CHAPTER X.

TREACHERY IN THE CAMP.

How is it, that the men of the working class, who are nominally free-traders, are practically protectionists?

How is it, to use the words of Mr. Wise, an ardent apologist for free trade, that--

“In 1846, the working classes overthrew protectionism in England, and in 1878 the same classes, _wherever they have obtained predominant influence_, are carrying into practice the extreme theories of their old opponents?”

Mr. Syme also says:--

“In Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, the party of progress has always been identified with a restrictive commercial policy, while the conservatives are the most uncompromising of free traders. Indeed, it may be said, that one-half of the entire English-speaking race are, in one shape or another, in favour of a restrictionist policy, and of this half the great majority are advanced liberals.”[36]

Free trade was an assertion on the part of labourers as consumers; the protectionist policy of America and Australia is the attempt of the same class to obtain privileges as producers. The working men in those countries are possessed by the thorough belief that, by carrying out their policy, _they benefit all_. Free trade considered that the interests of _consumers_ suffered by protection; the Americans and Australians, with their eyes open, undergo these private inconveniences because they believe the _mass of the community is better off thereby_. To use the words of an intelligent American:

“We all recognize that a protection tariff forces us to pay for many articles slightly more than they would probably cost us under a system of free trade. We know too that at first our manufactured products, whether of metal, cotton or coal, cost us in general more to make at home than they would have cost us if imported freely from abroad. We know that we are not buying in the cheapest market, but we believe, on the whole, it is _best to impose upon ourselves the voluntary tax[37] for the great ends_, not of enriching Monopolists, but of _promoting the best interest of the nation_.”

The average American is neither a fool, nor a knave. To fanciful theories, whose value is problematical, he prefers the solid assurance of experience and fact.

The cause of this apparently inconsistent action on the part of the working classes is easily explained. Free trade was a political job,[38] and the working classes were enlisted, by politicians, into a crusade against their own interests, to assist in the overthrow of those classes which supported the political opponents of the Free-Trading rulers.

For this purpose the working classes were stirred up to class antagonism, and the Free-Traders have kept up the delusion by dishonestly claiming as the work of free trade every advantage which protectionist countries have shared in common with us.

History is repeating itself in the delusion against which poor old Æsop warned us centuries ago by his fable of the “Members and the Belly.”

The members (manufacturing hands) hounded on by Bright and Co. to class antagonism against the belly (the agricultural classes) who were represented as “squandering national wealth,” have now brought England to a pretty pass. The reaction is taking place. Poor old Æsop was, as a political economist, more far-seeing than Mr. Bright; who now, however, seems to be changing his views in the most marvellous manner, for he has at last recognised that the manufacturing interests are affected by the agricultural depression. For he says:--

“Home trade is bad, mainly, or entirely, because harvests have been bad for several years. The remedy will come with more sunshine and better yield of land, _without this it cannot come_.[39]

“I believe the agricultural owners and occupiers of land have lost more than £150,000,000 sterling through the great deficiency of harvest.”

Bravo, Friend Bright! you are approaching the truth. Without improvement in agricultural prosperity “the _remedy for bad trade_ cannot come.”

But England is not celebrated for sunshine, the _sunshine we require is that of protection_.

Taking the nine years ending 1881, I find that, in only one year, the rainfall of the United Kingdom has been largely (7¼ inches) above the average of the last seventeen years. In five out of the nine, the rainfall has been a little below the average; in one year, ¼ of an inch above, and in another year, not quite 2 inches above, the average.

There is no doubt that the average produce of farming in England has, of late years, been below the average of former years; but the _Mark Lane Express_ returns show that, in all these years, there has been a considerable percentage of cases in which the crops have been equal to or over the average. From this we may assume that the sun is not wholly to blame, but that want of sufficient capital to farm properly and to recover the results of bad years has been a very important factor in the deficiency of crops. This may be gleaned from the replies to the questions circulated by Mr. Bear as to the condition of the farmers in 1878.

_Bedfordshire_:--“Farmers are losing heart, and the land is in a much worse state than formerly.... There has been a serious inroad upon capital account during the last few years, and the land has seriously gone back in cultivation.... The condition of the land has sunk.”

_Cumberland_:--“The last season has been a good one; but the present prices are not satisfactory, and the general depression in trade is now having its influence on farming.”

_Essex_:--“Farmers suffering from low prices, general depression of trade, the rise in wages.... The work all round is carried on languidly, and year by year the condition of the land is becoming poorer.... A large quantity of the kind very badly farmed.”

_Kent_:--“More weeds grown last year than I ever saw before.”

_Monmouthshire_:--“Land going out of cultivation, stock reduced in quantity, only necessary work done.”

_Northamptonshire_:--“The results of the two last seasons will not supply means for substantial improvements.”

_Northumberland_:--“An immense deal of land producing nothing, I may say, simply out of cultivation.”

_Oxfordshire_:--“The land is very foul and poor, partly from the continuous rains and the shortness of stock.”

_Shropshire_:--“Very few farmers, if any, paying their way.... Hand-to-mouth farming.”

_Sussex_:--“The land generally is not so clean or so well-cultivated as it was a few years since.”

Lord Derby estimates that, with proper farming, we should obtain twice as much produce as we now get.

FOOTNOTES:

[36] _Fortnightly Review_, April, 1873.

[37] The false economist pursues a small present good which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come at the risk of a small present evil. (Political Economy--Bastiat.)

[38] “I am afraid that most of us entered upon this struggle with the belief that we had some _distinct class_ interest in the question.” (Cobden.)

[39] Mr. Bright is deserting his free-trade comrades, who say--“It is not only the beneficial _working of free trade that prescribes the agricultural ruin of England_: it is the great natural law of the preservation of the fittest that proclaims that, as England is not the best fitted to grow corn, she must grow corn no longer.”