/■ 
 
 THE POLICY OF SELF HELP. 
 
 SUGGESTIONS TOWARDS THE 
 
 CONSOLIDATION OF THE EMPIRE 
 
 AND 
 
 THE DEFENCE 
 
 OF ITS 
 
 INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE. 
 
 TWO LETTEES 
 
 BY 
 
 W. FARRER ECROYD. 
 
 LONDON: HAMILTON, ADAMS AND CO., 
 
 BRADFORD: JOHN DALE AND CO., 
 
 AND OF ALL BOOKSELLERS. 
 1879. 
 
 PRIOR THltKKPBNOK. 
 
t ( 
 
 • , i -IS 
 
 ■:u i\' 
 
 
 'I ■ . "i 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The eflforts recently made to direct public attention to the 
 subject of the following letters have provoked a good deal of 
 criticism, sometimes angry, and often contemptuous. 
 
 This movement of opinion may, of course, be a mistaken 
 one; or, if well founded, may be lulled by some temporary 
 return of prosperity ; but it cannot be scold jd into silence, or 
 repressed by scorn. Nor, on the other hand, can its object be 
 advanced by the impatient zeal which would drag it into the 
 arena of party politics, for it is not a party question. No 
 Government ought to attempt to deal with it, except upon the 
 distinct demand of the great body of the people. To invite the 
 attention of working men, and to put our facts and arguments 
 temperately before them, on all suitable occasions, is therefore 
 the present duty of those who believe a change of policy to bo 
 required. 
 
 And there must be no putting forward of class interests ; no 
 selfish and partial efforts to obtain relief for the manufacturing 
 population at the expense of the agricultural, or vice versa. A 
 well-considered and comprehensive policy can alone command 
 sufficient support; or, if carried into effect, produce lasting 
 benefits. 
 
 It has been said that a Government based on a widely- 
 extended franchise can never successfully rule or hold together 
 an Empire embracing distant Colonies, because the multitude, 
 whether at home or in those Colonies, will never grasp a far- 
 reaching policy, however wise and beneficent, nor make the 
 present sacrifices it may demand, nor allow it to be pursued 
 with the needful steadfastness, 
 
a. 
 
 And thus I am continually told, as the one conclusive argu- 
 ment against my proposals, that the working class will never 
 tolerate an import duty on food, however moderate, even if 
 adopted simply as an instrument to defend their own employ- 
 ment and wages. But they have proved, and are daily proving, 
 by immense sacrifices made through the agency of Trade 
 Unions, their readiness to incur present loss in order, as they 
 believe, to secure future advantage, and to escape the conse- 
 quences of over-competition. I am confident, therefore, that 
 when better informed on this question, they will not only 
 tolerate but demand the adoption, at whatever temporary cost, 
 of a policy which would deliver them from the unfaii* competi- 
 tion, in the home market, of foreigners who refuse to admit 
 their productions in return ; and, from the still greater loss 
 and danger of depending for food upon nations who will only 
 receive their manufactures in exchange subject to import duties 
 which operate as a heavy fine, and so depress their employment 
 and rate of wages to the lowest level. 
 
 For it is their interests and those of their children which are 
 most of all imperilled. The piesent crisis will sooner or later 
 pass ; many employers and many distributors will disappear, 
 trodden down in the pitiless struggle for a diminished trade ; 
 and those who survive— the strongest in capital and ability — 
 will probably enjoy a period of prosperity, because they will 
 have fewer competitors, both in the sale of productions and in 
 the purchase of labour ; whilst many workpeople will be left 
 without employment, and the rest will receive greatly reduced 
 wages. Meantime, it is melancholy to see employers and work- 
 men wasting their diminished resources in mutual injury, 
 instead of standing shoulder to shoulder to resist and defeat 
 that selfish policy of foreign nations which is rapidly im- 
 poverishing them both. 
 
 It is said that Emigration must be looked to as a means of 
 relief. Yes ; the forced emigration of a starving people — that 
 exodus of English labour and capital to which Americans have 
 all along boastfully pointed as the certain and triumphant issue 
 of their Protectionist policy, — this is the alternative that our 
 critics are willing to encounter, rather than abate one jot or 
 tittle of their pedantic theory. Indeed, the whole issue of the 
 
• • » 
 
 111. 
 
 conflict between American and English commercial policy is 
 whether the industrial population of Britain, now dependent 
 on foreign Tood, shall be permitted to remain and to labour in 
 their native country, freely exchanging the work of their hands 
 for such food ; or shall be forcibly expatriated, and compelled to 
 become citizens of the United States, as the only condition of 
 effecting that needful exchange. 
 
 For, as matters stand, it is to America that they must go ; it 
 is there, and not in her own Colonies, that England has spent 
 the countless millions of her savings, in opening out by rail- 
 ways the land that is to grow her corn and other chief supplies 
 of food. And, as if the more completely at all points to play 
 the game of American policy, she has, with a cold and pitiless 
 impartiality, treated her Colonists themselves exactly like 
 foreigners, steadfastly refusing to grant to their productions, 
 on entering British ports, the least advantage over those of 
 nations who exclude her manufactures by enormous duties. 
 The inevitable result is that the Colonies are treating the 
 mother country more and more as foreign nations treat her ; 
 and, unless she shall change her policy, they will go on in that 
 course until they too shall have shut out her manufactures. 
 She will then naturally decline any further liability to taxation 
 for their advantage or defence, and thus the Empire will be 
 broken up, and England reduced to the position of a second or 
 third rate power. 
 
 And what class of society, whether in England or the 
 Colonies, from the richest to the poorest, but will share the 
 humiliation and the less ? 
 
 Compared with consequences like these, what matters a 
 difference of 10 — or even 20 — per cent, in the cost of food? 
 Have we not, during the past ten years, encountered far larger 
 fluctuations in the price of food, of which the nation, well 
 employed in all its industries, and enriched by foreign trade, 
 was scarcely conscious, and which were certainly never taken 
 into account by any manufacturer in estimating the cost of his 
 goods, simply because they never affected the rate of wages ? 
 * Is it not plain that work and wages are as essential as cheap 
 food ; and that to let slip a large portion of our employment, in 
 order to gain an extra turn of cheapness in our food, is a folly 
 
Iv. 
 
 like that of Esau, who for a morsel of bread sold his birthright ? 
 For it is only the last turn of cheapness that we do gain by our 
 present shortsighted policy ; cheapness and plenty we should 
 still have, after taxing foreign supplies 10 per cent.; since 
 America, compelled to sell her vast production at some price, 
 must certainly bear the loss of a portion of that impost ; whilst 
 the stimulus given to Colonial agriculture would operate to 
 increase the total supply of food. 
 
 I have enough real respect for working men to dare to tell 
 them, with perfect frankness, what I honestly believe. If, 
 therefore, I have proposed to them, in the following letters, 
 two great sacrifices of present interest, it is because I am 
 convinced that by no other means can steady employment, fair 
 wages, and reasonable hours be secured to them in future. 
 
 I have recommended a return to 60 hours' work per week in 
 factories as the best course under present circumstances, though 
 I firmly believe that, had we earUer taken steps to combat the 
 hostile tariffs directed against us, we should have found the 
 existing term of 56 J hours sufficient. The vast increase of 
 labour-saving machinery, and of facilities of transit, ought 
 naturally to bring an increase of leisure to all who labour ; and 
 if this result be not realized, it is because hostile tariffs interfere 
 to prevent the free interchange of our productions, and compel 
 our ironworkers and spinners and weavers to give more hours 
 of labour than they ought, in exchange for their supply of food 
 from foreign countries. To secure a reasonable Umitation of 
 the hours of labour we must, therefore, either break down those 
 hostile tariffs, or make ourselves independent of the nations 
 which impose them ; and I think the following letters will show 
 that a small tax on foreign food products is the only instrument 
 by which we can effect this. 
 
 All attempts to persuade working men that it is designed to 
 tax their food or lengthen their hours of labour, in the smallest 
 degree, against their wiU^ are too absurd to receive serious notice. 
 The power to do any such thing rests entirely with themselves ; 
 but, on the other hand, should they determine to use that 
 power, it is equally certain that no doctrinaires, of whatever 
 school or party, will be able to forbid them. . 
 
• V. 
 
 I am accused, in many quarters, of disloyalty to the principle 
 of Free-trade ; of a lingering desire for Protection. It would 
 be precisely as just to accuse a man of being litigious, who, 
 after always exhibiting a singularly peaceable and forbearing 
 disposition, should at la^t be driven to legal proceedings to 
 maintain some indispensable right. In reply, I can only 
 submit the letters now reprinted, to the judgment of impartial 
 readers ; I have nothing to retract. Protectionism resides in 
 the motive, — in the desire for protection ; its very essence is 
 wanting in duties imposed for the sole purpose of bringing 
 about an extension of the area of Free-trade, after all other 
 means have failed. 
 
 In perfect sincerity, I have admitted and extolled the sound- 
 ness of the principle of Free-trade ; I have acknowledged that 
 no import duties of any kind could be other than a burden and 
 a loss to the nation during their continuance. But I have 
 urged, with the earnestness of profound conviction, that present 
 circumstances render it wise — nay, absolutely needful for us to 
 take upon ourselves that burden and that loss, in a small 
 measure and for a limited time, in order to work out our 
 deliverance from a far heavier burden and a far more enduring 
 loss. 
 
 W. F. E. 
 
 30th May, 1879. 
 
 . I'. ■ . . 
 
 ' t •■ ,- 
 
LETTER I. 
 
 .1 
 
 'i 
 
 To the Editor of the Bradford Observer. 
 
 Sir, — Neither Mr. Forster's address to the Bradford Chamber 
 of Commerce, nor Lord Derby's recent speech at Rochdale, nor 
 the frequent articles in the Times, Economist, and other leading 
 journals, deal at all directly or satisfactorily with the opinions 
 held by myself and many others, which are confounded with 
 views of a totally different character, and loosely described as 
 the pohcy of reciprocity. Is it not worth while to meet our 
 opinions fairly and answer them specifically ? ' , 
 
 We are all agreed as to the soundness and desirability of free- 
 trade, and we must all admit that, in spite of the hopes and the 
 constant sanguine predictions of the past 80 years, free-trade is 
 steadily losing ground. Is it then more reasonable to drift along, 
 resting on expectations which experience has completely falsified, 
 or to set ourselves steadily to consider what will be our position 
 if, as may be deemed certain, the system of protection should 
 still grow, and gradually, during the next 30 years, overspread 
 such nations as Turkey, China, Japan, the South American 
 States, and our own colonies and dominions ? Here is a distinct 
 controversy, in which it appears to us that we are always met by 
 a repetition of those vague, vain hopes which can never soothe 
 us more, instead of a fair examination of the consequences which 
 must fall upon our trading and labouring population if, as we 
 see no reason to doubt, our productions be shut out increasingly 
 from foreign markets in the future as in the past. 
 
 The dangers which must ensue for us, should foreign nations 
 refuse to follow our free-trade policy, were, I think, always set 
 aside by Mr. Cobden by the positive repetition of the assurance 
 that they would never arise, for that other nations would soon 
 be compelled by self-interest, and by the spectacle of our pros- 
 perity, to follow in our wake. 
 
To those who doubted this, it was all along clear that wo 
 might liavo to pass through three stages of experience, vIm : 
 
 1. A period of almost unbounded prosperity, during which 
 the nations from whom we i)urchabcd our supplies of food and 
 raw materials, not having the means as yet of manufacturing for 
 themselves, must of necessity take our productions in exchange. 
 During this period, any protective duties they might levy would 
 not affect us, and would only enhance the cost to themselves. 
 
 2. A transition period, during which these nations, gradually 
 increasing their own manufactures under the shelter of protec- 
 tive duties, should become more and more independent of ours ; 
 yet during which the increased prosperity of our home trade 
 and the growth of markets in semi-civilised lands should suffice 
 to maintain our prosperity. 
 
 3. A period of contraction and difficulty, when — being obliged 
 to import half the food of a dense and delicately organised 
 population — we should find the nations e.xcluding, by horstilo 
 tariffs, those products of our industry which are all we have to 
 offer in exchange in the long run. 
 
 To escape this difficulty, we should at first force our goods on 
 such markets as remained open, sustaining an illegitimate trade 
 by unsound financial and banking operations ; and thus, as long 
 us possible, obtaining, even at a serious loss, the means of paying 
 for our food imports. 
 
 Meantime, whilst excluded from the ordinary healthy current 
 of demand for manufactures in America and on the Continent, 
 we should be subject to a most trying and dangerous set of 
 spasmodic influences. 
 
 For whenever, at a moment of prosperity, the demands of 
 those countries should happen to exceed their existing means of 
 production, we should receive large orders for iron and textiles, 
 which would (as in 1871-72) disturb our equilibrium, raise prices 
 and wages, induce great and sudden extensions, and excite and 
 demoralise our people, and then as suddenly cease, leaving us 
 to regain our balance as we could. Thus we should occupy the 
 insecure position of " Deferred Stock Holders," receiving no 
 demand till A, B, 0, D, and E were satisfied, and then taking 
 temporartty the whole surplus demand, 
 9 
 
The moral and pecuniary results of such a series of excite- 
 ments and depressions must be equally disastrous, and must 
 culminate in a fourth and final period, such as I will not attempt 
 to pourtray ; let every English patriot pray that no vision of it 
 may ever haunt his dreams. 
 
 Such then are the dangers which we see and fear — such the 
 fate in whoso grasp we already feel ourselves ; whilst we believe 
 that it is not too late for England, by the adoption of a large 
 and far-sighted policy, to avert them completely, and to lay 
 strong and deep the foundations of a steadier and more lasting 
 prosperity. 
 
 But before describing this policy, let me say once for all what 
 we do Twt want, and therefore what we trust our critics will cease 
 to attribute to us, or to expend their energy in denouncing. 
 
 We do not want protection against our foreign competitors, (I 
 write as a manufacturer); we will cheerfully compete with all 
 comers; and if the French or others can beat us in some 
 specialities, all honour to them. No nation can bo vain enough 
 to expect to excel the world at every point, surely. 
 
 We do not want retaliation, as commonly understood ; a complex 
 system of import duties, graduated to meet the varying follies of 
 foreign protectionists, would be a remedy too silly for discussion. 
 
 We do not want an import duty levied on the raw materials of 
 our industries ; that would be a simple act of suicide. 
 
 We do not want the coercion of our colonies and dependencies 
 into a free-trade policy ; that would be to provoke resentment 
 where we ought to attract and conciliate. 
 
 What we do want is that certain great objects should be 
 clearly, resolutely, and persistently pursued ; I place them in 
 the order of their importance. 
 
 1. That the United Kingdom and its colonies and dependen- 
 cies be gradually welded into one great Free-trade Empire, 
 capable, if the protective system be finally adopted by other 
 nations, of supplying all its own essential wants. 
 
 2. That our fiscal arrangements be directed to discourage the 
 growth of our food, and the further investment of our capital in 
 those countries which impose duties on our productions, and to 
 divert the current of investment and emigration to our own 
 dependencies. . 
 
3. That we abandon the system of commercial treaties until, 
 by the temporary imposition of special duties, we shall have 
 regained, in every instance, the power of bargaining for equal 
 treatment.* 
 
 To attain the first two objects, our course of action is clear ; 
 to impose and maintain, for at least 30 years to come, a moderate 
 import duty on articles of food and mere consumption received 
 from foreign nations ; admitting the like commodities from all 
 parts of our own empire, free. We need not wish our colonies 
 to impose similar duties, as their enjoyment of a profitable 
 transit trade would greatly aid their development, which, and 
 not revenue, is our primary object. Thus American food pro- 
 ducts would come, to a largo extent, by way of Canada, enriching 
 her railways, merchants, and shippers, instead of those of the 
 United States. 
 
 I have already said that no duties would be levied on the raw 
 materials of our industries, from whatever quarter they might 
 come. 
 
 . A steadfast adherence to this policy would necessarily, though 
 no doubt gradually, transfer the trade of growing food and 
 luxuries for the English market from foreign protectionist 
 nations to the various portions of our own grand empire, which, 
 were its resources fairly developed, is undoubtedly capable of 
 supplying five times our requirements, well and cheaply.* 
 
 A large field for emigration, and for the legitimate and safe 
 investment of English savings, would thus be opened out, to the 
 discomfiture of the floaters of foreign loans, American railway 
 bonds, and unsound limited companies. 
 
 Our dependencies, thenceforth bound to the mother country 
 by the strong ties of material advantage, as well as those of 
 sentiment and affection, would be more ready to meet our 
 wifihes, and to establish free-trade with us and with one another, 
 in return for the great privilege accorded to them. No coercion 
 would be needed or thought of; but an inspiriting sense of 
 renewed youth, an assured hope of a secure and glorious future, 
 independent of the caprices of foreign legislation, would be felt 
 by the citizens of the British empire throughout the world. A 
 
 * See Notes A and B. 
 
Free-trade Empire of 300 millions of people, embracing every 
 variety of soil and climate, and strong to maintain the freedom 
 of the seas, would be no mean World in itself. 
 
 And what is the sacrifice requisite to attain this end ? 
 
 An enhancement of the cost of some articles of food and 
 luxury perhaps equal to one-seventh the amount now spent in 
 intoxicating liquors ; perhaps less than the annual interest of 
 the capital lost during the past ten years in foolish loans to 
 foreign governments, and foreign railway and other companies ; 
 a loss likely enough to be repeated during the next ten years, if 
 our present aimless national policy be continued. 
 
 But it is said that our manufacturing population would not 
 endure the imposition of any import duties on articles of food. 
 
 That depends upon the amount, and still more upon the 
 purpose of such duties. 
 
 I have conversed much with working men on this subject ; 
 many of them are keenly alive to the danger of our increasing 
 dependence for food upon nations who will not admit our manu- 
 factures in return ; and I am convinced that no class in the 
 country is more ready to appreciate such a policy as the fore- 
 going, or to make whatever present sacrifices may be needed to 
 realise it. 
 
 They fully understand that even the increase of cost would 
 not be lost, but that the produce of the import duties would go 
 either to lessen other taxes or to reduce the public debt. They 
 also recognise the tremendous pressure at present felt by our 
 agriculturists, which is seriously damaging the home trade, and 
 thus lessening their own employment ; and they do not think 
 that any class can long profit by the ruin of another. On the 
 principle of " Live and let live," they would, therefore, not 
 regret any advantage which might accrue to the agricultural 
 population. 
 
 They trouble themselve little, so far as I can judge, about 
 foreign competition here ; but a great deal about the increased 
 exclusion of their own handy work from foreign countries by 
 protective tariffs, especially when this is done by nations whose 
 best customers they know themselves to be. They would, there, 
 fore, regard with a rather contemptuous indifference any duties 
 
levied by England upon foreign manufactures for their own pro- 
 tection ; but would highly approve them as means of exercising 
 pressure abroad to obtain fairer treatment for British manu- 
 factures. 
 
 But there is growing in their minds a strong feeling of distrust, 
 almost of resentment, against those who on the one hand declare 
 that our Government cannot and ought not to do anything to 
 meet and foil the selfish policy of foreign protectionists, and on 
 the other hand that we must encounter their hostile tariffs by 
 lowering wages till we can force a demand in spite of them. 
 For they sec clearly that, to do this, their wages must always be 
 lower than those of the foreign vorkman by the amount needed 
 to overcome the tariff which protects him. 
 
 Whatever may be the judgment of working class constituencies 
 upon a policy such as I have tried to sketch, I dare venture to 
 assert that its advocates will, at least, receive more favour at 
 their hands than those who have no policy to propose but that 
 of passively drifting into the straits prepared for us by the pro- 
 tectionist nations. — I am, sir, yours faithfully, 
 
 W. FARRER ECROYD. 
 
 Lomeshayc Mills, near Burnley, 
 January 23rd, 1879. 
 
LETTER II. 
 
 To the Editor of the Bradford Observer. 
 
 Sir, — I have always intended to set forth some further facts 
 and arguments in support of the policy advocated in my previous 
 letter, and it is for that purpose that I now ask to be once more 
 allowed to trespass on your space. I shall notice, in passing, 
 some of the criticisms of it which have appeared in your columns* 
 but am content in the main to leave what has been said to the 
 judgment of your readers. 
 
 It is evident that in many minds the effects of foreign com- 
 petition and those of foreign protective tariflFs are completely 
 confused ; now these two things are absolutely separate, and 
 must be carefully kept so in every discussion which is to be of 
 the least service. Foreign competition in the home trade, or in 
 neutral markets, is only to be met by intelligent enterprize, by 
 integrity and industry, by the acceptance of wages and prices 
 such as the times will afford, by the spread of real education, 
 by the avoidance of extravagance and carelessness on the part 
 of all classes — buyers and sellers, masters and workmen. 
 Against foreign protective tariffs, however, none of these things 
 are or can be of the least avail ; for should we ever succeed for 
 the moment in thus neutralising them, they would at once be 
 raised suificiently to make them effect the purpose for which 
 they were imposed.* 
 
 For myself, I utterly disclaim any desire to invoke the action 
 of Government to help us in the first of these issues ; and 
 should it be needful to impose duties on foreign manufactures 
 as means of obtaining the admission of our own into other 
 countries, I earnestly hope that such duties may be regarded as 
 purely temporary, and their duration strictly limited to the 
 attainment of that end. 
 
 • See Note 0. 
 
We may observe a very similar confusion of ideas in many 
 persons who first mis-apply the term Free Trade, and then 
 found arguments upon the mis- used term. I have always said, 
 and I now repeat it, — ^Free Trade is sound, beneficent to all 
 parties, heartily to be desired everywhere. But Free Trade is 
 the interchange of commodities between nations on terms 
 of equal freedom ; and that is what we do 'xot at present enjoy, 
 and what we cannot obtain as between ourselves -and foreign 
 countries, because they are unwilling to do their part in that 
 mutual action which alone constitutes it. 
 
 Such questions as those of your correspondent, " One ox 
 them," who asks (Feb. 18th), ** Does the decline (of our trade) 
 proceed from our policy of Free Trade? and is our policy of 
 absolute Free Trade unable to compete with the foreign policy 
 of moderate protection?" are instances of this confusion. 
 Whatever we may desire, or assume in theory, we have no 
 policy of absolute Free Trade in force ; for the simple reason 
 that such a policy requires the co-operation of foreign nations, 
 which we have been hitherto entirely unable to obtain. 
 
 Mr. H , again, remarks, *' A trade must be free abso- 
 lutely, or it is not Free Trade ; " and then goes on to say that 
 it is for me to show that a trade limited to a certain portion of 
 the world is in a true sense of the word, " Free Trade." 
 
 I so entirely adopt his first proposition that I am spared all 
 further trouble in regard to the demonstration he invites. The 
 quality, not the geographical distribution, is clearly that which 
 constitutes Free Trade ; it must be, in his words, " absolutely 
 free," not free on one side and bound on the other, or it is not 
 Free Trade at all. Absolute Free Trade between England and 
 France would be real Free Trade ; whereas the kind of trade 
 we now have with France would never be Free Trade, though 
 extended to the whole world. 
 
 Far better, therefore, for the eventual spread of real Free 
 Trade, to say at once to France and some other countries, " We 
 insist either on Free Trade or open Protection ; we will have 
 whichever you choose, but it shall be the same on both sides ; 
 we care not how large the exchange of your manufactures for 
 ours, but it n^ust be on equal terms, and shall be in future on 
 no other." 
 
To carry this policy into effect, it would, I think, be sufficient 
 to impose on all foreign manufactured articles an ad valorem 
 duty about equal to that now levied by the French on our goods, 
 say 13^ per cent. ; but in doing this we ought to give distinct 
 notice that in case any nation should agree to admit our maiiu- 
 factures duty free, we would at the same time open our ports to 
 theirs on the same terms. A perpetual offer of Free Trade in 
 manufactures would be thus made to all nations. Surely this 
 is not to demand Protection for the British manufacturer, but 
 simply a fair field and no favour ; it is therefore both illogical 
 and disingenuous to represent it as a cry for some artificial 
 shelter to spare him the necessity of wholesome and intelligent 
 exertion. 
 
 The last restriction of hours of factory labour, not having 
 been imitated by our foreign competitors, has proved so injurious 
 to the interests of all, that masters and men should everywhere 
 unite in petitioning Parliament to revert to the previous very 
 reasonable limit of 60 hours per week; this, I believe, is all the 
 help they need to ask from Government in their struggle against 
 foreign compedtion. 
 
 No doubt the last sudden flush of excessive prosperity in 
 1871-2 produced an unhealthy inflation, and to a certain extent 
 demoralised all classes by encouraging carelessness, idleness, 
 and extravagance. But these baa habits will be checked by the 
 wholesome discipline of adversity, an J wages and prices of all 
 kinds will find their necessary lev?l here as in other countries. 
 
 So that after all, on a fair field we can, I am convinced, still 
 beat our foreign competitors in those great industries which are 
 best suited to the genius of the nation. The French will, as 
 heretofore, excel us in certain specialities — notably in articles 
 of fashion and luxurious taste ; the Americans will outstrip us 
 in a few labour-saving " notions," and in handy utensils for the 
 farmer and woodman, both born of the necessities of a new 
 country ; but our first-class ironworks and factories, and their 
 attendant workers in iron, cotton, and wool, for the wants of the 
 million, are not yet matched in the world, nor likely to be. 
 
 In spite of all the talk about our being beaten in fair com- 
 petition, I should just like to watch the result of absolute Free 
 
10 
 
 Trade for three years between England, France, Germany, and 
 America, and to see whose ironmasters, shipbuilders, cotton, 
 worsted, woollen, and other manufacturers, would first cry out, 
 "Hold; enough." 
 
 No — it is not the fair competition of foreign nations that we fear, 
 but their hostile tariffs, which exclude us from competition. 
 
 This exclusion we might endure, could we dispense with the 
 large supplies of food which we have been accustomed to buy in 
 exchange for our goods ; but as we can only feed our manufac- 
 turing population by the sale of their productions, whilst foreign 
 nations are more and more resolutely closing their doors against 
 those productions, we have but two alternatives. 
 
 Either (1) our population and its industries must be reduced 
 in proportion to this forced contraction of demand ; or (3) we 
 must, even at some present sacrifice, take active measures to 
 establish within our own Empire food-growers who will purchase 
 our manufactures in exchange. 
 
 This conclusion is inevitable, and it is useless to say we 
 should prefer other circumstances, or that we object to make any 
 present sacrifices ; the case is one Ox necessity, and in choosing 
 the latter alternative we simply accept the less evil of the two 
 before us. 
 
 What then are the capabilities of our Colonies, either as cus- 
 tomers for our goods or as growers of food ? In the year 1877 
 (the last of which I happen to have the returns before me), our 
 Australian Colonies, with two millions of inhabitants, purchased 
 our exports to the value of £19,285,718 ; whilst the United 
 States with about forty millions of inhabitants, purchased only to 
 the value of £16,376,814. In the same year the Dominion of 
 Canada (with Newfoundland), containing four millions of 
 inhabitants, took from us exports to the value of £7,613,547 ; 
 whilst Eussia, with nearly eighty millions of people, bought 
 only to the extent of £4,178,641. In other words, every Austra- 
 lian is as large a customer to us as sixteen Americans, and every 
 Canadian is better to us than thirty-five Kussians. Thus, should 
 we succeed, by the aid of a differential duty, in settling only four 
 or five millions more inhabitants in our Colonies, their custom 
 would be as large as the whole of our present export trade to 
 the United States and Russia combined. 
 
11 
 
 Nor need we fear that by the adoption of such a policy we 
 should lose any export trade to America or Russia which we can 
 retain under the present system, or provoke any action on their 
 part which will not equally bo adopted as matters now stand, 
 should they deem it advantageous to themselves. The enor- 
 mous duties now levied by these nations on our manufactures 
 were imposed by them in the face of our Free Trade policy, and 
 this may convince us that no consideration of reciprocity or 
 want of reciprocity has influenced their action at all.* On the 
 contrary, we should probably convert into zealous Free Traders 
 the carriers, merchants, and exporters of New York and the 
 Atlantic States, who, harassed by the favoured competition of 
 Canada, would be anxious to obtain the largest and most direct 
 exchange of commodities with this country. For, from the 
 moment when they should see us resolved in earnest to become 
 independent of them, the tables would be turned, and the fear 
 of gradually losing their vast trade with England, who now 
 takes two-thirds of their food exports, would make them, instead 
 of ourselves, the perplexed and anxious party. Amongst other 
 results we might reasonably expect a considerable migration of 
 farmers from the remote North Western States into our terri- 
 tories. But it would be a fatal error to allow any offer of 
 reciprocity, even from the Americans, to turn us aside for one 
 moment from the steady pursuit of a policy dii'ected to secure 
 the unity and prosperity of the whole Empire. Instead of 
 that, we ought, as an earnest of our fixed resolve, to make with- 
 out delay, under an Impei'ial guarantee of 3^^ per cent., the 
 Canadian Pacific Railway and other great works needed to open 
 out and hasten the settlement of the best corn and cattle grow- 
 ing lands in our dependencies. What some of these are the 
 following extracts will show : — 
 
 " Of the total area of the Dominion of Canada, upwards of 
 •• two million square miles are agricultural and timbered lands, 
 " and of these the wheat zone occupies about one-half. The 
 " range of productions is extended in grains from bai'ley to 
 " maize ; in fruits from apples to peaches, grapes, melons, nec- 
 " tarines, and apricots ; in vegetables, from turnips, carrots, and 
 
 ■ ' 'See Note D. 
 
" cabbages to the egg plant and tomato." — Official Handbook oj 
 Canada: Paris Exhibition, 1878. — "North ot Lakes Erie and 
 " Ontario, and the River St. Lawrence ; east of Lake Huron, 
 "and included mainly within the Province of Ontario, there is 
 " as fair a country as exists on the North American continent, — 
 " nearly as large in area as New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio 
 " combined, and equal, if not superior to these states in its 
 " agricultural capacity. It is the natural habitat of the combing- 
 " wool sheep ; it is the land where grows the finest barley ; it 
 " raises and grazes the finest of cattle, with qualities especially 
 " desirable to make good the deterioration of stock in other sec- 
 " tions ; and its climatic conditions, created by the vicinity of 
 " the great lakes, specially fit it to grow men. Such a country 
 " is one of the greatest gifts of Providence to the human race." 
 — Hon. David A. Wells, in the North American {United States) 
 Review, September, 1877. 
 
 To develope these resources and the like in other portions of 
 our Empire, is the task to which we ought at once and energeti- 
 cally to address ourselves ; but to do this rapidly, in the face of 
 the vast food-growing and carrying organizations which America. 
 by the aid of our capital, has already got into full operation, 
 would be impossible without the aid of a differential duty. The 
 young plantation will be strong and healthy enough, when 
 full-grown, but it must be fenced and sheltered during its 
 infancy. And probably this is the best investment possible for 
 England herself; for past experience and the clouded future 
 both warn us that, in the absence of such legitimate openings 
 for capital and enterprize, we may totally lose, during the next 
 few years, in unsound home and foreign investments, in the 
 forced idleness of many workpeople, and in the reduced wages 
 of the rest, an amount sufficient to have opened out new lands 
 that would sustain a couple of millions of our people in plenty, 
 and supply half our import of corn, cattle, bacon, butter, and 
 cheese. What would have been our position in these respects at 
 this moment had such a policy been adopted ten years ago, and 
 had one or two hundred millions of the money now hopelessly 
 lost in foreign loans and foreign railway bonds been directed, by 
 the wise initiative of government, to the development of our own 
 territories and the growth of our own food ? 
 
13 
 
 India would also profit greatly ; indeed if, whilst actively push- 
 ing forward the most important public works, wc were both to raise 
 the new capital and to re-issue as much as possible of the exist- 
 ing debt at 3^ per cent., on Imperial instead of merely Indian 
 security, and so reduce the pressure of taxation, it is difficult to 
 estimate how much we might raise the condition of her people, 
 and their power to purchase our manufactures. We cannot 
 make our responsibility in regard to India, and our obligation 
 to defend her, greater than they are already ; and, this being so, 
 it is mere folly to raise money for Indian purposes on any 
 security short of the best we have to offer, and therefore at 
 higher rates than we need to pay. A privileged trade with 
 England, and reduced taxation, would be worth more than an 
 army of defence for India, by inci'casing the comforts and the 
 contentment of her people. 
 
 The present time is especially favourable for the inauguration 
 of such a policy, — iron and steel being unprecedentedly cheap, 
 and much capital and labour anxiously seeking legitimate 
 employment. Its immediate effect would be to create a large 
 demand for railway and other iron, to ease the Indian exchange, 
 to quicken trade and increase employment in all directions ; 
 whilst, later, a large and steady current of emigration would be 
 set in motion, first for the execution of the needful works, and 
 then for the settlement and cultivation of new lands. Our 
 agriculturists, manufacturers, and traders would thus be relieved 
 from the undue competition caused by two much capital and 
 energy seeking employment at home, — and our workmen from 
 the depressing results of an over-stocked labour market. 
 
 What, meantime, would be the probable apparent cost of this 
 policy to the British consumer ? I say apparent, because I am 
 convinced that the indirect gain would, even from the very first, 
 be much greater to all classes, than the direct and apparent loss. 
 
 To effect our purpose it would, I think, be needful to impose 
 specific duties on foreign food products, equal to about 10 per 
 cent, on a low range of values, and to maintain them steadfastly 
 until our own dependencies should be able to supply our wants ; 
 save only, that in the event of a bad harvest and high prices, tlie 
 duty on corn, not being maintained for revenue purposes, could 
 easily be suspended for a year. 1 will not encumber my letter 
 
14 
 
 with a long array of figures ; but after a careful study of our 
 average imports of food products from foreign countries, I find 
 that a duty of 10 per cent, on them woulil amount to about 
 £12,600,000. From this must be deducted X'4,500,000 which 
 would be remitted by reducing to 10 per cent, the existing duties 
 on foreign tea, coffee, cocoa, dried fruits, &c., and by admitting 
 these articles duty free from English dependencies. To the 
 balance of £8,000,000, I add £1,600,000, to cover the charges 
 and profits of distributors on the increased cost; this brings the 
 sum to £9,600,000. Wo have next to consider the effect of the 
 duties in raising the price of some of these articles which are 
 also grown at home ; this is a complicated question, because it 
 is not easy to estimate the proportion of loss which would fall 
 upon the foreign grower, just as Bradford millowners and 
 workmen too well know that they now endure a portion of the 
 burden of those foreign tariffs which press upon their goods, and 
 render their toil and trade so unprofitable. I take the amount, 
 however, at £7,500,000, after much research, — thus bringing the 
 total up to £17,100,000 ; of which sum it is evident that£8,000,000, 
 being new revenue, would at once enable us to lighten the existing 
 burden of taxation to an equal amount. This would leave 
 £9,100,000 as the nett additional cost to consumers ; of which 
 £7,500,000 would go to relieve our depressed and harassed 
 agriculturists, and the remaining £1,600,000 to increase the 
 interest and profits of wholesale and retail distributors, should 
 competition permit them to charge it to us. 
 
 Now our present population is about 35 millions, or 7 million 
 families of 5 persons each, amongst whom to divide the added 
 cost of £9,100,000. This would give 26s. per annum, or sixpence 
 per week as the charge on each family ; surely a very moderate 
 price to pay for benefits so great and enduring as those which 
 have been described. 
 
 Is this most fruitful sacrifice then to be the one specially 
 decried, whilst the serious limitation of employment, and reduc- 
 tion of the wages and incomes of all classes, which do, and must 
 attend us, as we drift passively and aimlessly along our present 
 course, are accepted as if they were the decrees of resistless fate ? 
 
 Cheap foreign food will avail our people nothing unless it can 
 be obtained in exchange for the fruits of their own industry ; for 
 
16 
 
 the workmen whoso forgea and looms are brought to a stand by 
 hostile tariflfs, may yet starve in the midst of unprecedented 
 abundance.* 
 
 Our import trade in articles of food is our chief instrument 
 wherewith to obtain an export trade that shall give employment 
 and wages to our people ; and if we are content to throw our 
 custom away upon those who will not buy from us in return, we 
 waste a valuable opportunity and must suffer accordingly. 
 
 Fifteen or sixteen years ago, trade between England and the 
 United States was about equal in both directions ; but now our 
 imports from that country are above fourfold our exports there, 
 leaving a difference of about 60 millions sterling per annum to 
 be met in some forced manner, instead of by the natural process 
 of sending our own productions in exchange. 
 
 I have thus far found no one able to explain how our enormous 
 imports of food from America are eventually to be paid for; for two 
 years past we have evidently paid for them to a large extent by the 
 transfer of investments, — but that must soon come to an end. 
 I know we are often told that such matters right themselves by 
 a natural law, and that America must perforce sell less to us, 
 unless she will buy from us in return ; but that seems to point 
 directly to the conclusion I most 'dread, namely, that we may some 
 day be unable to purchase the needful food for our population, 
 because we have nothing to oflfer that America and other countries 
 are willing to receive in payment. 
 
 If again it be said that, to find means of payment, we must 
 increase our trade to distant semi-civilised nations who cannot 
 manufacture for themselves, the answer is that we have already, 
 in the unconscious effort to escape our difficulty, forced our goods 
 upon such markets far too largely; witness the vast losses 
 incurred in the Eastern and South American trades, culminating 
 in recent heavy disasters ; so that these openings for the employ- 
 ment of our people, instead of being enlarged, are being and 
 must be further contracted to their legitimate limits. 
 
 There is therefore, apparently, no way of escape from the 
 danger and difficulty of our one-sided trade with America and 
 other countries, but the policy I have proposed. It demands a 
 
 • See Note E. 
 
10 
 
 great effort and perhaps some Bacrifico to begin with, but it would 
 work a radical and permanent cure. 
 
 No doubt mutual dependence, and the free interchange of 
 commodities between England and America^ would have been 
 far more to the advantage of both nations. But to that end the 
 co-operation of both parties was essential, and it is by no fault 
 of England that such a condition of things has been rendered 
 for ever impossible. Under a persistent policy of protection, 
 America has built up for herself vast iron and textile industries, 
 which are, or soon will be able to supply all her wants. These 
 she will not now destroy or undermine. 
 
 The die is finally cast, and by her act, not by ours ; mutual 
 independence is the only relation possible between the two 
 countries in future, and the sooner we realize this conclusion 
 and act upon it, the better for us. 
 
 We waited long and patiently for the best ; it has passed for 
 ever out of our reach. Let us take heed that the possibility of 
 the second best does not slip away, whilst we are still drifting 
 and hesitating. Canada still remains to us,— a mighty resource. 
 But enjoying, in her trade with us, no privilege over the most 
 illiberal foreign nation, there is great danger, as matters now 
 stand, of her being first bribed by the United States into a 
 Protectionist Alliance, and as a final result, absorbed politically.* 
 
 One of your correspondents remarks that our Colonies and 
 India would probably decline to accept their assigned parts in 
 this scheme, and argues as though it were intended to restrict 
 them to agriculture only. Can he really suppose that it implies 
 the concentration of all the manufacturing industry of the empire 
 in this island, and the employment of India and the colonies 
 exclusively in growing raw products ? 
 
 Surely our dependencies would then, as now, be perfectly free 
 to develop themselves to the best advantage, and to establish and 
 maintain such manufactures as they might find profitable, just 
 as we should still grow corn and wool at home ; but their 
 superiority in soil, and climate, and area, for the growth of raw 
 materials, and the scope aflforded in the mother country for the 
 more perfect organisation of manufactures, would always fix the 
 predominant part of each in the common industry. 
 
 ♦ See Note F. 
 
17 
 
 Any further great increase of our home population and manu- 
 facturing industries is perhaps neither on economical nor on 
 moral grounds to be desired; for my part, I distrust entirely 
 those " advances by leaps and bounds " which moved to exultation 
 some who are now foremost to proclaim the approaching decline 
 of England, and rise of America. I shall be content if our 
 present position as a manufacturing country can be consolidated 
 and secured, and the way prepared for a safer if much slower 
 advance in future. 
 
 Probably an increased opening for emigration to the Colonies 
 would be far happier and better for our growing population, 
 than the closer packing of them in our industrial centres at 
 home, through any expansion (even if wo had poAver to secure 
 it) of our export trade to countries like France, Germany, and 
 America, who might at any moment, by one stroke of the pen, 
 take away their employment, and with it their daily bread. 
 Indeed the danger most to be feared is that some sudden access 
 of prosperity, — quite temporary in its nature, as all such move- 
 ments must be under our present system, — may again blind us 
 to the danger of our position, and by inciting to further extensions, 
 bring back all our present difficulties in an aggravated degree. 
 
 I confess myself entirely unable to understand the picture 
 
 which Mr. H 's imagination has created, of our empire 
 
 surrounded, under this policy, with a " China wall." On the 
 contrary, so far as I can judge, we should still be by far the most 
 liberal of all the great commercial nations, and should still 
 possess the greatest foreign trade in the world. But we should 
 have proclaimed to those who do pursue a policy of Chinese 
 isolation, that we have the power to be self-supporting in case of 
 need, and that they can only retain our custom by admitting our 
 productions, in future, on terms just as free as those on which we 
 are ready to admit theirs.* 
 
 It is perhaps hardly worth while to hold up to ridicule, as it 
 would be very easy to do, the contradictory notions propounded 
 by those who choose to look everywhere but in the right quarter 
 for the causes of the decline of our trade. Yet it may be observed 
 that one has daily to read or hear, with as grave a countenance 
 
 • See Note G. 
 
18 
 
 as can be kept, such mutually destructive propositions as the 
 following : — 
 1. — That protection necessarily destroys . the power of those 
 protected to compete in foreign or neutral markets ; yet 
 that America, after a long term of the most excessive 
 protection, is actually becoming one of our most formidable 
 competitors ! 
 3. — That our depression is largely owing to our heavy load of 
 taxation ; yet that France, far more heavily laden, suflFers 
 least of all nations from the depression of trade ! 
 8. — That we ought to bring our waste lands into cultivation, 
 and so require to import less food ; yet it is evident that 
 the pressure of foreign competition, by disabling farmers 
 from expending an adequate amount on labour and manures, 
 has already seriously reduced the productive capacity of 
 even our best lands, and that this disastrous effect is still 
 increasing ! 
 4. — That the reduction of wages and prices will create an 
 increased demand for our productions, even in the face of 
 hostile tariffs ; yet, in spite of an excessively low range of 
 prices, lowered further for some time past, by the losses of 
 employers, the depression only deepens, and the demand 
 still contracts ! 
 No ; we have to fall back on the fact that the cause of our 
 distress is one-sided trade, and the only Remedy real Free- 
 trade ; to be obtained with foreign nations if possible, and 
 
 IF NOT, to be resolutely BUILT UP WITHIN OUR OWN EmPIRE, TO 
 an EXTENT AT LEAST SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE US TO OBTAIN OUR 
 FOOD IN FREE EXCHANGE FOR OUR PRODUCTIONS. And if in doing 
 
 this, we are accused of unfaithfulness to the principles of 
 
 po"tical economy, we may fall back upon a high authority. 
 
 Adam Smith wrote, — " The case in which it- may sometimes 
 
 " be a matter of deliberation how far it is proper to continue the 
 
 "free importation of certain foreign goods, is when some foreign 
 
 " nation restrains by high duties or prohibitions the importation 
 
 " of some of our manufactures into their country. Revenge in 
 
 "this case naturally dictates retaliation, and that we should impose 
 
 " the like duties and prohibitions upon the importation of some or 
 
 " all of their manufactures into ours." He goes on to describe 
 o 
 
19 
 
 the attempts of the French to favour their own manufactures by 
 restraining the importation of foreign goods, and the war of 
 tariffs between France and England which followed, to the great 
 detriment of both nations, and then remarks, — " There may be 
 "good policy in retaliations of this kind, when there is a proba- 
 " bility that they will procure the repeal of the high duties or 
 "prohibitions complained of. The recovery of a great foreign 
 "market will generally more than compensate the transitory 
 " inconveniency of paying dearer, during a short time, for some 
 " sorts of goods." Wealth of Nations, Book iv., chap, ii.* 
 
 If ever circumstances can make this " matter of deliberation " 
 for us, they certainly do so at present ; and it ill becomes any of 
 those who profess a regard for the high authority of Adam Smith, 
 to sneer at us, who simply propose to consider what he suggests. 
 
 Perhaps indeed nothing has done so much to retard the spread 
 of Free-trade, and to encourage foreign nations in excluding our 
 goods by protective tariffs, as the continual loud proclamations 
 of foolish peorle in this country, tliat, let those nations treat us 
 as badly as they may, we shall never retaUate, or alter our policy 
 of admitting their products and manufactures duty free. 
 
 One remark, and I have done. In your kindly and courteous 
 leading article on my previous letter, you not unreasonably 
 assume that the economic benefits to our manufacturing popu- 
 lation, rather than the great political interests of the empire, are 
 the " influential motives " in the minds of us who advocate this 
 policy. 
 
 I can only say that in my own case political considerations first 
 inspired these views, which were strengthened by my perception 
 of their economic bearings. The patriotic and economic questions 
 are one and indivisible ; the ultimate interests of our agricultural 
 and manufacturing population at home, and of our Colonists, and 
 the inhabitants of our dependencies, are identical. 
 
 Our first and highest end should be to consolidate and 
 strengthen the empire, and so to give to all its citizens, in 
 England and elsewhere, the sense of belonging to a great nation, 
 still in the vigour of its youth, and possessing varied and inex- 
 haustible resources ; a nation, therefore, which, though disap- 
 
 • See Note H. ., •■ 
 
30 
 
 pointed at the policy of selfish isolation pursued by others, needs 
 neither to be perplexed nor dismayed, but to turn with courage 
 and promptitude to the alternative still left, which, though less 
 profitable to the general interests of mankind than the course she 
 would have preferred, may prove scarcely less profitable to her own. 
 
 I fear nothing so much as the sentiment of despondency, — 
 the feeling that England has passed the summit, that henceforth 
 she is to decline whilst others take the lead ; a sentiment neither 
 wise, nor patriotic, nor founded on any wide review of our real 
 position, nor worthy of a high-spirited imperial race. 
 
 Let us proclaim to each other the doctrine of consolidation 
 and hope, instead of this miserable belief in disintegration and 
 decay, which threatens to paralyze our energies, and so to bring 
 about its own fulfilment. England is called to a great work, 
 worthy of those high energies which our fathers have always put 
 forth at every past crisis of her history, and never yet in vain. 
 She has her empire to reconquer and consolidate, — not by blood 
 and iron, but by a patient, unwearied, resolute, yet peaceful 
 policy, directed to a clear and definite, though perhaps distant 
 end. — I am, sir, yours faithfully. 
 
 W. FARREK ECROYD. 
 
 l.omeshaye Mills, near Burnley, 
 28th February, 1879. 
 
NOTES. 
 
 Note A. 
 
 It is alleged that were we to withdraw from the system of Oommoreial 
 Treaties, we should lose the advantages which we now enjoy, in certain 
 cases, ander the most favoured nation clause. 
 
 But on the other hand we should regain oar own freedom of action, and 
 so soon as it became evident that we meant to put up with nothing short of 
 reciprocal treatment, we need not fear the loss of those poor concessions for 
 which we have had to wheedle and supplicate foreign governments, or which 
 we have received as accidents of the bargains made between them. 
 
 With such an amount of custom to bestow as is represented by our vast 
 imports, we may rest assured that we shall at all times be able to secure the 
 admission of our exports on the most favourable terms, if only we let it be 
 clearly known that we mean to strike promptly and strike hard wherever (as 
 at present by Spain) we may be subjected to special disadvantages. 
 
 And if it bo true that we are already so bound by existing Treaties of Com- 
 merce that, for many years to come, it will be impossible for us to choose or 
 to change ovj: own fiscal policy, — that seems an argent, nay an alarming 
 reason why we should lose no time in commencing our escape from a false 
 position, by refusing henceforth either to negotiate or to renew instrumenta 
 so completely at variance with the principle of Free-trade. 
 
 NOTK 6. 
 
 The New York Times of April 18th, in a leading article on my proposals, 
 does not dispute their efficacy, but regards them as impracticable for two 
 reasons. First, because no English government would dare to exasperate 
 the working classes by an import duty on food ; and secondly, because the 
 chief English colonies are themselves becoming hopelessly proteotionist. 
 
 But Americans habitually underrate the education and character, — the 
 patriotism and political influence of English working men, — many of whom, 
 in the generation now risen to manhood, are probably as well informed as 
 the bulk of the middle class in the United States. There can, indeed, be no 
 greater mistake than to suppose that the great body of our artisans are 
 wanting in love of country, or that they regard the United States with 
 longing eyes. Many have returned from America, during the past five years, 
 disgusted with the extremes of the climate, the mode of living, the inordinate 
 power wielded by great trading and carrying corporations, the lax enforce- 
 ment of laws, and the rigid party organizations which trample down in- 
 dividaal liberty of opinion. For true comfort and true liberty thej infinitely 
 
I 
 
 prefer their native oonntry, and they will heartily support snoh political 
 measnres as may help them to remain and exercise their industry there, 
 rather than in a foreign land. 
 
 Our working classes may, therefore, themselves dictate the adoption of the 
 policy in question, and so enlist colonial opinion and interests in favour of a 
 British Zollverein, which, besides supporting Home industries, would 
 powerfully divert English commerce, capital, and emigration from America 
 and other protectionist countries to our own dependencies. 
 
 NoxB C. 
 
 To correct a mistaken notion, which extensively prevails, that the effect of 
 foreign tariffs upon oar export of manufactures may be overcome by longer 
 hours of labour, reduced wages, or improved machinery, — I may here state 
 that the import duties levied by America, Russia, and Spain on textile 
 fabrics are, in many cases, equal to the whole cost of the raw materials 
 contained in such goods ; — whilst the more moderate duties imposed by other 
 nations generally equal, and often exceed the total amount of wages paid iu 
 their manufacture. 
 
 It is therefore self-evident that, even when economy of labour and reduc- 
 tion of wages shall have been carried so far as to depress the condition of 
 the British workman to the utmost, the true remedy for our difficulties will 
 be still to provide ; whilst he will be far less able than at present, to endure 
 the temporary addition to the cost of living which it may involve. 
 
 Note D. 
 
 We are warned that we might provoke a "War of tariffs" if we should 
 venture to offend the United States by a modest duty of 10 per cent, on 
 provisions, or France by an equally modest 12J^ per cent, on silks. 
 
 Such sublime disregard of existing facts is almost amusing, when our very 
 complaint is that we are already in the midst of a tremendous war of tariffs, 
 which still thickens around us. Our long-continued practice of the friendly 
 and open-handed poUoy of Free-trade towards them, has, not prevented 
 Russia or America from smiting our industry by duties of 60, 60, or 80 per 
 cent., levied on all its most important productions. 
 
 The question, therefore, is not whether a war of tariffs is to be instituted. 
 We have long been under a heavy fire in front and fiank without replying ; 
 we see more and heavier guns continually placed in position against us. 
 Are we, for fear of some loss of ammunition, to spike our own splendid artil- 
 lery, and abandon the field to our opponents ? Or are we, at last, to open 
 fire in return, and thus, in the truest kindness, drive them from a position 
 as injurious to themselves as to us ? 
 
 Note B. 
 
 The tone of lofty indifference with which n portion of the public press 
 treats matters involviu<,' the ruin and breaking up of the homes of large 
 bodies of our indoatrial population, must be, in charity, attributed to the 
 
2S 
 
 dense ignorance of the writers. Apparently they are quite nnaware that the 
 skill and experience demanded of each class of workers — under the condi- 
 tions of modem competition and the increased division of labour — ^require a 
 lengthened training, which in a great degree unfits its subjects for any other 
 employment, and entirely prevents their obtaining it daring a time of 
 general depression. 
 
 If 20,000 workmen are oast out of employment by the operation of the 
 French Sugar Bour Mes, what matter, say they, so long as consumers enjoy 
 the casual advantacJ of a farthing a pound in price for a few years ? But 
 surely the hollowness of the argument that the interest of the consumer 
 alone is to be considered, — and that, if the French are kind enough to make 
 us a present, we ought gladly to hold out both hands to receive it, — is proved 
 by the fact that our governments have actually laboured to induce the 
 French to withdraw this benefit from us ! 
 
 Again, ii multitudes of workpeople, long trained in the skilled industries 
 which turn out finished iron and steel and textile manufactures, are driven 
 out upon the world by the operation of foreign tariffs ; what matter, we are 
 told, so long as the exports of coal and pig iron and wool and machinery 
 maintain the " volume of trade ?" The world moves on, the Clearing House 
 Returns keep up fairly, and we are assured that there is nothing seriously 
 amiss, after all. 
 
 In like manner, the farmer is patted on the back, and silenced by the 
 assm'ance that, with a reduction of rent and a lease, and increased economy 
 and exertion, he wUl do very well, in spite of American competition. On 
 this point, however, it would be interesting to hear the opinion of tenant 
 farmers of capital and ability, who already hold on lease good farms at 
 moderate rents. 
 
 Whatever optimists may say, it remains certain that the real prosperity of 
 the country depends on the sustained activity of all its productive industries, 
 and not upon that mere buying, selling, and speculating, which, however 
 useful in its own secondary sphere, does nothing to increase the store of 
 man's necessaries or comforts. 
 
 The policy advocated \n the foregoing pages, which, amongst other mea- 
 sures, would of course include an import duty of 10 per cent, on foreign 
 sugar, might fail to restore fhll employment to our sugar refiners, and other 
 workers, who are suffering so cruelly from the effects of foreign legislation ; 
 but, at least, let us give it a fair trial, for British workmen have a right to 
 expect from their own government every possible effort to defend and save 
 them. 
 
 Note F. 
 
 Since this passage was written, Canada has given as a lamentable proof of 
 its truth, by seriously raising her import duties. She is thus drawing nearer 
 to the American system, and separating herself further from that of the 
 Mother ooimtry. 
 
 As we treat her prodoctioiu with ao mere favour than those of th« United 
 
94 
 
 States, we eannot complain should she raise her duties on onr mannfactures 
 to the same prohibitive level, and so treat ns in return neither better nor 
 worse than the Americans treat us. 
 
 But the outcome of all this must be the alienation and final loss of 
 Oanada and all our principal colonies, — a fatal result,— for which we shall 
 have to thank our own narrow and short-sighted policy. It might have been 
 Our otherwise had we been wise in time ; and late though it now is, the Sybil 
 has not yet burnt all her books. 
 
 NOTB O. 
 
 I have had occasion in the foregoing pages to say many hard things of 
 American oommercial policy, and to insist on the importance of bringing 
 into play our own great strength and resources to resist and check-mate it. 
 I believe it to be of the utmost consequence to the future of the whole 
 English-speaking race, and most of all to that of the United States, that 
 this great contest should result in the victory of the Free Trade system on 
 both sides the Atlantic. 
 
 I am utterly at a loss to understand why there should exist any feeling of 
 jealousy, much less of antagonism, between the United States and England. 
 The advancement of the human raoe may almost bo said to b& waiting upon 
 the success of these two great kindred nations in fulfilling their allotted 
 tasks. The chief danger to both is that the system of Protection may build 
 up separate interests in various regions of each, which at last may break 
 them up into a dozen separate nations, jealous of and, commercially if not 
 politically, biting and devouring each other. 
 
 Both here and in America it has been too much the fashion to look upon 
 England quite apart from her Colonies, instead as of the centre of a vast 
 con^nonwealth. What California and Texas are to New York, Philadelphia, 
 and Boston, such are Canada and the West Indies to London, Liverpool, 
 and Glasgow. The ocean is indeed a grand highway of commerce, and a far 
 less formidable obstacle to the exchange of commodities than the Rocky 
 Mountains. 
 
 As regards the difficulties caused by differences of race, it is evident that 
 Great Britain and her Australasian, Canadian, and West Indian Colonies are 
 more homogeneous than the American Union, which contains nn immense 
 Negro population, not to speak of the various foreign elements acquired by 
 recent immigration. 
 
 And lastly, the differences of interest between Pennsylvania and Massa- 
 chusetts on the one hand, and the purely agricultural States of the South 
 and West on the other, are greater and more sharply defined than any which 
 exist or ever can exist, between England and her Colonies. The same might 
 be said as between England and India ; but of India I do not speak at present, 
 as it is not a colony but a dependency of the Empire, except to remark that 
 whatever imperfections may still remain in its administration, history 
 presents no previous example of any great dependency so nobly and 
 nntelfishly governed. 
 
M 
 
 America ought indeed to w^ > with a deep and sympathetic interest the 
 success of England in roaintainiu^ ^he unity of her Empire ; for, should she 
 fail, it may be deemed certain that the widely-separated communities which 
 compose the American Union are doomed to a like disruption : the same 
 forces and motives will inevitably produce the same effects. 
 
 Is there not in the hearts of the wisest and best men in both nations a far 
 higher and worthier aspiration ? — a vision of a future Federal Union of all 
 English-speaking communities, which shall give them increased strength and 
 wealth and assurance of peace ; and shall enable them to extend to less 
 civilized lands, in a degree hitherto undreamed of, a participation in their 
 own priceless inheritance of freedom and order based upon Christian 
 civilization. ' . . , 
 
 NOTB H. .,' 
 
 John Stuart Mill also says : — *' A ootmtry cannot be expected to renounce 
 the power of taxing foreigners, unless foreigners will in return practise 
 towards itself the same forbearance. The only mode in which a country 
 can save itself from being a loser by the revenue duties imposed by other 
 countries on its commodities, is to impose corresponding revenue duties on 
 theirs. Only it must take care that those duties be not so high as to exceed 
 all that remains of the advantage of the trade, and put an end to importa- 
 tion altogether, causing the article to be either produced at home, or im- 
 ported from another and a dearer market." — Principles of Political Economy : 
 Book V ; end of chapter iv. 
 
 XS: ' 
 
 
 :^m ■ 
 
 
 ■''■>"' ' 
 
 
 ■'«.'• ' ■ 
 
 
 'Vriv- ■■■ ' 
 
 
 ■•VA*V 
 
 
 
 
 " .i';';i' ' - 
 
 
 f^-- \'- 
 
 _, , ' 
 
 ■ .^..:. 
 
 -Ji 
 
 -;^, 
 
 
 d Ji^:.\' 
 
 
 J vVi, ' .,/■ J 
 
 . ■:.."... . J". ■ 
 
 iHi.'fi.'.i'J ;>jrv ■■ 
 
 
 «