The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-05 00:00:00

FREE TRADE-CURRENCY--PRO-

TECTION.
(From the Liverpool Standard.)
On Tuesday and Thursday evening last Mr. Jonathan
Duncan delivered lectures on Free Trade, Currency, and
Protection, et the Concert-hall, Lord Nelson-street, which
we never saw filled with more attentive, intelligent, and
respectable audiences. On the first evening, Mr. J. Smith
was in the chair; and although, as a free-trader, guarding
himself against being supposed to agree with the whole
of Mr. Duncan's views, enforced upon the audience the
great importance of the monetary question, which Mr.
Duncan was about to explain. Previously to Mr. Dun-
can's opening the lecture, the audience was briefly ad-
dressed by Mr. Robert Jones, an operative, who declared
that he, and the working classes generally, had been
disappointed in their anticipations of the effects of
free trade; that they had less work, less wages, and had
found themselves less able to procure bread, notwith-
standing its cheapness. He was convinced that the erro-
neous monetary system of the country was the cause.
On Thursday, Mr. Brodribb presided; and at the close
of the lecture expressed himself strongly in favour of
Mr. Duncan's currency. Both lectures were most suc-
cessful, and have created a great sensation amongst the
people of Liverpool.
Mr. DUNCAN commenced by stating that his object in
addressing the merchants, shipowners, tradesmen, and
operatives of Liverpool was to reconcile the antagonism
that now exists between the conflicting principles of
Free-trade and Protection; that in his humble judg-
ment both of these rival parties were in error;
and that the error mainly arose from over-
looking the true principles of Money, for it
must be obvious, on the least reflection, that Money
forms one-half of every bargain. Free-trade, as a
principle of commercial action, was partly sound and
partly vicioee. It was sound in reference to the several
counties into which Great Britain was divided, since
the inhabitants of Lancashire were under the same
laws and general circumstances as the inhabitants of
Middlesex; but the extension of this principle to inde-
pendent nations, governed by laws peculiar to them-
selves, and whose general circumstances differed from
those of surrounding kingdoms, was vicious.—(Hear,
hear.) There were three special reasons why interna-
tional free trade might prove injurious ; Ist. where
there was a difference of soil and climate ; 2dly, where
there was a difference in the standard of living ;
3dly, where there was a difference of taxation. In regard
to the first of these reasons, it was notorious that the
virgin soils of Russia and America possessed more na-
tural fertility than the soil of England, which had been
worked for centuries; and this differentia was admitted
by the Free-traders, who, conscious of the disparity
stated, urged our farmers to study agricultural chemis-
try, and expend large capitals on artificial manure. Now,
a free trade should also be a fair trade; but to be fair,
the competitors ought to be in parity of relation and
circumstances, which is not the case when the
earth, the raw material on R hich they labour,
is endowed with different degrees of fertility.
In reference to the standard of living, the Rus-
sian', serf and Polish peasant were fed.on the coarsest
food, meanly clad, and squalidly housed. Therefore
their general subsistence cost their employers very much
less than the farmers of England were in the habit of
paying to their labourers.—(Hear.) Are we then pre-
pared to drag our people down to the low level of Russian
serfs and Polish bondsmen?—(No, no.) Or ought wo
not rather as a Christian community to seek to elevate
those oppressed people up to the higher standard
of Englishmen ? In reference to taxation, our na-
tional debt equals in amount the whole national
debt of Europe. There are 220 millions of people
on the continent of Europe; in these islands there are
but 30 millions. The taxation pressure on each of us is
therefore sevenfold as great as it is on each inhabitant of
the continent. Under such circumstances, free-trade
competition is tiniest because it is unfair. As, in a race,
any cab-horse in Liverpool could distance the Flying
Dutchman were the latter compelled to carry a ton
weight on his back, so the foreigner, who bears a feather
weight of fiscal burdens, can easily conquer or undersell
the Englishman, whose back is bent to the ground by im-
perial and local imposts. If you insist on free and fair trade,
make the weights equal between the competitors. In the
three cases stated, free trade is the grossest injustice to
our productive classes, and protection becomes the
sacred duty of a paternal government. The prin-
ciple of free trade, thus modified in its practical ac-
tion by the three special circumstances referred
to, leads to this rule :—Admit duty free what we
cannot produce; exclude what wo can produce. For
instance, we cannot produce tea, and yet our free trade
legislators impose on its inferior qualities a tax of 300
per cent. ; but on hate, shoes, gloves, &c., that we can
produce, no duty is levied. If we reversed this policy,
the consumption of tea would be doubled; and,
far from displacing native industry, it would
double employment, in paying for the increased quan-
tity in a proportionate increase of British commodities.
Freights would be doubled, and all the complicated
divisions of industry to carry on this fair and free trade
would be stimulated into productive activity, and re-
ceive a corresponding reward.—(Hear, hear.) But
if you admit articles that we can , produce, then fo-
reign industry comes into conflict with native industry,
and deeply aggravates the ruinous competition which
is already grinding labour into the dust. Free-trade
is not a practieal measure, because it does not de-
pend exclusively on the will of the Parliament. We
must secure the assent of foreign Governments, and
these have refused to meet us on terms of reciprocity.
They aro eager to sell in our markets, but they will
not allow us to sell in their markets. The palbable
truth is that we are now mistaking free imports for free
trade. The theory of the Manchester school is to
destroy the plough in England, and the loom in
Europe and the United States. It is proposed that
Cobden and Co. shall become the Moses and Son of the
habitable globe; and for that privelege they offer to
surrender to foreigners our bread and beef markets.
Mr. Duncan quoted some striking passages from
the evidence of Mr. J. 1). Hume, in answer to ques-
tions 1,361, 1,364, and 1,393, showing that the object of
the Free-traders was to cut down the wages and reduce
the dietary of the working men of this country to the
continental level; and ho also cited from Mr. Mac-
gregor, in answer to question 332, that he would admit
Prussian stockings, " whether that would destroy the
trade of Leicester or Nottingham or not. He then
little
two definitions of cheapness. Much labour fo
rich
money was a form of cheapness, which made the
rloicnhger,
hoursby deopfrecatotiinlg; wbaugtes
muchal
necessitatingmoney
little labour was the form of cheapness for
which the industrious classes ought to
thestr ri
struggle.- .
mfor
It was popularly said that
of
for employs
the primary object of life was employment,
ment was the mother of wages, without possessing which
the working man could neitherd
command food, clothing,
ary objecth but for
the,angd great
o atitbwodays tfootohtheew rich never
working
ng ho
class nepv
o,
esr
laboured;
ogrualodging.unless
af
earn
by which he could
them that when free
deluded the people by promising
Cwoobrbeerttedhuaode d otno go
nsei npcoenns shown wi
tnwtohualtdi fb
et hoot
trade was established, three masters would be running
ButEr
ixsep
,eoroai
mennindc,eo
nwhiats dhe n
ssou shouldch practicallyr is e ,
have
taught the deluded, that if three masters ran after
rlittlt: money ? The League had
e
s
are wages paid at all ? Evidently to create
afterfodunetee tdrini ntoahenni owPwfrsoegdrceki hgcmteimaaPnnuns et s s
gwasive
much
eumcohlismh eodn.ey Ffoorr
whatwrthhey-e
products. But if tho products are to be sold cheap,
how can the
confineetfmho aptl employer
tpr
aa yd deare
w would
u ford
lead their
mcreation
trade.?
nabßleusootwmhPcuoraowsmnt cishaseeneldlyou have more trade, unless you have more
monied instruments by which alone more trade can be
carried on? Now Cobden voted with Peel to limit the
amount of money; so that while he promised the end, he
withheld the means. What would be thought of the con-
duct of a body of:railway directors who refused to add to
the number of their carriages, while the number of pas-