Having safely passed our "pons" we will now, by the help of what this has taught us, examine what our Neo-Protectionists call One-sided Free Trade.

I hold it to mean that while every nation has a free sale for its products in our home markets, we are excluded more or less from some of the great markets of the world by hostile and prohibitory tariffs. This is the truth, but the inferences and conclusions drawn therefrom by our Neo-Protectionists are as false and absurd as their notions about our adverse balance of trade.

They suppose that Great Britain is the principal if not the only sufferer from this state of things; and they assert that while Protection is advancing the prosperity of other countries, Free Trade is destroying ours.

Free Traders deny these propositions, and, on the contrary, affirm that Free Trade has been, and is, a source of vast prosperity, and an unmitigated blessing to the country, and that Protection has been, and is, a source of loss to those countries which have established it

Let us now see what we, as a nation, have done under our one-sided Free Trade.

First, let us try and understand the meaning of the com-plaint that every nation has a free sale for its products in our home markets. From the terms used, it must be evident that every nation which produces anything, and wishes page 15 to sell it to us, has to compete with every other nation wishing to do the same thing. It is therefore impossible for us to get the commodities we want cheaper than we do through this universal competition.

No other nation enjoys the advantages which flow from this state of things. We find constantly that commodities are cheaper here than in the countries which produce them. The poor among us are thus enabled to fight the battle of life on the most favourable terms possible. Our labourers are thus fed, housed, and clothed, as cheaply as possible. They are thus enabled to produce cheaply, more cheaply than any other workers; so cheaply that they have become the dread of every Protectionist nation:—so cheaply that ad valorem duties of 50 to 200 per cent on their productions are inadequate to keep them out of Protectionist markets; so cheaply, that we almost monopolise, as a matter of cheapness, every neutral market; so cheaply that we have managed to obtain nearly five-eighths of the world's ocean carrying trade, and are daily driving out of employment such of the remaining vessels as belong to Protectionist nations.

Our one-sided Free Trade has done all this for us, at all events. And no Protectionist nation can divest us of what we have thus got. And of the advantages we enjoy we cannot be deprived except in one way—by other nations becoming also Free Traders.

It must be clear, that so far as our one side goes, it is a very good side, and cannot be improved. Ought we not to be extremely careful how we touch it? I am going to ask presently why we should touch it? The Neo-Protectionist would probably say, "because we want to get the other side also."

Are we quite sure this other side will be as good as that we have? I doubt it.

The complaint is that by hostile tariffs, our productions are excluded from the principal markets of the world. This is true, and on cosmopolitan grounds, and in the interests of humanity, this state of things is to be regretted. But we are not now considering the interests of humanity, we are trying to see how we can advance the particular interests of Great Britain.

page 16

There are good reasons for supposing that the existing state of things is not to be regretted by us from the selfish national point of view.

I am not sure, as some are, that Great Britain would in the long run be a gainer by universal Free Trade, and I now start this as a question worthy of calm discussion.

If universal Free Trade existed, its vital and energetic principle, division of labour, would, of course, have full play, and mankind would by its means achieve the maximum of production at the minimum of cost

I am not quite certain that, as a nation, we should, under it, be absolutely, or comparatively, as well off as we are now.

Let us for a moment imagine all hostile tariffs suddenly abolished.

Has any one ever seriously considered the possible effects, immediate, and remote, which might arise?

All this is based on the sudden opening of foreign ports. A gradual opening would, of course, modify the process, but the ultimate result would not be different. One of the results which would most probably happen is, that our population might be increased by two or three millions more than it otherwise would be. But then several questions arise, such as:—" Would the nation then be absolutely or comparatively better off? "

Free Trade introduced into Protectionist countries would disorganise their industries—ruin some of them—and cause a general displacement of capital and labour. Effects the converse of those described as happening with us would take place with them. At last a basis would be found. Then would arise everywhere a real and keen competition with us. Is it quite certain we should come out of it victorious? Take such industries as these: Our cotton and wool manufactures, our iron manufactures, our ocean-carrying trade.

The United States grow cotton, and in Alabama this cotton is adjacent to the iron and coal which are produced there and in the neighbouring states. Would our cotton lords and ironmasters view with equanimity the contest with our cousins which would commence on the morrow of the opening of their ports? It might turn out that these cousins might find out some way of making cotton goods and iron as cheap as, or cheaper than, we can. If the competition of foreigners be keen now, notwithstanding the weight they carry in the shape of enhanced cost of production, arising out of Protectionist tariffs, what would it be should the weight be removed? What would become of our shipbuilding and ocean-carrying trade? What would become of our trade with the States? What would become of us in neutral markets? What would become of us in our own markets?

At present, as regards cheapness of production, we stand supreme everywhere in all these things. Protection, in this page 18 respect, handicaps and kills our competitors. Free Trade would breathe life into them. I say, therefore, speaking selfishly as an Englishman, we had better remain as we are, and "let sleeping dogs lie."

But I want to know what it is our Neo-Protectionists have to lay at the door of Free Trade, even one-sided Free Trade.

Let us do a little more national stock-taking, for there is no other way of seeing how we get on.

Under the head "Imports and Exports," I gave figures which show the grand external results of our one-sided free trade. Let us now look at our internal condition, and see whether we can recognise any moral and material progress.

Let us take—1. Population. 2. Pauperism. 3. Crime. 4. Education. 5. Thrift. 6. Bankruptcy. 7. Taxation. 8. National Debt. 9. Banking. 10. Railways. 11. Agriculture.

I.—Population.

In 1850 the United Kingdom numbered	27,523,694
In 1860 the United Kingdom numbered	28,778,411
In 1870 the United Kingdom numbered	31,205,444
In 1880 the United Kingdom numbered	34,468,552
In 1881 the United Kingdom numbered	34,788,814

There is nothing discouraging here, surely. During the last ten years 3,275,000 persons, nearly 900 a day, have been added to our population, notwithstanding emigration, and a protracted agricultural and trade depression.

What is the economical condition of this population?

The following tables will indicate this:—

page 19

Bearing in mind what was said under "Imports and Exports," a glance at this table shows that, fast as our population has increased, its command of wealth, and purchasing power in the world's markets has increased still faster; and that they exercised this power may be seen by the following table, which shows the consumption per head of population of some of those articles which our working classes consume most:—

Now let us take pauperism.

2.—Pauperism.

Ireland.

1870	Number of Paupers First weeks in January	73,921
1873	Number of Paupers First weeks in January	79,649.
1878	Number of Paupers First weeks in January	85,530
1879	Number of Paupers First weeks in January	91,807
1880	Number of Paupers First weeks in January	100,856
1881	Number of Paupers First weeks in January	109,655

Scotland.

1870	14th May	126,187
1873	14th May	111,996
1878	14th May	94,671
1879	14th May	97,676
1880	14th May	98,608

page 20

England and Wales.

Year.	Population.	No. of Paupers January I.
1850	17,773,324	920,543
1860	19,902,713	851,020
1870	22,457,366	1,079,391
1877	24,547,309	728,350
1878	24,854,397	742,703
1879	25,165,336	800,426
1880	25,480,161	837,940
1881	25,798,922	803,126

These tables also tell their own tale, we see:—

1. That while agriculture remains depressed, trade is reviving, the figures for 1880 and 1881 for England and Wales bringing the fact into strong relief; 2, that as while in 1870 this part of the kingdom had a million of paupers to support, in 1881 it has only 800,000, although the population has in the meantime increased 3,340,000, a marvellous proof of progress; 3, that we appear to be once more embarked on the rising wave of prosperity as a trading and manufacturing nation. Let us now turn to our criminal statistics.

3.—Crime.

United Kingdom.

Year.	Population.	Convictions.
1840	26,487,026	34,030
1850	27,523,694	41,008
1860	28,778,411	17,461
1870	31,205,444	18,401
1879	34,155,126	16,823
1880	34,468,552	15,643

Do these figures require a word of comment? Let us now turn to the matter of education.

4.—Education.

United Kingdom.

Year.	Schools, Inspected.	Accommodation.	Average Attendance.
1863	7,739	1,512,782	1,008,925
1869	10,337	2,076,344	1, 332,786
1874	15,671	3,344,071	1,985,394
1879	20,169	4,727,853	2,980,104
18 80	20,670	4,842,807	3,155,534

page 21

We thus see that while the material condition of our population has steadily improved, their moral and intellectual condition has also advanced in a remarkable degree.

One of the signs of improvement is in the matter of thrift. Take the Savings' Bank figures:—

5—Thrift.

In 1841 the deposits were	£24,474,689
In 1851 the deposits were	30,277,654
In 1861 the deposits were	41,546,475
In 1871 the deposits were	55,844,667
In 1879 the deposits were	75,809,994
In 1880 the deposits were	77,721,084

6.—Bankruptcy.

In 1879 insolvencies were in number 13,132, and in amount £29,678,000.

In 1880 the insolvencies were in number 10,298, and in amount £16,188,000.

7.Taxation.

Year.	Population.	Amount Raised	Per Head.
1865	29,861,908	£70,313,436	£2	7	1
1870	31,205,444	75,434,252	2	8	4
1875	32,749,167	74,921,873	2	5	9
1878	33.799,386	79,763,298	2	7	2
1880	34,468,552	81,265,055	2	7	1
1881	34,788,814	84,041,288	2	8	4

Income Tax.

1869	Gross value of property and profits assessed	£434,804,000
1874	Gross value of property and profits assessed	543,026,000
1879	Gross value of property and profits assessed	578,046,000

8.—National Debt.

In 1870 this was	£797,943,660
In 1874 this was	776,107,783
In 1880 this was	774,044,235
In 1881 this was	768,703,692

Let us now take Banking and the Clearing House returns:—

9.—Banking.

June, 1880, Deposits at principal London Banks and Discount Companies	£105,000,000
June, 1881 Deposits at principal London Banks and Discount Companies	118,500,000

page 22

Bankers' Clearing House.

In 1870-71 the total Clearing was	£4,018,464,000
In 1878-79 the total Clearing was	4,885,091,000
In 1879-80 the total Clearing was	5,265,976,000
In 1880-81 the total Clearing was	5,909,989,000

Do any of these figures give one an idea of decay?

Let us now look at our Railway traffics:—

10.—Railways.

Year.	Miles Open	No. of Passengers.	Total	Per Mile.
1870	15,537	330,004,398	£45,078,143	£2,794
1875	16,658	506,975,234	58,982,753	3,541
1879	17,696	562,732,890	59,395,282	3,356
1880	17,945	603,884,752	61,950,754	3,453

Here again we have to notice the effects of the depression, and the indication of a fresh start, which the figures of 1880 afford. There is one thing, however, to be noted. Considering that since 1875 some 1,300 miles of comparatively unproductive lines have been built, we cannot but see that an enormous advance in the general prosperity has taken place in this department also.

Let us now take a few figures from our agricultural statistics:—

11.—Agriculture.

Year	Acres Under Corn Crops.	Average Price of Wheat.		No. of Cattle.	No. of Sheep.
1870	11,755,053	46s.	10d.	9,235,052	32,786,783
1877	11,103,196	56s.	9d.	9,731,537	32,220,067
1878	11,030,175	46s.	5d.	9,761,288	32,571,018
1879	10,777,459	43s.	10d.	9,961,536	32,237,958
1880	10,672,086	44s.	4d.	9,871,153	30,239,620

Here is the one bad exhibit in the national balance-sheet. Bad as these figures are, however, they do not, at first sight, convey any idea of the disastrous years, 1877, 1878, and 1879.

To obtain anything like a correct notion of the circumstances, it must be borne in mind that an almost total failure of crops, especially in 1879, was accompanied by very low market prices. The result was disastrous to the agricultural interest, and to every other interest which depended on it.

page 23

Landlords had to forego their rents. Farmers lost a great portion of their capital. Manufacturers lost the home markets. All this constituted our agricultural, and helped to constitute our commercial, depression.

Our working classes, however, owing to the bountiful harvests of America, were fed more cheaply than ever. And this has been, commercially and economically speaking, the salvation of the country.

I speak, of course, of the nation as a whole. Certain interests have suffered, and are suffering. The agricultural interest, and the manufacturing and commercial interests which depend on it, have suffered, and are still suffering, from the combined influences of bad harvests and low prices. But, large and important as these interests are, they cannot be allowed to outweigh the interests of the whole community.

As we have seen from all these facts and figures, it is quite possible that important interests may suffer, and yet that the community as a whole may be prospering. No Free Trader denies, or wishes to deny, that certain interests have suffered.

What the Free Trader asserts is that the nation as a whole is prosperous and thriving, and that the proofs abound on every side. The Neo-Protectionists deny this; but, in seeking to prove their case, they do not appeal to facts as a whole, but pick and choose those which appear to bear out their contention.

The facts, however, which they bring forward never do more than show that some particular interest or class is suffering, and this no one is concerned to deny; their facts never prove that the nation, as a whole, is suffering. In truth, every fact proves that the nation, as a whole, is very prosperous.

As a matter of course, the classes which suffer call out for relief. Agriculturists agitate for "Protection." Manufacturers clamour for "Reciprocity." I will discuss these matters in the following chapter.