32, Charlotte Street, Birmingham.
Dear Sir,—The Birmingham newspapers have recently published a letter written to you by Mr. W. G. Lord, of Bradford, on the subject of Free Trade. The letter is somewhat brief, and it struck me that, though you might not feel called upon to enter into correspondence on such subjects with persons who are not your constituents, possibly you might feel more disposed to discuss the question with an Elector of Birmingham.
You say, to imagine that the bad trade from which Bradford is suffering is due to hostile tariffs, is absurd; and then, as though in your opinion it was an unanswerable objection to those who contend that hostile tariffs have a great deal to do with it, you add, “because you have had great prosperity with the same tariffs.” Now, I venture to submit that this is no argument at all,—that it is merely a statement based upon false conclusions. You are, or at least you ought to be, aware, that the circumstances under which the trade of this country is carried on have entirely changed during recent years. At the period when, as you say, we “enjoyed great prosperity with the same tariffs,” the foreign nations, which now exclude our manufactures from their markets, were not sufficiently advanced to do without our assistance. Whether they liked it or not, they were compelled to buy of us largely, and, therefore, comparatively speaking, their tariffs were harmless. Now they can not only dispense with the bulk of our manufactured goods, but, in many branches of industry, can also compete with our manufacturers in our own markets. Hence, hostile tariffs, which were once of little moment, have become serious, and if you look at the question from this point of view, you will probably see that absurdity is not with those who cry out against the hardships of foreign tariffs, but with those who, like yourself, shut their eyes to the changes going on around them, and blindly adhere to an old system after it has become obsolete and absolutely mischievous. You cannot be unaware that, since the great Exhibition of 1851, the commercial relations of this country with other nations of the world have undergone an entire change for the worse. Then it did seem as though England was to become the “workshop of the world,” as the apostles of Free Trade predicted she would be. But at that Exhibition the manufacturers of Europe and America were invited to inspect our machinery, were shown all the intricacies of its mechanism, and made familiar with the secrets of our manufactures. Among our visitors at that period were experts, whose eyes were open wherever they went, and who have since made good use of the information obtained. With equal good nature—or shall I call it folly—we have sent our machinery abroad, and skilled workmen to work it, without any regard to consequences, and hence foreigners, who but for the open-hearted candid nature of John Bull, would still have been in the background, are now fully ahead of us in a great many branches of manufacturing and commercial enterprise. Unprejudiced persons cannot fail to see that arguments based on a state of things which existed thirty or forty years ago, have no force, now that state of things has passed away; and your contention that hostile tariffs have nothing to do with our commercial depression, because under the same tariffs we enjoyed prosperity years ago, falls to the ground. On the contrary, unless our prosperity is to still further decline, it becomes a matter of vital necessity that in those manufactures in which England can still keep the lead, she shall have the same privileges as she ungrudgingly gives to others; or that we should be protected in our markets from those who refuse us admission to theirs.
You go on to say “to suppose your case will be improved by refusing to buy what you want from foreigners, to punish them for not buying freely from you, is an idea and scheme only worthy of the inmates of a lunatic asylum.” But, if you seriously believe this statement, you must believe also that the astute, far-seeing citizen of the United States,—the plodding, theorizing German,—the thrifty and ingenious Frenchman,—and the hard-headed, practical Russian,—the intelligent Italian,—and even the hard-working Swede and Norwegian, are all lunatics. Are you prepared, seriously, to assert this as your belief? The fact is, you adopt an ingenious way of misstating a principle. No one thinks of refusing to buy from the foreigner when it is to our interest to do so. In our commercial relations one with another, it is usual for every man to buy from one who will probably become a return purchaser, or to put it in plainer language, each man supports the person who will be most likely to support him in return. But in buying from the foreigner, we are buying from the man who will never buy from us if he can possibly help it, and leaving those who would be our customers in return to starve.
Again, you say, that “to return to Protection under the name of Reciprocity, is to confess to the Protectionists abroad that we have been wrong, and that they are right.” But the fact is, no such confession is necessary. The Protectionist abroad knows too well that he is right, without any confession on our part. The vast progress of the United States, the immense strides they have made in commerce, manufactures, and wealth—strides so vast that our own progress, even at its greatest, is insignificant—will convince every intelligent American that the principle of protection to native industry is, under many circumstances, wholesome and necessary. The same may be said of France, which has made even greater progress in some particulars than ourselves; and of Russia, which, under protection, seems likely to come to the fore.
Again, you ask, “Who dares to propose another sliding scale or fixed duty on the import of foreign corn?” Are you not aware that even amongst your own constituents there is a large party who have the courage to do this? You take it for granted that good seasons would enable agriculturists to carry on their avocation with profit. But many persons who have the best practical acquaintance with the subject think differently. If, in the result, they should prove to be right, are you prepared to see the bulk of the land of the country go out of cultivation rather than impose a duty on the import of foreign corn? With agriculture ruined, and its capital absolutely gone, what would become of our home trade? But the fact is, we don’t want any foreign corn at all. Our Colonists, who could be induced to trade with us on reciprocal terms, could supply us with all the corn we want, even though not one single quarter of foreign grain found a place in our markets. The result might be a very trivial rise in the price of bread-stuffs for a few years, but I venture to submit that the disadvantage of this rise would be more than counterbalanced by larger revenues from imports, which would result in reduced direct taxation, not only to the farmer, but to all classes, and by the increased occupation for the artisan and labourer, which would result from the extension of our Colonial markets, and from keeping our home trade to ourselves.
As this is a question which, at the present time, is agitating the public mind, and every one is looking for some practical solution of existing difficulties, I shall be glad to have your opinion on the views expressed in this letter. Your previous communication has been widely circulated through the Press, and, therefore, I purpose in due course, to publish this letter also, together with any reply with which you may favour me.
Yours faithfully,
FREDERICK BLOOD.