National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1886-05-28

lHfiu lnAt Dtu MOI frOteCb.
In all probability the abolishment Of the
corn laws Of Great Britain was an emlnently
wise act. Augustus Mongredleu, that emf
nent apost tie Of the English system Of free
trade, In his instructive pamphlet on "The
History Of the Free Trade Movement in
England" presents many facts OF the case
in striking manner. This pamphlet, q
few years ago, was circulated by the thou
sand in our country, in order to influence
our people to adopt the British system Of
tariff.
The same statement OF facts will often
| times produce different results in the con-
clusions reached by the reader. When he
tells us, in this free trade pamphlet, that
under what he calls the protective tariff
system Of Great Britain in 1S4l, that uni
versal distress prevailed throughout the
entire kingdom, we have the best of reasons
for knowing that his statements are cor
rect.
They are abundantly verified by other
witnesses Of the sad condition Of affairs
As one example Of the distress prevailing
throughout the country, he tells us that
in the small city of Leeds nearly twenty
thousand people each earned, on an aver
| age, less than twenty-five cents per week.
At this time, he tells us that the corn laws
were so protective that bushel Of wheat
cost about one dollar and eighty-eight
cents, protected by an import duty Of about
seyenty.fve cents per bushe. All other
kinds Of food were correspondingly high.
Great Britain could not produce food for
her people, and yet here was an
enormous tariff placed on II. Even
the producers of the food, the farmers
as class, were not protected, as the profits
went to the comparatively few land owners
as rent. No wonder three million people
signed petition that became so heavy that
it required the united strength of sixteen
stalwart men to carry II into the house of
parliament No wonder seven hundred
ministers of the gospel left their accustomed
duties and assembled IN Manchester in
August, 1S41, and remained there an entire
week TO preach, pray, aud talk politics.
No wonder that the tariff became the lead
ing religious question of the day!
In the production Of food they could not
compete with the world, hence their tariff
did not protect any one except the land
owners. There was then, rs there is now,
q real monopoly in land owning.
With plenty Of iron, coal, and ingenuity
in manufacturing at that time, they could
compete with the whole world successfully
in such industries. Hence free trade in
food products was eminently wise, and free
trade in manufactured articles was per.
fcctly safe experiment that has generally
worked successfully with them.
We, in our country, exist under entirely
different circumstances, We can produce
all the food We reed as a general thing ant
have millions Of dollars worth to export
In manufactured articles we cannot success
fully compete with the cheaper labor of thu
world, and hence need protection from thi
cheaper labor. For the general welfare o
the nation we need and demand diversified
industry. We cannot all wisely turn on
efforts to producing food. The farmer ha
enough competition now without the loss o
his home market among the manufacturers
and without the manufacturers joining hin
in tie production of greater quantities o
surplus food to be offered to the world u
yet lower prices. At this time there cat
he 10 more profitable study than the con
slant examination of the American ant
, British system Of tariff on imported mel
, chandise.