St. Landry democrat., 1891-02-28
Protection Versus Free Trade.

editorial criticisms upon my first article,
conveys the idea that my second was a re-
joinder to both of your editorials whereas,
my rejoinder was written and submitted
for publication before the appearance of
your sec )nd, and it WAS, therefore, a reply
to your first only Had known of your
intention to devote second editorial to
my first brief arlicl, >, | would have de-
ferred my rejoinder so as to cover your
whole ground at once. Under the circum-
stances, | must ask your further indul-
gence for space.
Passing over your statement as to what
protective tariff advocates" claim for pro-
lection, with simple denial that they
make any such claims as you attribute to
them, proceed at once to the meat of the
matter presented in your second article.
You quote from Knight. the historian,
to sustain your position in regard to Ire
land. 1t so happens that your citations
from him are to my hand also: hence you
must excuse me If take the witness.
wish, however, to have you follow copy"
in the use OF italics, so that the desired
points may BE- brought out sharply.
Ireland, you say, was brought under
the English yoke in the closing years of
the twelfth century," and the 700 years
since elapsed, you quote knight as saying,
have involved as much Impression and
mssrule as ever belonged to a struggle be-
tween races and creeds." This statement
you back up with "a few facts CLEANED
from history:
% That Henry VIII Q53s) ''decreed,
with reference to Ireland, that the revenues
drawn from taxes, rents, ETC.. should come
to his o,o1s use and profit; ~ that hed0u
tdres should be laid upon al leading M
dustrles; 81 that when sit was found
that Irish cattle were being shipped into
England" in the reign of Charles ii 1850
1850. "parliament Immediately passed
lay declaring Irish cattle a nuisance a.
that when the Irish people, finding their
cattle q nuisance" resorted to sheep
raising and wool manufacture, "the Eng
lish house of commons 1881 sent up al
address to the king, implorang him to dls-
courage the manufacture Of scool, and,
you say, "tEe king very graciously COM
piled with the request Of his loyal COM
mons"
By way of supplement. allow me to add
an it, Ii or two to the citations made by
you The interdict laid upon the cattle
trade from Ireland to Eng and reached
also the trade in horses, pigs, dairy pro-
ducts and meats. Ind the loyal CON-
mons" did not cease their prayers at the
foot of the throne when the king 'gra-
ciously complied with their request" to
discourage the manufacture Of wool.
They continued to plead, and this same
king, Charles II, in consideration Of an al
lowance of $50, 900, "graciously" decreed
the exclusion of Irlsh shipping from the
benefits of the navigation act. which the
shipping of the two countries had hitherto
enjoyed.
1t is matter of some interest also to
know by Whist methods the woolens in
dustry in Ireland was SO effectually "dis-
couraged" as to destroy it. 1t was % by
heavy export duties; (2) by absolutely
prohibiting expectation except from Ger
tain designated towns in Ireland to certain
designated towns in England. six in mum.
Der in each case. By oppressive legisls-
ton of this kind thriving industry, em-
plcying 10000 people and built upon the
ruins of an industry in like manner de
stroyed, was literally wiped out.
Note the points taxes and rents were
for the kings profit the taxes were heavy,
and were laid on cali leading industries"
for the double purpose of making the
b nd he
with English industries small these taxes
stock and dairy products, swept Irish
WOODEN and other manufactures. The end
and object of all this oppressive legisls-
ton was to locate on the island of Great
Britain all the leading industries, and to
control the sea. The result upon Ireland
was to drive the people to the soil to live
upon potatoes, which became the national
food in the latter part of the seventeenth
century. Diversity of employment having
been rendered impossible by adverse laws,
the people were either in idleness or were
nearly all following one pursuit. Misfor-
tune falling upon one employment, there |
could be little distribution of the burden |
what one suffered all sutherland the
terrible famine of 1889, which carried off |
nearly one-ffth Of the population, followed
rs consequence.
The first glimmering hope Of relief
came to Ireland through the revolt of the
American colonies. which suffered like
commercial oppression with her. The
protection which English laws gave to the
people of the island of Great Britain was
denied to all English colonies and to Ire
land. Hence, when G.attan and his COM
patriots made the fight for free trade" in
1879, they contended simply for the rights,
in industrial and commercial pursuits, en-
joyed by Eenglishmen. When the volun
teers, on the occasion of celebrating the
of the kings birthday, dragged
4 cannon through the streets of Dublin
labeled free trade or this" they meant
simply that they would no longer submit
10 denial of rights and privileges enjoyed
BY citizens of common government living
ACROSS the channel.
That the Irish people did not demand or
lesire free trade, in the sense in which
7ou use the term is put beyond all ques-
ion by the Irish people themselves. As
'esuls of the gallant fight begun in 1779, a
rec parliament was granted, and one of
he first acts of that parliament was to lay
protective duties on foreign goods. And
he result of that legislation was precisely
What was expected-the building up of
To cite single case:
Ths manufacture OF cotton was making
IN effort, with poor show of success, to
establish itself in Ireland when the fight
or Irish free trade began, in 1773. A
leavy duty was laid on cotton imports-
ions, amounting at one time to SO per
EFT. AS a result of this duty the indus
~ thrived and in 1900 was giving em-
,loymen. to $500 people. When the
IRISH parliament was wiped out, in 1900,