CHAPTER III. ENGLAND UNDER FREE TRADE FROM 1850 TO 1874. THE FREEBOOTER'S SONG. Free! Free! Is not the pirate free To take what he can get, and keep what he can hold? This is the freebooter's admirable plea. He sails in his barque o'er the wildly rolling sea, And he plunders at his ease, and he hoards the shining gold. Nothing for thee, And much for me, Free trade befits the free. Free! Free! Come twaddle not to me Of the workman's falling wage, or of want and ruin nigh, Is my pocket to be filled? Is't to be or not to be? In the dearest mart I'll sell, in the cheapest mart I'll buy. Ruin for thee, The gains for me, Free trade befits the free. -Archer Gurney.1 The aim of British You would fain sell canvas as well as coals, and crockery as well as iron; you would take every other nation's bread out of its mouth if you could; not being able to do that, your ideal of life is to stand in the thoroughfares of the world, like Ludgate apprentices, screaming to every passerby: "What d'ye lack?"—Ruskin. The student of free trade theories and arguments should at the outset free trade. understand the purpose which Cobden and his associates had in view when the tariff policy of England was changed. The great end in view was to make England the manufacturing centre of the world, while other countries should be confined to the production of food stuffs and raw materials. This is shown not only by the propositions laid down as the basis of their economic creed, but by the openly expressed declarations of many of their statesmen and the literature of the time. Lord Goderich in addressing the House of Lords, said: Other nations knew, as well as the noble lord opposite, and those who acted with him, that what we (the English) meant by free trade was nothing more nor less than, by means of the great advantage we enjoyed, to get the monopoly of all their markets for our manufactures, and to prevent them, one and all, from ever becoming manufacturing nations. 1 Fair Trade, Vol. 2, p. 190. The policy that France acted on was that of encouraging its native manufactures, and it was a wise policy; because, if it were freely to admit our manufactures it would speedily be reduced to an agricultural nation, and therefore a poor nation, as all must be that depend exclusively on agriculture. The real purpose of the Manchester School is disclosed by a private conversation with one of the Anti-Corn Law agitators, given by Mrs. Trollope, mother of Anthony Trollope, in her "Life of Michael Armstrong." She says: His idea is-and I should like to see the man who would venture to tell me that Esoteric it was not a glorious one-his idea is, if we could get rid of our cursed Corn Laws, the free trade whole of the British dominions would soon be turned into one noble collection of workshops. I wish you could hear him talk; upon my soul, it's the finest thing I know. He says that if his system is carried out into full action, as I trust it will be one of these days, all the grass left in England will be the parks and paddocks of the capitalists. Sharpton will prove to you as clearly as that two and two make four, that the best thing for the country would be to scour it from end to end of those confounded idle drones, the landed gentry. They must go sooner or later, he says, if the Corn Laws are done away with. Then down goes the price of bread, and down goes the operative's wages; and what will stop us then, doctor? Don't you see? Isn't it as plain as the nose on your face that when the agricultural interest is fairly drummed out of the field, the day's our own? Our policy is, you must know, to give out that it is the operatives who are clamoring for the repeal of the Corn Laws, whereas many among them, saucy rogues, are as deep as their betters, and know perfectly well, and be hanged to 'em, that our only reason for trying to make "down with the Corn Laws," the popular cry is, that we may whisper in their ears, "down,with the wages afterward. Ay, doctor, if we can but manage this, England will become the paradise of manufacturers !—the great workshop of the world! When strangers climb our chalk cliffs to get a peep at us they will see, at what point they will, the glowing fires that keep our engines going illuminating the land from one extremity of the island to the other! Then think how we shall suck in-that is, we the capitalists, my manthink how we shall suck in gold, gold, gold, from all sides. The idea is perfectly magnificent! The fat Flemings must give up all hopes of ever getting their finical flax to vie with our cotton again! By Jove, if I had my way, Crockley, I'd turn France and the Rhine into a wine cellar, Russia into a corn bin, and America, glorious America, north, south, east and west, into a cotton plantation. Then should we not flourish? Then should we not bring down the rascals to work at our own prices, and be thankful too? What's to stop us? Trust me, there is not a finer humbug going, than just making the country believe that the operatives are rampant for the repeal of the Corn Laws.1 The free trade plan was well understood in England at the time of the agitation for the repeal of the Corn Laws. The effect of free competition, or free trade, upon the industries of the United States and other nations, could only be to build up and perpetuate a monopoly of the manufacturing of the world in England. Speaking upon this subject Frederick Engle, in his "Condition of the Laboring Classes," in 1844,' says: England was to become the "workshop of the world;" all other countries were to become for England what Ireland already was-markets for her manufactured 1 Fair-Trade, Vol. 3, p. 91. ?P. 12. The new policy. goods, supplying her in return with raw materials and food. England the great manufacturing centre of an agricultural world, with an ever-increasing number of corn and cotton-growing Irelands revolving around her, the industrial sun. What a glorious prospect! How, then, was this end to be attained? Force could no longer be resorted to as a means of extending and holding markets. That which hitherto had been secured through the military power of the country, must now be defended and perpetuated by peaceful means. The plan adopted for inducing their rivals to remove protective barriers and open their markets to the free admission of English goods, has been pointed out; but how those markets could be held under free trade, how tariff barriers could be scaled, in case of failure to secure universal free trade, remained a vexed question. The new conditions which had arisen, the new problems which presented themselves for solution, were to be met now by new men. The commercial classes had become all-powerful, and dominated every phase of the political and industrial life of the nation. Those statesmen who had guided the English nation safely through her most perilous hours in the past, and who had 'adhered to the policy of preserving and fostering every interest in the realm, had passed away. The government was now in the hands of mere money-grabbers. A combination of manufacturers, inexperienced in statesmanship, prompted solely by greed and avarice, had seized the reins of government and made the desire for money-getting purely and solely the basis of the nation's policy. A regard for the welfare of humanity, for the masses of the English people, was repudiated as a mere sentiment which formed no part of the real functions of a government. A solicitude for the welfare of the masses was no longer to trouble the minds of statesmen. Private gain, instead of public welfare, became the higher law. Those functions of government which had become recognized by experienced jurists and statesmen for ages were discarded and overthrown. The civil authorities were to perform no duties, excepting to preserve order. The strong and powerful were turned loose upon the weak and defenceless. From this time on man was to be looked upon as an animal in a jungle, to fight for his life, to survive or perish. A Free trade, free competition, must now regulate everything. farthing saved on a yard of calico became of more national importance than a fair day's wages to an artisan. The natural state of the masses was held to be perpetual want and misery, with which governments had no right to interfere. All efforts to aid in the building up of industries, through protective legislation, were regarded not only as a violation of economic dogmas, but obstructions and hindrances to universal commercial dominion. The wealth of the few was to be built up at the expense of the many. Cheap labor and low wages were the fulcrum upon which the manufacturer was to place his lever to move the commercial world. The English nation thenceforward was to become an oligarchy of manufacturers, and every other interest was to be sacrificed to their welfare. The new creed was based upon the lowest and most vicious conception of the obligation and dependence of man as a member of society. The higher duty which man owes to man was left out of their calculation. "Cheapness was taken up, not only as a weapon of defence, but as an instrument of aggressive warfare. By "cheapness" their home market was to be retained; by "cheapness" foreign rivals were to be destroyed, and markets won and held. Speaking of the manufacturing interests, and pointing out the means by which a monopoly of markets could be held, Mr. Cobden said: Upon the prosperity, then, of this interest, hangs our foreign commerce To what are we indebted for this commerce? We answer in the name of every manufacturer and merchant of the kingdom-the cheapness alone of our manufactories. Are we asked, how is that trade protected, and by what means can it be enlarged? The reply is by the cheapness of our manufactures. Is it inquired how this mighty industry, upon which depends the comfort and existence of the whole empire ca be torn from us? We rejoin, only by the greater cheapness of the manufactures of another country.1 can In the foregoing statement Mr. Cobden has announced the very kernel of his creed. The superior machinery, more abundant capital, efficient artisans, extensive trade relations, and means of transportation, which enabled them to undersell all rivals, was recognized by the English manufacturers as the key to the whole question of maintaining their commercial supremacy, and extending their markets. This advantage, with freedom unrestricted to enter all foreign markets, would enable them to suppress all rival industries then existing, and effectually to prevent new ones from arising. Situated as England was, with all the territory and possessions desirable, her interests now lay in defending and keeping what she had, and making the best use, from a financial point of view, of her resources. Under every view of the situation, peace was most desirable. As Mr. Cobden said, " Men of war to conquer colonies, to yield us a monopoly of their trade, must now be dismissed, like many other equally glittering, but false adages of our forefathers, and in its place we must substitute the more homely but enduring maxim-cheapness, which will command commerce; and what ever else is needful will follow in its train." Speaking of the question further, he says: "America is once more the theatre upon which nations are contending for mastery; it is not, however, a struggle for conquest in which the victor will acquire territorial dominion -the fight is for commercial supremacy, and the battle will be won by the cheapest." Thus showing, "that cheapness and not the cannon or the sword, is the weapon through which alone we possess and can hope to defend our extended commerce." 1 Political Writings, chap. 4. The campaign of "cheap ness." The war fare of competi tion. Cheap goods and cheap men. The repeal of the duty on agricultural products was favored for the purpose of providing the artisans of England with cheap bread-stuffs, and hence enable them to subsist on a lower wage rate. It was conceded that meat, vegetables, dairy products, flour, and grain, could be produced more cheaply in Russia, India, Australia, South America, and North America, upon the virgin soil of new countries, than in England. By this their power to produce cheaply would be augmented by reducing the wages of their artisans and keeping them at the lowest possible point. This necessity was recognized in the first stages of the free trade movement. "Cheapness," how was it to be acquired? From a purely free trade point of view the answer is, by every means possible. Machinery, cheap raw materials, superior skill, inventions, good business methods, and the power of capital, were not the only means by which this great commercial weapon was to be continually sharpened. Things were to be made cheap and still cheaper, that every rival might be undersold. But if, in order to destroy competitors, to scale tariff walls and invade foreign markets, it became necessary to reduce the wages of English artisans, this, even, though it brought misery and degradation to the great toiling masses of England, and doomed them to a condition from which they could never rise so long as the warfare lasted and so long as England should exist, was regarded as legitimate and proper means of making successful competition more certain. The vigor with which this policy was entered upon immediately after the adoption of free trade, exposed one of the most infamous features of the creed. The warfare of competition which was waged against foreign countries, brought into requisition the element of cheapness, and the sacrifice which the working classes must make to the cause of free trade. It established a most revolting system of "white child slavery" in England. Without a particle of moral sense, without a grain of human sympathy, the advocates of free trade insisted on the right of "free contract," the right to buy labor at the lowest price, regardless of all considerations of public welfare. Under the guise of a natural inherent right as a citizen to conduct his own business in his own way, they insisted on the right to fill the factories and mines of England with starved, stunted, and squalid children from seven to ten years of age, with women subjected to the worst forms of labor. Compelled to work night and day, until physically exhausted and ruined, they were to be discarded as a broken cog of a worn-out machine, to be replaced with another piece of humanity to be utilized in producing cheap goods. The Anti-Corn Law League had no interest in the workingman aside from that economic interest embraced within their creed, which is the same interest they had in their calico, their machinery, their houses and lots, and their horses, i. e., purely a monied interest. Beyond sufficient food and clothing to preserve health and give vigor enough to do a full day's |