Title: The British Jugernath: Free trade! Fair trade!! Reciprocity!!! Retaliation!!!!
Author: Guilford L. Molesworth
Release date: September 6, 2017 [eBook #55493]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024
Language: English
Credits: Produced by Chris Curnow, John Campbell and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Many Footnotes have two or more anchors. The Footnote will link back to the anchor which occurs first.
Some minor changes are noted at the end of the book.
FREE TRADE! FAIR TRADE!! RECIPROCITY!!! RETALIATION!!!!
A gruesome huge misshapen monster void of sight.—Virgil.
BY
G. L. M.
LONDON:
E. & F. N. SPON, 125, STRAND.
1885.
Price Sixpence.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, Limited,
STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS.
Dedicated
TO
SIR EDWARD SULLIVAN, Bart.,
IN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF
THE MANY VALUABLE HINTS THE AUTHOR HAS DERIVED
FROM HIS
“BUBBLES.”
The following squib was written in 1883, with the intention of drawing attention to the serious danger into which we are rapidly drifting, through the suicidal policy of our rulers.
Since it was written the evils indicated therein have greatly increased in intensity.
The interests of the producers having been completely sacrificed to those of the consumers; the results of such a policy are becoming painfully apparent, in the increasing number of the unemployed, consequent on unlimited foreign competition.
Working men who are unable to obtain employment can no longer be persuaded, either by the plausible statistics of Mr. Giffen, or by the peevish denunciations of Mr. Bright, that, thanks to Free Trade, they are better off than they were ever before.
Cheap food is of little avail if the means of purchasing it be not forthcoming.
The cry for fair trade is waxing stronger and stronger.
I have endeavoured to show that a light tax on foreign wheat, would, without any appreciable increase in the cost of food, probably enrich England and its dependencies to the extent of about £60,000,000 annually; whilst at present a large portion of this is employed in furnishing the sinews of war which will probably be used against us.
G. L. M.
March 30th, 1885.
| PAGE | ||
| Chap. I. — | To the Votaries of Jugernāth | 1 |
| II. — | The Blasphemer | 2 |
| III. — | What is Jugernāth? | 4 |
| IV. — | A few ugly Facts | 6 |
| V. — | Axioms for Jugernāthians | 9 |
| VI. — | Political Economy | 12 |
| VII. — | Political Extravagance | 17 |
| VIII. — | False Prophets of Jugernāth | 21 |
| IX. — | Isolation of Jugernāth | 24 |
| X. — | Treachery in the Camp | 29 |
| XI. — | Quem Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat | 33 |
| XII. — | The wages of Jugernāth | 35 |
| XIII. — | Pauperism, Crime, and Intemperance | 37 |
| XIV. — | Jugernāth afloat | 41 |
| XV. — | Adverse Prosperity | 43 |
| XVI. — | Sacred Rights of Property | 47 |
| XVII. — | Selections from Jugernāth’s Sacred Writings | 51 |
| XVIII. — | The Vampire | 54 |
| XIX. — | Odimus quos læsimus | 59 |
| XX. — | Prosperous Adversity | 63 |
| XXI. — | Ireland under the wheels | 64 |
| XXII. — | The Finishing Stroke | 68 |
| XXIII. — | Little Greatness | 71 |
| XXIV. — | Blunder and Plunder | 73 |
| XXV. — | Dear Cheap Food | 77 |
| XXVI. — | The Pagoda tree | 81 |
| XXVII. — | I know a Maiden fair to see | 85 |
| Appendix I. — | Discourtesy versus Argument | 89 |
| ” II. — | Unheeded Warning | 96 |
THE BRITISH JUGERNATH.
My Idolatrous Compatriot! Were it not for the gravity of the situation, it would be amusing to watch the self-complacent smile of conscious superiority which you assume, when descanting on the paternal character of our rule in suppressing such abuses as those of Suttee and Jugernāth; unconscious at the same time that the Jugernāth of the wretched Hindoo is dwarfed into complete insignificance when compared with that huge idol which you yourself have set up for worship.
My dear fellow! for goodness’ sake put away the microscope with which you are so patiently investigating the mote in the eye of your Aryan brother, and bear with me, whilst I attempt to extract the huge log which obscures your own visual organs. And should I (contrary to my expectation), succeed in removing so large a mass, you will find that, whilst you have been depriving your Aryan brethren of their comparatively innocent little plaything, which at the most might have crushed some half dozen fanatics, in the course of a year, you have reared up a horrible fantastic creation which you worship, which in its progress is crushing its thousands and even millions every year; which is stamping out the lifeblood of England and its dependencies; whilst all the time you are applauding it, sounding your political tom-toms, blowing your trumpets to shouts of wah! wah! complacently misapplying glib quotations from your sacred Vedas (Adam Smith and Mill), flaunting your banners of political economy while violating every principle of that useful but misused science.
Now, my Friend, I am not sanguine enough to expect a patient hearing from you whilst I revile that idol which you have set up with sound of sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and other kinds of (un)musical instruments.
I am perfectly aware that I shall be cast, by you, into the fiery furnace of criticism; I can imagine, in anticipation, the vials of your wrath poured out on my unlucky head; and I don’t expect to escape like our friends Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.
I am not composed of those materials of which martyrs are made.
I know full well that I shall writhe horribly under the taunt of “ungrammatical twaddle,” for how can I hope to escape an occasional slip of the pen, of which even the heaven-born “Covenanted Civilian” is not always innocent.
I shall wriggle under the analysis of my “illogical reasoning,” my “exploded theories,” my “faulty statistics.”
I shall squirm under the exposure of my “ignorance of facts,” my “want of knowledge of political economy,” my “antiquated notions.”
That I shall suffer severely for my blasphemy I know right well; but I cannot help it. Strike!! but hear me.
I am weary to death of the claptrap and imposition with which your votaries applaud their idol, and attribute the evils caused by it to anything but the right cause. I am disgusted with the blind obstinacy with which you close your eyes to the light of facts; besides, I have the selfish feeling that, sooner or later, I may be jostled by admiring votaries under the wheels of your car, whilst I shall not have even the consolation of deluding myself that I am a martyr ascending to the heaven of your Jugernāthian mythology, but, on the contrary, a victim of your confounded stupidity and obstinacy, and of the incompetence or dishonesty of your leaders.
If I could only stand on the platform of any other audience and address Americans, Dutch, Belgians, Germans, or say Frenchmen, I might secure a sympathetic hearing.
The Frenchman would probably shrug his shoulders and say:—
“I quite agree with, you, mon ami! mais que voulez vous? It amuses these other English, and does not hurt us; on the contrary, we profit by it. We furnish the gilt and gingerbread, the paint and the unmusical instruments; and we are paid for them, vive Jugernāth!! only don’t ask us to be fools enough to put ourselves under its wheels.”
You, on the other hand, my friend, will naturally say:
“Bah! these Americans, Dutch, Belgians, Germans, and French are brutally stupid, and beyond the reach of argument; blind to their own interests. We alone stand on the pinnacle of intelligence in our worship of Jugernāth. Has not our High Priest, the G. O. M., swept away all your argument like chaff?”
Pardon me, my friend. The exuberant verbosity of the G. O. M., combined with his misleading and incorrect statistics, may easily silence an opponent in debate, but they cannot alter stern facts; and facts are against your idol. Your prophets prophesy falsely, and your people love to have it so.
Well! well!! I have put off the evil day as long as possible; but sooner or later it must come out, even if you have not already guessed it.
Stoop low while I whisper in your ear the name by which this destructive fiend Jugernāth is known in England. It is:—
Free Trade!!!
Yes! it is Free trade that has utterly ruined Ireland; that is rapidly dragging England down under its wheels; that drains the lifeblood of India and England’s dependencies.
Free trade is that idol which England worships, but which brings in its train disaster, bankruptcy, pauperism, drunkenness, and crime. It is Free trade that is destroying England’s industries, and is driving her capital to protectionist countries. It is Free trade that, if not soon abandoned, will soon bring about a national bankruptcy in England.
My dear fellow! I know your stale arguments by heart. I have looked into your dishonest and fictitious statistics and discovered their imposture. I know you can make glib quotations from Adam Smith and Mill, and misapply them. It is easy for you to prate about Political Economy, and at the same time to practise Political Extravagance, of the most ruinous description; but I ask you to leave theory for a short time and look ugly facts straight in the face, divesting your mind, if you can, of all prejudice. These facts I will give you in the next chapter. But now don’t misunderstand me. I am not a rabid protectionist. I am not an advocate of Fair trade, Reciprocity, or Retaliation. I hold that Protection, if carried beyond its legitimate limits, is nearly as mischievous in its action as Free trade. And that although “Fair trade,” “Reciprocity” and “Retaliation” are cries that have been evoked by the evils that Free trade has brought upon us, yet they are wrong in practice, as an attempt at a compromise with an utterly false principle; and I am glad that the movement has collapsed.
I hold that Free trade is entirely wrong in principle and disastrous in results. Every argument of the free-trader is based on the misuse, not upon the proper use, of Protection.
Every so-called triumphant exposure of the evils caused by Protection has simply been an exposure of the evils of Protection carried beyond its legitimate limits.
The Corn Laws, to which Free trade owes its existence, were an instance of undue protection; they urgently required alteration, not repeal. Free trade advocates are unable to distinguish the difference between the use and the misuse of a principle. In their abhorrence of its misuse, they would sweep it away altogether. They are about as reasonable as the man who discovers that too much food will cause indigestion, and therefore proposes, as an infallible law of political economy, the dogma that no food whatever is to be taken. And they stigmatize as “simpletons without memory or logic,” as men “beyond the reach of argument”[1] those who decline to accept the Free trade gospel of starvation.
[1] Mr. Bright’s letter to A. Sharp, Bradford, 1879.
I have said that facts are against your idol, let me advance a few of them:—
(1.) The prophecies made by the originators of free trade have proved to be false.
(2.) England stands alone as a free-trader. Free trade, at the present time, is either an English, or a barbarous custom.
(3.) France made a partial trial of free trade, but has drawn back and refused to continue the commercial treaty.
(4.) Increased wealth,—due to improvements in science, steam, and electricity, although dishonestly claimed the work of free trade,—has been shared by all civilized nations.
(5.) Protectionist countries have made greater relative advance in prosperity than England.
(6.) The exceptional prosperity of the years 1871–73 was due to a partial suspension of free trade caused by the Franco-Prussian war.
(7.) The rise of wages in England,—dishonestly claimed as the work of free trade,—has been shared by Protectionist countries.
(8.) The statistics of decrease of crime and pauperism—claimed as the work of free trade—are fictitious and misleading.
(9.) Protectionist America is passing Free Trade England by “in a canter.”
(10.) Protectionist America contrasts favourably with Free Trade Canada.
(11.) Canada having lately departed from free trade principles, is satisfied with the result, and clamours for more protection.
(12.) The Colony of Victoria, which has departed farthest from the principles of free trade, is the most prosperous of the Australian Colonies.
(13.) Free Trade Ireland contrasts unfavourably with Protectionist Holland, which has every natural disadvantage.
(14.) The agricultural industry of Ireland has been destroyed, and Ireland ruined by free trade.
(15.) The manufacturing industries of Ireland, which flourished under protection, have become extinct under free trade.
(16.) English agricultural industries are rapidly being ruined by free trade.
(17.) In the last eleven years, about 1,200,000, acres have gone out of tillage in the United Kingdom, and about 7,400,000 acres are lying fallow.
(18.) Numerous farms are untenanted, or let at nominal rates.
(19.) The loss to the agricultural classes within the last few years has been estimated at £150,000,000.[2]
(20.) Many English landowners are realizing what they can from the wreck, and investing the capital in Protectionist America.
(21.) English manufacturing industries are, for the most part, on the high road to ruin.
(22.) Silk industry is nearly extinct in England.
(23.) Cotton and woollen industries are struggling hard for existence.
(24.) Iron industries are said to have lost £160,000,000 in four years.
(25.) Protectionist countries have outstripped England in relative increase of commerce.
(26.) The accumulation of wealth is increasing more rapidly in Protectionist France than in England, in spite of a disastrous war, a heavy war indemnity, a civil war, and an unsettled form of Government.
(27.) Land cultivation is increasing in Protectionist France and decreasing in Free Trade England.
(28.) The relative increase in the production of iron is greater in Protectionist countries than in England.
(29.) The relative increase in general manufacture is Greater in Protectionist countries than in England.
(30.) The working classes, by whom free trade was carried, though nominally free-traders, are practically extreme protectionists.
(31.) The working classes, whenever they have obtained predominant influence, have become protectionists.
(32.) “The revenue returns continue to exhibit a stagnant tendency under all the heads which are considered tests of national prosperity.” (Telegraphic Summary of News, Civil and Military Gazette, December 7th, 1883.)
(33.) “It is predicted that, unless Freight rates to India speedily improve, a considerable number of steamers now engaged in the trade will be laid up.” (Civil and Military Gazette, December 7th, 1883.)
(34.) “Gloomy predictions are uttered about the immediate future of our iron-trade. Few fresh orders are coming in, and stocks are consequently increasing in an alarming manner.” (Civil and Military Gazette, December 7th, 1883.)
(35.) “Again it is alleged that the principles of free trade, which have been adopted in this country, have tended, in a great degree, to produce the disastrous results which we have at present to contend against, and which present a gloomy look-out for the cotton operatives of this country.” (The Mail, December 19th, 1883.)
(36.) “It is the intention of the leading men among the cotton operatives to move next session for a Royal Commission to enquire as to what extent, if any, we suffer from foreign competition, and what bearing our system of free trade may have on the question.” (The Mail, December 19th, 1883.)
Before I proceed to substantiate the facts above given, I wish to clear the ground by a few axioms which I think few will venture to dispute.
[2] By Mr. John Bright.
| Axiom. | Action of Free-Trade. | |
| (1.) | The object of political economy is to increase the wealth and power of a country.[3] | Free trade attaches more importance to consumption than to productive industries. |
| (2.) | The riches or power of a country is in proportion to its produce.[3] | |
| (3.) | Industries, or the produce of the land and labour, are the REAL WEALTH of the country.[3] | Free trade destroys the sources of employing productive labour. |
| (4.) | The requisites of production are Labour, Capital and Land.[4] | |
| (5.) | Parsimony, not industry, is the immediate source of increase of capital.[3] | Free trade promotes consumption rather than parsimony. |
| (6.) | Capital is wealth appropriated to reproductive employment.[4] | Free trade is rapidly driving capital to Protectionist countries. |
| (7.) | Industries are limited by capital, and cannot be created without capital.[5] | |
| (8.) | Increase of capital gives employment to labour without assignable limits.[5] | |
| (9.) | Productive labour is labour employed to produce a profit.[6] | Free trade makes labour unproductive |
| (10.) | Emigration of productive labour is loss of capital. The Minister of War in France asserts that every individual transported to Algeria costs the State 8,000 francs. | Free trade encourages the immigration of productive labour to Protectionist countries. |
| (11.) | Industries carried on without profit, cause loss of capital and credit. | |
| (12.) | It is demand only that causes labour and its produce to be wealth.[6] | Free trade prefers consumption to demand. |
| (13.) | To purchase produce is not to employ labour.[5] | Free trade purchases produce instead of employing labour. |
| (14.) | Capital employed on Foreign trade is less advantageously employed for society than on Home trade.[7] | |
| (In extreme cases Adam Smith shows that capital might be twenty-four times more advantageously employed on Home than on Foreign trade.) | Free trade encourages Foreign and Carrying trade, rather than Home trade. | |
| (15.) | Carrying trade is less advantageous than either Foreign or Home trade.[7] | |
| (16.) | Interest on capital is natural, lawful, and consistent with the general good.[8] | |
| (17.) | A struggle between capital and labour is the greatest evil that can be inflicted on society.[8] | Free trade leaders encourage a struggle between Labour and Capital, between Landlord and Tenant. |
| (18.) | Land let out for profit is the capital of the landlord.[9] | |
| (19.) | The capital of the employers forms the revenue of the labourer.[10] | Free trade destroys the capital of the employer. |
| (20.) | Nothing can be more fatal than the cry against capital, so often unthinkingly uttered.[9] | Free trade leaders raise this cry against the capitalist landlord. |
| (21.) | Rent does not affect the price of agricultural produce.[9] | |
| (22.) | It is to the interest of the labourer that there should be as many rich men as possible to compete for his labour.[9] | Mr. Bright says, that rich landlord capitalists are the squanderers of national wealth. |
| (23.) | Agriculture is the most advantageous employment of capital.[11] | Free trade has destroyed agriculture in England and Ireland. |
| (24.) | No equal capital puts in motion a greater quantity of productive labour than that of the farmer.[11] | |
| (25.) | Cultivated land is more advantageous than pasture.[11] (It has been computed that wheat cultivation per acre, compared with pasture land, produces eight times the quantity of human food, and employs three times the amount of labour.) | Free trade leaders urge the substitution of pasture for wheat cultivation in England. |
| (26.) | The interests of the agricultural and manufacturing classes are inseparably connected with those of the whole community. | |
| (27.) | Credit when sound is capital.[12] | Free trade is destroying credit by causing industries to work at a loss. |
| (28.) | Credit, when it exceeds the present value of future profits, is unsound. | |
| (29.) | Credit is the anticipation of future profit.[12] | |
| (30.) | Money is the accumulation of past profits. | |
| (31.) | Activity of commerce is not necessarily an indication of prosperity. | Free trade causes the commerce of Great Britain to be one of consumption rather than production, and consequently unhealthy. |
| (32.) | The true Economist pursues a great future good at the risk of a small present evil.[13] | Free trade, to avoid a small present evil, risks a national disaster. |
[3] Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith.
[4] Political Economy, by J. S. Mill.
[5] Political Economy, by J. S. Mill.
[6] Political Economy, by H. D. Macleod.
[7] Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith.
[8] Political Economy, by F. Bastiat.
[9] Political Economy, by H. D. Macleod.
[10] Political Economy, by J. S. Mill.
[11] Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith.
[12] Political Economy, by H. D. Macleod.
[13] Political Economy, by F. Bastiat.
Do not suppose, my Friend, that I am opposed to political economy; I am simply opposed to your application of its principles.
Let me illustrate my meaning by a comparison between Mathematics and Political Economy:—
Mathematics may be divided into two classes—“pure” and “applied.”
Political economy may be divided into two similar classes—“pure” and “applied.”
Pure Mathematics, being an exact science, is infallible.
Pure Political economy, being a matter of opinion, is not infallible; but let us for the moment suppose it to be so.[14]
Applied mathematics are not always sound; for example, in applying mathematics to Engineering problems, it is by no means uncommon to find that they appear to err most egregiously; so much so, as to give rise to the saying, that “theory and practice contradict one another.” The fact, in reality, being that theory has not been correctly applied; that innumerable small factors, which can only be ascertained by practice and experience, have been neglected in the application of theory; and even practice often fails to supply these factors.
Applied Political Economy is under similar conditions, but with this difference: 1st, that pure Political Economy is not infallible; 2nd, that the application of Political Economy is affected by a greater number of intricate factors than any ordinary problem in Engineering; 3rd, that the observation of results in a complex question of Applied Political Economy is far more difficult than in the case of those simple materials which are dealt with in Engineering problems.
The eminent Italian Political Economist, Luigi Cossa, warns the student of this difficulty; but free-trading “fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”
He says:—
“It is needful to hold ourselves aloof equally from the so-called Doctrinaires who refuse the assistance of practice, and from the Empiricists who obstinately close their eyes to the light of theory.
The Pure science explains phenomena and determines laws; the Applied science gives guiding principles, which practice brings into conformity with the innumerable varieties of individual cases.”[15]
Mill also says:—
“One of the peculiarities of modern times,—the separation of theory from practice,—of the studies of the closet from the outward business of the world,—has given a wrong bias to the ideas and feelings both of the student and of the man of business.[16] ... There is almost always room for a modest doubt as to our practical conclusions.”
Let us take an example of pure and applied science.
You, my Friend, quote an axiom of Pure Political Economy when you say:—
“It is unjust to tax all for the benefit of one class” So far I quite agree with you;—it is to your application of the axiom that I object, when you go on to say—“therefore protection in any shape is wrong.” Your application of pure science to the complex question of free trade is quite incorrect.
I say “it is just and expedient to tax all for the benefit of all.” I hold that the employment of home and colonial labour, and the development of home and colonial produce and industries, is for the benefit of the community as a whole; and that, consequently, protection, if carried only to the extent necessary to secure this, and no further, is just and expedient.
The Corn Laws, as existing in 1846, went beyond this: and their alteration, not their abolition, was needed. Your free-trader’s argument is like that of a man who has discovered that too much water will drown, and proceeds at once to the other extreme of killing by thirst.
All extremes are bad. Free trade is an extreme. Want of competition is bad. Extreme competition is bad. Healthy competition is that which is wanted.
Unlimited competition defeats its own purpose by crushing out weaker industries, diminishing the supply, and enabling the successful competitors to raise their prices as soon as the rival industry has been extinguished.
Even Mill admits that protection may