The British Jugernath

---

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 £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.

---

---

---

THE BRITISH 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 Jugernāth; unconscious at the same time that the Jugernāth 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 goodness’ 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.

---

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 don’t 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 “ungrammatical twaddle,” for how can I hope to escape an occasional slip of the pen, of which even the heaven-born “Covenanted Civilian” is not always innocent.

I shall wriggle under the analysis of my “illogical reasoning,” my “exploded theories,” my “faulty statistics.”

I shall squirm under the exposure of my “ignorance of facts,” my “want of knowledge of political economy,” my “antiquated notions.”

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 Jugernāthian 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:—

You, on the other hand, my friend, will naturally say:

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.

---

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 Jugernāth 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 England’s 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 England’s 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 don’t 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 “Fair trade,” “Reciprocity” and “Retaliation” 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 “simpletons without memory or logic,” as men “beyond the reach of argument”[1] those who decline to accept the Free trade gospel of starvation.

---

I have said that facts are against your idol, let me advance a few of them:—

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.

---

---

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—“pure” and “applied.”

Political economy may be divided into two similar classes—“pure” and “applied.”

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 “theory and practice contradict one another.” 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 “fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”

He says:—

Mill also says:—

Let us take an example of pure and applied science.

You, my Friend, quote an axiom of Pure Political Economy when you say:—

“It is unjust to tax all for the benefit of one class” So far I quite agree with you;—it is to your application of the axiom that I object, when you go on to say—“therefore protection in any shape is wrong.” Your application of pure science to the complex question of free trade is quite incorrect.

I say “it is just and expedient to tax all for the benefit of all.” 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-trader’s 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

And Cossa allows that—

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:—

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 Mill’s “ardent concessions to socialism more apparent than real;” of his “narrow philosophic utilitarianism.”

Also, speaking of Thornton, Cossa says:[20]—

Many of the inaccuracies of Mill have been exposed by Professor Cairnes.[21]

Mr. Cook says:—

Macleod also, in writing on the question of rent says:—

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 “Political Bias,” and which Cossa terms Mill’s “narrow philosophic utilitarianism,” 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]

---

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.

Now, my friend, I want you to try and take a common-sense view of things:—

Mill says, that “saving enriches, and spending impoverishes, the community along with the individual.”[25] Now let us apply England’s 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 £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:—

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 £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]—

Let us now hear what America has to say about free trade:—

A few quotations from the utterances of our own countrymen may serve to show what Protection has done for America:—

---

The truth of a religion may perhaps be gauged by the fulfilment of the utterances of its prophets. Let us analyze some of these.

Professor Cairnes says:—

Disraeli prophesied in 1852:—

And it really seems as if the time was approaching for the fulfilment of his prophecy, for I read in a recent Paper:

Sir Edward Sullivan also stated in a recent speech that:

Fair trade is one step in the direction of protection.

---

Carlyle has said—“There are thirty millions of people in Great Britain, mostly fools.”

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 Carlyle’s 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 “America is passing us by in a canter.”

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 “passed in a canter” 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. “Passed by at a canter!!” 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—“passing us by at a canter.”

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.

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.

---

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—

Mr. Syme also says:—

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:

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:—

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.

Lord Derby estimates that, with proper farming, we should obtain twice as much produce as we now get.

---

I think you will admit, that if a statesman, pretending to govern by rules of political economy, should make very gross, misleading statements regarding the results of a particular line of policy which he had pursued for years, such a man must be convicted of hopeless incompetency or else of gross dishonesty, either of which ought to disqualify him as an administrator; and your Free Trade statesman certainly comes under such an indictment.

Your Right Hon’ble Ruler rises after a public dinner, and holds forth with matchless eloquence, pointing out the blessings and prosperity Free Trade has brought to the country. His statements are received with thunders of applause, and the Right Hon’ble Orator and his audience disperse mutually satisfied with each other.

I wonder whether it ever occurs to the orator, in the quiet of his chamber, that to use his own words, he “has resorted to the simple but effectual plan of pure falsification.”[40] Can he possibly be so ignorant of current events, and of the subjects with which he ought to be acquainted, as not to know that other nations—protectionist nations—have made greater relative advance than ourselves; that the increase of wealth is universal; that it is shared by all civilized nations in common with us; and that it is due to improvements in science, art, and manufacture—to improved communications by railways, steam navigation, telegraphs, &c., which have made such enormous strides since the date at which Free Trade was adopted. Even Mill admits that—

There have been short periods of temporary prosperity in agriculture, and your Right Hon’ble Free Trader has been jubilant in hailing them as triumphs of Free Trade; but Adam Smith says:—

Dare you, my Friend, after examination of the statistics given in the foregoing chapter, say, that the general increase of wealth is due to Free Trade; when protectionist nations have shared it in common with us? Aye! and taken the lion’s share too! You claim the temporary prosperity of the years 1871–73 as a victory for Free Trade, when in reality this prosperity is the most damning evidence against it. Are you so utterly blinded, as not to perceive that this prosperity was caused by the Franco-Prussian war, which, by preventing the unlimited importation of French and German commodities into England, caused, in fact, partial suspension of Free Trade? Don’t you know that, in those years of prosperity, the price of wheat rose to 58s. 8d. per quarter, and that, in the present depressed condition of England, it is down to 41s. 5d. per quarter? Don’t you know that, during that time of prosperity, the excess of imports beyond our exports was £60,000,000 less than in the present depressed time? In other words, we were depressing our industries by 60,000,000 sterling per annum less than at present. Now, my Friend, give your verdict; is your Right Hon’ble Free Trader guilty or not guilty, either of hopeless incompetence or gross dishonesty in attributing the general increase of wealth in the world to the agency of Free Trade?—Your friend, Bright,[43] naively admits that “to return to protection under the name of reciprocity, is to confess to the protectionists abroad, that we have been wrong, and they have been right.” Verily! Friend Bright, whether you confess it or not, the truth will out. Friend Bright! you are like the ostrich, burying its head in the sand and thinking no one can see you. The protectionist nations of Europe can see you distinctly, and they are all laughing at your folly.

---

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.

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:—

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:—

Protection for the “weak against competition.” Is this in accord with Free Trade?

---

I have still another serious charge to bring against your Right Hon’ble Ruler, who pompously lays before you statistics to show that, since the introduction of Free Trade, pauperism and crime have decreased; and this your Right Hon’ble Ruler claims as one of the results of Free Trade.

The figures produced seem to be all right; but really the statistics of your Right Hon’ble Ruler have been found so very untrustworthy, that a careful scrutiny of them is necessary; and on investigation I find in them unmistakable evidence of either ignorance or dishonesty.

These statistics show that the number of paupers under relief in England was—

In considering these figures, however, it must be remembered that England has of late years greatly increased the rate per pauper;[45] or, in other words, the relief now given will either relieve worse cases of pauperism than before, or else extend relief to other members of the family of the actual recipient. The present rates of relief in England are now four-and-half times as much as those in France, and seven-and-half times as much as those in Belgium and Holland.[46]

In the next place, your Right Hon’ble Free-Trader omits to mention that the private charities of London alone (orphanages, homes, asylums, hospitals, &c.) have increased, since 1859, by £1,159,000,[47] a sum sufficient to relieve 526,000 paupers at the French rate, or nearly 900,000 by the Belgian rate.

It is probable that private charities of the rest of England, including the large provincial towns, have increased in the same ratio as those of London; representing an enormous amount of relief.

Then, again, no mention is made of the relief afforded by Trades Unions and Benefit Societies,[48] which now expend about £4,000,000 annually in relief. This, at French rate, represents the relief of 1,800,000 paupers, or at Belgian rate of about 3,000,000 paupers.

Now, my Friend, what is your fictitious saving of 91,000 in comparison with the enormous figures given above?

Mr. Fawcett says:—

And these statements would appear to be in accord with the figures I have given above.

The statistics of your Right Hon’ble Ruler, which you receive with thunders of applause, are not worth the paper on which they are written.

Again I ask your verdict—guilty or not guilty?

Now for Crime. The statistics in this case are less defensible than in the previous case, because they involve a dishonourable suppression of facts.

The statistics brought forward to show that a diminution of crime has been the result of Free Trade, are as follows:

Now this apparent decrease is wholly due to the “Criminal Justice Act” of 1855, which enables Magistrates to pass short sentences; and these, coming under the head of “Summary Convictions,” do not appear under the head of “Convictions,” where they would have appeared but for the “Act” of 1855.

If we take the total cases, including summary convictions, the figures stand as follows:—

In other words, instead of your Right Hon’ble Ruler’s decrease of 2,000 convictions, we have actually an increase of nearly 300,000. Is it possible to conceive a more glaring case of what Mr. Gladstone himself terms “the simple but effectual plan of pure falsification?”

Now for Intemperance. The number of persons fined for drunkenness in England:

or roughly speaking, the convictions for drunkenness have doubled in twenty-one years.

Truly, my Friend, you cannot congratulate Free Trade on the decrease of pauperism, crime, and intemperance it has produced.

---

I see, my Friend, that you are bringing out your trump card. “Behold!” you argue “the unfortunate condition to which America has been reduced by her protectionist policy; she has scarcely a ship afloat, whilst Free Trade England is carrying the commerce of the world.”

First, I would ask, are you quite sure that all this is caused by Free Trade?

Don’t you think that it is just within the bounds of possibility that our shrewd American cousins may possibly find a quicker and more remunerative investment for their capital, in encouraging their home-productive industries, and in employing their home-labour productively, than in a keen competition with the English for a barren trade that is not worth having?

Are you ignorant of the fact that the shipping trade has been a losing concern for some considerable period?

Are you unaware of the fact that wheat has been frequently carried as ballast, and has paid no freight; that other articles have been carried at almost nominal rates?

In the Civil and Military Gazette of 7th December, 1883, under the Telegraphic Summary, I read—

I also read in the Madras Mail, January 9th, 1884, that an organ of the shipping interests in London has drawn up the probable “results of the gross working of thirteen steamers of a well-known Steam Navigation Company, the result of which is a total loss of £34,000 in one year’s trading.”

Are the Americans to be pitied, because they have no share in this losing concern?

If protectionism has kept them out of it, you can scarcely blame it.

But even without such keen competition, the Americans are justified, by the writings of your sacred shastras, as may be seen by the following quotation:

So you see that the authority of your own sacred writings is favourable to the policy of our American cousins in this respect.

---

I have a few words to say about high wages and prosperity, before I quit the subject.

Although the rise of wages is, in fact, to some extent, the work of protection, I am not proud of it; for trades unionism is protection of an extreme character, generally narrow in its aims, not sufficiently far-seeing, and consequently sometimes mischievous in its results.

The raising of wages within reasonable bounds is desirable; but, in a Free Trade country, it is apt to be attended with serious consequences in raising the cost of the manufactured article, when competing against the manufacture of foreign countries, where wages are lower and hours of work longer.

It is said by Free Trade advocates, that although the cost of provisions has not sensibly increased, yet wages are 50 per cent. higher, and hours of labour 20 per cent. less, than they were forty years ago.

From the political economist’s point of view, this appears to be a decrease of national wealth. Mill says:—

Now if a stalwart race could have existed, and have done 20 per cent. more work on the lower rate of wages,—although, doubtless, some improvement in the condition of workmen was desirable,—50 per cent. appears to be a large margin, when we consider that the price of provisions is said to be unaltered. The British workman is proverbially extravagant and improvident. High wages encourage extravagance, whilst surplus cash furnishes the means, and short hours the leisure, for gratifying a taste for drink.

Setting aside for the moment the serious evils of intemperance, we have practically, with high wages, the causes that lead to the impoverishment of a community.

A glance at the statistics of Mr. Giffen seems to indicate this, for whilst the consumption per head of those commodities which are termed necessaries of life, have only increased 33 to 40 per cent. respectively, the consumption of those which may be considered luxuries—namely, tea and sugar—have increased 232 and 260 per cent. respectively.

Again, statistics show that, whilst the other classes of the community have increased in number by 335 per cent. of late years, the working classes have only increased by 6½ per cent. In other words, the unproductive classes have increased largely, but, whilst there is only 6½ per cent. numerical increase in the productive classes, their labour has decreased by 20 per cent. from shorter hours of labour.

The drones in the hive have increased very largely, and the workers have not done so, but have developed an alarming taste for honey.

The question of waste of wealth would be comparatively of minor importance were it not seriously complicated by the existence of Free Trade; but we have now to confront the fact, that, in the present day, we have to pay 50 per cent. more money for 20 per cent. less labour than we did forty years ago; whilst Free Trade brings into the market the products of the keen competition of a thrifty and parsimonious class of workmen who accept lower wages and work longer hours. The result must be a gradual extinction of our industries:

Cotton and woollen industries are struggling hard for existence.[53]

Silk manufacture is dying out.

Iron industries in a bad way.

Gloomy predictions are made respecting the shipping trade.

Agriculture is rapidly becoming extinguished.

English pluck, capital, and credit are struggling manfully against disaster, but the struggle cannot last much longer; capital is sustained by credit; and credit is receiving heavy and repeated blows from unremunerative industries. Meanwhile, high wages and extravagant habits are not the best training for the millions that will be thrown out of employment when the crash comes.

Your prophet, Adam Smith, though an advocate for the repeal of the Corn Laws, foresaw and forewarned you of these consequences, as follows:—

Verily, my Friend, you are like a shipowner who congratulates himself that his sailors were never so well off before—never went aloft less—never kept fewer watches—never remained so much in their warm beds: meanwhile the devoted ship is drifting slowly, but surely, on to the rocks.[55]

---

I have already stated that Mill, when he allows that which Herbert Spencer terms “political bias,”—and Luigi Cossa terms his “narrow philosophic utilitarianism,” to warp his better judgment,—is guilty of absurdities and inconsistencies that would disgrace a schoolboy. This is notably apparent when he attempts to draw a fundamental distinction between land and any other property, as regards its “sacred rights.”

Mr. Mill greatly admired the prosperity of the peasant proprietors in France and Belgium, unfortunately forgetting that a system, suited to the sober thrifty peasantry of the Continent, might possibly not be equally suitable to the improvident lower classes of Ireland and England,[56] neglectful also of the sensible view taken by M. De Lavergne that “cultivation spontaneously finds out the organization that suits it best.”[57] He wished therefore to establish an Utopia of peasant proprietors in England and Ireland as a panacea for the evils which Free Trade in the first place, and mischievous legislation in the second place, had brought upon agriculture. Without presuming to offer an opinion on the debated subjects of “Grande” and “Petite Culture,” or peasant and landlord proprietorship, I may say that cultivation appears to have found out spontaneously the organization best suited to it, and that, in England and Ireland, landlordism seems best suited to the improvident character of the lower classes, in providing capital to help the tenants over bad times, and enabling improvements to be made in prosperous times.

Be this as it may, peasant proprietorship has proved to be a failure in Ireland, and is rapidly becoming extinct.[58] Writers on the subject state that, under that system, labour was so ill-directed, that it required six men to provide food for ten; and consolidation of holdings is recommended. Mr. Mill, however, thought otherwise, and biased by this political conviction, he has propounded the following extraordinary arguments to prove that the sacred rights of property are not applicable in the case of landed property[59]:—

Now let us apply Mr. Mill’s arguments to any other kind of property.

Suppose I say to you:—“My friend! you have two coats; hand one of them over to me! Sacred rights of property don’t apply to it; you did not make it; and Mill says—‘it is no hardship to be excluded from what others have produced;’ but it is some hardship to be born into the world, and to find all nature’s gifts engrossed. Your argument that you paid for it in hard cash is worthless. No man made silver and gold, ‘it is the original inheritance of the whole species, the receiver is as bad as the thief, and you have connived in the robbery of those metals from the earth, leaving posterity yet unborn to be under the hardship of finding all nature’s gifts engrossed.’

“The manufacture of your coat is based on robbery and injustice, and you have connived at it; the iron and coal used in its production were made by no man, they are the common inheritance of the species, those who have obtained them have robbed posterity. You have bribed them to do so by silver and gold, also robbed from posterity.

“The very wool of which your coat is formed was made by no man, it was robbed from a defenceless sheep. Your argument that the sheep was the property of the shearer is useless. No man made the sheep, it is the common inheritance of all, &c. Your argument that his owner reared the sheep, is equally worthless. Monster! if you find a child, have you a right to rob him and make a slave of him? such an argument would justify slavery[61] or worse.

“When private property is not expedient it is unjust, and from my ground of view, it is not expedient that this private property should be yours; public only differs from private expediency in degree. ‘He who owns property keeps others out of the enjoyment of it,’ the sacred rights of property don’t apply to this coat; so hand it over without any more of your absurd arguments. Nay! if you don’t, and as I see some one is approaching who may interfere, its appropriation is one of expediency,—individual expediency must follow the same law as general expediency,—it is expedient that I should draw my knife across your throat, otherwise I shall lose that which is my inheritance in common with the rest of the species.” And so I might argue ad infinitum.

Mr. Mill’s sophisms however are, what Cossa terms, “concessions more apparent than real to socialism,” for further on, in his Political Economy, he completely stultifies his argument by stating that the principle of property gives to the landowners:—

Unfortunately, however, his mischievous denial of the sacred rights of property in land is eagerly read, while his subsequent qualification of it is neglected by those who, like Mr. Bright, aim at the destruction of a political opponent; or, like Mr. Gladstone, are bent on a particular policy, reckless of the results in carrying it out; or, like Mr. Parnell and his followers, whose hands itch for plunder; and it has produced a general haziness of ideas amongst that well-meaning class of people who are good-naturedly liberal with the property of other people.

Yet, clothe it with what sophism you will, any attempt, whether legalized or otherwise, to deprive the landowner of his property and to violate his rights, is as unjustifiable as the depredations of the burglar or the pickpocket. Nay more so; because the statesman or political economist cannot plead poverty or want of education as his excuse.

---

Allow me, my dear Idolator, to make a few quotations from one of your sacred Vedas, on the subject of land.

You are fond of quoting them when it suits your purpose.

You will probably, attempt to discredit your sacred writings when they do not support your own views.

You will argue that Adam Smith wrote when the conditions of society and commerce were very different from what they are now.

Mathematicians say, that when a formula will not accommodate itself to altering conditions and circumstances, it is unsound. It is the same with political science. Either the political science of Adam Smith is unsound, and he is not reliable, or the serious indictments against Free Trade given in the quotations above are well-founded.

---

What is the nature of a country-life that it should breed such a vampire,—such a monster of iniquity,—such a “squanderer of national wealth” as the landlord whom your Free-trading friends hold up to public execration? The old classical idea “procul a negotiis” would indicate that it had a contrary influence. How is it then that it produces the unmitigated miscreant whom Bright delights to denounce,—whom Gladstone loves to pursue with ruinous enactments,—and whom Parnell, with his murderous crew, takes pleasure in “boycotting,” maiming, and assassinating? The external appearance of this monster gives no clue to his character. From personal acquaintance with men of this class in England I should have said, that, on the average, they were well-meaning, harmless, good-natured men; not always of the widest of views, or shrewdest intelligence, but with the best intentions, anxious in bad times to help their tenants, and in good times to improve their property. Even your prophet Adam Smith appears to have been deceived by them.[63] Again, appearances are deceptive; for, to my inexperienced eye, there seemed to be a large amount of kindly sympathy between tenant and landlord.

I am unable to speak from personal experience respecting the same classes in Ireland; but all novels and tales of Irish life, which should reflect, with some degree of truth, the general aspect of things, agree in describing scenes, probably founded on facts, from which one would imagine that, before the present agitation and enactments, there appeared to exist much kindly feeling and sympathy between the peasantry and the “Masther,” who, with all his faults, is represented as a generous, rollicking, devil-may-care sort of fellow,[64] quite opposed to the grasping, grinding miscreant whom your friends denounce; of course, there were exceptions.

Mr. A. M. Sullivan seems also to have been mistaken when he says:—

It is wonderful how, at such an awful time, the Irish landlord should have continued to mask his true character.

Still I am rather puzzled.

I quite admit that the Irish landlord is wrong in rack-renting his tenant to the extent of grinding out of him one-third of the amount that is cheerfully paid by tenants in protectionist countries.

I admit that he should not have tried in a Free Trade country to have extorted more than one-tenth of the rent paid by protectionist tenants. Nay, I will go further. I don’t think that a tenant in Free Trade Ireland would farm to a profit even if he had the land rent-free. I admit also that it was selfish of the landlord to allow the question of his own pauperism to weigh in the question of rent.

Still, after making due allowance for all these faults, I cannot quite understand how his guilt is sufficiently proven to warrant his continued persecution and gradual extermination, by enactment after enactment for his ruin, should he chance to escape assassination. A snake or a rat could not be hunted down with greater venom. I must say that, in spite of his crimes, he is an object of pity.

Perhaps an analysis of his villainy may help me to understand the heinousness of his crime; let us apply, therefore, to the political economist for the character of the rent, the instrument with which he commits his crime—what does he say?[66]

Yes! This appears to me to be just and business-like; the tenant hires the land for the profit he expects to get out of it, and his rent is a simple debt. Proceed:—

Yes, yes! All this appears to me to be just and sensible! but pardon me, I am a little obtuse. I cannot yet see that the landlord’s guilt is proven. Let us recapitulate:—

Rent does not raise the price of corn! The tenant gets value for his rent! He enters into a business contract for profit! The rent is a simple debt. To refuse it, is to steal! To assist legally at this refusal, is to be an accomplice in the theft! In this case Government is the accomplice, and the Government is a plunderer under aggravated circumstances! Moreover, it not only plunders, but demoralizes society. Mr. Gladstone represents Government. Messrs. Bright, Parnell, Davitt and Co. assist in this legalized and illegal plunder; thus demoralizing the society. The property of the landlord passes to another without his consent and without compensation! Messrs. Gladstone and Co. use that which Professor Bonamy Price terms a most “unwarrantable process of argumentation.”

Stop! Stop!! for goodness’ sake!!! My brain is getting confused; in my innocence, had I not been gravely assured that they were angels of light, patriots, philanthropists,[72] I should have mistaken Messrs. Gladstone, Bright, Parnell, Davitt, and Co. for the real criminals.

Your friend, John Bright, with his usual disregard for accuracy, describes the large landlord as the “squanderer and absorber of national wealth,” but seeing that the total rent of land in Great Britain and Ireland is less than 5 per cent. of the whole national income,[73] and that of this less than one-seventh is in the hands of large landowners, it would require a more able statesman than Mr. Bright to show how he can squander that, of which such a very small proportion passes through his lands.

No? friend Bright. You and your fellow free-traders are the real squanderers of national wealth, and you seek to shift the blame from your own shoulders, by dishonestly laying it on those of the landowner. I command to your perusal the graphic description of a large landowner—the Duke of Argyle—who states that, in Trylee, by feeding the tenantry in bad times, by assisting some to emigrate, by introducing new methods of cultivation, by expenditure of capital in improvements, by consolidating small holdings when too narrow for subsistence, he has raised a community, from the lowest state of poverty and degradation, to one of lucrative industry and prosperity.

The prosperity these tenants enjoy is due to the beneficial and regulative power of the landlord as a capitalist. The greater the wealth of the landlord, the greater is his beneficial and regulative power. There were thousands of landowners who acted up to the limits of their power in this way, until you, friend Bright, ruined them and deprived them of the power of helping their tenants.

No, doubt, there are bad landlords, as there are bad men in all classes, but the interests of the landowner and those of the tenant are inseparably bound together; and the landlord is shrewd enough to see that it is to his own interest to improve the property if he can afford to do so.

The old classic, with his insight into human nature, in odimus quos læsimus, shows that human nature has not altered, and it does not surprise me that you should hold up to execration the class you have so cruelly injured.

You, my Free-trading Fanatic, have (thanks to Mill’s unfortunate sophisms and your leaders’ persistent misrepresentations) such a very hazy view about landowner’s rights and duties, that I think a few words on the subject may clear the atmosphere.

It is absurd, therefore, to say, that a man possessing capital in land may not act in the same way as the owner of any other form of capital. (Of course he has his moral obligations, but those are applicable to the possession of any other form of capital.) If the tenant desires capital, he must work for it, or obtain it in some legal manner. If he get it in any other way, it is theft; and any legislation that transfers the capital of the landlord to the tenant without due compensation, is legalized theft.

As regards absentee landlords, I admit it is desirable, on many grounds—on the ground of his own personal interest—to put it on the lowest ground, that he should not be absent; but if the life of the landlord and his family be at stake, is he to be blamed if he declines to take the risk of being boycotted or shot? You argue that he does nothing for his money which he draws, and spends away from the place in which it has been produced, thus impoverishing the district.

Is he different in this respect from the capitalist who invests money in colonial or foreign funds, who does nothing for his money, and spends it away from the country in which it is produced? Is he different in this respect from the London banker, who lends money to the manufacturer in the provinces, or abroad? He does nothing for his money, but spends it away from the locality in which it has been produced. Would you argue on this ground, that the railway shareholder, the foreign bondholder, the London banker ought, in equity, to receive no interest on their money, and should be held up to public execration? If you place any value on the laws of political economy, which you are so fond of quoting, my Fanatical Friend, drop your absurd arguments about landlords. Land is a commodity to be bought, sold, improved by the capital of the landlord, and if you treat it otherwise, you violate every principle of sound political economy.

Admitting that land is capital, and the landlord is the capitalist, what does Political Economy say?—

Verily! Friend Bright, the cry against the landlord is a “cry against capital unthinkingly uttered.” Verily thou encouragest the “internecine wars of capital and labour.” Verily thou art the reverse of a benefactor to thy country.

The verdict of Political Economy condemns thee!!

---

One conclusion at which the Commission of 1882 arrived was, that the agricultural labourers were “never in a better position.” When, however, we analyze the evidence on which that conclusion was based, the case wears a very different aspect. The evidence of landlords, agents, and factors,—of those who have to pay the wages out of their struggle to make both ends meet,—is to the effect that the labourer is well enough off; but the evidence of the labourer himself—the recipient—gives rather a different version of the case. It is true that wages are higher than they were formerly: this naturally must follow the increase of wages in manufacturing districts; but the evidence of the labourer shows that these wages are insufficient to keep a family, or provide for bodily wants, to say nothing of sickness or loss of work; perquisites are being gradually taken away, and no compensation given; families are suffering severely; physique degenerating for want of sufficient food; articles of diet, such as cheese, bacon, eggs are much more expensive than before; the supply of milk, and especially of skimmed milk, formerly so plentiful and obtainable at nominal prices, is now at prohibitory rates. Water, with a little bread, sweetened with sugar, forms the general substitute for wholesome milk in rearing children.

The recent census shows that although the population of England has increased 14½ per cent., there has been, in the purely agricultural districts, a decrease in the population,—a sure sign of want of prosperity. In all parts farms are badly cultivated, in a foul condition, or out of cultivation altogether; neither the landlord nor the tenant, have sufficient capital to make improvements.[76] A clergyman writes from a rural parish:—

Emerson warned England of the fact that her—

Why did a handful of undisciplined Boers beat our soldiers in the Transvaal? Simply because they are physically a finer set of men than our 5 ft. 3 in. army, rapidly degenerating for want of a healthy agricultural population for recruiting purposes.

---

I repeat the assertion that Ireland has been ruined by Free Trade.

Let us take a brief retrospect of Ireland before the introduction of Free Trade.

At the earlier part of this century Ireland showed great capabilities for improvement and national prosperity, and (in spite of the somewhat selfish policy of England, which did not sufficiently protect from herself the industries of Ireland) she gave undoubted signs of a steady but rapid advance in prosperity. Between the years 1825 and 1835, her exports and imports were more than doubled.

Her population between 1821 and 1841 increased from 6,802,000 to 8,196,000. That this population was not too great for the land, is proved by the fact that the whole resources of land were not utilized; moreover, her population was far smaller per square mile than the population of Holland or Belgium[78]—countries that enjoy a high state of prosperity. In the years of 1826 and 1835, the ratio of exports was as follows:—

The county cess rose between 1825 and 1838 in the ratio of 1·0 to 1·5.

The transfers of invested funds from England to Ireland between the years 1832 and 1841 exceeded those from Ireland, to England by £1,840,000.

Deposits in savings banks, in 1831 and 1841, were relatively in the proportion of 1·00 to 2·24. Crime and offences were diminishing.

The Weavers Commission in 1840 reported as follows:—

In another place the Commission reports that the manufacturing industries of Ireland were doing well, and that—

There was an abundant supply of land for the increasing population—1,200,000 acres of land being capable of cultivation, besides upwards of 1,000,000 acres of bog land capable of reclamation at a cost of little more than £1 per acre.

With such capabilities for advancement, nothing short of the most extraordinary prosperity ought to have followed the general advance of wealth in the civilised world, caused by the improvements in arts, sciences, machinery, steam, and electricity. But what do we find after thirty-six years of the curse of Free Trade? Land out of cultivation; farms abandoned; manufacturing industries extinct; population decreasing by more than three millions[79] in forty years. Anarchy, murder, assassination rampant. No doubt the Famine of 1847 and the subsequent emigration caused a large decrease in the population of Ireland, but disciples of the Malthusian theory would have told you that this was an element of prosperity. I do not hold this view, but any protectionist country would have rapidly recovered the blow, whilst Free Trade Ireland has since steadily decreased in population, and is sinking lower and lower into the Slough of Despond.

You argue that “rack-renting is the cause.” Nonsense! The average rent of land in Ireland is only one-third of that which is paid in prosperous protectionist countries;[80] any rent at all will soon be a rack-rent. There is plenty of land in Ireland to be had at nominal rents, land that has gone out of cultivation; but Free Trade has taken away the possibility of its cultivation at a profit, even if it were rent-free. You urge absenteeism as the cause; it is the effect, not the cause. Moreover, only about one-sixth of the land is owned by absentees.

Ireland is like a child crying out in the pangs of starvation, and you give it opiates in the shape of mischievous enactments (such as the Encumbered Estates Act and the Land Act) which only augment the evil. To use the words of a writer of the day: “Your Statesmanship knows no policy but that of coercion to-day, concession to-morrow.” Ireland cries in the pangs of hunger, you alternately beat and coax it.

You propose wholesale emigration, which may be compared to bleeding the patient to death in order to cure it of starvation.

Fools!! Can’t you see it is dying of hunger? All it wants is food, work, and employment of its labour,—development of its resources.

Take away your iniquitous policy of Free Trade,—abolish your unjust enactments, your legalised instruments of confiscation and plunder,—abandon your insane encouragement of internecine war between capital and labour,—desist from your suicidal encouragement to agitation and class antagonism,—encourage capitalists,—protect industries,—employ labour,—and you will soon find Ireland prosperous, contented, and loyal.

The cry for Home Rule is a protest against your misrule.

If you persist in your insane policy, Ireland must inevitably be depopulated either by starvation or by wholesale emigration.[81]

---

I have not the slightest doubt, that you will tell me that Ireland is not ruined, that she was never before in so satisfactory condition, and that you will bring forward ingeniously manipulated statistics to prove your case.

You will tell me that the farms are larger,—that the farm stock is richer,—that the peasant proprietors who were a failure (contrary to Mr. Mill’s theories) are disappearing, and holdings are more consolidated; but, my Fanatical Friend, if Ireland be not ruined, what is the meaning of this frantic legislation, which many of its supporters can only excuse on the ground of expediency, not equity? How is it that, during the last thirty-two years, nearly 1,500,000 acres have gone out of tillage and 677,000 acres have gone out of farming altogether?

How is it that, during the last nine years, there has been a decrease of 1,000,000[82] live stock in Ireland, or nearly one-ninth of the total?

How is it that, during one year, 114,327[83] acres of land in Ireland have gone out of farming, and that with a decreasing population, and that in spite of a better crop in 1880 than in 1879?

What is the meaning of the increase of 18,000 paupers and 115,000 emigrants in Ireland within the last three years?

Mill would have told you that the extinction of peasant proprietors was a sign of retrogression; whether that be so or not, the crushing out of weaker industries is decidedly not a sign of prosperity.

But now tell me, what would you think of the prosperity of an undertaking in which the original shareholders had been ruined and sold their shares at a greatly depreciated price; and this second set of shareholders again being ruined, again sold their shares at a still further depreciated price, whilst the third set of shareholders, obtaining their shares at this enormously depreciated value, were able to make some little show of temporary prosperity. Would any business-man call that a prosperous undertaking?

Now this is precisely the case with Ireland. Under the Encumbered Estates Act, thousands were reduced to beggary,[84] and the new landlords were able to make a temporary show of prosperity on the ruin of their predecessors. When this was over, the still more iniquitous Land Act of 1881 was passed to complete the ruin of landlords.

Mr. FitzGerald, of Dublin, states that there are more than 600 cases before the Court, and that the Judges have, from time to time, adjourned the sales rather than consent to a “wanton sacrifice of property, for which there are no bidders.”

Land, which one of the Judges declared to be worth thirty years’ purchase, was sold for eleven years’ purchase, and the unfortunate owner was told “You must submit to the inevitable.”

But this is not all; the Land Act of 1880 has put a stop to all possible improvement of land, for no reasonable man will expose himself to the risk of losing his money on improvements, because, notwithstanding any contract he may have made with his tenant, the Land Commission may step in and legalize a breach of the contract.[85]

The typical landlords in Ireland, whom you hold up for public execration, are not rich noblemen; it would be better for Ireland if they were, but they are mostly men of the middle class, struggling hard to escape the pauperism your iniquitous legislation has brought upon them.

Mr. Gladstone on one occasion said:—

I repeat Mr. Gladstone’s sentiment with greater emphasis. If Mr. Gladstone, with his majority, are allowed to oppress the minority in this way, England is no longer the place for honest and loyal subjects.

---

M. Merimée writes:—

Unfortunately the littleness to which M. Merimée refers is not always attended with little results.

In his anxiety to secure the Irish votes, Mr. Gladstone, by his notorious Midlothian speeches, directly encouraged Irish demagogues to agitate.

His advice was followed, and the result has been, as every one expected, anarchy, murder, and assassination.[86]

Froude, the historian, writing in 1880, clearly predicated it:—

Let us charitably hope that the results of Mr. Gladstone’s advice to agitate were not anticipated by him; but a man who will scatter sparks in a powder magazine cannot be held altogether guiltless of the results of the explosion that may ensue, whether he did it in ignorant folly or with culpable intent. Froude, alluding to the Midlothian speeches, says:—“No statesman who understood Ireland would ever have spoken of the ‘Upas Tree,’ unless he was prepared to sanction a revolution.” Mr. Gladstone must, therefore, be held morally responsible for the blood guiltiness—for the atrocious crimes and murders that have disgraced Ireland; he has sown the wind, and he has reaped the whirlwind; he has sown agitation, and reaped dynamite; he has not only caused anarchy by his advice, but has encouraged it by the weakness of his policy.[88]

An admirer of Mr. Gladstone writes in the Westminster Review, describing Mr. Parnell and his associates as “indispensable to the success of Mr. Gladstone!!” A fitting associate indeed in a work of legalized plunder is Mr. Parnell, whom Mr. Forster denounced in the House of Commons as the aider and abetter of assassins and murderers; who dared not stand up and answer the scathing denunciation, but slunk off to America like a whipped hound.

---

I have already shown the utter failure of the prophecies of your Free Trade Prophets, now let me show the failure of the prophecies of your Right Hon’ble Friends with regard to the Land Act of 1881, and ask if such lamentable want of discrimination is fitting in one pretending to be an administrator.

Again I ask your verdict of guilty or not guilty? Are your Right Hon’ble Rulers either incompetent or dishonest, to have made such prophesies? It was not for want of warning that they have blundered so hopelessly. The whole country rang with warnings[89] that the measure was one of confiscation. Even Mr. Parnell predicted it, telling his hearers that there would be no buyers, and the tenants would have “an opportunity of purchasing their holdings under the Bright Clause.”

The whole measure is one which commenced by breach of faith and ended in confiscation.[90]

Mr. James Lowther, M.P., has been blamed for saying, that “loyal subjects have been deliberately plundered by the Land Act.”

Let us see how the political economist defines “plunder:”

Now tell me, my Friend, how do the instances I have given above differ from legalized Plunder as defined by Bastiat?

When Judge Flannagan says, “you must submit to the inevitable,” he says, in fact, “you must submit to be legally plundered.”

When Judge Ormsby says “no one could foresee what would occur,” he says in fact, “no one could foresee that the law would become an instrument of plunder.”

No one could foresee it? Why, every one with common sense could foresee it—every one but those wilfully blind. An admirer of Mr. Gladstone naively writes in the Westminster Review respecting the Land Act:—

And he might have added indefensible from every point of view.

Froude, the historian, says:

---

Don’t you see, what a fallacy underlies your cry for cheap bread. Does the consumer eat nothing but bread? Is everything to be sacrificed to the consumer? Don’t you see that cheap bread is not all that is necessary to prosperity.

Have not you seen that, during one year of greatest prosperity, the price of wheat rose to 58s. 8d. per quarter, far higher than it was in ten years, 1831–40, before the repeal of the Corn Laws, whilst during the present time of depression it is down to 41s. 5d., and that, in 1835, before the repeal of the Corn Laws, it was down to 39s. 4d.[94]

Cannot you see that cheap food is dear if the causes of its cheapness deprive the labourer of that employment which enables him to purchase it? Cannot you see that, although a healthy competition stimulates production, a crushing competition in the end causes the rise of prices by the lessening of production?

Do you not know that, in the opinion of many political economists, dear food has been considered a cause of progress and prosperity to a nation, by stimulating its inhabitants to exertion and thrift,—notably so in the case of Holland?

Do you not know that, in many countries, where food is cheap, the natives are degraded and wretched?

Cannot you see that the revenue of the country must be raised in some manner, and if a tax be put on corn, it may be taken off some other article of consumption, almost equally important? and therefore that, if the substitute be judiciously chosen, the tax on it comes back to the consumer in some shape or other? Do you not know that an import tax does not always fall on the consumer?[95]

Cannot you see that the want of a light tax on corn (I do not defend the Corn Laws as they existed, for they imposed an excessive tax) has ruined agriculture, and you are preparing for yourself a serious difficulty? In case of war with any combination of strong maritime powers[96] wheat will rise to famine rates.

Don’t you see that if we transferred a small portion of the tax on tea, sugar, coffee, &c., giving a preference to our dependencies in the case of wheat, we should not only encourage our home, but also our colonial, industries, which are trembling in the balance between existence and nonexistence for want of some slight fostering care.

You are like Nero fiddling while Rome was burning. You are fiddling with your Free Trade, whilst England is going to ruin.

How can it be otherwise? Unlimited foreign competition must necessarily end in disaster. Don’t you see that you are handicapping your people in every way. They have higher wages than other nations. You tax them more heavily, and you pass enactments to prevent their working long hours. You thereby place them at a disadvantage with people who are thrifty and industrious and are not restricted in their hours of work. The same amount of money now buys only half the labour it did forty years ago, this increases the cost of production. Competition forces your manufacturers to work only three or four days a week. This again increases it. Increased leisure gives opportunities for intemperance. This again has a deteriorating effect on produce. Your best hands emigrate to prosperous countries not cursed with free trade,—another cause of deterioration in quality of manufactures. The cheap freights, almost nominal, place foreign productions in England at prices very little beyond that at which they can be produced in their native country.

The money spent on foreign produce, instead of being spent in England, is so much capital taken away from this country, helping foreigners to compete with you. You have, in fact, in Free Trade, the most ingeniously devised plan of impoverishing the country. We had a good start, and other countries have been a long time in catching us up, so that we did not feel their competition at first, but they are now passing us hand over hand. English pluck, English capital, and English credit have until now stood the strain bravely, and the general advance of the wealth of the world has blinded our eyes to our real danger, but the struggle cannot last much longer. Capital is draining out to protectionist countries in all directions, but the amount at stake in our manufactories is so enormous that the struggle must be continued at any risk. Credit alone sustains the fabric, and as soon as that is thoroughly shaken, the collapse will be terrible and sudden. The working classes, so long as they receive higher wages than before, are unable to see the danger, but when the collapse comes—and come it surely will before long—the working classes will be the first to demand protection. There are symptoms of it already, for Sir Edward Sullivan has stated:—

---

What has become of the Pagoda tree? Is it a myth? Did it ever exist?

These are questions which you must have heard over and over again.

Have you ever tried to answer them? No!

Well! let me do so.

The Pagoda tree is no myth. It exists, but in a deplorably dilapidated condition, and bears but little fruit. Your car of Jugernāth has crushed its roots; your wheels have excoriated its bark; you have torn down its branches to cremate your victims. You have denied it water and manure. Its vitality has been sadly lowered, but it is not quite dead.

Only smash your detestable car of Jugernāth; send your false prophets adrift; and devote a little attention to the cultivation of the Pagoda tree; and it will flourish and bear more fruit than it has ever borne before.

Let us drop metaphor a little.

India has every requisite for the production of unbounded wealth—for the employment of untold capital. How is it then that, with all the advantages it possesses, its industries languish and struggle for bare existence, and in many cases die out altogether? How is it that, with all its material advantages, it does not enjoy unbounded prosperity? I have no doubt that you will point to the increased exports and imports of India, and claim this as an instance of unbounded prosperity due to Free Trade. I contend that it is wholly due to extension in railways, improvement in facilities of transport, and that with these improvements its prosperity ought to have been enormous. If it be prosperous, why do we have essays on the Poverty of India?[98] Why do Viceroys dwell on the subject of its poverty?[99] Why do its industries languish and die out?

India has untold wealth, and wonderful natural resources, whether agricultural, mineral, or industrial, but they are to a great extent dormant.

It has coal of an excellent character, and inexhaustible in quantity; it has fine petroleum, large supplies of timber and charcoal; it has iron, of a purity that would make an English iron-master’s mouth water, spread wholesale all over the country,—in most places to be had by light quarrying or collection from the surface; it has chrome iron capable of making the finest Damascus blades; manganiferous ore; splendid hematites in profusion. It has gold, silver, antimony, tin, copper, plumbago, lime, kaolin, gypsum, precious stones, asbestos. Soft wheat, equal to the finest Australian; hard wheat, equal to the finest kabanka.[100] It has food grains of every description: oilseeds, tobacco, tea, coffee, cocoa, sugar, spices, lac, dyes, cotton, jute, hemp, flax, coir, fibres of every description; in fact, products too numerous to mention. Its inhabitants are frugal, thrifty, industrious, capable of great physical exertion, docile, easily taught, skilful in any work requiring delicate manipulation. Labour is absurdly cheap; the soil for the most part wonderfully productive, and capable of producing crop after crop without any symptoms of exhaustion.

The present yield of wheat is about 26,500,000 quarters, or about 9,500,000 quarters in excess of the total imports of wheat into England; and in the Punjab alone there is cultivable waste land sufficient to produce 12,000,000 quarters, besides enormous parts in Burmah and other parts of India, only requiring irrigation or population to bring them under the plough.[101]

England imports annually commodities to the value of about £148,500,000 under six heads alone,[102] a large portion of which might be diverted to India by simply adopting a preferential tariff slightly favorable to her dependencies. Take, for example, wheat. If England be determined to persist in the endeavour to ruin its agricultural industry for a political whim, a slight tax on American and Russian wheat would suffice to turn the whole of the wheat import trade to India and Australia. Such a tax would, I believe, tend to lower, rather than raise, the price of wheat, because India would steadily go in for the production of wheat, if its calculations were not liable to be disturbed by a slight fall in the price of wheat in America or Russia, which may throw back a quantity of wheat on the hands of the Indian producers or dealers.[103]

Again, India suffers from a tax which prevents the export of rice except on a tariff which is sometimes as high as 14½ per cent. on the value of the rice. This not only handicaps India in its exports when compared with other countries, but it drives the natives to grow less remunerative crops of oilseeds for export, and the result of this is that, when famine arises, there is no surplus food which might be retained from exports, and thus prevent the painful scenes of starvation and distress that India has witnessed of late years. To take off the tax would prevent depletion, for no foreign country could compete with the demand which failure of crops in any part of India would inevitably cause.

There is about £32,000,000 of English capital invested in Indian manufacturing industries, of which £18,000,000, or more than one-half, is invested in indigo, tea, coffee, jute, cotton, sugar, coal and iron industries, and how are these thriving? Everywhere throughout Bengal you see the ruins of English Indigo factories.

Coffee and tea are struggling hard for existence. Planters are ruined, and their estates bought at depreciated rates in times of depression. This enables the industries to survive with some show of prosperity in good times. Agricultural industries, such as coffee or tea, draw off surplus population, and employ them on land that would otherwise be uncultivated. Coal is doing fairly, but not nearly so well as it might do if our manufacturing industries prospered.

Cotton manufacture sprung up under a protective tariff, and appeared to be prospering; but selfish Manchester called aloud for the sacrifice of the industry. The tariff was removed, and the industry is left to struggle for life, or perish, as it may. Several capitalists who have embarked capital in cotton manufacture on the faith of this tariff, have lost their money. Everywhere in India, you may see evidences of native iron manufacture crushed out by Free Trade, with nothing but slag heaps remaining to testify to former prosperity. The splendid native iron being superseded by cheap worthless iron of English manufacture. Many attempts have been made by English capitalists to revive, or start, fresh iron industries, but they have one and all been crushed out for want of a little fostering protection. The latest attempt nearly succeeded, but the modest request for a little help was sternly refused:—What!!! Foster your industry? What sacrilege to advocate the violation of every principle of Jugernāth!!! and so the helpless babe was thrown under the relentless wheels of Jugernāth. There was a crunch,—a faint moan from the ruined shareholders,—and then all was over. Hurrah for Jugernāth!! Pereat India!!!

---

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]

---

---

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.

---

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.

The abuse of eviction or raisings of rent is rare; the use is necessary and justifiable.

The relations of landlord and tenant are those of contract; the State must not interfere in freedom of contract.

The objections to a fixed rent; and the difficulties in the way of fixing a fair rent.

Further evils which would result from the adoption of the three F’s.

---

LONDON:

PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,

STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS.

---