fl.-i;; THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE GIFT OF Dr. Gordon Watkins Industrial Freedom: ^ ^tutrg in IpoUtira. > ^ B. R. WISE, III Sovietinie Attorney-General of New South Wales, and Honorary Member of the Cobden Club. "War and Tariffs these are the two great enemies of mankind John Br ght. " Becau';e right is right, to follow the right is wisdom, in the scorn of consequence." Tennyson. CASSELL & COMPANY, Limited LONDON, PARIS S: Co., 1884), both originated in these meetings. vi Preface. been originally proposed. The result was that, in 1883, the manuscript of a pamphlet of about fifty pages, of which the spirit was Toynbee's, although the words were not, was sub- mitted to the Cobden Club for publication. By a series of mischances, this manuscript, of which no copy had been kept, was lost, and the loss was not made known to the writer until after the lapse of twelve months, A\hen it was too late to recall even the form of the argument which Toynbee had suggested. The original idea was not, however, left unexecuted. In 1885, the writer embodied something of Toynbee's opinions in a pamphlet published in Sydney under the title of " Free Trade and Wages," which is now out of print. The present work was first intended as a new edition of this pamphlet ; but as it proceeded, and the stress of controversy with Protectionists compelled attention to other aspects of the fiscal question, it gradually assumed a new and distinct form, until there is now left in it nothing of Toynbee, save some traces of his influence, and the pious feeling which acknow- ledges that, as the inception of the work was due to him, so its execution should be taken as a tribute to his memory. The writer's best hope is that those who knew Toynbee, and those who trace no small portion of their better selves to the influence of his luminous enthusiasm, may not think the tribute alto- gether unworthy. One word more upon tlie scope and method of the work. Written, as it has been, at intervals during the rare and busy leisure of an active ijrofessional and public life, it cannot lay claim to either literary or scientific completeness. Its merit, if any, lies in the directly practical character of its arguments and illustrations. For seven years the writer has been engaged by the side of Sir Henry Parkes in the forefront of an active political controversy with the Protectionists of his native Preface. vii country, until he has gained an exceptional familiarity with the modes of thought and expression that win favour for Protection among voters. The aim of the work is to make use of this special knowledge of Protectionist arguments to put together a complete and scientific statement of the Free Trade case, from the point of view of one who is addressing himself to the voters of a Democratic country. There is thus no intention to rival or supplant other well-known text-books of Free Trade, but rather to write a work which shall be complementary both to Professor Fawcett's carefully tabulated index of arguments, and to the elaborate rhetorical presentment of the case by Mr. Henry George. If the writer has in places gone beyond this aim, or departed from his proper method, his excuse is offered in the language of a fellow-student who, defending himself by antici- pation from the same charge, urges as follows : " I cannot," he says, "think that any man with open and attentive eyes, and with confidence in his own impartiality, as based upon a rational view of life, does wrong in uttering the best reflections he can make on the way in which things are going, or the way in which he thinks they should go." * * "Essays and Addresses," by Eerr.ard Eosar.quet, M.A. (London : Swan Sonnenschein & Co., 1889), p. vi. Sydney, Fehniarv loth, i8qi. CONTENTS. PREFACE fart X. THE REVIVAL OF FROTECTION. CHAPTER I. Its Nature i II. Its Causes 7 ,, III. Its Sigmkicance 19 ,, IV. Illustrations 23 {a) Great Britain ... 23 (6) The Continent of Euroie . 42 {c) The United States . . .48 (d) The British Colonies. . . ;6 part XX. PREPARING THE ARENA. CHAPTER I. Definition of Free Trade ,, II. Division of the Arguments ,, III. Economics and Politics .... ,, IV. Economics and the Tariff ,, V. Nationalist Economics .... ,, VI. Nationalist Economics and the Tariff ,, VII. Free Trade and Laissez-faire ,, VIII. Protection and Socialism 73 77 87 97 I OS 129 138 159 llart XXX. THE ECONOMIC ARGUMENT. CHAPTER I. Free Trade and Production . ,, II. Protection and Production ,, III. Free Trade and Prices IV. Protection and Prices 165 167 173 181 X Contents. I'AGE CHAPTER V. Free Trade and Wages 187 ,, VI. Protection and Wages 204 ,, VII. Do High Prices make High Wages? . . 207 VIII. Does more Work mean more Money ? . . 221 fart lY. THE POLITICAL ARGUMENT. CHAPTER I. The Arguments Classified .... 237 ,, II. The Infant Industry Argument . . . 241 ,, III. The "Diversification OF Industry"Argument 259 (rt) The Argument Stated . . 259 (b) The Argument Tested bv Facts . 265 (c) The Argument Tested bv Theory . 273 (d) Thb Other Side of the Shield . 278 ,, IV. The Home Market Argument. . . . 286 V. The Paui'er Labour Argument . . . 302 VI. The Cost of Protection 323 ^ppcntiicc!: APPENDIX I. Tables of Wages in the English Cotton, Woollen, Worsted, and Iron Trades . 337 ,, II. An Examination of J. S. Mill's supposed approval of Protective Tariffs in a Young Country 343 ,, III. Comparison of the Progress of New South Wales under Free Trade with that of Victoria under Protection .... 347 INDUSTRIAL FREEDOM: A STUDY IN POLITICS. SUMMARY. flart Im THE PROTECTIONIST REVIVAL. CHAPTER I. ITS NATURE. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MODERN PROTECTIVE SPIRIT Page I Modern Protection differs from the old form of that poHcy {a) In the composition of the party who support it. {b) In its objects. In consequence of this difference, EngHsh Free Trade argu- ments are not necessarily applicable to the present dispute. CHAPTER II. ITS CAUSES. CAUSES WHICH HAVE AIDED THE REVIVAL OF PROTECTION Page 7 The revival of Protection has been assisted by a misconception of the nature of Free Trade, arising from several circumstances, viz. : {a) The mistake of Free Traders in directing their arguments principally to the effect of Free Trade upon the production of wealth, instead of to the question of its effect on wages. xii " Summary. {b) The supposition that Free Trade is hostile to the working classes. {c) The supposition that Free Trade requires a general adoption of the principle oi laissez faire. {d) The supposition that Free Traders are indifterent to the evils of the competitive system. ie) The growing discontent with existing social con- ditions. Summary. CHAPTER III. ITS SIGNIFICANCE .... Page 19 1. The Protectionist revival is often exaggerated, both {a) In its extent. {b) In its significance. 2. The mere fact of Protection creates no inference against the wisdom of Free Trade. The truth is that Protection has been adopted for varying reasons of a special, local, and tem- porary character. There has been no general revolt against Free Trade, and no deliberate rejection of the policy. THE REVIVAL OF RESTRICTION. CHAPTER IV. ILLUSTKAl IONS. SECTION I. GREAT BRITAIN. . . Page!}, I. Protectionists treat the example of Great Britain in two ways : either, they admit that Free Trade is proved to be a success for her ; or, they say it is a " one-sided Free Trade," and not the Free Trade that was desired. Summary. xiii 2. The success of Free Trade in Great Britain is an incon- testable historical fact. 3. Summary of investigation of the subject : Mr. Giffen's researches on the magnitude of the general advance in pro- sperity since Free Trade. 4. The Protectionist assertion that this increase has been caused entirely by railways and other mechanical improvements is improbable, because {a) A sudden or (except on the hypothesis that it is due to Free Trade) an inexplicable advance in trade has taken place after every dose of Free Trade legislation. {/i) The mechanical factor, when working without Free Trade, has produced a less result. 5. Examination of the statement, that England adopted Free Trade under the mistaken belief that other nations would follow her example. 6. The statement is not historically true. Conclusion : The significance of the Anti-Corn Law agitation, and the arguments by which it was supported, are in no way weakened, either by the experience of forty-five years, or by inquiries into the motives and anticipations of the Free Trade leaders. Notes on the condition of England under Protection : XoTi-: A, Extract from Mattineau"s History of the Peace. N'oTK B. I'xtract from I'apor by George \V. Medley. SECriOX II. THE CONTIXKNT OF EUROPE . . . f age 0^2 1. A\'hen England adopted Free Trade, the general belief in the peaceful tendencies of the age caused an over-sanguine anticipation of the universal triumph of Free Trade. 2. This anticipation was to some extent shared by Cobden. 3. Owing cliiefly to the si)irit of Nationalism, the period of peace came to an end. 4. Ford Sandon's Return of Tariff changes, since 1S50, xiv Summary. shows, that until the effects of the Franco-German War were fully felt, there was a steady movement throughout Europe in the direction of Free Trade. 5. The modern revival of Protection in Europe is intimately connected with the growth of militarism, which is the chief reason why European nations have ceased to follow in the Free Trade footsteps of Great Britain. CHAPTER IV. ILLUSTRATIONS. SECTION III. THE UNITED STATES Page ^^ 1. Difficulty of Studying tariff movements in the United States. 2. The revolt of the American Colonies was largely a revolt against Protection. 3. The tariffs from 1789 to 1861. 4. Connection between tariffs and prosperity. 5. Conclusion : High tariffs have generally been the result of some morbid industrial condition. The recent growth of Protection is directly traceable to the Civil War. CHAPTER IV. ILLUSTRATIONS. SECTION IV. THE HRITISH COLONIES .... /rt,7<' 56 1. The most deliberate repudiation of Free Trade has occurred in the British Colonies. 2. This is largely owing to the influence of Victoria, 5. Which is now decreasing, owing to a decline in the com- parative importance of the colony. Protection in the other Summary. xv colonies is mainly traceable to a desire to retaliate upon Victoria. 4. Protection in Canada originated partly in retaliation on the United States, and partly 5. As a revenue measure, owing to the difficulty, with such a scattered population, of devising any acceptable system of direct taxation. 6. The Revenue Question in Australia. The tendency is for the rich men to become Protectionists in order to escape direct taxation. The struggle is becoming one between the classes and the masses. 7. This was not the case in the Victorian struggle of 1866 and onward, which began as a Democratic struggle against the large land-owners. Characteristics of the struggle. 8. Summary. Note. Extract from " The Tariff on Trial," by Sir Richard Cartwright, N. Am. Rev., May, 1890. Part II. PREPARING THE ARENA. CHAPTER I. DEFINITION- OF FREE TRADE . . ra;;e 73 1. The revival of Protection not being the result of a new economic doctrine, but of indifference to the old, it is necessary to re-state the Free Trade case. 2. Free Trade may be used in several senses ; but in this controversy it bears the limited meaning of " the absence of duties of a protective character." 3. Illustrations of this from Mr. Cobden's speeches. 4. Necessity for so limiting the meaning of the term. Xvi SUMMARV. ' CHAPTER 11. DIVISION OF THE ARGUMENT . . Page 77 1. The issue between Protectionists and Free Traders is often obscured by neglect to observe the distinction between the poHtical and the economic arguments, which may be adduced on either side. 2. Nature of the distinction between poHtical and economic. 3. The political argument considered and illustrated. 4. Application to the tariff controversy. Economic argu- ments deal solely with the effect of a policy on the production of wealth ; while the political arguments suggest other tests of its merits. 5. The economic argument ought to be considered before the political, both because most of the political arguments in favour of Protection tacitly assume an economic basis, and because the economic result of a policy is always an important, and often the only, test of its political soundness. CHAPTER HI. KCONOMICS AND POLITICS: OR, THE VALUE OF THE ECONOMIC ARCLMENT Page ?>1 1. The validity of any economic argument in a political discussion is sometimes denied. It is therefore necessary to consider the relation between politics and economics. 2. The nature of economic assumptions. 3. The assumption of the universality and dominance of self-interest is said to be unreal. 4. Consideration of this criticism. It is partly true ; but it does not affect the validity of economic arguments when these are applied to discussions upon the best means of in- creasing natural produrtivencss. Summary. xvii 5. Secondly, it is said "the term wealth is incapable of definition." 6. This criticism ignores the distinction between the pro- vinces of politics and economics. Moreover, it is not quite correct. Political economy does take some account of the differences in the kinds of wealth. 7. Conclusion. Economic conclusions must be applied cautiously, and have only a limited range ; but inasmuch as they concern the production of material wealth, no politician can discard them. Importance of wealth to a modern indus- trial community. CHAPTER IV. ECONOMICS AND THE TARIFF . . Tage 97 1. Since a tariff is intended to directly affect national productiveness, the economic conclusions as to the best methods of production cannot be ignored, if the circumstances are such as to allow of economic conclusions being applied at all. Do the assumptions of political economy square with the facts of a tariff controversy ? 2. The first postulate of economics as to the predominance of self-interest is not unreal in tariff discussions. A tariff is concerned directly with tlie production of wealth, and appeals entirely to the motive of self interest. 3. The second postulate of economics, as to the equality of the competing units, is also sufficiently true to facts, wlien the matter of consideration is the ])rcduction of wealth. 4. Nor does it lie in the mouths of Protectionists to evade economic conclusions by asserting that the acc^uisition of wealth is of little importance as compared with its right use. This may be true, but wlien tlie material advancement of a country is the thing aimed at, the degree of national produc- tiveness is of primary importance. Besides, the political A Xvlii Si'.UMAKi'. arguments in favour of Protection really postulate an economic basis. 5. Summary. Full weight may be given to the objections against political economy without weakening the economic argument in fiivour of Free Trade. CHAPTER V. NATIONALIST ECONOIHICS . . . pa^e 105 1. The consensus of scientific opinion against Protection has led to an attempt to frame a new syste:-a of economics. 2. It must, however, be remembered that the term "economic," as used by nationalists, no longer connotes exclusively material wealth, but includes everything which has any relation to national well-being. This leads to the result that 3. Economic investigation becomes historical and not deductive, and the tests of economic conformity alter. 4. A science of this nature cannot answer the individualist conclusions. It may justify the passing of them by, but it does not meet them on the sanie plane, because it does not propose to consider tlic effect of a tariff upon wealth production. 5. The fundamental difference between the new and the old system is that the former adopts the nation as the in- dustrial unit instead of the individual. 6. The " science " tested by reference to its scope and method. No sciciilifu results are possible from a "science" whose subject is "the comfort and happiness of a nation." 7. The "science" further tested by its practical maxims. {a) National self-dependence : Impossible in point of fact and not theoretically desirable. Summary. xix {b) The duty of developing the productive powers of a nation, rather than increasing its wealth. 8. Conclusion. The study has no claim to be considered a science, but is useful in its historical investigations and political suggestions. Note.- On the Characteristics of Nationalist Writers. CHAPTER \T. NATIONALIST ECONOMICS AND THE TARIIF . . . Pa^c 129 1. Further test of the so-called " science,'' by applying it to the tariff dispute. Materials. 2. The argument stated. 3. It rests on two assumptions {a) That manufacturing excellence is more productive than rural skill of national intelligence and character. {b) That manufacturing excellence cannot be attained without Protection. But {a) is beside the mark at present, because (i.) No country to-day is without a high degree of manufacturing ski!!, and (ii.) Under jjresent con- ditions, country pursuits are more favourable than manufacturing to tlic culiivation of character and intelligence. 4. {b) rests on the assumption that stlf-inlcicsl cannot be relied upon to establish profitable manufactures, 'i he alleged reasons for this stated and considered. 5. Conclusion: The so-called "economic"' case for Pro- tection is really a iSeries of doubtful political propositions. Note. On Nationalists and Protection. A 2 CHAPTER VII FREE TRADE AND LAISSEZ FAIRE Ta^e I38 1. Protection and Free Trade are almost always discussed with reference to their cognate political theories of socialism and Laissez faire. 2. Historical reasons of this : The negative character of Adam Smith's work was not at first perceived, and his doctrine of " natural liberty " was perverted to their own purposes by the opponents of all remedial legislation. 3. Laissez faire, however, is not a part of economic teaching. 4. Free Traders, who believe in Laissez faire, have a logical advantage in arguing about Protection ; but no arguments which are based upon this maxim will ever convince. 5. The extension of a rule of practice justified by Free Trade within its own province to another department of human activity is neither sound in theory nor possible in practice. The maxim of Laissez faire can never be applied within the field of the distribution of wealth, both because (a) The postulate of equality of the competing units is unreal. (i') The political considerations would overwhehn any economic conclusions. 6. The recognition of these truths was very slow. But practical necessities gradually broke down the opposition which was founded upon " Laissez faire." 7. Conclusion : The Free Trade argument is independent of any political theory. Summary. xxi CHAPTER VIII. PROTECTION AND SOCIALISM . . Page 159 1. The po'itical arguments in favour of Protection are at bottom socialistic. 2. Some Free Traders {e.g., Professor Sumner) consider this to be condemnatory of Protection. Many Protectionists are inconsistent enough to denounce socialism. 3. On the other hand, many Free Traders are ready to support socialistic measures under certain circumstances, viz., provided that (i.) The end desired is on a balance of advan- tages and disadvantages found to be good, (ii.) That State action can achieve it. (iii.) That private enterprise cannot. Protection fails to satisfy these three conditions of legiti- mate State action. Note. The limits of State interference. fart IIX. THE ECONOMIC ARGUMENT. CHAPTER I. i'RKE TRADE AND PRODUCTION . . Fagc 165 1. The material prosperity of a country must in the long run depend upon its capacity to produce wealth. 2. Free Trade increases national productiveness by applying the princii)le of division of employment on a large scale. Under Free Trade, men choose their own occupations. If, then, some industries are not followed, this is a sign that they are believed to be less profitable than others. xxii Summary'. CHAPTER 11. PROTECTION AND PRODUCTION . . Page 167 Protection lessens the power to produce in three ways : (i.) Under Protection men are attracted by the pro- mise of State aid from the industries they would naturally follow if left to themselves, into others from which, if left to themselves, they would hold aloof. Protection, therefore, diminishes natural productiveness by attracting capital and labour from the more to the less profit- able occupations. This source of loss, however, will be avoided if the new industries are started with imported labour and capital. (ii.) A second cause of diminution in the national productiveness arising from Protection is the loss of wealth which is occasioned by the necessity of providing a fund, out of which the profits in the protected industries may be made equal to those of the national industries, (iii.) A third loss arises from the decrease in the pur- chasing power of the customer, arising from the increase of prices occasioned by protective duties. CHAPTER in. FREE TRADE AND PRICES . . Page ly^ 1. The complaint against Free Trade of causing an exces- sive cheapness is due to a misconception of the effect of low prices on prothirtion. 2. A low level of prices may be due to one or more of three causes, \\/.. -. (i.) To a lessened cost of i)roduction. SuMMAKV. xxiii (ii.) To a decreased power of consumption, (iii.) To a scarcity of gold. The cheapness which was the chief characteristic of the recent industrial depression arose from all three causes. 3. Free Trade lowers prices by cheapening the processes of production ; of this sort of cheapness there can never be too much, because every fall in prices arising from this cause only, must stimulate demand. 4. Free Trade, besides lowering prices, also steadies them : ((-?) I')y widening the area of production. (/>) By widening tlie area of consumption. {c) By giving a more accurate knowledge of the state of markets. 5. Free Trade cannot, however, prevent commercial crises, or the disastrous falls in prices which accompany commercial crises. CHAPTER IV. PROTECTION' AND TRICES . . Pa^e 181 1. The argument of the preceding chapters rested on the unexpressed assumption that Protection raised prices. 2. Although this is sometimes denied. Protection must raise prices or else it fails to protect. 3. Protection may have been supposed not to raise prices owing to (i.) The fact that prices generally have fallen all over the world, (i'.) That a later effect of Protection is often to reduce particular prices by encouraging an excessive in- ternal com|)ctition. 4. The tendency of Protection to lower prices when the supply has exceeded the demand of the home market is generally checked by trusts, podls. and other forms of com- bination. Xxiv Sl'Af^JAKV. CHAPTER V. FREE TRADE AND WAGES . . fa^e 187 1. Wages arc the labourer's sliare of the product. 2. Free Trade acts on wages by improving the efficiency of labour. 3. First objection to this view T/ia/ competition betiveen a country of high 7uages and one of low wages, tends to depress the rate of the former to that of the latter. 4. The fallacy of this lies in comparing the rate of wages with the labour-cost of production. 5. Second objection 77/c7/ Free Trade depresses wages to the prof t of rent. This can only be the case when Free Trade acts as a di':couragcment of industrial variety. The case of Ireland considered. 6. The objection is theoretically sound under some circum- stances, but these circumstances are in practice non-existent. Free Trade docs not, in fact, discourage industrial variety; nor, if it did, is Protection the best remedy. 7. Free Trade also steadies wages. Importance of this. CHAPTER \l. PROTEC'JION AND WAGES . . , Pa^e 204 1. Protection affects wages by diminishing the efficiency of labour. 2. The allegations to the contrary refer to the influence of Protection in encouraging new industries. Consideration ot this deferred. CHAPTER \ll. DO HIGH I'RICKS MAKl', HIGH V,-AGi;S? .... Pa ^e 2oy 1. Consideration of the i'rotcctionist argument that em- ployment is better than rhcai^icss. 2. 'Phis really rests on the as'^umption that " high prices make high wages." Sl/MMAKV. 3{XV 3. This assumption is unlikely to be true on a priori grounds. 4. It is also unsupported by evidence, and is contradicted by the records of six centuries of English industrial history, and by a comparison between wages in New South Wales and Victoria. 5. If Protection were limited to one trade, it might cause a temporary rise of Vf ages in that trade. 6. Even if a rise occur in nominal wages, real wages may remain unaltered. 7. Protectionist?, however, advocate " all-round " Pro- tection. 8. This is impossible. 9. The argument that " high prices make high wage:; " is inconsistent with the argument that Protection lowers prices. CH.VrTER VIII. DDKS MORK WORK Ml.AN MORE MONEY? . . . /'j.^ 221 1. Statement of the Protectionist argument, which is really rather an allegation of fact. AMiether employment is better than cheapness is a question of evidence. Protectionists make the statement, but fail to support it by facts. 2. Discussion of the Protectionist tlieory of the importance "of employment." The question is not "Whether Protection causes an increase of employment in this or that trade?" but " A\"hether it causes an increase all round ? '' Now, since the admitted object and effect of Protection is to cause something to be made in one country which, in a state of freedom, would be made in another. Protection must cause a waste of labour. 3. Put labour which is wasted cannot be a source of wealth. xxvi Summary. The question to be considered is not whether Protection gives employment, but whether the employment which it gives is more productive than that which it destroys. Illustration from the kerosene industry of New South Wales, showing that Protection is a raost costly form of outdoor relief. 4. The fallacy of the Protectionist argument lies in the assumption that the persons who are employed in protected trades would be unemployed, if there were no Protection. This assumption, however, cannot be true, generally ; since in so far as Protection causes unnecessary labour, must it diminish the labour available for productive employment. Protection changes the nature of employment, but does not increase the total. Illustration from Canadian trade, 5. The foregoing conclusions are conceivably open to qualifications in practice ; it is, however, most questionable whether under any circumstances Protection is a good mea-ns for giving State assistance to the labour market. Whatever employment is given by Protection must be given at the expense of others. Protection is thus only a form of legalised plunder, and those who benefit by it are, in reality, the recipients of public charity. fart lY. THE POLITICAL ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OP PROTECTION. CHAPTER I. THK AROU.MIA'IS CLASSIFIED . . Page 2^7 I. All the political arguments arc reducible on analysis to one of four, viz. : {a) The Infant Industry Argument. (/') The Variety of Industry Argument. SuAfMARv. xxvii {c) The Home Market Argument, {d) The Pauper Labour Argument. 2. These have had a distinct historic sequence and con- nection, both in America and AustraHa. CHAPTER n. THE INFANT INDUSTRY ARGUMENT Page 2^1 I. The argument stated. 2. Its assumption is, that a time will come, when the young industry can stand alone. 3. Test of this assumption by the tariff changes of the United States, with special reference to the cotton and iron industries. 4. And by the tariff changes of Victoria. 5. These tests lead to the conclusion of fact, that the infants never grow up. 6. The assumption tested by theory : It ignores the weak- ness of human nature, and overlooks both the natural and the artificial inter-dependence of trades. 7. Conclusion : Protection can be established only for a time j nor can it be limited to specific industries. CHAPTER III. THE DIVERSIFICATION OF INDUSTRY ARGU^ilENT . . rai;e 2$) Abundance of capital, which Free Trade is more likely to give. IV. -THE OTHER SIDE OF THE (QUESTION. 1 1. There arc certain natural limits to diversification, which cannot be passed without great risk. 12. 'J'he cost of diversification may be excessive. 13. The argument can never be used as a general defence of protective policy. SiT.UMAKV. XXIX CHAPTER IV. THE HOME MARKET ARGUMENT . . /"a^v 286 1. The economic basis of the argument is the fallacy that home trade is more profitable than foreign. 2. Political supports to the argument are (a) The dread of war, which is the only logical basis of Protection. {d) The idea that foreign trade is more precarious than home. List's views stated and examined. (c) The idea that the home market causes land to be profitably put to new uses. {d) The idea that a home market increases the number of customers. This is really an appeal to the farmer to subsidise persons to buy his products. {e) The idea first propounded by Mr. Hoyt, that the home market enables the requirements of a com- munity for manufactured goods to be fully supplied. This ignores the danger of an over-supply. 3. The theory of the argument is opposed at every point by facts. CHAPTER V. THE PAUl'KR LAliOUR ARCUMKXT. . Aioe 202 1. Increasing importance of this argument. 2. What is " pauper " labour ? Difiiculty of getting accurate information about wages : necessity of limiting comparison to specific trades in specific places. 3. Neverthele3s, for the sake of argument, it may be admitted that wages are higlier in a young than an old community. 4. The argument can only apply to those industries which are exposed to foreign competition. These are chiefiy handi- crafts. XXX Summary. 5. The price of goods does not depend upon the rate of wages, but upon the cost of labour. 6. Since the "cost of labour" depends upon the natural and the acquired efficiency of the labourer, and since a labourer is both more intelligent and more assisted by nature and machinery in a young than in an old country, the cost of labour is likely to be less in the former than the latter, except in the lowest and most degrading forms of handicraft, which it is undesirable to introduce into a young country. 7. The argument is also inconsistent with the theory that Protection lowers prices. 8. It is incapable of any jast application, because a scale of duties would be required varying according to the rate of wages paid in every competing community. 9. Protection is generally demanded against high-waged countries. 10. But a low labour cost makes a high rate of wages. 1 1. Free Trade is more favourable than Protection to a low labour cost. 12. Protection hastens a fall in wages. CHAPTER VI. THE COST OF PROTECTION . . I\ioe 323 1. The only way to conii)letely meet Protectionist sirgu- menls is to treat the question as one of expediency ; granted that Protection will do all that is claimed for it, is not the price too high ? 2. Protection is an economic evil, because it is always a waste of productive power. 3. It is a political evil, because it causes inequality and corruption, and destroys the value of self-reliance. 4. It is a social evil, because it is antagonistic to progress. 5. It is a moral evil in its operation both abroad and at home. 6. Conclusion. Summary. APPENDICES I. Rates of wages in the cotton, woollen, worsted, and iron industries of Great Britain since 1830 . . Page ^37 II. Examination of Mill's Defence of Protection in young countries Faq-e 343 III. Comparison between the progress of New South Wales and of Victoria , rai^e 347 INDUSTRIAL FREEDOM. THE REVIVAL OF PROTECTION. CHAPTER I. CHARACTERISTICS OF MODERN PROTECTION. ^ I. Anyone who writes a new book upon Free Trade ought, if he is not wholly graceless, to begin his work with an apology. The subject has been worn so threadbare, both by economists and politicians, that any novelty of treat- ment or illustration is almost impossible ; while the arguments on either side of the fiscal controversy seem to possess the theological characteristic of only carrying conviction to the minds of those who are previously disposed to believe. Nevertheless, while men continue to be exercised over tariff disputes, and while so many interests are affected by the taxation measures of Protectionists, there must always be room for a well-considered monograph upon the leading features of the controversy, especially if care be taken in compiling it to avoid the extremes of arid abstraction and partisan rhetoric. Therefore, in this attempt to revive an old argument an efifort will be made to present both sides impartially ; and to present them in such a way and with so sparing a use of illustration from passing phenomena or special trades, that the application of the arguments may not be confined to parlicular countries or industries, but may extend over B 2 IXDUSTRIAL FREEDOM. as large an area and for as long a time as the nature of the subject will permit. First, then, let us enquire into the reasons which make a restatement of the points in controversy necessary. By a turn of the political wheel Free Trade has gone under for a time, although its triumphant reappearance is already heralded by many signs. Still it cannot be denied that the doctrine which was thought to be dead forty years ago, and was even then spoken of as "dead and disgusting," is now full of life and vigour. That such a phenomenon, startling and disappointing as it must be to those who, only a generation past, successfully maintained the battle of industrial freedom, cannot be entirely owing to the in- capacity of mankind to understand economic abstractions, nor to what Professor Sidgwick has termed " the selfish activity of the protected classes," will be readily admitted by all who recognise that e.yery widespread popular delusion must, if it is honestly believed, contain at least a modicum of truth. What, then, is the explanation of the survival of Protec- tion, and how comes it that a doctrine so discredited by reason and experience is able at the present time to command the support of intelligent and honest men ? To answer these questions as they should be answered, it will be necessary to pass in review and compare with each other the character- istics of Protection in its earlier and its later stage. 2. A glance beneath the surface of events will soon reveal the fact, that the contest which is raging now about protective tariffs resembles that about the Corn Laws in little more than name. The old battle-cries, indeed, are still in use ; but the composition of the contending forces has been changed, and the battle is being fought upon a different ground. Broadly speaking, the old Free Trade movement was an assertion on the part of the middle classes of their rights as The Revival of Protection: 3 Pt. I., Ch. i., ? 3] consumers ; while the Protectionist movement of to-day is an effort on the part of the manufacturing classes to obtain privileges as producers. This difference is illustrated by a comparison of the compo- sition of the Anti-Corn Law League in England, and that of the Protectionist party in Australia and America. The League was in its origin a movement of the manufacturers and middle classes, which gradually attracted to itself the more intelligent among the artisans. In Australia and America, however, the purses of the manufacturers support Protection, and the work- ing classes, who were at first inclined to follow their employers, are gradually returning to Free Trade. Nor is this the only point of contrast between the new and the old Protectionism. In England, it was only the aristocracy of labour which became Free Traders; while the "residuum," under the leadership of Feargus O'Connor, furiously denounced the Anti-Corn Law League. In Australasia and America, on the contrary, the aristocracy of labour, as represented by the Trade Unions, is inclined to be Protectionist, while disorganised labour leans more towards Free Trade. Lastly strangest con- trast of all the farmers and landlords, who in England were the backbone of Protection, are in Australasia and America its weakest adherents. ^ 3. The reason for this change in the composition of the two parties is easily found. 1 During the last three years there has been a tendency in New South Wales and Tasmania, on the part of land-owners of all classes, to support Protectionist candidates. But this attitude is not owing to any dislike of Free Trade, but to a belief on the part of the great land-owners that Free Trade involves direct taxation with a view to agricultural settlement ; and, on the part of the small farmers, that Protection will enable them to retaliate on the neighbouring colony of Victoria. The Free Trade movement in Victoria is almost exclusively confined to farmers. Out of thirty-five agricultural associations, thirty have, up to the present date (June, 1890), declared in favour of a return to Free Trade. A Free Trade Democratic Association has now been started in Mel- bourne, and will soon make its influence felt in the politics of the colony. B 2 4 Industrial Freedom. The manufacturers and artisans of Australasia and America look upon a different side of the question of Free Trade from that which was perceived in England. It is not with them a question of obtaining cheap raw materials these they have always to their hands but a question of establishing new industries. They desire to create, while the Englishman desired to develop what was already created. Consequently, the classes which in England encouraged the competition of foreigners, because only foreigners could offer them the neces- sary raw material, wish now, in Australasia and America, to exclude the same competition, for fear it may destroy their infant industries. 4. The change in the composition of the two parties has materially affected the arguments by which either policy is supported, and rendered necessary an alteration in the manner of their presentment. At the present time the feelings of un- reasoning men are enlisted on the side of Protection. At the time of the Corn Laws in England it was just the reverse. Then the cry for cheap food aroused such general sympathy, that feelings made clear what the intellect might fail to grasp. But in Australasia and America similar feelings lead further on the path of error. Labour is scarce, land is cheap, capital abundant. The spectacle is consequently presented of the simultaneous existence of high wages and large profits, so that the foundation is laid for the misleading argument, that such a country cannot successfully compete against another country of low wages and small profits. This at once gives rise to the cry, that Protection is required to prevent wages and profits from sinking to the European level. Such a cry attracts the working classes, and gains the ear of the philanthropist. The Protectionist appears to be the patriot who is desirous of de- veloping the resources of his native land, and trying to prevent a national stagiiation. He is the man wlio would guard the well paid "native"' against the competition of the ill-paid European, The Revival of Protection. 5 Pt. I., Ch. i., \ 5.] and who, by legislative interference, would maintain that union of high wages and large profits, which is the striking economic feature of a young country. The activity of the state in a young country is extended, so that the idea that legislation can accomplish even this result, arouses no misgiving in the minds of men who ardently desire it. Nor is it of any avail in a young country, where wages are high, to urge that Protection must increase the price of articles in daily use. An intelligent Protectionist would reply at once that he admits this fact, but that he is prepared to undergo a private inconvenience for the public benefit. He would say, as the Ballarat digger said to Sir Charles Uilke, that "he preferred to pay dearer for his jacket and moleskins, because by so doing he aided in build- ing up in the colony such trades as the making of clothes, in which his brother and other men, physically too weak to be diggers, could gain an honest living." It is plain that men who act under feelings like these must be approached with very different arguments from those which would appeal to working men in Europe. 5. Nor are the English arguments always applicable to the circumstances of a young country, where (as has been already pointed out) labour is scarce, land is cheap, and capital abundant. The requisites of production stand to each other, in Australasia and America, in such an abnormal relation, that the abstractions of the English economists have often to be qualified before they can be taken as an explanation of facts. This is of itself a fruitful source of economic error, and offers some excuse for the popular impatience of scientific arguments. At times, indeed, the language of Free Trade arguments even gives a confirmation to the popular delusion. For example, as Professor Sidgwick has pointed out, 1 much that was urged upon the English people as an argument in favour of Free Address delivered before the British Association in 1886, since published under the title of " The Scope and Method of Economics." 6 Industrial Freedom. Trade, is capable of being turned against Free Trade by those who regard the question from another standpoint. Such an argument, for instance, as that which appeared in the July number of the Edinburgh Review for 1841, and which has been repeated by many writers in various forms, would appeal in very different ways to a patriotic Australian and to a patriotic Englishman. " The early progress of any nation," says the Free Trade writer, " that attempts to rival England in manu- factures must be slow, for it has to contend with our great capital, our traditionary skill, our almost infinite division of labour, our long-established perseverance, energy, and enter- prise, our knowledge of markets, and with the habits of those who have been brought up to be our customers. ... If these difficulties were once surmounted, this superiority so far at least as respects the commodity in which we find ourselves undersold would be gone for ever, in consequence of the well-known law of manufacturing industr}', that ccekris paribus with every increase of the quantity produced, the relative cost of production is diminished." This argument might have come straight out of a Melbourne Protectionist newspaper instead of from the Edinhirgh Revietv. For it cannot be denied (to quote the words of Professor wSidgwick again) that "a consideration of the above law, and of the vis inertice here attributed to an established superiority in manu- factures and commerce, supplies an important qualification of the general argument for Free Trade. For along with the tendency of industry to go where it could be most economically carried on, we have also to recognise the tendency for it to stay and develop where it has once been planted ; and the advantage of leaving this latter tendency undisturbed would naturally be less clear to the patriotic foreigner than to the patriotic Englishman. The proclamation of a free race for all, just when England had a start which she might keep up for centuries, would not seem to him a manifest realisation of eternal justice ; to delay the race for a generation or two, and The Revival of Protection. 7 Pt. I., Ch. ii., \ 2] meanwhile apply judiciously disturbing causes, in the form of protective duties, would seem likely to secure a fairer start for other nations, and ultimately, therefore, a better organisation of the world's industry even from a cosmopolitan point of view." 6. It is apparent from the considerations expressed in the preceding pages, that modern Protection requires to be met by a line of argument different from that which was in use at an earlier period. This is a truth which Free Trade writers have been slow to recognise. They have not always seen that the two most striking features of the new form of Protection, namely, the expressed intention of creating new industries, and the readiness to submit to temporary sacrifices for the purpose of securing this result, can both lay claim to be justified by the reasoning of English economists ; and they have consequently fallen into the error of repeating old truths to opponents who do not deny them. The extent of this error and its results will form the subject of the following chapter. CHAPTER II. CAUSES WHICH HAVE AIDED THE REVIVAL OF PROTECTION. I. The difficulty of applying the economic arguments in their old form to the circumstances of a young country has been already incidentally referred to in discussing the characteristics of the Protectionist revival. It remains to consider how other causes have assisted the progress of Protection. Among these the mistakes and omissions of the Free Trade party must take a prominent place. % 2. It is certain that an error has been made by many Free Tr.ide writers in approaching the question of Protection from 8 Industrial Freedom. the wrong side, and contemplating it in a different aspect from that which is regarded by Protectionists themselves. Most of these writers deal almost exclusively with the influence of Free Trade upon the production of wealth, while the Pro- tectionists chiefly direct their attention to the influence of a fiscal policy upon the distribution of wealth. The consequence has been that the arguments and the illustrations of Free Traders have failed to appeal, as effectively as they deserve, to the mass of Protectionist voters. Such a mistake was natural to men reared in the midst of the old controversy, and living for the most part in Free Trade England. But in young countries, and, of late years, even in England, it is necessary to put forward the cause of Free Trade in another and more attractive light, and to consider it in its effect upon the distribution of wealth as distinguished from its effect upon production. The reason for thus changing the point of view is the altera- tion which has been made during recent years in the centre of political power. In the days of Cobden and the Anti-Corn Law League, when the middle classes formed the bulk of English voters, it was most politic to dwell upon the influence of Free Trade in cheapening the price of goods ; but in young countries and at the present time in England, where the electorates are controlled by working men, the voters wish to understand the influence of that policy in raising wages. Accordingly, although the old arguments remain quite true, it is desirable now, if we wish to arrest general attention, to lay them aside for a time, and bring out others which are more attractive to working men. Unfortunately Free Traders have been slow to recognise that, under the altered circumstances of an extended suffrage, they must change the popular presentment of their views. As a rule they still deal only with the figures of production. They tell us, for example, that tke trade of England has advanced by leaps and bounds ; that since Free Trade was introduced, the income-tax returns are ten times what they were ; that the The Revival of Protectiojst. 9 Pt. I., Ch. ii., \ 3.] quantity of funded wealth is daily growing larger, and the popu- lation is increasing with an unsurpassed rapidity. They point to the table of exports, to the growing cities, to the decline of pauperism and of crime, and to the many signs of English in- dustry and enterprise in every quarter of the globe, and, rolling out their columns of magnificent statistics, they expect the world to be convinced ! But working men, particularly in Australasia and America, know well that this is not the last word upon the subject ! The matter of concern to them is not so much that goods should be produced in plenty, as that they should have an opportunity to use their skill ; and, even in England, the working classes care more for a policy which promises high wages than for one which promises cheap goods. It is hardly reasonable to expect that a man, who has but six- pence in his pocket, should be greatly moved by hearing that the price of silk has been reduced to half-a-crown ! Accordingly, Free Trade must be justified in young countries and to working men in quite another way than by a catalogue of its effects upon production. It must be shown that Free Trade has also an effect in raising wages ; that, whilst suggesting desires, it gives means to satisfy them by cheapening most articles of common use, and by bringing about the conditions which are most favourable to a fairer distribution of wealth, and most conducive in any community to a lasting rise in the average standard of comfort. In making this investigation, the real effect on wages of any fiscal policy will have to be con- sidered, and the futility of attempting to raise wages by merely altering a customs tariff ought to be made plain. It is certain that, until such an inquiry is attempted, the Free Trade argu- ments will fly above the heads of those whom it is intended to convince. 3. Partly in consequence of having directed so much attention to the effect of Free Trade upon capital, and partly for other reasons to be mentioned, Free Traders have lo Industrial Freedom. incurred the charge of being hostile to the working-classes. No one, who has lived in a country where the fiscal controversy is active, can have failed to notice the strong and bitter feeling with which Free Traders are denounced by those who aspire to a political position by the aid of the working-classes. This feeling is, no doubt, to a great extent fictitious. It is necessary at times for the "friend of the working man" and "friendship for the working man" is a recognised profession in most English- speaking countries to use strong language if he would not have his sincerity suspected. Free Trade and Free Traders offer a convenient object of attack, the more so that Free Trade has been identified with an unpopular party both in Australasia and America. The Free Traders in Victoria, where the fiscal battle was first fought, were land-monopolists and Tories. The Free Traders in America were Southern slave-owners. It has taken a whole generation in both countries to dissociate Free Trade from these unpopular causes. 4. Independently, however, of these local causes of ill- feeling, there is a more general ground for the popular idea that Free Traders have no sympathy with the aspirations of the working-classes. This arises from the attitude which has been adopted by many Free Trade writers towards the measures of reform demanded by the working-classes. Most of those whom the public regard as the champions of Free Trade, from Ricardo to Professor Fawcett (with the two notable, but often unperceived, exceptions of Richard Cobden and John Stuart Mill), have been pedantically attached to that declin- ing school of political thought which would restrict the action of the State within the narrowest bounds. In consequence of this, Free Trade has come to be identified with the general principle of " Laisser faire." Indeed, so deeply rooted is this confusion of ideas, that it is not uncommon, even in Radical journals, to find Trade Unions denounced as a violation of Free Trade principles, and a system of unregulated competition The Revival of Proiection. ii Pt. I., Ch. ii., \ 5.] between masters and men justified by an appeal to the same authority. Rightly or wrongly, however, working-men have believed that their condition could never be permanently bettered until the Government should interfere actively and widely upon their behalf; and they have accordingly demanded and ob- tained a long series of Acts of Parliament, to regulate and protect labour, of which the Factory Acts are the best- known examples. All these measures have been opposed in the name of Free Trade, although (as will be shown later in these pages) Free Trade is an influence which works in the field of Production, and offers no argument either for or against the interference of Government within the field of Distribution. What wonder, then, that working-men, when they have found Free Traders confronting them at every effort to alleviate their lot by law, have ceased to take an interest in the promised benefits of Free Trade, and have regarded it as a middle-class doctrine, comforting enough to the well-to-do, but offering no help to them in their especial needs. If, therefore, we would justify Free Trade to working-men, we must break away from the ancient argument and show the true relation of Free Trade to a general scheme of government. This will be attempted later in these pages. At present the misconception which exists upon this point is only mentioned as one reason for the prevalent mistrust of Free Trade doctrines, and as a special reason for their discredit among working-men. 5. Not less dangerous to the influence of P'ree Trade than its supposed hostility to the interests of the working-classes, has been its supposed indifference to the evils of the competitive system. Philanthropists and writers of the type of Mr. Ruskin have exhausted themselves in denunciation of the immorality and narrowness of the Free Trade systemi 12 Industrial Freedom. It is needless to say that these denunciations have been for the most part ignorant and misdirected. But they have had so much influence on a large class of benevolent people, who do not reason closely or at all on economic questions, that it is necessary to give them a passing attention. It is said that Free Trade is indifferent to everything except material \vealth, and that its last word is " to buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest market." This is a charge which, from the modicum of truth which it contains, has been peculiarly destructive. Free Traders have, no doubt, written with only one object that of showing the effect of a Free Trade policy upon national wealth ; and it may be, that in looking at this single point, they have seemed to attach an excessive importance to material wealth. But this limitation of view no more justifies the asser- tion that Free Traders have no regard for the higher objects of national life, than the omission to mention pictures in a work on mathematics would justify a charge against its writer of ignorance of art. Because a Free Trader advocates the aboli- tion of taxes on imports, it does not, therefore, follow that he regards this measure as a panacea for every industrial evil ; nor, because he urges the advantages of free exchange, must he be supposed to hold that the highest social ideal is reached by merely buying in the cheapest and selling in the dearest market. The very silliness of a contrary supposition ought to be its own refutation. Yet, no one who has read Protectionist literature, or Mr. Ruskin's writings upon economics, can deny that even patent silliness is no impediment to the popularity of a ground- less charge. The only excuse for this wild vilification is a misapprehen- sion of the attitude of Free Traders towards the doctrine of free competition. 6. The Ricardian assumption of the existence within the industrial field of an universal and ever-active competiton an The Revii^al of Protection. 13 Pt. 1., Ch. u., \ 6.] assumption which was in accordance with facts at the time Ricardo wrote has been taken by newspaper writers and others to be an assertion of principle. This imaginary prin- ciple has been erected into a "natural law," which is supposed to have been discovered by political economists ! Then, by a confusion in the use of the term " law," political economy has been invoked by way of protest against every attempt to regulate or interefere with competition ! In fact, however, as every economist has pointed out, the " laws " of political economy are mere expressions of the regular sequence of certain events under certain assumed con- ditions. The most important of these conditions is that of free competition. It is assumed that there is a never-ceasing competition between the units of every industrial system, although it is admitted that this assumption only applies in fact to the wholesale trade and the great articles of commerce. Nor is this the whole of the assumption. The competition of abstract political economy is not the competition of masters and men as we see them in every-day life, but it is the com- petition of certain imaginary industrial units. These units are spoken of sometimes as individuals, and at other times as groups of individuals; but they are always supposed to have this characteristic the units are equal to one another. It cannot be too often repeated that the competition of abstract political economy that competition through which alone political economy has any pretension to the character of a science is a competition between equal units. This is no place to consider whether this assumption still holds true in these days of " pools and combinations," (i) or whether it was not always too far re- moved from facts to be of great practical value. It is enough to point out here how a misconception of its true nature has prejudiced the progress of f'ree Trade. It has been imagined that Free Trade being a doctrine founded upon political Sec, for a discussion of this point, an article by Piof. Jolr.'i !'. ( ''..irl< in tlie Political Science Quarterly for Marcli, 1887, vol. ii., p. 62. 14 Industrial Freedom. economy, justified the universal reign of lawless and unregulated competition. Nothing could be further from the truth. 7. So far from justifying the universal reign of competition, the doctrines of Free Trade have no application outside of their own limited sphere. Free Trade is simply an expedient for carrying the principles of division of employment into inter- national commerce. It is merely a means of facilitating the greatest possible production of wealth through facilitating exchange. Having accomplished that, its work is ended, and it leaves to other agencies the work of distribution. Free Trade, in other words (using the term in its proper sense, to mean " the absence of protective duties "), operates exclu- sively within the field of production. Now, within the field of production there happens to be a competition between equal units. There is, as a general rule, an equality between those who buy and those who sell commodities, since both goods and capital can be removed from place to place, and the post- ponement of a sale or purchase causes at the worst a loss of money. But once within the field of distribution, circumstances alter. The wages of labour and the price of goods are not in fact now, nor have they ever been, determined by the same forces ; nor is that condition of free and equal competition, which political economy assumes to exist when it determines the laws of production and exchange, generally, or often, present at the time of the division of the product between those who have co-operated to produce it. That effective competi- tiouj which is the fundamental assumption of abstract political economy, does not as a rule exist between a labourer on the one side, and an employer on the other ; and, therefore, to rigidly apply the principles which determine the price of goods to a determination of the rate of wages, would be in a high degree misleading. Buyers and sellers may, for the purposes of an abstract argument, be presumed to stand towards each other on The Revival of Protection. 15 Pt. I., Ch. ii., \ 8.] a footing of equality ; but to assume that the competition between the employer on the one hand, and the wage-earners on the other, when the latter are unorganised and unprotected by law, is a competition between equal units, is so fanciful and contrary to fact, that any conclusions drawn from such an assumption can have little value under present circumstances. Unfortunately, however, many Free Traders have not recog- nised this fact, but have attempted to apply maxims which are true when applied to the production of wealth, where there is an effective and equal competition between buyer and seller to the case of labourers seeking to obtain for themselves a higher rate of wages, although the determinant of the rate of wages is composed of such incalculable elements as the habits, desires, and customs of human beings. It follows, from the fact that the laws of the distribution of wealth are less absolute and more changeable than those of its production, and from the fact that Free Trade operates chiefly within the field of production, that, although it may be demon- strable that government ought to leave men free to produce and exchange commodities when and how they please, it does not follow that the same policy should be applied to propor- tioning the distribution of commodities among those who have produced them. Unlimited competition may be good in the one case and evil in the other, without Free Trade giving us any guide for pronouncing a judgment. ^ The evils, therefore, of unlimited competition within the field of distribution offer no argument against the removal of protective tariffs. 8. The last cause which may be mentioned as having had an influence in the revival of Protectionism, is the discontent with existing industrial conditions, which is a prevalent sign of the times. It is not easy to trace this cause in actual operation, but no reader of Protectionist literature can fail to recognise its 1 See further on tliis subject infra Part II., chap. 7. 1 6 Industrial FrerdoM. presence. The jealousy of wealth, the dislike of " laisser faire," the pressure of the competitive system, all give rise to a profound dissatisfaction with existing social conditions. The evils of the day are felt to be intolerably irksome, until it seems as if the wished-for blessing might be found in any change of policy. There can be no question that, as the labour party in America, under the leadership of Henry George, is turning against Protectionism, so in England and Australia, discontent creates antagonism towards Free Trade. It ought to be needless to point out that the remedy for the evils which create this discontent lies altogether outside the influence of Protection or Free Trade. Neither Free Trade nor Protection is a panacea for industrial evils, nor will either policy satisfy the wants of working men. Irregular employ- ment, crowded homes, an existence without pleasure, an insecure old age these are causes of complaint which cannot be removed by any changes in a fiscal policy. No mere tariff reform will give the poorer workmen regular employ- ment, nor build them healthy dwellings near their work, nor find them openings for secure investment, nor relieve the monotony of their dull existence. All that can be done by the agency of taxation is to mitigate as far as possible the evils which exist, and to guard against creating others. Free Traders hold, that under their policy the remedial agencies will work with the greatest force ; but they do not say that Free Trade has of itself the power to remove industrial grievances. 9. To sum up the conclusions of this chapter, we have noted that the revival of Protection is largely due to the follow- ing causes, viz, : I. To the fact that Free Trade writers have directed their chief attention to the effect of the policy in increisin^r wealth, instead of considering its effect on wages. The Revival of Protection. 17 Pt. I., Ch. ii., \ 9.] 2. To the discredit which has attached to Free Trade through being associated with unpopular or aristo- cratic parties. 3. To the idea that Free Trade is identical with a general policy of "laisser faire." 4. To the idea that Free Traders are indifferent to the evils of the competitive system. 5. To the prevailing discontent with existing social and industrial conditions. The mere enumeration of these causes proves the necessity for a restatement of the Free Trade case. We have to deal with a new class of opponents, variously prejudiced against us, and suffering from real grievances, to all of which they imagine Free Traders are indifferent, and some of which they trace directly to the policy. We have, therefore, to be careful to show that we do not gloss over any facts, nor disregard any interest. We have to be careful, also, to look at many facts from the standpoint of working-men and yet not to raise excessive hopes in the minds of those whom we address. Above all, we have to dissociate Free Trade from the policy of laisser fai7'e. Some Free Traders may be advocates of laisser /aire ; but there are many, and their numbers are growing, who look upon Free Trade simply as an instrument which destroys one form of State interference, in order to leave the ground clear for more effective action by the State in new directions. Nor are Free I'radcrs necessarily wedded to the present social system. Free I'rade is merely voluntary trade : a Free Trader only maintains that men should be allowed to buy and sell where and what they will. But he does not say that men's freedom should in no case be controlled by voluntary associa- tion, nor by public opinion. There is nothing inconsistent with Free Trade in a body of men agreeing to pay more than necessary for any article, provided they do not force c 1 8 Industrial Freedom. other people to follow their exaniple. Finally, there is nothing in the doctrines of Free Trade which requires their disciple to make a fetish of universal and unregulated competi- tion. A Free Trader can admit as evils many things of which Protectionists complain. He can join with a Protectionist in his protest against labour being bought and sold like a bale of goods. He, too, may refuse to believe that masters and men can never be secured against the misery of fluctuating trade, and can prefer that the evils of dependence should be lessened, rather than that the number of millionaires should be increased with an unparalleled rapidity. In short, the final aim of an honest Free Trader differs but little from that of an honest Protectionist, however much they may dispute with one another as to means. The ideal of both is, or ought to be, the same, namely : to prevent the labourer sinking into the mere drudge of a machine, and to make him once again a craftsman with an artistic love and knowledge of his work. But, while thus recognising the evils of our present indus- trial system, a Free Trader would desire it to be understood by those who suffer that, if Free Trade has proved an im- perfect remedy, Protection is a poison. The grievances of the Protectionists are real enough, but their hostility is mis- directed. The remedy, as will be pointed out later in these pages, is independent either of Protection or Free Trade. But, while Protection aggravates existing evils, Free Trade not only does much to mitigate them, but also brings about many con- ditions under which these evils can be more easily removed. The Revival of Protection. 19 Ft. I., Ch, iii., ? I.] CHAPTER III. THE SIGNIFICAN'CE OF A PROTECTIONIST REVIVAL. I. In the inquiry which has been conducted through the last two chapters into the nature and the causes of the Protec- tionist revival, no direct reference has been made to its extent or its significance. Yet both of these are so often overstated or misunderstood, that it is desirable to give them some attention before entering upon a discussion of the merits of the rival fiscal policies. The impression of many Protectionists if we may judge Protectionist voters by the speeches and writings of their political leaders would appear to be that Great Ikitain stands alone, among civilised nations, in her acceptance of the doctrine of Free Trade, and that all other countries have deliberately declined to follow her example. From this it is argued that, if the pol'cy were good, its merits would have been so decisively established by Great Britain's forty years' experi- ment, that the fact of its universal rejection is conclusive against it. It is hardly necessary to point out that this is both an in- correct statement of facts and an unsound argument. i; 2. In the first place it is not true that England is the only Free Trade country. Neither Holland, Norway, Belgium, Switzerland, nor Denmark can be called protected countries ; and some of them notably Holland have tariffs very little higher than that of England. These countries are, of course, not to be compared in extent of territory with their Pro- tectionist neighbours; but they are not one whit behind them in the other elements of national greatness. They are free, wealthy, peaceful, and progressive 1 Can any of the European countries which have adopted Protection be characterised in the same terms? Without over-estimating the importaic; of c 2 20 Industrial Freedom. a fiscal policy, it is at least noticeable that those European countries, which are most free from clerical and military domination, are precisely the countries which most incline towards an unrestricted commerce ; while the military and reactionary governments favour Protection. 3. Suppose, however, it were otherwise, and that England stood absolutely alone in her adherence to Free Trade it is surely plain that this fact would not justify a conclusion that the policy was unsound, unless we first knew the reasons which induced other countries to adopt or retain Protection? It might be that these had no reference to the fiscal controversy, but were local and special reasons of a political and temporary character. If, for example, one country imposed protective duties, for the purpose of retaliating upon a hostile neighbour, or another imposed them because the Custom House offered the easiest means of raising a large revenue for wasteful expenditure it could hardly be contended that the action of either of these countries raised even a pre- sumption against the expediency of Free Trade in a country of different industrial and political conditions. The fiscal problem is emphatically one which cannot be decided by the method of counting heads. Every country must work out a solution for itself according to its own conditions and its own needs. The experience of one country, although it may be valuable as a test of theory, is seldom useful to other countries as a guide to practice, since the necessary conditions of a just comparison are seldom, if ever, present.^ 1 Mr. Giffen, in his paper on "The Use of Import and Export .Statistics" (" Essays in Finance," Second Series, p. 200), makes the followin;^ remarks in this connection : " To make any statistical comparison at all possible between different regimes, it would be necessary, either to find two coimtries practically alike in their economic and industrial circumstances, and in the character of their people, subject ihem to the opposite rJ^i.yus, and then ascertain and compare their relative material progress : or, to find a particular country subjected at different The Revival of Protection. 21 Pt. '., Ch. iil., \ 4.] 4. Thus, although the results of either fiscal policy in any particular case can never be ignored, yet the greatest caution must be exercised in drawing inferences. Still more is caution necessary, when it is proposed to draw an inference, not from results, but from motives. There is no better instance of want of caution in this respect than the familiar Protectionist cry which we are now considering. There is, indeed, no doubt but that the disinclination of many countries, both new and old, to abandon their Protective policies, and the inclination of others to adopt Protection, is a phenomenon, which requires careful explanation in view of the signal and incontestable success of the British experiment. But while giving full weight to any inference that can be legitimately drawn from the conduct of the citizens of one country for the guidance of citizens of another, and recognising that Free Trade has not spread so rapidly as might have been expected, it would be a mistake to assume that the doctrine of Free Trade has been impeached in any material point, cither by the ex- perience of Great Britain after forty years of a Free Trade policy, or by the Protectionist proclivities of other countries, periods to the two opposite regimes without any other differences, and then compare the different results, if any such are appreciable. Experience does not supply us with such cases. No two communities are sufficiently alike to be comparable in strict logic. The slightest differences in the race or moral con- dition of the two communities, which are to outward appearance much the same, might make a great deal of difference to their material progress. If the two are subjected to different economic riSginies, how are we to tell whetlier the inferior progress of the one materially even when we are sure about the inferiority is due to the tei^iine, and not to other differences in the character of the communities which we cannot so well appreciate ? The same with a community at different periods of its own history. How can we tell that there is no moral difference of a serious kind to affect the economic progress of the community between one period and another? External economic circumstances are, besides, incessantly changing, and may affect two communities apiiarently of nmch the same character and position quite differently. If it were possible to institute many points of comparison and exhibit an uniform result in all, it might be safe to infer that it was the regime which did make the difference, no other imiform cause of difference being assignable; but this condition, of course, it is impossible to fulfil." 22 Industrial Freedom. The contrary is rather the case. Enghsh experience has indis- putably shown the wisdom of a Free Trade poHcy, so that there is hardly an intelligent American or Australian Protectionist, who does not readily admit that Free Trade is a necessity for a manufacturing or commercial country in the situation of Great Britain. Nor are the Protectionist inclinations of other countries really an impeachment of Free Trade, when the circumstances attendant on their origin are understood. Moreover, so far from English example having carried no weight, it will be found, that after the adoption of Free Trade by Great Britain, there was a marked and steady movement in the same direction throughout the continent of Europe. It is true that this move- ment has been interrupted during the last twenty years, but an examination of the facts reveals that every country, with the ex- ception of Canada and Victoria, that has adopted a Protectionist policy during this period, has done this under the stress of war, and that the influences which have bean at work in favour of restriction have already begun to wane. The truth, accordingly^ is that this so-called revival of Pro- tection has very little significance in the fiscal controversy. It hag proceeded from circumstances which have only a remote connection with Protection and Free Trade, and has seldom been due to any deliberate rejection of a Free Trade policy. In every case, moreover, even when it has proceeded from an avowed adherence to Protectionist doctrines, it has originated under the stress of exceptional and peculiar difiicultics, arising from a morbid and abnormal industrial con- dition. Thirdly, in most cases, it has been an interruption of an earlier and well defined movement in the direction of Free Trade, which, accordmg to present indications, is likely to be renewed. Under these circumstances the much vaunted Protectionist revival is not likely to be of much use to logical champions of commercial restrictions. As, however, the Pro- tectionist voter attaches great importance to the argument from numbers, it will be advisable to make a more detailed examina- The Revival of Protection. 23 Pt. I., Ch. iii., \ 4.] tion of the causes which have led the principal countries to raise their tariffs, because it must be admitted that, if these causes vary, or if they are mutually inconsistent, or if they have no application to the conditions of the country in which the example is quoted, the strength of the Protectionist's assertion, that all the wisdom of the world is upon his side, becomes con- siderably diminished. It will be convenient, in pursuing this inquiry, to deal separately with the examples of Great Britain, the continent of Europe, the United States of America, and the British Colonies. CHAPTER IV. ILLUSTRATIONS. t SECTION I. GREAT BRITAIN. I. It is not easy to understand the fashion in which Pro- tectionists treat Great Britain's forty-five years' experience of a Free Trade policy. At one time they admit that it has been such as to establish once for all the superiority of Free Trade for a country situated like Great Britain. At another they assert, that Free Trade was adopted under a mistaken view as to the probable effect of English example upon foreign nations; and that, if tlie leaders of the Anti-Corn Law League could have foreseen that, after forty-five years, England would stand almost alone in the practice of commercial freedom, they would never have begun their famous agitation. Forgetful of the Free Trade maxim that " the best way to fight hostile tariffs is by free imports," these disputants assert that the Free Trade, which the exertions of the Liberal party won for England, is not the Free Trade for which the leaders strove, but a " one-sided " Free Trade, which Bright and Cobden in their earlier days 24 Industrial Freedom. would have regarded as little less pernicious than a close Protection. Either of these methods of treatment allows the Pro- tectionist orator to put English experience upon one side. 2. If all Protectionists agreed that Free Trade had proved a great success in England, there would be no need to insist upon this fact in any controversial work. Unfortunately, how- ever, the native-born Australian, and, in a less degree, the native-born American, often prides himself upon his indifference to the history of other countries. Absorbed in the great work of making a new nation, and rightly impatient of the vapid affecta- tion of English ways and indiscriminate reliance upon English taste, which seems inevitable in a subordinate community, he is apt to confound the callow criticisms of the English traveller with the sohd teachings of English experience, and dismiss each with the same contempt. This tendency has, until quite recently, been fostered in Australia by the omission from the school and university curriculum of any teaching of history the reason assigned for this being the remarkable fear that to teach history might wound religious susceptibilities ! The conse- quence is that, in spite of the disavowals of responsible Pro- tectionist writers, voters are still found in Australasia and America who believe that the condition of England has not materially improved either subsequently to or in consequence of the adoption of Free Trade. 3. It may be doubted whether any fact of industrial history is capable of easier or more conclusive proof than that Great Britain has enormously advanced in every direction of national progress since the adoption of Free Trade. All the evidence points to the same conclusion^ and is, as Mr. Giffcn has insisted, cumulative ; so that it must be disproved in each particular item, if any doubt is to be thrown upon the im- pression created by a survey of the whole. " 'I'o justify the The Revival of Protection. 25 Pt. I., Ch. iv., 5 3-1 belief," says this eminent writer, " that there has been no great general advance, every one of the propositions stated [by him] would have to be disproved, and an opposite set of statements, all hanging together and all supporting the view of retrogression, or no advance, or very little advance, would have to be made good. There are too many facts to permit the setting up of a plea of ignorance, or impossibility of arriving at any con- clusion." ^ Nor, indeed, is the one fact of a stupendous growth in material wealth denied by any but a few fanatics the signs of it are too manifest to the eye to admit of question or to require demonstration by figures ~ but those who desire to depreciate the English example, content themselves with making the assertion that the chief benefit of their improvement has gone to the rich, while the poor have been growing poorer year by year. Such a statement naturally appeals to many prejudices, and often finds acceptance among men who do not know the facts. In reality the assertion is almost unsupported by evidence. All the facts tell the other way. Official and private records of rates of wages and hours of labour show, that the workman receives to-day from 50 to 100 per cent, more money for 20 per cent, less work than was the case under Protection ; and that, owing to a large fall in the prices of the chief articles of con- sumption, the purchasing power of his wages is considerably increased. In addition to this improvement in his relations with employers, the workman to-day gets the benefit of largely increased Government expenditure. He not only pays less taxes, but he gets more much more from the Government than he ever received under the Protective system. He is now better fed, better clothed, better housed, better educated, better cared for in his health and amusements ' " Essays in Finance " ; Second Series. 2 The paper by Mr. Medley, printed as a note to this cliaptcr, contains some of the more striicing facts. 26 Industrial Freedom. than at any other period in Enghsh history. All the facts agree to prove that the poor have not grown poorer. Pauperism has diminished ; crime has diminished ; the deposits in the Savings Bank have increased ; the funds of the Friendly and Benefit Societies have increased ; the investments of small savings are greater than they were ; life is in every direction longer, easier, and more comfortable ; even the rate of mortality has declined, so that on an average a man lives two years, and a woman three and a half years longer than was the case before Free Trade. Is, then, the other part of the assertion true, and have the rich grown richer ? The facts again agree to support a negative answer ! The returns to the Income Tax and to the Probate Duties demonstrate conclusively that the number of the moderately rich has been increasing, and that the increase of capital per head of the capitalist classes is by no means so great as the increase of working-class in- comes. It may be that Protectionists will take exception to the value of the evidence by which these facts are sustained ; and, no one would deny that the relations between evidence and con- clusions in matters of this nature are always diificult to deter- mine. But is any other kind of evidence forthcoming? Is it possible to get any other accumulation of facts, whether of the same or of a different character, to support the conclusion that the condition of the working-classes in Great Britain has become worse, instead of better, since the introduction of Free Trade ? And if it is not possible to do this, it must surely be admitted that the experience of Great Britain has a certain bearing on the fiscal controversy . No doubt Protection may be sup- ported by different arguments in different countries ; but English experience is at least of so much value, that it justifies Free Traders in putting Protectionists to proof of their assertions. They tell us that Free Trade creates monopolies ; that it in- creases profits at the expense of wages ; that it produces paupers j that it destroys manufactures ! The contrary has The REVirAL of Protection. 27 Pt. I., Ch. iv., \ 3.] been the case in England ; let them, therefore, prove their statements. 1 1 It will be apparent to all who are familiar with the subject, that the passages in the text about the condition of the working-classes are only a summary of Mr. Giffen's two Essays oa the " Progress of the Working- Classes," since re-published in the author's second series of "Essays on Finance." This masterpiece of statistical investigation is supported in its conclusions by the analysis, which the late Mr. Brassey has made public, of the pay-sheets of his enormous business as contractor. This gives a faithful record of the rise and fall of wages, during that period, in the two great trades of the builders and the engineers {see "Work and Wages"). In addition to this there is a collection of statistics made in 1866 by Professor Leone Levi and Mr. Dudley Baxter under the title of " Wages and Earnings of the Working-Classes." These are collected chiefly from private sources, and most of the information appears to be drawn from the more favoured trades, so that, without questioning the accuracy of the figures, it is possible to believe that these gentlemen have made too high an estimate of the average earnings of the working-classes. Another useful source of authentic information is the annual return furnished by the Chamber of Commerce in different centres to the English Board of Trade, which are published among the miscellaneous statistics of the United Kingdom. The Board of Trade Journal now contains regular returns of wages, compiled from the best official and private sources. In a note to this chapter the writer has put together the results of some independent investigations which he made in 1883 on the variation in wages in the four great English industries the cotton, woollen, worsted, and iron trades which, together, employ about one-half of the artisan population, to which the reader is refeired for further information. There is especial reason at the present time for emphasising the fact of the great and continuous advance in the well-being of the poorer classes, because a most active section of Free Traders have been misled by Mr. Henry George into an assertion to the contrary, and have thus considerably weakened the force of their attack upon Protection. Mr. George's work on " Progress and Poverty," which was his earliest important writing, begins, as is well known, with the assertion that "the poor have grown poorer and the rich richer." Although this is the fundamental proposition of the work, no tittle of evidence is advanced in its support. Its truth is quietly assumed. Vet all the known evidence as to the condition of old countries tells the other way. It may indeed be the case although Mr. Giffen doubts this that the agricultural labourers in Great Britain were better off in the middle of the last century than they ever have been since ; but there is atnple evidence to show that the con- dition of the great body of labourers was worse [e.i;., sec Eden's " State of the Poor"). Mr. Giffen quotes from M. Yves Guyot ("Principles of Social Economy" [linglish Translation], Swan Sonnenschein li Co.), to show that there has been a similar improvement in France and (jermany. Perhaps Mr. George in penning the phrase only had in mind the Western States of .America, with regard to which it is probably true. 28 Industrial Freedom. It is, indeed, possible that the arguments of those who insist upon the great improvement which has taken place in the condition of the working-classes under Free Trade are open to criticism upon one point, viz. that the increase in money wages is sometimes exaggerated. Mr, Giffen estimates that the average rate of wages in England has doubled since 1830. This may be the case and no one can differ from Mr. Giffen on such a matter without hesitation but the average advance in wages as disclosed by the Board of Trade returns from 1830 to 1833, in the four principal English industries the cotton, woollen, worsted, and iron trades does not appear to have been so great. The question is dealt with in detail in the note at the end of this chapter, so that it will be sufficient here to summarise the con- clusions. Mr. Giffen's statement appears to be borne out by the figures returned for those four trades as the wages paid to skilled labour. I'he increase in these cases has often been more than double. But among the body of unskilled lal)Ourers, the increase, so far as can be gathered from the Board of Trade Statistics, is not more -than from twenty-five to fifty per cent. In fact, it is a remarkable illustration of the truth that the stronger the labourer^ and the better he is able to protect himself, the more likely is he to obtain good wages, that these figures show, that not only is it the class of skilled labourers who have benefited most, but in almost every case they have been the first to get the advantage of a rising market. Indeed, the figures of the cotton, woollen, worsted, and iron trades lead to these two conclusions : first, that the increase of wages has been largest among the best-paid class of artisans, less among the class of medium ability, and least among the common labourers ; and, secondly, that a rise in wages comes earliest to the best-paid class, later to the middle class, and latest to the unskilled workman. These asser- tions are not put forward as the invariable laws of rising wages, The Revival of Protection. 29 Pt. I., Ch. iv., ? 3.] but they are certainly conclusions from a large number of important observations. But it may be said, the unskilled labourers form the mass of the community, and since it is the poorest classes that suffer most, it is in their prosperity that the country is most interested. This leads to another branch of our inquiry, viz., whether wages have increased beyond the greater cost of living ? There can be no doubt that even the poorest workman receives more money than he used ; but does a sovereign in England go as far now as it did thirty years ago ? In the hands of a workman it does. If anyone will make a table of the articles of a labourer's consumption, and, by a reference to any book on prices, estimate the cost of living, say thirty years ago, and at the present time, he will find that in respect of most items of a labourer's expenditure there has been a marked decrease of price, and that in respect of only two items has there been any increase. These two are meat and house-rent. The price of meat has nearly doubled, and rent has increased one and a-half times. But none the less, it is not true, as has been written, that rent has swallowed up the whole of the increase in work- men's wages. Theoretically, Mr. George's views are sound enough. Imagine a country with entirely unrestrained com- petition, with a limited quantity of land in private hands, shut out from all foreign trade, and its people prohibited from emigrating then undoubtedly rent would increase at tlie expense of both wages and profits. But these theoretical con- ditions do not prevail in any country in the world, not even in Ireland, and in a Free Trade country least of all. In fact, ncitlicr the rise in rent, ^ nor the greater cost of meat has reduced the workman's real income below what it was under Protection. By making a table of the average iiccc-ssary expenses of a wor'rcman, with a wife and three children, in 1840, and at the present day, it will l)e found ' Part of the rise in rent is due to improved house accommodation. 30 Industrial Freedom. that, while in 1840 an unskilled workman seldom had meat more than once a week, now, allowing for meat every day, and also for the rise in rent, he has a larger balance than he used to have.i That is to say, under Free Trade, even when the rise in wages has been lowest, namely, among the class of un- skilled labourers, it has at least outpaced the increase in the cost of living. Other facts point to the same conclusion. The consumption of tea and sugar, for example, per head of the population, is four times what it used to be in the days of Pro- tection. It is the same with the consumption of rice, tobacco, spirits, and similar luxuries. What better evidence could be given that the prosperity of the last forty years has been diffused among the masses ? The articles named are emphatically poor men's luxuries, and not such that an increased consumption of them by the rich could make much difference to the (quantity consumed. But, as has already been observed, all the facts agree. There is no test by which improvement in material prosperity can be measured, which does not bear out the 1 Weekly necessary expenses of a carpenter, with a wife and three children : 1840. 1890. s. d. s. d. 8 quartern loaves ... S ^ 4 Bibs, meat ... ... ... ... ... 44 60 i^lbs. butter 16 19 lib. cheese ... ... ... ... ... 07 08 2lbs. sugar ... ... ... ... ... i 2 04 jlb. tea 16 o 45 lib. soap ... ... ... ... ...05 04 lib. candles ... ... ... ... ... 06 05 lib. rice... ... ... ... ... ...04 02 2 gals, milk ... ... ... .. ..04 08 Vegetables ... ... ... ... ... 06 10 Coals, firing ... ... ... ... ...10 16 Rent ... ... ... . , ...40 6 6 Clothes and sundries ... ... ... ...30 30 24 10 26 8^ The increase on a wage of 24s. lod. since 1846 has been to at least 28s., and in most cases to ^os. The Revival of Fkotection: 31 Pt. I., Ch. iv.,54.] assertion that there has been a great and general advance in well- being among the masses of Great Britain since the abolition of a protective tariff. No one would say that the advance has been sufficient. The condition of the poor in England is terrible, and their improvement has been little enough, even when measured by a low ideal, so that it is hard to see things as they are without desiring something like a revolution for the better. Still, the fact of an enormous progress must be kept in view, progress which may not be recognised until comparison is made with the former state of things. As Mr, Giffen warns us, " discontent with the present must not make us forget that things have been so much worse." 4. The prosperity of Great Britain under Free Trade is logically fatal to the protective dogma, that the only way to secure prosperity is by means of protective duties against foreign imports. The prosperity of a protected country is not, by a parity of reasoning, fatal to Free Trade, because Free Trade is not a dogma, but a mere negative assertion of the errors of Protection. Protection, on the other hand, not only asserts the wisdom of protective duties, but justifies its action by the tacit and expressed assumption that national wealth cannot be produced or diffused without them. Hence, as Professor Sumner has pointed out, " either prosperity in a Free Trade country, or distress in a Protectionist country, is fatal to Pro- tectionism ; while distress in a Free Trade country, or pro- sperity in a Protectionist country, proves nothing against Free Trade." 1 Nevertheless, it is frequently asserted that the prosperity of Great Britain proves nothing in the fiscal controversy, because the credit of it cannot be claimed entirely for Free Trade, but must be shared by the mechanical and scientific improvements which have characterised the period since Protection was ' " Protectionism the -ism which teaches that Waste makes Wealth.'' New York : Holt & Co., 1885 ; p. 26. 32 Industrial Freedom. abolished. It is plain that this argument effectually prevents Protectionists from taking credit to their system for the progress of the United States, since not only has the invention of machinery played a most important part in their industrial development, hut it has been aided by unparalleled natural resources. In the United States are millions of acres of fertile land, with soil thirty feet deep ; there are minerals of every kind in useful proximity to each other; there are coal-fields, oil-wells, and every sort of natural product in astonishing abun- dance ; and all these resources are not locked up in inacces- sible regions, but are brought near to the markets of the world by a most extensive system of railway and river communication. Add to all this, that on an average half a million immigrants are being poured into the country every year, representing each of them a capital expenditure of ;j^2oo, or, in a body, a total incre- ment of one hundred million pounds per annum to the national capital ; that there is little or no expenditure for military pur- poses, and that there is an unrestricted system of Free Trade from one end of the vast continent to the other, and we have a combination of every circumstance which is most favourable to the increase of wealth. Under such conditions, it would be miraculous if America had not become a great manufacturing country. Her present inferiority in this respect to Great I'ritain is probably solely due to her protective tariff. Disregarding, however, the logical irrelevance of the inquiry, and admitting that an assent to its necessity cuts both ways, it is expedient, for controversial purposes, to ascertain, if possible, v.-hat portion of Great Britain's prosperity has l)ccn due to Free Trade, and what portion to other causes. No one can deny that railways, telegraphs, and every other improvement in the means of intercourse and production, have had a great influence in every part of the world in extending commerce and increasing wealth ; but, nevertheless, it can be shown, with as much certainty as such an investigalion admit:-, that a chief part of the increase in the wealth of Great Britain, The Revival of Protection. 33 Pt. I., Ch. !v., \ 4.] during the last forty years has been due to the abolition of the protective system. It can also be shown h-^ a priori reasoning, that a nation cannot reap the full advantages of improvements in locomotion and mechanical processes under any systen which restricts the intercourse between its citizens and foreigners. There are two methods of conducting this inquiry. The first is by comparing the condition of trade in the year imme- diately preceding the remission of a tax on imports, with its condition in the year immediately following. If, then, it is found, that in every case a dose of Free Trade has been followed by an otherwise inexplicable increase in the volume of com- merce, it may be fairly concluded that there is a connection between this increase and the legislation which preceded it. The second method is to estimate the influence of the mechan- ical or locomotive agencies, when they are at work without Free Trade, in order to deduct what ought to be assigned to them from the total increase of wealth. This method is ex- tremely complicated, and not, perhaps, altogether satisfactory, owing to the difficulty of making an accurate estimate of the value of the mechanical and locomotive factor. Both methods, however, have been used by Mr. Gladstone, in an article which is now lost in the kaleidoscopic pages of a monthly magazine. 1 It may accordingly be useful to indicate the character of Mr. Ghdstoiii's conc'.usions, without attempt- ing to summarise his article. He first estimates the average annual increase in the volume of British trade, from the date of the first use of railways up to 1842, which was the first year of any large instalment of Free Trade, by the following method : He finds that, for the twenty years from 1 810-1830, English trade was almost stationary ; but that in 1830, with the use of raihvays, there came a suddea increase, which continued year by year as new railways were opened. Consequently, he sets down the growth of trade from ' Nineteenth Century, February, 1880. 34 Industrial Freedom. 1830 to 1842 to what, for the purposes of this calculation, he terms the locomotive factor. Assuming this method to be correct, and that the period is not too short to form the basis of such an estimate, the difficult question still remains, how to use the figures, which have been thus obtained, for the purpose of comparison with other periods. Mr, Gladstone attempts to get over this difficulty in the following way : ^He takes the number of miles of railway open during the years 1830-42, together with the mileage receipts during the same year, and, on the assumption that the increase before referred to during that period was owing to the locomo- tive agencies alone, he arrives at a rough estimate of the effect of each new mile of railway upon the volume of English trade. Then he calculates from this basis the deductions which have to be made from the yearly increase in that volume subse- quently to 1842, on account of railways, and making an equal allowance on account of telegraphs and ocean steamships, and recognising that the influence of these factors has been increas- ing, and not constant, he reaches the conclusion that by far the larger portion of the increase in Enghsh trade during the last forty years must be assigned to other causes than improve- ments in the means of locomotion. This conclusion is, at best, imperfect ; but it is at least as worthy of attention as the unsupported statements of Pro- tectionist orators and letter-writers, that the whole of the improved condition of English trade in recent years is owing to mechanical improvements in the means of intercourse. Mr. Gladstone also attempts the first of the two methods, which have been already mentioned as suitable to an enquiry into the causes of the growth of England's trade, and which, although it is not so strictly scientific as the other, enables us, to arrive at more accurate results, and estimate with a greater degree of precision the effect upon trade by the removal of Protectionist restrictions. The Revival of Protection. 35 Pt. I., Ch. iv., \ 4.] Mr, Gladstone takes the fluctuations in the export trade as an index of prosperity, because any increase in the export of home-made articles is an unerring indication of general indus- trial activity ; and because any increase in the export trade of a country which lends, and does not borrow capital, is always accompanied by all those other signs of progress for which an explanation is being sought in this inquiry. He begins with the period 1816-30, when railways were not invented, and Pro- tection had the field to itself. It is instructive to find that during those fifteen years of peace, down to 1830 inclusive, although mechanical invention was in constant growth, the value of British exports remained almost stationary at about ;^36, 000,000, or, if account were taken of the growth of population during that period, that there was an actual decline in the value per head of the population. Well may Mr. Gladstone say that during those years Protection proved itself to be, in the United Kingdom at least, but another name for paralysis ! The first instalment of Free Trade legislation was granted in 1842, by which time, thanks to the growth of railways, English exports had increased to ^^5 1,400,000, but the remis- sions of duty did not take effect until 1843. That year is con- sequently the first in which the influence of Free Trade can be perceived. The concession to freedom was very slight, con- sisting almost entirely of a permission to import certain articles, which had previously been prohibited, at reasonable duties ; yet, slight as the concession was, the three years, 1843-45, showed an average export of ^57,000,000, an aggregate growth, that is, of ^6,000,000, and an annual growth, one year with another, of two millions. The second instalment of Free Trade was given by Sir Robert Peel in the year 1845. By the tariff of that year all export duties were abolished, and 430 out of the 813 articles of raw material were admitted free of duty ; but the Corn Laws, the Navigation Laws, and the Sugar Duties remained untouched. The three years during which this tariff was in force were D 2 36 Industrial Freedom. marked by three great calamities. The first, scarcity in Eng- land and famine in Ireland ; the second, commercial panic with the suspension of the Bank Charter Act in 1847 ; and the third, in 1848, wars and revolutions on the continent, which in one year drove British exports down by ;^6,ooo,ooo. In the days of more stringent Protection, any one of similar occur- rences had caused a disastrous decline ; under Free Trade, however, the result of all of them combined was little more than a stoppage of growth. The average of the exports for the three years, 1845-8, was ;^'56, 500,000, as compared with ^57,000,000, which had been the average of the period from 1842 to 1845. The third dose of Free Trade was given in 1849, ^y ^^^ ^o'^^ cessation of the Corn Duties at the beginning of that year, and the abolition of more tlian 100 other taxes upon imports, together with the repeal of the Navigation Acts later in the Parliament- ary session. For that year the exports rose suddenly frcm ;j"5 2,800,000 to ;^63, 500,000. The rise steadily continued, so that the average annual value of exports for the three years, 1849 to 1852, was ;^7 2,000,000, representing an increase of ;^i 5,000,000 per annum over the preceding triennium. The fourth instalment of Free Trade legislation began with the new tariff of 1853. The three years from 1853-55, not- withstanding the Crimean War, show an average export of ;^97, 000,000. From 1853, a very flourishing year, with an export of ^78,000,000, we pass to 1854, with the enormous increment of ;2{^2o,ooo,coo, and a total export value of ;;/^98, 000,000. The effect of the war is seen during the next two years by the exports remaining about stationary ; but, in spite of this, the average for the three years, 1853-55, is ^94,000,000, or an increase of _;;^2 2,000,000 on the previous triennium. This increase continued steadily up to 1859. The fifth and last Free Trade period is marked by Mr. Cobden's French Treaty, and by the Customs Act of i860, which finally established the principle that no protective duties The Revival of Protection. 37 Pt. I., Ch. iv., \ 5.] should be charged, and by the repeal of the paper duties. This was again followed by an increase in our exports ; but it is not possible to estimate the quantity of this increase for any purpose of comparison, since we have no limit provided by any fresh epoch of Free Trade legislation. It is, however, very noteworthy that, since the removal of the Free Trade stimulus if we leave out of account the exceptional years 1870-75, when, owing to the consequences of the Franco-German war, trade advanced by leaps and bounds the increase in English exports tends to become more regular and steady, as if it were hence- forward to be attributed mainly to the growth of population. It may be that these figures are not rigidly conclusive, because social problems do not admit of being demonstrated like a rule of mathematics. But let any candid man put this question to himself " Supposing that in any other case but one in which Protection was at issue with Free Trade, I found that legislation of a certain character was always followed by the same results, for which no other cause can be suggested, must I not therefore conclude that there is a close connection between this legislation and the subsequent events ? " This is a test which would be recognised in every other matter of political experience ; why, then, should Free Traders have to ask that the same openness of mind, and readiness to look at facts, should be displayed by everyone who enters upon the fiscal controversy ? >5 5. Protectionists, who cannot deny the fact of English progress under Free Trade, adopt, as has been observed already, another method of disparaging the vali:e of her example. They insist that the anticipations of the Free Trade leaders have not been realised, and that, as the struggle was conducted under the belief that other nations would be compelled to follow England, if she adopted Free Trade, the whole case is now re-opened, and the old arguments cease to apply. 38 Industrial Freedom. The motives and anticipations of the leaders of the Anti- Corn Law I^eague are, of course, wholly immaterial to the question, " Whether Free Trade or Protection is the better policy for Australasia or America ? " Nevertheless, the state- ment that Gobden only fought for universal Free Trade, and that, being disappointed of this, he would have ceased his efforts, has obtained a vogue in both these countries, which would be surprising in any other controversy. It is used in two ways first, as an easy justification for abuse of the Free Trade leaders ; and, secondly, as an excuse for disregarding English experience. No one, therefore, who defends the Free Trade cause in either Australasia or America, can afford to treat this statement as it deserves ; he must show once more that the Corn Laws fell by their own weight, and that the dis- appointment of any expectations, that the restrictive laws of any other countries would fall in the same way, has in no degree weakened the significance of the British uprising against the misery and injustice of a protective tariff. To assert the con- trary, is one of those perversions of historical fact which are, unhappily, only too frequent in the fiscal controversy. The basis of the charge is a speech of Mr. Cobden's in the House of Commons on January 15, 1846, in which he said, " I believe that if you abolish the Corn Laws honestly, and adopt Free Trade in its simplicity, there will not be a tariff in Europe that will not be changed in less than five years to follow your example." Speaking again at a public meeting in 1852, he made a similar prophecy ; and on these two passages, Protec- tionists have raised a structure of abuse and ridicule, every one of them, from Mr. Serjeant Byles to Mr. James G. Blaine, con- tributing his little stone ! Yet, after all, what do the words amount to, even reading them literally and without the explanation of surrounding facts ? They are, at most, an impeachment of Mr. Cobden's political judgment. To take them as expressive of the general opinion of his party, and then to say that it was this opinion The Revival of Protection: 39 Pt. I., Ch. iv., } 5.] which stimulated the party to its exertions, is to disregard the whole weight of evidence upon the other side. Quotations might be multiplied to fill a volume, to show from the pages of Hansard, and from the speeches of the Free Trade leaders as reported in The League, which was their organ in the Press, that the English people were under no misapprehen- sion as to what would be the conduct of other nations, when they adopted Free Trade ; but that they deliberately aban- doned Protection, because, after a fair trial, it had proved, in the words of Lord John Russell's resolution, "the blight of commerce, the bane of agriculture, the source of bitter divisions between classes, the cause of poverty, fever, mort- ality, and crime among the people." ^ No fact in history is more certain, and iQ.\v are more easily demonstrated, than that the Corn Laws were abolished because they injured England, and that the advocates of industrial freedom were indifferent to the course which other nations might pursue so long as Englishmen obtained bread. Thus Sir R. Peel, in a speech on the Corn Laws, in the House of Commons, Jan. 27th, 1846, said : " I fairly avow to you that, in making this great reduction upon the import of articles the produce and manufacture of foreign countries I have no guarantee to give you that other countries will immediately follow our example. I give you that advantage in the argument. Wearied with our long and un- availing efforts to enter into satisfactory commercial treaties with other nations, we have resolved at length to consult our own interests, and not to punish those other countries for the wrong they do us in continuing their high duties upon the importation of our products and manufactures by con- tinuing high duties ourselves, encouraging unlawful trade. We have had no communication with any foreign government upon 1 See nolo at end of this chapter (p. 65) on the condition of llngland "Under Protection, 40 Industrial Freedom. the subject of these reductions. We cannot promise that France will immediately make a corresponding reduction in her tariff. I cannot promise that Russia will prove her gratitude to us for our reduction of duty on her tallow by any diminution of her duties. You may, therefore, say, in opposition to the present plan, what is this superfluous liberality, that you are going to do away with all these duties, and yet you expect nothing in return ? I may, perhaps, be told that many foreign countries, since the former relaxation of duties on our part and that would be perfectly consistent with the fact foreign countries which have benefited by our relaxation, have not followed our example, nay, have not only not followed our example, but have actually applied to the importation of British goods higher rates of duties than formerly. I quite admit it. I give you all the benefit of that argument. I rely upon the fact as conclu- sive proof of the policy of the course we are pursuing. It is a fact that other countries have not followed our example, and have levied higher duties in some cases upon our goods. But what has been the result upon the amount of your exports? You have defied the regulations of those countries. Your export trade is greatly increased." On July 6th, 1849, wiih reference to Mr. Disraeli's assump- tion, " that you cannot fight hostile tariffs with free imports," Sir R. Peel said : " I so totally dissent from that assumption that I maintain that the best way to compete with hostile tariffs is to encourage free imports. So far from thinking the principle of Protection a salutary principle, I maintain that the more widely you extend it, the greater the injury you will inflict on the national wealth, and the more you will cripple the national industry. ****** " To re establish duties upon the import of foreign produce to be regulated by the principle of reciprocity, would be accompanied with insuperable difficulties. You have, in my The Revival of Protection, 41 Pt. I., Ch. iv., \ 5.) opinion, no alternative but to maintain that degree of Free Trade you have established, and gradually to extend it so far as considerations of revenue will permit" Finally, if further evidence be wanted, there is this state- ment from a letter from Mr. John Bright to the writer, dated shortly before his death : - " I never," he says, "held the opinion that the reform of the tariff would be at once followed by a like change of policy in other countries. If Mr. Cobden expressed such an opinion, of which I have no recollection, I can only say that he had more faith in the common sense of other nations than I had." ^ 1 The whole of the letter is worth publishing One Ash, Rochdale, December loth, 1887. My Dear Sir, I never held the opinion that the reform of the tariff would be at once followed by a like change of policy in other countries. If Mr. Cobden expressed such an opinion, of which I have no recollection, I can only say that he had more faith in the common sense of other nations than I had. As to the changes of circumstances since the year 1846, it is every way in our favour, for we have had forty years of Free Trade, and all the facts are wonderfully on our side. Further, I would assert without fear of error, that our adherence to our Free Trade policy is the more necessary and advantageous to us seeing that other countries have not yet followed our example. Surely, if other nations injure us by their high duties, it would be no compensation to us to put difficulties in the way of our buying what we want. It would be better if we were free to buy and to sell, but to make it difficult to buy by high duties in our tariff, because foreign tariff makes it difficult to sell, seciTis to me an idea that can only be entertained by men who are totally unable to reason. The high tariffs of European countries are in great part the result of the great armaments of those countries. The tariff of the United States Ts breaking down, and must break down. If the Protectionists of America could persuade or permit the Government to spend annually twenty millions sterling on a great army, and a great navy, their tariff might be sustained, but that being impossible, the tariff must be reformed, and some approach will be made in the direction of Free Trade. As to your Colonies, their true interest is in the adoption of t! e Free Trade policy. In our individual life every man is a Free Trader. He buys as cheaply as he can, and sells at the best price he can get. Why should not multitudes of men do the same ? In .\merica there are some forty States, and there is no tariff between these Slaves there is a perfect Free Trade between them why should not the same 42 Industrial Freedom, The matter might fairly rest here.i But the disappointment of Mr. Cobden's hopes is such a constant source of satisfaction of Protectionists, and has so disturbed the minds of many of the faithful, that it will not be waste of time to pursue the in- vestigation further, and, if possible, discover the sources of Mr. Cobden's error. Those who regard the reputation of its great men as the most precious heritage of the English-speaking race will be the less averse to this inquiry because it will be incidentally the means of vindicating the sagacity of Mr. Cobden from many undeserved reproaches. Let us proceed, therefore, to discuss the causes of that Pro- tectionist revival upon the Continent of Europe which is supposed by some to be a proof of the foolishness of Free Trade anticipations. SECTION II. THE CONTINENT OF EUROPE. I. The full significance of the Protectionist revival on the Continent of Europe cannot be understood without some reference to the circumstances under which Great Britain entered on her Free Trade policy. How came Mr. Cobden, who was the most sagacious of men, to indulge in his sanguine hopes, and why were they not fulfilled? Few subjects of historical inquiry better repay investigation. freedom prevail between the States and Canada, and between both and the United Kingdom ? And why not between your Austrahan Colonies and between them and this, their Mother Country? Free Trade is the policy of wisdom and peace between nations. I am, Sir, yours faithfully, John Bright. To the Hon. B. R. Wise, Sydney. 1 Sir T. Farrer in his " Free Trade v. Fair Trade," refers to the following further passages from the speeches of Free Trade leaders ; Hansard, vol. 68 of 1843. ,, vol. 'J J, of 1844. ,, vol. 106 of 1849. The Revival of Protectiox. 43 Pt. I., Ch. iv., Sec. II., { 2.] During the years of the Free Trade agitation and triumph in Great Britain the European world was in a dream of universal peace. There had been no great war since the con- clusion of the second Treaty of Paris in 1815; while the revolutionary explosion of 1848 only seemed to most onlookers to have ended those dynastic struggles which had been the principal cause of war for many centuries. It was not then perceived that the growing force of nationalism would prove even more fruitful than the jealousies and intrigues of rival potentates in creating international hostilities. The peaceful enthusiasm culminated in the International Exhibition of 1851, when people for the first time realised the enormous strides which Europe had made in its industrial progress since the Napoleonic wars. The praises of industry and commerce were in everybody's mouth : and it was thought incredible that, after so plain a proof of the paramount interest which the toiling masses have in the preservation of peace, their rulers would ever again be able to induce men to record their votes in favour of aggressive war. Commerce was thus naturally regarded as the handmaid of peace, teaching nations to know each other better, and breaking down the prejudice? which the interests of selfish rulers had sedulously fostered. The interests of the people were to overcome the ambition of princes, and all the nations of the world were to be joined together by the golden tie of peaceful trade. 2. Nor were these only the idle dreams of a few enthusiasts. Men most competent to judge saw no reason for believing that the frequent and rapid intercourse between people of foreign countries, which railways and steamships were rendering possible, could have any other result than that of destroying international enmities, and creating a common commercial interest in the continuance of peace. Even Mr. Cobden, as we have seen, yielded to the influences of his time, and ventured on that prophecy which, in a'l his copious 44 Industrial Freedom. forecasts of the commercial future, is the only one that can be quoted to his discredit, and which is always quoted by Pro- tectionists who know nothing else of all that Mr. Cobden wrote or spoke. Everything else which he anticipated as a result of Free Trade has been realised in the manner and by the means which he foretold. Surely, if he had been a mere quack, this could never have happened ? Correct judgments upon politics and accurate forecasts of the course of commerce during many years must be something more than lucky guesses.^ If the matter in controversy were anything else except Protection and Free Trade, we should not hesitate to say that Cobden's accurate prognostications of the future arose from his firm grasp of a principle which rested upon sound knowledge, and was in accord with the deepest sentiments of human nature. The controversy being as it is, we will merely note the fact of his general accuracy, and, admitting that he was wrong in one instance, proceed to examine into the causes of his error. Perhaps at the end of such an inquiry it may be seen that it is sometimes better to be wrong with Cobden than to be right with his critics. 3. The face of the scene suddenly changed. The thirty- eight years of peace came to an end, and the Crimean War and the growth of the new spirit of nationalism destroyed for a time all hopes of its return. The Crimean War was followed by the American War, the Danish War, the Austrian War, the French War, the Turkish War, and no one can say at what time another war may not be added to this gloomy list. Profoundly peaceful Europe was thus suddenly changed into an armed camp ; and con- temporaneously with this, the Europe which was advancing 1 If Uie famous saying, that a copy of the Times was of more value than the whole of Thucydides, is to be taken literally, it is an error of literary and nc t of poli ical judgment. The Revival of Protection. 45 Pt. I., Ch. iv., \ 4.] towards Free Trade has gone back towards Protection. The weapons of commercial warfare have been called to the assistance of national armies. 4. In the year 1879 a return was moved for in the English House of Commons, by Lord Sandon, of the changes which had been made by foreign nations in their tariffs since the year 1850. It was perhaps expected that this return would prove to demonstration the absurdity of Mr. Cobden's expecta- tion and the rapid progress of Protection. In fact, it proved the opposite. The information collected showed beyond a doubt that, until the results of the Franco-Prussian War began to be felt in their full stress, there had been a steady progress towards Free Trnde on the part of almost all civilised nations. From 1850 to 1874 the alterations in the tariffs of Russia, Germany, France, Italy, Holland, Belgium, Sweden and Norway, Austria, Spain, and Portugal, had been steadily in the direction of Free Trade. It was about the year 1874 that Europe entered into the full enjoyment of the legacy of evil left behind by the war of 1870. In that year the prodigious armaments of European countries seemed to have reached a limit; yet still they increased, and still it was necessary to raise taxes for their support. Direct taxation was resorted to in many forms ; and when the wealthy classes came to the conclusion that this means of raising revenue was exhausted, resort was had to tlie Customs House. In this way the progress towards Free Trade has been checked, and been perhaps delayed for two generations. Military rulers cannot be exi)ected to have sympathy with free- dom in any form ; while the vested interests which have grown up under the Protection thus incidentally conferred form ano.her force to bar the path of commercial liberty. Yet even now the peaceful, liberal, and progressive nations such as 46 Industrial Freedom. Holland, Switzerland, Belgium, Norway, Italy, and Denmark are also nations which incline towards Free Trade. ^ 5. It is no part of this treatise to inquire how far the rulers of these different countries were justified, from their own points of view, in fighting their neighbours by means of re- taliatory duties, or in selecting the Customs House as an easy means of raising revenue for a wasteful expenditure. It is only intended to draw attention to the reasons which falsified the san- guine expectations of some of the early Free Traders. It would no doubt have been a gain to Mr. Cobden's reputation if he had foreseen the tremendous change which was about to take place in international relations. But that he failed to do so, and that, in consequence, some of his hopes were disappointed, is no reflection on the soundness of his views, nor any reason for depreciating the wisdom of his policy. 1 The Protective reaction on the Continent has also been assisted by the changed conditions of agricultural production. The development of the American, Australian, and Indian wheat fields not only shut the farmers of Eastern and Central Europe out of the English market, of which they had had possession since the Peace of 1815, but also exposed all European agriculturists to a new and fierce competition, to which they have been slow to adapt them- selves. Simultaneously with the development of these new sources of produc- tion, came the cheapening in the cost of transportation both by sea and land, which is perhaps the most notable industrial phenomenon of the present century. The Protective duties imposed since 1873 in France, Germany, Austria, and Italy, are in part due to an attempt to stave off or mitigate the effects of these great changes. The process is thus described by M. Alexandre Peer in an article on the fiscal situation in the February number of ' ' La Revue d'Economie Politique " of the year 1891 : " Alors commen^a la stagnation sur le Continent. A Test, les produits russes et roumains exer^aient une pression ; a I'ouest, les marches etaient en partie fermes et en partie occup^s par les produits meilleur marche d'outre-mer. L'Europe Centrale commen(;a a se sentir mal a I'aise : I'Empire d'Allemagne, repousse par I'Angleterre, interdit les transports de I'Autriche-Hongrie, et rAutricbe-Hongrie, de son cote, ferma ses frontieres a la Russie et a la Roumanie ; il s'ensuivit uii mouvement pareil a celui que provoque I'arret subit d'un train, quand les wagons sont successivement un i un refoules en arriere. " Professor Taussig, on p. 326 of the first volume of the Economic Journal, has some suggestive remarks upon these occurrenceF, which need not, however, be referred to at greater length in the present connection. The Revival of Protection. 47 Pt. I., Ch iv., \ 5.] The tariff changes of the Continental States since 1850 have also another bearing on the fiscal controversy. They show that the example of these States is of little or no value to Australasia or America. The inclination of mankind towards war must, no doubt, be taken into account by politicians ; but the fact that nations when disposed towards war adopt Protective tariffs is no reason why peaceful nations such as the Australian Colonies should do the same. When a Protectionist orator in Sydney or Melbourne proclaims, in his large and disdainful way, that nine-tenths of the civilised world agree with him,^ we may fairly remind him that nine-tenths of the civilised world is also in favour of the conscription. And if he should reply that that coincidence has nothing to do with his argument, we may call in the aid of Lord Sandon's return,- and point out the close connection which exists in Europe between the growth of Protection and the advance of militarism. Protection is, in fact, the natural weapon of military rulers. It is a system which flourishes in proportion to the strength of militarism, and everywhere decreases in favour as a people becomes freer and more peaceful. Such is the system which, in the name of " Liberalism," certain politicians introduced into Victoria.^ But the growth of Protection in that Colony is a subject for another chapter. Let us first, however, treat of the United States. ' The Free Trade minority is always overlooked in these ingenious calculations. 2 This is dealt with in detail by Sir T. Farrer in his " Free Trade v. Fair Trade." 3 The Protectionists in Victoria call themselves. "Liberals." In New South Wales, as in Canada, the nomenclature of parties is more appropriate and the Liberals are the advocates of industrial freedom. It would be strange indeed if the party which fought for civil and religious freedom should try to put fetters upon freedom of industry. 48 Industrial Freedom. section iii. the united states.' I. One of the most instructive economic works which yet remain to be Avritten is an adequate history of the Protective movement in the United States. The difficulties of such a work are enormous. The tariffs, as enacted from time to time, have always been extraordinarily complex ; while the large powers of construing Acts of Congress conferred upon the Customs Boards have still further in- creased the complexity of legislation. The consequence is, that an adequate treatment of the subject would not only require a knowledge of the processes of manufacture in all branches which can hardly be possessed by any individual, since no one is acquainted with the secrets of every trade but would also involve an accurate consideration of the fluctuations in prices, the conditions of trade, and the course of industrial development during the last hundred years ; and even if the initial difficulty were overcome of understanding the precise nature of tariff legislation, the obscure problem of tracing its effects would still present itself for a solution. The tariff in the United States has seldom, if ever, worked alone, but other influences have almost always obscured its operation. Currency delusions, war, the development of the interior, immigration, improvement in the means of locomotion, have all, at one time or another, rendered the precise effect of a tariff difficult to trace, eitlaer by prejudicing its working when it has been low, or hiding its injurious influence when it has been high. The one fact which stands out plainly from this intricate confusion is, that in all periods of American history high tariffs have resulted from a morbid condition of national affairs. v^ 2. Noone, for instince, could contend that the circumstances 1 For the contents of this section the wri'.er is largely indebted to Professor Sumner's " Lectures on the History of Protection in the United States," and to Professor Taussig's "Tariff History of the United States," two admirable works which are too little known in England and Australia. The Revival of Protection. 49 Pt. I., Ch. iv., Sec. III., 2.] which led to the passing of the first Tariff Act of 1789 have any application to the present time. That measure had two objects the first was to raise a Federal revenue from the only source then open to the Federal Government ; the second was to re-establish the natural industries of the United States, and to restore them to the same position which they would have held if they had not been crushed for many years by the protective legislation of Great Britain. The revolt of the American Colonies was very largely a revolt against Protection. It was an effort on the part of the Americans to secure the benefits of a larger commerce. The policy of the British Government had been to cramp American trade, and thwart the development of American industry. Bancroft, the great American historian, says : " American independence, like the great rivers of the country, had many sources, but the head- spring that coloured all the stream was the British Navigation Act. . . . This odious measure provided that no com- modities whatever, being the growth, product, or manufacture of Asia, Africa, or America, should be imported into Eng- land or her Colonies except in ships belonging to English subjects, and of which the master and the greater part of the crew were also English. Subsequently, the ordinance was re- enacted with additional clauses, virtually excluding foreign ships from American harbours, and sacrificing to English monopoly the natural rights of the Colonies." Nor were the efforts of the English Protectionists directed only against external commerce. Their despotic regulations were equally directed towards the suppression of manufactures and the destruction of internal trade. " In 1699 the British Parliament prohibited the Colonies from exporting wool, jam, or woollen fabrics, and from carry- ing them coastwise from one Colony and place to another. In 1719 Parliament declared that the erection of manufactories in the Colonies tended to lessen their dependence on the Mother Country ; and the EngUsh manufacturers memorialised E 50 Industrial Freedom. Parliament that the Colonies were carrying on trade and erecting manufactories, with a view to obtainmg legislation to arrest it. In 1 73 1 the Board of Trade were instructed to inquire as to the Colonial laws made to encourage manufactures, as to manu- factories set up, and as to trade carried on in the Colonies, and to report thereon. In 1732 they reported that Massachusetts had passed a law to encourage manufactures ; that the people of New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Maryland had fallen into the manufacture of woollen and linen for the use of their own families, and of flax and hemp into coarse bags and halters, all of which interfered with the profits of the British merchants. The Board recommended that the minds of the people of those Colonies should be immediately diverted, and a stop be put to it, or the practice would be extended. The same year Parliament prohibited the exportation of hats from the Colonies, and trading in them from one Colony to another by ships, carts, or horses. No hatter should set up in business who had not served seven years, nor have more than two apprentices ; and no black person should work at the trade. Iron mills for slitting and rolling, and plating-forges, were pro- hibited under a penalty of ;^5oo. This system of prohibition and restriction continued to increase till the Colonies rebelled, and declared independence in 1776." As might have been expected after such a history, the first effort of the independent States was to retaliate upon Great Britain by cutting off the trade which she had ende, but it is just as true, and, moreover, acknowledged by the prevailing economical school, that in the course of time, by the nation being enabled to build up a completely developed manufacturing power of its own, those goods are produced more cheaply at home than the price at which they can be imported from foreign parts. If, therefore, a sacrifice of value is caused by Protective duties, it is made good by the gain of a prnver of production, which not only secures to the nation an infinitely greater amount of material goods, but also industrial independence in case of war. Through industrial inde- pendence, and the internal prosperity derived from it, the nation obtains the means for successfully carrying on a foreign trade and for extending its mercantile marine ; it increases its civilisation, perfects its institutions internally, and strengthens its external power. A nation capable of developing a manufacturing power, if it makes use of the system of Protection, thus acts quite in the same spirit as that landed proprietor did who, by the sacrifice of some material wealth, allowed some of his children to learn a productive trade." 3. Each step in this argument is open to dispute. It is beside the mark to " prove from history that a manufac- turing power, developed in all its branches, forms a funda- mental condition of all higher advances in civilisation," because there is no civilised country at the present time which is not far superior in its manufacturing power to the most completely developed rnanufacturing countries of the days before steam-power. History furnishes no guide under these altered circumstances. 'J'he question now is, not " Wliether manufactures are necessary to national greatness?" but "^Vhetl1er the best interests of tlie particular country whose tariff is in question would be advanced by the establish- ment, through the agency of Protection, of this or that manu- J 2 132 Industrial Freedom. facture ? " List's arguments give us very little aid to a correct answer. He dwells at great length on the superiority of an artisan in character and intelligence to an agricultural labourer, and argues from this that it is to the advantage of a country to over-balance its "dull-witted" agriculturists by a greater number of manufacturing hands. But those who live in younger countries, where the rural labourer's intelligence is not depressed by traditions of caste or exclusive land laws, will be very slow to believe that the monotonous drudgery of tending a machine inside the walls of an unwholesome factory is more conducive to the cultivation of intelligence and character than the healthy open-air and self-dependent Hfe of the Australian bush or the Western' prairies. The increasing number of '' larrikins " and " hoodlums " seems rather to suggest the opposite remedy of distributing the city populations. Yet the argument that Protection will increase the number of factory hands at the expense of the agricultural part of the community lies at the very foundation of the Nationalist defence of Protection. Are Protectionists prepared to take this step ? Does any number of them in a young country seriously believe that the urban population is not already excessive in number and inferior in character ? 4. Let us, however, grant that the first step in the argu- ment can be established, and that it is desirable to establish certain manufactures, does it follow that this cannot be done without Protection? The Individualist answer is an emphatic negative. The establishment of manufactures (he says) may safely be left to private enterprise, because so soon as capital accumulates it will be eager to find investment. INIr. Hoyt, however, and his scliool, entertain a profound mistrust of un- directed individual clTort. Tlicy will not believe that any hoiie of profit can be relied upon to attract capital into an industry that is exposed to the competition of a foreign country. It may face the competition of a countryman, but it would be Preparing the Arena. 133 Pt. II., Ch. vi., ? 4.] dangerous to the community to let it run the ribk of the competition of a foreigner ! Here are his words : " While considered as individuals, men may be trusted to pursue the industry which seems to offer the best returns ; when we come to international exchanges, we must abandon this atomistic view of the co-workers in an organised nation. Our scientific standpoint must be at an elevation which places the given nation in proper per- spective with all the other political and industrial units which com- pose the commercial nations of the world, who also have 'desires' which they wish to gratify. The wants of a nation as a whole, and its powers of supplying them as a whole whether by domestic production or foreign exchange, or by their joint operation are aggregates. The nature of our surplus production and the relation of that surplus to the markets of the world, involve aggregate esti- mates. The amount of foreign products needed, and the nature of the purchase money which we carry in our hands, are to be treated as aggregates, and the means of buying their gratification is an aggregate. ... So some one, statesman or layman, must take the trouble to sum up the details of a nation's industrial resources and liabilities into the correct aggregate " (pp. 234, 235). Again words ! Words ! " Men may be trusted as individuals to follow their private interest in internal commerce, but in international commerce they must be guided by legislation." But are the legislators any more to be trusted than the individuals ? and if so, why ? Is it not notorious that legislators are not chosen for their business knowledge, or their delicate appreciation of the higher spiritual and social necessities of the "individual citizen"? Again, in what sense are the ''' wants of a nation " an aggre- gate, except that they are resultant of the wants of individuals ? To supply the wants of a nation, "as a whole/' is, surely, the same thing as supj^lying the wants of each individual citizen. Else could the parts be full and the whole empty ? But let Mr. Hoyt speak in his own defence : " If men could be born where they pleased, or if men could and would go freely from one country to another when the demand for the products of their industry in their native land failed, or when the 134 Industrial Freedom. pursuit of an occupation in which they had special aptitude is in- capable of being carried on if men did not care where they lived and where they died we might assent to speculations as to what would be. If, on the other hand, all the motives of life except economic ones keep him in his political home, the capacity and opportunity of a man to work at all may depend on governmental restraints on the products of foreign labour, and the industrial entity must be conterminous with the political entity. It is not a question of protecting the weak against the strong, or the high-priced labourer against the low-priced labourer. It is giving to the labourer of a given country the market for the products of his labour. It is to prevent the labourer himself from being removed from the country, and substituting therefor a trade in the product of his lal:)our. The argument does go equally well with either end first. Germany success- fully keeps its lower-priced labour in German industries on German soil by protecting her home market ; and so does France, Otherwise, it might conceivably happen that there would be no occasion for a German to live in Germany." And in another place : "The problem, therefore, is not ' How far for a given exeilion and sacrifice to get the maximum of material good,' but rather, ' How we may so occupy our field of employment that we can expend upon it all the exertions and all the sacrifices which we, as a people, are willing and able to make. How we may get the maximum for all which is possible when all our abilities and all our energies are called into play' " (p. 201). But again we ask, why cannot this problem be solved by the free play of enlightened self-interest ? Why cannot individuals be trusted to use their industrial organisation to the best ad- vantage of the whole ? And if they cannot be trusted, who are the persons to direct them ? Why should men lose their sense of what is best for their own interests when they engage in foreign trade ? If every man knows his own interest best, and may be trusted to follow it, as, Mr. Hoyt admits, he may in in- ternal trade, does not the presumption arise that national industry will be most wisely organised by leaving the producing class alone ? But to Mr. Hoyt, the idea of organisation and the idea of individual action seem incompatible. He regards the " individual " as " a masterless, clanless man," fighting Preparing the Arena. 135 Pt. IL, Ch. vi., \ s.] against every one else, and indifferent to everything but the momentary gratification of his desires. Yet there is no incon- sistency between individuaUsm and organisation ; rather the organisation that is firmest and directed to the highest ends can only be created by freemen. Spontaneous recognition of the necessity for union is an essential condition of strength. But it will be just to hear Mr. Hoyt further. He thus works out the application of his conception to fiscal policies ^ : " Under Free Trade, men would follow certain natural industries. The only natural industries are those connected with the land and the product of raw material." (This fundamental position is assumed without proof.) " The surplus of these is to be exchanged for foreign manufactures. A time, however, will come when the surplus of these industries will be more than foreigners can take, and, at the same time, the demand for manufactures may be greater than foreigners can satisfy. Under these circumstances, the theory of Exchange breaks down, and the surplus of the natural industries is unsaleable. To remedy this state of things, it is proposed to en- courage the direct production in America of the goods which would, in a state of freedom, be purchased from abroad. By such a direct production, the market for the surplus of the natural industries is enlarged, and the supply of the qualifications which are desired by the producers of this surplus is rendered longer and more constant. "The effect of this direct production is beneficial in another way. It provides employment for the rapidly increasing stream of immigrants, and enables the State to utilise the various capacities which may be possessed both by the original inhabitants of the country and by the new arrivals. It calls into play all our abilities and all our energies." 5. The time for criticising this argument will come later, when each of its parts is separately considered. It is sufficient, for the present, to point out that it rests on several unexpressed and unproved assumptions, of which the chief are, that without Protection, direct production would not have taken place ; and that under Free Trade there would have been no manufacturing industries. A Free Trader, replying to the argument, would first require some proof of the assumption that manufacturing 1 In this summary Mr. Hoyt's language has been adhered to very closely. 136 Industrial Freedom. industries were not " natural " to a country of such unequalled wealth in raw materials as the United States ; and he would ask next whether, if it should happen that, under Free Trade, foreigners could not supply the American demand, anything would stand in the way of the Americans supplying themselves ? The " natural " course of events would be that, as population increased, and the demand for manufactured goods became sufficient to justify the erection of costly works, labour and capital would be employed in a great variety of manufacturing industries. Mr. Hoyt's argument, however, whether good or bad, is clearly not " economic " in the sense in which we have used the term. It is, in fact, only the expression in larger terms of the two stock phrases of Protectionist manufacturers : " Keep the home market for the home labourer " and " Secure diversity of industry." Mr. Hoyt himself seems to recognise the political nature of his argument at a later period of his work, when he admits that he is driven to his conclusions by considerations of " patriotism, social ties, kindred, and poliiics, and that, submitting to the economic forces aloae, there would be no economic reason for any correspondence of the industrial and political entities " (P- 3(^9)- It would be impossible to have a plainer avowal that the so-called " economic " argument in favour of Protection is, in all its attributes, political and moral. The admission is plain that if it can be proved that the acquisition of material wealth is the principal element of national productiveness, and the most potent stimulus of latent energies, there is then no reason why nations should not trade with one another. But that is the very proposition which is demonstrated by the Individualist economist, which Mr. Hoyt believes himself to be refudng. The truth is that Mr. Hoyt and the economists are not arguing about the same point. Preparing the Arena. 137 Pt. IL, Ch. vi., \ 5.] It is obvious that a purely economic argument cannot be refuted by a process of reasoning which starts with an assump- tion that the acquisition and production of wealth are matters of trifling importance. The utmost which Mr. Hoyt's method can achieve is to suggest reasoning for disregarding the eco- nomic conclusions. The questions which he raises are of great importance ; but it is a cause of confusion to term them " economic." They are really the stock political arguments of the Protectionist armoury, " Keep the money in the country," " Diversify employment," " Encourage infant industries," and " Preserve the home market for the home labourer." Any or all of these phrases may contain reasons for modifying the eco- nomic conclusions about the tariff; but we are not considering them at present in that aspect, but only inquiring into their effect in impugning, by economic methods, the validity of an economic argument. The conclusion is inevitable that they have failed to do this. The " economic " argument stands firm against all " economic assaults." Note to Chatter VI. "nationalism and rROTECTION." No reference has been made in the course of this chapter to the particular Protectionist conclusions expressed by the various writers of the Nationalist school ; but those of List are particularly noticeable, in view of the importance attached to his pretentious work. He is a strong opponent to any protection of agriculture (p. 214), and advocates the free admission of all the raw materials of manufactur- ing,' industry (pp. 217, 316, and 324). He was also of opinion that " where any technical industry cannot be established by means of an orijrjnal protection of forty to sixty per cent., and continue to maintain itself under a continued protection of twenty to thirty per cent., the funda- mental conditions of manufacturing power are lacking " (p. 313). The length of time for \\ hich Protection was required for European nations wa'^, he thought, "ten or fifteen years" from the date of writing (1841): (p. 1S4;. List, like most Protectionists, has the prospect of war ever before his eyes. The bugltear of a general blockade scares him from one extreme to another, and is the chief reason for his anxiety to make every nation self- 138 Industrial Freedom. supporting. His morbid and diseased mind he suffered from chronic ill-health, and died by his own hand is also haunted by the spectre of " perfidious Albion " ; he sees wickedness in every action of Great Britain, and seriously warns his countrymen that the Secret Service money is spent in bribing Continental countries to adopt Free Trade, just as the average American voter is instructed to beware of " British gold " and the "Cobden Club." Such are the writers to whose judgment we are asked to entrust the delicate duty of adjusting the rival interests of the individual and the vState ! Mr. Hoyt seems to have taken warning by the failure of List's prophecies,! and is more cautious of committing himself to any definite statement as to the amount of Protection that is needed, or the length of time for which it must be maintained. He also, however, objects to Protection upon raw materials ; and in a noticeable passage admits the injury which the American tariff has inflicted on the welfare of the Southern States (p. 373). CHAPTER VII. FREE TRADE AND LAISSEZ FAIRE. I. The lists are not even yet clear for the entry of the con- testing arguments. The obstacles have been removed, but the boundaries have still to be defined, lest the disputants might never meet each other in a field which stretches from the quicksands of Socialism to the arid waste of " LaissezfaireT Yet the real battle-ground on which the contest must take place is equally removed from each extreme. Unhappily, the champions on either side are so unwilling to observe the proper limits of their controversy, that it is necessary, if we would avoid confusion, to define, with as much exactitude as the subject will permit, the true relations of either fiscal policy to its cog- nate political system. It has already been observed, in the chapter which defined the meaning of the term that Free Trade is not a principle of 1 An instructive test of the soundness of List's principles is furnished by comparing his anticipations of the future with the actual course of events {see especially pp. 104, 158, 184, 191). Preparing the Arena, 139 Pt. II., Ch. vii., \ 2.] government, but an expedient of commerce. Commerce has many other aids to its enlargement and extension of which bank-notes and a system of credit are two familiar examples. Each of these works within a special sphere by its own method, and under its own rules. The sphere of Free Trade is the production of exchange values, and its method is the extension of the principle of division of employment into international transactions. Not much room here, it would seem, for any wide excursion into the philosophy of politics ! It happens, however, that while exercising within its own province its especial functions of cheapening products, steady- ing prices, and equalising markets, Free Trade has established an important rule of political conduct, which is capable of being applied to many other departments of civil activity. This is the well-known rule of Laissez faire. The principles by which the practice of Free Trade is justified, and the practice of the policy itself, have both shown that, in the case of inter- national exchanges, it is wiser for a Government to allow its traders to have a free choice in the selection of their articles of barter than to attempt to control their sales and purchases by the means of Customs duties. But that is a rule which is strictly limited by its terms to international exchanges. How has its extension been brought about ? The theory and practice of banking have established certain rules as to the right proportion which should be main- tained between the value of a note issue and a gold reserve ; yet no banker has thought of applying these rules without modification to the issue of Exchequer bonds. Why should not Free Traders and Protectionists be equally ready to confine their fiscal rules to fiscal matters ? The answer to this question is to be found in the historical circumstances under which this rule was first pronounced and carried into practice. 2. When Adam Smith wrote the first systematic explana- tion of the phenomena of an industrial and commercial society, 140 - Industrial Freedom. labour and capital were hampered at every turn by regulations and restrictions. It requires a vigorous effort of the imagi- nation to picture the conditions of industry prior to the great industrial revolution which marked the close of the last century. Wages, prices, processes of manufacture, migrations of labourers in search of work, meetings of workmen, the transport of goods, the wholesale trade, and all international commerce, were either forbidden or regulated by law or custom down to the minutest detail. Some industries were forbidden to be carried on except by certain persons or at certain places. Over-sea goods were only allowed to be carried in English ships, or in ships of the nation whose product they were ; while a high, and often prohibitive, tariff closed our ports still further. The trade guilds, although their influence was on the wane, still exercised a legal and customary right of hindering the processes of manufacture, by applying their old rules to the altered conditions of production by machinery and steam- power.i But if the position of employers was rendered irksome by their wide-reaching system of restraint and regula- tion, the position of the workman was hardly that of a free man. Whatever may have been his happiness in the possession of regular employment and sufficient food and there is a tendency now to over-estimate his condition of prosperity and contentment he had little or no hope of ever altering his mode of life. He worked, it is true, in a cottage instead of a factory, and breathed pure air, and he fed at his master's table, and served no other all his life ; but behind this idyllic picture is another of a gross animal, unable to leave his parish because he lacked the means of gaining a "settlement" in another by forty days' continuous residence, subject to the brutality of a master hardly more refined than himself, his wages fixed for him by Justices in Quarter Sessions, prohibited by the laws of apprenticeship from trying his hand at a new trade, without 1 See Brentano's " Essay on Trades Unionism." Preparing the Arena. 141 Pt. II., Ch. vii.,?3.] interest, without hope, sunk in ignorance, bestiality, and vice.i In the meantime, the conditions of industry were everywhere changing. Even before the period of great mechanical discoveries (1770 90) the old system of domestic industry was breaking down before the growth of foreign trade and the accumulation of capital. At the conclusion of the Seven Years' War (1763) industry required new outlets in all directions. The old order was passing away, but the old rules remained. It was the aim of Adam Smith's great work to show how the industrial organisa- tion should be made to correspond to the existing needs. ^ 3. It is a mistake to regard Adam Smith as a deductive economist, theorising from abstract postulates. On the con- trary, he was essentially an observer of the things about him, and his method of study is chiefly, although not exclusively, historical. He did so far yield to the influences of his time as to take the doctrine of "natural liberty" as tlie philosophical justification of his attacks upon the existing restrictions; but he nowhere developes this into the extreme theory " that every man in pursuance of his own advantage at the same time furthers the good of all !" This later growth was due almost entirely to the success of Adam Smith's proposals. The doctrine of "natural liberty" gained a reflected glory from the ' The pictures of the condition of the poor given in the'novels of Smollett and Fielding are very instructive, and should be read as a corrective of the often quoted passages from Defoe's "Tour through Great Britain." - Toynbee's "Industrial Revolution ' gives the best, although frag- mentary, account of the industrial changes during this period. Professor Thorold Rogers' "Six Centuries of Work and Wages," and his "Lectures on the Economic Interpretation of History,'' contain, perhaps, the greatest quantity of systematised information upon the sul)ject ; while Professor Ashley's " Introduction to English Economic History and Theory," and a nst'ful Compendium, pre|)and by Mr. Gibljins for the University Extension Se: i'-s, undir the title of ' ' 'ri.e liidr.'trinl History of Fnglan;!," are two notable additions by Oxford nir-n to a sti'.dy v.hich the University of Oxford is making peculiarly her own. Eden's " State of the Poor," Xicliol's " History of the Poor Law," Baines' " History of the Cotton Trade," and Scrivener's " History of the Iron Trade," arc indispensable as works of rcfcrcr.ce. 142 Industrial Freedom. immediate and striking results which followed its practice. As restriction after restriction fell before the force of law or custom, the belief gained ground that some new principle of policy had been discovered or revealed. The same work was proceeding in France as in England, only that the need for it was greater. From the time that the merchant Legendre returned his famous answer to Colbert's question, " How he might best protect French commerce ? " '' Laissezfaire, laissez passer''^ until the Revolution, the aim of every wise ruler was to lessen the restrictions upon the passage, manufacture, and exchange of goods. The odious ingenuity of these impediments, and the vigour with which they were supported in the name of religion and order, caused Turgot to adopt Legendre's saying as the cardinal maxim of sound administration. From France it passed to England, where it was received for a time as a new gospel by all those and at that time they were many who suffered in their fortunes or their ease in consequence of the corrupt and injudicious interferences of Government with the private affairs of citizens. It has not, however, been accepted as a scientific principle by any economist or writer of repute, except Mr. Herbert Spencer. This will probably be a hard saying to many Nationalists ; yet, in truth, the reputation of the older economists has suffered by the indiscretions of their thoughdess followers. They never did, in fact, teach, as a scientific triith, that "the road to national prosperity lies in the unchecked and competitive pursuit of material wealth," i in spite of the belief of many estimable persons to the contrary. Their conclusions were strictly limited by their premisses, and were only applicable to the facts of daily life, when the conditions, which were assumed to exist universally, were present. Their so called " natural laws " were mere statements of the regular ' "Studies in Ruskin," by E. T. Cook (p. 30). It is only fair to mention th.1t this is Mr. Cook's summary of Mr. Ruskin's opinion of economic teaching, not a statement of his own. Preparing the Arena, 143 Pt. II., Ch. vii., \ 3.] sequence in which certain results would follow from certain combinations of ascertained facts. Journalists and politicians, however, who were anxious to clinch an argument, and busy men who wished to avoid one, used the economic conclusions as statements of a natural law. Ignoring the limitations under which their masters wrote, and forgetful of the nature of their assumptions, these incautious dis- ciples treated a scientific deduction as if it were a formula for daily use ; and, not perceiving that the reforms which had been carried by the influence of Adam Smith were purely negative, and that the abolition of the antiquated legislation of restriction would become useless if the labourer was prevented by the changed conditions of his life from exercising his newly won freedom of movement, they applied the arguments of Adam Smith to every species of Protective legislation. Yet, in fact, the position had entirely altered. The watchword, which had been "Remove the shackles!" had become "Prevent the forging of new shackles I" It happened that Ricardo and many other economists although John Stuart Mill was not of the number honestly believed that many of the efforts to preserve the working- classes against the dangers of their new condition would be ineffective and mischievous ; and Ricardo gave evidence to this effect before a Committee of the House of Commons. The general public, not unnaturally, failed to discriminate between these political opinions and the conclusions to which the same men had arrived as scientific economists. It happened also that most of the Free Trade manufacturers, who were the backbone of the Anti-Corn-Law League, took the same view of the new legislation, under the impression that legal equality and freedom of contract were the only conditions that were needed to secure the working-classes in their just rights. Here, again, the greatest of the Free Traders, Richard Cobden, held aloof. But the public have been in no mood to discriminate, and Free Traders have 144 Industrial Freedom. been joined with the economists in a general condemna- tion. The same display of feeling is observable in the United States, and is to some extent justified by the writings of Free Traders. Not only have most American Free Traders been unswerving devotees of Laissez /aire as a political maxim moved thereto, no doubt, by the wonderful achievements of Individualism in the United States and the frequent corrupt- ness of Government action but they have assumed the universality of the maxim as the basis of their justification of Free Trade. Professor Sumner of whom all lovers of clear thought and precise expressions must speak with unfeigned respect has been the leader of this school,^ of which Professor Fawcett, whose work upon Free Trade has been largely circulated in the United States, is an English disciple. On the other hand. Professor Walker and the younger school of economists among whom may be named Professor Clark, Professor Ely, Professor Richmond Mayo Smith, and Professor Taussig have never supported Laissez /aire, either as a political or scientific doctrine. It is to be feared, however, that some time must elapse before the new school of writers can clear the reputation of Free Trade from the effects of its unfortunate association with an unpopular doctrine. We are now in a position to understand the combination of influences under which the notion has grown up to wliich reference was made in the second chapter of this work that Free Traders were fanatical adherents of Laissez /aire, and that " Administrative Nihilism " (to use Professor Huxley's expressive synonym) was the last word of economic teaching. ' la tlie present state of tl;e law as to inienia'ional copyright, American writings on political and economic subjec's are almost unknown in Great Britain or Australia. Yet no one has ever penned a more kicid statement in a shorter space, of the economic argument against Protection, from the stand- point of a believer in Laissez faire, than is contained in Professor Sumner's httle book entitled " Protectionism the ism which teaches that waste makes wealth." Prep AH im the Aren-a. 145 Pt. II., Ch. vii.,54.] No reader of Protectionist literature can entertain a doubt of the wide influence of this misapprehension, to which the rejection of the individual as the industrial unit, and the adoption of Nationalism, is almost entirely due.^ The dislike of Laissez /aire, which is the governing inspiration of Nationalists, is so intense that it prevents a fair appreciation of the meaning of the maxim. The same blindness of rage obscures the vision of the fighting Protectionist. Remembering that many prominent Free Traders are ardent believers in this maxim, he has come to regard it as an essential part of Free Trade, and as the logical outcome of Individualist political economy, and has consequently sought for a new basis for economics which will not lead to such an unworkable conclusion. Popular impressions die hard ; and it will probably be as difficult to persuade Protectionists and Socialists that Laissez /aire is not a necessary part of economic teaching as it is to persuade Individualists that Socialism does not mean either a re-distribution of private property or the abolition of capital. Nevertheless, the attempt must be made. 4. Whatever may be the merits of Laissez /aire and, according to Mr. Herbert Spencer, they are great the maxim is certainly not an expression of a scientific principle. It is at best only the correct application of a principle being a term of political art which does not belong to science. An attempt has been made earlier in these pages- to define the limits within which the maxim may be safely applied; and it was suggested that within the field of the production of wealth, where the economic postulate of an ever-active com- petition between equal units is practically in accord with facts, the best results were obtained under a policy of strict non- interference ; but it was pointed out that, within the field of the distribution of wealth, the conditions of competition were so altered that no such general rule could be safely adopted. ' 5(?6' List : Thookll. passim, Iloyt : Cliaps. II., IV., V. , and /,r^j/;//. Sec above, p. 11-13. K 146 Industrial Freedom. It is not to be expected that so fragmentary a discussion of a large question should carry conviction to the minds of those who are already believers in the universal applicability of Laissez faire; nor is it desired in this treatise to enter upon any long discussion of the subject. We are not now concerned with principles of government, but with the smaller question of a fiscal policy. There is no need to do more than show the independence of the Free Trade argument of this or any other political theory. The Free Traders who have pressed into their service the doctrine oi Laissez faire have certainly adopted a most con- venient course ; because, if it can once be proved that Governmental interference is always wrong, any argument against the particular kind of interference known as Protection becomes a work of supererogation. But although most Free Traders who give up Laissez faire such as Mill, Cobden, Jevons, and Toynbee in England, and Professors Walker, Clark, Mayo Smith, Ely, and Taussig in the United States undoubtedly yield a great advantage to their opponents, it would be idle to expect to convince Protectionists of the futility of Protection by any demonstration that the individual always knows his interests best in the sense in which they are identical with the interests of society. The mistrust of the doctrine of Administrative Nihilism is so widespread and deep-rooted that it may be doubted whether any Protectionist writer could be induced to read a refutation of Protection which rested on a proof of this kind. Accordingly, from motives of controversial expediency, if for no other reason, it will be well to meet Protectionists upon their own ground, and discuss the interference of a Government in matters of trade and tariffs as if there were no presumption either against or in favour of interference in that or any other case. A few words more in explanation of the reasons for taking this course are, however, due to a deserved respect for the eminent names of those who have conducted the dispute on other lines. Preparing the Arena. 147 Pt. II., Ch. vii., \ 5.1 5. The political maxim of Laissez faire is arrived at partly by a process of induction, and partly by deduction from economic principles. But since economic principles rest upon an assumption of an ever-active competition between equal units, no rule of practice can be founded upon economic reasoning where there is either no competition at all or a com- petition between unequal units. Now, it has already been ob- served that the peculiar province of economic reasoning is the production and accumulation of material wealth. Accord- ingly, if the merits of a fiscal policy depend to an appreciable extent upon its effect upon the production and accumulation of material wealth, they can be tested to that extent by economic rules. This is the justification of applying the " let alone " maxim to all commercial dealings between foreign countries. When, however, we enter the province of the distribution ot wealth, and have to deal not with goods and prices, but with human beings and wages, we are confronted by a totally different set of facts. Our postulate becomes at once of questionable accuracy. The competing units are not, in fact, upon a footing of equality. There is some approach to an equality between those who buy and sell commodities, because goods and capital can both be moved from place to place, and the postponement of a sale or purchase only leads to a loss of money. But between the labourer who is unaided by a union and unprotected by law, and his employer, equality rarely exists. He is seldom, if ever, in a position to make terms as to the price at which he shall sell his labour. Being seldom capable of more than one occu- pation, he must find work at that or starve. This disadvantage is to some extent removed by the institution of Trade Unionism, which is to the labourer what capital is to his employer, in that it enables him to delay the sale of his services until the market for them rises. But even trade unions do not bring about a sufficiently real equality between labourers and employers to justify the use of economic rules in regulating their mutual K 2 148 Industrial Freedom. relations. The value of human labour cannot under any circum- stances be determined, like that of a commodity, simply by the higgling of the market, because labour cannot be stored, moved, or sampled, like a bale of goods. Mr. Frederic Harrison! has very happily expressed this difference. "For those," he says, " who have commodities to sell there is a true market. Here competition acts rapidly, fully, simply, fairly. It is totally otherwise with a day-labourer, who has no com- modity to sell. He must be himself present at every market which means costlypersonal locomotion. He cannot correspond with his employer : he cannot send a sample of his strength : nor do employers knock at his cottage door. Moreover, when buyer and seller meet, the bargain is made; his price is paid, the goods change hands, they part ; the contract is complete the transaction ends. But the relation of employer and em- ployed is permanent, or at least continuous. It involves the entire existence of one at least ; it implies sustained co-opera- tion. This is no contract to sell something ; it is the contract to do something : it is a contract of partnership or joint activity : it is an association involving every side of life." These words contain the kernel of the labour question, which Free Traders who believe in Laissez faire are apt to over- look. And yet, if we would persuade the working-classes to support Free Trade, it cannot be too often repeated that such sentiments are not at variance with the practice of that policy.^ 1 Fortnightly Review, 1878. 2 Professor R. T. Ely, whose work on " The Labour Movement in America " was not known to the writer when he penned the text, expresses the same idea with admirable perspicuity (pp. 101-3). "The labourer,'' he says, "must offer labour in the labour market in which he resides, and cannot seek the best market, or even a better market, like others who sell commodities. He is often too uneducated to know the conditions of the labour market in other localities, and too ignorant to be able to pass judgment on such data as are at Lis command. When he does know, his poverty frequently prevents his re- moval ; for he cannot sell his commodity in a remote place unless he removes his own person thither, nor can he ship, as others do, a sample of his commodity. " If the demand fall^, labour cannot be withdrawn from the market, like other Preparing the Arena. 149 Pt. II., Ch. vii.,?s.] There is also another reason why economic conclusions can seldom be applied with any confidence to a d'scussion abouc wages, besides the unreality, in such cases, of the economic postulate : namely, the paramount importance of the political considerations by which they must be modified. These arise from the very nature of the subject. Human beings cannot be wares. On the contrary, as the demand decreases the supply nmst increase, by reason of competition of a- greater number of labourers. There are several causes for this. Members of the family who before did not work outside the home chiefly children and women will seek labour to eke out the father's in- come. A decreased demand usually occurs at time of a general depression, and the ranks of the working-men are enlarged by accessions from other social classes. Competition may thus increase in severity almost to an unliinited ex- tent between labourers to secure what little work there is. Thus it happens that when demand for labour diminishes, the fall in wages is apt to be more than in proportion to this diminution in demand. ' ' The cost of production is the limit below which the price of other commodi- ties cannot permanently fall, for the production is diminished as the price falls, and at times ceases almost altogether. But the individual labourer cannot diminish his supply of labour so long as he lives, and misery and death ' are the factors which must bring about a decrease in the supply of his commodity, and raise its price to the cost of production : in other words, to what it costs the labourer and his family to live and to maintain the customary standard of life among the members of bis class. " Closely connected with the foregoing is the fact that the price of labour does not at once rise when the demand increases, as is usually the case with other commodities, for the first effect is that the unemployed receive wovk ; and after the ' reserve army ' finds employment competition among purchasers of labour raises its price. " Finally, the on'y way to diminish the supply of the commodity labour in the market in the future is, by prudence in marriage, to diminish the birth-rate. But to accomplish this, will and intelligence are necessary, and some prob- ability that the labourer would reap the fruits of his self-denial. No such guarantee exists, because the folly of his fellows will render h's prudence of no avail. In addition to this, the labotiier in America can hope to influence the supply of labour offered in the market of the future only when he gains some control over immigration." ' "The way these operate is so simple th.it it 0'.if;ht to be better understooH. Fe.v now st.iive oulrljjht ; but a large numljci', especially of the youne;, starve gr.-'t'i-rJ'y. as has been abuncjantly shown by iece.it inveslijaiions ; but many more depths are occasioned in other ways. A carpenter is i I, aad previous hard times have exhausted his resources. He dies ; wliereas a more generous supply of de'icacies, better iiuising, and more skdful medical attendance, would Iiave saved his hfe. A seco.id mechanic is so poo. that he feels that he cannot afford an umbrella. In a severe rain storm to which he is cxpo'-ed the seeds of consumption are laid. A third is unable to afford new shoes, and wet feet at a 150 Industrial Freedom. argued about as if they were inanimate objects, but account must be taken of their variations in desires, capacities^ and action. It is impossible to argue about labouv as if it were a commodity, both because the labourer himself is a conscious beiii^, who may at any tin-e refi^se to ^ct r.'.cording to our con- clusions, and bee. use the State has an overwhelming interest in the character of his actions. The purchase; of wealth fulfils his purpose when he buys his goods ; and the final end of the goods themselves is to be used. But the purchaser of labour buys that with which he desires to enter into relations of a more or less permanent character. His object is to keep the labour for future use. The object of the labourer, on the con- trary, is to sell his labour upon such terms that he may be able to use it afterwards in furtherance of his own purposes. And by the side of both employer and labourer stands the State, whose interest is that neither party should be injuriously affected in his power to perform the duties of citizenship. But if the bargain is unrestricted, the employer might gain such a control over the other's labour that he would be able to defeat the object of the seller by dictating all or most of the uses to which it might afterwards be put. This is a necessary consequence of the relationship of employer and employed, so that it is the duty of the State to watch, lest the terms of the bargain should be such as to destroy or stunt the moral or political existence of its actual or unborn citizens. Professor R. T. Ely suggests a third distinction between labour and other commodities in " the uncertainty of existence, which, more than actual difference in possessions, distinguishes time of feebleness, and insutTicient nourishment, cause his death. The most distinguished statistician of our day. Dr. Engel, calls the causes of most deaths ' social.' The difficulty is not to prescribe a remedy, but to apply it. A physician cannot tell a man earning a dollar a day to take a trip to Egypt for weak lungs. No current fiction is more widely removed from the truth than the common assertion that working-men and their families enjoy exceptionally good health. The exact opposite is the truth ; and statistics have established the fact beyond controversy that labourers are shorter-lived by many years than those who belong to the wealthier social classes. Dr. Lyman Abbott quotes some interesting statistics on this subject in a recent article in the Century Magazine." Preparing the Arena. 151 Pt. II., Ch. vii., \ 5.] the well-to-do from the poor." The whole passage in which Mr. Ely criticises the "natural liberty views" of Adam Smith is worth quoting. {" The Labour Movement in America," pp. 97-100.) " The economic philosophers of the time believed that legal equality and freedom of contract were the sole conditions needed to enable the working-classes to secure a share of the product of national industry sufficient to serve as a basis for their physical, ethical, and spiritual development. This theory was based on two fallacies : the first was the assumption of the natural equality of men. The differences found among men, in their opinion, were not due to original native qualities, but were the result of education, legislation, and government The second fallacy was the assumption that labour was a com- modity just like other commodities, and the labourer a man with a commodity for sale just like other men who offer their wares to the public. It is true that labour is a commodity, for it is bought and sold, but there are peculiarities about it which distinguish it from other commodities, and that most radically. " While labour is a commodity, it is an expenditure of human force which involves the welfare of a personality. It is a com- modity which is inseparably bound up with the labourer; and in this it differs from other commodities. The one who offers other commodities for sale reserves his own person. The farmer who parts with a thousand bushels of wheat for money reserves control of his own actions ; they are not brought in question at all. Again, the man of property who sells other commodities has an option. He may part with his wares and maintain his life from other goods received in exchange, or he can have recourse to his labour-power. The labourer, however, has, as a rule, only the service residing in his own person with wliich to sustain himself and his family. Again, a machine a locomotive, for example and a working-man resemble each other in this : they both render services, and the fate of both depends upon the manner in which these services are extracted. 152 Industrial Freedom. But there is this radical difference : the machine which yields its service to man is itself a commodity, and is only a means to an end, while the labourer who parts with labour is no longer a commodity in civilised lands, but is an end in himself, for man is the beginning and termination of all economic life. The consequence for the great mass of labourers possessed of only average qualities are as follows, provided there is no interven- tion of legislation, and provided the working-classes are not or- ganised : While those who sell other commodities are able to influence the price by a suitable regulation of production, so as to bring about a satisfactory relation between supply and de- mand, the purchaser of labour has it in his own power to determine the price of this commodity and the other conditions of sale. There may be exceptions for a time in a new country, but these are temporary, and often more apparent than real. Even now in the United States the right of capital to rule is generally assumed as a matter of course, and when labour would determine price and conditions of service, it is called dictation. The reason is that man comes to this world without reference to supply and demand,^ and the poverty of the labourer compels him to offer the use of his labour-power unreservedly and continuously. The purchase of labour gives control over the labourer, and a far-reaching influence over his physical, intellectual, social, and ethical existence. The con- ditions of the labour contract determine the amount of this rulership. Again, while illness, inability to labour by reason of accident, or old age and death, do not destroy other com- modities, or their power to support life, when these misfortunes overtake the person of the labourer, he loses his power to sell his only property, the commodity labour, and he can no longer support himself and those dependent upon him." 1 " There are certain qualifications to what is here said which the limits of this book will not allow me to ^numerate. It would he far too large a work for present purposes were every to])ic to be treated exliausiively. I aUays take it for granted that my reader is possessed of common sense, and will not raise trivial objections ; also that he is to do some thinking himself. PflEPARlNG THE ArENA. 153 Pt. II., Ch. vii., 16.) For these reasons, and for others which will readily suggest themselves to a reader's mind, it follows that there is a radical distinction between the ideas which may be applied in the pro- duction of wealth and those which may be applied in its distri- bution. Working-men have always insisted by their actions, if not by words, that this distinction existed, although it must be confessed that many Free Traders have been slow to perceive that this contention was no less sound in theory than it is true in fact. The wages of labour and the price of goods are not in fact now, nor have they ever been, determined by the same forces ; nor is it possible to use the processes of economic reasoning in a discussion of this topic without adopting the most fanciful assumptions. 6. The ideas which are expressed in the foregoing obser- vations were only slowly recognised by politicians and eco- nomists ; but in this respect the politicians led the way. What is termed the great industrial revolution, consequent upon the invention of machinery and the use of steam as a motive power, came upon England with appalling suddenness. The centres of industry shifted when its methods changed, and great towns grew up upon the sides of what only ten years pre- viously had been silent valleys. Population naturally followed to the new workshops, and, once there, changed every habit of its ancient life. The system of domestic industry under which men worked in their own homes, employing a few apprentices or journeymen, whom they treated as members of the family, vanished utterly, and almost in a moment, before the institution of the factory. The consequence was that all the old relation- ships of industrial life were wrenched asunder, and for the first time in English history the labourer was left entirely unpro- tected in making terms with his employer. I'efore this date he had always been strengthened by some support, whether of legislation or custom. Even the laws which he was beginning to find oppressive, sucli as those against apprenticeship or those 154 Industrial Freedom, which fixed wages, operated not infrequently to his advantage ; while when laws failed custom intervened. " Custom," as Mill observed, ** has always been the great protector of the weak against the strong," In England it had turned the villeins into copyholders, and to this day it forms the basis of that benevolent despotism which the best of squires and parsons exercise in many English parishes. Among the artisans it had worked principally through the Trade Guilds, whose customary regulations, harassing as they were beginning to become, were originally designed to help the labourer to a better footing, and to prevent unscrupulous employers from taking an advantage of his weakness. All these safeguards disappeared at the inauguration of the new industrial era. A new set of employers grew up, having no high traditions of their class, and subject to the restraints of no public opinion in their dealings with workmen. The consequence was that for some sixty years from 1770 to 1830 the relations between em- ployers and employed were largely determined by an unre- stricted competition, with a result so frightful in its cruelty and horror that the experiment will never be repeated.^ Whatever 1 The story is well known, and w-ould in any case be out of place in the present treatise. It may be read in the works of Karl Marx, or in the pages of " Yeast," " Sybil," or "Alton Locke." One phase of it will illustrate the whole, and may be told in the words used by Mr. Gibbins in his " Industrial History of England " (pp. 178-9) : "When factories were first built there was a strong repugnance on the part of parents, who had been accustomed to the old family life under the domestic system, to send their children into these places. It was, in fact, considered a disgrace so to do : the epithet of ' factory girl ' was the most insulting that could be applied to a young woman, and girls who had once been in a factory could never find employment elsewhere. It was not until the wages of the workmen had been reduced to a starvation level that they consented to their children and wives being employed in the mills. But the manufacturers wanted labour by some means or other, and they got it. They got it from the workhouses. They sent for parish apprentices from all parts of England, and pretended to apj^rentice them to the new employments just introduced. The mill-owners systematically conmiunicated with the overseers of the poor, who arranged a day for the inspection of pauper children. Those chosen by the manufacturer were then conveyed by waggons or canal-boats to their destina- tion, and from that moment were doomed to slavery. Sometimes regular traffickers would take the place of the manufacturer, and transfer a number of Preparing the Arena, 155 Pt. II., Ch. vii., 5 6.] may be the evils of State interference, freedom of contract in the determination of wages inevitably leads to industrial anarchy. The working-classes instinctively felt that their only children to a factory district, and there keep them, generally in some dark cellar, till they could hand them over to a mill-owner in want of hands, who would come and examine their height, strength, and bodily capacities, exactly as did the slave-dealers in the American markets. After that the children were simply at the mercy of their owners, nominally as apprentices, but in reality as mere slaves, who got no wages, and whom it was not worth while even to feed and clothe properly, because they were so cheap, and their places could be so easily supplied. It was often arranged by the parish authorities, in order to get rid of imbeciles, that one idiot should be taken by the mill-owner with every twenty sane children. The fate of these unhappy idiots was even worse than that of the others. The secret of their final end has never been disclosed, but we can form some idea of their awful sufferings from the hardships of the other victims to capitalist greed and cruelty. Their treatment was most inhuman. The hours of their labour were only limited by exhaustion, after many modes of torture had been unavailingly applied to force continued work. Children were often worked sixteen hours a day, by day or by night. Even Sunday was used as a convenient time to clean the machinery." The author of the " History of the Factory Movement " writes : "In stench, in heated rooms, amid the constant whirling of a thousand wheels, little fingers and little feet were kept in ceaseless action, forced into unnatural activity by blows from the heavy hands and feet of the merciless over-looker, and the infliction of bodily pain by instruments of punishment invented by the sharpened ingenuity of in- satiable selfishness. They were fed upon the coarsest and cheapest food, often with the same as that served cut to the pigs of their master. They slept by turns and in relays in filthy beds which were never cool, for one set of children were sent to sleep in them as soon as the others had gone off to their daily or nightly toil. There was often no discrimination of sexes, and disease, misery, and vice grew as in a hotbed of contagion. Some of these miserable beings tried to run away. To prevent their doing so, those suspected of this tendency had irons riveted on their ankles with long links reaching up to the hips, and were compelled to work and sleep in these chains, young women and girls, as well as boys, suffering this brutal treatment. Many died, and were buried secretly at night in some desolate spot, lest people should notice the number of the graves ; and many committed suicide. 'I'he catalogue of cruelty and misery is too long to recite here ; it may be read in the ' Memoirs of Robert Blincoe," himself an apprentice, or in the pages of the Blue-books of the beginning of this century, in which even the methodical, dry, official language is startled into life by the misery it has to relate. It is, perhaps, not well for me to say more about the subject, for one dares not trust oneself to try and set down calmly all that might be told about this awful page in the history of industrial England. I need only remark that during this period of unheeded and ghastly suffering in the mills of our native land the British philanthropist was occupying himself with agitating for the relief of the very largely imaginary woes of negro slaves 156 Industrial Freedom. safeguard was Protective legislation. Being forbidden by law to combine in their own defence, or even to meet for the pur- pose of discussing grievances,! they were of necessity compelled to rely upon an outside power. Their demands were supported by the Tory party, in part from genuine sympathy, and in part from a feeling of hostility towards the class of manufacturers. The first ameliorative measure was passed in 1803, for the better regulation of the labour of children ; and then began that long series of enactments designed to place the workman in a posi- tion of equality with his employer, which has been more characteristic of the legislation of Great Britain than of any other country, and which, even in Great Britain, is not yet completed. The Factory Acts, the Mining Acts, the Friendly Societies and Trades Union Acts, the Education Acts, the Employers' Liability Act, the Pawnbrokers' Act, the Ground Game Act, the Agricultural Holdings Act, the Truck Acts, the Irish Land Act of 1881, and many others, are illustrations of this movement. All of these were, in the strict sense of the word, Socialistic measures. They all invoked the intervention of the State to remedy artificial inequalities, and place the competitors in the industrial strife more nearly on a footing of equality. All of these, as has been said, were opposed in the name of Free Trade, and as an interference with freedom of in other countries. He, of course, succeeded in raising the usual amount of sentiment, and perhaps more than the usual amount of money, on behalf of an inferior and barbaric race, who have repaid him by relapsing into a contented indolence and a scarcely concealed savagery which have gone far to ruin our possessions in the West Indies. The spectacle of England buying the freedom of black slaves by riches drawn from the labour of her white ones affords an interesting study for the cynical philosopher." And yet proposals to remedy this state of things by means of legislation were opposed in the name of Free Trade. No wonder that the policy has a hard struggle to obtain a favourable consideration at the hands of working men ! 1 This state of the law was first modified in 1824, but workmen were not finally put upon an equality with employers in this respect until 1876. The first volume of the new series of "State Trials, "now in course of publication, throws a most lurid light upon the oppressive character of this class of legislation. Preparing the Arena. i^i Pt. II., Ch. vii.,5 6.] contract ; yet in reality they were an attempt to establish a real state of freedom, in which the stronger party to the bargain could not take advantage of the other's weakness. England has, in consequence, had her reward in being the country of all others which is most free from the fanatical spirit of revolu- tionary anarchism.i But this remedial legislation is not ended I Any one who examines English social legislation will see that it is very far in advance of Australia in all respects except that of education. As illustrating the immense distance which England has advanced beyond the United States in her industrial legislation, it may be mentioned that of the sixteen demands contained in the platform of the Socialist Labour Party, which is one of the most radical organisations in the United States, no less than twelve (marked * in the subjoined list) have been wholly or in part granted by the English Par- liament. Some of these have been enjoyed by English workmen for many years. The platform is published in full by Professor Ely, in his " Labour Movement in America " (pp. 366-70), and is as follows : * I. The United States shall take possession of the railroads, canals, tele- graphs, telephones, and all other means of public transportation. * 2. The municipalities to take possession of the local railroads, of ferries, and of the supply of Hght to streets and public places. 3. Public lands to be declared inalienable. They shall be leased accord- ing to fixed principles. Revocation of all grants of lands by the United States to corporations or individuals the conditions of which have not been complied with, or which are otherwise illegal, * 4. The United States to have the exclusive right to issue money. * 5. Congressional legislation, providing for the scientific management of forests and waterways, and prohibiting the waste of the natural re- sources of the country. 6. The United States to have the right of expropriation of running patents ; new inventions to be free to all, but inventors to be re- munerated by national rewards. 7. Legal provision that the rent of dwellings shall not exceed a per- centage of the value of the building, as taxed by the municipality. 8. Inauguration of public works in times of economical depression. * 9. Progressive income tax and lax on inheritances ; but smaller incomes to be exempt. * 10. Compulsory school education of all children under fourteen years of age ; instruction in all educational institutions to be gratuitous, and to be made accessible to all by public assistance (furnishing meals, clothes, books, &c.). All instruction to be under the direction of the United States, and to be organised on a uniform plan. II. Repeal of all pauper, tramp, conspiracy, and temperance laws. Un- abridged right of combination. * 12 Oftlcial statistics concerning the condition of labour. Prohibition of 158 Industrial Freedom. yet. So long as there are any who are forced by external cir- cumstances, in whose ordering they have had no voice, to start in the struggle for existence handicapped by want of education : so long as there are others who are weakened in the power of self-improvement by any alterable condition of society : so long as the State or public opinion maintains any institution which directly or indirectly causes to others physical misery or mental darkness so long it will be the duty of Free Traders and Protectionists alike to agitate for a policy of action which may bring us nearer to the day when inaction can be justified. 7. It would be easy to amplify these observations on the policy of " Let alone " into a treatise of many pages,^ but enough has been said to illustrate the ne- cessity of using the maxim with extreme caution in in- dustrial matters. For the purposes of the Free Trade argument, it cannot be too often repeated, if we would persuade the wage-receiver to support Free Trade, that the most Socialistic sentiments in favour of an alteration in their industrial condition are not at variance with the teachings of P'ree Trade. The experience derived from the practice of Free Trade is no justification for the denunciation of State interference in other directions. The unrestricted competition the employment of children in tlie school age, and the employment of female labour in occupations detrimental to health or morality. Prohibition of the convict labour contract system. * 13. All wages to be paid in cash money. Equalisation by law of women's wages with those of men where equal service is performed. * 14. Laws for the protection of life and limbs of working people, and an efficient employers' liability law. * 15. Legal incorporation of trades unions. * 16. Reduction of the hours of labour in proportion to the progress of pro- duction ; establishment by Act of Congress of a legal work-day of not more than eight hours for all industrial workers, and correspond- ing provisions for all agricultural labourers. 1 Montagu's "Limits of Individual Liberty" and Sir James Stephen's " Liberty, Equahty, and Fraternity," may be referred to in this connection. Preparing the Arena. 159 Pt. II., Ch. vi!i.,? I.] of private persons may be an expedient of great value in furthering the production and exchange of goods, without thereby becoming a general maxim of public policy. Free Trade acts within its own province, and within that province, but no further, it justifies an unrestricted competition. It may be that Professor Sumner and Mr. Herbert Spencer are correct in applying the principle to other departments of human activity. On this question Free Trade offers no guidance in the formation of a right judgment. Certainly, many Free Traders, who to all appearance form a majority of the party, vehemently repudiate the doctrines of Administrative Nihilism ; while of those who are inclined to adopt it in a more or less modified form, none need be induced by any Free Trade leanings to deify the principle of competition and close their eyes to every instance of its ravages. Nothing in the theory or practice of Free Trade declares that competition ought to be the governing influence of social life. A Free Trader would rather be inclined to the opinion that competition is a force of nature, like a flood or a gale, which, in Bacon's phrase, " man must obey, so as to command." But the path of commercial freedom lies altogether apart from these large questions. CHAPTER Vni. PROTECTION AND SOCIALISM. I. In the discussion of all political arguments, one of two theories of State action must be either expressed or assumed. Beh'evers in Laisscz faire will adopt the view that the State is a mere organisation for police purposes, with no constructive powers or moral duties. Others, on the contrary among whom all Protectionists ought to be numbered regard the i6o Industrial Freedom. State as an organised expression of the popular will, which is capable of directing individual citizens to the achievement of many high aims. They believe that the power of combination can reach to many things which are not attainable by individual effort, and that the State is the greatest of all combinations for the realisation of a complete and harmonious development both of the individual and the nation. This view of State action, which admits of many varieties, is in its essence Socialism. As we proceed to examine the political arguments by which Protection is supported, we shall tind that all of them are really contained in the single contention that under Free Trade the rich may grow richer, but the poor nmst grow poorer ! To prevent this, the State must interfere by regu- lating the nature and restricting the quantity of foreign exchanges. What ought to be the attitude of Free Traders towards this line of argument ? We have seen in the last chapter that the argument for Free Trade is independent of either a belief or disbelief in the general wisdom of a policy of Laissez-faire. The same arguments can be used to prove its independence of a belief or disbelief in Socialism. But is it the part of a prudent controversialist to use them ? 2. If we want to strike at the opinions which really sway the judgment of Protectionists, we must attack them with considerations of unquestionable strength. Now, seeing that no Protectionist can admit that the "police theory" of State action has any validity, it will be necessary to conduct the argument against him from another standpoint. Accordingly, we must meet him once more upon his own ground, and, admit- ting the correctness of his Socialistic theory, demonstrate by his own tests that tariff taxes, although they are Socialistic in their method, do not accomplish the results which Socialists desire. Many Free Traders of whom the writer is one would Preparing the Arena. i6i Pt. II., Ch. viii., \ 2.] readily and from conviction take this stand ; and, adopting the view that the State must energetically use its power to widen the sphere within which each man's will may work with complete freedom, would be prepared to prove that the influ- ence of Protection is no less pernicious in its moral than in its material effects upon the development of a free people. Pro- fessor Sumner, on the contrary, and a large class of Free Trade writers, denounce Socialism in any form, and make the Social- ism of Protection to be the head and front of its offending. It is a curious instance of the hap-hazard inconsistencies of most political opinions that many Protectionists indignantly repudiate any connection between their views and those of the Socialists. In fact, Socialism generally finds its strongest enemies among Protected manufacturers. The men who most detest and fear the spread of Socialist opinions are those who owe their fortunes to Socialistic voters. Yet sincere Protectionists who are also sincere opponents of Socialism must either close their ears to all reasoning about principles or have very uneasy consciences. Professor Sumner has pointed out the connection between these two policies with his usual terse lucidity : "When I say that Protectionism is Socialism, I mean to classify it, and bring it not only under the proper heading, but into relation with its true affinities. Socialism is any device or doctritie i:ion about this once famous argument without incurring odium. 250 Industrial Freedom. 4. Were it not for the numerous instances which history offers of the truth of Dean Mihnan's theory of the immortahty of humbug, it might have been thought impossible, after the experience of the United States, that this tattered and fact- riddled theory about infant industries should ever be dressed up again for use in other countries. But it appeared in Victoria in 1865 in all its old effrontery; and is still the favourite catchword of Protectionist audiences in New South Wales. Yet the history of Victoria has been in no whit different from that of the United States as regards the falsifi- cation of all prophecies that a time would come when a Protected industry could stand alone. Although the framers of the first Victorian tariff were wise enough to fix no date for its repeal, they won for it no small measure of support by the assurance that it would not be needed for any length of time. Then, as in America in 1789 men believed or affected to believe that Protection might be adopted as a temporary expedient, in order to give a start to a few suitable industries. Then, as now, in New South Wales, most Protectionists professed themselves to be " mo- derate," or " discriminating." They would neither have high duties nor maintain any duties permanently. The result of these expectations ought to be a significant warning to simple-minded people in other countries who allow themselves to be persuaded into similar beliefs. The " tem- porary " duties are in force to-day. The " moderate " duties have been three times revised, and have been raised on each revision. Protection has now been the law of Victoria for twenty-three years, and during all that time the reductions of duties have been almost imperceptible, while the increases of duties have been steady and enormous. It is not too much to say, if we accept the sincerity of the public professions of the " moderate " men, that the tariff of 1865 would never have become law if the same rate of duties had been asked for then which was readily conceded in 1S89. Take the hat-making The Political Argument. 251 Pt. IV., Ch. ii., 5 4.] trade for an illustration. How many electors in 1865 would have voted for a duty of 5s. apiece on hats ? And how many candidates would have ventured to support it? Yet in 1889 the hat-makers obtained a duty of 60s. a dozen on hats, and are grumbling still because they did not obtain one of 72s. What the tax may be on hats in 1900 it is dangerous to con- jecture. Similar instances of the unappeasable appetite of the principal Victorian " infants " may be collected from every side. The greatest cormorant is the woollen trade, which, in spite of its contiguity to the source of its raw material, is in chronic difficulties. In 1868 the duty on clothing imported into Victoria was 10 per cent. After three years the duty was raised to 12J per cent In 1872 it was raised again to 20 per cent., at which figure it remained for eight years. But 20 per cent, was not enough for this struggling industry, nor twelve years sufficient to draw it from a state of pupilage. In 1880 the duty was again raised to 25 percent. In 1886 it was raised again to 30 percent. ; and in 1889, after twenty years of a Pro- tective tariff, the manufacturers of clothing, asking for a duty of 40 per cent., got one of 35 per cent. The duty on furniture, again, has increased from 10 per cent, in 1866 to 25 per cent, in 1888 ; and the duty on woollens has increased from 7.^ per cent, in 187 1 to 35 pef cent, in 1889. The subjoined table shows the changes in the Victorian tariff from 1S66 to 1889 ui)on a few of the commoner necessi- ties of life : Article. 1806. 1 863. P.O. 10 10 10 1872. 1S80. p. C. p. c. 20 25 20 25 20 25 1SS6. p. c. 25 25 1S88. .S89. Apparel and Slops ]''urnitiire Hats and Caps and ISonnets . 4s. per cub. foot 10 per cent. 4s. per cul). foot p.c. 35 25 25 p.c. 25 35 var. Is there any reason to believe that we in New South Wales would have a different experience from that of America 252 Industrial Freedom. ' and Victoria ? Would not any Protective duties, however low they might be at first, inevitably increase in this country, as they have done in others? Those who really are " moderate " Protectionists should learn a lesson from experience, and vote for P>ee Trade. 5. The illustrations which have already been offered from the history of Protection in countries so different in their conditions as the United States and Victoria, indicate sufficiently the nature of the answer to the argument in favour of Protection "that it may be temporarily useful in assisting infant industries." The fatal objection to this argument is its inapplicability to political facts. It takes no account of the imperfection of human nature. It assumes that every Government is incorruptible, and every manufacturer disinterested. Whereas the truth is. that Governments are squeezable, and manufacturers are very active in their own interests. There is one great, plain, i)ractical fact in respect to Protection to "Infant industries " which is itself a sufficient answer to all the arguments which may be advanced in its favour. "Temporary" Protection, or "moderate" Protection, or " diminishing " Protection never hasexisted, and never can exist while human nature continues as it is. There cannot be one single instance referred to in the history of any State, nation, or people in which the Protected classes have volun- tarily abandoned the assistance of Protection when the purpose for which it was imposed has been achieved. This is owing partly to the unchangeable characteristics of human nature, partly to the economic consequences of all Protective legis- lation. No matter with what honesty of purpose Protection may be first established, its continuance will always be secured by the selfishness of vested interests. The men who deri\e advantage from the right to tax their fellow-cilizens, being few The Political Argument. 253 Pt. IV., Ch. ii.. \ 5.] and powerful, will combine to support their privilege ; while the majority of the people, being affected by the tariff in different ways, and often unable to perceive its operation, have no motive of equal strength to stir them into opposition. 1 The vested interests have also the further advantage, in any contest, of being able to appeal to public sympathy with a fc rce which is directly proportionate to their own weakness. When once Protection has been established, its continuance can be secured, not only by the illegitimate use of organised wealth and power, but by drawing harrowing pictures of the loss and hardship to innocent persons which would be inflicted by its abolition. This consideration is naturally strongest in a small community, \^here members of all classes are more or less acquainted with each other. Kind-hearted and impetuous persons, who would never have voted for the establishment of Protection, are easily moved to support its continuance by pictures of the miseries which would follow an " extermination " of the Protected trader the ruined capitalists with useless plants, the thousands of labourers " robbed of their livelihood." Unfortunately, these good people do not stop to inquire whether the return to Free Trade will really cause the industry to stop, or whether the statement is not merely the unproved assertion of an interested party. It has been asserted by the Hon. David A. Wells and the statement has never been disproved that from eighty to ninety per cent, of American manufacturers are able, from their ' The notorious corruptness of the Presidential election of 1888 illustrates the text. The investigations conducted by the New York H 'wA/ in January and I'cbruary, 1889, revealed a complete organisation on the part of the Pro- tected manufacturers for purposes of corruption. As one of the Republican organisers stated, "the fat was to be fried" from tlie manufacturers. The Democratic parly were, no doubt, also corrupt ; but not l)eingaljle to stimulate their supporters by ll;e same inducement, they could not collect the s.ime amount of money, and so lost the election. The purchase of New York State by tlie corrupt agreement of the Democratic leaders for the sale of the Irish \ote for the Prcoidency in consideration that a Republican vote sliould he caft for the Democrats in the State election, gave Presiient Harr'son the victory 254 Industrial Freedom. natural advantages, to under-sell foreign competitors without assistance from the tariff; and that only ten to twenty per cent, of them are in any degree subject to foreign competition.'^ Nevertheless, the question must arise in any country where Protection has been long established, whether a return to Free Trade would not destroy some of the existing industries ; and Free Traders must admit that such might be the case. Indus- tries which are unsuited to the country, either owing to the conditions of its civilisation such as handicrafts in a country of highly developed mechanical appliances or to the natural disadvantages of its climate such as tea-growing in the United States must suffer by a change from Protection to Free Trade if they cannot soon adapt themselves to the new conditions. A Free Trader has two replies to those who urge the continuance of Protection upon this account : First, he says, " Industries such as these are not worth preserving our country cannot afford to keep them. They belong to a lower grade of civilisation, in which our citizens ought not to be compelled to live." Secondly, he would say, " Even under Protection indus- tries such as these are never prosperous. From the conditions of their existence they can never export their articles of manu- facture, and are therefore confined to a small and non-expansive market. Of such industries distress and suffering is a chronic complaint, and the continuance of the Protective system will, in most cases, only make the misery of those who work in them greater and more extended. The blame for this belongs properly to the policy which made this ruin inevitable, and not to that which sought to limit its effect?. If a choice has to be made between the total abolition of Protective duties, after a reasonable notice, and their gradual reduction, the truer kindness, probably in every case, is to prefer the speedier 1 6'('(,' " Practical Economics " ([1. 142). Putnam, New York, 1888. The Political Argument. 255 Pt. IV,, Ch. ii., ? 7.] process. Trade suffers less from a sharp shock than from a protracted agony." 6. There is another reason for the want of finahty in all Protective legislation, which has already been referred to incidentally in the discussion of the economic argument : namely, the close and often unforeseen dependence of one trade upon another. It is obvious that Protective duties upon iron, steel, cotton, or any other raw material, necessitate compensating duties upon the finished products of any of these articles ; but it is not always easy to trace either the amount of compensation which is requisite or the products which require it. The processes of manufacture are so complicated, and the inter- dependence of several trades upon each other is so intricate and variable, that even experts find it difficult to say beforehand on what lines, or to what amounts, compensating duties ought to be imposed. The compensating duties placed on woollen goods in the United States offer an illustration of this difficulty. These are so numerous, and so delicately graduated, that no person who is not in the trade can possibly understand either their amount or their incidence, and even manufacturers themselves have been disputing about them since 1869. The whole matter is fully discussed by Professor Taussig in his " Tariff History of the United States," in a chapter which will well repay perusal. ^ 7. But not only is there a legitimate connection between duties upon raw materials and duties upon finished products, but there is an illegitimate connection between all Protecti\-e duties. It is not in human nature to stand by while another person's industry receives Protection without demanding the same privilege for oneself Such a demand is certain to receive considerable attention. In tlie first place, it appeals to the universal sense of fair play by asking that every class of 256 Industrial Freedom. industry should be treated alike ; and secondly, it gives new allies to those who are already Protected. Thus is initiated the system known as "log-rolling," by which one set of manufacturers will help another set to get what duties they want on condition of receiving similar assistance for themselves. Nor is this practice, although most destructive of political purity, altogether without justification. It is not the men who are to blame, but the system. For, as Professor Sumner has pointed out, " if one industry should be set out in free competition, while the rest were Protected, it would be found . , . . that machinery, raw materials, and labour supplies would be so dear that the exposed industry would have no fair chance in competition with foreigners. Hence one long- Protected industry, if it became independent by natural causes, could not be left free unless the whole system were abandoned. But then the cry goes up from those nurslings of recent begin- ning that they are not yet ready. If you defer the introduction of freedom for ten years longer on their account, a new company of infants is meantime brought into being, and the plea for further delay comes from them. Thus you go on for ever, and the theory is reduced to an absurdity.'' (" History of Protection," p. 44.) A Senator of the United States the Hon. Samuel S. Cox has described the practices which result from the interde- pendence of Protected trades as " mutual brigandage and re- ciprocity of robbery." After making all due allowances for the warmth of the expression, we may still derive some profit from the graphic illustrations by which the senator sup- ports it : "Kentucky," he says, "wants clieap copper stills for her whisky. She gets even with the Miclii,c;an roljber by demanding a tariff on hemp. . . . ?ilaine .steals on lumber to make up (or the Massachusetts roguery on fabrics. Massachusetts hauls for cheap coal ; Pennsylvania says no ; and so Massachusetts goes out with a 'Home Market Club' [referring to a political association of that The Political Argument. 257 Pt. IV., Ch. ii., 5 8.] name], and knocks down the West and South to rifle them of half tlieir gains on raw cotton. Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina, being fleeced all round in clothing, sugar, and what not, go for goobers at a cent a pound. California demands a large reprisal for her lumber, because she is fleeced on salt by IS'cw York. . . , Pennsylvania, the Robert Macaire of the lot, steals boldly on all articles, from a plate-glass to a locomotive ; and to make up for the general loss, the North-West masks herself behind her forests and demands timber reprisals ; and so on. Nothuig is sacred. . . . Oh, the beauty of reciprocal rascality ! " The same conflict of interests, pacified, if possible, by the same methods, is seen wherever Protection exists. The result is an impossible effort to satisfy a thousand Pauls by robbing a thousand Peters. In attempting this, Protection is per- petuated. 8. The conclusion is inevitable. Whether the infant-in- dustry argument be tested by experience or by a pi'iori reasoning, its emptiness and the unreality of its assumptions are equally apparent. It is difficult, indeed, to understand how any man who is acquainted with the history of tariff legislation, or accustomed to reflect upon the springs of political action, can with any honesty of conviction continue to maintain or lend attention to the vain assertion that " Protection can be tried for a short time, and laid aside after trial if it either performs its object or proves unsatisfactory." If Protection be once established, it will spread itself with a silent and irresistible growth, which nothing short of a con- vulsion of the State will be able to uproot. Each Protective duty is the seed-nut of a hundred others, some of which propa- gate themselves, while others are planted by industrious sowers. Nor is resistance to this pernicious growth of much avail. Self- interest, especially when it masquerades as patriotism and phihmthropy, is ahnost irresistible in a conflict with disorganised justice. The nation, therefore, which adopts Protection stands on an inclined plane. Once let it be started on the downward patli, it will slide inevitably to the bottom ; but where that R 258 Industrial Freedom. bottom is no one yet knows, because no one has yet fathomed the depths of human creduUty and greed. It is true that the foregoing considerations can have no weiglit with those who regard Protection as a scientific doctrine. To such persons the permanency of Protection is a thing to be desired for its own sake. But it is the characteristic of a poHtical argument, such as that at present under review, that it appeals differently to different people. Thus, the "infant-industry" argument is not directed to the true believers, but only to the doubters. That it has effect on these is plain to any one who has lived in the atmosphere of tariff controversies. Two-thirds of the Pro- tectionist members of the present New South Wales Assembly have described themselves in their addresses as " moderate Protectionists," or have supported their views by making use of the " infant " argument. To such men and to their hearers the considerations which have been urged above ought to appeal with force. The argument has also a certain weight with scientific writers on the tariff question a fact which probably accounts for its political vitality. John Stuart Mill has notably given it an undue prominence in his consideration of the case of Protection in a young community. But it will be found upon examination that the cases which Mill imagines, although they are theoretically conceivable, are not such as have ever occurred in New South Wales ; and that in any country his argument assumes the existence of that which has never yet been discovered : viz., a Government honest enough and powerful enough to resist all claims to illegitimate Protection, and to remove Protective duties directly they have done their work.i ' Sec .Appendix II. for a full examination of J. S. Mill's view of the possible economic justification of Protection in a young country. The Political Argument. 259 Pt. IV., Ch. iii., \ I.] CHAPTER III. THE " DIVERSIFICATION OF INDUSTRY " ARGUMENT. I. It is probable that Protection gains the majority of its supporters by appealing, in a more or less direct manner, to the sentiment of national sufficiency. There is a general desire ^which is especially strong in a young community whose place among nations has not yet been recognised to become independent of other countries by supplying all its wants through the labour of its own citizens. The industrial characteristics of a new country are very visibly determined by its natural features. The attraction to settlers is, in almost every instance, the possession in an exceptional degree of some great natural advantage. The consequence is that in the early days of the community the population is fully employed in the production of raw material ; and the high profit which this occupation returns enables it to satisfy its wants very easily by trading with foreign countries. After a time, however, the extractive industries, as they are called, become less profitable. The virgin soil gives out, the surface ores are exhausted, the nearer forests are thinned, and the special natural advantages which were possessed by the young country grow gradually less. In the meantime, the influx of population which is generally mucli behind the demand for labour keeps up at the old rate, or probably in- creases. Two currents of opinion are thus set in motion, the one coming from the more far-seeing of the former inhabitants, who observe the increasing difficulty in carrying on the old pursuits ; the other from newly arrived immigrants, whose expectations of an El Dorado are not realised. Each class wants to find new avenues of employment. The older settlers need openings for their children. The new-comers want work at the trades to which they have been accustomed. R 2 26o Industrial Freewm. Under such circumstances, it only needs the occurrence of a commercial crisis, or a disorganisation of industry from one of the causes to which young communities are especially exposed namely, drought, over-speculation, or excessive borrowing and the Protectionist manufacturer has ready to his hand the very best of opportunities. He can point out to the discontented the indisputable fact that a change is coming, and that industry cannot continue in the old paths. He will say that " it is the duty of the State to preserve the industrial organisation, and to see that the capital which has already been spent in the country be not wasted, or the labourers forced to go away to other lands." He will, there- fore, urge the necessity of opening up new channels for employment and preventing the nation sinking into a state of stagnation. He will maintain that, although it may be cheaper to buy manufactures from abroad in exchange for raw produce, yet the gain thus secured would be dearly bought by the limits which this practice would impose upon the growth of population, and by the injurious influence upon national character which arises from a lack of variety in the occupations of a people. He would say that the " extractive industries" do not call forth the highest mental qualities ; and that in any case they can only be followed by men who are suited to outdoor work. Accordingly, to confine the labour of the country to these pursuits would deprive many men who might excel in handicrafts of the opportunity to iind employment, and thus to cause a waste of industrial power. Nor would he omit to mention that the establishment of manufactories means the growth of towns, and that the social development and progress of a country cannot be so rapid if the greater part of the population be employed in field work and live in scattered settlements. " Therefore," he would say, " seek a stimulus for new industries in a Protective tariff, in the hope that the home demand for manufactured goods may force home labour and capital into a variety of new channels, until every natural The Political Argument. 261 Pt. IV., Ch. ili., \ 2.] resource is developed to its full extent and no native talent is without a scope. The piteous cry of the farmer and miner, * What shall we do with our boys ? ' will no longer be heard in the land ; ^ but every lad, when he comes of age, will find a calling suited to his powers, and every immigrant, on landing at the wharf, can take a place in his own trade. By this means, though the individual may suffer temporary loss, the latent capacities of the nation as a whole will be developed, and its attractiveness to immigrants will be increased." This is undoubtedly a clever picture, which lacks no feature of attraction for the public eye. Nor is the picture an in- correct representation of what might be. It is part of the truth, but not the whole. 2. It is evident that the reasoning which supports Pro- tection because it gives a variety of industries, rests upon three important but unexpressed, assumptions : viz. i. That there is, in fact, no sufficient diversity of industry in any young community which adheres to Free Trade. 2. That, without Protection, no sufficient diversity of industry can either be secured or maintained. 3. That, when a sufficient diversity of industry is secured and maintained by means of Protection, the country, as a whole, will be better off. The burden of proving these assumptions to be sound clearly rests on the Protectionist, because it is he, and not the Free Trader, who proposes to interfere with the natural course of trade. Consequently, until he discharges this burden the diversity of industry argument counts for nothing. A pleasant escape, indeed, from a long discussion ! It is to be feared, howtver, that logic has Aery little ' This ridiculous question is really p/Ut to Protectionist audience?, nnl sadly passed by, as admitting of no satisf.ictory answer while Free Trade con- tinurs. An irreverent believer in freedom once suggested, \slien llie (|iie>tion was being put in n)oie than usually lugubrious tones, " Marry llicin to our girls"; but the advice, though it has become historic, has never been well received by the prophets of evil. 262 Industrial Freedom. influence in a tariff controversy. Certain it is that the diversity argument loses none of its force by having its assumptions taken for granted instead of proved. What Protectionist orator or writer would stop, in his glowing catalogue of benefits to be derived from a variety of industries, for any dull inquiry whether this much-desired variety does not already exist to a sufficient degree; or whether, if some industries are still wanting, Free Trade is an absolute bar to their establishment ? Yet these are, essentially, inquiries into facts, which cannot be ignored by any man who wants to form a reasonable judgment upon the value of this famous argument. If, however, Free Traders ignore the diversity argument until its assumptions are proved, they will never convince voters. Let them, therefore, begin the attack. But first let them survey the position. 3. The aim desired is a variety of occupations. Are Free Traders to admit this aim to be desirable or not ? Professor Sumner answers sturdily in the negative. " It is not," he says, " an object to diversify industry, but to multiply and diversify our satisfactions, comforts, enjoyments. If we can do this by unifying our industry in greater measure than by diversifying it, then we should do, and we will do, the former." (" Protec- tionism," p. 116.) It would be difficult to find a more striking instance of the divergent scopes of an economic and a political argument. To Professor Sumner, "satisfactions, comforts, and enjoyments" arc words of "economic" import. They are products or sensations which are obtainable in exchange for wealth. To the politician, and especially to the Protectionist, they convey a different meaning. The " satisfactions " are satisfactions of sentiment as well as of wants and no serious politician will ignore the demands of national sentiment while the "comforts and enjoyments" are not only of material things, but of everything which occupies pleasantly the life of a citizen, or relieves him from alarm. \'ague, illusory, and The Political Argument. 263 Pt. IV., Ch. iii.,?4] unobtainable these " satisfactions, comforts, and enjoyments " may be in most instances, but they are sufificiently definite to be the subject of argument, when they are of the kind which are promised to the labouring classes through the establishment of a variety of industries. The ambition to rise, the love of change, the very difference of physical and mental qualities all conduce to make men who have to live by wages look forward with pleasure to the possibility of obtaining different kinds of work for themselves and their children ; while the politician may share with peasant and artisan the fear lest the temper of the nation may be lowered and its talents wasted by a dull, sluggish uniformity of occupation. Accordingly, if we are to answer their political argument with a political answer, we must, at the outset, frankly recognise that the aim of the Protectionists in this instance is good ; and that a variety of industrial occupation is, for many reasons, advantageous to a community. We may even, indeed, go further on the path of conciUation, and also admit that, in some stages of national development. Protection is very likely to create industries which either would not otherwise come into existence, or would be delayed in their birth for many years. We start, therefore, by admitting that Protection in this instance aims at effecting a good result, and partly succeeds in its aim. But we are still far from a final agreement. Protection may be one means to secure diversity of occupation, but Free Trade may be a better. >; 4. As in every political question, the point to be con- sidered in judging of the expediency of adopting Protection, in order to secure an early diversification of industry, is " ^^'hcther, on a balance, the advantages exceed the dis- advantages." In order to ascertain tiiis, tlie present condition of the country must first be examined. Thus, if the argument is 264 Industrial Freedom. being used to justify the abandonment of Free Trade, the question will be, " Whether, as a fact, the industrial occupations of the country have not already been so much diversified, under a policy of freedom, as to give a reasonable ground for the belief that no legislative interference is required to prevent stagnation ?" If, again, it is used in a Protected country to resist a return to freedom, the question at ihe outset is equally one of fact; namely, "Whether Free Trade, although it might alter the kinds of industries, would really lessen their number ? " These facts having been ascertained to form the basis of dis- cussion, the question then assumes a wider scope, and invokes a general consideration of the working of Protective policies. Every circumstance which attends the operation of Protection must be taken into account its effect upon existing industries, as well as upon those which it seeks to create ; its effect upon the relation between capital and labour generally in the community ; its effect upon the industrial temper of the people, their energy, honesty, and self-reliance ; its effect upon the purity of political life ; its social effect in creating "vested interests" and privileged classes- in a word, its bearing generally on all the intricate relations of the industrial, political, and social life of the community in which the experi- ment is to be justified. By thus considering, first, the actual industrial position of the country, and next, the actual or probable effect of Protection in all its bearings, some estimate can be formed of its wisdom or unwisdom as a means for encouraging a variety of industr}'. It is the fate of every political measure to produce un- expected consecjuences of evil. Protection, as a political measure, cannot hope for better fortune; so that we may fairly assume that the results of a Protectix'C measure in any country will not be wholly good. Therefore, when we are asked to support Protection because it causes a diversity of industry, The Political Argument. 265 Pt. IV , Ch. iii., \ 5.] we cannot fix our attention on the one good result of the poUcy and ignore all those that are bad. Admitting a diversity of industries to be a good thing, and admitting it to be attainable by Protection, still we must inquire, " Whether there is not any other means which would give the same, or almost the same, good, with less of the evil ? " Applying these considerations to the particular argument now under discussion, it follows that, although it may be true, under ordinary circumstances, that Protection will cause an earlier diversification of industry than would be established naturally, that is not conclusive in its favour, even if it be further admitted that an early diversification is desirable. The Protectionist will also have to show that industry will not diversify under Free Trade if not, perhaps, quite as rapidly, yet with sufficient speed, and with more advantage on the whole to the welfare of a young community. The discussion of the validity of the diversity argument will then take the following order : First Whether, in fact, any Free Trade country has suffered, or is likely to suffer^ from an insufficient variety of industrial occupation ? Secondly Whether, if a country is so suffering. Protection is the only remedy ? And thirdly If Protection be the only remedy, whether, in any case. Protection is not too high a price to pay for the advantage of diversity ? A discussion of these questions will' occupy the remainder of this chapter, i; 5. 'J'hc first duty of a tarift" disputant is to verify his focts. Vet, probably, in no other controversy professing to deal with facts is tliere such an outspoken contempt for accin-atc inquiry, or such a readiness to build large conclusions upon so slight a basis of verified evidence. No doubt each })arty to the 266 Industrial Freedom, controversy brings this charge against the other, but we may prove it against Protectionists in at least one instance. The " diversity of industry " argument is intended to be used as a general defence of a Protective system. The assumptions upon which it rests are partly of existing facts and partly of theories. The assumption, for instance, that a country either is suffering, or is in imminent danger of suffering, from a lack of variety in its industrial occupations, is purely an assumption of present fact \ while the assumption that Free Trade destroys or prevents diversity of occupation is a theory. No doubt, if the theory is true, it will be an inference from facts ; but it does not give rise to an inquiry into evidence of the same direct and simple character as the assumption which was first mentioned. Now, it is plain that the use of the diversity argument in a Free Trade country implies a belief, either proved or taken for granted, that the variety of industries existing at the time is insufficient to the wants of the community. It must also be admitted that, if it can be shown that there never has in fact been any country in which a sufficient variety of industries did not grow up naturally without Protection, such a proof should materially lessen the alarm of those who believe that a return from Protection to Free Trade will cause employment to be narrowed to a few extractive industries. Let us, then, keep the argument to one point, and setting aside for a moment the question whether it is conceivable that Free Trade could preyent the growth of industrial variety let us examine the actual condition of the United States of America, Victoria, and New South "Wales at the time when the argument was used in each of those three countries to justify the abandonment of industrial freedom. Is it, or is it not, the case that either of tliose countries ever suffered, or was likely to suffer, because the efforts of its population were limited to a few occupations? This is a simple matter of evidence. The Political Argument. 267 Pt. IV., Ch. iii., 5 6.] 6. Look, first, at the industrial condition of the United States in 1789. During the existence of the British dependency all American industries were exposed to the crippling influence of the colonial system, under which the whole trade of the colonies was at the mercy of the English Parliament. This terrible power was used by the English Protectionists entirely in the interests of English manufacturers. Thus, not only were Americans forbidden to trade with any country except England, but the moment an American manufacturing in- dustry showed signs of growth, it was suppressed by Act of Parliament. Protectionists often ask what country ever reached the manufacturing stage without Protection ? Seeing that the principles of Free Trade may be said to have been unknown until the close of last century, it would be just as reasonable to inquire for the name of any country which attained to manu- facturing eminence without a system of communication by means of post-horses and hand-signals. Free Trade, like telegraphs and railways, is a modern device, and is directed to the object of all modern human invention : viz., the over- coming of natural obstacles. Still, if this silly question is to be pressed, an answer is easily found the United States of America. In the early colonial days, in spite of hostile legislation, many manufacturing industries had so firmly established them- selves that their products were able to undersell the English manufacturer in his own market. The consequence in every instance was the same : viz., that the English manufacturer obtained an Act of Parliament prohibiting the export of the American article. A list of the Acts referred to can be found in Mr. Bancroft's " History of the United States," or in Mr. Lecky's " History of England." Yet, so irresistible is the tendency in a growing community to diversify its occupations, that, in spite of this crushing system of legislative interference, Hamilton, the father of 268 Industrial Freedom. American Protection, was able to enumerate, in his report on manufactures, no less than seventeen industries as being "firmly established" in the year 1792. The list of these speaks for itself. It is sufificient to note that the iron industry was one of those which had so become "established" without Protection. , 7. The recent history of the United States furnishes another instance of the spontaneous development of manu- factures in a growing community, in despite of the competition of older and powerful rivals. The Western States of America, in their early days, stood towards the Eastern in precisely that industrial relation Avhich, according to Protectionists, makes diversity of industry impossible without Protection. In the West the extractive industries were exceptionally profitable. In the East there were old-established and important manu- factures. In the West the average rate of wages was, and still is in some States, about twice as high as that prevailing in the East. The rate of interest in the East was, and is, from six to two per cent, lower than in the West. The Eastern manu- facturer thus has all the advantages which, according to Protectionists, are essential to the successful establishment of manufactures : viz., low wages, cheap capital, acquired skill, established business connections, traditions of manufacturing industry, a wealthy and settled population everything, in short, which makes the competition of an older rival irre- sistible. If the Protectionist theories are true, the Western States would still be communities of miners, pastoral isls, or farmers. They would never have enjoyed the blessings of a varied industrial life unless they had been able to Protect themselves by tariffs against the "inundation" of Eastern goods. That bracing and delicious life within factory walls, which (in Protectionist speeches) the fiirmer and the miner are always supposed to be desiderating, could never have been opened to the man of the ^^'est unless he had consented to reduce his wages or to take a lower return for his capital 1 The Political Argument, 269 Pt. IV., Ch. ili., 5 7.] Yet, what are the facts ? There has always been absolute Free Trade between all the States of the Union. Goods pass as freely from Penn- sylvania to California as they would pass from Pennsylvania to Toronto if the obstacles of legislation were removed. The Western manufacturer has always been "at the mercy of" his Eastern rival. In the meantime, the industry of the Western States has been steadily diversified. Towns have grown up, at first as reservoirs for agricultural produce or as mining centres; and as population has come together, manufactures have been established. At the present time a large number of manu- facturing industries are carried on in California, giving employ- ment to about twenty thousand persons. A similar development is taking place in all the Western States. Their manufactures of woollens, certain grades of leather and iron goods, are not only able to supply the local demand, but to hold their own in competition with the produce of Eastern factories in every part of the Union. This instance of industrial progress in the Western States of America has a particular significance to Australians. The only serious rival to Australian manufacturers is Great Britain the imports from other countries being insignificant compared with those from the motherland. Now, the diftcrencc between the industrial conditions of Australia and Great Britain is no greater than that between the conditions of California and New York. There is, no doubt, a greater difference between Australia and England in the rates paid to the lowest grade of unskilled labour than there is, in respect to the same class of labour, Ijjtween any two States of the Union; but the difference between wages in manufacturing industries in England and Australia is not so great as the difference between the same class of wages in Pennsylvania and California ; while in other respects, the comparison between Australia and England is strikingly similar to that between theEastern and^\'estern States. 270 Industrial Freedom. What reason, then, can be suggested why England and Australia should not trade together, which would not equally apply to trade across the American continent ? If in the face of Eastern competition the Western States develop a variety of industries, is not the alarm of Australian Protectionists lest manufactures can never be established here in the face of English competition, exaggerated and unfounded ? Can any reason be suggested why the industrial progress of Australia should be different from that of the Western States ? If it be said that California and Pennsylvania are parts of a *' political entity," to which the economic entity should be compelled to correspond, the reply is obvious. England and Australia are equally parts of a political entity ! And if it be urged that the political connection between England and Australia is not likely to continue, the value of the reply is not lessened. The basis of any sound " political entity " must be a living sentiment of national unity ; and, whatever may be the future of Australia, no one can pretend at present that she is not connected with England by ties of race, speech, and nationality, which are stronger than any political forms. The differences between the inhabitants of the Southern, Eastern, and Western States of America in race, manners, religion, even language itself, are far greater than the differences between Englishmen and Australians; yet a "Nationalist" economist allows Spanish Florida, French Louisiana, and Mexican Texas to trade with one another and with Puritan New England, but proi)hesies every sort of disaster if Australia continues to trade with England. 8. Let us now turn from America to Australasia, and examine the actual conditions of the latter country, in order to ascertain whether they give any colour to the assertion that a young country cannot diversify its industries without Protection. Australia furnishes a striking instance of two colonies, of The Political Argument. 271 Pt. IV., Ch. iii., \ 8.] similar industrial conditions, of no great inequality in natural advantages since the physical advantages of New South Wales are more than equalled by the advantages of early development which Victoria owes to her concentrated and well-watered territory living under similar forms of govern- ment, and resembling each other in all respects save that one has adopted Protection and the other has adhered to industrial freedom. No other countries, past or present, offer so ex- cellent an occasion for studying the effects of different fiscal policies. At present we are only dealing with the supposed effect of Protection in securing and maintaining a diversity of industries. It is a striking illustration of the impotence of legislation to control in any material degree the operation of economic forces, that after twenty-five years of Protection in Victoria and Free Trade in New South Wales, there is no great difference between the two colonies in the diversification of their industries. If any difference exists, it is in favour of New South Wales. There is a greater variety of industry in the Free Trade colony than in the Protected. This is, no doubt, owing to the operation of other causes than the absence of Protection, but it is a very strong piece of evidence against the theory that industrial variety cannot exist in a young community without Protection. Even in Victoria, Protectionists will find it hard to prove that the industrial diversification which now exists would not have been without the tariff In 1866, the last year of Free Trade, there were no less than 735 manufacturing establish- ments within the colony, giving employment to 12,127 persons out of a population of 651,899. Who can say, with the experience of the Western States of America before him, that the industries which have sprung up during the last twenty-three years are wholly owing to the tariff? And still more, who can count or estimate the in- dustries which the tariff has destroyed or stifled in their l^irtli ? A comparison of the industries in existence in 1866 with those 272 Industrial Freedom. of 1889 shows that, whatever Protection may have done in the way of creating new industries, it has materially discouraged some of the old industries notably the industries of ship- building and meat-preserving. But if there is little or nothing in the history of Victoria to justify the belief that without Protection there must be industrial uniformity, there is still less in the history of New South Wales. The " industrial uniformity " of Free Trade New South ^Vales in 1889 consisted of 109 distinct varieties of manu- facturing industries. The number of establishments was 3,106, and the number of hands employed was 45,564, while the value of the plant was ^5,743,025, and the horse-power of the machinery was 24,990. The list of manufactures in the official returns made by the manufacturers, whose interest it is to minimise their success, shows that, so far from New South Wales being in any immediate risk of becoming a purely pastoral community, the progress of manufactures has been such that most articles of common use can now be made in the country, from a pearl button to a steam-engine. Still, it may be said, great as is the manufacturing progress of New South Wales, it might have been even greater under a ss'stem of Protection. Conceivably it might. But that is not t'.ie question immediately at issue. Time enough later to consider whether greater progress in that direction would have been possible or healthy. The pressing question is, "Are Protectionists right when they urge New South Wales to abandon Free Trade in order to secure diversity of industry?" A\'here, we ask, is the evidence that variety is lacking ? Where i; the proof that your alarms are well founded? The i)ro- l)ortion of our manufacturing to our agricultural and pastoral l)opulation is well up to the average. The number of our industries is large and increasing. Where, then, are the signs that the cause of our inconveniences is an excessive concentra- tion upon pastoral pursuits? Can they point to any country of The Political Argument. 273 t. IV., Ch. iii.,59.] modern times which was prevented from diversifying its in- dustries for want of Protection? If they cannot, the first and principal assumption of the diversity argument, when it is used in a Free Trade country, is unsupportable by facts. There is not, in fact, any lack of variety in the industrial occupations of a Free Trade people who inhabit a young community whose resources are great and expanding. Let us now test the argument by theory, in order to dis- cover, if possible, to what extent it is probable that Protection can ever be a necessary condition of industrial variety. ^ 9. The first assumption of the diversity argument viz., that without Protection there can be no sufficient industrial variety in a young country has now been tested by reference to facts, and it has been shown that the assumption is, at least, not supported by evidence. All young countries with which we are acquainted have developed many natural resources without Protection, while there is no evidence that any of them has been prevented from doing so by the existence of Free Trade. It remains to test the assumption by reference to theory. Protectionists cannot complain of this test, for until they advance facts in support of their assertion it can only be tested by the probabilities which are derived from a consideration of general principles. It has already been pointed out that when a State is first settled the energies of its people are so largely directed to the extractive industries that there is no supply of spare labour available for manufactures on a large scale. It docs not, however, follow that there will be no other avenues of employment. Even a pastoral community and pastoralism is tlie simplest of the extractive industries requires houses, clothes, tools, and conveyances ; while, as Professor Fawcett, among others, has pointed out, " However purely agricultural the industry of a country may be, there must always bo a great deal of work to be done which will provide s 274 Industrial Freedom. many different kinds of employment besides the mere tilling of the land. Houses and other buildings have to be erected, roads have to be made, agricultural implements and machinery have to be repaired, and the cost of carriage will make many articles, especially those of a bulky kind, so expensive to import that, although labour maybe dearer in a new country, it will be found cheaper to make the articles at home. The various trades and handicrafts which are thus called into existence will create an increasing demand for skilled labour, and in this way that industrial uniformity about which the Protectionists express so much alarm will be avoided." (" Free Trade and Protection," p. 77.) But none of the young communities of modern times is devoted exclusively either to pastoral or agricultural pursuits. They follow all the extractive industries simultaneously. Now, nothing more conduces to the concentration of the population and the growth of towns than mining. Consequently, in any country where minerals abound the domestic industries, which are inevitably created by the growth of towns, are sure to gain a firm footing. It would therefore appear that under any conceivable circumstances the cry about a country suffering " from the stagnation of a single industry" is both exaggerated ar.d ridiculous. No community can exist without a great variety of industries which no foreign competition can destroy. The true question, when the diversity argument is stripped of its exaggerations, is, " Whether a State can pass from the agricul- tural to the manufacturing stage without the assistance of a Protective tariff." |< lo. Now, the successful jjrosecuticn of manufactures on a large scale dci)ends u[)on tlie concurrence of two conditions, namely : 1. A large and concentrated population. 2. A supply of available capital. The Political Argument, 275 Pt. IV., Ch. iii., ? 10.] It is sometimes asserted that Protection encourages immigration, and thus stimulates the increase of population. This assertion, although it is not demonstrably incorrect, is not supported by proof. Such evidence as can be obtained points rathcn the other way. Since the adoption of Protection by Victoria there has been a steady stream of emigration from that colony to Free Trade New South Wales, as was disclosed by the often-quoted report of Mr. Hayter on the census of 1 881.1 ^^he emigration of young men from the colony of Victoria is particularly noticeable, in view of the Protectionist assertion that Protection provides employment. It will be imitating a Protectionist method of argument to assert that New South Wales gained the whole of this l^opulation from her southern neighbour on account of the superior attractions of her Free Trade policy. But the fact of the decrease in Victoria during ten years of Protection certainly does not predispose the mind to a ready belief in the unsupported prophecy of Protectionists, that their policy will increase population. Nor does American experience justify Protectionists in this assertion. The figures of immigration into the United States have been analysed by Professor Sumner (" Protectionism,' p. 122), with the result that nine-tenths of the immigrants are shown to be labourers, domestic servants, farmers, and others who belong to trades which are not Protected, and whose arrival cannot therefore be attributed to the operation of a Protective duty. Suppose, however, for a moment that Protection does ericourage immigration. This is a curious rtsult to be brought about by those who invariably declare themselves the enemies of immigration. A tax to increase the supply of labour very soon becomes a tax to lower wages; so that there seems some inconsistency between the argument that Protection ' 5tv below, .Appendix III. 276 Industrial Freedom. raises wages and the argument that it increases the number of the wage-receivers. Moreover, it is worth considering whether any rapid increase of population even although it causes the establish- ment of manufactures as one result is altogether desirable to a young community. The absence of poverty, the easier conditions of life, the higher standard of comfort, which are characteristics of a young country, are owing in no small degree to the strong position which the labourer occupies in making his bargain with employers, in consequence of the limited number of his competitors. The man who desires to introduce the pressure of population into a young country must also be prepared to face the evils of an old. But if it is conceivable (although unproved) that Protection may assist the encouragement of manufactures by stimulating immigration, there is certainly no ground for any fear that Free Trade will operate as a hindrance to new settlers. That which attracts population to a young community is precisely that which is an obstacle to the establishment of manufactures : namely, the profitableness of the extractive industries. So long as the natural fertility of the soil enables much to be produced with little effort, so long will immigrants pour into a country of high wages and large profits. It was the discovery of gold, and not the Protective tariff, that caused the rush of ])opulation to A^ictoria ; and it is the vast expanse of fertile land that draws the annual stream of immigrants to the United Slates. The second requisite to manufacturing development is an abundance of capital. Now, the profits of capital in a young country are usually large, because the demand of the old world for raw produce is very great, and, owing to the assistance of nature, is easily supplied. But, as cajjital accumulates, and the natural advantages of the country become exhausted, new openings for investment will naturally be sought. \\\\\ these be sought in the country or outside ? Can the answer be in doubt? At any rate, no one whose professed faith is belief The Political Argument. 277 Pt. IV., Ch. iii., \ 10.] in the nation as the industrial unit ought to hesitate a moment in his reply ! Let it, then, be granted that a time will come when the spare capital of the country can no longer find a satisfectory investment in the extractive industries what is more likely to attract attention than a further development of natural resources, in order to supply the young community with articles that it has hitherto imported ? But tlie more vigorous the foreign trade, the larger is the home production ; and the larger the home production, the greater the opportunities for saving money. Accordingly, a large import trade is the surest sign that foreign industries will soon be naturalised ; and the fear of industrial uniformity is groundless so long as the capital of the community continues reproductive, and natural resources remain to be developed. '^I'he conclusion is thus reached that, just as there is no known instance of industrial variety being prevented by Free 'i'radc, so is there no a priori reason that such should be the case. Once grant that individuals seek their own gain, and are alive to their own interests, and that the conditions of a country are such as to encourage a rapid growth of population and a large accumulation of capital and the tendency to develop new industries continues with gathering strengtli until every natural resource has been exhausted. Manufactures will spring up in every State as need arise?', for then the demand for their products will be sufficient to ensure a profit. Protection, by creating an artificial demand, may hurry their growth by a few years ; but Free Trade is not an obstacle to manufactures, but rather an assurance that they will be jjlanled in a health)- soil, and grow to maturity. "The develoi)ment of society is as regular and as natural as that of a plant, and there is no more need of human interference than there is to make a bud l)urst into blossom at the proper time. It is a develoi)ment, moreover, which cannot be hastened without injury. A new country cannot have the higher social 278 Industrial Freedom. development until its population begins to grow dense. It is so in America yet. We have not the literature, or the science, or the fine arts of the old countries ; but we have not their poverty and misery. We must take our advantages and dis- advantages together." (Sumner's "History of Protection, "p. 26.) This is the answer to Protectionists in a young community who complain of its industrial uniformity. Free Trade is no obstacle to a natural diversity of occupation which is sufficient for the present needs of any growing country, and is free from the risks and disorders of that rickety diversity which is the untimely fruit of legislative labour. II. We have already considered the argument that Protection causes a diversity of industry by the tests of fact and theory, and endeavoured to show that young countries do not, in fact, suffer from industrial uniformity, and that, if they did, there is no reason why they should not find a remedy under a policy of unrestricted trade. It remains to point out that, even if all the force is given to the argument which Protectionists demand for it, there are certain natural limits to diversity which no legislation can ever pass. It must never be forgotten, when Protection is extolled because it causes a diversity of industry, that there is an impassable limit to diversification set by Nature herself. It has been well said that " there is a natural law in opera- tion which as surely determines the number required for each great class of employment as do the natural laws which locally determine the times and relative heights of the tide. No social advancement . . . can ever alter the relative numbers of the various branches of human service." ^ That 1 Extract from paper read by R. M. Johnston, Government Statistician of Tasmania, before the Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science, at Melbourne, 1890 (p. 9). Mr. Johnston gives (p. 11) a valuable table showing the proportional classification of tiie occupation of all persons engaged in the supply of home wants. The higlicst proportion employed in industrial occupations is in Engl ind : viz., 24 "5, as against 7"6 in the United States. The Political Argument. 279 Pt. IV., Ch. iii., \ II.] which determines the numbers required for each class in any country is the condition of its leading industries. In a country where dominating industries are pastoral or agricultural, the proportion of industrial employees must be com- paratively small ; while in a country like Great Britain, which is pre-eminently a manufacturing country, the number will be large. Until a country has exhausted the profitable occupation of its soil, whether in the cultivation of iron or search for minerals, no amount of Protection can draw labour and capital to other industries without inflicting a dangerous check to national development. Even in the United States, where Protection has run mad, the proportion of industrial bread-winners is, according to Mr. Johnston's figures, only 7-6 of the entire population ; while in England it is 24-5.1 While, if " industrial " occupations are still further sub-divided so as to place manufactures in a separate class, it is usually estimated that not more than one person in ten can, under any circumstances, find employment in that channel. Nor can this number be safely anticipated in a country which, like the United States or Australia, is still in the agricultural stage. But, whatever may be the precise proportion which manufactures ought to bear to agriculture or to mining, the point to remember is that it cannot be safely exceeded. A country like England, which exports its manu- factured goods to every corner of the world, can enlarge the proportion which its manufacturing employees bear to its own population, because they are engaged in supplying the wants of other countries. But a country which cannot export its manufactures can only safely permit the existence of a sufficient number of employees to supply its own wants. The practical rule to be deduced from these obvious renections is that manufactures should be allowed to find their own level. If an attempt is made to forcibly divert labour from agricultural to manufacturing pursuits, there is an almost 1 In I'"rce Trad'.- Xcw South Wales in 1880 it was 6'^. 28o Industrial Freedom. certain danger of over-production ; wliile if manufactures are allowed to grow up as they are required, they will be able, having originated under open competition, to extend their market as they increase their production. Nothing is moie striking in commercial history than the inability of American manufacturers to compete with England in a neutral market. While England every year sends from twenty to thirty million pounds' worth of manufactured goods into the United States, in despite of the heavy tariff, the whole export of American manufactures to all parts of the world seldom exceeds a value of ten millions. It is as certain as any forecast of the future can be, that so long as America adheres to Protection Great Britain need have no fear of her commercial rivalry ; but when America adopts Free Trade the tables will be turned, and England, in all probability, will be beaten out of many neutral markets. The impossibility, then, of increasing manufacturing industries beyond a certain point, unless the industries are such that they can face the competition of the world, is a considera- tion w'hich should make Protectionists pause before proposing to hurry the establishment of many industries. The results of interference with commerce are hardly ever calculable, and no one can foresee in any country all the consequences of Protection. We cannot accurately estimate either the demand for manufactured goods or the supply of available labour ; we cannot tell beforehand what would be the result of higher prices for manufactures upon the dominating pursuits of the country, and we hardly even know accurately the number or strength of our existing industries. Under such circumstances, the man takes upon himself a heavy responsibility who proposes to interfere by Act of Parliament with the distribution of employment. It may be true that the future is obscure, so that even the clearest-sighted despair at times ; but steady faith in man and nature is better than rash play with unknown forces. Things may be bad, and the remedy may not be The Political Argument. 281 Pf. IV., ch. Hi., \ 12.] visible ; but it would be the very blindness of unwisdom to attempt to solve the problem without knowing the factors or possessing any test of the result. 12. Nor must it be forgotten that, even if diversity be gained, there is another aspect to the question besides that which is presented by the manufacturers. It is possible to pay too high a price even for the advantage of industrial diversity. "Development of natural resources," "variety of occu- pation," and such large phrases, bear a different significance to the man who pays for the development and the variety and to the man who receives the money. The natural-resource theory is admirably comforting to the man who owns the resource ; but the man who does not own it sees the theory in another light. Professor Sumner has thrown the question into an amusing dialogue, which contains none the less of sound sense and good economics than if it were expressed in a more professorial style. "A man," says Professor Sumner, " discovered iron when there was no duty on imported iron. On the Protectionist doctrine, he wonl collect tools and go to work. He goes to Washington, he visits the statesman, and a dialogue takes place : " Ironman : Mr. Statesman, I have found an iron deposit on my farm. " Statesman : Have you, indeed ? Tliat is good news. Our country is riclicr by one new natural resource than we had supposed. " Ironman : Yes ; and I now want to begin mining iron. " Statesman : Very well ; go on. A\'e shall be glad to hear that you are [)rospering and growing rich. " Ironman : Ves, of course ; but I am now earning my living by tilling the surface of the ground, and I am afraid that I cannot make as much at mininc: as at farmin";. 282 Industrial Freedom. " Statesman : That is indeed another matter. Look into that carefully, and do not leave a better industry for a worse. " Ironman : But I want to mine that iron. It does not seem right to leave it in the ground when we are importing iron all the time ; but I cannot see a profit in it at the present prices for imported iron. I thought perhaps that you would put a tax on imported iron, so that I could sell mine at a profit. Then I could see my way to give up farming, and go in for mining. " Statesman : You do not think what you ask. That would be to throw on your neighbour the risk of working the mine which you are afraid to take yourself. " Ironman (aside) : I have not talked the right dialect to this man. I must begin all over again. (y\loud.) Mr. Statesman, the natural resources of this continent ought to be developed. American industry must be protected. The American miner must not be forced to compete with the pauper labour of Europe. " Statesman : Now I understand you. Now you talk business. Why did you not say so before ? How much tax do you want ? " The next time that a buyer of pig iron goes to market to get some, he finds that it costs thirty bushels of wheat per ton instead of twenty. ' What has happened to pig iron ? ' says he. 'Oh! haven't you heard?' is tlie reply. 'Anew mine has been found down in Pennsylvania. We have got a new ' natural resource." ' " ' I haven't got a new natural resource,' says he. ' It is as bad for me as if the grasshoppers had eaten up one-third of my crop.' " It would be a good day for the public if the discussion of politics could always be conducted in this simple language. At present, politicians are the only persons, except preachers and art critics, who are thought the more of for talking nonsense ! For the picture drawn by Professor Sumner is not in the least exaggerated. The third chapter of Mr. Taussig's The Political Argument. 283 Pt. IV., Ch. iii., \ 12.] most useful work contains numerous illustrations from American experience which are equally grotesque. The most instructive are the duties upon emery, nickel, and copper. Up to 1864, nickel had been admitted into the States duty-free ; but shortly before this date a nickel mine was dis- covered in Pennsylvania. The opportunity for developing a natural resource was too great, especially as the mine was owned by an influential politician. In 1864 a duty of 15 per cent, was imposed on nickel, and in 1870 the duty was raised to 30 cents per pound, or about 40 per cent, on the value. No other nickel mine has been discovered, and the fortunate pro- prietor, Mr. Joseph Wharton, is now a millionaire, and joins with Mr. Carnegie in his praises of democracy. It is, perhaps, needless to add that Mr. Wharton is a determined opponent of any reduction of the duty upon nickel. Mr. Wharton is also the founder of the " Wharton School of Finance and Economy " in Philadelphia, and, in the opinion apparently that restrictions, which are so desirable upon the sale of nickel, would be equally applicable to the study of economics, he has expressly enjoined that the professor shall teach Protection ; or, in the words of the deed of gift, " how, by suitable tariff legislation, a nation may keep its productive industry alive, cheapen the cost of com- modities, and oblige foreigners to sell to it at low prices, while contributing largely towards defraying the expense of its government." It is not mentioned in the deed of gift whetlicr tlie Wliartonian professor is allowed to teach the best means of " cheapening the cost of the commodity," nickel. The present holder of the Chair is the Mr. Patten whose work in defence of Protection has already been referred to. Copper has fared the same as nickel. Previously to 1869 copper ore was imported from Cliili, and was smelted and re- fined in Boston and Paltimore. But during the years imme- diately preceding 1869, the great copper mines of Pake Superior had begun to be worked on a considerable scale. 284 Industrial Freedom. These mines, under ordinary conditions, could have supplied the whole of the United States more cheaply and abundantly than any other country; yet, as Professor Taussig points out, " through the tariff policy these very mines have caused Americans for many years to pay more for their copper than is paid in any other country." The table compiled by Professor Taussig (p. 263), from "The Mineral Resources of the United States," of the prices of copper in London and New York from 1875 to 1886, is conclusive on this point. The process was simple. The duty having shut out foreign copper, a copper trust was formed, which has embraced the new mines one by one as they were opened, and the output of copper was limited o as to keep the price just below that at which copper would have been imported. Needless to add that all the "copper kings " are staunch Protectionists.^ Put it is unnecessary to multiply examples. American experience is open to all to see. Can Australians hope to escape these evils? No wonder that, with the results before his eyes of the discovery in America of nickel and copper, 1 The Hon. David A. Wells, on page 23 of his " Practical Economics," has collected some of the more striking examples of American efforts to secure industrial variety. '' .\bout 1826 to 1828." he says, "the discovery of the lead mines at Galena, 111., became generally known, and as the first reports were to the effect that the deposits were of such unparalleled richness, purity, magnitude, and easy accessibility, as to make it only a matter of time when the whole world, from sheer inability to compete, would become wholly dependent for its supplies of lead on this one locality, it was at once considered desirable Ijy many people to establish it, so far as fiscal legislation could do it, on a most extraordinary economic jirinciple, and one whicli from that day to this has proved popular in all tariff enactments in the United States : and this was to make tlie (li--co\ery or recognition of the existence of any great natural advan- tages citluT in the way of mines, soils, climatic advantages, forests, means of interconnnunication, or national characteristics the immediate occasion for cursing tlie cuuntiy by the creation or imposition of some new tax, thereby making dear what was before clieap ; endeavouring to work up to a state of abundance through conditions of scarcity artificially created and unnecessarily perpetuated. In this particular instance the principle was exemplified by raising tb.e duty on lead imported in pigs and bars from one cent a j50und to three cents." The Political Argument. 285 Pt. IV., Ch. iii., \ 13.] Professor Sumner firmly hopes that tin may not be found. " At the present time," he says, " we have all the tin that we want above ground, because beneficent Nature has refrained from putting any underground in our territory." In the metal schedule, tin is alone free. Should a tin-mine be discovered, the next thing will be a tax on tin of 40 per cent. "The mine-owners say they want to exploit the mine. They do not. They want to make the mine an excuse to exploit the tax- payers." (" Protectionism," p. 53.) Since these words were written, tin has been discovered in the States, and duties on tin- plate have been a prominent feature in the M'Kinley tariff, as many Western canners have already discovered, to their loss. 13. Finally, let the diversity argument have all the strength Protectionists attribute to it : it can never be used as a general defence of a restrictive policy. It rests, as we have seen, on the three assumptions that industry has not, in fact, diversified under Free Trade ; that it cannot do so ; and that Protection is the best means of causing a diversification. Now, it is plain that the first two of these assumptions may be true of one industry and not of another ; accordingly, when- ever the argument is used, it will be necessary to ask for more precision. " What are the new industries which it is desired to establish? and what is to be the rate of duty?" It is most noticeable that Protectionists are always silent upon these (questions when they are before constituencies. "The art of taxation,"' Colbert is reported to have said, "is the art of plucking the goose so as to get the largest possible amount of feathers with the least possible squealing." It would never do, tliereforc, to let the people know beforehand the nature of the coming taxes. Mucli better to let everybody think that the tax will fall on his neighbour's back. When gifted legisla- tors meet in cau( us, matters t^n be arranged so much more satisfactorily to the manufacturers certainly, and possibly to the legislators ! Thus the policy of the Protectionist party on the 1 ustings must always be a policy of silence and conceal 286 Industrial Freedom. ment. The strongest argument Free Traders can desire is that no Protectionist leader ever dares to say beforehand either what taxes he requires, or what is to be their amount, or for how long they are to be imposed. CHAPTER IV. THE HOME-MARKET ARGUMENT. I. The home-market argument is best known in the story of the Irishman who complained that a dollar in New York went no further than a shilling in Dublin. '' Then, why did you not stop in Dublin ?" was the question of a bystander. " Because there I couldn't get the shilling ! " was Pat's reply. This is the plat- form presentation of the argument. In treatises which pretend to be serious it has three distinct forms or varieties. Some- times it is used in defence of Protection as a means of render- ing a community less dependent upon foreigners in the event of war ; at others, as a means of extending or strengthening the market of the local agriculturist in time of peace ; while in its more recent developments the necessity of enlarging the home market is insisted upon as the only means of disposing of the surplus from extractive industries. The economic basis of the argument in all its varieties is that misapprehension of the comparative importance of the home and foreign trade of a community which confused even Adam Smith. The passage is well known. " Capital," he says, "employed in purchasing in one part of the country in order to sell in another part the produce of the industries of that country, generally replaces by such operation two distinct capitals that had both been employed in its agriculture or manufactures, and thus enables them to continue that employ- ment The capital employed in purchasing foreign The Political Argument. 287 Pt. IV., Ch. Iv., \ I.] goods for home consumption, when the purchase is made by the produce of domestic industry, replaces, too, Ijy every such operation, two distinct capitals ; but one of them only is em- ployed in supporting domestic industry. . . . The other sup- ports foreign industry, and, therefore, foreign trade will give but one-half the encouragement to the industry or productive labour of a country that domestic or internal trade does." The fallacy of this proposition is in the assumption that the capital which is left unused in consequence of the diversion of the capital, which set it in motion, from the home to the foreign trade will continue to be unused after the diversion has been effected. It is true that trade between England and Scotland will replace both an English and a Scotch capital ; and that if the trade be diverted from Scotland to Portugal, it will replace an English and a Portuguese capital. But the Scotch capital is not thereby destroyed, but remains available for new undertakings. Mr. Henry George ("Protection or Free Trade," p. 117) exposes the fallacy with an admirable lucidity. " If,'' he says, " we substitute for the terms used by Adam Smith other terms of the same relation, we may obtain, with equal validity, such propositions as this : If Episcopalians trade with Presbyterians, two profits arc made by Protestants ; whereas, when Presby- terians trade with Catholics, only one profit goes to Protestants. Therefore, trade between Protestants is twice as profitable as trade between Protestants and Catholics. " In Adam Smith's illustration there are two quantities of I'.ritish goods -one in Edinburgh and one in London. In the domestic trade which he supposes, these two <|uantities of British goods are exchanged ; but if the Scotch goods be sent to Portugal instead of to I'^ngland, and Portuguese goods brought back, only one ([uantity of British goods is exchanged. There will be only one-half the replacement in Great Britain, but there has been only one-half the dis[)lacement. The Edin- burgh goods which have been sent away have been replaced 2 88 Industrial Freedom. with Portuguese goods ; but the London goods have not been replaced with anything, because they are still there. In the one case twice the amount of British capital is employed as in the other, and consequently, double returns show equal profitableness." It is astonishing that such a patent fallacy should have misled any one ; but Mr. Hoyt, in his eighth chapter, accepts the argument with guileless confidence as a basis of his own view of the theory that the " home market ought to be pre- served for home producers : " a maxim which, as Mr. George observes, is in the same category with " Keep our own appetites for our own cookery^'' or " Keep our oivn transportation for our oivn legs I '"' 2. Passing now from the supposed economic basis of the home-market argument to its various political props, we shall find that the earliest of these is the dread of an inter- ception of foreign commerce in time of war. This alarm underlies the older mercantile theory of commerce, and pervades the writings of List, Carey, and the earlier Pro- tectionists. It is, indeed, as Professor P'awcett has observed (" Free Trade and Protection," p. 82), "the only logical basis on which a Protective system can be supported ; for if it could be assumed that the normal condition of a country was to be perpetually at war with its neighbours, it would become of the first importance to make it, as far as possible, industrially independent of them. Lnder such circumstances it might be expedient, at whatever cost, to impose Protective duties with the view of establishing and maintaining various branches of home industiy." But can any such assumption be made? Can any conjuncture of circumstances be imagined under which a country with the extensive seaboard of Australia or America, and with their means of commanding supplies from all quarters of the globe, should be unable to import ? As The Political Argument. 289 Pt. IV., Ch. iv., \ 2.] Professor Fawcett points out, even when the faciUties of trans- portation were far inferior to what they are at present namely, during the wars of the first Napoleon " there was never a moment even in his unparalleled career of military aggression when all the coasts and all the frontiers of France were so completely blockaded that no foreign product could find its way to her markets." Assuming, however, that the danger lest any "country, in these days of steam and electricity, could be so completely surrounded both by sea and land with foreign foes that it was unable to import any foreign supplies is not wholly imaginary, the question still remains whether the premium for insurance against it is not excessive. The argument then descends into the region of finance, and turns upon the cheapest means of guaranteeing to a particular country the continuous supply cf a certain quantity of goods. Now, it is apparent that since this argument rests on the assumption that the goods in question cannot be produced against foreign competition, the profitable selling price of the home-made article must be higher than that of the imported. In other word:, Protection, in this case at any rate, will raise prices. It becomes, therefore, a simple matter of calculation whether the cost to the community of this increase in prices is not out of proportion to the risk which the expenditure is thought to insure. The salt tax in France, which Professor Fawcett mentions as an illustration of the argument, because it is supported on the ground that without Protection the French might be deprived of this necessity in time of war, has raised the price of salt by a halfpenny a pound. This means a burden of ^7; 20, 000 a year upon the iM-cnch consumer. Seeing that a war such as the alarmist contemplates is not likely to happen more than once in one hundred years, it would be manifestly cheaper to remit the tax and sp:-nd T 290 Industrial Freedom. ;i^ioo,ooo a year in the purchase of salt, and distribute this from the Government stores when the necessity arose. It is difficult to deal with such considerations seriously. 3. The second form in which the home-market argu- ment appeared has almost lost its force with the cheapening of transport and the improvement in the means of locomotion. It has, however, played a prominent part in the controversies, and still retains a lingering vitality, so that some examination of it is required. It is thus stated by List, as usual, in many words (p. 262, Eng. Trans.): "The foreign commerce," he says, "of agricultural nations of the temperate zone, so long as it is limited to provisions and raw materials, cannot attain to importance. "Firstly, because the exports of the agricultural nation are directed to a few manufacturing nations, which themselves carry on agriculture, and which, indeed, because of their manufactures and their extended commerce, carry it on on a much more perfect system than the mere agricultural nation. This export trade is there- fore neither certain nor uniform. The trade in mere products is always a matter of extraordinary speculation, whose benefits fall most to the speculative merchants, but not to the agriculturists or the productive power of the agricultural nation. " Secondly, because the exchange of agricultural products for foreign manufactured goods is liable to be greatly interrupted by the commercial restrictions of foreign States and by wars. "Thirdly, because the exports of mere products chiefly benefit countries which are situated near sea-coasts and the banks of navigable rivers, and does not benefit the inland territory, which constitutes the greater part of the territory of the agricultural nation. "Fourth, and finally, because the foreign manufacturing nation may find it to its interest to procure its means of subsistence and raw materials from other countries and newly formed colonies." The bare statement of these views is their best refutation. In truth, commerce follows its natural channels. Tlic foreign trade of a young country is in tlie surplus of its extractive industries, and that trade is neitlier more nor less The Political Argument. 291 Pt, IV., Ch. iv., ? 3.] uncertain or varied than trade in manufactured products. The probabihty, indeed, is that a trade in the necessaries of Hfe is likely to be larger and more steady than one in manu- factured articles, which depends to some extent on fashion or caprice, and is liable at any time to be disturbed by changes in the processes of production, or in the pressure of new competitors. Secondly, a foreign trade in the export of raw materials is far less likely to be interrupted by war than a trade in manu- factures, on account of the greater value of such articles to foreign countries. England, for example, would make more strenuous efforts to maintain a continuous supply of raw cotton than of Yankee notions yet, according to List, trade in the former is more likely " to be interrupted by the com- mercial restrictions of foreign States and by war." List's third reason for preferring a home market -" that exports of mere products chiefly benefit countries which are situated near the sea-coasts" has entirely lost any value which it might have once possessed, in consequence of the improve- ment in the means of locomotion. The existence and pro- sperity of the Western States of America and Canada is quite a sufficient answer to the theory that a foreign trade in natural products only benefits a coastal State. As to List's fourth reason " that a foreign manufacturing State may stop buying its food or raw materials from abroad" can any one name any reason why there is not precisely the same danger of an interruption to commerce when the articles exchanged are manufactured goods ? Why should a country be less likely to give up the importation of manufactured goods than to give up tlie importation of food? Surely these professors of Restriction have but little faith in their own theories ! If all countries became their discii)les, each would manufacture for itself, and the country which would suffer most from such a chanire would be that which had been the 292 Industrial Freedom. first to act upon their maxims, and replace the export of food by the export of manufactures. Again, the appeal must be made to common sense. People abroad buy food and raw materials because they require these things. The country which sells them does so because the sale is profitable. The same rules affect a trade in manufactured goods. Neither is, by its nature, more profitable, more certain, or more steady than the other ; that one is likely to possess these attributes in the highest degree which arises out of natural conditions, and is pursued spon- taneously by individuals seeking their own advantage. 4. But what shall be said of Mr. Patten the Whartonian professor ? If List preferred a home market because a foreign trade was precarious, the latest oracle warned, no doubt, by the periodic recurrence of commercial crises, even within the limits of Protected countries has abandoned this reason, and justifies his preference on the ground that a home market causes the land of a community to be put to new uses. These are the steps of his reasoning : " There is a foreign demand for one class of crops and not for another ; the foreigner takes wheat, and whilst that demand lasts American land is put under wheat, and will always remain under wheat until a home market arises ; because until that event happens no one will require any other product of the land. An extension of the home market is required to find new uses for the land." And the proof is that, since Protection corn has been grown in the Western States, " the heavier lands were brought into cultiva- tion, as the home market created a demand for corn instead of wheat" !i 1 The full text of the argument is subjoined : " The first settlers, instead of coming upon the best lands, are actually forced to cultivate many of the poorer soils which are easily brought into cultivation, or which are peculiarly adapted to the cultivation of those crops for which there is a foreign demand. For this reason some change in the demand of food must precede the best use of the land of a countrv. Some Vl&w market must be opened up which will The Political Argument. 293 Pt. IV., Ch. iv., \ 5.] What a blessed consummation of the Whartonian pohcy, that the Western farmer should change his crop from wheat to maize ! But does it really matter to the Western farmer what he grows, provided he gets his price for it? And is the American the only man on earth to whom he could have sold his maize ? What, too, of the wheat-growers ? What consola- tion is it to them for the fall in value of the lighter lands which were first used for wheat that the heavier corn lands now command a higher price ? Surely the argument needs no serious answer ; and perhaps Mr. Patten the professor who, by the terms of his appoint- ment, is not allowed to be impartial ^ is more to be pitied than blamed for having used it. 5. But it is not with arguments like those of Pro- fessors List and Patten that the agricultural voter is beguiled, but with others which are more enticing. Put in its most afford a place where the new crops can be sold, thus enabling the producers to use their land in a better manner ; with which extension of the home market new uses for the land are found, and at the same time many classes of soil, which were worthless while the few crops demanded by foreigners were pro- duced, now become the more productive part of the land. This fact is clearly illustrated in the changes of value in Western lands which have followed the creation of home markets. The lighter soils were first occupied because better adapted to the cultivation of wheat. These soils commanded a higher price than the heavier lands so long as the main market for the West was in Europe. But when the growth of home markets created a demand for corn instead of wheat, the heavier lands were brought into use, and soon became to be regarded as the better land ; and at the present time they command a much higher price than do the lighter lands which were first used for wheat." 1 It will be remembered that Mr. Wharton, the founder of Mr. Patten's Chair, was the fortunate owner of the only nickel deposit in the United States, and in that capacity developed by means of a tax the natural resource of nickel-mining " put the land, in fact, to a new use," as Mr. Patten would say with the result that he became a millionaire, and founded a Chair to teach "how by suitable tariff legislation a nation may keep its productive in- diisti y alive, cheapen the cost of commodities, and oblige foreigners to sell to it at low prices." What do foreigners sell to the Western farmer ? and how has Protection lowered the price of nickel? These are practical questions for Mr. Patten to answer. 294 Industrial Freedom. effective form, the home-market argument, as used at election- time in country districts, is something like this : " You are, at present, many miles away from the nearest city, which is your only market. You cannot sell to your neighbours, who are all farmers, but must carry all your produce to the city. The cost of transportation will consume the bulk of your profit; and when you get the goods to market you will find yourself undersold by the man who lives a few miles outside the town. What is the remedy ? Why, this : To make your market at your own doors, and keep it when it's made. Agree to pay more than we pay now for woollens, and so make it an object for some one to come here and start a manufactory. Make the same agreement in respect of agricultural machinery, furniture, and all farming and domestic implements, so that you will have a town grow up in your midst, and a market at your very doors. You needn't then depend on wheat, but can grow vegetables and other perishable produce, while your wife will sell eggs, and your children find employment in the factory."' It is done. The mill is built : the town grows up. The New England States become the home of manufacturers. And the farmer what of him ? Strange to say, he sells his homestead for less than cost, and flees to the wilds of Dakota. Where is the mistake ? The theory is excellent ; why will it not work ? It is the agreeing to pay ''just a little more " that has done all the mischief If the farmers of this locality want a woollen mill, those in that locality want a cotton mill, and those in the next county an iron furnace, and so on. The result is that the fanners everywhere pay ''a little more'''' for everything they buy, until the cost of their living is increased beyond any possible profit from an extended market. The success of this argument is a remarkable instance of what can be effected by using big words about simple matters. Suppose that a Protectionist, instead of indulging in large expressions about phrases such as a home market, the development of industry, a concentrated population, and I The writer is indebted for the form of this argument to a pamphlet by Mr. Graham M'Adani on "The Protective System: what it costs the American Farmer." (New York Free Trade Club, 1880.) The Political Argument. 295 Pt. IV., Ch. iv 5 s.] such-like, were to address a country audience in terms like these : " My friends, I am a poor man, but I am anxious to see you sell all your products at a profit. I want nothing to be wasted because of the cost of taking it to market. I propose to bring a market to you by buying your stuff myself." These sentiments should be received with cheers ; but let the orator proceed : " I propose to build myself a fine mansion on the most eligible site in the country. This will give employment to stonecutters, bricklayers, masons, carpenters, joiners, carters, upholsterers, and many other kinds of tradesmen. I intend that all these men shall do their work within the district. I mean that they shall all live about here whilst they are engaged on my job ; and, as I intend my mansion to be very large, I calculate that I shall have five hundred men living here for the next ten years building it and putting the grounds in order ; and when it is complete in all its adjuncts, I expect to keep a staff of several hundred servants in the house and about the grounds. Think what this means to you. All these men and their families will want food, which you will supply. No more fruit rotting on your trees, no more vegetables going to seed because you can't afford to carry them to market ; you and your wives and children will be busy for the rest of your lives in feeding your own neighbours." Again applause. The orator proceeds : " But, as I said, I am a poor man. I cannot realise my patriotic dreams without your aid. I am short in my necessary capital by the sum of ten thousand pounds. You can have the privilege of aiding in our national development by giving me this amount. I do not ask for it all at once, but in trifling sums. Let each of you give me a shilling a week for tlie rest of your lives, and I will get to work at once at building my house and laying out its grounds. None of you will feel the expense, and all of you will share in the advantages." If Protectionist speeches were made in these plain terms, could any protestations of philanthropy disguise their naked selfishness? And yet, instead of " mansion " read "factory,'' and by the change of this one word we have a regular Protec- tionist oration in favour of the home market. 296 Industrial Freedom. The argument, however it may be disguised, must ahvays resolve itself into an appeal to the farmers to subsidise a number of artisans to settle at the farm gate. " Pay them," says the Protectionist, " for making goods at a loss, and out of their profits they will purchase your abundance." A manu- facturer who really believed in this argument would pension an army of tramps to live beside his factory upon condition that they spent their money in the purchase of his goods. The three students of fable who hoped to earn a living by taking in each other's washing were the earliest examples of a delusive faith in a home market. The idea that a farmer, if he pays taxes to bring into existence a factory which would not otherwise exist, will win more than the taxes by selling farm produce to the artisans, is, as Professor Sumner has tersely said, " an arithmetical fallacy. It proposes to get three pints out of a quart. The farmer is out for the tax and the farm produce, and he cannot get back more than the tax, because, if the factory owes its existence to the Protective taxes, it cannot make any profit outside of the taxes. The proposition to the farmer that he shall pay taxes to another man, who will bring part of the tax back to buy produce with it : this is to make the farmer rich. The man who owned slock in a railroad, and who rode on it, paying his own fare, in the hope of swelling his own dividends, was wise compared with the farmer who believes that Protection can be a source of gain to him." (" Protectionism," pp. 125-6.) 6. The latest form of this almost discredited home-market argument is one which had a great vogue during the Presi- dential campaign of 188S. Its author appears to be Mr. Hoyt, who develops it from an American standpoint with great assiduity.^ The argument is briefly this : "Foreigners can only lake a certain amount of American pro- ducts : /. ., food and raw materials. In return forthe^c, Americans 1 See pp. 193 and 199, an 1 Chapter XI. The Political Argument. 297 Pt. IV., Ch. iv., \ 6.] receive a certain quantity of foreign manufactures. But the American demand for manufactured goods is far larger than the quantity which is received from aljroad in return for American products. Accordingly, unless the export of American products can be in- creased, which ex-hypolhesi is impossible to any appreciable extent, Americans must either go without a certain quantity of manufac- tured goods or manufacture for themselves. Conclusion Encourage- ment of manufactures by Protection is necessary." The fallacy of this argunient which has been freely used by Mr. Reed and Mr. Blaine lies in the assumption, first, that the export of American products cannot be appreciably increased ; and secondly, that if it cannot, manufactures will not spring up without Protection. The first assumption is probably true, if it is limited to the proposition that foreign trade could not supply all the wants of a country like the United States ; but the second has no foundation in fact. Suppose it to l)e the case that the American demand for manufactured goods is so vast that it cannot be satisfied by ex- change, that fact is itself the strongest guarantee that home manu- facturing will be profitable; because the greater the necessity for manufactured goods, and the less the opportunity of getting them, the better is the prospect for the manufacturer. Con.se- quently, the very fact on which Protectionists rely to frighten the farmers into accepting Protection namely, the fear that w ithout Protection they will not be able to satisfy their require- ments for manufactured articles is itself the best assurance that Protection is unnecessary. The argument, moreover, ignores another aspect of Protec- tion which is being forcibly ol)truded upon the notice of American manufacturers namely, the tendency of Protection to destroy the foreign market by too much cultivation of the home market. At tlie present time, the most serious l)roblem before tlic manufacturers of the United States is how to dispose of their manufactured goods. The home market has been over-supplied for some years past, and yet, owing to Protection, there is no outlet for their goods abroad. The last 298 Industrial Freedom. work of Mr. Wells " Practical Economics" the Congressional speeches on the Mills tariff, and the collection of facts which was published at the Conference of Free Traders held at Chicago in 1888, contain abundant evidence of the truth of this assertion, which is, indeed, not disputed by Protectionists. It would lie beyond the scope of this work to multiply instances. It is sufficient to refer to the words of Mr. Wells upon this subject, which no one who has any knowledge of current American literature is likely to dispute. "No one," says Mr. Wells ("Practical Economics "p. 103), " who has given the subject any attention, has any doubt that the United States has, at present, more active capital, machinery, and labour engaged in the so-called work of manufacturing, than is necessary to supplyany present or immediate prospective demand for increased consumption. And as general evidence confirmatory of this position, citation may be made, first, of the general and in- creasing complaint on the part of American manufacturers of over- production. . . . Second, the interruption of great branches of domestic industry, of which examples are to be found in the recent suspension [written in 1883] of the entire business of cotton manufac- ture in Philadelphia and vicinity ; of the discontinuance in all, or great part, of the India-rubber and gunny-bagging manufacture ; of the reduction of the sugar-refining industry to about 60 per cent, of its existing capacity ; and the suspension or failure of some of the most important iron-furnaces and rolling-mills of the country. And, third, the actual or attempted reduction of wages in almost every department of domestic manufacturing industry . the recent united effort for this end of the representatives of all the i-on-works west of the Alleghanies being especially noteworthy." Mr. Wells might have added that the rapid growth of trusts and combinations is further evidence in the same direction. In the meantime, while the enormous output of home products is steadily increasing, there is an actual decline even in the small proportion of home-made goods which the tariff allows the Americans to send abroad. The figures for the year ending June 30th, 1890, show that of the total exports, valued at 845,293,000, only $151,293,000 Th. Political Argument. 299 Pt. IV., Ch. iv., \ 7.] worth, or 17 "88 per cent., were of manufactured goods; while the export of American manufactures in 1889 represented 18-99 psr cent, of the whole. Purely agricultural productions gave but 72-87 per cent, of the export values in 1889 ; whereas they gave 74-51 per cent, of the whole in 1890, and the ratio of all natural productions increased from 81-01 to 82-12 per cent.^ 7. The home-market argument fails at every turn. It rests on a fallacious economic basis, and its political supports are rotten. The foreign trade is not, from its nature, more precarious than the home trade. The home demand does not necessarily cause the land of a community to be put to more profitable uses than a foreign demand would do. A home market caused by Protection makes farmers pay more than they receive ; while every variety of the argument ignores the danger to manufactures of that glut in the home market which is an inevitable consequence of a Protective tariff. The theory, moreover, is in no instance borne out by facts. Farmers do not, in fact, remain in the Eastern States, where, according to the theory, they should find their market, but emigrate to the West, and sell their products in Europe. The theory is that the farmer will get a higher price by selling his corn to the hands at a neighbouring factory. The fact is that the farmer sells his produce at the price which rules in Mark Lane ; and the neighbouring artisans will not give him a penny more than the market rate for the sake of neighbourliness. The theory is that the demand of the home market keeps up the prices of agricultural produce. The fact is that men must eat, wherever they live ; and that it does not matter to the farmer, who sells food, whether his customers live in America or Europe. ' In these calculations leather and lumber are included among manu- factured products. 300 Industrial Freedom. The theory is that the farmer will gain an advantage by being brought into direct relations with consumers, and so save the cost of transportation. The fact is that farmers sell their wheat to millers or produce merchants, and not direct to artisans, whether the latter are neighbours or not. The theory is that the farmer must be better off if there is a home demand. The fact is, the farmer is best off when he can sell his produce at the highest price, and buy what he wants at the lowest. The theory is that the American and Victorian farmer ought to be exceptionally prosperous. The truth is that the former is overwhelmed with debt, and the latter is emigrating into New South Wales.^ Whatever force the home -market argument has is owing to union with other Protectionist arguments. Even when it is stated by itself, it generally resolves itself, upon analysis, into the statements that Protection causes a diversity of occupation, and attracts population. In this meaning it may appeal to farmers with a certain degree of force because every increase of population, in whatever part of the world it occurs, may become an a^/i.ntage to the producers of food. But, although it may be admitted that Australian and American farmers are likely to be benefited by the growth of towns, the questions are still unanswered " Whether the towns would not grow up as fast without Protection ?" and "Whether under Protection the farmers, as a class, will not have to pay more in the form of taxes than they receive back in the form of prices ? " While the price of food all the world over is determined by the ruling price in Mark Lane, the increased demand for food of a few hundred thousand townsmen in Australia or America will not make any appreciable difference in the price 1 An article in In-l/orJ's ALtgctzine, March, i83g, upon the state and prospects of the American fanner, contains a mass of nsefiil information on this subject. Current American Hterature is full of the grievances and distress of- the farming population, who have to sell at London prices, and buy at American. The Political Argument. 301 Pt. IV.,Ch. iv., ?7.] of farm produce, unless either of these countries should sud- denly cease to export agricultural products.^ In such a case if Americans and Australians could only procure their food over a tariff fence the farmer might, no doubt, raise his prices, as English landlords raised rents in the days of the Corn Laws ; but until the artisan and townsman consent to a tax on food, farmers in a Protected country which exports food can expect nothing else but low prices for the articles they sell, and high prices for those they buy, No one will find out sooner than the Protected farmer that the old English proverb, "That the farmer pays for all," has a special signifi- cance in a Protected country. The writer of the paper on the " Decline of the Farmer," which has been already referred to, shows the fate of the farmer in every Protected country - when he thus summarises the steps of the American farmer's decline : " Captivated," he says, " by the promise of a home market as the result of manufacturing development, which he was led to believe would buy his products at highest price, and sell to him in return at lowest, the American farmer departed from the only true republican principle of strict equality in public privileges and burdens. He consented to be taxed to a limited extent for the encouragement of manufactures but only upon the understanding that the arrangement was to be temporary : only while the infant industries were struggling for a foothold. The interest thus aided was then so weak and insignificant that ' Victoria has been a grain-exporting country for many years ; while New South Wales, owing to climatic disadvantages in the coastal districts, and the remoteness of other wheat-growing lands, has to import about one-third of ht r wheat supplies. The price of wheat in Melbourne is, on an average of many years, sixpence a bushel less than the price in Sx-dney. Protectionists, observ- ing this, tell a Sydney audience lh,!t Protection mcms cheap bread ; going into the country, they tcU the farmers that Protection means dear wheat. But how- cheap bread and dear wheat are to go together they have never e.xp'.ained, - See tb.e English Consular Reports on F<>rming in France and Italy for any year from i83_;-;i. 302 Industrial Freedom. he never dreamt the day might come when it would dispute his supremacy, and, taking him by the throat, demand as a right what he had granted as a favour." CHAPTER V. THE PAUPER - LABOUR ARGUMENT. I. The pauper-labour argument is the final refuge of all Protectionist disputants, and tends to become relied upon more and more as a justification of the permanent retention of a Protective policy. Although it assumes a variety of forms, its essence is always an assertion that the high rate of wages which is characteristic of young countries cannot be main- tained unless both labourers and capitalists are protected against the competition of pauper labour and cheap capital. " The claim is set up in warrant and justification of a continued high-tariff policy, that the difference of wages in favour of competitive foreign productions constitutes a good and sufficient reason why compensating Protective duties should be levied on their resulting products when imported into this country ; and the assertion is further constantly and conjointly made that unless such duties continue to be levied, the American manufacturer will be unable to withstand foreign competition : that our workshops and factories will be closed, and our workmen and their families made dependent on public charities."! Such an argument as this is really the basis of every so- called scientific treatise, such as Professor Patten's, of the Wharton Scliool of Pxonoyiics, in favour of Protective tarifls ; and, from its place in the historic system of Protectionist arguments, may be taken as the last word which the advocates 1 lion. Davil A. Wells, "Practical Economics" (p. 132). The Political Argument. 303 Pt. IV., Ch. v.. I I.] of a restricted commerce are able to advance. It becomes therefore, of the utmost importance to examine this argument fully, both by reference to facts and theory. First, however, as usual, careful disputants must verify their facts. They must ascertain three things : 1. What difference in fact exists between the rates of wages paid in the trade, which it is proposed to Protect, by the native and the foreign producers ? 2. To what extent does this difference in the wage-rate affect the relative costs of production ? 3. What evidence is there that the imposition of a Pro- tective duty will prevent the rates of wages in the two countries in question from assimilating ? These facts, once ascertained and until they are ascer- tained no argument is possible the last question, which has always to be answered in the fiscal controversy, still remains for consideration : viz.. Whether Protection may not be too high a price to pay for the preservation of the industries in question? This, however, can only be answered by a con- sideration of matters which properly belong to a later chapter. It would be beyond the scope of this work to examine the fiicts of any country, or any particular trade, in order to see whether the pauper-labour argument can justly be applied to its conditions. All that can be done here is to indicate the line of investigation, and to suggest certain general considera- tions whicli must be taken into account. It will not, however, be out of place to refer, in a general way, to the answers which other inquiries in this field have obtained to the questions which have already been suggested, and to mention those which a student of economics would expect to obtain if the working of economic principles were not disturbed 1)y local causes. Let us first, then, examine into the nature of this in(iuiry as to what difference does in fact exist between the rates of wages paid in a young and an old community. 304 Industrial Freedom. 2. No statistical information is more difficult to obtain than accurate statements of the rates of wages, and no statis- tics are more misleading or useless than so-called averages of wage-rates. Even when' the sources of information about wages are above suspicion, wage-rates admit of so many qualifications that it is difficult to use them for purposes of comparison. Ten shillings in one country may not go so far as eight shillings in another ; while in some mills workmen have advantages in house-rent or allowances which are denied to others. Any money-rate of daily or weekly wages must therefore of necessity be misleading, unless we know : (i) the number of days worked, (2) the cost of living in the district, (3) whether the \> or!- nen have any special allowances in lieu of wages. And finally, even when all this is known, it is quite useless for controversial purposes to attempt to arrive at any average rate of wages for a given country. Even in a small country like England, wages in the same industry differ by as much as thirty per cent, in different localities. This is especially the case with agricultural labour ; but the same holds true, in a less degree, of the wages in other industries. In the United States the rates vary more or less in every State ; and the wages in the West are sometimes double those paid to the same class of workmen in the Eastern States. For these reasons, as Mr. Wright, the chief of the Labour Bureau, has often pointed out, it is idle to speak of an "American rate of wages." There is one rate for New York, and one for Pennsylvania, and a third for California ; but to strike an average between all the States would give a rate which no class of workmen ever receive, and which would 1)C useless for any purposes of comparison. Another reason why averages must be misleading is that in all old countries the " residuum,"' as Mr. Bright called them the class, that is, of hereditary paupers and hopeless ne"er-do weels is much larger than in a young communit}-. Tjie Political Argument. 305 Pt. IV., Ch. v., \ 2.] But any average of national wages would have to take into account the starvation rates paid to people of this class, with the result of unfairly lowering the rewards of manufacturing labour. When, therefore, artisans and manufacturers in a young country ask to be "protected" against the pauper labour of more settled communities, they must, if their request is to receive attention, ignore averages, and confine their compari- son to specified industries. This warning will seem super- fluous to those who have not lived in the midst of Protectionist controversies nor read Protectionist speeches ; but hardly a week passes in Australia or America where the wages of London dockers are not the theme of some Protectionist oration. It ought, however, to be self-evident that a com- parison between the wages paid to the lowest class of unskilled labour in London and those paid to skilled Australian artisans is a comparison between two subjects of a diff'erent class. Take, for instance, the iron trade. New South Wales Pro- tectionists constantly aftirm that the difficulty in the iron trade in that colony is owing to the high rate of wages. This assertion may or may not be true ; but it is idle to use as evidence in its support comparisons between the pay of Sydney artisans and London dockers. Nor is it a sufficient answer to these considerations to reply that the existence of a residuum of low-paid wage- earners reduces the wage of skilled artisans. Within certain limits this statement is true. The reserve army of labour may destroy the success of a strike for higher wages, as was recently the case in Australia ; but as a rule, the underpaid starveling has neither the physique nor the intelligence to come into competition with workmen of higher grades. It is thus unfair to argue that the lowest rate of wage in a country is tlie determinant of its ability to compete with a country of a higlicr rate. The comparison should be made in every case between the wages paid in the two countries to the u 3o6 Industrial Freedom. workmen of the particular trade for which Protective duties are demanded. Mr. Edwin Chadwick, in a passage quoted by Mr. Wells in the work already referred to (p. 138), illustrates this view by the following interesting example from his own ex- perience : " In Nottingham," he says, " the introduction of more costly and complex machines for the manufacture of lace has, while economising labour, augmented wages to the extent of 100 per cent. I asked a manufacturer of lace whether this large machine could not be worked at the common lower wages by any of the workers of the old machine ? ' Yes, it might,' was the answer; 'but the capital invested on the new machinery is very large, and if from drunkenness or misconduct anything happened to the machine, the consequence would be very serious.' Instead of taking any man out of the street, as might be done with the low-priced machine, he (the em- ployer) found it necessary to go abroad and look for one of better condition, and for such a one higher wages must be given." When industrial activity is highly developed, employers cannot afford to pay low wages. 3. It will be plain, from the foregoing observations, that any statements of comparative wages ought to be received with caution ; so that the first duty of a person dealing with an argument which rests upon a difference in the rate of wages in two countries is to verify the facts, and then confine the comparison to the specific trades which are supposed to com- pete with each other. This method, however, is impossible in the present treatise ; and therefore, in order to carry the argument further, we must make the admission that, although the difference between Australian or American wages and those of Great Britain is probably greatly exaggerated by Protectionists, the wages of unskilled labour in a young The Political Argument. ^oy Pt. IV., Ch. v., ? 3.] country are higher than the wages paid to the same class in England. We may admit, further, that the investigations of Mr. Wright, chief of the Washington Labour Bureau, show almost conclusively that both the nominal and the real rates of wages in the chief manufacturing industries of Massachusetts are higher than those of the same industries in Great Britain. On the other hand, the wages of miners in Pennsylvania are probably not as high as those of miners in Durham or Northumberland, and are much lower than those paid in New South Wales. Still, however, it may fairly be assumed, as a basis for discussion of the pauper-labour argument, that wages are higher in a young country than they are in Europe. The difference is greatest on the lowest grade of manual labour, and lessens as the labour rises in the scale. As to skilled labour, personal inquiries from both masters and men have satisfied the writer that the highest grades of this class are less well paid, even in money wages, in Australia than they are in England. The same is probably true of America,^ if we may draw an inference from the statistics of immigration, which show that the number of " skilled labourers" who come as immi- grants is comparatively small. But the bulk of the labour employed in manufactures is unskilled. The question, there- fore, is Does the higher reward of this class prevent the establishment of manufactures in a young community ? The answer to this question will depend- upon the number of manufactures which are exposed to foreign competition, and the proportion borne in these by the cost of labour to the price of goods. ' Mr. Wells, writing in 1888, mentions that artisans imported into America from foreign countries to work in certain employments (^..i'. , glass-making) wore returning to I'.uropc with a view of bettering their co;ul'tion, (" Practical Economics," p. 140.) Sec also above, p, 215. 3o8 Industrial Freedom. 4. It has been estimated by Mr. Wells that of all the manufactures in America not more than twenty per cent., and, perhaps, not more than ten per cent., can ever be exposed to foreign competition. Probably the number of Victorian in- dustries which are able to stand alone bears a less proportion to the whole ; but in every country there will be a certain number of industries which, from advantages of climate, means of communication, or acquired industrial skill, are in no danger from foreign competition. These industries can, there- fore, be left out of account in the discussion. The real matter of importance is as to the industries which would not be able to withstand foreign competition except by reducing wages. Let us proceed to inquire what kind of industries these are likely to be. 5. The fundamental assumption of those who use the pauper-labour argument is that the price of goods depends upon the rate of wages. It is not too much to say that this theory is wholly incorrect. The price of goods depends not upon the rate of wages, but upon the " cost of labour," which is a very different thing. Thus, Mr. Donnell, in his pamphlet, contributed to the "Questions of the Day" series (Putnam, 1884), p. 54, says : " It is a great mistake, though a common one, to suppose that the highest-priced labourer is the dearest. High-priced wages are the cheapest. ... I am satisfied by personal observation and diligent inquiry that American labour esti- mated in productiveness that is, the work accomplished in proportion to wages paid is the cheapest in the world." Mr. Edward Atkinson, of Boston, in his work, " The Distribution of Products," after a careful investigation of the cost of production in many industries, has laid it down as a law " that a high rate of wages means a low cost of product, and a low rate of wages means a high cost of product." Mr. Prasscy, the famous contractor, said the same thing in another The Political Argument. 309 Pt. IV., Ch. v., ? s.] form when he stated that he found it cheaper to employ the high-waged Enghsh navvy in preference to any number of low- waged Germans and Asiatics. The important matter, therefore, in considering whether a particular industry requires Protection on account of the higher rate of local wages, is not so much a knowledge of the difference in money, or even in real wages, between the two countries in question, but to ascertain the difference in labour- cost. And the probability, which is almost a certainty, is that high wages, instead of being evidence of a high cost of pro- duction, are, on the contrary, direct evidence of a low cost of production, and therefore, as Mr. Wells says, "in place of being an argument in favour of the necessity of Protection, they are a demonstration that none is needed." It would unduly extend this work even to summarise the evidence on which these statements rest. For further information the reader is referred to Mr. Edward Atkinson's two works, "The Distribution of Products," and "The Industrial Pro- gress of the Nation" (New York and London, 1890).!^ The question is thus narrowed to a comparison not of the rates of wages in the competing countries, but of the pro- portion which these bear in each case to the respective costs of production. In otlier words, we have to deal not with rates of wages, but with labour-cost. We are thus led to two practical conclusions : ' Mr. riirsch, in his pamphlet entitled " Protection in Victoria," which is more fully referred to in tlie Appendix, makes the following sound observations on this part of the question : "A comparatively high rate of wages is one of the most important, if not the most important factor in reducing cost of pro- duction, not only by forcing into use labour-saving machinery, which at a lower r.ite of wages could not | ermit of a saving in wages, but also by tlic greater intelligiMice and vigour of the woikmen, which high wages produce. C'onscfiuenily, we find a nation's jxjwer in the markets of the world to be some- what in accordance with the rate of wages to which its workers are accustomed. Cluna, India, Mexico, export no manufactures, Russia least of all ICuropean rations, Italv and Spain rank next, Austria stands by itself, (Germany and France follow, and Great Britain stands at the apex ofinduUii.il power" (ji. 9). 3 TO Industrial Freedom. T. That Protectionists cannot establish even the appearance of a rightful claim to any duty until they have proved that the labour-cost of producing the article which it is proposed to Protect is so much greater in the young community than it is in other countries that its manufacture in the community cannot be profitably carried on. 2. That when it can be proved that the production of any article is prevented by differences between its labour- cost in a young community and its labour-cost in Europe, then a duty equivalent to the labour-cost, less the cost of importing the article from Europe, might cause the establishment of a manufactory of that article in the young community. 3. Consequently, if the labour-cost of producing any article is lower in Europe than it is in America or Australia, it must be for one of two reasons: Either (i) the European labourer is more efficient on account of his greater intelligence or on account of the greater assistance he derives from Nature or machinery ; or (2) the article is one which is made entirely by either unskilled manual labour, or by manual labour assisted by only cheap and simple mechanical appliances. In either case the difference in labour-cost affords no argument for Protection. 6. The labour-cost of a finished article by which is meant the proportion which the cost of labour bears to the cost of the whole depends on two things : namely, (i) the intelligence and ability of the human labourer; (2) the amount of assistance he receives from Nature or machinery. Pjut the average of education and intelligence is un- doubtedly higher both in America and Australia than it is in Great Britain or Europe. In this respect, therefore, the advantage is on the side of the young community. Of the amount of assistance received by cither country from natural causes, or from the use of machinery, nothing can be pre- dicate ^ There is, however, no a priori reason why this The Political Argument. 311 Pt. IV., Ch. v., ? 6.] assistance should be less in a young community than it is in England. In the first case, as we have seen, the European superiority is very unlikely to be due to the superior intelligence of the workmen or their better tools ; and must, therefore, be attributed to the superior natural advantages of climate, soil, or situation by which his labour is assisted. But if Protection is demanded as a compensation for the want of natural advantages, this is a clear admission that Protection is in- tended to cause a waste of labour by making men in one country do for themselves what Nature has done for them elsewhere. The competitor whose ravages the tariff is designed to check is not, strictly speaking, " foreign labour," but the natural advantages which foreign labour enjoys, and which, under Free Trade, it would share with the world. Hence follow all those extravagances which Bastiat was fond of turning into ridicule, and which Protectionists always declare to be irrelevant, by the contention that they only desire to Protect industries which can be naturalised in the Protected country. But it must be remembered that the argument now under consideration is an argument in favour of Protection as a permanent, and not as a temporary policy. If, therefore, any industry demands Protection because its article is produced abroad at a less labour-cost than that at which it would be pos- sible to produce it at home ; and if it appear that the difference in labour-cost is due to the possession by foreign labour of superior natural advantages, the case becomes one in which Protection can only be justified by the same arguments which justified Bastiat's petition of the candle-makers against the competition of the sun. If the difference in labour-cost is due to the superiority of the foreign mechanical appliances, the case is obviously equally unfit for permanent Protection, because the same result could be obtained by the adoption in the home ccruntry of the same appliances. 312 Industrial Freedom. There remains the case in which the difference in labour- cost is due to the nature of the product being such that it is the result of unaided manual labour, or of manual labour only slightly aided by mechanical appliances. In such a case it is plain that the labour-cost and the amount of money spent in wages will very closely correspond. Accordingly, if the in- dustry is one which does not admit of a high degree of skill, so that one skilled workman at a high wage could not do the work of several unskilled workmen at a low wage, the rate of wages will be a fair test of the labour-cost of production ; and a country of high wages will not be able to compete in this particular line with a country of low wages. To this extent, then, the Pauper-Labour argument may justify Protection in a theoretical discussion. The next question is, whether the common facts of in- dustrial life give any ground for the belief that this theoretical justification of Protection can have any but the narrowest application ? To decide this, we must inquire what the in- dustries are which owe their lower labour-cost to a lower rate of wages. Manifestly, as we have seen, they are handicrafts, such as the making of common pottery, where, as Mr. Wells remarks, "the labourer works almost exactly as did his pre- decessor 4,000 years ago." In such industries the moral and physical standard of the labourer is necessarily at its lowest. The trades are such as can be learnt by any one ; they require neither skill, training, nor continuous effort, and they are carried on for the most part under unhealthy conditions. Is there really any need to establish industries such as these in a young country? The question is purely political. Ought a politician to encourage trades which will inevitably collect the driftwood of society, and render possible in a new country the worst abuses in the industrial history of the old world ? Should it not rather be the aim to direct the labour of a young community into channels where intelligence, skill, training, and patience may enable every individual to satisfy the better The Political Argument. 313 Pt. IV., Ch. v., \ 6.] instincts of his nature ? Is it wise to offer to the lazy and unthrifty the chance of making a bare Hving in a degrading form of occupation ? Will not the existence of such a class of workmen tend in time to drag the labourers of other classes down to its own level ? Suppose, however, that the Protectionist politician is ob- durate, and passes by these questions without reply, still there remains the consideration : What shall be done with these workmen when they have supplied the home market ? Mani- festly, their products cannot be exported, because, ex hypotkesi, they cannot be produced at the same cost in the Protected country as is possible abroad, unless the wages of the former are reduced, which, according to Protectionists, Protection will prevent. The consequence will be that a yearly increasing number of unskilled labourers will join the army of the tramps and unemployed. No other alternative will open to these unfortunate persons, because the very nature of their former employment will have destroyed their industrial aptitude. Well may David Wells ask, " Why, in the name of common sense, America, as a nation, should enter into competition with these low-waged countries ?" " What possible reason," he asks, " or inducement is there for wanting to introduce these handicraft industries into this country, and of attempting to keep men alive by means of enormous taxes levied under the tariff upon the whole people, when we can buy all we want of these products with a very small part of the excess of our cotton and grain ?" Finally, it must be remembered that the number of these handicrafts is decreasing every year, as science, the great leveller, elevates wages by increasing the efficiency of the labourer. It follows that the force of the pauper-labour argument, even in tlie one case where it. has a theoretic validity, is constantly diminishing before tlic ap|)!ication to industry of new mechanical appliances; and it is not a long I)eriod to anticipate when the lowest and commonest forms of 314 Industrial Freedom. manual toil will have been rendered entirely unnecessary, and men in all countries and of all classes will have the leisure and the opportunity to train their intelligence and satisfy their instincts in higher forms of industrial activity. Summing up, then, the results of this discussion, we may say First, That the pauper-labour argument, although it has a certain theoretic validity, can seldom be applied in practice, because the circumstances on which its assumptions rest seldom co-exist ; Secondly, That even in the few cases in which its application might be justified, the result of applying it is both politically and economically harmful to the interests of a young country ; Thirdly, That the argument must gradu- ally lose what little force it ever possessed, as science lessens the number of unskilled handicrafts. 7. But we have not yet done with the practical objections to this argument. Any attempt to apply it not only reveals a fatal inconsistency between its assumptions and its promises, but carries the politician along a path of inextricable entanglement. The theory of the argument, as we recall it, is that manufacturers in a young community are prevented from competing with their European rivals, on account of the high local rates of wages. Now, if high local wages are really an obstacle to manu- factures, that can only be because they cause the prices of the manufactured articles to be too high to find a market in the face of open competition. In other words, the argument is that high wages cause high prices. But the constant assertion of Protectionists is that Pro- tection will cause lower prices. How, if that be true, can Protection secure higher wages? If wages and prices depend on one another, as Protectionists assert, the same policy cannot at one and the same time make wages high and prices low. So nuicli for an inconsistency in theory ; now for a difliculty in practice ! The Political Argument. 315 Pt. IV., Ch. v., ? 9 ] 8. If it be true that the ability of manufacturers to compete with one another depends upon the rates of wages which they respectively pay to their\vorkmen^ then it is evident that any duties which are levied for the purpose of equalising wages must vary according to the variations in the wages rates of different countries. If, for example, wages in any industry are 10 per cent. higher in Australia than in England, a duty of 10 per cent, will be more than sufficient to equalise the terms of competi- tion ; but if wages in the same industry are 10 per cent, lower in Germany than they are in England, the Protectionists ought to impose two equalising duties namely, one of 10 per cent, on English goods, and one of 20 per cent, on those which come from Germany. And as the wages of any specified industry differ in nearly all countries, the same article ought to be exposed to many duties. Nor is this all. The duties ought to be constantly revised, so as to adapt them to any changes in the rates of wages which may occur in the foreign competing countries. It is difficult to see how any person who sincerely believes and many profess to believe it that Protective duties are only required to compensate the manufacturer for higher local wages, can deny the force of the above reasoning. Such persons indignantly repudiate any desire to give a manufacturer special favours ; but it is obvious that a fixed duty, which is estimated on the wages paid in a particular industry, say in India, will be considerably more than is required to compensate him for the difference between the local rate which he pays and the English rate. He will therefore have the sole benefit of the duty on all English goods up to the amount of the difference between English and Indian wages, and Protection will be a clear privilege to him by that amount. But this is not the end of the entanglement. 9. The countries whose competition is most dangerous to 3i6 Industrial Freedom. a young community are precisely the countries of high wages. Of the total imports into New South Wales from countries beyond the sea for the year 1889, four-fifths were the products of Great Britain and America. It is the same with the United States. Her great commercial rival is not Germany or India, but again Great Britain. Now, whatever ill-will Protectionists may bear Great Britain and Protection is openly recommended to the Irish voters in America as a means of damaging British trade no one is likely to dispute that manufacturing wages are higher in that country than in any other part of Europe. The low- waged countries, which Protectionists term the countries of pauper labour, are not England, Switzerland, Holland, or Norway these are the countries of industrial freedom, as they are the countries of political and religious freedom but soldier-ridden and Protected Germany, and harassed and Protected France. How is it possible to admit this fact, and yet maintain that high local wages are an impediment to local manufactures unless foreign competition is forbidden ? But the most disingenuous use of the pauper-labour argu- ment is in New South Wales. In that colony the voters of the cities and centres of population are Free Traders by a large majority. The bulk of the farmers, on the other hand, are Protectionists. The immediate causes of this are agricultural distress and a bitter feeling of resentment against the border duties levied by Victoria. The remoter ' cause is not im- probably the premature settling of the lands by a too-scattered population. But, whatever the cause of this Protectionist feeling among the farmers, they, of all people, could not justify it by the fear that their industry should be exposed to the competition of jjaupers. The only competitors of the New South ^Vales farmers are tlie farmers of Victoria, South Australia, and New Zealand. For a Protectionist orator to use the pauper -labour argument in such a case, to justify the farmers in their present mistaken view of The Political ArguaMent. 317 Pt. IV., Ch. v., 5 lo.] their own interests, is either a wilful attempt at deceit, or an assertion ihat the farmers in the Protected colonies are paupers, whose chief products ought not to be admitted into New South Wales, because wages in those Protected lands are at "starvation rates." Protectionists must take their choice of the alternative. 10. We are now in a position to finish off the pauper- labour argument by considering the true causes of those high wages which are declared to be the obstacle to manufacturing growth in a young country. Wages being in their ultimate analysis the labourer's share of the article produced, it is plain that every increase in the efficiency of the labourer tends to increase the quantity of that from which he must receive his share. To ensure that the labourer's share shall be that to which he is fairly entitled is one of the functions of trade- unions ; but it is plain that his share cannot be lessened by an increase in the quantity to be divided if everything else remains the same. Now, the efficiency of labour depends, as we have seen, not only upon human ability to produce, but also upon the amount of assistance received from Nature. Natural advan- tages of climate, fertility, situation, and such-like, are free gifts to man. The more of these a workman can gain, the less expenditure of effort he requires to i)roduce a given result. Nature does for him what men in less favoured situations have to do for themselves. But the characteristic of young countries is the possession in exceptional abundance of one or more great natural advan- tages. Labour is therefore exceedingly productive when it is employed on any of these natural industries. Ten men, for example, can raise more wool in Australia than could be raised by twice that number in Great Britain. Thus, although the wages of station hands are three and four times the wages paid by luiglisli shccp-owncrs to their labourers, Australian 3i8 Industrial Freedom. wool competes successfully with that of England. Here is a plain case in which higher wages are no bar to successful competition. It is the same in all extractive industries which are followed in a young country. The labourer is able to appropriate a natural instrument of production for his own advantage. The question is, "How long will this advantage continue?" To this the reply must be, " So long as Nature continues to be bountiful, or so long as man continues by the ingenuity of his hand and brain to make up for deficiency in Nature's gifts." When work becomes less efficient, wages may fall ; but while young countries enjoy their peculiar superiority in certain dominating industries, the prevailing rates of wages will con- tinue high. Or, to express the same thing in the words of the market-place : " Men won't take less as artisans than they can get as labourers." Webster, in a stirring passage, has expressed the same idea. " The chairman," he says, " says it would cost the nation nothing as a nation to make our ore into iron. Now, I think it would cost us precisely that which we can worst afford : that is, great labour. . . . We have been asked ... in a tone of some pathos, whether we will allow to the serfs of Russia and Sweden the benefit of making our iron for us. Let me inform the gentlemen that those same serfs do not earn more than seven cents a day. . . . And let me ask the gentle- man further, whether we have any labour in this country that cannot be better employed than in a business which does not yield the labourer more than seven cents a day ? . . . The true reason why it is not our policy to compel our citizens to manufacture our own iron is that they are far better em- ployed. It is an unproductive business, and they are not poor enough to be compelled to follow it. If we had more of poverty, more of misery, and something of servitude ; if we had an ignorant, idle, starving population, we might set up for iron-makers against the world. . . . Multitudes of persons The Political Argument. 319 Pt. IV., Ch. v., ? II.] are willing to labour in the production of this article for us at the rate of seven cents a day, while we have no labour which will not command, upon the average, at least five or six times that amount. The question is, then, shall we buy this article of these manufacturers and suffer our own labour to earn its greater reward ; or, shall we employ our own labour in a similar manufacture, and make up to it, by a tax on consumers, the loss which it must necessarily sustain ? " 11. If the preceding extracts and observations contain a true view of the theory of wages, it is evident that wages will continue to be high in a young country so long as the natural extractive industries continue their exceptional productiveness. Now, the productiveness of an industry or, what is the same thing, the efficiency of the labour employed in it depends to a considerable extent upon the obstacles which labour has to overcome. The fewer these are, the more will be produced by an equal effort. But the object and effect of Protective duties is to create obstacles where none existed. They are expressly designed to prevent men making use of the free gifts which Nature has bestowed on foreign countries. They thus constitute new and artificial obstacles which labour has to overcome. If these duties affect any of the instruments used in the extractive in- dustries and it is hard to conceive of any Protective duties which will not affect the farmer and the miner in his tools or wants they are, clearly, an encumbrance on their natural productiveness, and by that amount they lessen the efficiency of labour. But by lessening the efficiency of the labour employed in the extractive industries, Protective duties lower the standard of wages for the whole country. The standard of wages is fixed by the profitableness of the dominating industries. These require little skill, and are open to every one of a strong body. Naturally, therefore, a man who has the chance of commanding 320' Industrial Freedom, a certain rate in an industry of this kind will not accept much below it in any other. It is not meant that every carpenter or joiner, if he cannot get the current wages, will at once turn farmer. That would be a grotesque misrepresentation of the argument. What is contended for is the obvious truism that when, owing to the natural superiority of a country in climate, soil, or mineral wealth, unskilled labour can obtain a high reward, the probability (which over a large number of men becomes a certainty) is that the ruling rate for other kinds of labour will be at least equal to that which prevails in the extractive industries. If this be correct and it can hardly be denied the extractive industries set a certain standard of wages, which will not be reduced until these industries become less profitable. 12. The chief charge, therefore, against Protection, from the view of tlie wage-earner, is that by making the extractive industries less profitable it hastens a decline in wages generally. Nor is this the only way in which Protection operates in- juriously on wages. High wages depend not only on the cfiiciency of labour, but on the number of labourers. " When two masters are running after one man, wages rise ; when two men are running after one master, wages fall," is a saying attributed to George Ste))henson. But, whoever may be the author, the saying expresses a portion of the truth which must not be over- looked. In most young countries the development of the natural resources is still incomplete, so that every labourer who can turn his hand to one of the extractive industries causes an increase in the national productiveness. He does not displace another workman, but himself adds by his labours to the store from which all workmen are emjiloyed. Consecpently, there is no fear at present of Australian or American wages being The Political ArgumMnT\ 321 tt. IV., Ch. v., 5 12.] forced down by the competition of immigrants belonging to the classes who will find employment on the soil or in other of the extractive industries. Australia, indeed, is suffering from an insufficiency in the supply of labour for these pursuits. She could employ double the number of men in the extractive industries ; and since every man would produce a far greater value than he could consume, the rate of wages would not fall.^ Competition, where labour is properly organised, only reduces wages when the industry, for employment in which the labourers are competing, has reached the limits of its productiveness. That point is yet far distant in Australia and America. As was ob- served in the course of the debate on the Mills' tariff proposals in the American Piouse of Representatives in 188S: "Not until the sixty millions of Americans become six hundred millions will men crowd each other in the United States in the fierce struggle for existence and wealth, as they do in Great Britain to-day." When that time comes unless, as indeed will probably be the case, if we may judge from past experience, the instruments of production should enormously improve in power wages will have fallen to the European rate. But we may leave the incidents of that far-off time to speculative dreamers. But although the increase in the number of extractive labourers in a young country is not likely to lower wages, the effect of an increase of manufacturing labourers is entirely different. The market for manufactured goods in any young com- munity must be smaller than the market for its raw produce. The former is limited by the confines of the colony the other is the world. Consec^uently, over-production of manu- factured goods will be an early result of a Protective tariff. ' This is, of course, on the assuinplion, which ouglit always to be made in dealing with questions of wages, that trades unions exist in tlie country. If there were no unions, advantage might be taken of local congestions of labour, or of the ignorance of new-comers, to lower the rati.'s. 322 Industrial Freedom. Twenty years have been sufficient to supply the market of Victoria, even althougli for the greater part of that time the markets of the other colonies have been open to Victorian produce. If New South Wales, where Victorians now find a market for their surplus, were to adopt a Protective tariff and should she take this fatal step, it will in no small degree be owing to a just resentment against the provincial spirit of her Southern neighbour many Victorian manufactories would run half-time. The effect of over-production of manufactures upon the general rate of wages is easily understood. The artisans, unable to find employment in their own trades, flock to the extractive industries. These, being already burdened with the Protective duties, do not respond with elasticity to the new demand. Nor do the labourers them- selves generally possess the training or physique which fit them for these pursuits. They do, however^ form a large and gradually increasing body of floating unorganised labour, which always presses on the outskirts of trades unionism, and offers to employers an encouragement to resist its just demands. Nor is this danger to the interests of organised labour always left to its natural growth. The contrary is indeed the case. The experience of America and Victoria shows that Protected manufacturers most frequently import their labour. The wage-earner is thus oppressed by Protection on every side. The aid of Nature to his efforts has been lessened : the purchasing power of his wages has been diminished : and the number of his competitors has been increased. His old prosperity is destroyed by the very means which he adopted to peri)etuate it, until he learns by a bitter experience that Nature is, after all, the best restorer of labour troubles, as of other ills. The Political Argument. 323 Pt. IV., Ch. vi.. \ I.] CHAPTER VI. THE COST OF PROTECTION. I. The fiscal controversy has now been tracked through all its windings. Starting on the broad and well-worn road of economic demonstration, the argument has wandered into every by-path of expediency and prejudice. None of the appeals to interest, sentiment, or pride, by which Protectionists have tried to cover their defeat in economic argument, has been allowed to pass unnoticed, but each has been considered separately, and has been tested both by experience and by theory. The result is unaltered. The economic demonstra- tion needs no qualification. Both political and economic arguments lead to the same conclusion : namely, that Free Trade which is voluntary trade means great trade, and great trade means prosperity. Nevertheless, where so much is at stake there will never be finality. The theory and experience which seem conclusive to-day will be distinguished tomorrow, if there is only a difference in names to furnish an excuse. Self-interest will never lack a means of working on fanaticism. Protection is hydra-headed, as every Free Trade controversialist must know. It seems useless to expose one fallacy, because the disputant at once ignores what he has said before, and takes his stand upon a frcsli position. Prove to a man that Free Trade cannot lower wages, and lie will talk aljout diversity of cccu[)ation ; quit the argument about wages to discuss di- versity, and he is asking for a home market. (Juote statistics, the authority is denied. Ask for facts, )ou ar*^ given phrases. Reason logically about tlie very phrases that are given- all reasoning is denounced as ' theory." Fortunately, one resource remains to disregard the rents and gaps in Protectionist arguments^ and treat the (question \' 2 324 Industrial Free do At. simply as one of expediency. Assume that Protection will do all that its advocates promise, is not the price too dear ? May we not buy diversity of occupation at too high a rate, even if we get infant industries and a home market thrown into the bargain ? In short, let it be granted that Free Trade is bad, and that Protection remedies its worst defects, and still the question will remain is the game worth the candle? If it is not, and if Protection prove too high a price to pay for all the promised benefits, a permanent and comprehensive answer is afforded to every form of Protectionist allurement. Nor can Protectionists complain of this method of con- troversy, since they themselves impliedly, if not expressly, admit that Protection may be bouglit too dearly when they protest against being supposed to advocate "extreme" Pro- tection. Bastiat's famous petition of the candle-makers against the competition of the sun, which seems to Free Traders such an unanswerable redudio ad absnrdiiiii of Protectionist argu- ment; can only be avoided by fixing some limit to the operation of Protective doctrines. Unfortunately, no one knows what that limit is. It can only be guessed at by a series of rough inductions from Protectionist protests. We know, for instance (to recur to the former illustration), that Protectionists in France and Anierica would not advocate the enclosure of a city in a dome of glass in order to give employment to the makers of glass and the manufacturers of artificial liglit. However much the light of the sun may prejudice the sale of oils, candles, lamps, and resin, and an infinity of kindred articles, Protectionists will not shut out the competition of that foreign rival. And they will not be moved to alter their decision even by the consideration that if access to natural light were closed in a few of the principal cities, there would be an increase of cattle and sheep to supply tallow, that groves would be planted with resinous trees, that there would be an extended cultivation of vegetable oils, and that the demand for artificial lishtinsi; would encourage The Political Argument. 325 Pt. IV., Ch. vi., 5 I.] agriculture in many ways, and at the same time give a home market to the farmer. We know that Protectionists will not shut out sunlight, because many of them have declared the proposal to be absurd, and have given as their reason that sunlight is a free gift of Nature. The reason is excellent, but it equally applies to iron, coal, and every other natural product which, by reason of the greater liberality of Nature, is cheaper in one place than another. But the same Protectionists who refuse to exclude cheap light do exclude cheap firing and cheap iron, from which we can only conclude that there are certain limits to the extent to which Protectionists are ready to refuse the gifts of Nature. Sunlight they will accept, because the price of that is always zero ; but iron, coal, and corn will be refused, because the price of these articles only ai)proximates to zero. If Nature does the whole work, her gifts will be received ; if she does only a part, they will be rejected : or, what comes to the same thing, a tax, equal in amount to the equivalent of Nature's cftbrt, will be imposed upon the import of the completed article. But even this distinction is not quite exact. Protectionists will accept some gifts of a part from Nature, but not others. For instance, American Protectionists will accept the assistance of Nature in the production of tea, but not of iron. They are ready to recognise that tlie natural conditions for the production of tea are better in China than in America, but they refuse to recognise the superiority of Australia in pro- ducing wool. ]jut the proof of the existence of superior natural conditions for tlie production of any article must always be the same, vi/., a lower price. Altliough American Protectionists will not encourage the tea industry, it is only a matter of money to grow enough tea under glass in the Southern States to supply the wliole Unir)n. Nor would it matter what the tea cost, because even if it cost twenty dollars a pound, the money (according to the Protectionist 326 Industrial Freedom. theory) would not go out of the country ; so that instead of America having the tea and China the money, as at present, America would have both the money and the tea ! While if there were any surplus production, bounties might be given on its export to China, so as to destroy the foreigner in his own market ! Other instances of a similar character miglit be quoted to show that Protectionists are not always ready to follow arguments to their logical conclusion. There appears to be some vague and variable limit be) ond which Protectionists will not go, for the reason that, if they di I'reviou.^ly to the American tariff of 1862, there was a considerable smelting industry carried on in the seaboard States. The duty on pig-iron destroyed it. 'J lie decline of the American shipping trade is another familiar instance. The tarilT has made iron and steel so deai', and so eahanced the price of other raw materials, that shipbuilding has ceased to be jirofitable, and the American marine, which once ranked next to that of England, has almost disappeared. The tariff has produced a similar result in Victoria. The shipbuilders have openly asseited, and proved their assertion to the Ciavernment, that they can no longer build ships to compete with those of New .Soutli Wales, because of the high price of the raw material Q;:casioiied by the Protective tariff. The Political Arcvmekt. 329 Pt. IV., Ch. vi.,5 3.] manner of stating the case, upon the ground (as they say) that the internal competition of producers will reduce the prices of Protected articles below those at which they could be imported. Of course, if this were true, there would be no need of Protection ; and the best proof of sincerity which those who make the assertion could give, would be to become Free Traders. But in fact, as so often happens with Protec- tionist arguments, they are theoretically true under certain assumed conditions, but in practice they have no bearing on the controversy, because the conditions are absent. The internal competition of which we hear so much seldom takes place with sufficient activity to reduce prices. Rings, trusts, combines, pools and every other device of a closed commerce to secure for itself a profitable field of plunder, are resorted to by the Protected manufacturers to prevent a decline in prices through the competition of their own number. A Protected country furnishes new illustrations every year of the old adage that " where combination is possible competition is impossible." It may, indeed, be put as the head and front of Protectionist offending, that it destroys healthy competition in order to create an unhealthy combination. The manufacturing magnates of a Protected country arc as truly the privileged class of to-day, as were their prototypes in the Rhine castles, who exacted tolls from every passing trader. Not only is Protection a policy of ine(|uality, but it is a policy of ine([uality without system. It is a haphazard policy, which confers its fiivours and strikes its blows equally at random. This is inevitable from the nature of the object which it sets before itself The selcriion of tliis or that industry for special legislative favour places a i)Ower in the hands of Parliament, which, even if it is not exercised cor- ru])tly, must he exercised more or less blindl}-. The woollen duties of the United States are the typical illustration of this feature of Protection. They are so intricate and delicately graduated tliat even experts in the trade are said to be unable 330 INDUSTRIAL Freedom. to estimate exactly either their amount or their incidence.* What, then, must be the position of the legislator who imposed the duties ? No man can be master of the technicalities of every trade ; and the most honest legislator cannot fail to be misled by the interested statements of commercial experts. The settlement of a tariff has been described by an American eye-witness as "a game of grab," in which each interest takes what it can, and by combination with others secures the utmost. The iron men support the farmers, if the farmers vote for a duty on steel rails ; and the woollen manufacturers form a close alliance with the copper trust in order to prevent the pastoralists from getting too much for wool. How infinitely hard, in such a chaos of no principles, to detect corruption or insure wise judgment ! Ignorance attempting to legislate according to the dictates of self-interest ! Grant that ignorance acts honestly, yet into what an unseemly scramble for money- aids is politics degraded ! Unfortunately, however, ignorance is not always honest. It would be assuming too much of human nature to look for the continuance of a high standard of public integrity in any Protected country. With whatever high motives men may at first delude themselves into the support of a Protective tariff, they run a constantly increasing risk of being conquered by the temptations with which the policy surrounds them. The virtue of a legislator must indeed be adamant, if, when he sees others plundering all about him, he keeps his own hands pure from bribes. Let the recent experience of Canada, or the revelations of the methods of the contest for the United States Presidency in 1888, be a sufficient warning! Politically, then. Protection ought to be condemned, because it creates vested interests, the existence of which is dependent upon Acts of Parliament, and which tend mevitably to become monopolies ; because it creates these interests without ' See on this subject the chapter on the Woollen Duties in Professor Taussig's " History of Protection." The Political Argument. 331 Pt. IV., Ch. vi., \ 4.] due regard to the evil which it inflicts on others, and because it entrusts the power of enriching individuals to legislators, who are all the more exposed to the influence of improper motives, because their want of knowledge must prevent them from acting with complete fairness, even if they had the best intentions. 4. But it is as a social rather than a political evil, that the baleful influence of Protection is the most apparent, h.% an abuse of the law-making power, it injures respect for law by- creating artificial offences against which both self interest and the sense of justice equally rebel. There is no surer means of accustoming citizens to view with complacency disobedience to the laws, than by awarding heavy punishments for acts (such as smuggling) which are not morally wrong. No one can trace in detail or estimate in bulk how much is lost to a com- munity, if the public once lose faith in its law-makers and respect for its laws ; but that the loss is considerable few would attempt to deny. Nor does the evil of Protection rest here. Men are influenced by it also in the more self-regarding relations of their lives ; because it tends to weaken tlie motives of self- reliance and enterprise. x\fter a long course of Protection manufacturers seem to lose the power of facing difficulties like practical and courageous men. In the face of competition they become like silly cliildren, and are scared by it as by a ghost. Instead of calling their men together to devise new pro- cesses, or calculating how to cheapen or improve their present ones, they run whining to Parliament for help at the first sign of successful rivalry. Instead of trusting to the old-foshioned virtues of enterprise and self-reliance, they lean entirely on Protective dulies. A system is thus initiated which, if it were continued long enough upon a people whose numbers wore not constantly recruited by energetic immigrants, could only end in the destruction of national life. The vigour of a pcojile wliich becomes accustomed t(j ai)ijly to (;(j\ernment 332 IXDVSTKJAL FREEDOM. in every difficulty, must be gradually sapped. Private energy will put forth no power, when it is without assurance that it will be allowed to reap success, and when a vote of the Assembly may at any moment bring its enterprise to an un- timely end. Thus Protection defeats the object of its advo- cates ; and the very policy which is designed to stimulate new qualities and develop the natural powers both of a country and its citizens, becomes a subtle instrument for the destruction of originality, ambition, and enterprise. For Protection is essentially antagonistic to progress. It runs counter to one of the most elementary and per- manent of human instincts, viz., the desire to satisfy wants at the least cost. We spend millions in dredging harbours, in removing sand-bars, and by every means improving the facilities for commercial intercourse. Yet, so soon as we experience the effects of this work in a reduced cost of foreign goods, the Protectionist would have us lay a new tax, like restoring the sand-bars, in order to bring up prices. Well may Professor Sumner saj', "To build sand-bars across our harbours would be a far cheaper means of reaching the same end." If the Protectionist theory be correct, all the thought, energy, time and money devoted to imjiroving the means of communication between foreign nations is wasteful and in- jurious. A great steamship or an international railway only exists to cheapen the cost of transportation ; improvements in processes of manufacture are only designed to cheapen the cost of production ; improved markets, co-operation, and similar devices, are only resorted to in order to cheapen the cost of distribution. The net result of this manifold exertion of human power is a reduction in jjrices. ^'et, let prices fall in any country save their own, Protectionists at once declare that the result is ruin, not advantage, to their fellow-citizens. The Cliinese are the true I'rotectionists, for they build a wall around their territory and exclude foreieners. The Political Argument. 333 Pt. IV., Ch. V,, \ 5.] 5. Finally, Protection deserves to be condemned as a moral abuse. It is no doubt unfashionable, at present, to judge political measures by ethical standards ; partly because the dominance of reactionary ideas and the rule of force, of which Protection is only one expression, are unfavourable to moral criticism, and partly owing to a just resentment against the egotism, cant and malice with which some prominent political moralists apply the ethical test. Nevertheless, those who believe that the foundations of a national policy must rest upon sound morality will be compelled to give consideration to the ethical basis of a Protective system. Yet it would seem as if Protectionists always shrank from this duty. Their policy has no ethical maxim connected with it. It is, on the contrary, an open outrage on the moral sense of a community, and a defiance of all moral maxims. It rests avowedly on seltishness " Germany hav, nothing to do with Russia, nor Russia with Germany," says List, its champion I^and it justifies its action by appeals to national prejudice and class interests. Where Free Trade preaches the brotherhood of man, and urges that, in foreign as in private commerce, a nation should "Do unto others as it wishes to be done by," Protection advocates national isolation, and inculcates the doctrine of doing to others in commercial matters as they do unto us. " Peace on earth, good-will towards men,"' which is the motto of the Cobden Club, can have no meaning to the ears of men who wage an internecine warfare with every nation by the means of hostile tariffs, which are not the less deadly than murderous weapons because they do not leave their victims mangled on the ground. The "nationalist" who rejoices over the distress which the McKinley tariff has caused in Germany or Wales, and claims every dislocation of foreign commerce and every injury to foreign traders as a sign of a worthy triumph, evidently stands upon a different moral plane from those who hold tb.at each nation finds its own true slremzih 334 IXDUSTRIAL I'REEDOM. in a joint and peaceful progress with neighbouring countries. It is characteristic of those who view Avith satisfaction the injurious effects of their pohcy on other countries, that they should be indifferent to the liberties of their own people. Yet the moral aspect of Protection is no brighter, if the policy is contemplated only in its home results. Protection is an interference with human liberty, of the same nature, and differing from it only in degree, as human slavery. " If it is criminal," said Cobden, with his usual insight, " to steal a man and make him work for nothing, it is equally criminal to steal from a free man the fair reward of his labour." Every increase of price in a Protected article means an addition to the forced labour of those who desire to buy it. Such an invasion of human freedom may be justified (as negro slavery was justified) by more or less sincere assertions that the interest of the poor requires it ; but in its essence it is always, as in practice the facts prove, a device to secure advantages for rich men in which the poor do not share. It is this consciousness of the deep-lying immorality of a Protective policy that justifies the confident belief among Free Traders in its ultimate destruction. Those who believe that " morality is the nature of things " arc not likely to be much disheartened by the passing victories of restrictive ])olicies. Periods of reaction are inevitable ; and when the reaction takes the form of military despotism and belief in force, tariffs, which are the accompaniment of niilitarism and the denial of justice, are necessary incidents of tlie reaction. Even already, however, there are signs that the nightmare of Protection is lifting ; while the causes of discouragement to Free Traders have never been so great as tliose which darkened the days of the Abolitionists only twenty years before the Civil War. 6. It is no wonder, then, that, in every civilised country, The Political Argument. 335 Pt. IV., Ch. vi., \ 6.] those who try to find the best expression of a nation's moral life in its political system, and who recognise that sense of duty is the safeguard of society, and not self-interest all, in fact, who are men of ideas, with hardly one exception are waging an undying battle with the creature Protection, It is no wonder, also, if at times the language of the disputants grows heated, " Protectionism," says Professor Sumner and his words will find an echo in the heart of every one who has lived in a Pro- tected country, and has seen the desperate shifts to which Protectionists resort, or read the nonsense and the falsehoods of their journalistic champions " is such an arrant piece of economic quackery, and it masquerades under such an affectation of learning and philosophy^ that it ought to be treated as other quackeries are treated with scorn, contempt, satire, and ridicule." If this method has not been adopted in the present work, it has been out of deference to the feelings of others, and from a real desire to see the matter as they see it, and not from any belief that Protectionist arguments can bear even the sound of plausibility to men who study the course of trade and the growth of industrial life. Students of economics are virtually unanimous in condemning the policy. But voters are not students, and often lack the means of information. Such persons, if they will reflect upon the matter, need no study to become Free Traders. Protectionism is an outrage on the moral sense. " It is a subtle, cruel, and unjust invasion of one man's rights by another. It is done by force of law. It is at the same time a social abuse, an economic blunder, and a political evil." The system saps self-reliance, because it leads men to deiJond upon the laws of Parliament when they should be studying the laws of nature ; it is repug- nant to justice, because it introduces artificial inequalities ; it is destructive of political purity, because it turns the power of law-making into an engine for enriching individuals. It is at once the offspring and the parent of corruption. It lowers the standard of wages and creates monopolies. It widens the ^^6 Industrial Freedom. breach between classes by introducing systematic spoliation under the forms of law. No possible advantage which Protec- tion can give can compensate for these tremendous evils. The true policy, therefore, is to trust in freedom, even when the path seems lost, remembering that the confusion and obscurities of industrial life cannot be relieved by efforts to turn back the hands upon the clock of time. The Free Trade controversy presents anew all the features of the old controversy against ingrained abuses. The struggle, which, in one form or another and under varied names, has divided men into opposing camps, since the first existence of political societies, is now waging round the issue of Free Trade. Religious, political, and industrial freedom are the constituent elements of a stable and prosperous State. Two of these religious and political freedom have already been achieved ; but the struggle is yet being waged around the third. Yet, of the three, industrial freedom is of most importance to a democratic State ; because under the modern conditions of civil life, neither religious nor political freedom is likely to be long enjoyed, if the fabric of liberty is once impaired upon the side of industry. The matter of primary importance in any industrial society is the preservation, against all attacks, of its individual freedom. Those who, in their zeal for socialism, temperance, or other objects^ refuse to take their part in the fiscal battle, need to be reminded of Mr. John Morley's advice to another class of earnest reformers, that " They should not let the eternities bulk so big as to shut out this perishable speck, the human race," and to be guided in their practice by Cobden's sage direction that 'Mn politics we must only do one thing at a time." The first thing to be done now throughout the greater part of the English-speaking world is, to destroy Protection. That once accomplished, the path is clear, and other reforms will follow. APPENDIX I. Tables of Wages in the English Cotton, Woollen, Worsted, and Iron Trades. In order to illustrate the statements in Chapter IV., Part I., relating to the diffusion of wealth in Great Britain, some tables are sub- joined, exhibiting the fluctuations in the wages of the four principal English Industries the Cotton, Woollen, Worsted, and Iron manufactures since 1830. The figures are extracted from the Reports issued by the Board of Trade, under the title " Miscel- laneous Statistics of the United Kingdom." Unfortunately, these reports contain very little evidence upon which positive conclusions can be based. They contain, it is true, a good deal of miscellaneous information about wages ; but they appear at irregular intervals, and their information is exhibited on miscellaneous principles of inconvenience and confusion. In one report an industry is scheduled by itself, which in the next is lost among a mass of details of the state of trade in certain districts. Sometimes wages are estimated by the hour, sometimes by the week, and sometimes by the piece. Upon occasions the employments of workmen are distributed ; while upon others an industry is treated as a whole, and its rate of wages is expressed in averages ; and, not unfre- qucntly, an ijiiportant trade, the condition of which has been described for several years with a most useful fulness, drops out entirely from the record, never to appear again.' But, in spite of the impaired value of such ill-arranged statistics, the figures are useful up to a certain point for purposes of com- parison ; and, in respect of the four great industries already named, they have been presented with some approach to an uniform method. These trades together give employment to about one- half of the working-class, so that the \-ai-\ ing rate of wages paid in them during the last thirty years will indicate an approximate an^iuer to the question '' Whctlicr wages in Knglantl have on the wh'ilc risen or decreased ?'' A. v"Ar;i:s IX Tin: co'I'I'on ixr>usTRV. The wa;-;es paid in llie Cotton industry are particularly valuable indications of the ratc,^ in other trades, lioth l)ecause for the last ' Thcso (l.'fu'ioiicit'S !iav" l)cen remedied of Lite years; Imt the I'eniavk.s a]";'ly t'l t!ie veai's f)\c;" wlach tl;ese jirrnres !ia\'e li-en taken. W 338 Industrial Freedom. forty years that industry has maintained the same position of importance, and because it has also, during that time, been singu- larly free from any disturbing fluctuation in the number of hands employed.^ This is mainly owing to the gradual introduction of machinery', by which, in spite of the great increase in the production of cotton goods, the necessity for employing more labour has been avoided. In examining the fluctuations, it is convenient to adopt a rough division of the Cotton operatives into four classes, according to the degree of skill required in their several occupations. In the first class would come the overlookers and superior artisans in each department, together with those spinners who, according to the number of spindles each man can manage, would be classed above No. loo in the technical language of the factory. The bulk of the adult males would fall into the second class, as being spinners and weavers of average skill. Women should be ranked alone as a third class ; and, for greater clearness, the wages of children under sixteen should also be considered separately. The subjoined Tables are an attempt to carry out this principle of division. Table showing the Fluctuations in the Average Rate of Weekly Wages paid to persons employed in the Cotton Trade during the years 1839-77 in Manchester and the Xeighbourhood : Occupation. \ 1839. "V 1849. 1859. 1874. 1 1S77. 1ST Class. j 1 Superior Operatives. i-. d. s. d.s. d. s. d. s. s. s. d, s. s. d. s. d. (i.) Overlookers .. ..'24 to 25 028 28 '30 to 45 30 to 45 (ii.) Skilled spinners, above No. 103 . . . . 40 to 45 036 to 40 40 to 45 45 to 50 45 to 55 (iii.) Engine-irs .. 24 28 ,30 ,43 58 3 2NT) Class. Unskilled Operatives. (i.) Spinners below No. 10023 to 25 21 23 to 25 42 40 (ii.) lileachers . . . . 21 18 18 ^24 :28 (iii.) Strippers and grinders 11 to 13 12 to 13 12 to 13 22 to 2321 (iv.) Labourers .. 15 15 15 I y 5 I S 9 SRD Class. 1 Women. (i.) Carding Department . . 6 6 to 7 t 6 6 10 S 6 7 to 9 II to 16 10 6 to 18 7 (ii.) Doublers . . 7 7 6 9 10 to 13 12 (iii.) Weaving 9 to 17 63 9 to 16 60 10 to 20 12 to 24 Weekly hours of labour 60 59 1 56^ ' The number of hands employed in all branches of the Cotton trade is given at 420,000 for 1S74, and in 1840 it was estimated at 400,000. Appendix I. 339 It appears from these Tables that in the year 1839 the wages of the highest paid overlooker, in any department, was 25s. for a week of sixty-nine hours, which is twelve hours a day, with nine hours on Saturday for a half-holiday. Ten years later after Free Trade his wages had risen to 28s., and his hours of work had been re- duced to sixty in the week. Since that date there has been a steady improvement in wages, together with a further reduction in the hours of work. The lowest paid overlooker now gets more for fifty- six and a half hours' work than the best paid overlooker received in 1849 for sixty hours ; while the remuneration of the more skilled over- lookers has increased more than fifty per cent, in the same period. The increase in the wages of the engineers is even more remark- able. They have more than doubled in the last thirty years. The skilled spinners after a temporary fall, through the introduc- tion of machinery are also better off than they were. Those who are the least skilled among them are paid higher for less work, and the rewards open to them for a higher exercise of skill are con- siderably increased. Even the class of unskilled labourers, whose progress, as already noted in the text,^ is generally slower, have, in some cases, doubled their wages in the same thirty years ; although, with reference to this class, it should not be forgotten that many of its members are constantly pushing forward into better paid employments, and that it is also being constantly re- cruited from below by those who, in former days, would have lived as paupers or vagabonds. The figures which show the wages paid to women need no further explanation. They will show, with sufficient clearness, how low is the market \alue of woman's labour, and how little has been done to raise that value by intelligent and power- ful combination. Unlike men, women are not yet paid l)y reference to any standard of class comfort, but arc content with any pittance which may increase the family resources, however insufficient that may be, by itself, to keep one ])erson in a position of health and decency. By such ill-judged economy, they only depress the general labour market, without obtaining for thcmseh-es independence or security ; so that they tempt men, wlio are heedless of tl;e impossibilit\- of bringing women back to a state of subjection, to clamour fn- tlicir cx- rlusion from male employments. ' Src page 305. 34 Industrial Freedom^ c o t^ t^ "uo ut" "^ V vS" CO CO PI M n M 4- t^. 00 " "^ "m VO CO d d C4 CI Cl 6 "o CI c o 00 o CO o CO o ^ CO o S3 "i" y CO CI o lo od" M M M W .1 _1 J_ _^ o s3 o c7 M M To o CO o CO o CO -' 3 CO" CI -r CI 2 2 ''"' '^ in Co" >;.> " ^' ^ CO - ,1 ^ r^ OCO -i. cS ",> CI \r. C) 6 CO V , ' 'A X ^ x : : : ? =" ~ /"; J s. j _- 5 '1 r; :^ ^ ;" H ' ^ H <'. ~^ - e: 8 i' -'"^ - 3 s. '^ C "/. '-' ^ 1 '/; --T r. y. i r ' r: ct H ~ ^^ U w "^ ~ ^ X S ^ ' - Appendix I. 341 1 1- "0" -^ vo" 'S' cn ^ CJ a , CO 00 ^ *^ "CN ^ CO 00 "S N CO M " 10 M 00 ^ CO P) M t-^ 00 *-' M ." .> _^ CO ^ "o" "10 00 1 10 CO , , vO "a "0" 00 V; 00 CO C) M "0 CO CO 01 V b/) vd ." .> ct ^1 ^ . _ 10 E CO 00 CO 'O ^ CO XJ^ t- t-t M < 1 1 1 CO 1 "0" c 10 CO b^ c: CO "5" Cl CI Sr CO ^ *^ CJ *^ JT* CO "10 <' CI -F "ij^ IN " " CI l-l CO _^l "o~ 10 o" ~^ co" ^ T CO 1 CI w -O c t^ or CO CI cc *^ *^ CJ *-* co" Pi LT) .^ Cl "0" C) 10 "o" >o o" _CO co~ 00 -t- CO , , C) >-* c CO 2 CI -^ CO >o CI -r " " CI 1 _^ _. 1 t^ t^ vS~ ^" t< CO 06 N CI CO Cl Cl >n Q ~o CJ Q 00 ;;' *- *- -* *-' M a -r CO -r CO" iT (^ t^ ^~ "^ "^= "To to" C^ CI CI CO CI CI Cl iV) Q "0" in cc CI oi" "^F "o" -F "^ To ^ CO ^ '^ " U cl " ^ ^ ft ^^ /: ci CO -n ^ in '-) a in /: ri Cj m ZJ n lt: ^ '~> ^ij < s : 5 7-. ^ r-- C) r c^ ^ ^ 'm rt 3 g c; ^ y ^ d ^ 1:^ 34 2 Industrial Freedom. t 00 S" " ^ ^ 1 , , CO 1 00 CO CO "o" o "ct; CO H VO" "o" "o" CO en , CO t CI MD o 00 o o 00 "^ "o" oo oo CO C) C4 " vS~ "o" "o" ;^^" \o CO , - ^ o 'c tC "o 'c _o^ H t-< t~ ^ t p2 u S2 t: OJ OJ o o o c; o o s M 3 :/) c _c: 'o _c: 'o o o '" J-. r- y. 'vJ '-J APPENDIX II. J. S. MILL AND PROTECTION. The idea that the abnormal economic circumstances of a young country justify the imposition of Protective duties is sometimes supposed by Protectionists to have approved itself to no less eminent a thinker than John Stuart Mill. Indeed, much of the Protectionist argument from natural difficulties is professedly adopted from one passage in the writings of this economist. As this passage has been so much misunderstood, it will be well to quote it in full before entering upon any criticism of Mr. Mill's views. " The only case," says he, " in which, on mere principles of political economy, protecting duties can be defensible, is when they are imposed temporarily (especially in a young and rising nation) in hopes of naturalising a foreign industry in itself perfectly suitable to the circumstances of the country. The superiority of one country over another in a branch of production often arises only from having begun it sooner. There may be no inherent advantage on one part or disadvantage on the other, but only a present superiority of acquired skill and experience. A country which has this skill and experience yet to acquire may, in other respects, be better adapted to the production than those which were earlier in the field ; and, besides, it is a just remark that nothing has a greater tendency to promote improvements in any branch of production than its trial under a new set of conditions. But it cannot be expected that individuals, at their own expense, or, rather, at their certain loss, would introduce a new manufacture, and bear the burden of carrying it on until the producers have been educated up to the level of those with whom the processes are traditional. A protecting duty continued for a reasonable time will sometimes be the least inconvenient mode in which the nation can tax itself for the support of such an experiment. But the Pro- tection should be confined to cases in which there is good ground of assurance that the industry which it fosters will, after a time, be able to dispense with it ; nor should the domestic producers ever be allowed to expect that it will be continued to them beyond the 344 Jadvsthjal Freedom. time necessary for a fair trial of what they are capable of accomplishing." As this passage has been so often misinterpreted to convey an approval of the Protective policy in America and Australia, it may be well to set out clearly at starting what are the conditions under which Mill thinks Protection might be justifiable. They are four in number : (i) Where the tariff is imposed to start a new industry. (2) Where such industry is plainly suitable to the country. (3) Where it is only the want of experience on the part of either labourer or capitalist which deters individuals from running the risk of establishing the industry. (4) Where there is good reason to believe that the fostered industry will soon be able to stand alone. It is not an excessive admission that in such a case " Protection might be one mode " in which a nation could tax itself in support of an industrial experiment. Mill's error lay in thinking that it could ever be " the least inconvenient mode " of raising such a tax. The error of those that quote Mill lies in not perceiving that his observations only apply to the cases in which the conditions which he requires are present, and that in these cases he only contem- plates giving Protection during that short interval in the history of an industry between the first production of an article and the time when the home manufacturer is able to compete with his foreign rival both in quality and quantity. In the whole history of the Protective movement in America and Australia it is, I believe, impossible to cite a single industry, the circumstance of which would have justified Protection according to the canons laid down by Mr. Mill. Even, however, if it be granted that the condition of things concei\ed by Mr. Mill is theoictically possible, it cannot be too strongly insisted upon that Protection is the most wasteful, unjust, and inconvenient method of Government assistance. In the first place, whatever aid it gives comes too late ; Ijecause it cannot be of service in starting an industry, whatever advantages it may give after the industry is set going. Take, for instance. Mill's imaginary case of an industry which is delayed by want of skilled labour. This labour must either be imported from abroad or created at home by instruction ; and in neither case is the Append I. "^ 11. 345 object sought for immediately furthered by Protective duties. It would be better for the Government either to pay the passages of the imported labourers, if immigration were necessary, or to bear the cost of giving the required instruction to a sufficient number of home labourers. Either of these methods of aid would be .directed immediately to the object aimed at, and would be free from the grave objection to which Protection is open, of placing difficulties in the way of every industry which requires to make use of the Protected article. In fact, it must be plain that Protective duties can be of no advantage until the producers have begun to make the article ; but none the less they lay a heavy burden on the community from the first day on which they are collected ; while the benefits which they confer at a later stage in the history of an industry after it has been started, but before it is able to hold its own are open to the further objections that they come too late and are scattered indiscriminately upon those who may deserve them and those who certainly do not. The founder of a new industry in a young country does un- doubtedly confer a benefit upon the whole community at his own personal expense and risk ; so that it may be sometimes desirable, in the cases which Mr. Mill has put, that Government should encourage men to make experiments in new industrial ventures. But of all modes of giving this encouragement, Protection is the most ill-advised, being at once unjust and unsuccessful. The help which it gives comes after the time of difficulty has gone by, and is given with equal readiness both to the enterprising originator of the industry and every one who rushes into the business upon the strength of his experience. By this competition prices are certain to be reduced, until the originator of the industry may lose the advantages of the monopoly, which was created as his reward If Government aid is really required, either as a stimulus to new experiments or a reward for successful ones, it ought to take a form which will give the benefit with as much discrimination as possible to those who deserve it, and witli as little hardship as possible to the mass of the consumers. Either the ]iaymcnt of a money sum by way of bonus for the first production of the required article at home, or the granting of an allowance to the originator of an industry to enable him to sell his goods at market rates during his temporary inability to compete with the foreigner, or the letting of a Government contract at a non-competitive rate would serve the doulile purpose of reward and encouragement 346 Industrial Freedom. without much inconvenience to the mass of consumers. Any of these methods of aid, moreover, has the advantage that it can be easily withdrawn ; while a Protective tariff, once imposed, remains an incubus which can only be removed by serious civil strife. The essential ingredients in any form of Government assistance should be that it was terminable at a fixed period, and that both the persons who receive it and the amount which each receives should be easily ascertainable. Protection does not satisfy either of these requirements. No form of Government aid, however, is free from objection. Bonuses, bounties, special contracts, or any other form of subsidy, are in the long run demoralising both to the recipients and to the public life of the country, both as being premiums on laziness and occasions for fraud. It is so easy for all concerned to receive and pay money according to the terms of some agreement, that neither can a manufacturer be expected to shorten this period of gratuitous assistance nor a civil servant to watch very closely all the details of a manufacturing process or check the figures of a ledger. In any bargain of this kind with the State the manufacturer is sure to get the best of it. Fortunately, experience proves that Government assistance is not required to start new industries in a young country. If there is a risk of failure in a young country owing to the inexperience of all concerned, the conditions of the country soften the failure very much. In a small country new industries must be on a small scale ; and no large expenditure, whether Government assistance be extended or withheld, would be required to embark upon the experimental stages of a new industry. Consequently, we may watch every demand for State aid with more than ordinary suspicion, without being haunted by any sentimental fear lest in protecting the State purse against the raids of interested persons we are delaying the development of our country. Healthy enterprises and profitable trades are sure to be developed without assistance ; while if there be any natural industry which ought to start at once, and is prevented by the want of Government assistance, the question must be still answered whether it is not better to lose the industry than to enter on the perilous path of State aid. APPENDIX III. Comparison between the Respective Rates of Progress OF New South Wales and Victoria since 1866. I. The risk of pressing too far any argument, which rests upon a comparison between the condition of different countries, has been already alluded to in these pages, and attention has been called to the passage in which Mr. Giffen points out, with admirable lucidity, the requisites under which alone any such comparison is admis- sible. These requisites exist more nearly as between New South Wales and Victoria than between any other countries, so that, if the argument from comparison is ever admissible, it will be in their case. Both of them are young countries, and are inhabited by men of the same race, speech, and training : capital and labour oscillate freely between them : both use substantially the same methods and forms of government : while, against the larger terri- tory of New South Wales may be set the superior climate and easier development of its southern neighbour. Whatever may be the balance of the natural advantages, whether of climate or popu- lation, is on the side of Victoria, whose compact, fertile, and well- watered territory gained for it, on its first discovery, the well- deserved title of Australia Felix. The striking and ultimate point of difference between the two countries is their fiscal policy. Since 1866 Victoria has lived under a system of gradually increasing Protection, while the policy of New South Wales has been, in the main, one of Free Trade. According to all Protectionist theory Victoria should be prosperous and New South Wales distressed ; there should be variety and growth in the one country, stagnation in the other. At least the progress of Victoria ought to have been more rapid than that of New South Wales, because she has added to the natural advantages which she already enjoyed, the artificial benefits which are claimed for a Protective tariff. If, in fact, neither of these conclusions is correct, and, while both countries have been phenomenally prosperous, New South Wales has prospered the most, one of two conclusions is inevit- able namely, either that certain special influences have caused the more rapid progress of New South Wales which were not felt 34^ Industrial Freedom. in Victoria, or that Protection has retarded instead of assisted the development of Victoria's natural superiority. 2. Writers of all schools admit that activity in certain depart- ments of national life is a fair indication of prosperity and progress. It is, for instance, generally allowed that an increase in popula- tion, a development of agricultural and manufacturing industry, a growth of foreign commerce, an increase in shipping, or an improvement in the public revenue, are all signs of health and well-being ; and that a concurrence of such symptoms over a lengthened period indicates an increase in material wealth. Accepting these tests of progress, our comparison proceeds thus : first, we examine the position of the two Colonies as regards population, foreign commerce, shipping, agriculture, manufac- tures, and revenue, at the time when both of them adhered to Free Trade ; from which we find that, according to all these indi- cations of prosperity, Victoria was then very much the better off : In 1866 she outnumbered New South Wales in population by 200,000 souls : her foreign commerce was larger by /^8,3oo.ooo : she had a greater area of land under cultivation : her manufactures were well established, while those of New South Wales were few and insignificant : she was ahead in shipping, and her revenue was greater by one-third. Passing next to the years which follow 1866, we observe that New South Wales gradually bettered her position in every province of national activity, and that, as the fetters of Protection became tighter, V'ictoria receded in the race. She gave way first in the department of foreign commerce, next in population, shipping, and revenue, until, in 1887, she maintained her old superiority in agriculture alone. From this accumulation of facts and not from any one of them we infer that the rate of progress in New South Wales under Free Trade has been greater than that of \'ictoria under Protection ; and we use this fact (without at present claiming the credit of it for Free Trade, or seeking for its explanation) as one, which, whatever its explanation may be, is proof by itself that the Protectionist dogma as to the inability of a young country under any circumstances to make rapid progress without Protection is contrary to experience. " Either prosperity in a Free Trade country, or distress in a Protectionist country, is," as Appendix III. 349 Professor Summer has said, " fatal to the Protectionist theory." 3. Having established our facts, we next seek to explain them ; and in doing so have first to consider the various explana- tions offered by Protectionists. These are three in number. P^irst, they say that the comparison between New South Wales and Victoria ought not to be made, because the conditions of the two countries are not similar; and they specially insist upon the earlier foundation and the larger territory of the Free Trade Colony. This argument we meet by a plea in confession and avoidance, to drop for a moment into the apt language of the lawyer's art ; the facts may be admitted, but the use which is made of them must be contested. We shall have to show that whatever advantages the circumstances referred to may give to New South Wales are more than compensated for by other advantages peculiar to Victoria. The second argument by which Protectionists attempt to depreciate the signiticance of the New South Wales superiority is by insisting that her growth is due to certain special causes such as the expenditure of borrowed money, and the sale of public lands which have no connection with the fiscal dispute. Here, again, the facts will be admitted, and it will be conceded that both these and other causes have contributed most materially to the rapid progress of New South Wales. But it will also be shown that whatever influences besides Free Trade have aided New South Wales, have also aided \^ictoria with even greater intensity. Thus, the very facts which are advanced as a disparagement will be used as further evidence of the efilcacy of a Free Trade policy. Having thus sketched the outline of the argument which follows, we arc in a position to enter upon the details with less risk of confusion. POI'ULATIOX. The first element of greatness to a young country is populalion. .'\ new- land needs to Ijc (lc\clopcd b}' strou;;' arms, and e\ t!'\-\\ lu-re ciics aloud foi" men. It is true that congestions iii the labour iiiarkcL or; iir at limes in Australia as elsewhere, but tliey must not be taken as an nidieation of o\'er-iioj)ula'ion. F\er\' new coimtr\- ' dutains a resiiluun\ of ciinainals antl ne'cr-do-wcels who, from oni- cause or atio'.her, arc unfit for work ; wliik; Austral;, i po::se~ ics. in a'lcliiion.a 35 Industrial Freedom. class of genuine lazzaroni, whose dislike of any steady occupa- tion is encouraged by a genial climate and a reckless system oi public and private almsgiving. During the greater part of the year the shelter of a roof at night is neither requisite nor comfort- able ; while for the inclement season, food and lodging can be had in every capital either gratuitously or for a minimum of work. Besides this voluntary pauperism, there is in every Colony a certain element of casually employed persons, consisting of artisans and clerks, who experience real suffering in times of depression, from inability or unwillingness to leave the cities and seek new kinds of occupation in the country. Still, after making every allowance for temporary dislocations of industry, it is safe to say that the danger of over-population is not within the limits of practical Australian politics ; and that, even in times of greatest depression, thousands of able-bodied men could always obtain work in any Colony at good, and even high, wages. The growth of population is thus a crucial test of Australian prosperity, which can be applied without qualification to all the Colonies, because none has any pre-eminence in "unemployed." The class of the "unemployed" contains the same elements in all, and passes freely from one to the other, as political agitation or other causes makes its existence no- torious.^ In 1866, the year in which Protection was introduced, the 1 An illustration of this occurred in Sydney towards the close of 1886, when a Protectionist Government gave indiscriminate relief, without any labour test, shortly before a general election. The natural consequence was that the float- ing population of all the Colonies drifted to Sydney, where 6,000 men were at one time being lodged and fed by the Government. After the elections, during which this body of "unemployed" was freely used as an argument against Free Trade, Sir Henry Parkes, who had succeeded to power, found himself unable to disband so large an army in the streets of Sydney, and adopted the plan of creating employment on Crown lands for all who wished it, while at the same time he stopped the indiscriminate relief in Sydney. It was more than a year before the labour market which had become quite disorganised by the inducements offered to country labourers to throw up their work, either to enjoy a visit to Sydney, or to earn (as good workmen could) more than their usual wage by piece-work on the Crown lands resumed its normal condi- tion. An incident occurred during this period which illustrates in an amusing fashion the popular view of the " right to employment " as it finds expression in Australia. In June, 1887, the "unemployed," who were then working at the Field of Mars for 5s. a day, petitioned the Cabinet to be allowed "a day's holiday to celebrate the Jubilee," so completely had they come to regard themselves as a State institution. Appendix III. 351 population of Victoria amounted to 636,982 human beings, as against 431,412 in New South Wales. In 1881, the relative numbers were 862,346 and 751,468. In 1886 the numbers were estimated in both Colonies at a million. Victoria then gained a little during the Exhibition year in 1888, but in 1889 New South Wales again took the lead with 1,122,200, as against 1,118,077, and has maintained it to the present time. During the period from 1866-89, the increase was only 75 per cent, for the Protected Colony, while it was 140 per cent, for the Free Trade Colony. The increase from 1871 to 1 88 1 was 30'9i per cent, in New South Wales, and only 18 per cent, in Victoria ; and from 1881 to 1888 it was 44*43 per cent, in the former, and only 26*50 per cent, in the latter Colony. While in the former decade the difference in the rate of increase was 1 2*91 per cent., it was i8'43 per cent, during the latter period, thus proving that the increase of Protective duties is not necessarily accompanied pari passu by an increase in popu- lation.^ Popular prejudice, anxious to minimise as much as possible this rapid growth in the numbers of a Free Trade Colony, where, according to all theory, no man ought to be able to get a living, has attributed it to State-assisted immigration. There were, how- ever, during the period from 1881-87, when the increase in popula- tion was most rapid, only 32,744 assisted immigrants ; while the whole number of State-assisted immigrants between 1866 and 1889 only amounted to 59,000, as against a total increase of 690,788 souls. Assisted immigration can accordingly account for only 8'5 per cent, of the whole increase. The real reasons must be sought elsewhere, and will be found in the greater attractiveness of New South Wales as a place of resi- dence, in its higher marriage rate, and its higher birth rate three causes which, either separately or together, indicate a higher range of material prosperity. We will treat of each sepa- rately. The most noticeable fact which is disclosed by the Victorian Census of 1 87 1 and i88r, is that, next to the little island of Tasmania, A'ictoria has the greatest proportion of females to males of any Australian Colony, which is the more remarkable when we recall ' I am iiidehted for tliese calculations, which are taken from the ofticial records, to a pamphlet by W. Max Hirsch, entitled, " Protection in Victoria" (Melljourne : Echo Publishing Company, 1891) sec p. 10. 352 Industrial Freedom. the circumstances of her origin in the gold fever of the early fifties. Victoria in those days had an enormous excess of males. Further, we find that this unhappy disproportion between the sexes is grow- ing rather than diminishing in the Protected Colony. The follow- ing table shows the figures as compared with those of New South Wales ; Percentage of Fem.vles in the Total Population. Year. New South Wales. Victoria. l88r 1888 1891 45 '8 47 '5 44 "3 466 46-5 47-8 Pursue the investigation a little further. The census returns for 1881 showed that Victoria like the exhausted countries of Europe was actually not sustaining her own population ! During the ten years, 1871 to 1881, the returns show that 53,000 persons emigrated to Victoria, but that 68,000 persons left. In other words, during these ten years of active Pro- tection, adopted professedly in order to "give employment," Victoria not only lost all her immigration, but also 15,000 of her natural increase 1 The figures of the last census in 1891 will be awaited with much interest. r\Iorc significant still is the change in the quality of the A^ctorian population. The class of citizen which every country wishes most to keep is that of the "soldier's age,'' from 20 to 40. Yet in 1881, in spite of her much larger population, Victoria was found to possess about 18,000 fewer men at this desirable range of age than New South Wales. On this point, Mr. Hayter, who certainly cannot be accused of giving undue prominence to any fact which tells against Victoria, makes the following remarks in his "General Report" on the Census: "It will be noticed that the contingent available from A'ictoria is smaller by 18,000 than that from New .SdUth Wales, and a simple calculation will show that rclalivcl)- to the total population, males at the soklier's age arc fewer in \'it:toria than in any of the other Australasian Colonies. In fact, it may be stated thai the deficiency of males, at this important period of life, is the weakest |)(iint in the A'ictorian population."' U|)on this passage Mr. h'dward I'ni>roi-d, who was the fii-.-^l to in\-e>tigate the bearing of tlic Victorian ])opulaiion returns upon the fi.-^cal con- 1rovcr"v. remarks as follows- "Tlic rream (^{ the ' effecii\e ' Appendix III. 353 population of a country may be said to be the males between 25 and 45. The changes in this portion of the people in the two Colonies during the decade were simply extraordinary. New South Wales showed a gain of 32,716, whilst Victoria showed a positive loss of 35,916. In 1871, Victoria was 52,138 ahead; in 1881, she was 16,494 behind a change against Victoria in the relative position of no less than 68,632." The following two tables will bring out more clearly still the greater attraction which New South Wales exercises on men in the prime of life, and the loss which Victoria sustains through the emigration of this economically most valuable section of its population : Males in 1881. ^'icloria. New South Wales. Up to 25 years old 257,069 = 56 '86 per cent. ... 229,342 ^ 5578 per cent.. From 25 to 45 years old 99,497=^22 ,, ,, ... 115.991 = 28"22 ,, ,, 45 years old and over 95,579 = 21 '14 ,, ,, ... 65,816 = 16 ,, ,, 452,143 ... 411,149 Males between the Ages of 25 .\.\d 45 years. \'ictoria. New South Wales. 1871 . . 135,413 = i8"i per cent. ... 83,275 = 107 per cent.. 1881 . . 99,497 = 11-5,, ,, ... 115,991 = 154,, Loss . 35,916 ... Gain . 32,716 Mr. Hirsch makes the following remarks upon these figures : " In the first of these tables the percentages are those of the male population ; in the latter, the percentage of the males in their prime to the total population is given. The first table shows the result^ viz., the greater percentage of men in the prime of life in New South Wales ; the latter table shows that the shifting took place in the years during which ^'ictoria enjoyed Protection ; that on account or in spite of Protection young men are avoiding and leaving the Protected Colony in which, if Protectionists are right, they ought to find it easiest to make a living- are flocking into the Colony in which they ought to find it most difficult to make a living. In estimating the significance of these figures, it must not be forgotten that, according to the general increase of population, we ought to have had [in \'ictoria] in 1881 20,987 more males of from twent\--five tt^ forty-five years than in 1S71, making our total 354 Industrial Freedom. loss of men in the prime of life 56,903 surely a most disastrous retrogression in one decade. There is, however, nothing new in these tables ; they are merely a confirmation of what has long been generally known. Every traveller remarks upon the number of Victorians engaged in trade and agriculture in New South Wales and other Colonies, and the paucity of natives or former inhabitants of New South Wales similarly engaged in Victoria. A more significant fact by which to measure the result of Protection can scarcely be asked for, for if the Protective policy had added to the natural advantages of Victoria, then surely Victoria would have powerfully attracted the workers in the prime of life from every Colony, and even from over-sea. But the opposite is the case ; the strong, the hopeful, the energetic, leave the Protected Colony, and flock into the Free Trade Colony instead, proving conclusively that there it is easiest for them to gain a comfortable livelihood." But gain by immigration is not the only cause of the more rapid increase of population in New South Wales, which is due also to a higher marriage rate and a higher birth rate. Now, as Mr. Hirsch points out, "it is one of the most firmly established facts in the science of statistics that under present social and economic conditions the numbers of marriages and births rise and fall with any fall in the nation's prosperity ; that steady employment at decent wages especially has the invariable result of increasing the number of marriages and births. And it must be held as similarly true that in two nations of similar origin, the members of which are constantly intermingling, the social and political institutions of which are the same, the more prosperous nation, the one in which employment is more constant and eft'ec- tive, wages higher, will show the greater number of marriages and births." Tried by this unerring test, New South Wales again holds her superiority over her Protected neighbour. The mean annual marriage rate per 1,000 during the years 1866-1889 was, for Victoria, 690; for New South Wales, o-oo. While the annual birlh rate for the same period was, for A'ictoria. 34-54, and for New South Wales 38-90. The excess of births over deaths tolls the same taie : its mean per 1. 000 of the population for the ten years from 1878-87 being 112 for A'ictoria, and 14S for New South Wales. Indeed, from whate\er standpoint the movements of population and the vital statistics of the two Colonies are considered, it is clear tliat under Free Trade New South Wales has yaineJ upon Appendix III, 355 Victoria, not only by immigration, but by a more rapid increase in the number of her native-born a significant commentary indeed upon the theory that " Protection gives employment.'' Why did it not give employment to those thousands of young men, within the soldier's age, who emigrated from her borders into New South Wales ? Is it that New South Wales is the more attractive because she has a larger territory ? But had she not just the same extent of territory in 1866, when Victoria, under Free Trade, was able to feed her own sons ? Or is Victoria, with its 87,884 square miles of territory, not able to find employment for more than a million people? When Victoria is over-populated it will be time enough to raise the cry that New South Wales is drawing young Victorians to her territory because their own land does not give them so good an opportunity of earning a livelihood. It is " Pro- tection" that was to have given the employment ! It has done so ! It has made every one who stayed in Victoria work longer for what he wants, and has driven the cream of Victorian youth out of the Colony to earn honest livings in a Free Trade country ! But was that the kind of employment which was so fraudulently promised ? The truth is manifest to all who will not refuse to see it that the labour-market has been better in New South Wales than in Victoria, and that the Free Trade Colony has offered the most employment. One would as soon expect water to run uphill as labour to leave a country of good wages and steady work for one of inferior attractiveness from either point of view. Accordingly, if New South Wales has gained upon Victoria in population, both by voluntary immigration and by natural increase, since the latter adopted Protection, the reason must be that the Free Trade Colony has been more prosperous, and better able to ofter work at good wages ; and further evidence in support of the fact should be superfluous. It may, however, be useful to pile up testimony upon this crucial point, and to show by other tests that Victorians have gone to New South Wales for one very good reason that they were better off there than they would have been at home. First, as to the respective rates of wages in the two countries. So far as any comparison can be made between these and the difficulty of such a comparison has Ijcen already pointed out^ it is 356 Industrial Freedom. in favour of New South Wales. Mr. Hirsch has compiled a table from the Victorian Year-Book, showing the fluctuations in the nominal wages of 121 trades, as returned by the Government statist. This table shows that between 1878 and 1888, during which period new duties were imposed to the annual amount of ;^ 1 80,000, no change in wages had taken place in 58 of these 121 industries. The alteration in the rates of wages for the remaining 63 employ- ments classify themselves as follows : Jicrea.se. Decrease. 13 26 16 9 Protected trades Unprotected trades . showing that, while there has been, on the whole, a decline rather than a rise in wages during the decade, the fall has taken place more in the protected than in the unprotected trades. The rise in wages has occurred chiefly in the farm pursuits, owing to the scarcity of this kind of labour. It should also be remembered that the official wage rates make no disclosure of the condition of the large number of home-workers, who, as recent revelations have shown, are working in Melbourne dens for is. 6d. and 2s. a day under conditions which the Age., the leading Protectionist journal, has described as being " as bad as anything to be found in London." It is true that wages have also fallen in New South Wales from the highest point which they reached since 1866 ; but the Free Traders have never claimed to be possessors of a patent system for keeping wages high. Besides, so far as comparisons are possible, they are higher in New South Wales than in Victoria. There is a special difficulty in the way of making any such comparison in this case, owing to the different methods of collecting the returns in the two Colonies, and the different designations of many trades. Still, Mr. Hirsch has collected twenty-nine trades all which it was possible to collect and found that in 1888 wages in four of these were equal in the two Colonies, were higher in \'ictoria in ten, and lower in \'ictoria in fifteen instances. As he properly remarks, " If the assertion that Protection increases wages were well founded, no such result of even a partial comparison would be possible.'' But perhaps the best guide to the average wage rate of the two Colonies is furnished by the wages paid by the Governments of each. In each Colony the Government owns the railways, post- office, telegraphs, roads, forests, and carries on a great quantity of Appendix III. 357 public works. In all the Government departments the wages are from sixpence to a shilling a day higher in New South Wales than in Victoria. It is impossible to believe that the highly organised trades in Victoria would allow railway servants, for example, to receive a shilling a day less than the same class of labour was receiving in New South Wales, unless they were conscious that the lower rate fairly represented the average wage rate of the Colony. In addition to these sources of information must be added private experience. It is matter of common observation that the wages paid to miners are higher in New South Wales than in Victoria, and the writer verified the same fact by personal inquiry in regard to the building trades for the year 1889-90. All other possible sources of information point to the same conclusion. The consumption of working-class luxuries, such as tea, coffee, sugar, currants, raisins, beer, spirits, and tobacco, is larger per head in the Free Trade country, showing the obvious truth that men who receive more have more to spend. The following are the figures for the year 1884-5, ^vhich is taken as a normal year, being before the boom in Victoria and after that in New South Wales: Consumption of Luxuries in 16 New South Wales. Tea . Coffee Sugar . Currants, raisins, etc. .Spirits Beer ... Tobacco 127 ozs. II M 102 lbs. Ill ozs. 20-4 gills. 16.2 gals. 46 ozs. -5 PER HEAD. Victoria. no ozs. 16 ,, 92I lbs. 982 ozs. 18.L gills. J 6 gals. 354 ozs. Pointing, again, in the same direction are the figures which show the quantity of postal and telegraphic communication in the two Colonies. In 1866 Victoria received and despatched nearly two million more letters than New South Wales, the figures being 8,631,133 as against 6,678,371. In 1885 the positions were reversed, and New .South Wales received and despatched three million more letters than Victoria, the figures being : New South Wales, 39,35 1,200, or 40 per head of the population ; and 36,061,880, or 36 per head, for Victoria. The number of telegrams sent in Victoria in 1S66 was 277,788, as against 143,523 in New South Wales. In 18S5, New South Wales sent 2,625,992, against 1,634,666. 35^ Industrial Freedom. In fact, to whatever test of progress we look, we arrive at the same conclusion namely, that since Victoria adopted Protection, New South Wales has been steadily gaining upon her. But some of the tests are of sufficient importance to demand a detailed con- sideration. Chief among them is the progress in either Colony of the manufacturing industry. MANUFACTURES. No young country can pass from the agricultural or pastoral to the manufacturing stage of its existence until it has obtained a sufficient density of population to enable production to be carried on with that effective cheapness which comes from the subdivision of employments and the establishment of subsidiary industries for using up bye-products. In 1866 the population of Victoria was already concentrated in the mining centres ; while that of New South Wales was scattered over a wide area, through which the means of communication were few and primitive. As a natural consequence A'ictoria became a manufacturing Colony earlier than New South Wales. It is true that New South Wales has better facilities for manufactures in her rich deposits of coal and iron ; but the advantage of these may be easily overestimated, unless it is remembered that the coal goes to both capitals by sea, and that the cost of 500 miles longer sea carriage is not a serious item in these days of fuel economy. It is accordingly not surprising to find that, while there were 869 manufactories and works in Victoria in 1866, exclusive of 1 14 flour mills, the manufactories and works of New South Wales were at that date too insignificant to be counted. Since 1866 the whole energy of \'ictorian legislation has been directed to the development of manufactures ; while, except as to a few industries, such as the kerosene and candle, which have benefited by duties originally imposed for revenue purposes, the development of manufactures in New South Wales has taken a natural growth. The figures speak for themselves. In twenty-five years of Free Trade the pastoral Colony of New South Wales had made so good an entrance into the manufacturing stage of its existence that in 1890 it employed 46,135 hands, or more than one-tenth of its adult population, in one or other of the 120 distinct varieties of manufacturing industries, in which the plant and machinery was valued at ^4,526,821, and worked Appendix III. 359 to a horse-power of 24,662. Surely this would not be a bad record, either of growth or diversity, even for a Protected country ! The record of V'ictoria is also good, but certainly not better than, if, indeed, it is equal to, that of New South Wales.. It is difficult, however, to decide this cjuestion, because the method of classification, and the dates of making the returns of manufacturing statistics, do not correspond in the two Colonies. The subjoined table, however, will show the respective rates of progress of each. YEAR. 1880. 1885. Mctori.i.Iy. S. W. 1S89 1890. \'ictoria. N. S. W. \-ictoria. '.\. S. W. Victoria .V. S.W. Number of hands employed ... Value of machinery, plant, and land ... (Thousands omitted) Number of establish- ments"! Horse power 33,247 6,711 2,239 28,259 j 49,066 , 41,669 j 10,166 I 2,841 -- 39,169+ 15,612 3-137 46,135 11,603 2,926 58,175 + 46,525+ .,_t83 * Where blank spaces are left the figures are either untrustwortliy or at present un- attainable. I'he method of collecting New South Wales figures was radically altered after i836, when the present statistician, Mr. Coghlan, was first appointed. t These figures are from an estimate made by Mr. Hayter, the statistician of the Victorian Government, as published in the Arg7/so( December 30th, 1891. *\ Many of these employ very few hands. Thus over three hundred of the works included in the Victorian returns emploj' less than six hands, and more than one thousand employ less than ten. The above table puts the case of the \'ictorian manufactories in the most favourable light. Not only arc some 2,300 hands in- cluded in the \'ictorian returns which are e.xcludcd from those of New South Wales,' but these also include between four and five thousand more females, whom the harder conditions of life in the Protected Colony have dri\en from the home to the factory." P\irther, the later Victorian figures are for a time of high pro- sperity consequent upon the lavish expenditure of imported and borrowed capital, while duiing the same period New .South Wales was exi)ericncing the pangs of a period of economy, and was also 1 Xaniely, employees in cliaffcutting and corn-crushing establishments, in flour mills, in cheese factories, and the Roval Mint. - Tliere were 364 Industrial Freedom. agriculture. The boast of Victorians is, rightly enough, in their agriculture ; and in this great department of national activity their country has maintained her lead over New South Wales, although she has not succeeded in increasing it. Even this partial success cannot be attributed to Protection, because Victoria was an exporter of food- stuffs even in her Free Trade days, but is owing partly to the fact that in the variable climate of New South Wales the land that is good for crops is not near the markets, and the land that is near the markets is not good for crops, and partly to the early alienation of the best agricultural lands to large proprietors, who have not yet shown themselves inclined to use it for any but pastoral purposes. Even in this direction, however, there are already signs of decline,^ and while the area of cultivation is increasing in New South Wales it is declining in Victoria. Fortunately, the farmers have at last realised their position, and during the years 1890-91 every " Farmers' Protection Association " has omitted the word Protection Port Phillip, and therefore included among the exports of Victorian produce, it will be seen that the nett annual value of Victorian exports is between eight and nine millions, as against an importation of nearly twenty-four millions for the year 1889. Of the imports a certain sum which cannot, on the most liberal estimate, exceed ^^500,000 must be allowed for freight due to Victorian ship- owners ; an allowance must also be made for interest on Victorian capital invested abroad. It is difificult to ascertain how much this should be ; it is, how- ever, a rough but perhaps a fair estimate to take the value of New South Wales wool shipped from Melbourne as equivalent to the value of the returns to Victorian capital invested abroad. Most of the wool which comes to Mel- bourne from the other Colonies is sent there because the stations are owned by Victorians. The wool which is sent to Melbourne by New South Wales station owners, may be set off against the proceeds of Victorian investments in Queensland properties. But, after all these allowances are made, the fact remains that durmg recent years the indebtedness of \'ictoria has increased more rapidly than its exports. This increase has continued through 1890 and 1891, although the official returns are not available at the time of writing.- It is this enormous expenditure of borrowed money, both by the Government and by private persons, which has maintained the rate of wages in Victoria, and successfully disguised from the multitude the evil influences of Protection. 1 Thf official figures for 1890-91 are not yet published, but unofficial returns show a decline of more tlian 50,000 acres in the area of cultivation during the last two years. Exports. Imports. The incre.ise in exports in i8go .ind iSgi will probably lie found clue to an in- " 1890 ... 13,256,000 22,o5j,ooo cre.ise in the shipments from Melbourne 1S91 ... 15,679,000 2i,62?,030 of Xtw South Wales wool. Appendix III. 365 from its title, and declared in favour of Free Trade. It is one of the most amazing instances of the power of words over unthink- ing men that the farmers in any country should ever advocate Pro- tection. The maxim that " the farmer pays for all " can never be more plainly illustrated than by farmers who hope to get rich by paying customers to buy their crops. If a young country exports food, Protection can be of no use to the farmers, who have to buy everything they want at Protective prices, and sell everything they produce at Free Trade prices. If, on the other hand, a young country requires to import food, the farmers have already the best market they can desire, viz., one which is short supplied. For ex- ample, the average price of wheat in Sydney has been for many years 6d. a bushel more than in Melbourne. The following are the figures relating to agriculture : Area of Land in Cultivatio.n in Acres. 1866. 188S. 2,627,262 Victoria - . ' 592,915 ' 909,015 ' 1,997,943 1 2,405,157 ' 2,564,742 NewSouth; ' ' Wales ... '. 451,223 426,976 710,337 868,093 999,298 I, 64,475 1.241,419 COMMERCE. The figures which follow as to commerce, revenue, and shipping, require no comment. They all point the same moral that Victoria has not only failed to hold her superiority over New South Wales, but has fallen far behind : Imports and Exports of New South Wales and Victoria. 1 Import s. Export Colony. ! Year. 1 1 Total Value. Value per Head. s. d. Total Value. Value per Head. S. (/. 1866 14,771,000 23 9 7 12,889,000 1 20 9 9 . 1880 14,556,000 17 2 4 15.954.000 , 18 15 ^ ca 1885 18,044,000 18 16 b 15,551,000 j 16 4 6 / 1888 23,972,000 22 n 5 13,853,000 ! i.S II '1 1889 24,402,000 22 2 12,734,000 ; 1 1 10 8 > 1890 22,953,000 13,256,000 i 1891 21,622,000 (estimated) 15,679,000 (estimated) f! 1866 9,403,000 9,913,000 ~ \ 1880 13,950,000 19 4 b 15,525,000 21 7 II g yj , 1885 23,365,000 2.S 2 16,541 ,00 J 17 15 4 '-r-~ ... { 1888 20,885,000 19 12 6 20,859,000 19 12 S > 1889 22,863,000 20 14 2 23,294,000 . 21 2 2; 1890 1891 366 Ind us TR /. J L Fr e edom. Shipping. j Inwards. Outwards. Colony. Year. No. of Vessels. Tonnage. No. of Vessels. Tonnage. New South Wales... 1866 Victoria 1866 2,099 2,078 730,354 649,979 2,259 2,203 784,381 675-741 New South Wales... 1889* Victoria 1889 3,254 2,855 2,632,081 2,270,827 3,229 2,886 2,689,098 2,328,351 * The year i88g was one of great depression in New South Wales. Later years would show a wider difference between the two Colonies. REVENL'E.^ Colony. 1S66. 2,012,079 3,079,160 1889. 1891. New South Whales Victoria 9-063,397 8,675,990 10,079,000 (estimated) * The excess of revenue in New South Wales is due to the elasticity of her returns and not to the weight of ta.xation. The charge of taxation per head in 1889 in the two Colonies was as follows : Victoria, ^3 9s. id.; New South Wales, ,1 8s. fd. Thu~, although every citizen of Victoria pays ^i os. 7d. more in taxes than his Free Trade neighbour, the revenue of Victoria is about two millions less than that of New South Wales. The figures which have been set out in the preceding pages have been treated by Protectionists in various ways at different times. For a long period they were ignored ; then, after Mr. Edward Pulsford, of Sydney, brought them into pubhc notice, their accuracy was denied, and the Statistical Office of New South Wales was assailed with scurrilous abuse. Finally, after Mr. Hayter, the A'ictorian official statist, had verified their substantial correctness, every effort was made to depreciate their significance. It was alleged that the greater success of N^w South Wales was owing to special causes such as her larger territory, her greater expenditure of borrowed monc\", and her larger land revenue which had not operated in A'ictoria to the same e.xtcnt. Here, again, however, the Protectionists were foiled. Mr. Pulsford and this is not among the least of the services which he has rendered to the cause of P'ree Trade undertook an elaborate series of in- vestigations into the statistical returns of the two colonies, and Appendix III. 367 demonstrated even to the satisfaction of Protectionists that the " special causes" of prosperity, so far from being peculiar to New South Wales, had operated with even greater intensity in Victoria during the period under review. It is chiefly due to Mr. Pulsford's untiring industry and clearness of exposition that the example of Victoria is never cited now in the neighbouring colonies as an in- stance of the benefits of a Protective policy. As, however, the energy of Victorian rcclanie has not exhausted itself in other fields, it may be well to indicate very briefly the heads of the answer to Protectionist disparagements of the progress of New South Wales. First, it is said that New South Wales owes her success to her earlier foundation. It is a sufficient reply to this that, in spite of her earlier foundation, she was far behind Victoria in 1866, when both colonies were Free Trade. The development of the Colony was so slow in the transportation days, which ended in 1856, that Victoria, in 1866, had gained from her active population of gold diggers more of the advantages of roads, bridges, and other inci- dents of civilisation, in ten years than New South Wales had by two generations of convict labour. Next it is said that New South Wales owes her more rapid progress to her larger territory. To a certain extent this is true ; but it is the merit and object of Free Trade to make use of natural advantages. A large territory, however, is not altogether an ad- vantage to a young country. There is a power in concentration, and a weakness in scattered forces. "Wealth,"' as Mr. Pulsford has well remarked, "grows richer by population than by square mile, and, as a rule, it will be found that the most important and wealthy countries are of limited area. A larg-er area is often a great weakness." Certainly this has proved to be the case in New South Wales, whose rural population is badly served in all local requirement?, and grievously handicapped by the difficulty of pro- vidingfor the wants of so vast a territory. The greater advantages wiiich a settler enjoys in the compact territory of \^ictoria become inimccliatcly apparent to any one who looks upon a railway map of the two Colonies. In New South Wales the railways stretch in three long lines, each to a distance of about 500 miles irom the city to the sea-board. In \'ictoria the railways divide the country in:o small rectangles and unite every little township with the capita! : and where railways fail the Southern settler, ri\ers play their part and gi\c him that assurance of a return to his annual 368 Industrial Freedom. labour which the resident in the more variable climate of New South Wales is never able to anticipate. Indeed, in physical and climatic advantages, Victoria is vastly the superior of New South Wales. Not only does its compactness make the former cheap to govern and easy to develop, but its fertile and well-watered lands lie close to the markets. In New South Wales, on the contrary, except a narrow strip upon the coast of Ilavvarra, the good land lies beyond the coastal rang-es at a distance of at least 200 miles from Sydney and the sea-board. There are, moreover, in New South Wales no large mining town- ships (except that of Broken Hill, which is, for practical purposes, part of South Australia) where the farmers are able to find a market. Moreover, even the best lands in New South Wales are subject alternately to droughts and floods. Further, while the lands of New South Wales are heavily timbered, so that the ex- pense of preparing them for the plough is very great, most of the arable land in Victoria was naturally clear. In fact, it is difficult to exaggerate the natural advantages which are enjoyed by the fertile, extensive, open, well-watered lands of Victoria, over those of its larger, but more variable, neighbour. Nor does this com- plete the catalogue of the natural superiorities of the favoured province. Victoria has a distinct advantage in the character of its early settlers. The renown of her gold-fields attracted the very pick of the world, for energy, enterprise, and power. Through their aid she gained a start in wealth and population, which, but for the folly of her rulers, she would not have lost for many generations. The richness of her alluvial gold-fields, and the character of her early population, caused the easy establishment and rapid growth of great cities, whose position rendered her singularly fitted to be the seat of manufactures ; while the extent of fertile land, which was immediately available, made her from the outset rich in the more durable elements of natural pro- sperity. What wonder that in such a country progress has been rapid ? The matter rather for remark is, that it has so soon ended. Of all the lessons which Australia has given to the world in politics, not the least instructive is to be drawn from the rise and decline of the Colony of Victoria I The "might-have-beens" of history are notoriously unjjrofitable matters of specula- tion ; but no one can read the history of ^'ictoria, with impartial mind, without being moved to wonder what her fate Appendix III. 369 might have been, if she had been left to expand to her natural growth unhindered by the cruel restrictions of a cramp- ing tariff. Another strangely perverted argument is that New South Wales owes her more rapid progress to her greater production of coal and wool, which, it is said, are two raw materials, the production of which could not be affected by any fiscal policy. Supposing this were so, it is in the eyes of a Free Trader precisely a reason why the Colony of New South Wales should make as much profit as it can out of its natural industries instead of diverting its capital and labour into less productive channels. As the facts stand, how- ever, Victoria has produced a larger quantity of raw materials than New South Wales during the period under review. The aggregate production of wool and gold in Victoria from 1866 to 1885 ^ was ^27,410,950 more than in New South Wales. The following are the figures: Gold and Wool. Total Production 1866-1885. Victoria. New South Wales. Gold raised ... ... 85,819,216 ... i5>763.365 Wool produced * ... 67,891,880 ... 110,536,781 Total ... ... 153,711,096 ... 126,300,146 * The figures representing wool are the aggregate of the exports after deducting the imports. The total value of the coal raised in New South Wales from the foundation of the colony does not equal the excess of Victoria in her production of the two articles of wool and coal during the twenty years, 1866-1885, being only ;/^23,89 1,629. The production of coal during that period amounted to ^11,282,325. The Protectionist theorist, driven to explain the, to him, astounding fact that New South Wales has prospered more under Free Trade than Victoria under Protection, finds his last refuge in the assertion that New South Wales owes her more rapid 1 The year 1885 is taken to avoid errors on cither side on account of the disturbing influence either of the New South Wales good seasons or the Melbourne "boom." \ 37 Industrial Freedom. progress to a more lavish expenditure of borrowed money. "A spurious prosperity," says the Age, in 1886, "or the appearance of prosperity, has been kept up for some eight or ten years past by a monstrously lavish expenditure of public money, which has either been borrowed or obtained from the sale of land." Upon this passage Mr. Pulsford ("Freedom in New South Wales v. Oppression in Victoria," p. 49) makes the following observa- tions : " Believing that, perhaps, after all. New South Wales might not be so black as she is painted, I have carefully investigated the subject of the money obtained by sales of land, and by public borrowing in the two colonies. The result of my investigations will, I venture to say, be a surprise to all. I find that, for many years, Victoria led the way in both sales of land and public borrow- ings. That, in point of fact, Victoria for many years borrowed more rapidly than New South Wales, and also sold land much more rapidly. I confess I was very much surprised myself to find that, up to the year 1883, the aggregate of the moneys obtained by loans and land sales in New South Wales had always been ex- ceeded in Victoria. It is perfectly obvious that the colony that obtained the lead in the construction of useful public works had a great advantage. I find that in the year when Victoria entered upon her policy of Protection, she had received twenty-one mil- lion pounds from the sources named, against only eleven millions in New South Wales. The early expenditure of so much money in Victoria represented a great advantage over this colony. It was not till 1875 that is, nine years later that New South Wales reached this sum of twenty-one millions, and then the Victorian total had risen to thirty-one millions, or still the ten millions ahead. In 1880 \'ictoria was six millions ahead. In 1885 the tables were turned, so that New South Wales was eight millions in advance of Victoria. " When I come to take the totals of these twenty years 1 866-1 885 I find that Victoria has had the use of capital equivalent to thirty-four millions for the whole period, against only tiuenty-eight millions on the part of New South Wales. I claim, therefore, that Victoria, and not New South Wales, is the colony that has received the greatest impetus to- wards prosperity from the expenditure of moneys obtained by loans and land sales." A full table of these moneys is sub- joined. Appendix HI. 371 New South Wales. Year, Loans. Land Sales. Total. L L i860 to 1865 Average 1 5.212,771 .. 4,061,732 9.274.503 1866 ... 6,418,030 .. 4,781,653 . .. 11,199,683 1867 ... 6,917,630 .. 5,046,313 . .. 11,963.943 1868 ... 8,564,830 5.311.563 .. 13.876,393 1869 ... 9,546,030 . .. S.631,176 15,177,206 1870 ... 9,681,130 5,882,019 15.563.149 1871 ... 10,614,330 6,143,420 16.757.750 1872 10,773,230 . 6,575,793 . 17.349.023 1873 ... 10,842,415 7,421,203 .. 18,263,618 1874 ... 10,516,371 8,532,244 . .. 19,048,615 1875 ... 11,470,637 . .. 10,292,814 21,763,451 1876 II. 759.519 .. 12,806,218 24,565,737 1877 ... 11,724,419 15.774.075 27,498,494 1878 .. 11,688,119 .. 17,850,086 .. 29,538,205 1879 14.937.419 19.236,773 .. 34,174,192 1880 ... 14,903,919 ,. 20,618,799 .. 35,522,718 1881 ... 16,924,019 .. 23,102,137 .. 40,026,156 1882 ... 16,721,219 25,557,178 .. 42,278,397 1883 21,632,459 ., 26,826,657 .. 48,459,116 1884 ... 24,601,959 28,190,150 .. 52,792,109 1885 ... 30,064,259 29,414,372 59.478,631 Average 1866 to 1886 } ^3.515.^97 - 14.249.732 .. 27,764,829 We are now in a position to appreciate the whole significance of the tale which the preceding figures have disclosed. Every Protectionist argument, either expressedly or impliedly, assumes that no country can develop under natural conditions, but that a home market, a diversity of industries, a high rate of wages, and all other ingredients of prosperity, can only be secured by means of a Protective tariff. It is not that Protectionists claim a mere superiority for their policy over the policy of Free Trade as an instrument of national development, but they insist that Free Trade is a positive evil that prevents development. Consequently when we find that a country, which is also one of those young coun- tries in whose case Protection is declared to be most plainly demanded, has, while faithfully adhering to Free Trade, developed its resources, diversified its industries, maintained a high rate of wages, given its farmers a profitable market for their produce, and steadily advanced in prosperity in every path of progress, we are entitled to question the truth of the assumptions which Protectionists invariably take for granted. If wc can go further, and show that another country which has enjoyed greater natural advantages, and where the other influences which make for national welfare have 372 Industrial Freedom. operated with greater intensity, has advanced much more slowly under Protection than our first example has under Free Trade, the conclusion is irresistible that Protection, not Free Trade, is the clog upon national progress. At the same time, no sensible Free Trader would rest his case upon the records of any country during the short period of twenty-five years. The example of New South Wales is of importance in a Free Trade argument, not so much on account of the support which it gives to P'ree Trade, as because it pushes the rude thrust of fact into the cobweb of a Protectionist theory. It has also this more limited value that it makes it im- possible for restrictionists to make use of the undoubted progress of Victoria since 1866 as an illustration in their favour, without also attributing the still greater progress of New South Wales to the opposite policy of Free Trade. THE E\D. PrINTICD by CaSSKLL & COMI'ANY, LIMITED, I. A P.EI.LE SaTVAGE, LonI)0\, E.C. ^^ A SELECTED LIST OF Cassell & Company's Publications. KT C) G 9. 01. Selections from Cassell ^ Company's Publications. Abljeys and Churclies of England and Wales, The: Descriptive, Histoilcal, FictOriaL Series I. and II. zis. each. Adventure, The World of. Fully Illustrated. Complete in Three Vols. gs. each. Anglomaniacs, The : a Story of New York Life of To-day. By Mrs. Burtov Harrison. 3s. 6d. Animal Painting in Water Colours. With Eighteen Coloured Plates by Frederick Tayler. 5s. Arahian Nights Entertainments (CasseU's). With about 400 Illustrations. los. 6d- Architectural Drawing. By R. PHENfi Spiers. Illustrated. los. 6d. Art, The Magazine o Yearly Volume. With several hundred Engravings, and Twelve Etchings, Photogravures, &c. 16s. Artistic Anatomy. By Prof. M. Duval. Translated by F. E. Fenton. 5s. BashMrtseff, Marie, The Journal of. Translated from the French by Mathilde Blind. With Portraits and an Autograph Letter. Cheap Edition, 7s. 6d. Bashkirtseff, Marie, The Letters of. Translated by Mary J. SerrXno. 7s. 6d. Birds' Nests, Eggs, and Egg-Collecting. By R. Kearton. Illustrated with 16 Coloured Plates of Eggs. 5s. Black America. A Story of the ex-Slave and his late Master. By W. Laird Clowes. Cloth, 6s. Black Arrow, The. A Tale of the Two Roses. By R. L. Stevenson. Illus- trated, 3s. 6d. Blue Pavilions, The. By Q, Author of "Dead Man's Rock," &c. 5s. British Ballads. 275 Original Illustrations. Two Vols. Cloth, 15s. British Battles on Land and Sea. By James Grant. With about 600 Illustrations. Three Vols., 4to, 1 7s. ; Library Edition, i los. British Battles, Recent. Illustrated. 4to, 9s. Library Edition, los. Browning, An Introduction to the Study of. By Arthur Symons. 2s. 6d. Butterflies and Moths, European. By W. F. Kirby. With 61 Coloured Plates. Demy 4to, 35s. Canaries and Cage-Birds, The Illustrated Book of. By W. A. Blakston, W. SwAVSLAND, and A. F. Wiener. With 56 Fac-simile Coloured Plates, 35s. CasseU's Family Magazine. Yearly Volume. Illustrated, gs. Cathedrals, Abbeys, and Churches of England and Wales. Descriptive, Historical, Pictorial. Edited by Prof. T. G. Bonnev, D.Sc, LL.D., F.R.S. With nearly 500 Original Illustrations. Popular Edition. Two Vols. 25s. Celebrities of the Century. Being a Dictionary of the Men and Women of the Nineteenth Century. Cheap Edition, los. 6d. Chess Problem, The. With Illustrations by C. Planck and others. 7s. 6d. China Painting. By Florence Lewis. With Sixteen Coloiued Plates, and a selection of Wood Engravings. VV'ith full Instructions. 5s. Choice Dishes at Small Cost. By A. G. Payne. Cheap Edition, is. Christianity and Socialism, Lectures on. By Bishop Barry. 3s. 6d. Cities of the World. Four Vols. Illustrated. 7s. 6d. each. Civil Service, Guide to Empl03rment In the. Ne^v and Enlarged Edition, 3s. 6d. ClvU Service Guide to Female Emplojrment in Government Offices. Cloth, is. Climate and Health Resorts. By Dr. Burney Yeo. 7s. 6d. Clinical Manuals for Practitioners and Students of Medicine. [A List 0/ I'olumes fo7-iuarded poitfree en application to the Publishers.) Clothing, The Influence of, on Health. By Frederick Treves, F.R.C.S. 23. Cobden Club, Works published for the. {A Complete List on application.) Colonist's Medical Handbook, The. By E. Alfred Barton, M. R.C.S. 2s. 6d. Colour. By Prof. A. H. Church. New and Enlarged Edition. 3s. 6d. Commerce, The Year-Book of. Edited by Kenric B. Murray. 5s. Commercial Botany of the Nineteenth Century. By J. R. Jackson, A.L.S. Cloth gilt, 3s. 6d. Selections from Cassell r o ., = Institute 4S fid 1 Practical Mechanics. By Prof. Perry, M.E. 3s. fid. Steel and Iron. By Prof. W. H. Greeimood. Cutting Tools 'Worked by Hand and Ma- P.C.S., M.I.C.E.,&c. 5s. chine. By Prof. Smith. 3s. fid. Test Cards, Cassell's Combination. In sets, is. each. Test Cards, Cassell's Modern SchooL In sets, is. each. Selections from Cassell db Company's Publications. 180oks for ^0n0 ^m^\t, "Little Folks" Half- Yearly Volume. Containing 432 pages of Letterpress, with Pictures on nearly every page, together with Two Full-page Plates printed in Colours and Four Tinted Plates. Coloured boards, 3s. 6d. ; or cloth gilt, gilt edges, 5s. Bo-Peep. A Book for the Little Ones. With Original Stories and Verses. Illustrated with beautiful Pictures on nearly every page, and Coloured Frontispiece. Yearly Volume. Elegant pi:ture boards, 2s. 6d. ; cloth, 3s. 6d. Story Poems for Yoimg and Old. By Miss E. Davenport Adams. 6s. Pleasant Work for Busy Fingers. By Maggie Browne. Illustrated. 55. Tlie Marvellous Budget: being 65,636 Stories of Jack and JUL By the Rev. F. Bennett. Illustrated. Cloth gilt, 2s. 6d. Maggie at Home. By Prof. Hoffman. Fully Illustrated. A Series of easy and startling Conjuring Tricks for Beginners. Cloth gilt, 5s. Schoolroom and Home Theatricals. By Arthur Waugh. With Illustra- tions by H. A. J. Miles. Cloth, 2s. 6d. Little Mother Bunch. By Mrs. Molesworth. Illustrated. Cloth, 3s. 6d. Heroes of Every-Day Life. By Laura Lane. With about 20 Full-page Illustrations. 256 pages, crown 8vo, cloth, 2s. 6d. Ships, Sailors, and the Sea. By R. J. Cornewall-Jones. Illustrated throughout, and containing a Coloured Plate of Naval Flags. Cheap Edition, 2S. 6d. Famous Sailors of Former Times, History of the Sea Fathers. By Clements Markham. Illustrated. 2s. 6d. The Tales of the Sixty Mandarins. By P. V. Ramaswami Raju. 5s. Gift Books for Yoimg People. By Popular Authors. With Four Original Illustrations in each. Cloth gilt, is. 6d. each. Tbe Boy Hunters of Kentucky. By Edward S. Ellis. Eed Feather: a Tale of the American Frontier. By Edward S. Ellis. Fritters ; or, " It's a Long Lane that has no Turning." ^ . , Trixy; or, "Those who Live m Qlass Houses shouldn't throw Stones." The Two Hardoastles. Seeking a City. Khoda's Reward. Jack Marston's Anchor. Frank's Life-Battle. Major Monk's Motto; or, "Look Before you Leap." Tim Thomson's Trial; or, " All is not Gold that Glitters." Ursula's Stumbling-Bloek. Kuth's Life-Work; or,"No Pains, no Gains." Rags and Rainbows. Uncle William's Charge. Pretty Pink's Purpose. "Golden Mottoes" Series, The. Each Book containing 208 pages, with Four full-page Original Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth gilt, 2s. each. ^ " 'Honour is my Guide." By Jeanie Hering i Mrs. Adains-Acton), ' Aim at a Sure End." By Emily Searclifield. 'Nil Desperandum." By the Rev. F. Lang- bridge, M.A. * Bear and Forbear." By Sarah Pitt. ' Foremost if I Can." By Helen Atteridge. 'He Conquers vrho Endures." By the Author of " May Cunningham's Trial," &c. 'Cross and Crown" Series, The. With Four Illustrations in each Book. Crown 8vo, 256 pages, 2S. 6d. each. Heroes of the Indian Empire ; or. Stories of Valour and Victory. By Ernest Foster. Through Trial to Triumph; or, "The Royal Way." By Madeline Bonavia Hunt. In Letters of Flame ; A Story of the Waldenses. By C. L. Matiaux. Strong to Suffer; A Story of the Jews. By By Fire and Sword; a Story of the Hugue- nots. By Thomas Archer. Adam Hepburn's Vow ; A Tale of Kirk and Covenant. By Annie S. Swan. No. XIII.; 01% the Story of the Lost Vestal. A Tale of Early Christian Days. By Emma Marshall. Freedom's Sword; A Story of the Days of E. Wynne. Wallace and Bruce. By Annie S. Swan. Five Shilling Books for Young People. With Original Illustrations. Cloth gilt, 5s. each. Under Bayard's Banner. By Henry Frith. I Bound by a Spell; or, the Hunted Witch The Champion of Odin ; or. Viking Life I of the Forest. By the Hon. Mrs. Greene. in the Ijays of Old. By J. Fred. Hodgetts. ' The Romance of Invention. Byjas. Burnley. Albums for Children. Price 3s. 6d. each le Chit-chat Album. Illustrated, le Album for Home, School, and Plaj Set in bold type, and illustrated throughout. The Chit-chat Album. Illustrated. I jiy Own Album of Animals. lUustrated. ^^l.^'bum for Hoine Schoo. and K^^^^ Picture Album of All Sorts. lUustrated. 'Wanted a King" Series. Illustrated. 3s. 6d. each. Robin's Ride. By Miss E. Dnenport .^dams. Wanted a King; or. How Merle set the Great-Grandmimma and Els.e. By Geor- Nursery Rhymes to Eights. By M.iggie ginaM. Sjnge. I Browne. Selections from Cassell SELL it COMI^ANV, Limited, Ludoate //ill, Lonton laris iL Melbourne, Date Due L A Library Burnai Cat. No. 1137 .''SRARy FACILITY 465