The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-02-25
FREE TRADE IN ENGLAND.

humanity. somo years have rolled by since this
much yanntod resort 10 free trude was put In prac
tlce. and slowly but surely has II been working out
Its results, The town people, the artisans and the
factory employees GOT cheaper bread That was tho
point gained, aud that wns heralded rs bringing
the greatest possible good TO the nation. There
WINS a seductive kcntlmcntaity about the idea Of
cheap broad for the people that made the idea Of
taxing "the staff OF life" odious and
helped along tho notion that the
repeal Of tho corn laws had been q mas
Ter stroke Of state policy But time will tell, aud
what time has told In this rcgnrd can best be In
icrred from recent discussion In the House OF
Commons Hero h an extinct from II which APP
pcarcd IN the tclcEmphlc columns Of The Haald,
but which II viii not be amlss 10 reproduce here.
Mr. Chaplin, addressing the House on the address
In reply 70 the Queens speech, slid:
Many Thousand land have gonc out Of cui.
u,aiion. and thero has been concurrent decrease
IN cattle and sheep, Another effect OF the dcprvs
sion was 10 increase the masses OF the unemployed
Reliable estimates showed that 70O0OO persons
wem Idle, owing TO the paralysis of agriculture,
white those who we've employed were forced 10
work atgrcaily reduced wagcs-what could the
government do no asked, 10 assist 70 better state
| OF nhaini lie presumed II was not by ruturn TO
protection. lCrcs ~ Hear, ilearl twas not for
him TO Indicate remedies: his object was 20 nsccr
| tain from the government what the fauneu had u
right 10 expect from them.
This + what frco trade has done for merry Eng
land. Her people have cheaper bread. but there
are 10000 OF them out Of employment and without
money cnousht to buy this cheap bread II begins
10 look after all that there wan souo mistake about
the repeal OF the corn laws The practice Of Mr.
John Stuart Mis- beautiful theories has not
proved 30 enchnutingas rrnding them in his books
The conditions In England and America are oppo
site. highlands manufacturers need no protection,
and Il was their olamor that took Il away from the
farners Ia this country. because the bulk Of our
agricultural products need no protection. great
many farmers think they would be benefited by
having the protective tariff removed from manu-.
iicturcd goods. But the depression that has come
ON the farming Interests In England has made H.
self felt In every other intepst II would lie wore
on the farmers Of America than Il Is with the In.
Hllsh manufactures II the protected industries
should be destroyed FREE trade Il fnllacy. No
man can afOrd 10 pmciicc H. II could succeed In
England II u could sucoccd anywhere, but England
mnde fearful mistake In taking protection from
her agriculture. -Bf1singLam Htraid
The birmingham Herald takes for lis text
for the above quoted article n few SEN
fences from speech, the statements con-
tanned in which are at least misleading.
And 10 prove that they are both We shall
quote from Mr.. Michael @. Mulhall's
Fifty Years Of National Progress" a
work that is an accepted authority in
Great Britain and Ireland by all classes
and conditions OF men. In the ilrst place,
Mr.. Mulhall, on page IS Of his book.
gives a table Of home gown and imported
foods, excluding tea and sugar. consumed
in England, from which II mp.
pears that during the ten wears ended De-
cembcr, 1885, the home grown food was
valued at 81, 275, 600. 900. the imported a,
100000, 600; in all, si,Ce6, 100000. Not
including cotton, England imports food to
the value Of, in round numbers,
1000, 100000, whilo the United States,
In round numbers, exports food 90
The value was s25o,OoO.OOO. Adding our
roilon 10 our other agricultural exports
and their total Is $4,000, 900. This does
not look 10 Il England was neglecting her
agricultural interests 10 any great extent.
Her population Is large and her ARIA very
limited, yet she manages TO keep close up
10 the needs Of her people. She is no, an
agricultural country In the sense In which
the United States il, but she manages very
well with the ground she has She Inn
ports largely Of food because. ne The Chi.
oogo Nos shows, ''hcr people eat more
than they did In protection times An.
other Is that her workingincn earn more
than during protection periods. Thus, In
iorty.iour yoars, down TO 1850. II took fity-
two days OF each year TO pay for food,
whereas the ratio nov Is only forty days,
at tho same time The work Of iiity-ono
days in 1870 provided for scanty supply
ior each inhabiiant, while now all aro
provided with plentiful supply
with much less labor. Moreover, no
country In Europe approaches England
In the consumption Of meat. its raiio being
100 pounds yearly for an inhabitanl,
against scscnty-iour In Frmce aud sixty.
nine In Germany, highly protected though
those countries be. Furthermore, this in.
creased consumption o. exported food In
England inurs 10 the benefit Of the
United States, for the reason that the
prices Of the English market determine
those 81 our, while the prosperity Of the
English workineman Is the chief factor In
determining British market prices" But
England can afford TO import her food.
Her free trade policy has made the nations
Of the earth coniribulary 10 her 10 that she
receives In interest every year from nations
beyond the jurisdiction Of her flag. sum
greater than tho whole national debt
Of the United States. And much
Of this Is drawn from thcse
States In inicnst ON mortgages, on
railroad bonds and stocks aud investments
In mines, cattle ranches aud manufactures.
Her resources Of capital arc immense and
grow with such rapIdiiy that Il would be
a hopeless task for any other nation in
the world but ours to attemp, 10 compete
with her. She lays tho world
under contribution for the sup