A BRIEF EXAMINATION OF FREE-TRADE PRINCIPLES 325 



" The problem of the competition of British produce witli that of 

 other countries, whether in our own or neutral markets, is linally one 

 of skill and effkicnci/, of adaptation to circumstances, and of wise 

 economic arrangements ; but is not a matter which Government 

 interference or regulation by tariffs can determine in our favonr."* 

 " The present point is whether our foreign trade has been injured by 

 the progress of other nations, and if so, whether Protection can hel^) to 

 maintain our aupremanj or arrest the advance of rivaUy f 



The first thing that strikes one in regard to tlic first part 

 of these excerpts is the noli vie tangcrc attitude assumed by 

 Free-traders. It is admitted that many things have happened 

 to British trade but — " Don't blame mc," cries the Free-trader 

 — " look elsewhere for the causes." They tell us our workmen 

 lack skill and efficiency ; we do not adapt ourselves to circum- 

 stances ; in the departments of chemistry, electrical engineer- 

 ing and in other directions we are behind other nations, as also 

 in scientific and technical training, and much more besides ; 

 and while all men of rational minds w^ill admit there is truth 

 in this, they deny that these defects in themselves are sufficient 

 to account for the enormous loss to British trade by foreign 

 competition. 



Loss OF Trade not due to British Inefficiency 



Agriculture, the leather industry, boots and shoes, the 

 carpet trade, glass, cotton, woollen goods, minerals, the glove 

 and hosiery trade, hops, fruit growing, and many other in- 

 dustries, have suffered severely because of unfair foreign com- 

 petition ; and as these plain facts have been, and are being, 

 rubbed into the public mind by all sorts and conditions of 

 anti-Free-traders, it is extremely unlikely that the British people 

 will admit that these widespread losses, which practically affect 

 every trade and industry in the United Kingdom, are due to 

 their own universal inefficiency, lack of skill, want of technical 

 and scientific training, and the rest of the shortcomings charged 

 to them by the Free-trade school. 



Nor are they prepared to admit that the many evils which 

 British trade has suffered from could not be removed by 

 Government interference and a carefully regulated system of 

 wise, helpful tariffs. They very reasonably point to the trade 

 of every other country, especially to that of our two great 

 trade rivals, in proof of their contention, and hold that, if under 

 a carefully devised system of tariffs, (iermany, the United States, 

 and other Protected countries can create, develop, and main- 

 tain their trade and manufacturing industries in a state of 



* " The Free-trade Movement," p. 223. t Ihid., p. 210. 



