of England, by J. R. Seely, M.A., p. 158.)
APPENDIX No. I.
DISCOURTESY _versus_ ARGUMENT.
FREE TRADE _vs._ FAIR TRADE.
_Mr. Blood’s Letter to Mr. Bright._
32, CHARLOTTE STREET, BIRMINGHAM.
DEAR SIR,--The Birmingham newspapers have recently published a
letter written to you by Mr. W. G. Lord, of Bradford, on the
subject of Free Trade. The letter is somewhat brief, and it struck
me that, though you might not feel called upon to enter into
correspondence on such subjects with persons who are not your
constituents, possibly you might feel more disposed to discuss the
question with an Elector of Birmingham.
You say, to imagine that the bad trade from which Bradford is
suffering is due to hostile tariffs, is absurd; and then, as
though in your opinion it was an unanswerable objection to those
who contend that hostile tariffs have a great deal to do with it,
you add, “_because you have had great prosperity with the same
tariffs_.” Now, I venture to submit that this is no argument at
all,--that it is merely a statement based upon false conclusions.
You are, or at least you ought to be, aware, that the circumstances
under which the trade of this country is carried on have entirely
changed during recent years. At the period when, as you say, we
“enjoyed great prosperity with the same tariffs,” the foreign
nations, which now exclude our manufactures from their markets,
were not sufficiently advanced to do without our assistance.
Whether they liked it or not, they were compelled to buy of us
largely, and, therefore, comparatively speaking, their tariffs
were harmless. Now they can not only dispense with the bulk of
our manufactured goods, but, in many branches of industry, can
also compete with our manufacturers in our own markets. Hence,
hostile tariffs, which were once of little moment, have become
serious, and if you look at the question from this point of view,
you will probably see that absurdity is not with those who cry out
against the hardships of foreign tariffs, but with those who, like
yourself, shut their eyes to the changes going on around them,
and blindly adhere to an old system after it has become obsolete
and absolutely mischievous. You cannot be unaware that, since
the great Exhibition of 1851, the commercial relations of this
country with other nations of the world have undergone an entire
change for the worse. Then it did seem as though England was to
become the “workshop of the world,” as the apostles of Free Trade
predicted she would be. But at that Exhibition the manufacturers
of Europe and America were invited to inspect our machinery, were
shown all the intricacies of its mechanism, and made familiar
with the secrets of our manufactures. Among our visitors at that
period were experts, whose eyes were open wherever they went, and
who have since made good use of the information obtained. With
equal good nature--or shall I call it folly--we have sent our
machinery abroad, and skilled workmen to work it, without any
regard to consequences, and hence foreigners, who but for the
open-hearted candid nature of John Bull, would still have been in
the background, are now fully ahead of us in a great many branches
of manufacturing and commercial enterprise. Unprejudiced persons
cannot fail to see that arguments based on a state of things which
existed thirty or forty years ago, have no force, now that state of
things has passed away; and your contention that hostile tariffs
have nothing to do with our commercial depression, because under
the same tariffs we enjoyed prosperity years ago, falls to the
ground. On the contrary, unless our prosperity is to still further
decline, it becomes a matter of vital necessity that in those
manufactures in which England can still keep the lead, she shall
have the same privileges as she ungrudgingly gives to others; or
that we should be protected in our markets from those who refuse us
admission to theirs.
You go on to say “to suppose your case will be improved by refusing
to buy what you want from foreigners, to punish them for not buying
freely from you, is an idea and scheme only worthy of the inmates
of a lunatic asylum.” But, if you seriously believe this statement,
you must believe also that the astute, far-seeing citizen of the
United States,--the plodding, theorizing German,--the thrifty and
ingenious Frenchman,--and the hard-headed, practical Russian,--the
intelligent Italian,--and even the hard-working Swede and
Norwegian, are all lunatics. Are you prepared, seriously, to assert
this as your belief? The fact is, you adopt an ingenious way of
misstating a principle. No one thinks of refusing to buy from the
foreigner when it is to our interest to do so. In our commercial
relations one with another, it is usual for every man to buy from
one who will probably become a return purchaser, or to put it in
plainer language, each man supports the person who will be most
likely to support him in return. But in buying from the foreigner,
we are buying from the man who will never buy from us if he can
possibly help it, and leaving those who would be our customers in
return to starve.
Again, you say, that “to return to Protection under the name of
Reciprocity, is to confess to the Protectionists abroad that we
have been wrong, and that they are right.” But the fact is, no such
confession is necessary. The Protectionist abroad knows _too well_
that he is right, without any confession on our part. The vast
progress of the United States, the immense strides they have made
in commerce, manufactures, and wealth--strides so vast that our own
progress, even at its greatest, is insignificant--will convince
every intelligent American that the principle of protection to
native industry is, under many circumstances, wholesome and
necessary. The same may be said of France, which has made even
greater progress in some particulars than ourselves; and of
Russia, which, under protection, seems likely to come to the fore.
Again, you ask, “Who dares to propose another _sliding scale or
fixed duty on the import of foreign corn_?” Are you not aware that
even amongst your own constituents there is a large party who have
the courage to do this? You take it for granted that good seasons
would enable agriculturists to carry on their avocation with
profit. But many persons who have the best practical acquaintance
with the subject think differently. If, in the result, they should
prove to be right, are you prepared to see the bulk of the land of
the country go out of cultivation rather than impose a duty on the
import of foreign corn? With agriculture ruined, and its capital
absolutely gone, what would become of our home trade? But the fact
is, we don’t want any foreign corn at all. Our Colonists, who could
be induced to trade with us on reciprocal terms, could supply us
with all the corn we want, even though not one single quarter of
foreign grain found a place in our markets. The result might be a
very trivial rise in the price of bread-stuffs for a few years, but
I venture to submit that the disadvantage of this rise would be
more than counterbalanced by larger revenues from imports, which
would result in reduced direct taxation, not only to the farmer,
but to all classes, and by the increased occupation for the artisan
and labourer, which would result from the extension of our Colonial
markets, and from keeping our home trade to ourselves.
As this is a question which, at the present time, is agitating the
public mind, and every one is looking for some practical solution
of existing difficulties, I shall be glad to have your opinion on
the views expressed in this letter. Your previous communication has
been widely circulated through the Press, and, therefore, I purpose
in due course, to publish this letter also, together with any reply
with which you may favour me.
Yours faithfully,
FREDERICK BLOOD.
_Mr. Bright’s Reply._
DUCHY OF LANCASTER OFFICE, LONDON, W.C.
SIR,--Mr. Bright desires me to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of the 27th instant.
In reply, Mr. Bright directs me to say that he has neither time nor
inclination to enter into a correspondence with a gentleman who
believes that we need no supplies of corn from foreign countries,
and who would impose duties on its importation. He fears that no
facts and no arguments can be placed before such a person with any
advantage.
I am, sir, Your obedient servant,
BARRINGTON SIMEON.
FREDERICK BLOOD, ESQ.,
_32, Charlotte Street,_
_Birmingham_.
_Mr. Blood’s Reply to Mr. Bright._
32, CHARLOTTE STREET, BIRMINGHAM.
SIR,--I am in receipt of your reply to my previous communication on
the Subject of Free Imports. You decline to discuss the question,
and in adopting this course, possibly you act wisely. There is so
very little to be said from your point of view in favour of our
existing system, that I can understand your reluctance to state
your case fully. Whether dignified silence would not have been
preferable to the uncourteous and dogmatic assertions in which you
take refuge, is another matter. You seem surprised that any one
should believe in the possibility of our doing without “Foreign”
wheat, but is your surprise real or feigned? Do you wish to mislead
the public by inducing it to attach a wrong meaning to the word
“foreign?” You know the meaning I attach to it, and you know
further that my statement was absolutely true, and that it has
often been made in public by persons who have a greater claim to a
hearing on this subject than yourself.
I stated, that our Colonies and Dependencies could supply us with
all the wheat we require, and that we could do without any foreign
supply. Do you doubt this statement? If so, the doubt is scarcely
creditable to your intelligence, or to your industry in making
yourself acquainted with the facts. You may fix yourself on the
horns of which ever dilemma you please, but the public will hold
you guilty of a want of information, which is unpardonable, or
else of a desire to mislead. Happily, our Colonies are not foreign
powers, however much the policy of the government of which you are
a member has recently tended to drive them to become such. Hence
my statement holds good. I can only imagine that you presumed
upon the scanty information of many of your constituents as to
the difference in the meaning of the two words “Foreign” and
“Colonial,” and trusted to throw dust in their eyes by this means.
If your opinions require to be supported in this dishonourable
manner, I can only say that they are manifestly unsound, and the
sooner they are renounced the better for your political reputation.
The position you hold in Her Majesty’s Government, although a
lucrative one, is generally regarded as a sinecure, and, therefore,
I fail to see how you can plead want of time as an excuse for
writing a discourteous and contemptuous letter to one of your
constituents, who wrote you in perfect good faith. But I shall
leave it to public opinion to judge as to whether such conduct is
worthy of the prefix of “Right Honourable” which is now generally
attached to your name.
It is scarcely necessary to add that no one proposes to tax the
imports of Colonial wheat to the same extent as that of foreign
growth, and for this reason; the Colonists are willing to adopt a
differential duty,--that is, to trade with us on something like
reciprocal terms. The foreigner will take no steps towards meeting
us fairly; hence the difference between the two cases is apparent
at once. Supposing a duty of 20 per cent. were imposed on Foreign,
and 10 per cent. on Colonial, wheat, it is well known that this
would not increase the price of the four-pound loaf more than a
half-penny. To an average working man’s family this would not
enhance the cost of living more than fourpence a week, and as it
can easily be shown that increased employment for labour would
follow on the judicious adoption of import duties, the working
classes would be large gainers, especially as the revenue derived
from these duties would enable us to reduce our other taxation.
In a former letter to me you stated that the price of the loaf
would be doubled if we had not Free Trade in corn. It would be
interesting to know how you arrived at this conclusion. I fear
your usual method of assertion, without any endeavour to arrive at
the truth, was at the bottom of it. The statement was altogether
without foundation, although, no doubt, many people who have no
time to think out the matter for themselves were influenced by it.
You are now legislating for the people of Ireland, but has it never
struck you that the immense flood of importations from America,
which has been poured upon Ireland, has been the cause of much
of the suffering which that country has endured? It has rendered
agriculture unprofitable both in Ireland and in England, and
therefore labourers have been thrown out of work, while farmers,
especially the smaller ones, have been steadily impoverished. The
natural result of poverty is sedition. The agricultural classes
having no money to spend, all classes have suffered. Just now
there is a cry for fostering manufactures in Ireland, but how many
manufactures can you foster in which foreign competitors cannot
undersell you in the streets of Dublin? If matters go on, they may
perhaps eventually end in an attempted revolution, and if not put
down with the strong arm of force, there will be a separation. How
long in that case would Ireland, under the rule of her own people,
allow America to drain away her wealth and prosperity? The foreign
competition, against which agriculturists have to contend, will
shortly be intensified by increased importations of beef and mutton
from Queensland and other parts of Australia, and the struggle in
England will become keener, while Ireland will find it impossible
to continue any of the small exports of cattle and food she now
sends us, except at still more unprofitable prices.
This letter is somewhat lengthy, but the abrupt and discourteous
nature of your communication has led me to write more fully than I
should otherwise have done.
Yours faithfully,
FREDERICK BLOOD.
P. S.--As this is solely a public matter, I shall send my letter to
the Press, and shall be glad to take the same course with any reply
you may favour me.
APPENDIX No. II.
UNHEEDED WARNINGS.
The three F’s: Fixity of Tenure, Fair Rent, Freedom of Sale.
_Contemporary Review_, February, 1881.
The grounds on which the principle of the three F’s were opposed in
1880:--
_The Act of 1870 was to be final, and it is a breach of faith to
reopen the land question._
1. The Land Act of 1870 was an encroachment on the rights of
landlords, but was allowed to pass on the understanding that it
would be final.
2. To reopen the question with _further_ confiscation is a gross
breach of faith.
3. More especially it is a breach of faith with those landowners
who have, on the invitation of Government, purchased land in the
“Encumbered Estates Court.” The indefeasible title granted to
them by the Court (and for which they paid large sums) would be
turned into a mere claim to a precarious rent charge.
_The three F’s are an infringement of the rights of the landlord.
He must be compensated for the material, moral, and sentimental
wrong which he will suffer._
4. “Tenant right” is landlord wrong.
5. Land is the absolute undoubted property of the landlord,
and he has a right to do that which he wills with his own. Any
curtailment of his power is an injustice, and affects the very
principle of property.
6. If the State interferes with his freedom of action, and causes
him any material, moral, or sentimental injury, it must properly
compensate him.
7. To take away the enjoyment, control, and management of his
land is a very tangible infringement of rights, and one for which
compensation must be given.
8. To fix a rent is to deprive the landlord of the advantages of
competition, and affects him financially.
9. It would reduce him to the position of a mere mortgagee, but
without the security and certainty of payment.
10. To deprive him of his power of eviction, is to take away a
privilege, a necessity.
11. The tenant’s claim to a “right” in the soil is not founded on
any tangible or real historical basis.
_The abuse of eviction or raisings of rent is rare; the use is
necessary and justifiable._
12. There is little or no abuse of the power of arbitrary
eviction; and even when rent is not paid, the landlords, as a
class, are lenient. It is occasionally necessary for the good of
the estate to evict (compensation for “disturbance” being paid)
in order to consolidate holdings.
13. Eviction is seldom enforced, except in the case of bad and
wasteful tenants; good and improving tenants are never evicted.
Therefore, any diminution in the power of eviction would be
disastrous to the prosperity of the country by retaining on the
land worthless tenants.
14. Most landlords do properly compensate their tenants for any
improvements effected by them.
15. They are justified in raising the rents when the land
produces greater increase.
16. Even if a few bad landlords injure their tenants, it is
unfair to visit on the heads of the majority the sins of the few
by bringing them all under the same confiscating law.
17. The existing law provides ample safeguards against arbitrary
and unjust eviction; the landlord’s power is sufficiently
curtailed.
_The relations of landlord and tenant are those of contract; the
State must not interfere in freedom of contract._
18. Any State interference in contract between man and man
is very inexpedient and demoralizing, more especially in
interference in the matter of price and value.
19. The relations between landlord and tenant are merely those of
contract.
20. The movement of progressive societies is from status to
contract, and not the reverse.
21. It is illogical and unfair of the tenant to demand freedom of
contract in the sale of tenant-right, and ask for curtailment of
contract in his dealings with the landlord.
_The objections to a fixed rent; and the difficulties in the way
of fixing a fair rent._
22. It would be impossible to fix a rent which would content both
parties.
23. As tenants vary in ability, character, and energy, it would
be impossible to legislate so that the rent the tenant had to pay
would be that which he is able to pay.
24. A fixed rent, even if fair at first, would soon weigh heavily
on one or other of the parties.
25. All future enhancements of rent, based on whatever ground,
would be strenuously resisted.
26. While the landlord would be bound to accept the valuation,
the tenant could refuse to pay it and quit his holding.
27. If the Government, by valuation or arbitration, were to fix
the rent, the landlord would consider that he had been guaranteed
his rent by the State; while the tenant (in bad seasons) would
look to the State to assist him to pay it.
28. If fixity of tenure were conceded, the next demand would be
for the abolition of the rent charge, more especially on the
ground of increased absenteeism, which would itself have been
encouraged by the change.
29. At all events, in bad seasons, a demand would be made for
abatement of rent, on the ground that otherwise the value of the
tenant-right would be injuriously affected.
30. The power conceded to the landlord of selling the
“tenant-right” on breach of contract, would be rendered nugatory
by the combination of tenants to prevent a purchase; and so the
landlord would be deprived of all means of obtaining his rent, or
of preventing subletting or subdivision.
31. It is illogical and unjust that, in the matter of rent, the
landlord should be deprived of the benefits of competition, while
in the sale of tenant-right competition should be allowed.
32. The landlords, bound by a hard-and-fast rule, would expect to
receive their full fixed rents, and would not be willing or able,
as they are now, to allow indulgences in time or remission in bad
seasons.
33. The pressure of violence would be brought to bear on the
valuators to induce them to undervalue the rents.
_The right of free sale of “tenant-right” would amount to
confiscation of part of the landlord’s property. It would benefit
only existing tenants, and would cripple all future tenants._
34. As the existing tenants would, on the day of the passing of
the law, be able to sell their tenant-right for a large sum,
_having done nothing_ to earn it, the amount at which it can be
valued, is so much subtracted from the rightful gains of the
landlord.
35. As tenants had not this scheme in view when they bargained
for their farms, its adoption would be conceding them a valuable
privilege entirely at the expense of the landlords.
36. Only the existing tenants would benefit pecuniarily from the
change; all future in-coming tenants would be burdened by the
amount they would have to pay for the “tenant-right,” and the
interest on this payment in addition to the “fair” rent, would
constitute a sum exceeding any rack-rent.
37. The unhealthy “earth-hunger,” which exists in Ireland, would
force up the price of tenant-right far above the real value,
and thus entrench on the security of the landlord for his rent,
whilst reckless tenants would outbid the prudent.
38. The payment for tenant-right would cripple the in-coming
tenant just at the moment when he most required capital to
cultivate the land--to the injury of production, while it would
leave him no margin to fall back upon in bad times.
39. The tenants who would benefit most would be those who have
had indulgent landlords. When rents are low “tenant-right” would
be more valuable than when they are high.
40. The tenants can obtain security of tenure by demanding and
accepting leases; many landlords are willing to grant long leases
at fixed rents on fair terms.
41. Therefore, at the most the law should force the landlords to
grant “security leases,” and leave them to obtain (by means of a
fine) any extra value which security will fetch.
42. Any further privileges obtained by the tenant would only be
used as additional facilities for borrowing money at ruinous
rates.
43. The Ulster tenants have obtained their tenant-right by
purchase, or by a _quid pro quo_; the concession of free sale
would gratuitously endow existing tenants with a valuable
property, which they have neither earned, bought, nor inherited.
44. Many landlords have bought up the tenant-right on their
farms; it is manifestly unfair to reimpose it without
compensation.
_The landlords have largely invested capital in the soil; the
three F’s would prevent them in future from making improvements;
and the tenants’ power to do so would also be diminished._
45. The landlords, as a class, have invested capital very largely
in the improvement of the soil; the improvements have been by no
means entirely effected by the tenant.
46. It would no longer be to the interest of the landlord to
invest his capital in the soil; an effectual obstacle would have
been placed in the way of his doing so.
47. Therefore, those improvements,--drainage, straightening
fields and boundaries, &c., which affect many holdings, and can
only be done by the landlord, would no longer be executed.
48. As he will have to pay for the “tenant-right,” the in-coming
tenant will have less capital to invest in the soil than at
present, while the sum he has paid will be taken out of the land
for ever; thus, on both hands, the capital available for these
purposes would be diminished, and production would suffer.
_Further evils which would result from the adoption of the three
F’s._
49. By making the landlord merely a rent-charger, and depriving
him of all power or interest in his land, absenteeism and
non-residence, with their attendant evils, would be enormously
increased.
50. The proposed scheme would perpetuate the present system
of landlord and tenant, while the desirable aim should be to
increase the number of proprietors.
51. The tenant, possessing security of tenure, would be less
desirous of purchasing land, while sale, except to the tenant,
would be greatly hindered.
52. It would perpetuate the absurd distribution of land at
present existing in many parts of Ireland.
53. While it would confirm not only good and bad tenants in their
tenure of land and affect equally good and bad landlords,
54. It would increase the antagonism between the landlord and the
tenant;
55. It would be practically impossible to prevent subdivision and
subletting with their manifold attendant evils.
56. The Irish people are so miserably lazy, thriftless, and
short-sighted, that no reform of the land-law would benefit them.
57. _Nothing short of separation from England will satisfy the
Irish_; land-reforms are useless.
58. Under small proprietors or semi-proprietors, the lot of
labourers would be harder than ever.
59. The various parts of Ireland differ so much in every way that
it would be inexpedient and impossible to apply one scheme to the
whole; if it answered in one part it would necessarily fail in
others.
60. If the principle of the three F’s were once conceded, it
would form a precedent for land-legislation in England; and then
for legislation directed against all forms of property.
61. It is the first step towards democratic and socialistic
legislation.
62. The concession is the more dangerous, inasmuch as it is only
conceded to clamour and lawlessness.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,
STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS.
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been
corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within
the text and consultation of external sources.
Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text,
and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained. For example,
livestock, live stock; highroad, high road; Free Trader, Free-Trader;
descanting; squib; cess; uncourteous.
Pg 26, ‘Liberal politicans’ replaced by ‘Liberal politicians’.
Pg 41, ‘nearly 3,000,000’ replaced by ‘nearly 300,000’.
Pg 47, ‘M. DeLavergne’ replaced by ‘M. De Lavergne’.
Pg 58, ‘without his cousent’ replaced by ‘without his consent’.
Pg 74, ‘cause the landord’ replaced by ‘cause the landlord’.
Pg 84, ‘thoughout Bengal’ replaced by ‘throughout Bengal’.
Pg 87, ‘posperity of each’ replaced by ‘prosperity of each’.
Pg 92, ‘for the artizan’ replaced by ‘for the artisan’.
End of Project Gutenberg's The British Jugernath, by Guildford L. Molesworth