duce more than an actual surplus, to be exchanged for the produce of foreign labour. That foreign labour displaces domestic labour. Our manufacturers, relying upon a sure market at home for seven-tenths of all they produced, could afford, from the excellence of that home market, to send abroad the other three-tenths, or surplus, at a less price than they commanded for the seven-tenths at home; and, consequently, insured to themselves, from this low price, pre-eminence in the markets of the world. But if (as will inevitably come to pass) by displacing domestic labour, and thereby depriving it of all power to purchase, they reduce the seven-tenths at home, to five-tenths, or four-tenths, they will no longer be able to send their three-tenths abroad, at the same low cost of production as before. By buying abroad cheap, we lower the value of all we have to sell in England; and consequently we diminish the income, and therefore the comforts, of all those who are producers at home. Before long, under our present system, America, already our rival, will drive us out, not merely of neutral markets, but even of our own. While we are depriving our people of employment, by admitting foreign commodities at a nominal duty; America is relieving her citizens from all the burdens of taxation, by placing those burdens on the shoulders of strangers: that is, by large Import duties; thereby protecting her own trade, and insuring, at the same time, an ample revenue for the payment of her own expenses. We are sad fools, Madam, in truth! PROTECTION. But will not the restrictive policy of America prevent her from selling her produce at the low price which Free Trade so boastfully guarantees to us? ARISTOCRAT. Pardon me, Madam. It is just this prohibitory policy of America that will enable her to take the wind out of our sails. By wisely protecting her own manufacturers against competition in her own market, she insures to them such a thriving trade at home, as will enable them, from large profits there, to sell their surplus commodities abroad, at a comparatively low rate; and her success in neutral markets will be based on the downfal of ours. British manufacturers have hitherto enjoyed an excellent home trade, in consequence of the protection wisely and, equitably afforded to British farmers, against unfair foreign competition: but once remove that fair protection, and our looms will no longer be able to find, as heretofore, the markets of the world at their command. PROTECTION. I see perfectly your meaning, Sir: and it is new to me, I confess.-Now that corn is imported duty free, may we always look for low prices? ARISTOCRAT. It is not very easy to answer such a question, Madam. Under the sliding scale, we, as consumers, obtained an abundant and regular supply, with little variation in price. The price of corn was higher here than elsewhere, because our burdens required a higher revenue; but corn here was not higher in proportion than anything else. I maintain that bread has been cheaper in England for the last thirty years than in any other country; if you will compare the national debt of that country with our own: because our skill and capital were liberally applied to land, in consequence of the farmer feeling himself protected against unfair foreign competition in ordinary years: and this fostered the spirit of domestic competition in all years. PROTECTION. When you speak thus of the sliding scale, do you prefer it to a fixed duty? ARISTOCRAT. Unquestionably. I dislike a fixed duty upon an article, the value of which varies every year according to the seasons. Of course a fixed duty is better than no duty at all: but you can fix no duty high enough for the producer with a good harvest, or low enough for the consumer with a bad one. PROTECTION. But, I must own, I should like to hear your opinion as to the future price of corn with our ports open. ARISTOCRAT. My opinion then is, that it will depend more upon the seasons; and that, therefore, we shall be subject to violent fluctuations in price. When we have a good harvest here, however low may be our price, we shall still be undersold by the foreign grower when we have a bad harvest, we shall have to pay, and pay highly, for what we want. Under the sliding scale, we always had a large supply in bond, against a day of scarcity; now we have nothing. Under the old system the British speculator bought up the surplus abroad that could not be disposed of abroad; and against which, in prosperous seasons here, our ports were virtually closed. He bought that surplus at a low price, to bond it, on the speculation of a rise in prices here; and the foreigner sold it at a low price, because he could find no market for it at home. Whatever profit was made on the corn so bought, went at least into the pockets of our countrymen; and was divided between the British Government and the British speculator. The whole of this advantage we are now foolishly giving away to the foreigner. How so, Sir? PROTECTION. ARISTOCRAT. Why, by having our ports always open to him, he will regulate his price entirely by ours. The foreigner has now the best market in the world open to him, as a matter of certainty. He no longer sells a surplus at a low price, not having a market for it at home; because he enjoys now, not a speculative demand for a surplus; but a consumptive demand for his entire growth: so that you will find him keeping his prices just below the level of ours. Importers, indeed, may fail, by bringing corn to a falling market; but that does not ruin the foreign producer. PROTECTION. Still there must be a price, below which he cannot grow corn to a profit. ARISTOCRAT. True, Madam; but we shall be a long time in finding out what that price is. Prices in the Baltic even now are higher, by at least 5s., than we know by experience the foreign grower can afford to sell at. As our prices fall, his will fall too; and whatever may be his minimum, it is sure to be lower than we can possibly grow it for here. Whatever the foreign grower may lose (should he ever consent |