FREE TRADE AND DEPRESSED TRADE. THE belief that the fiscal policy, begun in 1846 and carried to completion in 1874, of admitting free of duty such imports as come into competition with British products, and heavily taxing those which do not, has hitherto enabled us to maintain our commercial supremacy, has been received, even among the educated classes of this country, as an article of unquestioned faith; for which they have no better reason to give than that, because prosperity followed the adoption of that system, that system must have caused it. A careful study, however, of "the statistical abstracts" of the Board of Trade from 1840 downwards, shows that, so far from the repeal of the Corn Laws being entitled to rank with the great factors which after 1850 led to such a vast expansion, not only in the commerce of the United Kingdom, but in that of Europe and the United States, it had no influence on it whatever, nor in causing the advance in wages and value of land so absurdly ascribed to it. Before proceeding to show what that repeal really amounted to, let us see what these great factors were. 1. The rapid development of the railway system, in which we were, save America, greatly ahead of other nations. In 1850 there were 6621 miles open in the United Kingdom, against, in 1883, 18,668 miles; while Continental nations and the United States, starting with but 17,336 miles in 1850, had, in 1883, 216,708 miles. The magnitude of the change is appa rent in the fact that during the last fifty years 800 millions have been invested in constructing railways in this country alone. 2. The enormous increase in the use of machinery, in the production of which we were unrivalled. 3. The great increase in the number and size of steamers, which are estimated to have five times the carrying power of sailingvessels. 4. The discovery of gold in California and Australia, which, between 1850 and 1880, added 528 millions sterling to the wealth of the world, and was the main cause of the advance in prices. SO With such powerful agencies at work to stimulate trade in Europe and America, it was inevitable that we, the great producers of the world, should mainly benefit. The surprise is, not that our import and export trade increased much, but that, situated as we were, it did not, proportionally with other nations, increase much more. Though Europe, between 1850 and 1870, was constantly disturbed by wars and revolutions, and America during 1862 to 1864 in the throes of her great civil war, by which we greatly profited— for at the end of each great struggle there arose a large demand for British products-we find that while our imports and exports only increased 183 per cent, France, Germany, Russia, Austria, Spain, and Portugal increased theirs on the average 161 per cent, and the United States 170 per cent.1 Having tried to realise the vast changes 1 Between 1870 and 1884 these nations, excluding Russia and including America, increased 60 per cent on the average; while we, between 1870 and 1886, increased less than 3 per cent-the value of our imports and exports in 1870 having been 547 millions, against 561 millions in 1886. in carrying on trade brought about by the railway taking the place of the stage-coach, and the steamer of the sailing-vessel, in enormously quickening and cheapening the means of transport, let us see what the repeal of the Corn Laws really amounted to. During the eight years which preceded the abolition in 1849, the total duties levied on corn, meal, and flour only averaged £707,651 per annum. From 1850 to 1869, the registration fee of one shilling, charged on each quarter imported, yielded on the average an annual revenue of £623,000. In 1869, in order, as the chancellor of the Exchequer remarked, "to do away with the last rag of protection," this fee was repealed. Had it been retained, we should, on the 230 millions of quarters imported between 1870 and 1885, have saved 111⁄2 millions sterling of revenue, or over £700,000 a year. We say saved, for as we shall later on show, these millions wholly went to swell the profits of the foreign importer. Between 1840 and 1849, we imported of corn, meal, and flour, in all 41 millions of quarters, from which we derived a gross revenue of £6,817,848, about 3s. 4d. per quarter. The repeal seems to have We The prices of the loaf here quoted being by contract for large quantities, private tities, private consumers would doubtless have to pay more. shall assume, therefore, that from 1841-50, when the baker was content with less exorbitant profits, the retail price of the loaf averaged 71⁄2d. To-day it is 6d. If we allow two 4-lb. loaves a-week as the consumption of a working man, we get 13s. 3d. he per annum pays less now for his bread than he did from 1841-50. But what is he paying for his meat? If we refer to the Farmer's Gazette,' we find the Dublin prices of farm produce in 1850 and 1855 were take it he did not pay more than 4d. per pound in 1850, the difference shows he pays to-day 46s. more for his meat, and 13s. 3d. less for his bread, or net 32s. 9d., that he annually now pays more on these two items, without taking into account the higher rates he pays in the first report of the Royal for butter and eggs. Commission on the Depression of Trade, page 130, has been, in millions, as follows:: 1865-69. 1870-74. If this rapid rate of increase continue, a further serious fall in wages which has in the last five years, if we include the working men lately thrown out of employment, been on the average not less than 4s a-week-appears inevitable. As there are 61⁄2 millions of artisans in the United Kingdom, the fall which has already occurred thus represents an annual loss of spending power of no less than £67,600,000. The decline in wages having in a great measure been caused by the influx of agricultural labourers into large manufacturing districts in search of employment, the working man is finding that, so far from the repeal in these days proving a boon, it is to him and the nation the most ruinous measure ever passed by a British Legislature. On agriculture its effect has been vastly more disastrous. In 1856 there were in the United Kingdom 4,213,651 acres under wheat-cultivation, yielding, at 31⁄2 quarters to the acre 14,747,778 quarters, which, calculated at 54s. 7d.-the average market price between 1851-60-gave a crop of the value of 404 millions sterling. In 1886 there were only 2,286,000 acres under wheat, yielding a crop, at 30s. a quarter, worth only 12 millions—a deficit of over 28 millions sterling!1 The political pharisees of the Cobden school, who pose as the friend of the farmer, tell him all this is the result of iniquitous land laws. Give him the land for nothing, what better would he be? The cost of growing an acre in wheat, exclusive of rent and interest on farmers' capital, obtained by Mr. Poynter from 140 returns and 20 counties, was found to average £6, 14s. an acre; or, allowing 32 quarters to the acre, 38s. 3d. per quarter. Mr Harris, in his evidence before the Royal Commission on the Depression of Trade, estimated the burdens on agricultural land at 12s. an acre; and in America, where no fertilisers are required, and the produce of 5 acres of wheat can be brought from Chicago to Liverpool at less than the cost of manuring an acre of wheat in England the burdens amount to only 6d. an acre. Un 1 "What a significant fact that in 1886 our imported wheat and flour amounted to 28,128, 609 cwts., and that in 1885 they were 77,331,707; that the value of those imports was £16,780,001 in the former year, and £33,736,358 in the latter! How far afield it is necessary to go to support the artificial fabric of society erected in these islands! "The Times,' Nov. 20, 1886. Why should this country be dependent on a foreign country for its food-supplies? In 1856, we produced in the United Kingdom close on 15 million quarters of wheat, and there is no reason, were the cultivation once more to become fairly remunerative, why we should not do so again. In 1885, we received nearly 5 million quarters from India, Australia, and Canada, one-half of which came from India-a country which, when its railway system is completed, will be able to supply us with any amount. There should therefore be no difficulty in our obtaining, in a few years, from our empire the 24 million of quarters of wheat required for the consumption of the United Kingdom, der such conditions, it is impos- tion of meat in the last three sible for the farmer to continue years, as compared with the years wheat-cultivation, nor is he likely 1872-74, fallen off 80 millions of to take the advice of his free- pounds, but in all kinds of farm trading friends that, if wheat produce he is meeting with the won't pay, he must try something same fierce competition from else; for not only, as stated by abroad, as the following table of Mr Harris, has the home produc- imports but too clearly shows: which, if properly cultivated, would grow larger crops of corn than in any other country in the world." These figures represent the value. If we take the imports of 1885 at the prices ruling in 1874, at least 20 per cent higher than now, we It was in the teeth of these facts get 120 millions as more correctly and figures that in 1884 Mr Bright indicating the volume of the trade said, in his speech at Manchester, as compared with 1874. Nor is "In 1846 the peers did not fight the milling interest in a better for their political lives; they fought position; for during the five years for their rents. They put up the 1876-80 the imports of flour aver- prayer doubtless in their families, aged 8,490,353 cwts., against, in the and did it by the clergy in their five years 1881-85, 14,334,448 cwts. churches, Give us this day our When it is considered that the daily bread; ' and yet every day in capital employed by farmers is, as that House that question came up, estimated by Sir James Caird, 400 speeches were made and votes given millions, and by landlords 1600 that denied to the millions of the millions, yielding, according to people of this country the daily Mr Giffen, an income of 212 mil- bread for which they prayed.' lions, the potency of agriculture The utter falsity of this infamous as a factor bearing on trade de- accusation is shown by the fact pression becomes apparent. Mr that the average price of wheat Harris in his evidence, to which during the year 1843 was only 50s. we have referred, says he calcu- 1d.; in 1844, 51s. 3d.; and in 1845, lates there is less food produced in 50s. 10d. In 1885 he had the this country to-day by 40 millions audacity to write to Mr Medley than there was twelve or fifteen he hoped the electors at the comyears ago, and he adds, "There is ing election would remember that land which is unlet in England, he obtained for them their loaf and is going out of cultivation, at half the price it had previously 1 Mr. Harris says: "Thus, with a decrease of 1,500,000 acres under corn crops, and a supposed increase of 3,000,000 acres of permanent pasture (which too often means permanent weeds), we have an actual decrease in the three years' supply of home-grown meat amounting to 80,000,000 lb., and a decrease in its value of £46,000,000, or equal to £15,300,000 per annum out of our farmers' pockets.” cost them. Little wonder that, not merely freightage, but of loadwhen called on to explain a state- ing, insurance, landing, commisment so wholly at variance with sion, interest, and loss, "which he the facts, he found it more con- estimated at 1os. 6d. per quarter venient to maintain a discreet between Dantzic and Liverpool; silence. It is interesting in the but the farmer is no longer prolight of present experience to read tected by the rate of freight, which the prophetic warnings contained is now reduced to 25. or 35., while in the protest of the peers on the rates of commission and insurance 25th of June 1886, which have been have also been greatly lowered. verified to the letter: "1. Make There is no doubt the main object this country dependent on foreign of the Anti-Corn-Law League was countries for supplies of food. 2. to lower wages by the cheapening No security or probability of other of the people's food, in the hope it countries adopting it. 3. May be would assist the manufacturer in the cause of throwing lands out of keeping a grip of foreign trade; cultivation. 4. Unjust to landed yet Mr. Bright always boasted that interest while subject to exclusive the repeal had increased wages, burdens for purposes of general ad- with which, as we have shown, it vantage. 5. Because the loss will had as much to do as the man in fall most heavily on tenant farmers, the moon. Now when his system, and through them on agricultural by the foreign competition it has labourers. 6. Because similar re- induced, is causing a serious desults will befall tradesmen who cline in wages, he turns ruthlessly mainly depend on the custom of on the working man, and tells him, those engaged in agriculture." if trade is leaving his employer, And to contrast therewith the he must be content with less for bombastic predictions of Richard his labour; but the doctrines of Cobden in 1884: "You have no the fetich he and Cobden set up more right to doubt that the sun for the nation to worship must not, will rise in the heavens to-morrow, forsooth, be called in question. than you have to doubt that in less than ten years from the time when England inaugurates the glorious era of commercial freedom, every civilized commercial community will be free-traders to the backbone." Eight years later he declared that the time was at hand when other nations would be compelled, by self-interest and by the reality of our prosperity, to follow our example and adopt free trade" It would be safer to predict, "The time is at hand when England will be compelled, by self-interest and the reality of the prosperity of such nations as America and Germany, to follow their example and adopt protection." At a meeting in 1843, Cobden stated that the farmer would always be protected by the "cost of Ordinary people in the old times held that a good harvest was sure to be followed by good trade, but the champions of the Cobden Club have recently started the idea, as comical as original, that the good harvest of 1884 was largely accountable for trade depression, inasmuch as smaller supplies of food being required from abroad, shipowners and insurers, &c., earned less profits. Apparently, on this theory, these gentlemen will hail the day when British agriculture is extinguished, and all our food-products are imported from abroad. It is nothing to them that the decrease of £16,000,000 in the import of cereals, as compared with the average of the preceding four years, were kept at home, benefiting not only agricul |