THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 /^
 
 FREE TRADE "NOT PROVEN," 
 
 IN SEVEN LETTERS TO THE 
 
 PEOPLE OF ENGLAND. 
 
 M'lTII AN INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS TO 
 
 RICHARD COBDEN, ESQ., M.P., 
 
 BY KICHARD OASTLEE. 
 
 " PROVE ALL THINGS." 
 
 PRICE SIXPENCE. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 Cleavek, 46, Piccadilly ; Pavey, 47, Holywell Stkeet. 
 
 Heyavood, Maxchester. Swallow, Ashiox-uxder-Lyxe. 
 
 axd by all bookselleks. 
 
 1849.
 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 TO EICHARD COBDEN, ESQ., M.P. 
 
 Sir, — Although the immediate cause of the followinflf 
 letters, was the mistaken notions of Mr. Laboucliere, expressed 
 in the House of Commons, I can shew just cause for thus 
 calling your attention to their contents. 
 
 Mr. Labouchere was but repeating the lesson of the Anti- 
 Corn-Law League, — you were its founder and the apostle of 
 its creed. 
 
 Since a prime minister's acknowledgment of your prowess, 
 no minister of the crown can be disgraced by taking rank on 
 the question of free trade, under the " master mind," by 
 whose " appeals to reason, enforced by eloquence the more to 
 be admired because unaifected and unadorned," the free trade 
 "measures were carried." 
 
 Being my representative in Parliament, I have now a claim 
 on your attention. 
 
 I am under the conviction that Sir Eobert Peel was in error, 
 when he charged you with appealing to the " reason" of your 
 auditors. From your first appearance in public, you dis- 
 claimed all such intention; specially warning your followers 
 " sedulously to avoid every attempt to force a discussion on 
 the principle of free trade," denouncing all such discussions 
 as " supererogatory, and calculated only to mystify what had 
 been a plain and unembarassed question, ever since," you said, 
 " Adam Smith and others, had clearlv demonstrated its obvious 
 
 truth." G50883
 
 In confirmation of this strange fact, I refer to your letter 
 in the Anti-Corn-Law Circular o^ April 23rd, 1839; from 
 which the above quotations are taken, and, to the invariable 
 course pursued by yourself and followers, avoiding, on all 
 occasions, any attempt at argument, and constantly enforcing 
 your claim by declamation, denunciation, and threat. 
 
 Granted, Sir Robert Peel might be miwilling to admit that 
 he was the victim of terror; he preferred that it should be 
 understood he had been convinced by, what he was pleased to 
 term, " your appeals to reason." Sir Robert Peel is a most 
 able and practised debater, — at that moment, he required every 
 aid to preserve his position, by proving that he had not betrayed 
 his friends. How useful would it have been, had the prime 
 minister been able to quote your " unaffected and unadorned " 
 arguments, by which he had been convinced of his former 
 ignorance ! Had they existed, your eulogist would not have 
 failed to quote them. At that moment, they would have been 
 a God-send to the Conservative chief. 
 
 No, Sir, it was not by your "appeals to reason," that Sir 
 Robert Peel was persuaded to adopt your principles — (princi- 
 ples that during a long life he had declared to be fatal to the 
 institutions he had sworn to maintain) — the prime minister 
 was terrified into an abandonment of his principles, by the 
 threatening attitude you and your followers assumed. He 
 exhibited signs of that terror in the House of Commons, when, 
 with blanched checks, quivering lips, and faltering voice, as 
 absurdly as falsely, he charged you with a design to procure 
 his assassination ! That deplorable instance of weakness, proved 
 his incapacity to rule; from that moment, it became evident, 
 Sir Robert Peel was not the pilot who could safely steer the 
 vessel of State in troublesome times. 
 
 I have another reason for requesting your attention to the 
 following letters. 
 
 It will be in your recollection, that, before the free trade 
 measures were passed, I communicated, (through ]\Tr. Stanfield, 
 delegate from Leeds,) to the A.nti-Corn-Law delegates then 
 assembled in London, my conviction, that the question had 
 not been fully discussed — the fact, that Adam Smith had not, 
 (as you had instructed them he liad) "demonstrated the obvious 
 truths of tlic free trade ])rinciples." You will also remember, 
 that I authorised I\Ir. Stanfield to offer, on my part, to meet 
 you, or any other chosen champion of the Anti-Corn-Law 
 League, to discuss the question ; engaging, from the works of 
 Adam Smith, to prove tlie impoverishing tendency of the 
 operation of free trade. You cannot have forgotten, tliut no
 
 answer was given to that communication. The delegates, 
 acting on the advice you had originally given them, " sedu- 
 lously avoided discussion." 
 
 I am not about to charge the measvu'e of free trade with all 
 the miseries we endure; its staunchest friends must, however, 
 admit, that it has failed to produce all the good effects they 
 anticipated. I know that many, who were confident, begin 
 to doubt. I know, also, that you and some others, persist in 
 your former notions. Still, 1 think, you cannot now refuse 
 me your attention. 
 
 Although you have attained to eminence, there is some 
 similarity in our condition. We are each the sons of yeomen. 
 W^e have both been resident in the manufacturing districts, 
 and conversant with commercial affairs. We have been 
 " agitators." — you, against the selfishness of the aristocracy; 
 I, against that of your own order. We have each been mis- 
 understood, and, consequently, misrepresented. 
 
 Sir Robert Peel, in your presence, before the assembled 
 Commons of Great Britain, charged you, falsely, with an 
 attempt to procure his assassination : — before the same audi- 
 ence, in my absence, without any provocation, you falsely 
 charged me with the crime of teaclilng the people to destroy 
 machinery. I called upon you for proof. You were silent. 
 Sir Robert Peel apologized. — You were not so manly. 
 
 We each pursued our "agitation," till victory crowned 
 our efforts — the Free Trade measures are carried, the Ten 
 liours' Bill is passed. Still, many doubt the soundness of 
 these measures. Our duty, then, is plain. If we are sin- 
 cerely convinced of the beneficial tendency of our measures, 
 we must strive, as far as we have influence, to give them a 
 fair trial. 
 
 Tliat trial cannot be had, if the country is to pass through 
 another season of political agitation. This brings me to further 
 reason, Avhy I rc([uest your attention to the following letters. 
 I would fain induce you to forego your threatened scheme of 
 political agitation ; and, as you are bound to do, by every 
 consideration and motive that honour dictates — give rest to the 
 public mind, and fair play to the action of your favourite 
 measure. Why should you fear to give a fair trial to free trade? 
 1 court one, for the Ten llovu's' Bill. 
 
 The fate, for weal or woe, of millions of human beings 
 is now being weighed in your scales. It is your duty to pre- 
 vent any movement that may shake the beam, should the 
 balance turn against your theory, the re-action will be terrific. 
 
 You know that I believe, with Adam Smith, that vour
 
 sclieme is fraught with ruin — ruin to the manufacturers and 
 shopkeepers, as well as the operatives ; — ruin to the landlords, 
 as well as the tenants and labourers ! 
 
 In the following letters I have endeavoured to explain, why 
 poverty must follow in the wake of free-action ; that is why I 
 wish you to peruse them. If my argument is unsound — you 
 can refute it. 
 
 On one point, we must be agreed. No person can deny, 
 that, in a country ivhose population is on the increase, if the 
 condition of the people is maintained, its industrial affairs must 
 he so vianaged as to cause an increase in its capital, equivalent 
 to its increasing population. 
 
 From that point we diverge. You assert, and have induced 
 the legislature to believe, that that increase can only be se- 
 cured by the increase of our foreign trade — and you say, 
 Adam Smith has demonstrated that fact. I maintain that 
 that increase can only be found in the increase of our domestic 
 exchanges, in articles of home production; and I quote a long, 
 and, as I think, an unanswerable argument from Adam Smith 
 in demonstration of the theory I support ! Should 1 have mis- 
 quoted your favourite authority, 1 am open to your correction 
 and reproof. 
 
 If I am right, the foundation on which you build is removed : 
 if wrong, I err in company of him, whom you claim as your 
 guide. 
 
 Believe me, Sir, I am most anxious to be well informed on 
 this subject. I have spared no labour to arrive at the truth. 
 I believe that I am not mistaken. I know that the country 
 has wagered its prosperity and happiness on this question, and, 
 I fear the issue will be universal poverty — increasing destitu- 
 tion — civil commotion — and revolution ! I cannot believe that 
 our institutions will be maintained under the operation of un- 
 regulated action, neither do you ! 
 
 Start not at this assertion. Out of your own mouth, I 
 judge you. 
 
 At a meeting of your friends, soon after your return from 
 the continent, you charged the legislature with " madness," 
 for having passed so many railway bills ! Now, Sir, if the 
 theory of free trade is sound, the proof of "madness" would 
 have been, in rejecting any railway bill. Fur, on the principle 
 of free trade, the legislature could not be justified in interfering 
 to prevent the free employment of capital in railways. \^y 
 that declaration of yours, you stamped "madness" on your 
 whole scheme ! Von assert that free trade is a fallacy — a 
 delusion— an egregious error!
 
 As one of your constituents, I require you to reconcile that 
 declaration, with the principles of free trade ; or, failing 
 therein, to acknowledge your mistake. 
 
 Be not offended when I hint to you, that it is possible you 
 ma;- have been dazzled by flattery and success ; you may be 
 bhnd to your own inconsistency. I am aware, however, that 
 one of your greatest admirers, one of your most staunch sup- 
 porters, one of your most liberal patrons, himself a Alanchester 
 spinner, printer, and merchant, expressed to me, his " great 
 astonishment at your inconsistency, with reference to railways 
 and corn." He admitted that, " if your charge against the 
 legislature were just, free trade was false." 
 
 I think I have shewn cause why you should not despise this 
 little book. If it contain error — shew where. If it unfold the 
 truth, admit that }'ou have misrepresented Adam Smith, 
 misled the Anti-Corn-Law League, and through them, the 
 legislature. Now, Sir, a few words on your new move, and I 
 have done. 
 
 The extension of the suffrage as proposed by you, will only 
 increase the power of a class — and consequently make the 
 representation still more unequal. 
 
 The reduction of the burdens of the people, must follow 
 the reduction of their wages and profits. There is no need to 
 "agitate" the people on that point. Kecessity has no law. 
 The government cannot evade that conclusion. But what then ? 
 The people will be in no better condition — their wages and 
 capital will not be increased — and without increase, their con- 
 dition cannot be maintained. 
 
 We must have no more quackery, ]\Ir. Cobden ! Extend 
 the suffrage as you may — expunge the debt — abolish taxation, 
 if you will — still, if you cannot shew the true method of 
 managing, arranging, and regulating our industrial affairs, so 
 as to cause an increase of our capital^ commensurate to the 
 increase of our people, and thus provide profitable employment 
 for our increasing numbers, I say, if you cannot thus arrange 
 our industrial affairs — you may give us what suffrage you 
 please, what reduction of taxation you desire, together with 
 " free trade all over the world," but, you will not save the 
 labourers and operatives from poA^erty — the landlords and 
 tenants from ruin — nor the manufacturers and shopkeepers 
 from bankruptcy ! 
 
 Believe me. Sir, it is now too late to cajole the people. The 
 cry, is, " employment and breatl !" Shall it be answered by 
 wise legislation, or, by revolution ? That is the question, 
 which in the folloNving letters, I have endeavoured to solve.
 
 8 
 
 Some there are, who still place their hope in the skill and 
 prudence of Sir Robert Peel. In him I have no hope. 
 
 Sir Robert Peel is a clever financier — an expert parliamentary- 
 debater — an orderly man of business — a finished classic — an 
 elegant and easy speaker — of plausible manner — but, he is -not 
 a great Statesman ! He lacks the masculine grasp of mind so 
 needful in perilous emergencies. Sir Robert Peel was not 
 formed to rule in a storm. He does not profess to see any 
 way of escape from our national difiiculties. His highest am- 
 bition is, to satisfy the monied interest, by providing for quarter 
 day. That done — he thinks all is safe and right. He 
 had not the foresight of Cobden, else, he would have 
 discovered that free trade would endanger the dividends. 
 He does not believe in any plan to raise the pauper, or, 
 reward the labourer. He is convinced that the natural result 
 of mental development, is, the impoverishment of the species ! 
 He knows not how to guard the simple from the cunning ! I 
 do not misrepresent Sir Robert Peel, these are his words — 
 they were spoken in the house of commons: — " My impression 
 is, that no effectual remedy can be applied in the present arti- 
 ficial state of the country. ]\Iuch of the distress, I believe, 
 has arisen from the employment of machinery ; and what re- 
 medy, I would ask, can be applied against the progress of 
 human enterprise and ingenuity ?" 
 
 A Statesman who has given expression to such thoughts, 
 can never be expected to devise the means by which a remedy 
 can be applied to our national diseases. 
 
 Were Sir Robert Peel's mind moulded for a Statesman, he 
 would never utter an expression, tending to convey the idea, 
 that a " remedy" for our social evils could be sought for, by 
 legislating " against the progress of human enterprise and 
 ingenuity." He would know, that regnlathuj the use of the 
 inventions of " enterprise and ingenuity," not opj)osinrf them, 
 is the desired " remedy" now sought for. If no Statesman 
 can explain the needful plan, — why tlien, it is clear, " the 
 man for the time" has not yet appeared. 
 
 We want the sense to use the wit we have. We nuist begin 
 at the beginning — restore what we have destroyed — and get 
 rid of those foreign innovations that disgrace our coimtry. 
 
 The claims of poverty must no longer be determined in 
 Somerset House — the reward of labour nuist not be stinted by 
 the selfishness of a few employers — the securltv of property may 
 no longer be je(jpar(li/ed l)y universal c()ni])i'titiuii. We nmst 
 find l)ettci' administrators of the law than government com- 
 jnissioners — safci* protectors of life, than go\ernmcntal police.
 
 9 
 
 We must, ill fact, learn liow to use, (not abuse) " machinery," 
 and other results of " human enterprise and ingenuity," by 
 making them the help-mates, not the oppressors, of human 
 labour. 
 
 We require, Sir, the restoration of our parochial system — 
 the re-establishment of our Guilds. Centralization and irre- 
 sponsible action, are not suited to the genius of Britain. We 
 would know, and be known, by those who enforce our laws — 
 we would restore the influence of our clergy, gentry, and 
 ratepayers — and thus guarantee, the dearest and most sacred 
 right — the right of the poor to liberty and life, 
 
 England pants not for revolution — she wants her own 
 boasted, cherished, glorious Constitution ! But, Sir, she de- 
 mands it, in its integrity ! 
 
 At present I have done. 
 
 I am. 
 
 Sir, 
 A West-kidingek. 
 
 One, (among thousands of your constituents,) who 
 believes that the measures you have recommended 
 under the name of free trade, will be destructive of 
 the capital of the district you represent — and of 
 none so certainly and speedily, as of that portion 
 which is vested in manufacturing operations. 
 
 RICHARD OASTLER. 
 
 I'ulhaiii, Middlesex, Sept. 20, 1848.
 
 FREE TRADE "NOT PROVEN." 
 
 TO THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND. 
 Letter I. 
 
 Fellow Countrymen, — The whole scheme of your social in- 
 dustrial arrangements has lately been changed. Your continental 
 neighbours are engaged in an attempt to establish perfect systems 
 of social order, on new principles. Hitherto, they have not suc- 
 ceeded. They are bewildered with the solution of the great problem 
 they have undertaken to solve. Your own novel experiments have 
 not, as yet, produced the beneficial eifects that you expected. All 
 is uncertainty, instability, and anxiety. 
 
 Under such circumstances, if there be truth in the new principles, 
 which have been declared to have their foundation in "common 
 sense," would it not be wise to seek domestic peace, and thought- 
 fully pui'sue your industrial occupations? You would then give 
 fair play to the operation of those novel contrivances that were 
 promised to secure your ha])pincss and prosperity, and give time 
 for the issue of those experiments that are now to be tried in other 
 countries. 
 
 Were the apostles of the new theory confident in the excellency 
 of their plans, they would be most anxious, during their trial to 
 avoid every kind of political agitation and excitement; they would 
 urge you to tlic quiet and peaceful pursuit of your labours, and tell 
 you, that public agitation would interfere with the Avell-working 
 of their system, and deprive you of the benefits of your great ex- 
 ertions in su])])ort of their schemes. 
 
 I am unwilling to impute motives to any person, but 1 am miable 
 to account for the present conduct of Mr. Cobden, except upon the 
 supposition, that he is fearful of the result of that great national 
 experiment wliicli he caused the legislature to try. He must be 
 aware that perpetual social agitation will delay the benefits to be 
 derived from any social system, and I fear he is now preparing an 
 excuse for the failure of his scbemc.
 
 11 
 
 He advises you to "agitate" for political changes. Should he 
 succeed, he will be able to say "political agitation has hindered the 
 well-working of free trade!" 
 
 I would urge you, for the present, to give free trade a fair and 
 peaceful trial, and wait the issue of the continental experiments, 
 before you again embark in political agitation. Be assured, if you 
 take jVl'r. Cobden"s present advice, agitation will rob you of all 
 benefit from free trade ; and will, under present circumstances, lead 
 you, politically, much further than either you or Mr. Cobden wish 
 to proceed. 
 
 You are aware that, on the subject of free trade, I differ from 
 Mr. Cobden. I believe its foundation is selfishness, and that its 
 fruits will be evil. I am not, however, wishful to impede its opera- 
 tion by public excitement and political agitation. I Avould give it 
 fair play, and thus enable you to judge of its unimpeded effects, of 
 its genuine results. 
 
 Instead of public excitement, I would recommend you carefully 
 to watch the operation of free trade on your different interests, and, 
 in your intervals of rest, calmly and thoughtfully to examine into 
 the truth or falsehood of those principles on which free trade is 
 founded. I believe that you have adopted them under excitement; 
 expecting, as I do, an injurious effect from their operation, I am 
 anxious that you should discover the vmsoundness of the principles, 
 as you reap the evil fruit of the practice. 
 
 By close and persevering attention to the fallacy on which the 
 principle of free action rests, you will be more readily persuaded to 
 adopt tlie true principle of social economy, whose foundation is love. 
 Many opportunities will arise, calling your attention to this most 
 interesting subject. Be assured, it is a gi-eat mistake to imagine 
 that the truth of free trade principles, has been demonstrated 
 by Adam Smith or any other man. They have been adopted under 
 the agitating influence of excitement, they will still constantly de- 
 mand the attention of the legislature, and, consequently, that of 
 the public. 
 
 On the 23rd of ]\Iay, Lord George Bentinck, as I think justly, 
 complained, that British industry was injured by the introduction of 
 foreign manufactured cotton, silk, wool, &c. His lordship urged 
 on the attention of the House of Commons, that those foreign goods 
 took the place of British goods in our own market, and damaged 
 our own industrial interests. 
 
 Mr. Laboucherc replied to his lordship, contending that no loss 
 to ourselves was consequent on the admission of those foreign manu- 
 factures, and insisted, that they were advantageous to us, and to 
 other nations. He said: "The noble loi'd conceives that foreign 
 imports into this coimtry are, in themselves, an evil. He always 
 argues upon the supposition that ail foreign goods imported liere, 
 supplant, in some Avay, goods the produce of this country, and 
 throw out of employ a certain number of Englishmen, who would 
 otherwise be employed. Now, I never can persuade myself that 
 this is the fact, until the noble lord can satisfy me, that foreigners
 
 12 
 
 make us a present of their goods. In some way or other, they must 
 be paid for by the produce of the industry of the people of this country. 
 And this is really what is so beneficial in the general extension of 
 commerce, that it is a boon not merely to one nation, but to all that 
 engage in it; and so far from its being necessary to view with 
 jealousy, the expanding and increasing commerce of other countries, 
 Ave have a common interest in it." 
 
 Now, in this paragraph, Mr. Labouchere has opened the question 
 of free trade to its very kernel. If there be truth in this declara- 
 tion, our duty and interest will be, patiently to endure our present 
 troubles, and industriously pui-sue our difterent productive employ- 
 ments, being assured, that nothing will so sm-cly retard our return- 
 ing prosperity, as national political agitation. If Mr. Laboiichere 
 be mistaken, if his assumption be founded in error, still, a state of 
 universal excitement will hinder oiir perception of its demonstra- 
 tion, and we shall be told "free trade has not had a fair trial."' In 
 either case, then, it is oiu- duty and our interest, for the present, 
 to reject the offered political agitation by Mr Cobden. 
 
 I iaelieve the assuinption of Mr. Labouchere is a fallacy. I think 
 that I can demonstrate its unsoundness. If I succeed, I shall prove 
 that, until the question thereon raised shall be justly settled, it is 
 folly to hope for real prosperity (whose foundation must be, 
 profitable emploj-ment for all who are able and willing to work) by 
 any means, short of an entire overthrow of the free trade scheme. 
 
 Had we Mr. Cobden's political reforms without asking for; nay, 
 were universal suffrage and every point of the charter granted to- 
 day; were we rid of all our taxation, and, by consequence, of all 
 the "barbarisms" of royalty; were Cobden the president of the Re- 
 public of Britain; still, while we remain ignorant of the true 
 principles of political economy, it is impossible that we can bo 
 prosperous. 
 
 It appears to me, that, if Mr. Labouchere's assumption (which is 
 only Mr. Cobden's at second hand) be carried into practice, it must 
 cause a perpetual drain from our capital, that will be more sure to 
 cause national calamity and poverty, than all the taxation we now 
 pay, with its attendant royal "barbarisms." That drain is free 
 trade ! 
 
 If health should be granted to me, I will return to this subject 
 - — taking Mr. Labouchere's proposition as my text. 
 
 Meantime, let me urge upon you, not to fall into the pit which is 
 now laid for yo\i by ]\Ir. Cobden. 
 
 Mark the result of political agitation, conjoined to ignorance, on 
 the great questions on whicli all prosjierity must depend — look at 
 France, but yesterday revolutionised for tlie benefit, as was hoped, 
 of the labouring class! Now, the very authors of that revolution 
 are the proscribed class! And the republican government (tho 
 offr-:]n"ing of universal suffrage) re(iuires more taxes and bayonets 
 and prisons, than did that of the dethroned and banislied monarch. 
 And why? Simply, because the authors of the revolution, were pre- 
 pared with no better remedy for the poverty of the labourers, than
 
 13 
 
 tlie plunder of tlie rich ! They did not know the true principles of 
 political economy, by the operation of which, the arrangement of 
 the different productive interests may be regulated, so as to ensure 
 mutual and profitable exchange, and thiis make all production tend 
 to national prosperity, by tlie constant increase of wealth or capital, 
 without invading any one's right. 
 
 Fellow countrymen, take warning by France ! Test, by expe- 
 rience, the radical changes already effected by Cobden, ere you 
 again obey his call to " agitation." Seriously consider the projiositions 
 that must, ever and anon, be put forth in our own Parliament, and 
 watch the effect of the contiriental changes ; thus you will discover 
 truth. 
 
 I remain, 
 
 Englishmen, 
 
 Yours most faithfully, 
 
 Richard Oastler. 
 Fulham, Middlesex' June 5, 1848.
 
 14 
 
 TO THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND. 
 Letter IL 
 
 Fellow Countrymen, — The subject on wliich I have under- 
 taken to address you, becomes daily of more interest. As nations 
 attempt to right themselves, ignorance on the all-important principle 
 of social and industrial arrangements, involves them in inextri- 
 cable difficulties. Even with om-selves, who, but two short years 
 ago, believed that we had solved the great problem, doubt has 
 taken the place of confidence, and the anticipated universal remedy 
 for all our social diseases, is now acknowledged to be inapplicable 
 to numerous and extensive cases of suffering. 
 
 I have been very much gi'atified while reading an article in the 
 most powerfid organ of the free trade party — an organ to which no 
 person is under more obligation than myself — the Times, an extract 
 from which cannot fail to be perused with interest, by all who are 
 concerned in the settlement of our social arrangement on a just 
 basis. 
 
 It ^^ill be observed that, AvhUe the Times adheres to " the general 
 axiom of the economists," it candidly admits that " the laissez-faire 
 lesson is purely economical ; that it disclaims all collateral moral 
 considerations." Hence the imsoundness of that, so much vaunted, 
 scheme of national regeneration. 
 
 The paragraph to which I allude is most important. I will 
 transcribe it, beseeching all who fancy that, the principle of free 
 action (usually termed free trade) is consistent with the prosperity 
 and peace of society, will read it with marked attention, asking 
 themselves, in what cases a principle Avhich, if unrestrained, 
 unregulated, " wovdd, in operation, dissolve the whole frame of 
 society," can be applied as a safe general rule of social government ? 
 
 The important passage to which I refer is as follows : — " The 
 general axiom of the economists, laissez-faire, is, as a purely 
 economical lesson, of the highest importance to governments. But 
 then it should be recollected, that it is purely economical ; that it 
 disclaims all collateral moral considerations ; that it was laid down 
 in face of the overwhelming mischiefs which had been caused by 
 meddling governments, royal monopolies, ill-administered com- 
 panies, and ignorant quacks. Applied to the dealings between man 
 and man, individually, and apart from state considerations, it is the 
 true basis of traffic and of commerce ; interpreted to the extent to 
 which its abstract advocates would carry it, it would dissolve the 
 whole frame of societj/, and leave men to the tyranny of superior rtiight, 
 the trickery of superior acuteness, the oppressiveness of caste, the un- 
 certainties of chance, and the vindictiveness of violence. If, from all
 
 15 
 
 the transactions of life, legislative interference and governmental 
 control were habitually excluded, it is easy to imagine a thousand 
 cases of gross injustice, of intolerable severity, of cruel neglect, and 
 more cruel revenge, which would go unredressed till the social malady 
 became equally formidable in its endurance and its remedy. It 
 is to prevent the evil of helpless suflfcring and the more fearful 
 evil of self-redress, that politicians are warranted in their divergence 
 from rules Avhich, excellent as general propositions, lose their 
 value by a bigoted and exclusive application." — The Times, 
 June l;5th, 1848. 
 
 In the above argument, the fearful consequences of yielding to 
 the principle of free action are so eloquently, forcibly, and candidly 
 asserted, as to render it unnecessary, in this place, to occupy time in 
 discussing the merits of a "general proposition" which, it is 
 admitted, requires ^ legislative interference and governmental con- 
 trol " to prevent its operation producing " the dissolution of the 
 whole frame of society." 
 
 Pardon this diversion. Its importance is my apology. 
 
 Returning to the subject of my last, I think I may say, every 
 day's experience, both foreign, colonial, and domestic, proves how 
 universally important is a right understanding of a principle, that is 
 admitted to be essential to the establishment of society, on a safe 
 and just foundation. Our continental neighbours are more and 
 more bewildered in the settlement of their " Constitutions ;" our 
 colonies are wasting away under the infliction of a scourge, the 
 consequence of our disregard of this great fundamental principle ; 
 and, at home, it is most remarkable that, since the adoption of the 
 principle of free action, our legislature has been compelled to enact 
 measiu'cs of regulation and restraint, interfering, more than any 
 former enactments, with the freedom of commercial, manufactm-ing, 
 social and political action. Being thus unwittingly compelled to 
 write " Ichabod " on their boasted nostrum ! 
 
 Fellow countrymen, these facts should lead us all to abandon 
 our party and sectarian prejudices — to resolve, with candour and 
 diligence, to engage in tlie investigation of that most important 
 question, which so many facts demonstrate, that we have not yet 
 satisfactorily solved. In this spirit, favour me with your attention, 
 while I attempt to show, the fatal error involved, in the assumption 
 of Mr. Labouchere, quoted in my last letter. 
 
 This is Mr. Labouchcre's case : — 
 
 1. Foreign imports into this country, of manufactured cotton, 
 silk, wool, &c., are not, in themselves, an evil ; because they do 
 not supplant goods the produce of this country, or throw out of 
 emplojTuent a certain number of Englishmen who woidd otherwise 
 be employed. 
 
 2. Foreign imports into this country, of manufactiu-ed cotton, 
 silk, wool, &c., are really beneficial ; because, in some way or 
 other, they must be paid for by the produce of the people of this 
 country. 
 
 3. This free international exchange of the produce of industry
 
 16 
 
 is beneficial in the general extension of commerce, and is a boon, 
 not merely to one nation, but to all that engage in it. 
 
 Now, if Mr. Labouchere has stated that which is really true, 
 I frankly acknowledge there is an end of the question. It is also 
 self-e'S'ident, that, if true, there can be no danger in the xmiversal 
 extension of a principle so sound, and that our prosperity will be 
 advanced, by the increase of foreign imports into this country, of 
 manufactiu-ed cotton, silk, wool, &c., to svich extent, as to save us the 
 trouble hereafter of manufacturing any of those articles. Such must 
 be the case, if the assumptions of Mr. Labouchere have truth for 
 their foundation. 
 
 The subject is too important to be left in doubt. The whole 
 question, of the nation's well-being, is involved in the issue. That 
 issue is fairly challenged. 
 
 I think the proposition advanced by Mr. Labouchere contains a 
 great fundamental fallacy — an error adopted by modern economists, 
 and relied on by modern statesmen, but no less fatal on that 
 account. 
 
 Mr. Labouchere entirely overlooks the facts, which none can 
 gainsay, that every commodity wrought, manufactured, produced, 
 or sold, in a country, involves not only itself, but another equal 
 value of production, for which it is exchanged, and on which, 
 labourers depend. 
 
 Mr. Labouchere believes, that it is of no consequence, whether 
 that other equal value, be of home, or, foreign production. On that 
 fatal error, the tvhole superstructure of, tchat is called free trade, 
 rests ! 
 
 If favoured with health, I Avill, in future letters, endeavour to 
 demonstrate the fallacy in Mr. Labouchere's proposition, by facts, 
 and by the highest economical avithorities. 
 
 Should I be successful, I shall furnish ground for a change in 
 legislation, without Avhich, in my opinion, we must gradually 
 decline. 
 
 I am. 
 
 Englishmen, 
 
 One of yourselves, 
 
 RiCHARll Oa8Tt.j;k. 
 
 Fulhnm, MiMeser, June 21, 1848.
 
 17 
 
 TO THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND. 
 Letter III. 
 
 Fellow-Couxirymex, — The cause of the French revolution 
 is noAv revealed. Pity that it should have been announced in 
 blood ! 
 
 It is not Royalty — it is not the Chamber of Peers — it is not 
 inadequate Representation. It is ignorance of the true principle of 
 political economy. That ignorance engendered want, discontent, 
 rebellion ! 
 
 The ministers of the king, and those of the republic, were unable 
 to give, or cause to be foxmd, profitable employment — in other 
 words, bread for the people. Each government failed to perceive 
 that the first principle of social arrangement is mutual dependence, 
 whereby each one is engaged in producing for another as well as 
 for himself, and the whole productions arc made to keep pace 
 with the wants of the people. Thus the capital of the nation is 
 increased with the increase of its numbers and requirements, and 
 bread is found for all. 
 
 The king's government, being blind to the necessity of regidating 
 the national industry, and ensuring a mutual and profitable exchange 
 among the people, by inducing just proportions of such produce as 
 the want of the people required, allowed too large a proportion of 
 capital and labour to be dissipated in unnecessary productions. 
 The result of such neglect was, an enormous proportion of PVench 
 labour became valueless. Hence the revolution. 
 
 The republican government, perceived the result of the neglect 
 of their predecessors, but were ignorant of its cause. They 
 fancied, they could give to labour its real value, by offering any sort 
 of employment to the labourers, without regard to the nature of 
 the productions, taxing those who had property, for the purpose 
 of paying the wages of the labourers. In a few months, such 
 ignorance was sm-e to augment the evil it was intended to cure. 
 It did so. Hence the insurrection. 
 
 On a late occasion. Prince Albert shadowed forth the true prin- 
 ciple of political economy, when his royal higlmess said : "■ Depend 
 upon it, the interests of those classes whicli are so often contrasted 
 are the same, and it is only ignorance which prevents them from 
 uniting for each other's advantage." The Prince added, what it 
 would be well that her ^Majesty's ministers should seriously reflect 
 upon, " to dispel that ignorance, and to show how man can help 
 man, notwithstanding the complicated state of civilised society, 
 ought to be tlie aim of every philanthropic person. But it is more 
 peculiarly the duty of those who, under the blessing of Divine
 
 18 
 
 Providence, enjoy station, Avealth, and education." It results, that 
 the highest duty, or responsibility, rests -svith those who have the 
 government of the whole people in their hands — it is to them, we 
 must look to make such arrangements as will enable each one (not 
 in idle, improfitable employment, but by giving a just value to his 
 labour) to help another ; that is, by establishing the principle of 
 mutual dependence, in the place of imiversal competition, or 
 individual independence, by encouraging the interchange of our 
 own productions, not substituting foreign productions in their 
 place. 
 
 It is the " ignorance " of which his royal highness complains, 
 that has overthrown the royal throne of France. It is that 
 " ignorance "' which has (with the sanction of the republic 
 founded on universal suffrage) deluged the streets of Paris with the 
 blood of her free citizens, under the motto of " Liberty, Equality, 
 Fraternity !"' 
 
 England should take warning ! That self-same " ignorance " 
 is now diminishing the springs from whence our taxes flow — 
 striking at the root of that wealth which ought to be created by 
 our merchants — throwing hundreds of thousands of our people 
 out of emplojanent — reducing the wages of nearly all who are 
 employed — increasing the burdens of our tradesmen, decreasing 
 their profits — augmenting the poor rates — producing pauperism 
 and universal discontent. 
 
 If that " ignorance " cannot be dispelled, France proclaims to us 
 what we may exjDcct ! 
 
 In France, iir England, in every State, no matter what the form 
 of government — republicanism run mad, or despotism in its most 
 cruel form — still, if the wants of the people are supplied — if pros- 
 perity is secured, the national capital must be kept in advance of 
 the requirements and numbers of the people. This can only be 
 effected by regulating the employment of the people in such pro- 
 ductions as the people require ; taking care that there shall be no 
 excess nor any lack, by Avhich means the labour of all will be 
 profitable, because the produce of all will be in demand. 
 
 When the wants of all have thus been provided for, the surplus 
 production will form a capital, to be exchanged for such foreign 
 commodities or luxuries, as may be required. 
 
 Let us examine Mr. Labouchere's assumptions. If they accord 
 not with this principle, they arc the result of that " ignorance " 
 which the royal consort deplores. Private exertions will fail to 
 remedy national evils, engendered by a national departure from the 
 true principle. 
 
 Mr. Laljouchcrc as.sumes that "foreign imports into this country, 
 of manufactured cotton, silk, wool, ike, are not, in themselves, an 
 evil ; because they do not supplant goods the produce of this 
 country, or throw out of employment a certain number of English- 
 men who Avould otherwise be employed." 
 
 Before Mr. Labouchcre can prove his case, he must show, that 
 we do not, and cannot manufacture a sufficient quantity of " cotton,
 
 19 
 
 silk, wool," &.C., for our own consumption ; else, it is evident, 
 that, if we import a million pounds' worth of such goods, those 
 foreign manufactures must " sup])lant goods the produce of 
 this covmtry" of the same amount; in other words, displace one 
 million pounds of our own capital, and also the lahour connected 
 therewith. 
 
 Such imports produce an unnatural competition, by which, the 
 whole capital or stock, in such articles, is reduced in value, and, 
 eventually, the home production is diminished by the amount of 
 such imports, and also by the less demand consequent on such 
 reduction of the national capital. True, the price is lowered — 
 '' cheapness," so called, is secured — but we fail to find the 
 " boon " promised by the free-traders — such an increased demand 
 as was predicted to follow that " cheapness." And why ? Be- 
 cause oui- capital is reduced, our means of production are thereby 
 lessened, our producers receive less profit and lower wages ; they 
 are, consequently, obliged to consume less. Such " cheapness " 
 can only benefit persons whose money income is fixed. They 
 may purchase more goods, but they arc more taxed, and their 
 security is endangered by the discontent that is consequent on 
 want. 
 
 Let any one, acquainted with the manvifacturing districts, mark 
 the loss, the wretchedness, the pauperism, and the consequent 
 discontent and insccm-ity, that are occasioned by the displacement 
 of one million of capital, employed in the manufacture of "cotton, 
 silk, wool," &c., and I am persuaded he will agree with me, that 
 no " cheapness " in those articles, can compensate for such losses, 
 trials, suficrings, and dangers. 
 
 The evil is augmented by the assurance that when the market 
 may seem to have righted itself, and all the producers (employers 
 as well as employed) shall have accustomed themselves to less 
 profits and less wages, with heavier burdens, a further amoinit of 
 importation will follow, again displacing an equal amount of capital, 
 and causing another derangement in the whole manufacturing 
 interest — another reduction of profits and wages — another im- 
 pulse to pauperism — another increase of taxes — another cause of 
 discontent, and insecurity. 
 
 Under present circumstances, these evils are very materially 
 augmented by the disasters in France and other countries, where 
 their own home demand has been greatly reduced ; causing their 
 manufactures to submit to unusually low prices (in some cases 
 less than one-half the former value); those goods, being imported 
 into this country, arc placed side by side with our own productions, 
 and increase that " cheapness " which creates such misery, decav, 
 and discontent in our manufacturing districts, as must cause grief, 
 if they do not produce fear, in the minds of our governors, and 
 which have recently called forth that order from her ^Majesty 
 respecting the consumption of home productions by those who 
 appear in her Majesty's presence. True, Lord John Russell 
 informs us that that order was not advised by the cabinet — it is
 
 20 
 
 therefore kno-\ni to be the unfettered result of the Queen's will ; 
 and it has stamped imsoundness, by the royal hand, on the vaunted 
 free-trade measui-es of her INIajesty's government. 
 
 It seems clear, then, beyond the power of successful contradic- 
 tion, that all foreign imports, no matter of what kind, provided we 
 either do, or can, produce such goods or commodities ourselves, must 
 be injurious. 
 
 If we do already produce them, their importation must displace 
 the capital and labour employed in their production ; if we can pro- 
 duce them, they hinder iis receiving the profit on om- o^vn capital, 
 which would be consequent on their production; and thus close a 
 channel which, if opened, would lead to that increase of capital 
 that we (increasing, as we do, in numbers) so much require. 
 
 It is, then, e^ddent that those foreign importations increase that 
 distress, pauperism and discontent which, at this most critical 
 epoch, are so dangerous to the stability of our institutions. 
 
 If I err, let it be shown. I do not argue for victory. I am in 
 search of ti-uth. 
 
 In my next I shall endeavour to prove the unsoundness of Mr. 
 Labouchere's remaining assumptions; if I succeed I shall have 
 shown cause for a re -hearing of the free-trade question, especially 
 when I have strengthened my arguments (as I shall do) by the 
 highest authorities in Mr. Cobden's school — authorities in whom he 
 and Sir Robert Peel profess to place implicit confidence. 
 
 Granted, the question is most important — in it the nation's 
 physical well-being is involved. Its solution may be difficult. The 
 issue is fairly challenged. That challenge I accept. 
 
 If Mr. Labouchere fails to perceive that every commodity must 
 involve an equal value in another commodity, both (in a state of 
 national prosperity) being required to be of home production — 
 where home production is possible — ^he has not yet mastered that 
 science of which he professes to be a teacher; he has not yet dis- 
 covered by what means a nation's capital may be increased, to meet 
 the demands of an improving state of society as well as of an 
 increasing population. 
 
 I maintain that such increase is necessary (indeed this is admitted 
 by all); but when the exchange may be made by means of oiu* 
 own productions, that increase cannot be realized, by exchanging 
 foreign for home productions, such necessary increase of capital 
 can only be obtained on the principle of mutual dependence, by 
 causing a strict conformity to be observed between our national 
 productions and our national wants. 
 
 I remain, fellow-countrj-mcn. 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 
 RiCIIAKD OaSTLER. 
 
 Fullimn, Middlesex, June 29, 1848. 
 
 P.S. — In tills argument it must be imderstood that the production 
 and consumption of the whole empire (colonies and mother country) 
 arc included in tlic terms home production and home consumption. 
 
 R. O.
 
 21 
 
 TO THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND. 
 Letter IV. 
 
 Fellow Coitxtkymex, — I earnestly request your undivided 
 attention while I examine Mr. Labouchcrc's second proposition, 
 being persuaded that, on its truth or error, the prosperity or adver- 
 sity of millions of the human race depends. 
 
 A false assumption on this vital point being carried into opera- 
 tion, is more pregnant -vvith poverty and death than the most 
 desolating wars. 
 
 England has now enjoyed a long repose. For more thaU thirty 
 years we have lived under the inestimable advantages of peace, but 
 has our prosperity ke])t pace with the prevalence of that blessing ? 
 Have the rewards of skill and industry, or the certainty of obtaining 
 profitable employment, been on the increase ? Have pauperism and 
 crime diminished? As a people, are we more united — more virtuous — 
 more contented ? No ! the sad reverse is the melancholy truth. 
 That truth is written in facts which none can controvert. 
 
 A decreasing revenue — diminishing wages and profits — hundreds 
 of thousands of workmen unable to find employment — unprece- 
 dented adversity and suffering among our merchants and shop- 
 keepers — increasing poor rates and police rates — enlargement of 
 prisons and bastiles, with consequent discontent among the people, 
 requiring an alarming increase in our police, which, with the army, 
 is unable (without the aid of special force) to prevent the discon- 
 tented breaking out into actual rebellion — these are, fellow-country- 
 men, the sad but true characteristics of oxu- country after more than 
 thirty years of peace ! 
 
 The incalculable numbers of our fellow-subjects who have, 
 during that long period, been consigned to untimely graves by 
 broken hearts, would out-nximber the ravages of the most san- 
 guinary wars ! 
 
 And why has our native country thus withered under the sun- 
 shine of peace ? Are her sons less ingenious, less industrious than 
 their sii'es ? The amazing improvements in science and machinery, 
 and their vast results in operation, stamp falsehood on that 
 assumption. Still, the melancholy facts are undeniable — with 
 peace, unprecedented inventions, and industry, goaded even to 
 death (of men, women, and children), decay, and discontent are the 
 avowed characteristics of this age and nation. 
 
 There must be a cause ! It will be found in the adoption of 
 falsehood in the place of truth — in that llicory of human i)hilosophy 
 which \ipholds (he disuniting man from num. aiul teaches tliat each 
 one shall esteem himself independent of any other — that man was
 
 22 
 
 created for man to compete with, rather than to support, love, and 
 cherish. 
 
 Dm-ing that long period to which I have alluded, the principles 
 of Christianity, incorporated in " om- glorious constitution," have 
 been gradually supplanted by a false system of political economy ; 
 which teaches that every individual is justified in employing what- 
 ever capital he can command, for his own advantage, without 
 regard to that of society ; thus establishing himself in individual 
 independence, regardless of the well-being of his neighbour, in 
 open defiance of the law of God, which teaches that, " love worketh 
 xo ILL to his neighbour," and, consequentl)', that any gain which 
 one man obtains to the injiu-y of another is a dishonest, an unholy 
 gain._ 
 
 It is the unalterable decree of God, which cannot be disregarded 
 with impunity, that society shall be rightly and beneficially consti- 
 tuted, only under the law of mutual dependence, an injury done to 
 the meanest member being an offence against the whole commimity ; 
 for, " thou shalt love thy neighbovu- as thyself ;" and then, "the 
 eye cannot say vmto the hand, I have no need of thee ; nor again, 
 the head to the feet, I have no need of you." 
 
 But, in place of recognising this holy principle of divine origin, 
 our modern economists and statesmen have adopted that of Cain, 
 " Am I my brother's keeper?" And, having resolved to act upon 
 a principle so anti-social and so entirely opposed to that of 
 Christianity — as was natural — they sedulously taught that " reli- 
 gion has nothing to do with politics," until it is become unstates- 
 manlike to mention religion in parliament — unclerical for a 
 minister of Christ's religion to unite himself in any Avay with 
 politics — Christianity being no longer the foimdation of our 
 legislation. 
 
 Under such circumstances, it is no marvel that God should 
 confound and disarrange our national affairs, branding our industry 
 with poverty, our ingenuity with decay, oiu- wisdom with folly — for,; 
 among those who set at nought I lis authority, " He disa]")pointeth 
 the devices of the crafty, so that their hands cannot ])eribrm their 
 enterprise. He taketh the wise in their own craftiness, and the 
 counsel of the forward is carried headlong. They meet with dark- 
 ness in the day time, and grope in the noon day as in the night." 
 
 Under such a system, notwithstanding the unfathomcd amount 
 of our resources, and the varied and growing genius of our people, 
 it is utterly impossible that our national capital can be increased so 
 as to keep pace with the requirements of our augmenting numbers. 
 Hence, instead of retracing their steps, the apostles of this false 
 and unholy creed raise an outcry against our numbers, the splen- 
 dour of the throne, and I know not Avhat! "We must," say they, 
 " thin the ranks of the people, stri]i tlic Queen of her ' barbarous 
 appendages,' and ' cheapen' " (tluifs the word) " cheapen every thing." 
 Turn this outcry into plain English, and you will read, " we must 
 have a Jlcpublic, without colonics — remove the scat of government 
 to Manchester — and enrich, at whatever cost, om- cotton lords!"
 
 23 
 
 On this point I shall have more to say before I conclude tliis 
 argument. 
 
 At present, I must return to Mr. Labouchere's assumptions. I 
 mistake if, in them I shall not discover the fatal error to which I 
 have alluded — the error from which flows the miseries at which 
 I have glanced. 
 
 Mr. Labouchere assumes, secondly, that " foreign imports into 
 this country, of manufactured cotton, silk, wool, &c., are really 
 beneficial, because, in some way or other, they must be paid for by 
 the produce of the people of this country." 
 
 The fact stated is true — such imports must, " in some way or 
 other, be paid for by the produce of the people of this country ;" 
 but the question is, " Do such foreign imports, by supplanting the 
 domestic or home exchange, increase the capital of this country r" 
 If they do, they are beneficial. If they do not, they must be 
 injurious. 
 
 Fellow-covmtr}Tnen, give me your close attention while I 
 endeavour to solve that most intricate and important question — 
 the question on which the weal or woe of England and her colonies 
 depends. 
 
 While examining Mr. Labouchere's first proposition (see my last 
 letter), I had occasion to remark that the importation into this 
 country of one million pounds' worth of foreign goods (similar to 
 those we have previously produced ourselves), would necessarily 
 supplant goods the produce of this country of the same amount; 
 that it would displace one million pounds of our o\\ti capital, and 
 the labour and profit connected therewith ; thus I demonstrated 
 that such imports arc a national evil. 
 
 But, says Mr. Labouchere, such imports " are really beneficial, 
 because, in some way or other, they must be paid for by the pro- 
 duce of the people of this coimtry." 
 
 In ascertaining the value of this assumption, it is necessary to 
 find out in what way such foreign imports must be paid for, and at 
 what national gain or loss that payment will be made. 
 
 Before the intrusion of those foreign goods upon our home mar- 
 ket, it is certain that capital to the amovmt of hco millions of pounds 
 was profitably employed at home, one million having been engaged 
 in the productions required in exchange for those home-produced 
 goods, tlic second million having been, as well as the first million, 
 employed in producing, by ourselves for ovirselves. There was 
 then also the employment of labour involved in the successful 
 operations of two millions of pounds; and likewise the merchants', 
 bankers', and shopkeepers' profits on the distribution of two 
 million pounds worth of productions. 
 
 Mark this point well ! Such icos our condition before we became 
 enamoured of foreign products. Next, mark attentively, the " really 
 beneficiar' change in our circumstances, wrought by the substitution 
 of foreign for home produce. 
 
 The following must be the necessary course or operation of the 
 change, for it is self-evident that no increase of capital can be con- 
 sequent on our importing instead of producing for oiu'sclves.
 
 24 
 
 On tlie importation of foreign productions, to take the place of 
 similar articles before produced by the employment of one million 
 pounds of our ovnx capital, it is clear that that one million will be no 
 longer useful — it ^^ill be displaced; the profit on its emploj-ment, 
 as Avell as the wages and the profits obtained by its employment (a 
 large sum heretofore distributed usefully among labourers, artizans, 
 shopkeepers, merchants, bankers, &:c.) will be entirely lost. 
 
 It is also self-evident that the profitable employment of that one 
 million of pounds, which was engaged in the home production of 
 such goods as were before required in exchange for such other home 
 production (with its attendant emplojTnent of labour, and the profits 
 on its manufacture and disti'ibution), will be sacrificed. 
 
 It follows, then, that two millions of pounds of our capital will 
 be displaced, and all the wages and profits of their employment in 
 production and distribution will be abandoned, in consequence of 
 the importation of those foreign goods. The amount of misery thus 
 inflicted on society is, indeed, terrible! Still, it is true those foreign 
 goods "must, in some way or other, be paid for by the produce of 
 the people of this country." 
 
 It \\\\\. not be contended that the foreign exchange for those 
 goods, will be in the same productions as the home exchange for 
 similiar articles. 
 
 Those foreign imports, must, then, be either paid for in money 
 (akeady accumulated out of the productions of the people of this 
 country), or other commodities must be produced to suppl}~ the new 
 demand; and one million pounds of our capital Avill thus be em- 
 ployed either in a money payment, or in the production of the goods 
 required in exchange for the one million pounds' worth of foreign 
 goods imported. 
 
 There the exchange and the "benefit'' ends. For it must be 
 borne in mind that, in this transaction there is no creation of wealth. 
 The one million thus employed must have already existed. It will 
 probably arise out of the Avreck of two millions, which have been dis- 
 placed by this transaction. 
 
 It is possible, also, that after such loss, inconvenience, peril, 
 and suffering (having learned the new art required in the new man- 
 ufacture), one half of the labourers and artizans before employed 
 in the operations of the two millions, may find employment in this 
 new source of occupation, but the remainder will form a fixed dead 
 weight on society, to be supported out of the poor rates, or on 
 pillage. To guard society from consequent depredations, the police 
 force and prisons must be increased. It is in vain to hope that 
 benevolence and philanthropy can cure such a self-inflicted evil. 
 
 This unemployed body of working men will also continually press 
 upon the market of labour, and thus reduce the wages of those 
 employed to the lowest possible amount. 
 
 Add to all this suffering, the entire loss to our bankers, mer- 
 chants, and shopkeepers of their profits on the production and dis- 
 tribution of one million poimds' wortli of goods, and you will be 
 able to appreciate the "real benefit"' of wliich Mr. Labouchcrc boasts:
 
 25 
 
 it is written in a decrease of capital — a loss of wages and profits, 
 with consequent discontent, crime, and insecurity. 
 
 At Mr. Cobden's bidding, wc tlirow away the certain and pro- 
 fitable employment of two millions of pounds; wc incur all the 
 losses, vexations, and perils of that suicidal act — for what? Simply 
 to obtain the chance "bcnefit"'(!) of the employment of one million 
 pounds in an entirely new line of production ! 
 
 I ask you. Englishmen, carefully to remark this line of argument. 
 If such foreign imports can operate on our society in a more bene- 
 ficial manner, let it be stated. I would not, that either you or I 
 should be deceived. 
 
 I am aware of the answer of the economist. He sa)\s, "by this 
 process, everything will be '■cheapened,' and the '■cheapest'''''' he adds 
 "must always be the most prosperous country." 
 
 I shall not dispute the fact of "cheapness." That "cheapness" 
 will not result from plenty, but from poverty. It will arise out of 
 a decrease of capital and emplopnent — it will not be the token of 
 increase and prosperity. That cheapness will prove a loss to all who 
 are engaged in production and distribution. It will stop the opera- 
 tions of the millowners — close the avenues of trade to the merchants 
 — shut the door on the customers of the shopkeepers — reduce the 
 wages of the labourers and artizans, as well as lower the rents of 
 the landlords. It will demonstrate the truth of those Avords in Holy 
 Writ, "The eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee; 
 nor, again, the head to the feet, I have no need of you" — and, 
 " There is a way that seemcth good to a man, but the end thereof 
 is death." — (A warning to nations, as well as to individuals !) It will 
 jirove the sinfulness of man's vaunted scheme of individual inde- 
 pendence ! It must con\-ince all gainsayers that the plan of mutual 
 dependence is the only one on which society can be beneficially 
 sustained. 
 
 True, our highest ministers of State have pronounced that 
 '■^cheapness'" to be the result of the working of common sense, 
 forgetting that their highest free-trade authorities, "the great 
 lights" as they call them — have taught a different lesson. 
 
 It is to obtain this cheapness, this honn, this i(jnus fatuus, that 
 our national institutions are to be jeopardised. 
 
 By this drain on our capital, our wealth is to be increased! By 
 thus robbing our labourers and artizans of their wages and em])loy- 
 ment — by depriving our bankers, merchants, farmers, and shop- 
 keepers of their profits — and oiu- landlords of their rents — we are 
 told, that "common sense" awards the prosperity of England! 
 
 I shall return to the investigation of this most important question. 
 
 If I mistake or miscalculate, I am open to correction. I have 
 endeavoured, truthfully to follow the necessary operation of this so- 
 called "really beneficial" transaction; and although I may disaoree 
 wdth Mr. Cobden, on this point, I know that I agree with Dr. Adam 
 Smith. 
 
 Englishmen! permit me seriously to ask you — "Will you, under 
 the guidance of a few Manchester-men, consent to cramp the
 
 26 
 
 charity of the church — sap the foundation of the throne — aboHsh 
 the aristocracy — and destroy the comfort and security of your own 
 hearths — in order to secure that '■^cheapness''' which will not be the 
 result of plenty — but, of your imhiUty to huyf 
 
 I am, 
 
 Youi's faithfully, 
 
 RiCHAKD OaSTLEE. 
 
 Fulham, Middlesex, July 6, 1848.
 
 TO THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND. 
 Letter V. 
 
 Fellow-Countrymen, — In my last letter I discussed that par- 
 ticidar part of the problem of national prosperity or adversity 
 which constitutes the most important featui-e of Mr. Labouchere's 
 argument. 
 
 On contending for the beneficial result of permitting a home 
 trade to be abandoned, and a foreign trade to be adopted in its 
 place, Mr. Labouchere maintained that this covu-se was "really 
 beneficial," and that it would not throw home labourers out of 
 employment, because the foreign-made commodity, whicli is thus 
 substituted for the home-made commodity, mvist be paid for by 
 sonie other home-made commodity, and thus labour equal in amount 
 to that disjDlaced or disemployed must, he infers, be placed or em- 
 ployed. 
 
 "S^lrile I admitted the truth of Mr. Labouchere's statement, " that 
 such foreign imports must, in some way or other, be paid for by 
 the produce of the people of this coimtry," I showed that great 
 national loss is involved, in changing a home for a foreign customer, 
 and I proved that Mr. Labouchere had entirely lost sight of the 
 real natm-e of the great question out of which the issue arises — 
 viz., the increase of capital, to meet the increasing demands of the 
 increased popidation. 
 
 Perhaps it may not be out of place, just now, to test the ques- 
 tion that occupies, at this moment, so much of our attention, and 
 that of our legislators, by the rule laid down in my last letter. 
 
 The question now is, shall we receive our supply of sugar from 
 a colonial or a foreign market ? 
 
 I have already said tliat the mother country and the colonies arc, 
 in this discussion, one — their interests arc undivided. One cannot 
 be hijurcd or impoverished without the shock being communicated 
 to the other. 
 
 In this discussion, I entirely threw aside all remark on our ha^■ing 
 made a bargain with our colonies, which, in honour, binds us (even 
 if we should be great losers) to our contract. Not a word shall I 
 offer regarding the cant about the sufferings of the slaves — the 
 abomination of slavery — and, after all, the peculiarly enticing 
 sweetness of slave-gro"\vn sugar, because it is said to be "cheapest." 
 
 I shall simply require your attention to the real profit or loss of 
 the new scheme ; and I intend to show, that a great national loss of 
 capital must be the result of our national perfidy and hypocrisy. 
 
 I shall prove that, whatever the relative nominal prices of the 
 two sugars may be, owx own grown sugar is, in reality, the cheapest
 
 28 
 
 — aye, even to the poor wretches in the cotton factories — not- 
 withstanding all the sjTiipathy that has been shown (by the haters 
 of slavery, but lovers of cheap slave-grown sugar) towards those 
 miserable white victims of their sympathisers' avarice and cupidity. 
 
 In fine, I shall demonstrate that in this case of sugar, as in all 
 other cases, "honesty is the best policy." 
 
 The West India islands are the property of English proprietors, 
 or of persons who are our fellow subjects. They are cultivated by 
 laboiu-ers who are the subjects of the British crown by birth, or by 
 adoption. 
 
 I will suppose the annual amount of sugar to be of the value of 
 ten millions pounds, and that the whole stock thereof is consumed 
 in England. 
 
 In that case, those ten millions pounds of annual value, are ex- 
 changed here for such commodities, produced by ourselves, as the 
 owners and producers of that sugar requu'e, including all the various 
 commodities which are demanded by the proprietors and their 
 families, who happen to reside in England. All those commodities 
 which are exported from England for the consumption of the pro- 
 prietors, agents, labourers, and others, Avho reside in the West 
 India islands ; all those things, such as implements of maniifacture 
 and trade, which are required for carrying on the cultivation or 
 manufacture of sugar; as well as the ships which are engaged in 
 conveying the productions to and from the West Indies ; added to 
 which, you must not forget the consumption of the owners of West 
 India property, who are resident in England, Ireland, and Scotland. 
 
 Now, these several commodities must amount to another ten 
 millions of pounds; thus, at present, there are twenty millions of 
 pounds of capital, in the aggregate, employed in this trade, which 
 are produced and consumed annually by British capitalists and 
 British labourers. 
 
 I am now to suppose that the British parliament permits the 
 foreign sugar of the Brazils to be substituted, in the English market, 
 for the sugar of our OAvn West India Islands; the reason for this 
 alteration being, that the Brazilians can take a lower price for their 
 sugar than the West Indians can for theirs, slave laboiu* being 
 cheaper than free labour. 
 
 I am ready to admit the fact, and will grant that we may, for 
 aught I know, procure the same quantity of sugar, of equal quality, 
 from the ])cople of Brazil, for eight millions of pounds, as we now 
 procure from our own capitalists and labourers for ten millions 
 pounds annually. 
 
 "Not anything is more self-evident," says the economist and 
 statesman of the modern school, "than that, by this change, we 
 have a clear gain of two millions pounds annually!" Such is the 
 received practical doctrine of the age. 
 
 I'^nglishmen! it is a delusion — it is a fatal delusion — it is a 
 delusion fraught with the destruction of the hajipiness and 
 lives of millions of the people — it is \\\c destroyer of the prosperity 
 of nations!
 
 29 
 
 It is to remove this delusion tluit 1 have ventured to address you. 
 
 I will calmly examine the facts. 
 
 Before the change, I have shown that there existed a capital of 
 twenty millions of pounds, -which served to sustain British interests 
 and British lahour, in the West India islands and in England. 
 That twenty millions will, by the change, viz., by the cessation of 
 demand for the coloiiial sugar, and for the British commodities 
 wroiight for the payment of that sugar, sustain almost total anni- 
 hilation. 
 
 The newly introduced Brazilian sugar, being of the annual value 
 of eight millions pounds, must, I admit, " be paid for by the produce 
 of English industry.'' It may be paid for in cash, already accumii- 
 lated from English labour, or in commodities that are required by 
 the people of Brazil. 
 
 The commodities required by the Brazilians will not be the same 
 that were required by the West Indians, and which latter consti- 
 tuted an amount, or value, of ten millions pounds, corresponding 
 with the value of their sugar. 
 
 There must, then, occur in the first place, a cessation of demand, 
 amovmting to ten millions pounds, for the productions of our West 
 India proprietors and labourers, which casts them into a state of 
 poverty and distress; and then there must, likewise, occur a cor- 
 responding cessation of demand for those commodities which have 
 been produced in England for the consumption of the West India 
 proprietors and labourers, and of which the home British capital is 
 constituted. The owners of that capital (ten millions pounds,) and 
 the artizans and labourers employed thereby, will likewise be cast 
 into a state of poverty and distress. 
 
 This change throws out of iise twenty millions pounds, which 
 are replaced by eight millions ! The lower price of sugar is said to 
 make up for this enormous loss of profitable labom- to our artizans. 
 There never was a greater delusion ! 
 
 My object is not to excite your feelings. I implore your most 
 serious attention, and thus I hope to obtain the verdict of your 
 reason, else it would not be difficult (in endeavouring to describe 
 the sufferings consequent on the displacement of twenty millions 
 of pounds, to be replaced by eight millions) to harrow your feelings 
 and arouse your passions, 
 
 It is especially important to be remembered, that the new com- 
 modities wherewith the sugar of Brazil is to be paid are not supplied 
 by a new creation of capital, because the cost of all those commo- 
 dities must be taken out of the pre-existing capital, which was 
 already engaged in maintaining labour. 
 
 In this transaction, there is not a particle of increase of capital 
 until we come to the profit issuing out of the transaction ; a similar 
 profit having accrued also in the preceding or abandoned case, 
 constituted by the British commodities wrought for the payment of 
 the sugar of our West India colonics ; that is, so much above the 
 cost of production. 
 
 Again, I implore you most carefully to examine this statement.
 
 30 
 
 Let us not be deceived in this most important matter. I think I 
 have proved that, by changing our colonial supply of sugar for that 
 of Brazil, although the price per pound may be less — that difference 
 in apparent gain, involves a real and a much greater loss to the 
 whole community. 
 
 Remember, also, the colonial market is certain, while that of 
 Brazil is subject to many caprices and contingencies. 
 
 It is not unlikely, after we have incurred the losses of the change, 
 we may hereafter be driven to seek our supply of sugar, in those 
 very colonies whose plantations we are now about to throw out of 
 cultivation ! 
 
 I fancy I have demonstrated that " honesty is the best policy." 
 In my next I shall notice the third assumption of Mr. Labouchere. 
 
 I am, 
 
 Englishmen, 
 
 Yours constantly, 
 
 Richard Oastler. 
 
 Fulham, Middlesex, July 15, 1848.
 
 31 
 
 TO THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND. 
 Letter VI. 
 
 Fellow Countrymen, — It appears then (by the argument in 
 my two last letters), that the fatal mistake of Mr. Labouchcre, and 
 those Avi'iters and statesmen who, with him, assume that it is really 
 beneficial to exchange a home for a foreign suppl)', is, that they 
 imagine capital is capable of instantaneous conversion and transmu- 
 tation ; they speak of exchanging the supply, but they fail to 
 realise the operation ; for, they persuade themselves that, " in some 
 way or other," the demand for the home-made joroduce Avill con- 
 tinue, and that the capital reqmred to cause a demand for the 
 foreign supply will, " in some way or other," be instanta- 
 neously realised. Having failed to ascertain correctly, and to pre- 
 serve practically, the cause of value, they have been led to adopt 
 the fallacious and fatal assumi:)tion to which I have referred, and on 
 Avhich Mr. Labouchere has built his national policy. He carelessly 
 relinquishes the substance — he anxiously grasps at the shadow — 
 all the while believing that he is under the influence of "common 
 sense." 
 
 No wonder that, under the operation of a delusion so fatal, our 
 hopes of national gains are met with national losses. Those who 
 sow the storm must reap the whirlwind. 
 
 This argument shall not rest solely on my own authority. Men 
 esteemed the wisest by the freetraders, declare the folly of those 
 professing to be their desciples. 
 
 M. Say (so often quoted with admiration by them) has said, 
 " The British Government seems not to have perceived that the 
 most profitable sales to a nation are those made by one individual 
 to another within the nation ; for those latter imply a national pro- 
 duction of two values — the value sold and that given in exchange." 
 Thus M. Say most admii-ably points out the fallacy to which I 
 advert. 
 
 M. Say being judge, Mr. Labouchere's proposition is folly. 
 Instead of being "really beneficial," the change will be ruinous. If 
 Mr. Labouchere's proposal should be adopted, it must entail great 
 losses on the interests subjected to its influence ; or M. Say is ig- 
 norant on the most important branch of the science which he 
 teaches. 
 
 Another " great light " has spoken on this subject — the man 
 who is almost adored by the " lesser lights " in the firmament of 
 free-trade I — he whom ]\Ir. Cobden declared had " clearly demon- 
 strated the ob-\-ious truths of free trade " — Adam Smith, writing on 
 this most important branch of political economy, the comparative
 
 82 
 
 value of home and foreign trade, says : — " Tlie capital which is em- 
 ployed in purchasing in one part of the country, in order to sell in 
 another, the produce of the industry of that country, generally 
 rejilaces by every such operation tAvo distinct capitals that had been 
 employed in the agriculture or manufacture of that country, and 
 thereby enables them to continue that employment. When it sends 
 out, from the residence of the merchant, a certain value of com- 
 modities, it generally brings back in return, at least an equal value 
 of other commodities. When both are the produce of domestic 
 industry, it necessarily replaces by every such operation two dis- 
 tinct capitals, which have both been employed in supporting pro- 
 ductive labour, and thereby enables them to continue that support. 
 The capital which sends Scotch manufactures to London, and 
 brings back English corn and manufactures to Edinburgh neces- 
 sarily replaces, by every such operation, two British capitals which 
 had been emj)loyed in the agriculture or manufactures of Great 
 Britain. 
 
 " The capital employed in purchasing foreign goods for home 
 consumption, when the purchase is made with the produce of 
 domestic industry, replaces also, by every such operation, two 
 distinct capitals, but one of them only is employed in supporting 
 domestic industry. The capital which sends British goods to Por- 
 tugal, and brings back Portugese goods to Great Britain, replaces 
 by such operation only one British capital. The other is a Portu- 
 gese one. Though the returns, therefore, of the foreign trade of 
 consumption should be as quick as those of the home trade (which 
 it is impossible they should be) the capital employed in it will give 
 but one half of the encouragement to the industry or productive 
 labour of the country." 
 
 Englishmen! I told you that I would establish the folly of Mr. 
 Ijabouchere's assumption by the authority of "the great lights" in 
 the free trade school. I have done so. I would not, however, ask 
 you to build your faith on Avhat I, or M. Say, or Dr. Adam Smith, 
 or Mr. Labouchcrc may assert. Examine the subject for yourselves, 
 and if you find, as I believe you will, that the principles of free- 
 trade are erroneous and ruinous, whether you be millowners, mer- 
 chants, farmers, shopkeepers, artizans, nobles, or bishops, be candid, 
 confess, repent, and retrace. 
 
 Lastly, I have to examine Mr. Labouchcrc's third assimiption, 
 viz., "Tliis free international exchange of the produce of industry 
 is beneficial in the general extension of commerce, and is a boon, 
 not merely to one nation, but to all that engage in it." 
 
 Be it always remembered that the " free international exchange" 
 here refcircd to by Mr. Labouchere, is that which, in each country, 
 supersedes the home exchange by a foreign exchange ; in other 
 words, every nation will be enriched and secure its own prosperity 
 by abandoning its own supply and buying of foreigners. That is 
 Avhat Mr. Ijubouchere believes to be "a boon, not merely to one 
 nation, but to all that engage in it." 
 
 'I'lic p('()j)lf wlio export such homo ])roducti(ms as tlicy require
 
 33 
 
 for their own use, impoverish themselves by failing to produce the 
 goods required in exchange. But an argument in refutation of 
 such a transparent error would be as useless as one to prove that the 
 night is not darker than the day. 
 
 I have shown that if England should adopt the proposition of 
 Mr. Laboucherc, immense loss must be the result. 
 
 I have proved that Adam Smith and M. Say (the adopted 
 authorities of the free-trade school) assert the same fact. The 
 argument thus advanced, holds good with regard to any and to 
 every coimtry that adopts that fatal error. It is to this formidable 
 fallacy that the prosperity of all nations, the happiness and lives of 
 all people, will be sacrificed, if this ruinous principle should be 
 universally adopted. 
 
 What then, is the only true and really beneficial principle of 
 trade, that will ensure prosperity to all? 
 
 In my next I will endeavour to answer that most important 
 question. 
 
 ^Meantime, it may not be iminstructive for you to peruse the re- 
 marks of a foreigner on the great changes that have lately been 
 made in our national policy, and on their natural consequences. A 
 looker-on sometimes gives very useful hints. 
 
 In the New York Courier and Enquirer, of March 10th, 1848, 
 the following remarks are made. I think tliey are worth your 
 perusal : 
 
 " Free-trade and its consequences seem at this moment, in Eng- 
 land, to be leading to results which tlireaten disaster, certainly, if 
 not overthro\vn, to the colonial power and prosperity of that coun- 
 try, if not to its whole frame and form of government. In the 
 pursuit of a vain theorj', as it seems to us — very beautiful and quite 
 truth-like in its professions, but most difficult and hazardous in 
 partial application, and quite impracticable and hopeless as to 
 general adoption — the old and approved systems of English com- 
 merce, manufactures, agricidture and navigation, are one by one 
 departed from, and the prosperity which has been coincident with, 
 not to say caused by, these systems, seems to be vanishing with 
 them. The principles which lie at the bottom of free-trade stop 
 not at mere trade, or the occupations of industry, in any given 
 pursuit ; but, if to be received at all, must be received universally, 
 and their consequences inexorably followed out and accepted. It is 
 quite impossible, as it seems to us, that an old and artificial condi- 
 tion of society — bolstered up by prerogative, rank, ancient and pe- 
 culiar privileges, an established church, an hereditary peerage, 
 entailed estates, and exclusive borough privileges, can co-exist with 
 the fundamental principle on which free-trade rests — that money 
 cheapness is the one thing needful for all we require, and money 
 dearness the one aim of all we have to offer in exchange. In other 
 words — those of the received free-trade formida — ' to buy where 
 we can cheapest, and to sell where we can dearest.' This dogma 
 looks, of course, to unlimited and unrestricted competition ; but 
 such is the intimate relation of all pursuits, one with another, in 
 c
 
 34 
 
 civilised communities, that such a dogma, once intruded and made 
 applicable to the various callings of manual industry, will not stop 
 there, but will extend itself into higher regions. If the farmer is 
 to lose all the benefit of protection for the fruit of his labour, from 
 the competition of labourers, cultivating, in another country, better 
 land under a more favourable climate, and subject to lighter burdens 
 of taxation, — if he is to be compelled to adopt the dogma of cheap corn 
 — ^he may reasonably claim that the same dogma should be enforced 
 upon others, and then proceed to ask why a royalty, such as Eng- 
 land is now blessed with, prolific of children, each one of which is 
 munificently endowed at its birth, and provided for by the people, 
 and itself most costly, should not be exchanged for a government 
 as cheap, for instance, as that of the United States. If liis corn 
 must be subject to the rule of unrestricted competition, why should 
 the Crown be exempt from the same rule ? If there must be a 
 crown and throne at the summit of the social edifice, they might be 
 occupied at a much cheaper rate than now, if not protected by a 
 close monopoly. So, too, of an hereditary peerage, another close 
 monopoly — so too, of entailed estates. We do not say that it 
 Avould be for the benefit of England that unrestricted competition 
 shoidd be introduced in these and like circumstances and stations ; 
 but it is difficult, we apprehend, to discriminate satisfactorily to the 
 farmer or the manufacturer, between the case of the protected 
 cro\vn, or the protected peer, and the protected estate — and the 
 heretofore protected products of the soil and of the loom. If 
 money cheapness is the one unerring standard as to the latter, Avhy 
 not as to the former ? And if systems, heavy Avith age and pro- 
 ductive of an amazing degree of prosperity — applicable to indus- 
 trial pursuits, are at once to be swept away in compliance with the 
 spirit of the age, the progress, the new lights of humanitarian 
 philosophers, and their pursuits are to be left to their own imaided 
 struggles, it is not very obvious why political institutions, not more 
 venerable for age, not more productive of happiness and prosperity, 
 than those which are ruthlessly swept away, should be maintained. 
 And to this point, if the free-trade path be followed out, things 
 must come ; for innovation abates not of its pretensions with suc- 
 cess ; and the very impetus which has struck down tlie corn laws, 
 and is now imparted to the effort to strike down the navigation laws 
 and the colonial monopoly, will, if this be successful, lend increased 
 energy to still further and more searching reforms ; and having 
 gone through the catalogue of commercial and manufacturing and 
 agricultural monopolies, and done away with all these, the attention 
 of the reforming system-mongers will be turned to political mono- 
 polies, to landed monopolies, to ecclesiastical monoi)olies, and the 
 whole fair fabric of I'lnglish ]iolity will be sid)ject to revision 
 by these men of system, men of one idea, who, having embraced 
 a doctrine, run mad with it, and will see none other, nor any ob- 
 jections of any sort to the success, at whatever cost, of the favourite 
 dogma. 
 
 " In this position, as it seems to us, England now finds herself.
 
 35 
 
 Having built up, at great pains, and by severe prohibitory and 
 ample protective legislation, agricultural, manufacturing, commer- 
 cial, and colonial monopolies, of vinpreccdented extent and pros- 
 perity, and having, with such a system, attained to a height of 
 power, of renown, and of extended empire, that country now is 
 busied with an experiment upon all these time-honoured and time- 
 proved establishments, and, in conformity with a theory never any- 
 where as yet proved or practically carried out, is undoing all that 
 the Avisdom of other days had done." 
 
 Those hints given by an American, are deserving the very serious 
 attention of every Englishman. 
 
 I am. 
 
 Fellow-countrymen, 
 
 Yours, faithfully, 
 
 lllCHARD OasTLER. 
 FuJham, Middlesex, Juhj 20t!i, 1848.
 
 36 
 
 TO THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND. 
 Letter VII. 
 
 Fellow Cotjntbymen, — Principles, like water, will find their 
 level. Vain is tlie attempt to stay their progress. Sin cannot 
 amalgamate with holiness — nor can darkness with light. Neither 
 can the free principle of action accommodate itself to the restraining, 
 regulating influence of our glorious constitution. This truth is 
 acknowledged by the American Avriter quoted in my last. Would 
 that those in high places, from the Throne downwards, could 
 embrace that truth, and fully appreciate the inevitable tendency 
 and effect of every submission to the false philosophy of this age. 
 
 The Leaguers know that crowns and mitres and coronets must 
 fall ; that colonies will vanish under the successful operation of 
 then- principle. True, they do not avow this conviction in public ; 
 in private, they hesitate not to admit that a Kepublic, with no 
 national Church, no privileged orders, no colonies, no national debt, 
 must result from the operation of the free principle. But, clever 
 as they are, they fail to perceive another inevitable consequence 
 of what they call " progression " — they do not foresee their own 
 downfall in the universal crash. 
 
 May Almighty God, in mercy, save them from the curse of their 
 own craftiness, and our lawmakers of every rank, from that of their 
 wickedness, in promoting the progress of a false and disorganising 
 philosophy. May those who still retain their privileges deserve 
 them, by restoring the right of the poor. 
 
 I have, in my former letters, shown the danger and fallacy of 
 Mr. Labouchere's assumptions, comprehending as they do, the 
 received assumptions of the age. Duty requires that I should 
 explain to you the only princi2)le on whicli, as I believe, trade can 
 be beneficially conducted. 
 
 The subject is of the most vital importance. Give me your 
 serious attention. 
 
 It is absolutely necessary to the correct apprclionding of the 
 principle under discussion, that the true cause of value should be 
 ascertained and acknowledged. 
 
 That cause is demand. Demand cannot exist Avhcre there are 
 no equivalents. Hence the first requisite in trade, is the creation 
 of those equivalents. 
 
 Thus, A. is employed in producing food, first for his own con- 
 evimption, next lor an equivalent in value — clothing, which lie 
 procures from B., who has produced clothing, first for himself, next 
 for an equivalent in value — food, which he procures from A. ; and 
 thus, through all the various productions of a people, the surplus
 
 37 
 
 of each causes the demand and imparts the value to the whole. 
 Hence the necessity of always regulating the quantity and quality 
 of our productions by the standard of the requirements of the 
 people, so as to ensure equivalents for all. 
 
 To give necessary increase to the national capital, and thus provide 
 for the regular and profitable employment of an increasing popula- 
 tion, it is requisite that those equivalents should be (in all nations, 
 when they can) domestic productions. Roth equivalents being of 
 home manufacture, the national capital will he increased twofold. 
 
 These fundamental truths being admitted, it follows that trade, 
 to be " really beneficial," must, everywhere, be founded on the 
 principle of mutual dependence. One man's produce will then 
 give value to the produce of another — and thus the wdiole commu- 
 nity will be em-iched ; whereas, on the principle of individual 
 independence, or universal competition, each man's produce reduces 
 the value of another's — thus the people are impoverished. 
 
 The case I have stated represents the system of barter ; but the 
 principle applies also to a condition of trade, requiring a circulating 
 medium and distributors. That principle may not, without disorder 
 and loss, be disregarded, though A. and B. should be capitalists or 
 numerous capitalists, each employing thousands or hundreds of 
 thousands of people. Wherever the law of proportion in produc- 
 tion is broken, confusion must result — loss will be consequent. 
 
 You will bear in mind, that in this argument the inhabitants of 
 our colonies and the mother country are considered to constitute 
 one people. 
 
 When more food, clothing, and other domestic productions are 
 created than the whole people require, then, but not till then, it is 
 prudent and safe, with such surplus, to make a less advantageous 
 exchange with other nations, for such produce as they have in 
 excess, and which we require. 
 
 Care must always be taken, that our exchange with foreigners 
 shall never exceed in amount that surplus ; else we shall disarrange 
 our home exchange, and thereby cause a reduction in the value of 
 our own produce. 
 
 INIark, there is no communism in this plan — no requiring the 
 government to become the employers of the labour of the country. 
 There is nothing new in the principle. It is universally adopted 
 in the affairs of every prudent man — of every thrifty housewife. 
 It is carried into practice in every department of the State. It was 
 recognised by our ancestors in their Guilds. It is sanctioned by 
 M. Say and Dr. Adam Smith. It has never been disproved, 
 although it has, by successive governments, been gradually aban- 
 doned as the rule of trade — the only reason (!) advanced being, that 
 Mr. Ricardo, referring to the argument of Dr. Adam Smith, said, 
 "This argument appears to me to be fallacious." And Mr. 
 M'CuUoch. after attempting to refute the same argument, con- 
 fessed, "This, however, is a question that does not jjcrhajjs admit 
 of any very satisfacton/ solution." A strange assertion from the 
 lips of an apostle of free-trade, bearing on the fundamental prin- 
 ciple on which the science he affects to teach, rests.
 
 38 
 
 Has any other man proved the fallacy of this prmciple admitted 
 by Say and Smith? If so, let him be named. Has Mr. Cobden? 
 No, surely ! He has never condescended to argue the principle — he 
 asserted that "Adam Smith had clearly demonstrated the truth of 
 free-trade." But he failed to tell his dupes ivhere. Has Sir 
 Robert Peel confuted Say and Smith? No! he avows that he is 
 the mere follower of Mr. Cobden. 
 
 Fellow-countrpnen, the principle asserted by M. Say and Dr. 
 Adam Smith still stands uncontroverted, though all our productive 
 industry has been subjected to the decaying and withering influence 
 of the opposing principle ; and strange indeed it is, Dr. Adam Smith 
 is the authority relied upon for the change. Was there ever before 
 such infatuation, such delusion, such fraud? 
 
 Wonder no longer at the agonising crisis through which you are 
 passing — the horrid gulph into which you are sinking. Resolve, 
 however, that you will be deluded no more. Listen not again to 
 "charmers" who would set you on another round of agitation — but 
 try the princijile they have been striving to establish, and seriously 
 study the question for yourselves, so that when you are convinced 
 of the ruinous tendency of cheapening everything — of "buying at 
 the cheapest market and selling in the dearest" — when you are sure 
 that universal competition is universal ruin — you may be prepared 
 to adopt the principle of your ancestors, ratified by the approval of 
 M. Say and Dr. Adam Smith. 
 
 Believing, as I do, that after calm, patient, and close examina- 
 tion of the princii^le and operation of free-trade, you will come to 
 the conclusion, that it is the destroyer of the value of labour, and 
 consequently of the manufacturing and mercantile profits of the 
 nations that adopt it — not doubting that you will eventually be con- 
 vinced, that the principle adopted by our ancestors, and approved 
 by M. Say and Dr. Adam Smith, is true, and that it aftbrds the 
 only means of giving profitable and regular employment to the 
 people, and of increasing the capital of the country, so as to afford 
 employment for our increasing numbers, I would urge you, when 
 you are thus satisfied as to the principle, to turn your attention to 
 the best mode of removing that which is false and establishing that 
 which is true, still remembering, that all sudden changes arc pro- 
 ductive of confusion and loss. 
 
 Study the ancient system of Guilds. Be not afraid of the taunts 
 of our pedantic, ignorant, self-styled philosophers. Be sure our 
 grey-headed ancestors were wiser than they. Try to accommodate 
 the principle of Guilds to our modern improvements and alterations. 
 
 Tliink, also, of the utility of a Secretary of State for agriculture, 
 manufacture, and commerce. I know no reason why the sources 
 of all our wealth should have no special advocate in the Queen's 
 Cabinet and in the I'arliamcnt. 
 
 Let me entreat you, my fellow-countrymen, to turn your solemn 
 and fixed attention to these most important subjects; in these you 
 all have an interest, while party agitations are only for the profit 
 of a few.
 
 39 
 
 I grant tliat the questions of representation, currency, taxation, 
 and emigration are each and all of tlicm very ini])ortant ; but 
 believing as I do, that the industrial wealth of this country can 
 never be fairly and fully developed, until it is regulated (or, if you 
 will have the word — protected) on the principle laid down by M. 
 Say and Dr. Adam Smith, I cannot conceive that any of those 
 questions partake of the vital and immediate importance of this 
 one, between the principle of mutual dependence and individual 
 independence — in other and more popular words — protection and 
 free-trade. 
 
 We are apt to talk of over-production — only because we do not 
 apprehend the immense influence of the just principle of demand 
 and supply. We say, we have an over-production of manufactiu-ed 
 goods ; when our people are in rags ! Immense as our productive 
 energies are, avc have not yet ascertained whether they are equal to 
 our national wants. Nor can we, until we submit them to the only 
 true principle of regulation. 
 
 Do you, after all, object " this plan would destroy the freedom 
 of action." I grant that it would interfere to prevent any one 
 getting rich by a system that makes the nation poor. 
 
 If you think such interference injm'ious, you should procure the 
 repeal of all laws against fraud and theft. 
 
 The just principle of regulation, or protection, would restrain 
 every man from doing wrong — there the restraint would end. 
 
 Do you fancy that this regulation is unnecessary, because " it is 
 certain that every man's interest will induce him to adopt the most 
 profitable mode of production r"' Sad and universal experience 
 proves the contrary. What social, individual miseries are conse- 
 quent on men, with and without capital, comiJeting to their own 
 ruin, and the wretchedness of thousands, each hoping to recover 
 his losses, when he has driven his competitor out of the market. 
 
 ^\^^ere, then, is the unreasonableness of subjecting all our in- 
 dustrial interests to the regulating and controlling influence of 
 committees chosen by ourselves ? I confess I see none. The 
 interest of all would be thereby secured, the just prerogative of 
 each maintained. Fellow-countr}^nen, I leave this great question 
 in your hands, beseeching you to be no longer deluded with the 
 idea that any one, in ancient or modern times, has satisfactorily 
 established the utility of universal competition — the honesty of 
 buying m the cheapest market and selling at the dearest, or, the 
 wisdom of submittmg the industry of nations to the crucible of 
 free-trade. 
 
 Bring the united force of your collective intellect to bear on this 
 subject, banish prejudice, let reason resiune her sway, and sound 
 common sense decide. 
 
 I am. 
 
 Englishmen, 
 
 One of the old school, 
 
 RiciiAKD Oastler. 
 FuUiam, Middlesex, July 28th, 1848.
 
 40 
 
 P.S. — I would respectfully recommend those who wish to see the 
 fallacies of the free-traders brought to the test of truth and con- 
 futed, to read and study, "Principles of political economy; or, the 
 laws of the national commonwealth : developed by means of the 
 Christian law of government. By William Atkinson." Whittaker 
 and Co., 1848. R. O. 
 
 OUANT AS'U fO., PniSTEIl.«, rOIU'0:{ATIOS tjTnKKT, MANCIlKRirR.
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 1 
 Los Angeles 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 JUL i? 1352; 
 
 URi. AUb 1, 
 
 
 OCTl 6|95ff 
 WOV 11952 
 W0V5 iaS3 
 
 
 
 m^ -^' - 
 
 
 
 ^- ' S T9if 
 
 
 
 ^^^^5?9S@ 
 
 
 
 SEciSuRI 
 
 
 1 
 
 NOVl 51972 
 
 
 
 ID 
 
 URL 
 
 
 
 Form L9-427n-8,'49(B5573)444
 
 3 1158 01232 9263 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 AA 001 013 762 8