The Evening Star MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1870.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2108, 7 February 1870, Page 2

The Evening Star MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1870.

Because from time to time we receive intimation that meetings have been held by workmen at Home at which the doctrines of free trade are condemned, it is assumed by those anxious for the adoption of a restrictive system that free trade has proved a failure. That such meetings are held when particular classes are short of work is not, however, surprising, for the masses of the people of England never were free traders in heart. They were willing enough to reap all its advantages; but not one trade, as a trade, was prepared to give up those arrangements that were made for their own special benefit. They were willing enough to be relieved from the burdens laid upon their own shoulders for the benefit of other artisans, and equally willing that others should be burdened for their sakes, Ho sooner was it proposed to remove duties intended to protect particular trades against foreign competition than cries of ruin were raised by masters and men and petitions were poured in from all quarters against the proposal. The British workmen have always been

striving after impossibilities. They have been the worst enemies to themselves. They have over been endeavoring to keep up wages by restrictions of one sort or other. If an evil has been felt, they have not displayed one jot more intelligence than the Africans who used to charge calamities upon rainmakers or upon their fetishes, and who were quite ready to sacrifice their dearest friends or the rain-makers themselves in order to euro them. The burdens they have laid upon themselves have been innumerable and vexatious. Some fifty years ago, they opposed tlie introduction, of machinery in agriculture, and combined to destroy thrashing machines and other appliances. Then improvements in manufacturing machinery were opposed, and strikes and misery resulted. Afterwards, combinations against capital and trades unions sprung into existence, accompanied in many instances by deeds of violence, in order to compel obedience to the mandates of the majority. There is scarcely a scheme that has not been resorted to, in order to do what a true knowledge of commercial principles would convince was as vain as to attempt to rule the courses of the planets. So deeply rooted is the idea that men can over-rule immutable principles and bend them to suit their own views, that the clearest historical evidence and the most extended practical experience, are insufficient to bring conviction to the advocates of a protective policy, that it it can but result in damage so the country adopting it. Charles Knight, to whose literary and philosophic labors the world owes much, after narrating a long series of histories of popular tumults, sums up thus:—

The project of permanently keeping up ■wages at a certain point by means of regulations and compacts, of tariffs and trades’ unions, is just as rain and preposterous as would be the attempt to erect a building with its foundations in the air instead of in the ground. As the principles of gravitation would forbid the success of the latter scheme : so a principle as strong as that of gravitation forbids the success of the former. The discussions now going on here and there in England would not be in themselves of much moment to us, were it not that certain journals publish everything bearing on that subject as a triumphant proof that free trade is not a sound principle for a country to adopt. Then there is a class of young politicians springing up who, instead of improving upon the victories over ignorance won by their fathers, are inclined to go back to wbat was found intolerable by them. They point to these meetings of men groping after truth and doubting like themselves, and assume that the long-exploded theories propounded by them are evidence of the failure of freedom of trade to advance the prosperity of the working classes. But when their arguments are examined, they are found to be mere assumptions. In a recent meeting at Birmingham, it was assumed that, because the United States have adopted a protective policy, it must be good. It was assumed, because foreign manufacturers are supplying the English market, it will be an advantage to to that country to put a duty upon their products. Many other assumptions were also put forward without the shadow of a proof; but which, if true, only prove the advantage to any country, as a whole, of a system of free trade. With regard to the United States, there is abundant proof that the protective policy, so far from being an advantage, has been a curse to the country. It has not succeeded in making it a manufacturing country, for, under it, the manufactures once established have been abandoned, and it has been detrimental to the revenue in more ways than one. So far from excluding British manufactures, it has only changed the route and the means by which they have been obtained. A contraband trade with the States is carried on to an incredible amount through Canada, and it is done so safely and at so little cost, that English and Scotch manufactures can be bought nearly as cheaply in the States as at Home. And with regard to manufacturers on the European Continent producing at less prices than British, it has been the cry for the last forty years. If true, it is an evil that the English manufacturers themselves must remedy. There can be no reason why people should have an inferior article thrust upon them at a high price, to supersede the necessity for exertion on the part of producers to make a better more cheaply. The difficulty to be got over in establishing a moral or commercial truth is, that only one side of a. question, as a rule, is looked it. It is assumed that a certain class will be benefitted if a certain price can be secured for what they make or grow. Now that is true. Then it is said if these men are thus made rich, it must be for the benefit of the whole community—which may not be true \ for before granting that we ought to ask, who pays to make them, rich 1 If thenincrease of wealth be obtained without burdening their fellow - countrymen, both propositions are true; but if, in order to enrich them, money has to be

drawn from all tiro rest of the community, though individually they benefit, the country suffers. And this is the case if a restrictive system is operative. A government is justified in taking means to encourage the introduction of new industries, but it can never bo justified in doing so by a system of hostile tariffs. A bonus given in aid is often useful. In that case, the exact cost and incidence are known. But a protective duty is an insidious evil, and is the greater because, like secret poison, its ill effects, though certain, are so slow as to escape observation.