Evils engendered by past commercial prosperity. 7 in manufac prosperity. I cannot for my part see that in any considerable degree free trade in manufactures, which I repeat is what we have to consider, caused the welfare of the masses. On the contrary, is it not axiomatic that the more manufactures made abroad are used Free-trade in the British market, the less is the demand for labour to make tures. them at home, that is-the less employment will there be, and the lower the rate of wages? The Appendix shows how wonderfully other countries have thriven whose policy has been the reverse of ours; for, indeed, no country but our own has "free-trade." All are rather going further away from it. But although all that prosperity were not only real, but could be proved to be caused by the policy to which it is attributed, I confidently, on the basis of experience and observation, declare that there is a dangerous confusion of thought, a delusive mixing Danger from up of what is temporary and transient with what is abiding and permanent. There is, I have long thought, nothing more likely to injuriously affect success in manufactures than exuberant prosperity. It does this in two ways:— First, industrials become self-confident, conceited, and careless, and the reverse of excellent and economical in work. prosperity. margins. Second, The magnitude of the margin is so great as to stimulate Large and enable foreigners, even in face of difficulties and disadvantages, to establish rival concerns, which the notorious profits too strongly tempt them to strive for a share of. It is to these influences in no small degree that we ought to attribute the establishment in foreign countries of businesses and premises intended and, as we see generally, able to oust ourselves. Once established, these rivals work on, and yearly with greater success. It is, however, only a commencement that we have yet seen. We cannot yet be said to be in many trades suffering from foreign competition. The Appendix contains abundance of extracts that demonstrate how on all hands we are threatened. Law League. Let us consider for a moment what has taken place in the past. Cobden and Bright, and the Anti-Corn-Law League, and Anti-Corntheir coadjutors, valiantly and victoriously strove against the great food monopoly which then was rampant. Landowners and farmers thought that abolition of monopoly should be "all round." If these did not say as much, the leaders of the League thought that they fairly might do so. They confounded the circumstances under ments of free-trade. Two depart which foods are produced with the circumstances under which articles of manufacture are produced. In particular, there is a limited area on which cereals and grass can be grown. There is no such limitation of area for the multiplication and enlargement of manufactories. Every restriction of supply of foods from abroad, therefore, did of necessity raise prices within the British islands, while keeping them low outside; but restriction of the same kind with regard to manufactures had that effect in a very small degree, if any at all. The latter restriction was really a powerful and a sufficient stimulus to encourage and insure the erection of new or enlarged works within the kingdom, just as demand increased, and this too, without depressing prices outside, as restriction in foods did, and therefore without lessening that foreign demand on which we at that time could rely. Britain's superior position abdicated. The question of free trade in manufactures has never yet been argued out. There was all the difference in our position from that of foreign nations: we were established in business, we had the run of it, we had most of the then methods and channels of distribution and agency all working in our favour. Other nations had not these, but had to form them. For twenty or thirty years they have been doing so, and have now attained, along with proficiency and skill, such magnitude and such economy of operations in several trades that they are able to compete with us not merely at their own doors, but in the open field of the world, and even to outdo us within the United Kingdom. This advance towards us, or stepping out beyond us, has been progressing at an accelerated pace, favoured by some helps; to which brief reference may now be made. The secret of success in modern manufactures lies largely in the scale or extent on which business is done. It has been ascertained and established by experience that largeness of scale conduces at once to superiority and to cheapness of production. Therefore, to have had the whole world, including that preeminently remunerative part, the United Kingdom and its colonies, within the area to be supplied is a very substantial advantage. This gain the British people relinquished and confer voluntarily and unnecessarily on rivals. They left no advantage to themselves of any considerable amount beyond those of possession of the ground, but rather, on the whole, considerable disadvantage. They acted, if not proudly, very liberally in the matter. They were, indeed, so very desirous of bringing about Liverpool Chamber of Commerce. 9 international free trade that they, and this by the agency of Mr. Cobden, chivalrously and almost quixotically, agreed to give an extraordinary practical proof of confidence in the free trade theory and its truth self-evidencing. They subjected themselves by treaty to terms which, but for the motive and circumstances, could only be regarded as ignominious; for in a matter of stipulation and obligation to accept the worst of a bargain is commonly held to imply secondariness in power or claims, or in cleverness. treaty Any one who will take the trouble to examine the discussions French which took place when the renowned treaty with France was on the tapis will find that the propagandist spirit was dominant at the time. This same is avowed now by the President of the Board, who speaks of this country as the apostle of free-trade (rather the martyr). Liverpool Commerce. I remember well the discussions in the Liverpool Chamber of discussed in Commerce. These may be taken as fairly representative of what Chamber of the Government wished the nation to think and feel, and what the nation did actually think and feel. A resolution was moved in that important commercial body, which, though not very strongly, approved of the treaty and the sweeping away of import duties which it bound us to, but it finished with a strong expression of regret that in the treaty due regard had not been had to its influence on the shipping interest, which it seriously compromised. The mover (who, it may be mentioned, was not a merchant) laid great stress on the converting effect which the tasting of free-trade blood, administered in a very peculiar way, would exert. The following extracts prove this point: "British manufactures, hitherto very generally prohibited from entering France altogether, are now to be admitted on duties not exceeding 30 per cent. on their value." [To any one acquainted, e.g., with the sugar-trade, it is as amusing as it is sorrowful to behold, among the articles looked forward to as admissible under a 30 per cent. protection, loaf-sugar, where a margin of a tenth part of that would be quite sufficient protection.] . . . “We shall have broken through the first defences of the French protective system; and that done, when we shall carry the fortress is a mere question of time. When the French people learn what it is that the barrier of 30 per France was cent. is keeping out, it will not be long before they will hanker for expected soon to adopt Free-Trade, nor much longer before they will be ardent Free-Traders. free-trade. Hence it is that I am disposed to regard this treaty, should it continue in operation only a few years, as the sure forerunner of the downfall of the protective system in France. . . . I do not hesitate to affirm that, in assenting to this Treaty, notwithstanding the defects Original motion. Political object. Shipping in promised. apparent on a superficial examination of it, you will be lending the influence of the Chamber to the most direct and effective blow yet aimed at the Protective system, not in France only, but throughout the Continent of Europe. A great deal has already been said against the Treaty, and much of it with apparent justice. It is open to discussion, and it ought to be discussed with the utmost freedom." He moved: ... "That this Chamber, regarding the pending Treaty of Commerce only in a commercial point of view, seeing in it an advance towards Free-Trade between the two countries, and not desiring to offer any opinion upon the political considerations which impede a more rapid advance in the same direction, approves of the measure generally; but cannot withhold an expression of regret that, for the benefit of both countries, the shipping of both is not to be placed upon the same footing." The seconder of the motion was Sir William, then Mr., Brown, a name honourably perpetuated in the "Brown Library" of Liverpool, and remembered as the representative of South Lancashire. He said he He regretted that the ships of both nations were not to be placed on the same footing. With respect to the duty of 30 per cent. on different articles, he believed that even the partial reductions thus effected would be of considerable value. . . . We should do all we could to encourage the French people to pursue the Free-Trade course; the Treaty was not all they could wish-it was an instalment; we should not refuse to receive it, however small that instalment may be. hoped the town would press strongly their opinions as to the desirability of effecting an opening between France and this country-desirable, not only in a commercial, but in a political, point of view, the latter one being equal, if not of greater importance than the former. A war between France and this country would indeed be a great calamity to both nations; and if any comparatively trifling sacrifice on our part could strengthen our amicable relations with our neighbours, and more thoroughly aid and secure the blessings of peace, it was desirable to make such a sacrifice." A later speaker, Mr. Clint, said he thought that a very grave terests com-' omission had been made in the treaty with respect to the shipping interest, and that a serious responsibility would rest upon the Government, if it had sanctioned such an omission. I took part in the discussion, and read the following extract from a Glasgow Liberal newspaper : A Glasgow severe condemnation. "Heartily approving of Free-Trade, as most of the economists of Great Britain now do, some, at least, will be inclined to question whether in this new treaty with France the country has made even a tolerable bargain. To call the measure a measure of free-trade is Opinions unfavourable to Treaty. II truth. merely an abuse of terms, and when we come to examine the precise items, we are unwillingly constrained to conclude that we have far the worst of the bargain. The precise nature of the measure seems to be The plain this: We are to give to France those articles and commodities that will render France richer, we are to receive from France those articles and commodities that will render Britain poorer. This is a commercial treaty with a vengeance. Everything we give to France will make France stronger, both commercially and for warlike purposes; everything France will give to us will be only articles of consumption for the classes who are better off than their neighbours. Such a treaty is only a delusion, as it stands. It is for the rich in both ways, and not for the masses. To call this free-trade is to make a joke of the term. Louis Napoleon has fairly outwitted Mr. Cobden, if this be Mr. Cobden's doing." A Liverpool correspondent reported— approval "Those members of the Chamber connected with the shipping Liverpool interests spoke warmly in disapprobation of those portions of the was but treaty which relate to the differential duties on French shipping, qualified. several declaring that they could not give even a general approval to a treaty which left the shipping grievance untouched. "At the adjourned meeting the discussion resulted in a memorial which gave a modified general approval of both the budget and the treaty, while at the same time expressing dissent from many of the propositions contained in each, particularly disapproving of that provision of the treaty which did not arrange for a complete reciprocity for British shipping in French ports of those advantages so long since granted to French shipping in British ports." stone. There were two concurrent circumstances that influenced the Government. On the one hand Mr. Gladstone was disposed to Mr. Gladmake a sweeping clearance of customs' duties, and he was glad that at the same time there presented itself an opportunity of, as he thought, obtaining from the French some great advantage. No doubt he did obtain admission into France of some British goods. The error, for such at least not a few think it, was that what he conceded was too much in quantity and value, and that in several directions, as well as promised them for a dangerously long period. I for one doubt whether Mr. Cobden himself, if he were living to- Mr. Cobden. day, would not be among the first to pronounce against another such treaty. The extracts just given show conclusively that it was with no inconsiderable amount of hesitation on account of very obvious points of unacceptability, that the treaty, when its terms became known, was confirmed. Its supporters confidently alleged that before the ten years would expire the French would have become converts to the principle of non-protection. Even this, as it has proved altogether fallacious, expectation might not have been |