  You are very fond, my Friend, of talking about political economy. Suppose, for a change, we discuss a certain political extravagance, of which you are guilty. “Look!” you say, “at the visible signs of prosperity caused by free trade, our annual imports are in excess of our exports by £100,000,000. This represents the annual accumulation of our national wealth.” Now, my friend, I want you to try and take a common-sense view of things:— Mill says, that “saving enriches, and spending impoverishes, In my ignorance of political economy I should have said that such a man was on the highroad to bankruptcy. Now this is precisely what England is doing. She is allowing her land to go out of cultivation. She is purchasing from foreign countries food which she might produce herself, and which, when consumed, leaves nothing to show for the expenditure. Her manufacturing industries are losing concerns; her shipping is carrying at nominal rates; her iron industry has been losing at the rate of £40,000,000 a year; and she is parting with her limited capital of iron at a loss. The excess of Imports over Exports does not represent wealth capable of accumulation, but consists of consumable articles of food. The annual imports of the principal staples of food in 1881 were:—
Besides these, there are butter, cheese, eggs, coffee, cocoa, and other articles of food, which must probably amount to something between 20 and 30 millions sterling. So that the excess of £100,000,000 sterling is entirely due to consumable food, much of which might be produced in England. If this be not political extravagance, I am at a loss for a definition of Extravagance. My friend, it appears to me that you are burning the candle at both ends. Mr. Leffingwell, an intelligent American, writes: “Should the day ever arrive when most of her mills are silent, her ‘Black country’ again green, her furnaces cold, her shops filled with foreign wares, and her food brought from distant lands, it will add little to her welfare that all other nations find a market on her shores for the products of their factories and fields.” Let us now hear what America has to say about free trade:— “If, during the last fifty years, America had permitted a system of unrestricted trade with all the world, she would never have reached that development of her manufactures which has rendered her independent, but would to-day be little more than a huge agricultural colony exchanging the produce of her fields for the manufactures and fabrics of Europe. “Under a system of protection America has been able to develop her boundless mineral resources, to encourage the growth of her manufacturing industries, until to-day she is not only independent and able to supply her own needs, but she exports to foreign nations, and has begun to compete with England for the trade of the world.” A few quotations from the utterances of our own countrymen “The edge tool trade is well sustained, and we have less of the effects of American competition. That this competition is severe, however, is a fact that cannot be ignored, and it applies to many other branches than that of edge tools. Every Canadian season affords unmistakable evidence that some additional article in English Hardware is being supplanted by the produce of the Northern States; and it is notorious how largely American wares are rivalling those of the mother country in others of our colonial possessions as well as on the continent. The ascendency of the protectionist party in the States continues to operate most favourably for the manufacturing interests there, and it is no wonder that under such benignant auspices the enterprise in this direction is swelling to colossal proportions. The whole subject is one demanding the serious attention of our manufacturers.” (Rylands’ Trade Circular, Birmingham, March 4th, 1871.) “A leading manufacturer expressed himself startled and alarmed at what he saw (at the Paris Exhibition) as the proofs of successful rivalry on the part of the Americans in branches of his own trade.” (Lectures at the Colonial Institution, November, 1878.) “Unless our manufacturers bestir themselves, the Americans will completely command the markets of Europe.” (Col. Wrottesby’s Letter to the Times, July 6, 1869.) “Manufactories have been created and fostered by a system of protection, which, through enhanced prices paid by consumers, must have been very costly to the nation, but of the result of which they have reason to be proud, since it has made them to so great an extent independent of other nations for their supply.” (Report of Philadelphia Exhibition, Mr. P. Graham, Vice-President of the Society of Arts.) “The worsted manufacture of the United States is comparatively of recent origin, but it has made very rapid progress during the past ten or twelve years, the high tariff having greatly stimulated its development.” (Report of Philadelphia Exhibition. Mr. H. Mitchel, Member of Bradford Chamber of Commerce.) “America is not only supplying her own country with goods, but exporting her manufactures to such an extent that she has become a powerful rival to England.” (Mr. Mundella, Nov. 21, 1874.) “There is no time to be lost if we mean to hold our own in the hardware trade.” (J. Anderson’s Report on Philadelphia Exhibition.) “For years Sheffield has supplied not only our own country, but nearly the whole world. The monopoly remains with us no longer. It would be foolish not to recognize the fact that at Philadelphia Great Britain was in the face of a powerful rival in manufactures.” (Report on Philadelphia Exhibition—D. McHardy.) Some idea of the increase of American manufacture may be found in the example of two items—Paper and Carpets.
FOOTNOTES: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
