I.
[Image of page 7]
Free Trade:
AFFIRMED ALWAYS RIGHT AND PROPER
CONSIDERED IN ITS ADAPTATION TO NEW ZEALAND.
I.
1. Physiologically to violate nature's laws inevitably entails ill-health. This is indubitably true; and attested by very frequent painful experience. Now, notice, TRUTH IS ONE; though, certainly, we often do sec that its course, like that of "true love, never does run smooth." Intervening circumstances and interfering selfishness frequently interpose obstacles to its benign and fertilising flow, diverting its course into a score ramifications and channels, so as to pose and puzzle the various peoples living on its vast and varied and salubrious banks to trace the source.
2. Nevertheless truth cannot be essentially altered by any possible or conceivable circumstances. And the obvious, certified truth pertaining to human bodily health, holds concerning human commercial intercourse, or trade; viz., to contravene nature's relative laws is sure to occasion disorder in the body politic.
8. It seems a self-evident postulate that "all people that on earth do dwell"--Father Adam's children especially, not now to say anything of the others--should find no actual obstruction in their honest, straightforward, respectable endeavours to trade or even truck together. Evidently, however, as here already hinted, there are many existent obstacles. Some of the principal of these shall be presently noticed.
4. One man grows a surplus beyond own want of potatoes; another grows wheat more than he requires for home. They hence advantageously barter. Or, a middle man is introduced, called a shopkeeper, who buys all such surplusage and sells. The first then sells him potatoes and buys of him bread from said wheat. Here is trade; and the medium thing called money is brought into requisition. This clear arrangement saves much time and trouble. All this is straightforward--natural. Extend the operation of the idea from two individuals to two or to twenty nations. We then have commerce. Head middle man is then a merchant; and there are subordinate middle men-- tradesmen. All right. --Tariff now intervenes, and puts a big stone into the delicate organism,--intermeddles with the basis of
[Image of page 8]
"good-will." Sends officers with swords to "board" merchant carrier ships. And soon there are laches and a hitch; and then comes horrid war. --Unimpeded trade, it must therefore be assumed as postulatum, is nature's law; monopoly protection is its infraction. We shall, however, ere finishing this work, have particularly to inquire whether any peculiar conditions and circumstances, here or elsewhere, demand or justify departure from that natural rule of unrestricted liberty in honest trade. And it is just now believed that to such inquiry must be affixed a final negative.
5. During the quarter of a century last past enough on the question of Free Trade and Free Ports has been said and written to stock a library; and were all gathered up, "the world could not receive the books that would be written." And it would certainly be the very easiest thing now to give pages of statistics in demonstration of the truth to nature of the political doctrine of free, unrestricted trade. Indeed, it appears, trade protectionists have not a leg left to stand on. Their very last pretext of artificial circumstances requiring artificial fiscal arrangements proved a poor fly under the ponderous wheel of the car of inexorable necessity. By their own full though constrained consent they are argumentatively done. Aye, done up. Moreover, they have accepted the situation; and have implicitly promised fiducial integrity. Indeed, already, in turn, they have actually administered free trade laws. Truth is more powerful than its great adversaries. Good is often accomplished by those who were opposed to it. The whole old civilised world now laughs at the antiquated political nostrum of governmental monopoly protection to trade and commerce; and, doubtless, would groan at a serious, iniquitous attempt to reproduce it. But still, really, it does appear, we ought to look very sharp indeed devoutly to kick out godless chaps who would feign govern us. They are dangerous men. They are regardless of mental truth, and are not afraid of God.
6. The feeler proposition of governmental protection to traders in Auckland, whether agriculturalists,, smiths, or carpenters, must, therefore, it is shrewdly suspected, be quashed. Under the very best auspices, or the least unfavourable circumstances, it would only come to enriching the left hand trousers pocket at the expense of the right. And plain people who know nothing and care less about the science of political economy, wholly and firmly believe that that would really be no gain. It showed more deep perspicacity in the Otahuhu agriculturalists than they ever yet got credit for, that they laughed at David Graham's public suggestion that possibly monopoly protection was necessary to them. And methinks I see David joining cordially and with wonted bonhommie in that general hearty laugh.
7. It is certainly not the present purpose to give a digest of the potential and extant works alluded to; else, instead of a desiderated pamphlet on a peculiar phase of the question a book would come. To mount the shoulders of Adam Smith, McCulloch, and Mill, in order to a view far away beyond them;
[Image of page 9]
and to present column after column of heavy arithmetical figures would surely be dry, uninteresting, and unacceptable. It is carefully declined. And not only for this believed non-necessity and unacceptableness, but also for the rather different reason that, though often heard of, I never saw them, and they are now inaccessible to me. --The simple fact is, I want just now to give the reader the ripe result of my own independent thinking, as I would do were I to meet him at a Saturday's market, and have a friendly, free-and-easy, leisurely, intelligent chit-chat; and am not at all desirous to give here, what by some persons might possibly be expected of me, pages of extracts from, or a digest of any elaborate works which upon this subject are or may be extant. Present design is to aim at a plain, simple view of the question as it bears on the considerable territory of Auckland, and chiefly as it affects its aratory interests. It is peculiarly, how and what about Free Trade in New Zealand? I would now well-nigh confine myself to this particular aspect. But must, however, just glance at principle, as underlying the question in its every possible application anywhere.
8. It is ordained that every man should love himself. Self-love is divinely implanted in man as fundamental motivity. Deny it, and no place is found for promised rewards and threatened punishments, and consequently for law and government to which these appertain-- The vast distinctive difference between self-love and selfishness has never yet received sufficient notice and treatment. Selfishness is self-love under a mistake. It is depraved perversion. It may be safely affirmed that insufficient self-love is the occasion of most of the vice in our world. For instance, if a man duly respected himself be would surely not put into his body that which necessarily, certainly, and plainly injures it, as too much beef or too much beer, &c. Self-love is natural, and the God-ordained foundation of benevolence. Want of self-respect is a sin alike against nature and the dictates of Divine Revelation, which harmonize. Now, our theme receives illuminating illustration hereby, and comes in here with striking pertinency.
9. A shoemaker makes you a pair of shoes. Oh! does he? Yes; but why? because he loves you? No; not a bit of it. Because, rather, he loves himself honestly and righteously, and therefore seeks some money which represents this world's goods. If shoemakers never made shoes except from pure benevolence it is doubtful whether the people would be well shod. If the world's commerce were only legitimate when No. 1 is in abeyance, legitimate commercial transactions would be sparse. And then every man would have to try to grow his own potatoes, and worse, try to live only on them;--a result, by-the-bye, which looks rather like an emanation of malevolence. Self-love and social love have the same end. Now, just trace the operation of this idea throughout the whole community and the whole world, and thereby you will come easily to ascertain whether nature's freedom in commerce should be restricted by artificial regulations, or whether pure and
[Image of page 10]
simple let-a-loneism will answer. And it is specially desired that every man should see the thing clearly for himself, and not through the medium of another--should not believe on mere authority, or because he happens to know some excellent man who believes it. Honorable self-love, it is affirmed, is at the bottom of the commercial fact that a fair demand commonly creates a full supply. 1
10. Were a thousand carpenters wanted immediately to set up a township on the banks of the Waikato (such a likely demand would have made our railway feasible) it would be a violation of the rule of right, and of the principle technically called free trade, to get the government to impose a special tax on every carpenter not belonging to this province; and, as always, so notably and plainly in this case, such violation would be suicidal. -Oh! if that's it, I am for free trade--decidedly. Why, certainly you are,--of course! Well, now, if the carpenters of Auckland province should not have a protective governmental arrangement, ought the agriculturists? Now if a township be not just at present actually in demand, bread-corn is,--always is; and, lately, during the abnormal, extraordinary state of things--10,000 troops being located among us--it was in very large demand. Actual supply is essential, and of primary consideration; source of supply is a secondary, though not unimportant business. The first thing for the people, we say, is to get food for the keeping together of soul and body. Supply is urgently necessary. Who ought to be able, or enabled to supply the want, though not an insignificant question, is still a problem for more leisurely de-
[Image of page 11]
liberation. Give us something to eat first. After dinner speech is cordial.
11. It was certainly not an evil that California and Adelaide have recently had corn to spare and to sell; and, that we could freely and unrestrictedly buy, was incontrovertibly a good. The evil was, that large tracts of land in this country which could have supplied the demand did not, whereby our hard cash went far away. The burden of present inquiry, then, really is, Why did not this extensive territory of land yield it? Is there not a cause? There is, doubtless. And it should be ferretted out. We are unable, it is alleged, to compete with California in our own corn-market! "How passing strange!!" Considering the many thousands of miles California is distant from us, and considering the high rate of shipping-freight in this South Sea, it might reasonably be supposed that the cost of transit would be ample protection for the home producer. Now, remark, this question is a large branch of politics; and the cause of our defeat and grievance is not alone agricultural but principally political. For one instance: our roads are deficient and defective, and consequently it costs a disproportionate sum for our own conveyance of produce to market. Of this we have all heard and read re-iterated complaints. But, then, even so, how political? who so much obliged to make and mend roads as those who use or want to use them? Certainly this is plausible; but it is irrelevant; for the requisite money, and more, is really paid, and yet the roads are wanting. If half the money which the settlers have been mulcted to pay to our anomalous plurality of governments had been spent upon their own roads, and about various means of transit, this extraordinary evil would not exist as a grievous complaint. And so then it is political.
12. Some men evidently came out to these islands under the impression that the desideratum for this place, containing a few thousands of inhabitants, and the special want for themselves and their nearest friends, was a reproduction of all the institutions of old England, with its many millions of population; and hence we must, of course, have a Custom House, &c., &c., with an army of officials. Were it asked, What is our Post establishment for? the answer (blinking the subsidies) would be prompt and satisfactory. But, were it asked, what is our Custom-house for? the answer would be different and slow in coming forth. What for is the Custom Home in these far-off sparsely peopled islands? In reality, therefore, the question resolves itself into this, Can we, a few thousands here, having such an army of officials to support, produce corn to pay, as well as the Americans, whose officials are economically supported, and so supported by many millions of population.
13. And, again, some people are deceived by a flippant naming of coins. Possibly 5s. in California may represent 9s. of New Zealand necessary articles. Suppose we here were properly to make 4s. 6d. cash next month worth 8s. cash this month: how then? What goods do coins represent? we should inquire. In
[Image of page 12]
300 B. c., the standard price of a bushel of wheat was one penny; of an ox, 3s. 5d.; of a sheep, 1s. 8d. Then money was dear.
14. In England, manufactures demanded free trade, and tithes demanded "protection." Here, Customs' Tariff cripples the people; and they cast about for a redress; and, as a drowning man will eagerly clutch at a straw, so the farmers, (no man at these antipodes should be a farmer: he should cultivate his own), ground down by extraordinary taxation, look askance at a (morally impossible) government fiscal protection as a necessary help.
15. The use of the single word protection is apt to be misleading, for all admit that the grand function of government is to portect--is truly and legitimately the protection of person, life, and property. Often, people, for lack of thought, are misled by words. Tariff monopoly protection expresses the meaning better: i.e. taxing the many solely and only for bounty for the few. And sophistry, it is presumed, is undesired. We do not wish to blind ourselves.
1(5. Suppose that in a country where wheat-growing is so protected the growers of other articles were each, in effect, to say, Well, if your wheat-growing is subsidised by taxing everybody's wheat except yours, I demand that my tea-growing be in like manner protected, by taxing everybody's tea except that which I grow. So, then, Jones would be giving Smith 8s. for his own private pocket for every bushel of corn had; and Smith would give Jones 1s. 6d. extra for every pound of tea bought. And, if men can get rich by taking money out of one pocket and putting it into the other, these very intelligent and industrious men, both, would soon demonstrate to the world a confirmation of darkey's deposition, "dat all men do love lazy,"--they would retire on their acquired independent means.
17. Oh, but, then, such a thing was never in contemplation we never even dreamed that our beloved brother the tea-grower over the way was to have a tariff protective tax, but only us wheat growers: which gives a fresh face to the thing! --Now,-- Jones won't stand it; but he pluckily bursts out, Fair play all the world over. Fair play is a jewel. But then, friend Jones, like Richard Cobden, is a thorough business man, and smashes idle theories evidently devised to cover dishonest practice.
18. Be it ever borne in mind that protective duties, so-called, are not primarily designed for revenue; and in point of fact very seldom make or minister to revenue; the tax is only protective, as it is named; it is to prevent full, fair competition But interested sophisters have sometimes found it very convenient to; forget the meaning of the name. But revenue is designed to be expended on all the people who pay it in, bating a percentage for collectors' salaries-- necessary expense, which about 5 per cent, should amply cover. -- Query: Is this expense in New Zealand about 75 per centum? or is it 85? --Is any article in Auckland taxed if produced elsewhere, and exempted from the tax if produced as good here? --And even though this be so, bread must always be allowed as an exception to any such bad rule,
[Image of page 13]
for it ia proverbially "the staff of life." And it is really a merciful Providence that supplies of this essential do not fail, although local harvests sometimes fall short. So, legal restrictionism may be to oppose directly Divine Providence. The most enlarged freedom in the wish to buy wheat must not therefore be in the slightest degree interfered with. And the modern invaluable facilities of ocean transit must not be by cunning craftiness counteracted or rendered unavailing. You may or may not have a prejudice against the phrase Free Trade, especially as applied to the article wheat; --possibly you are unable to divest it of the notion of party. Any such possible prejudice cannot be deemed worthy of much notice. And in truth we do not much care about any particular phrase, more especially if ignorantly employed as a "cry." But it is very earnestly asked that no man make any attempt to intervene by coercive law between the buyer and the seller of bread-corn.
19. Well, upon the whole and spite of circumstances, I must think that any return to abolished protectionism is utterly hopeless. The only chance for it would be in a prevailing political ignorance, which we must try to obviate or disperse. The thing had better now, once for all, be tranquilly regarded as defunct; and, like a bad one dead, talked of as a possible helper no more.
20. To talk about, so as to create an expectation of protective monopoly-taxes will be very injurious, in its certain effects, to the cultivators of the soil. If they be induced to anticipate that the people will soon be compelled by law to subsidise them in their work, it will throw off their dependence from themselves; and, to their own very serious detriment, they will be mentally looking for extraneous aid; and retardation of improvements will surely be consequent. And, furthermore, considering the fact that there is not the slightest chance, nay, not so much as the ghost of a chance, of their ever getting such compulsory aid, the case, so, is very much aggravated. This is really no time to hope for the resuscitation of protectionism, or for the promotion of one trade by Act of Parliament at the expense and by the hindrance of every other. If it could obtain, it should not; but surely it cannot possibly; especially where every house-keeper has a vote, In England the thing is dead and condemned,--let it alone.
21. I somehow fancy it is to do immense service to the agriculturists here to clearly point out and exhibit the utter hopelessness of ever putting into operation the protectionist recipe lately prescribed,--hence, these free remarks. It is to contribute to best temporal benefit to force the inference of inevitable self-reliance. What is done for men mostly subtracts from the healthy stimulus to do for themselves, and so entails injury.
22. But is it necessary to set forth the abstract truth of Free Trade,--which very few indeed would now deny to be truth in the abstract,--when it is remembered, that our circumstances altogether are undeniably artificial; and that our laws generally
[Image of page 14]
and Tariffs in particular are founded upon presupposition of this fact? Now, this, in reality and in effect, is the gist of all the plausible platitudes ever advanced by advocates of tariff protection to agriculture. Omitting the consideration of the gross inconsistency of contributing chiefly to the artificial, and then pleading the artificial so produced as main argument for an urged protective enactment by way of reprisal, the following should suffice as reply:-- But, bread being a necessity;-- bread-eating being universal;-- bread-eating being eminently natural; it cannot be legitimately brought under any artificial arrangement, but especially under a law of prohibition for securing monopoly and consequent dearness, without catching instanter the avenging rebuke of nature, and painfully demonstrating that to violate nature is to entail disorder. Trifle with satins and embroidery, and even with "baccy," if you will, but, when you busily set to to concoct and elaborate a cunning, complicated tariff, in the name of God and for the sake of the multitude, let bread alone.
23. Again, the "artificial state and condition" argument is based on the assumption that it is practicable and sometimes proper to overcome evil with evil, which is erroneous. And to do evil that good may come is policy blundering. Good may be educed from our evil by a wise and merciful Providence, and most likely very often is, else, in all probability, we should destroy ourselves; but we cannot possibly by designed direct evil produce good. --Very much in our artificial state, doubtless, is unmixed evil. That which is proved so should be removed. Certainly this seems the unambiguous dictate of common sense, and of plain, simple honesty. Because my neighbour the sugar grower over the way has his business protected by a factitious enactment whereby my sugar costs too much, it is surely not so much an argument for me to get my wheat-growing protected also, as it is that I should sedulously seek the abolition, for the good of all, of the law which has actually conferred on him a monopoly. Doubtless, tariffs often have been artfully partial and unjust. The partiality and the injustice should be expunged. But to proceed to this by way of reprisals, and to labour assiduously to get an additional partiality for another trade or calling, is positively to confound confusion, to the general and grievous detriment of the respectable multitude who consume and pay. --Anyhow to tax trade is egregiously and obviously impolitic. And would surely never have been resorted to by any nation but under the extremest emergency. Such policy is an effect of horrid war.
24. Hence I happen firmly to disbelieve in tariffs altogether, and to believe that the very least of their many hypothetical evils is that they are a clumsy, complicated, difficult "way" of getting the "means." And, apparently, the principal reasons why some great men have advocated them, are, first, they conceal taxation from the public; second, they confer patronage and power by creating lots of good billets to give. Yet, incontestably, whilst standing, law, not touching concerns of "the world to come," must and should be obeyed. Only if bad it is a public
[Image of page 15]
virtue to labour assiduously for its abrogation:
25. Let us now suppose, for example, that two contiguous islands, say in the South Sea, and named A and B, were occupied by 400 industrious immigrants with their families--about 200 men on each. At B a large proportion of the people, knowing well how to grow it, regularly produced more than enough wheat abundantly to supply the two countries. At A the people, indifferently acquainted with that branch of agriculture, produced only a small quantity of wheat; but being good horticulturists, and skilled in handicraft--boatbuilding, &c., it was generally believed to be more mutually advantageous to traffic by regular trade or by barter, than for each man to attempt to produce every necessary article of consumption he wanted. In short, and very plainly, they wisely opined that it was decidedly better "every cobbler should stick to his last." One island country, then, regularly supplied wheat or flour; and the other, fruits and some vegetables, &c., &c.; also well-equipped trading vessels, and clothes, house-furniture, &c. Population naturally and steadily increased; fallen human nature showed its ordinary depravity; temporal government became necessary; courts for disputes, and judges, watchers, and warders, must be forthwith appointed. The few necessary public servants must be paid by the public. Where is the money to come from? There is wealth among them; but how is public revenue fairly to be got, and how appropriated? A few intelligent men are chosen (elected) to arrange these things; the principle of representation, inaugurated to our world by God (the Covenants), is espoused by these two new states. All these simple institutions are working well and smoothly. But,--yes, there comes a but, and a hitch,--depravity, common to all, crops up ostensibly and peculiarly among these simple representative rulers. Selfishness, always impolitic, comes forth to legislate. A wiseacre comes out strong with a mighty fiscal project; he sets it forth fluently and with seemingly intense earnestness; --from his abundant imaginings his mouth volubly speaks; --he knows how to get the necessary expenses of government without any tax on his constituents, viz. tax the products, not the persons; and those products other people's, not ours. (Hear; hear. Loud and prolonged cheers.) Every bushel of corn brought hither from other countries to pay an import tax of 3s. So our wheat-growers, exempt from that tax, will be able to compete in the market; and our people will be spared taxation. (Cheers.) A large landowner present could not see revenue accruing from the policy, but could distinctly see an enhancement of the value of his property,--he was sagacious. He supported it. But the odd 3s. increase of price to the people is very conveniently kept out of view during process of argument. And, worse still, the tight restriction inevitably supervening on trade and barter it is very carefully resolved to forget. Affairs between the two interesting countries get complicated, disordered, factitiously deranged, and tangled. The natural law of nations,--free, unrestricted trade,--is violated.
[Image of page 16]
Some discern this violation to be the secret of the prevailing commercial disorder, and of the consequent public discontent. Others don't or won't see it,--can't see it at all Forsooth, they are "making a pretty penny" out of the corruption, which was both the cause and the effect of the fiscal error. In the name of all that is honest and straightforward, how can it be expected that these most excellent, honorable men should "see it!" The hindrance and entailed impoverishment of many people is surely a wholly immaterial consideration when a few individuals get rich by the fact! Any one who will protest against this must be bad and be branded!
26. I hold it to be bad policy to tax any nameable articles of trade; the certain loss resulting is more in amount than the tax payment. But to tax bread-corn is incontestably iniquitous. And it is deprived of even the color of a plausible pretext when it is a tax on all wheat except the wheat of home growth; for when, by nearly excluding the stranger, which is in reality the chief object of protective taxes, the extra price goes straight into the pockets of the small protected portion of the community who produce wheat, or of their lords, and not into the public treasury for the public service, as do all legitimate taxes. Observe this particularly, corn-laws were never primarily designed for revenue. Any revenue accruing from them was always incidental--merely by the bye; and always a secondary consideration. They have ever been only restrictive, protective laws. Now, the notion that protection by monopoly law is necessary, is exploded and dissipated in all enlightened countries. Relaxation preparatory to abolition, is the order of the day in all the great nations where any such laws yet remain. Shall we, then, the descendants and colonists of Great Britain, which lately set the world such a noble example of freedom, and which the world has not been slow to follow, as witness the liberal international tariff between England and France, shall we go hack to an effete institution which was conceived in sin and shapen in iniquity, and which has been, at instance of the vox populi, extinguished long since elsewhere? Let us rather go forward. The sun never goes back. The thing is manifestly impossible.
27. It is singularly apropos that about three hours after first writingg of this page the following telegraphic paragraph appeared in Auckland prints as a second edition of mail news:-- "The King of Burmah, under the advice of the Viceroy of India, has consented to modify his Customs' Tariff, and to abandon monopolies which enriched himself personally, to the detriment of his subjects and foreigners alike."--That the coincidence should powerfully arrest my notice was natural and of course.
28. However plausible a wheat-grower in Auckland may see it or suppose he sees it to be, it is in no-wise feasible that the bread-eaters would allow an exclusion from the market of our brethren and friends and fellow-colonists of Adelaide solely and only to keep up wheat dear enough to satisfy our growers. Does it not now carry unmistakable signs of impracticability on the very
[Image of page 17]
face of it? Here, remember, the bread-eaters are electors as well as the bread-growers. We protest that distance should occasion ample protection: if excessive taxation exactly counterbalance this natural advantage, the remedy is plain to see. Laws for monopoly protection are, I think, for ever impossible to Auckland. And it must be a thoroughly heartless and disheartening job to labour for an object that is unattainable!
29. Unlucky men, ignorant self-seekers, and "bad hands" are of course forward to clamour for protective subsidy. The regular presumption of this should cause inquiring "good men and true" to be very suspicious of protectionism.
30. What, then, is to be done? Agriculture here, owing to numerous drawbacks, is seldom sufficiently remunerative, and is always uncommonly precarious. --I am not careful to deny all of this allegation. Possibly it is a fact. I believe it is so in regard to some products, and that it has been hitherto so in many spots regarding wheat-growing in particular. I think I forsee it will not so continue. But even were the case fifty degrees worse, whatever it might say to such an island, it would certainly not fairly follow that therefore all other workers should be compelled by law to help out.
31. The grand point is this, and I readily and promptly own that it has its seeming difficulties,-- there is something that may well be advanced on the other side,--viz., there being here an actual tariff, should not foreign wheat, considering our difficulty of growing, be taxed as well as other articles of daily consumption? The whole thing seems to me fairly to come to this:-- tariffs--taxes on articles of trade--being an existent evil among us, should we not fairly be entitled to fight one evil with another? --as tariffs do exist, and as weak imitators in power have made them rampant in order to secure salaries for their sons, cousins, and nephews, who could not or would not go and clear the bush; and as, consequently, we have but a very poor chance at present of obtaining the abrogation of tariffs, would it not be decidedly better for us, helplessly taking the thing as it is, to work the tariff for our own protection--to get on to the tariff a "duty" on every man's corn except ours. As for thereby starving lots of folks, why, we ought not in reason to be looked to as in anywise responsible for that or any such alleged inevitable result; the tariff itself must of course be alone looked to, and the inventors, or introducers, or sustainers of the tariff must be held to be solely responsible for any supposed injury or suffering it induces. --All this supposed special pleading, however, only seems to enforce the idea that tariffs are, especially in a young country, a curse, and of which we here should speedily rid ourselves. That is all. --But--
32. I have used the old-fashioned compound word common-sense. Well, I mean precisely the thing it imports. Personally you and I would not think on removing one bodily evil by the infliction of another. If a thorn were in one finger, a man would try to extract it, but would certainly not think of trying to mend
[Image of page 18]
the matter by inserting a thorn in another finger. Protectionism is affirmed to be an evil--an evil equal and very similar to getting a rate laid on a town for a subsidy to enable its suburban wheat-growers profitably to follow their calling; although rates are usually for the convenience and comfort of the rate-payers; but as--as you suppose--some articles have tariff protection, (I happen not to know which, it is only too well known that too many articles are highly taxed for revenue), therefore your produce should have it too. Cure one disease by superinducing another!--dangerous, extremely! None but the most eminent of the faculty may be suffered to resort to such a dubious ultimate experiment. Perhaps after all it would be better to be without any malady. And better to be without tariffs. Far better, surely, totally to remove oppressive burdens than to shift them on to your neighbours' shoulders.
33. I would not be dogmatical, nor improperly harsh; and would not advance a thought or an opinion with temerity; but such is the strength of my conviction of the paramount importance of this question--my firm belief being that it seriously touches the business and bosom of every man amongst us; that if "the Church of God," in its every section, had arisen en masse in earnest, fervid protestation against tariffs for New Zealand, by which evidently the people here, who have manifested utter inability to get away from these islands, have been dragged down to poverty, they would have done vastly more for the public good than by embarking in factitious relieving schemes of City Missions, &c., &c., which are specially unsuited to colonists. To prevent and to cure poverty are a far higher order of charity than temporarily to relieve. --As I suppose myself to be addressing the intelligent, I cannot descend to disabuse any persons of the ignorant prejudice against the word politics.
34. It is almost always forgotten, when speaking of the late English corn laws, and was cunningly kept out of sight by protectionists,--hence it is worthy of repetition for prominence,-- that those laws did not exactly impose a tax on corn, but on all other peoples' corn but ours; --an iniquitous style of selfishness, which, whilst it enriched the great landlords, (but not the farmers, whose rents were reckoned on the basis of that protection), was crushing out the life of English trade; and, not rhetorically, but literally and really, grinding the people down from a "nation of shopkeepers" to a nation of paupers. "He who withholdeth corn, the people shall curse him." By a convulsive effort, aided by special Providence in an opportune, mysterious potatoe disease, the incubus was thrown off and into the depths of the sea; and English commerce arose, like a giant refreshed with new wine; and rejoiced like a strong man to run a race. And a marvellous race it has since run!
35. I do not care largely to avail myself here of any reasoning on the propriety of cosmopolitanism and of universal brotherhood, and of erasing from our vocabulary the word foreigner. No doubt much might come of it; but it is not now my vein. I
[Image of page 19]
suppose the sum would just amount to, We have as much natural right to be free at their market as they; and they just as much right to be free at our market as we. Certainly tariffs are opposed to international amity; and, indeed, have often been wielded as belligerent instruments. It is well known how Napoleon 1st distressed Great Britain by legally touching merchandise with prohibitory law. And a tariff was the single, sole cause of the loss by England of the noble American Colonies. -- Enough.
