^045 
 R65f 
 
 I 
 
 A 
 A: 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 8 
 6 
 1 
 9 
 
 The Free Trade Policy of the 
 ] iberal Pqrty 
 
 James F, 
 
 By 
 Thorold Rogers
 
 
 
 ^m 
 
 
 % 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 :e free teade policy 
 
 OP THE 
 
 LIBERAL PARTY. 
 
 SPEECH DELIVEEED AT PENDLETON, 
 SEPTEMBEE 30, 1868, 
 
 BT 
 
 FAMES E. THOROLD ROGERS, M.A., 
 
 TOOKE PROFESSOR OF ECONOMIC SCIENCE AND STATISTICS, 
 
 VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE STATISTICAL SOCIETY 
 
 OP LONDON, 
 
 BLISHED TJNDEE THE AUSPICES OF THE SALPOED LIBEEAL 
 ELECTION COMMITTEE. 
 
 MANCHESTER : 
 PRIMTED AT THE GUARDIAN OFFICES, CROSS STREBT.
 
 HF 
 
 THE FREE TRADE POLICY 
 
 OF inB 
 
 LIBERAL PARTY. 
 
 On Wednesday eveniug, September 30tli, 18G8, at the Pendleton Club, 
 Charlestown, Henry Rawson, Esq., in the chair, Professor J. E. Thoeold 
 EoGERS spoke as follows upon the free trade policy of the Liberal party. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, — There are, perhaps, several reasons 
 why at the piesent crisis the attention, not of you only, but also of all 
 the electors throughout Great Britain and Ireland, should be called to 
 that financial history which is implied in the heading to the address I 
 purpose giving you this evening. My friend, Mr. Rawsou, has alluded 
 to the fact that the great battle of free trade — that is, the liberation of 
 your bread from the tax of the monopolist — was achieved 22 years ago. 
 As a consequence, a very large number of persons in this meeting must 
 be unaware of how great and continuous were the struggles by which 
 that victory was won. We are told in the sacred page that, after the 
 great blessing of plenty, during a time of dearth, was secured by the 
 wisdom which the Divine inspiration bestowed upon the Patriarch 
 Joseph, in the course of time another generation arose which knew 
 not Joseph, and that the people thereupon fell under the power of 
 the Egyptians. Gentlemen, you may apply this historical f;ict to your- 
 selves. K you lose sight of those who in times past, by their policy 
 vindicated to you a free market, both for your food and for your labour, 
 you may be quite certain that the Egyptians will be down upon you 
 again, and constrain you to make your bricks without straw. (Laughter.) 
 
 One of the reasons why we should study these questions, is that it 
 behoves every Englishman, and especially every I^.'ngiishman to whom is 
 entrusted the duty of maintaining the constitution and the laws of his 
 country, amending those laws when it may be i ecessary, upholding that 
 constitution in all the parts of it which are worthy of admiration and 
 maintenance, to make himself informed a little about that financial 
 history •which has characterised the last 30 or 40 years. In the next 
 place, it has an importance as a political instrument. Mr. Rawsou 
 
 S jf 
 
 834^
 
 has justly and properly called your attention to the fact that there 
 exists no criterion or test by which you can discover the value of public 
 men, except their past acts. Why is it that the English nation, one and 
 all, so to speak, despite the calumnies of the Tory faction, reverences the 
 name of Mr. Gladstone ? (Cheers.) It is because they identify him 
 with those benefits which were begun by Sir Robert Peel, and which have 
 been continued during the several years of his administration. Why is 
 it that the English people always rises responsive to the name of Mr. 
 Bright ? It is because Mr. Bright was one of that great army of free- 
 traders who, now 30 years ago, traversed the length and the breadth of the 
 land, in order to bring plenty to the homes of the poor, and in order to 
 supply those who engaged themselves in the maintenance of labour with 
 the opportunities by which they might call that labour into activity. 
 And why is it that a similar, nay. perhaps a greater veneration (for we 
 always venerate the noble dead) attaches to the name of Bichard 
 Cobden ? (Cheers.) It is because through the whole course of his life he 
 was continuously animated with zeal for his country's good. There is, 
 then, a political reason why we should comment upon these facts, for, 
 let me tell you that in this day politics is no longer the game of swin- 
 dlers, but is fast approaching the dignity of a science, or at least of a 
 philosophy, the ends of which are the discovery of the greatest possible 
 good which can be bestowed upon the mass of the people in this and in 
 other countries. (Hear, hear.) I should also have a personal reason in 
 dealing with this question in this borough. It was my privilege from, 
 my earliest years to have been intimately acquainted and associated with 
 the great man to whom allusion has been made ; and when I happen to 
 come on a visit in this borough, and find you have presenting himself 
 for your suffrages a gentleman who, whatever may be his private worth, 
 or however high has been his public character, is known to you chiefly 
 by the fact that he constantly vilified or made light of the labours of 
 that great man ; the maintenance of that cause, of the cause with which 
 my friend Mr. Bawson was for so many years associated, and with which 
 he is associated to-day, rises almost into the place of a sacred duty, so 
 that I might entreat you not to dishonour the memory of yom* bene- 
 factor by your acts, but to determine that at least the borough of Salford 
 shall not be represented by a man who resisted free trade. (Applause.) 
 I am bound to premise to you that the subject which I purpose to 
 speak on to-night is somewhat di-eary. Political economy, especially that 
 part of it which deals with the matter of finance, has been called the 
 dismal science. But, however dismal, gloomy, and sad it may appear, I 
 would have you know that the subject which the political economist 
 studies is the material good of his feUow-men ; and, however obscure 
 and hard, and from time to time repulsive, is the study to which I call 
 your attention to-night in some of its particulars, it is of the highest
 
 significance to you, because, if rightly interpreted, it expounds to you 
 "what are your material interests. 
 
 Now, what do we mean by free trade or free exchange ? We mean 
 the permission given to each individual to find the best market for 
 what he has to sell, and the most advantageous for what he has to buy. 
 That anybody should doubt it expedient that this privilege should be 
 conferred upon every man, woidd seem to us, if we had no experience of 
 a contrary custom and of different laws, absolutely ridiculous. To tell a 
 man that he shall buy dear when he can buy cheap, to tell a man that 
 be shall sell cheap when he might sell at better terms, is simply asserting 
 that his labour and money shall be laid out to the worst instead of to the 
 test advantage. But this was, and was continually the policy of the 
 Tory party. It was the policy of that party of which Mr. 3?israeli was 
 and is the chief, a party which in these matters, I assure you, though it 
 may be baffled, is still impenitent. For what was the history of the last 
 session's legislation ? In order that I may point out to you a fact which 
 shows that the temper of these persons is still unchanged, I need only 
 allude to the intrigues of the country party in order to pass the Metro- 
 politan Cattle Market Bill, the purpose of which was to make meat dear 
 and to raise rents, a project which, let me tell you, was baffled by the 
 untiring and continuous diligence of men like the two members for the 
 city of Manchester. (Cheers.) You know that everybody wants to sell, 
 but that in order to sell a man must buy. The mere fact of his taking 
 money, intermediately to his buying something else, is but an accident 
 to the operation. He takes money in order that he may get rid of it. 
 Nobody, who is not a madman, shuts up aU the earnings which are above 
 the necessaries of his daily life in a box, or buries them in the ground ; 
 he gets rid of the money he has received either by investing it as 
 savings, or by expending it in enjoyments. Get rid of it he does; and, 
 therefore, though at first it seems that men sell in order to get money, 
 you will see with a very little thought that they sell in order that they 
 may buy. Now, is it not manifest that if, by any machinery of law, the 
 price of what you had to buy was enhanced, and the price of what you 
 had to sell was diminished, such an act on the part of the Legislature 
 would be one of prodigious folly, or prodigious wrong ? "We cannot 
 credit the Legislature of the age with so much folly as I suggest. We 
 are constrained to account for it by the desire which tliey had to aggran- 
 dise themselves at the expense of the mass of the people. 
 
 There is, or should be, no restraint upon this commercial liberty, any 
 more than there should be on liberty of conscience, any more than 
 there should be on personal liberty, whenever the act done is innocent. 
 That the operation of buying and selling is innocent enough needs no 
 proof. You could not subsist without it. You must sell your labour 
 ■to buy your food. I admit there are circumstances under which this 
 
 I
 
 liberty is curtailed. For instance, a man is not allowed by law to sell 
 himself for a slave, though he sometimes sells himself for what is 
 worse — as a rogue. He is not allowed to sell his children. Again, 
 there are certain customs which regulate certain trades, and are sup- 
 posed to be maintained in the interest of the community. Nobody, 
 I believe (though I have not a strong opinion on the subject), nobody 
 but the Liverpool magistrates has ever instituted a perfectly free 
 trade in intoxicating drinks ; but everybody has concluded there should 
 be some sort of control over this kind of what are called exciseable com- 
 modities. So there are laws which protect inventors and discoverers, and 
 for a very obvious reason, because it is supposed that if one man entered 
 into the labours of another without compensation, though he would have 
 freedom in doing what he does, the freedom would be only the freedom 
 to do wrong. So the law prohibits sales to enemies in time of war. 
 Unless, then, it can be shown that the exercise of freedom in 
 matters of trade is a state of things which it would be inexpedient to 
 allow persons, the true rule is freedom, and any interruption of that free- 
 dom should have cause shown for the action. 
 
 Let me tell you a little about what our financial system was some 
 fifty years ago. England bad passed through a long war. I was talking 
 to-day with an elderly gentleman in Manchester, who seemed to hold 
 very elderly opinions. (Laughter.) He told me, amongst other 
 things — and I was interested in listening to what he had to say — that if 
 it had not been for that great French war, he (and a mmiber of other 
 persons that might be named) might have been sweeping the streets in 
 Algeria, and their wives and daughters might have been washerwomen. 
 I confess, from my reading of history, that a good many persons have been 
 driven out of the country, and a good many women have been obliged 
 to be washerwomen, and sometimes something worse than naturally 
 need have been, in consequence of that great war in which our aristo- 
 cracy so heedlessly and recklessly engaged us. The best authorities 
 have proved that the real losses and sufferings of that time fell on 
 the working classes. (Cheers.) Now when a nation engages in 
 war, and its rulers are heaping up debt to the amount of £600,000,000 ster- 
 ling, it becomes necessary, in order to be able to carry on the business — and 
 an uncommonly wasteful business it is — for the Chancellor of the Exche- 
 quer or the Finance Mmister not to be too particular as to what he 
 clutches his hands on. The fact is, taxation comes to be a scramble. The 
 principles of finance are forgotten, and, as a consequence, the Legisla- 
 tm-e of the time, and the persons who guide the Legislature, lay hold of 
 whatever comes first to their hands, without considering very carefully 
 whether they take it wisely and righteously or not. That was much the 
 case with our taxation at the time to which I refer. Every conceivable 
 thing that could be taxed was taxed. They taxed all kinds of war
 
 materials ; for instance, tbpy put a very heavy tax on raw cotton. You 
 do not want to be told that if you put a tax upon the material, the price 
 of what is made out of the material will not only be the tax that has 
 been put on, but many times more than that tax ; it will be enonnously 
 enhanced in price unless the tax is put upon the commodity just at the 
 time of its being consumed. It is a simple principle in finimce that a 
 tax should be levied at the nearest possible time to that in which the 
 article is going to be consumed and be put out of sight. Some of these 
 taxes too were imposed from sheer need of money. Some, unfortu- 
 nately, were intended to bolster up certain interests, amongst others the 
 Com Law, against the enactment of which the people of Manchester 
 long ago protested. They protested first with their blood ; they pro- 
 tested afterwards with their labour and their money, and they succeeded 
 in getting rid of it. (Hear, hear.) The fact is, during the time of the 
 war this country had no place, or no notable place, from which to get its 
 supplies of food. The price of wheat, and indeed of other kinds of grain,, 
 was raised to an exorbitant amount. This great rise in the price of food 
 led to a con-esponding rise in the price of laud. I need hardly tell you 
 that a farmer will, generally speaking, pay just as much rent as the sura 
 which remains in the value of that which he sells when all his cost and 
 profit is deducted ; that is to say, if he sells the produce of his farm for £500, 
 and satisfies himself for the employment of his capital, and pays his own 
 labour, by the sum of £400, he is pretty sure to pay £100 in the shape of 
 rent. That is almost like a demonstration in Euclid. "Well, rents 
 rose in consequence of the high price of food, and the landlords were 
 uncommonly anxious to keep them high. They could do this only by the 
 establishment of an artificial scarcity, and they enacted this Corn Law 
 to which I have made allusion. Well, if you begin to protect one interest, 
 other people are sure to demand that you shall protect their interests also. 
 The landlords were protected by the Coi*n Law, and the manufacturers 
 demanded to be protected by prohibitive duties upon foreign produce 
 imported, or possible to be imported, into this country. All through 
 there was this system of protection, and the result was that through this 
 blindness which pervaded people's minds at the time, each man put 
 himself into a strait waistcoat, the propriety of adopting that costume 
 being manifestly due to the madness which led them to this legislation. 
 You know if there was such a thing as a universal system of protection, 
 the result would be that the price of everything would rise. Unluckily, 
 you cannot protect certain things, and, generally speaking, when objects 
 or articles are protected, labour is not protected. I3ut supposing you 
 were able to protect everything, the price of everything, I repeat, would 
 rise. A man might perhaps get more money, but he would be able to 
 buy less with it, and the result of all these regulations would be that the 
 nation would have taken infinite pains and trouble to put itself in exactly
 
 8 
 
 the position in wliicli it "was before it took tlie trouble and pains in 
 question, with this diflference, that it would probably have ruined its home 
 industry, and would certainly have ruined its foreign trade. (Hear, hear, 
 and cheers.) 
 
 Five years after the great war was completed, and peace gave reason 
 a hearing, a very eminent person in London, known for his 
 great ability on this and kindred subjects, a London merchant, drew 
 up a petition which was presented in the House of Commons 
 and in the House of Lords, in which he called attention to the 
 injudiciousness of maintaining these absurd regulations. At that 
 time there were 1,500 Acts of Parliament relating to the Custom House, 
 and, of course, it need hardly be said, when any merchant was importing 
 produce of any kind into the country, his business was like the path Bimyan 
 describes in the "Pilgaim's Progress " — it had a quag on one side and a 
 pit on the other, and every yard of it was strewn with gins, and traps, 
 a,nd snares. There was a special learning needed to understand the 
 Customs Acts, and to interpret the laws which hindered the English people 
 from freely enjoying the blessings which God gives in climates different 
 from their own, and which He intends should be distributed by"means of 
 exchange all over the world. (EJear, hear.) At this time there was the 
 Corn Law, which I have attempted briefly to describe to you. There 
 were prohibitive duties upon tea in favour of the East India Company's 
 carrying trade, and the price of tea was uncommonly high then, I can 
 assure you. The West India proprietors had differential duties in favour 
 of the sugar which they produced, and the people of this country were 
 forced to consume dear sugar when they could have got it cheap, in order 
 to keep up the rents of the great West India proprietors. In order to 
 support what was conceived to be the shipping interest, there were a set 
 of laws called the Navigation Laws, which were rigorously applied ; so 
 that the price of freights — that is, the amount of carriage from distant parts 
 of the world — was doubled or trebled by this monopoly. At every period 
 in his political career, in so far as he has been in the House of Commons, 
 Mr. Disraeli has maintained every one of those abominations. (Hear, hear, 
 and cheers.) He strove to tax your bread and insulted the man who 
 liberated it; he pretended to be the friend of the West India proprietors 
 and a lover of human freedom — save the mark ! — when he insisted on com- 
 pelling the English people to consume nothing but the sugar which was 
 produced in the West India colonies. He foretold that the mercantile 
 interest would go to the dogs if you did not maintain the Navigation Laws. 
 He was wrong all through. No doubt he acknowledges it now, but 
 then you must remember this — that when a person who professes 
 to be a leading statesman is wrong and is able to stop the way, is 
 able to prevent wise, wholesome, and judicious reforms from being 
 enacted, your criticism of hia conduct in the past ought to be positive
 
 9 
 
 and clear, and your judgment of his position in the present and in the 
 future ought to be not less out-spoken and determined. (Cheers.) I say 
 this merchant's petition was presented and supported by the most 
 intelligent members of the two Houses of Parliament, for at all times 
 there are some noble lords who have a little wit in their heads. The 
 function I fear is getting rarer. At least it does not seem from the late 
 experience we have had of elevations to the peerage that the new blood 
 infused in it is likely to be of any transcendent value. (Laughter.) 
 What did one of those distinguished lords say ? I will read you the 
 passage in order that you may be able to understand what the position 
 of the British nation was then. '' We have risen," said liord Liverpool, 
 " to our present greatness under a diflerent system from that of free and 
 unrestricted trade ; some suppose that we have risen in consequence of 
 that system ; others, of whom I am one, believe that we have risen in 
 spite of that system. It is utterly impossible with our debt and taxation, 
 even if they were but half their existing amount, that we can suddenly 
 adopt the system of free trade." * We are better instructed now. Every 
 child that you send out to buy a penny herring or a penny candle under- 
 stands the principles of trade better than this great Lord Liverpool did at 
 that time ; he has no doubt that his father is better off when provisions 
 are cheap. (Laughter.) Lord Liverpool said, " Some suppose we have 
 risen in consequence of this system ; " he was disposed to believe 
 we had risen in spite of it. Why, gentlemen, if you were to tie 
 ropes round your arms and legs, and then try to run a race, or jump 
 across a brook, do you think you would do it as well as if you took the 
 ropes off, and had a good run and a good spring ? Everybody understands 
 that at this day ; but this great and able man did not fully understand it 
 at that time. 
 
 One of the first beneficent changes which was introduced by the 
 Liberal party, and one which I dwell upon with some pleasure in this 
 place, was the remission by Lord Althorp, in the year 18-31, of an excise 
 duty on printed cotton to the extent of 3.Jd. per yard. I said that some of 
 this taxation was blind 5 this is an example of it. The consequence of this 
 relief was the prosperity of the Manchester industry. It immediately set 
 people to work, developed an industry, and accumulated a wealth which 
 was far more solid and substantial than if the people of Manchester had 
 found a mine of gold under their houses. For within a very short time 
 the price of this printed cotton actually fell to the amount of the excise 
 duty that was previously levied. I need hardly point out to you what an 
 enormous development and extension of industry must have ensued if 
 ministers had been wise at an earlier period ; when so vast a change in 
 so very short a time flowed from a siugle act of financial wisdom. In 
 
 « House of Lords, May 26, 1820.
 
 10 
 
 1832 and 1833 the Liberal GoTernment of the time relaxed certain taxes 
 upon raw materials. For instance, up to that time there was a tax of 
 4s. 8d. a cwt. levied upon hemp ; it was reduced to a penny with very 
 considerable benefit. There was a tax levied on cotton wool of 5s. lOd. 
 a cwt. ; the Government reduced it to 2s. lid. In order that they might 
 benefit the consumer as well as the producer, the same Government 
 lowered the tax on currants from 44s. 4d. — a serious matter for your plum 
 pudding, to 22s. 2d. ; that on raisins from 42s. 6d. to 15s. ; and on olive 
 oil, an exceedingly important raw material, from I683. a tun to 84s. 
 Taxes were also remitted on candles, soap, and starch, in 1834. 
 
 Not very much more was done in this direction until about 1 840, and 
 then Mr. Hume, whose name ought always to be remembered as that of 
 a sound economist and a sincere reformer — (hear, hear) — moved for a 
 committee on the tariff, which he obtained on May 5, 1840. This com- 
 mittee discovered that there wer? 1,160 different rates of duty charge- 
 able on imported articles. Some of them [were intended to produce 
 revenue and also to be protective, purposes which are manifestly incon- 
 sistent. It is impossible that you can at once produce a revenue and 
 protect a particular branch of manufacture ; because the more you protect 
 the manufacture the less you get in the shape of revenue. Of 860 duty- 
 pajdng articles it was found that 348 produced less than £100 a year ; 
 while 147 of those articles produced no revenue at all. This report, which 
 Mr. Hume di-ew up, gave great assistance to the Anti-Corn Law League, 
 which was commencing its operations at that time. Cobden was then 
 advocating the cause of free trade out of the House of Commons, and 
 Mr. Charles ViUiers in the House. So completely was Lord Melbourne 
 converted — Liberal again, you see — to free trade principles, that he 
 brought forward a budget in 1841, the purpose of which was their formal 
 adoption in relation to three articles — corn, sugar, and timber. Lord 
 Melbourne was constrained to go out of office, because the House of 
 Commons rejected his budget, and Sir Robert Peel, who ultimately, as 
 you know, passed the repeal of the Corn Laws, came in as the Protectionist 
 minister. You all know how tlie reasonings of the Anti-Corn Law League 
 and the rottenness of the Irish potatoes converted Sir R. Peel. (Cheers.) 
 I don't know to which he owed his conversion most. I am inclined 
 to believe that he was coerced by the potatoes, and convinced by the 
 Leaguers — (hear, hear) — for Sir Robert Peel was far too good and 
 great a man to maintain a position which was wholly untenable, when 
 the contrary course was proved to be just to his unbiassed reason. I 
 make no doubt that very speedily after Sir Robert Peel came into office 
 he would have undertaken the reforms with which his name is now 
 associated, but the country party in the House of Commons would not 
 let him. I never saw them in their places, for I never was in the House 
 of Commons in my life. But I am told that the buUs of Bashan are nothing
 
 11 
 
 to the country gentlemen — (laughter)— for that if anj'body happens to 
 affront them, or to run contrary to their interest, he might as well meet 
 a lot of furious cattle in what was once Smithfield market on a market 
 day, as meet those irate and determined squires. They were too much 
 for Sir Robert Peel, and the consequence was he was obliged to postpone 
 those reforms which should have been introduced in 1842, until the 
 pressure of circumstances in the year 1846 compelled him to give way. 
 I will give you one reason for thinking this. The average price of wheat 
 between 1840 and 1842 was 62s. 8d. per quarter; between 1843 and 
 1845, at the end of which year Sir Robert Peel had made up his mind, 
 the price of wheat was 50s. 8|d. No unimportant difference is 12s. a 
 quarter in corn, as a good many of you find out when you come to 
 buy your loaves. No doubt Peel desired the change, but at the time it 
 was impossible ; the party that sat at his back would not give way. 
 
 In the interval, however. Sir Robert Peel adopted several important 
 principles of firee trade. First of all, he reduced all taxation on 
 raw materials to a nominal amount. He got rid of the 28. lid. on 
 cotton. He reduced the duties on partially manufactured articles to a 
 moderate amovmt; and he removed every prohibition upon articles 
 that were wholly manufactured. He propounded these as the principles 
 of the Budget which he introduced in 3842. But, imlucki^y, he 
 forgot the most important] of all raw materials — the raw material of 
 labour, that is, food. You need not be told, I imagine, that putting 
 enough food into a man is as necessary for his work as putting coals into 
 a steam engine. He cannot carry it on without ; and if coals are the raw 
 material of steam force, food is the raw material of human force, and 
 ought to be, on those principles, equally free. (Cheers.) 
 
 In 1842 Sir Robert Peel was rapidly educating himself, and a portion 
 of his party, I presume ; and he remitted taxation to the amount of 
 £1,600,000. In 1843 he remitted £171,000; in 1844, £287,000; in 
 1845, £3,614,000. As he more nearly approached the confines of free 
 trade, he began to be a little mora confident in the principles he had 
 enunciated. The more nearly he approached the maxims of those men 
 who were then agitating the country, the more courageous was he in 
 dealing with these questions of finance. In 1846, on the 2Gth of June, 
 he repealed the Corn Laws, and that 26th of June ought to be a red letter 
 day in every working man's calendar, because it freed the raw material of 
 his life from an opprecsive tax, and gave him better prices for his labour. 
 On the 18th of August, in the same year. Sir R. Peel equalised the sugar 
 duties. He got rid of the protective regulations which constrained the 
 people of this country to buy dearly an inferior sugar, in order to main- 
 tain the West Indian interests. At that time there were a good many 
 persons who were extremely imfriendly to that change. Of some one is 
 bound to speak with honour. They were induced to resist the alteration
 
 12 
 
 in our fiscal system, because a considerable portion of this foreign sugar was 
 grown by tlie labour of slaves ; and tbey did not understand at that time 
 that slave labour can never be as profitable as free labour, and that it is 
 only when you surround free labour with protective regulations that you 
 render it possible for slave labour to exist at all. (Hear, hear.) I say men 
 like Sir F. Buxton did not understand that at the time. But Mr. Disraeli 
 recognised the advantage of this cry. He threw himself into the arms 
 of the no-slavery men. He did not speak quite so kindly of the descen- 
 dants of those slaves when he dwelt on the late Jamaica disturbances ; 
 but it suited his interests at that time to stand up as the advocate of the 
 rights of men, and of the principle of free labour. I suppose he had just 
 as much real interest in the subject as he has now in that almost mortally 
 wounded hobgoblin, the No Popery cry. (Laughter, and hear, hear.) I 
 suspect that his real beliefs were quite as much connected with his 
 avowals that it was necessary to protect this interest, as his belief ia that 
 Protestantism will fail to exist, and that Popery will be overpoweringly 
 rampant if we take away a social status from 600,000 very respectable 
 people in Ireland. However, with this passed away the old West Indian 
 interest. They were not a very nice lot, the West Indian planters. 
 They have not shown very well of late years, I think. But it is hard 
 to reform men who had been slaveowners abroad and boroughmongers at 
 home. The duties remitted in 1846 amounted to £1,041,000, in 1850 to 
 £755,000. In 1851 the Liberal Government reduced the duty on 
 timber, and took off the window tax, but in 1852 Mr. Disraeli first came 
 into office as Chancellor of the Exchequer. 
 
 It is rather a remarkable thing that in 1852, and in 1852 only, 
 did Mr. Disraeli ever produce a budget. He has always accepted 
 the financial principles and practice of his predecessors. On this 
 occasion, however, coming in as the leader of what was still 
 the Protectionist party, it was necessary that he should obtain 
 a reputation by doing something, and as he was to do some- 
 thing, it was necessary that he should assist his friends. It was 
 a very remarkable efibrt. It came out in December, but all through 
 the summer he was going to agricultural meetings, talking of something 
 which " loomed in the future," and exciting the expectations, not only 
 of his audiences, amongst the country bumpkins of Buckinghamshire, 
 but of people throughout the country, as to what his project might be. 
 I remember very well a picture in Punch at the time — John Bull looking 
 through a telescope as to what was '' looming in the future." The tele- 
 scope was crooked, and Mr. Disraeli's hat was at the end of it. (Laughter.) 
 That was all which Punch anticipated. But, however, that December 
 came — the dreadful December. Depend upon it, it is an omen for another 
 December, It was found that he had attempted in this budget to compen- 
 sate the agricultural interest for the loss of that advantage which they
 
 13 
 
 got by the old Com Law, by removing half the duty upon malt and half 
 the duty upon hops, and by imposing in lieu of them, in order to supply the 
 revenue with the funds, a double house duty, a double house tax upon 
 houses in towns. Mr. Disraeli's budget and himself were rejected. 
 (Hear, hear.) And now, I will read a passage on this subject, because 
 it is very instructive. Mr. Tooke says : " This was the last Protec- 
 tionist budget, a scheme so full of fatal faults, disturbing for reasons so 
 inadequate large portions of the revenue which were least open to objec- 
 tion, displaying so small an amount of inventive resource, and pro- 
 posing so unwisely and rashly to inflict an oppressive tax upon the towns 
 for the sake of an extremely problematical benefit to the land that we 
 are relieved from any feeling of surprise at the swift and signal collapse 
 which it brought upon the reputation of its author and the position of 
 his party." * (Hear, hear.) I hope that criticism of Mr. Disraeli's 
 budget is a prophecy about his Irish Chmxh policy. (Hear, hear, and 
 cheers.) 
 
 In April, 1853, Mr. Gladstone came into office as Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer. The first thing Mr. Gladstone did was an act of justice. He 
 got the House of Commons, though very unwillingly, to accept a succes- 
 sion duty. Let me try to explain this to you. If you or I leave i:lOO or 
 £1,000 or i£10,000 behind us, in money, shares, or stock, the Govern- 
 ment constrains our executors to obtain a probate of our will, and levies 
 a tax, proportionate to the distance of relationship on the part of those 
 who inherit, under the will, upon the money that is left after this pro- 
 bate duty is paid. That is the system with what is called personal pro- 
 perty, and has existed since the days of Pitt. Pitt tried to extend this tax 
 to land, but the landowners were too strong for him. They were willing 
 enough that the personal property of the manufacturing or labouring 
 classes should be taxed. " Paws ofi'our land," they said, and they resisted 
 any tax upon the succession to landed estates. Mr. Gladstone, with great 
 difficulty, contrived to make the House of Commons accept a modified 
 succession duty. Land does not pay any probate yet as personal pro- 
 perty does, and it pays a succession duty, not calculated upon the 
 value of the property which is left, but upon the probable duration 
 of the life of the person to whom it is left. For example, if a man leave 
 £10,000 to a stranger, this estate has first to pay probate duty, whatever 
 that may be. It then pays ten per cent, taxation to Government in con- 
 sideration of the right of leaving an estate to a person who is no relation. 
 But if a man leave to another £10,000 in land, the legatee has not got to 
 pay any probate duty for it, and the succession duty is calculated upon his 
 age when he receives it. iSo that in the case of two men, one receiv- 
 ing i£ 10,000 in stock and the other ^10,000 in land, both being' 
 
 * Tooke's History of Prices, vol. V., 441.
 
 14 
 
 fifty years old, one pays £1,000, and the other something like £250. 
 That is the way in which these excellent rulers of yours contrive 
 to legislate financially. That is the way in which they treat the 
 mass of the commimity, and that is the way in which they take 
 care to relieve themselves. I should like you to put this question 
 to youi' Tory candidates when they come round to you. They are very 
 virtuous men, no doubt, but I know that Tory candidates are not 
 very fond of coming upon platforms. The atmosphere does not suit 
 them, they are rather fond of getting into a snug little place over a beer- 
 house or a pothouse, or sometMng of sort. (Laughter and cheers.) But, 
 however, if you get these gentlemen at a public meeting ask them 
 whether they are willing to equalise the succession duty upon land and 
 the legacy duty upon personal property. (Hear, hear.) If they promise that 
 they will, depend upon it they will not remain Tories very long. The 
 Tory party in the House of Commons will soon tell them to go over to 
 the other side. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone, in the same budget, repealed the soap duty, and gave 
 a man an opportimity of washing himself cheaply. It was a great sum 
 — amounting to £1,171,000 — but what was more important, it liberated 
 a most important branch of industry from a prying excise system. He 
 took away £600,000 in stamps, and he relieved the customs duties of 
 £1,500,000. Unluckily there came up the Russian war, and if I had 
 time to talk to you about that, I might perhaps be able to explain to you 
 how serious a blunder it was, and how completely it overthrew all those 
 plans entertained by good and wise people, not only for enfranchising the 
 masses of this community, but for establishing a sound and judicious system 
 of finance. I should weary you by going through these figures, but from 
 time to time the Liberal party, being in ofiice, has continued to repeal 
 taxes which are levied on the necessaries of life, to lower taxes which 
 could not be entirely removed, and generally to adjust taxation. I 
 cannot omit the mention of one, however, the remission of which has given 
 you cheap newspapers and cheap literature. I mean the tax on paper. Of 
 course Mr. Disraeli resisted this measure, as he rejoiced when the House 
 of Lords threw out this reform the year before. That House often resists 
 measures, but generally repents of its resistance. The last of the taxes 
 on raw material was that taken ofi" by Mr. Gladstone in 1866. It 
 was the tax on timber. Now, what have gentlemen on the other 
 side done ? I may tell you that there have been removed in forms 
 of taxation on raw material £11,704,000 of annual income since 1832 ; on 
 articles of consumption £16,330,000 j and there was also removed from 
 the Post Office £1,260,000, for the Post Office reform was introduced by 
 Mr. Spring Rice, a Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer. "What the 
 benefit of cheap postage has been to trade and to all classes of the com- 
 munity need not be dwelt upon now. The total remission was
 
 16 
 
 ^29,294,000. But, further than this, these liberal Governments have 
 reduced the public debt by ^30,825,000, that is to say, they have not only 
 removed taxation to the enormous amount I bavo already indicated, but 
 they have lightened, to a small extent at least, that enormous load of public 
 debt which was imposed on the shoulders of the British people by what 
 may fairly be called the war of the aristocrats — the war, namely, which 
 followed upon the great French revolution. 
 
 I said just now that Mr. Disraeli brought one budget in, and one only. 
 The whole of these concessions since that budget was rejected have been 
 the work of the Liberal party. Search through the histoiy of repeals and 
 reductions— always excepting, if you please, the early reforms of Sir 
 Kobert Peel— and you will lind that the Tory party has only remitted 
 one duty — that is to say, it has reduced the tax on dogs from twelve 
 shillings to five shillings. (Laughter.) And let me tell you that until 
 we adopt Chinese customs the remission of the tax on dogs will not 
 improve the poor man's larder. It has also remitted threepence 
 per cent, upon marine insurances. The dog tax and the partial remission 
 of the marine insurance duty are the pedestal upon which that great 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer must needs, if he is to maintain any financial 
 name at all, erect his statue for admiring posterity. (Laughter.) But 
 you may depend upon it that there never was a reputation achieved with 
 so little intelligence and with such little sacrifices. That a man should 
 have been Chancellor of the Exchequer for four years and three months 
 and have elaborated from the financial portion of his brain nothing more 
 than a halved dog tax and a miserable threepence on marine insurances, 
 and should then request some confidence in him, as the finance minister 
 of this great country, either shows the most sublime contempt for the 
 English people, or the happiest audacity that has ever been known. 
 
 But I have not said all. It is not a little remarkable that the two 
 great diminutions of the interest payable on the public debt should have 
 occurred during the time in which Mr. Disraeli either held office or could 
 have based a financial expedient on them. In 1859 the long annuities 
 expired, and diminished the charge of the public debt by nearly 
 J2,250,000 per annum. Now, it is true that at the end of 1859 Mr. 
 Disraeli was no longer in ofiice, but he knew with mathematical precision 
 that those annuities would expire at the period I speak of, and ho might, 
 if he did not disdain to exercise his profound financial genius, have 
 developed some scheme in anticipation of that great remission of 
 taxation. In 1867 an annuity, payable to the Bank of England, of 
 i£585,000 a year, ceased ; but in 1807 Mr. Disraeli, as we have lately 
 learned, had so completely outrun the constable, he had got himself into 
 such great pecuniary embarrassments, that he could not avail himself 
 of anything but his predecessor's expedients. The country unfortunately 
 has reason to regret that he did not imitate his predecessor's economy.
 
 16 
 
 I have pointed out to you how it has been through a long series of 
 years, that the genius of eminent financiers has been devoted towards 
 adjusting public burdens. Before this matter was taken up by Mr. Glad- 
 stone, and his almost immediate predecessor and teacher, Sir Robert 
 Peel, the public burdens were imposed on the British nation in such a 
 fashion as materially to cripple their industry and hinder their energies. 
 The industrial part of this community was placed in the position that a 
 horse would be, if you tied all the weights about his legs instead of 
 putting them on his back; and the skill which Peel and Gladstone 
 exhibited consisted in taking these burdens from the places in which 
 they interfered with and crippled the strength of the animal, and putting 
 them on those parts where they could be easily borne. That is the great 
 merit which Mr. Gladstone as a financier has achieved. He has made 
 the load of taxation lighter by varying its incidence, as it is called. Not- 
 withstanding these changes, the revenue, which was fifty-one millions in 
 1840, was sixty-nine and a-half millions in the year ending March 31st, 
 1868. For, let me tell you, the genius of a financier does not consist in 
 spending money, or in extorting it, but in distributing taxation in the 
 least wasteful and the least burdensome way. This is Mr. Gladstone's 
 peculiar gift. 
 
 But it cannot be denied that this taxation is increasing, and ought to 
 be diminished. In 1840, 1 repeat, .£51,000,000 was all that was needed for 
 carrying on the public service. In 1868, JE69, 500,000, exclusive of the 
 cost of the Abyssinian war, was required for the public service, an 
 increase, you see, of £18,500,000. Suppose some intelligent and acute 
 statesman, estimating what the public service needs, was able to reduce 
 this chai'ge of £70,000,000 to the old figure at which it stood in 1840, a 
 great many more comforts, depend upon it, would find their way into your 
 pockets. (Hear, hear.) We know that the present Government cannot 
 do it, or wont do it, for they have increased the expenditure, and have 
 landed us in a deficiency. The only chance we have of retracing a little 
 in the direction of economical government as opposed to extravagant 
 expenditure is by putting the conduct of public affairs in the h ands of a man 
 who has already long declared that his business is to save the revenue, 
 that is, the taxpayer's pocket. (Cheers.) If you can bring back the 
 taxation to J51,000,000 from £09,500,000, you might have your tea 
 untaxed, your sugar untaxed, your corn untaxed — you don't get your 
 wheat quite untaxed now ; and you might even get your beer untaxed. 
 (Hear, hear.) So buoyant has been the revenue of this country under 
 these several financial reforms, that there can be no doubt, in case 
 changes like these I have indicated were made, that the country 
 could be considerably benefited and enriched, that it would be able to 
 save money, and pay its debts.
 
 17 
 
 Now let me tell you, for a very short time, where it soems to mo some 
 of those economies might be effected. Wc keep a good many squadrons. 
 It is very nice, doubtless, to have a yachting expedition at tlu> cost of 
 the country, to travel all over the world at the national expense. The 
 command of those squadrons is a matter of much competition among the 
 excellent gentlemen who form our military and naval services. We 
 have armies all over the face of the earth. Kot only does the sun nerer 
 set on Her Majesty's dominions, it never sets on Her Majesty's red crats. 
 The fact is, we are keeping the peace for a number of our relations in 
 the various colonies, while they are making money for themselves. I 
 believe the British public does not earn a penny piece more than it 
 deserves, nor that our brethren in the colonies earn more than they 
 deserve. But I do not see why they 5-hould not pay the expenses of their 
 government and protection, and omit taking it from your pockets; and 
 I am mistaken if a Eeformed Parliament will not insist that the 
 colonies shall pay for the expenses of their government and de- 
 fences themselves. (Hear, hear.) Let me allude to another 
 economy. This country has a vast dependency called India. 
 This country sends out 100,000 British troops to India. To 
 be sm-e when out there the Indian Government finds them in pay ; 
 but it does not appear that the Indian Government catches and trains them. 
 It is understood that it costs £'100 to catch a soldier and train him so as 
 to fit him for work. There is, therefore, in the 100,000 British soldiers 
 now in India ^10,000,000 of British capital locked up. The duration of 
 human life in India is not so long, the climate not so healthy, the temp- 
 tations which lead to a diminution of life are more rife than in this 
 country, and the consequence is that ten years may be taken to be 
 a good duration for the soldier's service in India. That is to say, 
 in ten years all the British soldiers have probably either returned 
 home or died ; so that every ten years we have to find £10,000,000 
 for soldiers in India. It is quite easy to conceive that there 
 may be a vast number of economies introduced into the public 
 service and the public expenditure. We shall get a chance of these 
 things being done directly Mr. Gladstone comes into office. (Applause.) 
 Lord Palmerston no doubt was a very able man ; but he was a very 
 extravagant one. He grew up in the fashions of old times. He 
 believed in the maintenance of the balance of power. He thought that 
 the grandest thing in the world was the great colonial empire of England, 
 that the first duty of England was the maintenance of armaments, 
 fortifications, and a vigorous foreign pohcy. and that the pocket of the 
 British taxpayer was inexhaustible. Mr. Gladstone may have the last 
 opinion ; but I think that the patience of the British taxpayers will be 
 inexhaustible if they stand this extravagant expenditure for many years 
 more. (Cheers.)
 
 18 
 
 Now as to the proof of how these free-trade changes have heen bene- 
 ficial to you. If you want to get anything from a foreign country, you 
 must pay for it by your labour. In other words, if you import fort^ign 
 produce, you must export the produce of British industry ; you must 
 needs pay for what you get from foreign countries by what you labour at 
 in your own. In 1854 the imports were £,0. lOs. 2d. per head on the 
 population. In 1867 they were ^'9. 2s. 6d., going hard on doubling. 
 The exports in 18'";4 were j£3. 10s. 2d. per head of population ; in 18G7 
 the exports were £0. Os. 2d. British industry, then, has been able, in the 
 course of these 15 years, nearly to double its purchasing power in foreign 
 countries, and, by implication, to offer to foreig-u countries a similar increase 
 of the fruits of its own labour. Observe, this is calculated by heads of 
 population. It points out that the industry of the British people has 
 nearly doubled in value within fifteen years, and that the power 
 which it has over the markets of the world has increased in similar pro- 
 portion. '' Hence," — I will quote a great authority, " hence," says 
 Mr. Fenn, the author of a work on the funds, '' if we take the imports 
 and exports together, as the basis on which to estimate public wealth, the 
 average wealth of the nation," — that is to say, wealth per head, " has 
 increased 82 per cent, in the ten years 1854-64 ; and in the same decade 
 the burden of the public debt, by comparison with] the means of the nation 
 to pay the interest on it, is diminished by nearly one-half."* These, 
 then, are the results of free trade policy, given in fig^es which cannot 
 be cavilled at, for the figures I have quoted to you are taken from the 
 Government returns, which have just lately been issued. 
 
 Now for a few minutes let us look at a few other benefits of free trade, 
 the authors of which, I maintain without fear of contradiction, have 
 been that Liberal party to which my friend the chairman, many of my 
 friends about me, and the majority of persons in this room, I dare 
 ventm-e to say, belong. First of all it has brought about a general uni- 
 formity of prices. There is nothing a producer so much likes to have as 
 a pretty regular price. People do not like to deal with those matters 
 in which there are vast fluctuations in value, — such transactions look 
 like gambling. A man likes to get pretty even wages, though he rather 
 likes a rise than the contrary. So a manufacturer likes to find that his 
 market is steady ; and, by implication, what is good for the consumer 
 is good for the producer. But the wider the market is (and the prin- 
 ciple of free trade is to extend this area) the more regular and uniform 
 is the price at which labour and produce can be sold. As long as you 
 widen the permanent market over which supply and sale operate, sa 
 long you diminish uncertainty; and when you diminish uncertainty 
 you stimulate industry. Look at the benefit which has ensued from 
 
 -»«Fenn on the Funds," p. 8.
 
 19 
 
 doing away with that wretched excise system which was once preva- 
 ent in all kinds of industry ! The exciseman camo round, pryinij into 
 every place, preventing a man making improvements, unfixing and un- 
 hinging the operations of his capital. There was great reason in tho 
 burden of a Scotch song I once heard : 
 
 And mony braw thanks to the little black deil 
 Who carried away the exciseman, 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 Let me point out to you by a few figures what was the elTect of doing 
 away with excises. In 1844 the duty on glass was repealed. Cheap 
 glass is a great comfort not ouly in a rich man's house, but in a poor 
 man's -house as well, (Hear, hear,) Well, the duty was repealed. 
 Before that time a crate of crown glass was worth £12 in the 
 market without the duty being reckoned. In 18G5 it was worth £2. 83. 
 You see the result of getting rid of these mischievous taxes, which 
 cripple and hamper industry. Sheet glass in the same interval from 
 Is. 2d. per foot to 2d. per foot — one-seventh the original price.* The fact 
 is, invention became possible. Economies in manufacture became ob- 
 vious, when you get rid of— by what process I need not indicate, for in 
 these cases it was generally a white angel that carriedaway the exciseman— 
 when you got rid of this exciseman, who was perpetually present and 
 perpetually prying, I coidd multiply these examples. Soap was 
 £1. lis. 3d. per cwt. in 185.3 ; it fell to £1. Gs. in 1807, though the price 
 of the raw material from which soap is manufactured has slightly risen 
 in the interval. 
 
 Still, however, there are certain existing duties which are not 
 defensible. There is threepence per cwt. paid upon all corn imported 
 into this country. The poor man's food is taxed to that extent. 
 Let us see what is the extent of that tax. A shilling a quarter 
 was retained by the legislation of 184G, as a sort of compensation 
 for the repeal of the Corn Law. If you produce something iu your 
 own country, and you also import the same article from abroad, 
 because you cannot produce enough in your own country, and a tax is 
 imposed upon that which is imported from abroad, while no tax corre- 
 sponding to it is imposed upon that produced at home, the whole that is 
 sold will pay the tax— with this peculiarity, that the tax which is paid 
 on that which is imported goes into the public exchequer, but the tax 
 which is levied upon that which is produced at home goes into the 
 pockets of the landowners. Suppose, for instance, the price of wheat was 
 50s. a quarter, and that it cost SOs, to produce a quarter of wheat ; that 
 is to say, the farmer must appropriate 30s. before he can pay any rent. The 
 remaining 2O3, would be paid to the landlord for the use of the soil. 
 Is it not manifest that, if a shilling were not levied upon each quarter of 
 
 • Indubtrics of the Hardware Districts— Report ou Glass Mariufucture.«.
 
 20 
 
 corn, the corn would have sold for 49s. ; that is to say, the por- 
 tion which the landlord would have received would be only 
 ]9s. instead of 20s. ? I think I have given a very moderate es- 
 timate of the cost of producing a quarter of corn. If it costs 
 more to produce it, the tax is all the better for the landlord. The 
 operation of that shilling duty is to add 5 per cent, to the rents. 
 Landlords are uncommonly acute in these matters, they know how 
 to manage these things exceedingly well, and no doubt they recognised 
 what the effect would be upon their own rents by even so trifling a 
 duty as a shilling per quarter on com. 
 
 There is the tax on sugar and saccharine material which is extremely 
 objectionable. I will give you an illustration of how thar operates at 
 the present moment. Sugar is a part of the food of the country, and 
 ought really to be imported with as much freedom (if the revenue would 
 admit it) as food itself. I was talking the other day to a gentleman 
 who — amongst other operations, I presume, for he was temporarily a 
 candidate to represent a borough in Parliament — keeps a lot of cows, the 
 produce of which he sends to London. He said, "I have found out 
 lately an uncommonly good idea," — and I have no objection to repeat it to 
 you ; if any of you keep cows it might be worth knowing — " I have found 
 out during this drought that chaff well chopped, and mixed with a pound 
 of treacle, and given night and morning, to my cows enables them to pro- 
 duce, even during this desperately dry season, nearly as much milk and 
 butter as they did when they had a free run of pastirre." This is a very 
 important matter. Treacle is worth l-Ss. or 14s. per cwt. in bond, for 
 there is a duty levied upon it. This man has discovered an exceedingly 
 economical method of feeding cows, and why should not this material 
 employed for animal food be made as free of taxation as hay, oil- 
 cake, or any other substance which is freely imported from a foreign 
 country? However, I might multiply instances as to how the judi- 
 cious adaptation of our financial system has enabled the country to 
 bear burdens which were before intolerable, and to rise (so to speak) 
 triumphant even under the vast pressure of taxation which it laboiirs 
 under at the present time. 
 
 Now, one word about export duties. You have heard a great deal 
 about the vexatious conduct of the French Government when Mr. 
 Cobden negotiated the commercial treaty, in not allowing rags to be ex- 
 ported duty free. I remember some time ago paying a good deal of 
 attention to the effect of export duties, and I came to this conclusion : 
 Suppose a country has some object of use which is absolutely necessary 
 to other countries, in the use of which those other countries cannot eco- 
 nomise and for which they cannot find any substitute. Li this case, and 
 in this case only, can it make the importing country pay the export duty 
 it imposes. I looked through a vast variety of commodities and the only
 
 21 
 
 thino- 1 could find that answered to this description is emery powdor, 
 ■which seems to be produced in the Islo of Naxos only, and for which tlio 
 Turkii^h Government levies a small export duty. But in every otiier 
 case I have found this result, that so far from its being- the ca<se that the 
 country levying the duty makes the foreign country pay it, all it does is 
 to levy the tax from its own subjects by diminishing the value of their 
 produce in their own market. For instance, suppose rags are worth i'lO 
 per ton in England, and the French Government levies ^1. lOs. in ex- 
 port duty on French rags, and that the freight of French rags to Kngland 
 amounts to 10s. per ton, amounting together to £2. The Government 
 levies the duty, but where does the proprietor of French rags sell them ? 
 He either sells them at an enhanced price in England, in which case he 
 gets .£8, the shipper lOs., and the Government SOs., or he sells them at 
 £8 in France, where no such tax is levied upon him. The chief person, 
 who under this operation is sure to obtain any advantage to himself is 
 the Government: the person who is injured is the person wlio would 
 export this commodity abroad ; and the man who seems to get the benefit 
 is the French producer or manufacturer, who obtains hia material at a 
 cheaper rate. But unless he is able, under the circumstance?, to under- 
 sell the English producer, a real benefit does not enure to him. 
 And that he does not undersell him is demonstrated by the fact, 
 that while the Frenchman buys his rags for £8, the Englishman can 
 afibrd to buy his rags at ^£10. The real loser, the person who is 
 certainly wronged, is the poor man who gathers the rags and sells them. 
 If you look through any one of these instances, you will find that a 
 trifling application of your natural powers of analysis will enable you to 
 solve a great many such ditficulties. 
 
 One word more I have to say, and then I have done. It was at one 
 time thought that you ought not to enter into trade with a foreign 
 nation unless it was proposed to reciprocate freedom of trade with you. 
 Remember what I said just now. In order that you may sell, you must 
 buy. If a man says, '' I will not buy of you, but I want to sell," is it 
 not necessary, if he maintains his desire to sell, that he must tempt you to 
 buy by offering that which he has to sell at a lower price in consequence 
 of his refusal to buy from you ? If a man sells, he must either take 
 money or goods. If he takes money, he must get rid of it for otlier 
 goods. He must then, ultimately, take goods, but the greater hindrance 
 he puts upon his obtaining goods in the operation of trade with you, 
 the greater necessity is there for him to lower the price of that 
 which he wants to sell to you. That is practically the result of nil 
 those hindrances which were put in your way, as the English purchaser, by 
 the protective system of foreign producers. 1 admit that it would be a 
 benefit to the producer in England if eveiy shred of taxation upon English 
 cottons and woollens were done away with iu France ; but the benefit
 
 22 
 
 would arise in this way — that there would be a larger number of persons 
 in France who would be able to buy the commodities in question ; there- 
 fore there would be greater stimulus given to your industry. But it is 
 only in this way that the opening up of the trade of a country by th^ 
 repeal of prohibitory regulations will benefit the purchaser in a foreign 
 country ; it is by enlarging his industry and making a wider market for 
 the commodity in which he deals. 
 
 You do not sell your goods more cheaply to the foreigner, because he 
 puts duties on the produce of your laboui-, but you sell him less. You 
 do not give more for his goods, because he stints himself in buying yours, 
 on the contrary, you pay him less for what you purchase. The essence 
 of trade is, that both the buyer and the seller gain. But the more free 
 the trade is, the more does each gain ; the more hindrances any one of 
 the dealers puts on his own power of purchase, the less does he gain on 
 the transaction. I allude to this, because some people are trying to get 
 up the cry of reciprocity again. Your answer should be, when these 
 foolish or interested people are arguing that we ought to levy the same 
 duties on French produce which the French levy on our goods: — it does 
 not foUow that an Englishman should refuse to buy cheap, because a 
 Frenchman is silly enough to buy dear. 
 
 The following passages, however, will illustrate historically what is the 
 efiect of hankering after this miserable notion of reciprocity. 
 
 " Between 1841 and 1845 I held office at the Board of Trade ; and 
 this was the period dming which England was most actively engaged 
 in the endeavour to negotiate, with the principal States of the civilised 
 world, treaties for the reciprocal reduction of duties on imports. The 
 task was plied on our side with sufficient zeal; hut in evei'y case %ve failed, 
 I am sorry to add my opinion, that we did more than fail. The whole 
 operation seemed to place us in a false position, its tendency was to lead 
 countries to regard with jealousy and suspicion, as boons_to foreigners, 
 alterations in their laws, which, though doubtless of advantage to 
 foreigners, would have been of far greater advantage to their own in- 
 habitants. England finding that she could make no progress in this 
 direction, took her own course ; struck rapid and decisive blows at the 
 system of protection ; and reduced, as far as the esigencies of the public 
 service would permit, the very high duties which in many cases she 
 maintained simply for the purpose of revenue, upon articles that had no 
 domestic produce to compete with. While our reasonings had done 
 nothing, or less than nothing, our example effiicted something at least, if 
 less than we could have desired ; and commercial freedom has made 
 some progress in other coimtries since the year 1846 ; whereas shortly 
 before that time, even while we were relaxing our tariff, it had actually 
 lost s-rouuc!."
 
 23 
 
 " There is one domestic feature, ■which I wish it were in our power cfTec- 
 tually to exhibit to the Governments and inhabitants of foreign countries. 
 They know by statistics, which are open to the worhl, the inimcnso 
 extension which our commerce, imdor and by virtue of freedom of trade, 
 and the groat advancement that has happily been achieved in the condi- 
 tion of the people. But they do not know what it has cost us to achieve 
 this beneficial, nay, this blessed change ; what time, what struggles, what 
 interruptions to the general work of legislation ; what animosities and 
 divisions among the great classes which make up the nation ; what shocks 
 to our established modes of conducting the government of the country ; 
 what fears and risks, at some periods, of public convulsion. There were 
 the fine and penalty we paid for long adherence to folly. We paid this 
 fine and penalty upon returning to the path of wisdom, which wo then 
 too late wished that we never had left. It is not easy to calculate its 
 amount, but if it could bo exactly reckoned, and fully exposed to the 
 eyes of other nations, our juniors in trade, it might supply them with a 
 timely warning against imitating our former errors, and with the best 
 encouragement to the adoption (before they themselves become entangled 
 
 in the creation of artificial interests) of our better and recent example.'' 
 
 Mr. Gladstone to Mr. Eadfield, Feh. llth, 1856. 
 
 There are great moral benefits that result from free trade. In the first 
 place, all division of interests is war, even though no soldier is marshalled 
 and no cannon is fired. The harmony of trade is the guarantee of peace, 
 and I appeal to those of you who have paid any attention to the afiuirs 
 of Europe, and especially to the afliiirs of this country for years past, 
 whether the growing determination to develope and maintain the princi- 
 ples of free trade has not been a powerful guarantee of peace ? (Hear, 
 hear.) In my opinion, the British nation is as brave, as resolved to 
 defend its integrity, as resolved even to do its duty towards the whole 
 families of the earth as it ever was. (Hear, hear.) But, having its 
 interests wrapped up in the affairs of so many nations, having its trade 
 extended so widely over the world, it does not rashly rush into quar- 
 rels. (Hear, hear.) If you were to look through the history of those 
 ■wars which chai'acterise our annals, and, I may say, which disgraced oiu* 
 reputation for so many years past, you will scarcely find that one of them 
 is capable of moral justification. It is very seldom, indeed, that the 
 English nation has really gone to war in order to succour the 
 weak and to sustain the oppressed. It was about to do so once, when 
 Cromwell interposed between the persecutor and bis prey. May it never 
 fail to do the like if need arises ! But, on the other hand, the more widely 
 its interests are identified with those of other nations, the more 
 completely the communities' are intertwined and iiterlacod ; the 
 more the good offices of trade and comiiier:e are developed amonc'^t 
 the nations, the more certain is it that scciety will progress the
 
 more cerian^ . , it thia society ■will be stronger, the more widely diffused 
 will be the blessings which flow from peace and which are earned by 
 honest industry, the brighter will be the future of our country and the 
 more noble and generous will be our bearing to the rest of the world. 
 (Cheers.) Gentlemen, you have listened to me for a very long time oa 
 a very dull subject, and I must return you my thanks for the patience 
 with which you have heard my address. I hope that I have at least 
 been able to prove to you that, so far as the conduct of the past has gone, 
 we owe much to the free trade policy of the Liberal party, and I trust 
 that I may predict that so far as the future goes we are determined to 
 commit our destinies and the destinies of our country to the hands of 
 those who have shown patriotism and courage, and are now resolved to 
 do justice in the sight of God and man. (Prolonged cheering.) 
 
 Printed at the Gvardian Steara-PrintiDg Offices, 3, Cross-strest, Manchester.]
 
 
 HV I ACUITY 
 
 AA 001008 619 
 
 JZL: 
 
 f 
 
 PLEASf DO NOT REMOVE 
 
 1 
 
 
 THIS BOOK CARDS 
 
 
 
 ^g§ 
 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 r.'^J 
 
 
 
 
 =^ 1 1 /* "^ 
 
 ^H 
 
 
 - jy <? ^ 
 
 ■i 
 
 E A) 
 
 -r^jA ^ 
 
 < 
 
 ; *^' 
 
 
 I 
 
 "L ,U 
 
 %\zJ M ^ 
 
 .; 
 
 : n 
 
 %0JI]V3J0'>' 
 
 ) 
 
 I 
 1 
 1 
 
 
 niversity Research Library 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 ip. 
 
 1 : 
 
 w 
 
 1 
 
 !: 
 1- 
 
 1^ 
 
 i 
 
 > 
 
 < 
 
 ) 
 > 
 I 
 
 
 1— 
 
 1 
 1 
 ) 
 ] 
 J 
 
 
 
 ;t 
 
 
 
 ^~j 
 
 
 
 T > 
 
 
 
 , c 
 
 
 
 - 1 H 
 
 
 
 r:_J 5 
 
 
 
 — ] a 
 
 
 
 -J 
 
 
 
 ~J 
 
 
 
 — 1 
 
 
 
 ~"1 
 
 
 
 ■? 
 
 
 
 — 3 
 r 

 
 UNIVEP y OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 
 This book Is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 URL 
 
 JAN 3 - 1958 
 
 R ECE 
 
 MAIN 
 
 LCAt- 
 
 - T4V'' 
 
 I V ED 
 
 N DESK 
 
 P.M. 
 
 iaiJl3|4|S|6, 
 
 
 ormL9-25m-8, '46 (9852)444 
 
 Printed at the Gvardian Steana-PriDting Offices, ?, Cro?s-stre3t, Manchester.J 
 
 LiHKAKY
 
 piii'ii'iiiMMiiriii 
 
 AA 001 008 619 7 
 
 i^ 
 
 PLEASf DO NOT REMOVE 
 THIS BOOK CARDS 
 
 s^XtLIBRARV^/: 
 
 Univprsitv Research Library 

 
 '■■ ^- 
 
 rv.-' 
 
 ^^■IW