page break

Dialogue I

John

Well, Charlie, it is a long time since we met. Where have you been, and what doing?

Charlie

Since we parted, some dozen years ago, I have been in foreign parts—have been round the world, seen strange sights and rubbed against strange folks, who think strange things, very different from what we here at home believe in and accept as gospel truths.

John

Come, now, that's a good one. I've heard say travellers tell marvellous tales, and may be, Charlie, you have got a good tale or two to tell. What's in the wind?

Charlie

Nay, I have not much to say on things generally, but on one subject that is attracting attention just now I have got a lot to say—I mean what we in England call Free-Trade.

John

What? Free-trade, why, what on earth can be said against that? They must be a benighted folk, and no mistake, if you have met with any such. Didn't you enlighten them a bit, like a good missionary, and bring them to?

Charlie

Well, you see, I thought I was well up on the subject, and a strong believer in it, and did try to convince them of what I called their fatal error; but instead of convincing them of what we call Free-Trade, and regard as a grand panacea, they treated the whole subject with contempt and derision; indeed soon convinced me that Free-trade was a sham, a fallacy, and a delusion, and they were not particular about terms, and called it very much like an attempt at a swindle.

John

You don't say so; the heathen! what would they have? Cannot they see Free-Trade is the great humaniser of society, bringing all nations into a common bond of brotherhood by enriching all alike?

Charlie

These heathen, as you call them, must be heathen philosophers, for they will investigate this Free-trade question for themselves, and are not likely to mistake mere assertions for facts because they come from us. They will have facts, and not mere theoretical twaddle. Let us go to first principles.

John

Well, is not Free-trade a fact with us, and have we not prospered amazingly under it?—and as to first principles, what on earth do you mean?

Charlie

I mean that it is necessary clearly to understand the meaning of terms made use of, and particularly in all matters of dispute, else there will be endless wrangling. Indeed first of all the question arises, What is Free-Trade? Let us have clear understanding of the meaning of that delectable little word Feee-Trade," at the outset.

John

Why the word Free-trade carries its own meaning, it means free to trade, to be sure, anywhere and everywhere.

Charlie

Does it? We hear of a free people, and a free press, which we all admire, and in which, in this country, we rejoice, but the freedom accorded to these has no analogy with that of Free-Trade, and they must not be confounded page 4 together. A free people and a free press are under wholesome restraint, whilst the unlimited freedom claimed by Free-trade degenerates into license, and something akin to free-love—a lawless sort of thing. What kind of freedom do you think there would be without the protection of the law? Legitimate freedom and protection are quite compatible.

John

I am surprised; I never looked at it from that point of view. What you would say is, that it is a barbaric freedom, and altogether unsuited to a complicated civilised condition like ours, which necessarily imposes a measure of restraint:

Charlie

Just so. The kind of freedom claimed by the advocates of Free-Trade amounts to something like taking liberties. It would allow the strong to trample upon and prejudice the interests of others not so strong.

John

But what have you to say of unlimited competition? That is the right thing, is it not?

Charlie

Certainly not, unless qualified. Unlimited competition means destructive competition—destruction to the manufacturing industries of any country which may have dealings with another country, a more powerful rival. A healthy competition is quite another affair, and will be encouraged by every well-regulated government.

John

What is the qualification you allude to?

Charlie

What I would submit is this. Uniformity is good where circum-stances are uniform, but where they differ it is only reasonable that practice should differ also; and to apply a uniform rule to different cases, as would be the case with Free-Trade, is about as sensible as to apply a varying rule to cases which are alike. With unlimited competition, the conditions should be the same cateris paribus.

John

I am not quite clear yet as to the meaning of Free-Trade; would you define it more fully?

Charlie

My definition of Free-Trade, as accepted and understood in this country, and divested of all sophistry, signifies in one word Monopoly. Reciprocity is the normal condition of trade, and Free-Trade is its abnormal condition. Reciprocity supposes trade conducted to the mutual advantage of those trading, and that is something very different from the operation of Free-Trade.

John

Well, but is it not an admitted axiom that we may buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest What have you to say to that?

Charlie

I have to say that the advocates of Free-trade make a wrong use of the words dear and cheap; they are used in an absolute sense; whereas the terms dearness and cheapness are relative only; not absolute. For instance, if an individual can produce an article without prejudice to his other interests, to purchase such article would to him be dear at any price; and if that hold good in an individual case, it will hold equally good in any number of cases, or for a whole nation.

John

True. I begin to waver in my faith of Free-trade. If our premises be false, no wonder the conclusions should be false too; but you see it is stated Free-trade is based upon natural law, and if so, any violation of a natural law must be wrong.

Charlie

I know it is so stated, and the assertion is as false as false can be. There is no such law in nature, nor anywhere else, except in the fertile brain of Free-traders. Free-trade is not only not based upon natural law, but it has not even its analogy in nature. All nature loudly claims protection to the young, whether we look to the animal or vegetable kingdom.

John

Then you think trades, particularly manufacturing, are not of natural or spontaneous growth—not indigenous to any country.

Charlie

Certainly not, any more than reading and writing are natural, although the contrary is assumed by Free-traders. Reading and writing are acquired, as everybody knows, and not less so are trades, the different branches of manufacturing industry; all are acquired, not natural.

John

I should like to have some further talk with you some other day upon this vexed question of Free-trade versus Protection, or, as you like to call it, Reciprocity.

Charlie

Reciprocity is the term I like in contradistinction to Free-trade, and I am at your service whenever it suits you to resume the conversation. It will be well to break off now, as we have got some inkling of the stock terms in use by the advocates of Free-trade, and which will better enable us to understand one another afterwards.