I have another charge, of that which Mr. Gladstone terms the “simple and effective plan of pure falsification,” in which he himself appears to be not an unskilful adept.
Your Right Hon’ble Ruler ascribes the rise of wages and consequent prosperity to the beneficial action of Free Trade. If this were the case, wages ought to be depressed, or at all events stationary, in protectionist countries.
Let us see if this is the case:—
Relative rise of Wages.
| 1840 | 1850 | 1880 | |||
| { | Agricultural labourer | — | 100 | 150 | |
| Gt. Britain | Skilled labourer | 100 | — | 153 | |
| Cotton operative | 100 | — | 133 | ||
| France | { | Agricultural labourer | — | 100 | 125 |
| Skilled labourer | — | 100 | 150 | ||
| Belgium and Holland | 100 | — | 130 | ||
| United States, average labourer | — | 100 | 143 | ||
It will be seen by this that the rise of wages has been general; due to the general increase of wealth in civilized nations; and that, in some cases, the relative increase has been nearly as rapid in thirty years in the protectionist country as it has been in forty years in England. Mill says:—
“The labourer in America enjoys a greater abundance of comforts than in any other country in the world, except in some of the newest Colonies.”[44]
Is it possible to conceive a more impudent claim than that which your Free-Trader sets up in claiming the rise of wages as the work of Free Trade? It stands to common sense that Free Trade, or, in other words, unlimited foreign competition, must have a tendency to reduce wages. During the agitation preceding the repeal of the Corn Laws, it was one of the arguments in favour of the movement, that cheap bread would enable the British operative to work for lower wages, and thus be able to compete with the continental operative, who enjoyed the advantage of food at lower rates than those obtaining in England.
The general rise of wages which has occurred throughout protectionist countries, as well as in England, has been principally due to the increase in the wealth of Europe; but it has also been partially due to protection in the form of Trade-unionism. For what is Trade-unionism but protection in a somewhat extreme form?
The protection of British labour does not differ in principle from the protection of the results of British labour in the shape of its industries. Amongst the resolutions adopted at the International Conference of Trades Unions Delegates, I find the following:—