JOHN BULL AND JONATHAN: IS OR is FREE TRADE PROTECTION. AN ADDRESS TO WORKING MEN H. J. PETTIFER, SECRETARY OP THE NATIONAL PAIR-TRADE LEAGUE’S LABOUR COMMITTEE, AND OF THE workman’s ASSOCIATION FOR THE DEFENCE OF BRITISH INDUSTRY. PUBLISHED BY TJI£ NATIONAL FAIR-TRADE LEAGUE, 23, COCKSPUR STREET, LONDON, S.W. Price One Penny j or 4I- fer 100, free by fost or rail. PREFACE. Since this Lecture was delivered I have received a copy of an Address, delivered at Hazle Grove, in the Altrincham Division of Cheshire, by Mr. I. S. Leadam’, which claims to be in repl/ to me. I find, however, very little else in Mr. Leadam's remarks ‘ than the arguments advanced by Sir Lyon Playfair, in his spiech at Leeds last year, to which I have already replied formally in a pamphlet, published by the National Fair-Trade League, copies of which can be obtained at the League’s Head Office, 23, Cockspur Street, London, or through any of its Branches.'^" H. J. PETTIFER. 184, Waterloo Road; London, May, 1889. S.E. "" “ The Effect of Protectio 7 i on Wa^es : A Eeply to Sir Lyon Playfair A By H, J, Pettifer, Price One Penny; or per 100, free by post or 7 'ail, JOHN BULL AND JONATHAN: OR FREE TRADE v. PROTECTION. Under the auspices of the National Fair-Trade League an address on ‘‘ English Free Trade v, American Protection/’ was delivered bj Mr. H. J. Pettifer, Secretary of the League’s Labour Committee and the Workman’s Association for the Defence of British Industry, in the National School, Cheadle, Cheshire, on Wednesday night, March 27th, 1889. Mr. Pettifer, who had a very good reception, having stated that the association of which he is secretary is composed entirely of working men of all shades of political opinion, proceeded to say — I want you to-night to consider whether the way taxes are levied in this country is the best way for the working classes. The Chairman has reminded you of the taxes on imports. They are raised on articles which we cannot produce ourselves — articles which, if they were allowed to come into the country without a penny duty, would not reduce any man’s profits or bring down any man’s wages. Tea, cofEee, tobacco, currants, raisins, are articles of that description, and we levy about <£20,000,000 every twelve months on them, but silk, satin, velvets, kid gloves, and articles of that kind, which we could produce for ourselves, we allow to come in without a penny duty in any shape or form, and that is what we call Free Trade. The Chairman told you something about cheapness. I believe one of the great causes of the trouble in this country is that CHEAPNESS HAS RUN MAD. We all agree that something is the matter with trade. Some tell us ‘ there is something the matter with the land, some say it is the drink, some say it is the Church, some say it is the royalties ; everybody has got a cause and a remedy. We who call ourselves Fair-Traders do not say for a moment that our present fiscal policy is the cause of all the 4 trouble, nor do we put Fair-Trade before you as a sort of cure-all, but we simply say that the adoption of our policy would make things much better than they are to-day. The policy of this country has been to make everything as cheap as possible, and there is something remarkably curious about this cheapness. Every man is always ready to buy an article any other fellow makes as cheap as ever he can get it, but he always wants an article he makes himself to be as high in price as he can possibly get it. It is cheapness for the other fellow and dearness for yourself ; and among the finest examples of that are the TRADES UNIONS of this country. Now, I am going to take some share of the blame ior them, if there is any blame in the case, because I am a trades unionist ; but what does Trades XJnionism mean ? It means that instead of having cheapness for our own labour we combine to get the highest price we possibly can for it, and that is tlie strongest form of protection you can have. We combine to compel every man who works in our particular trade to demand a certain rate of wages for a certain number of hours’ work, and if any other man came into the «hop and was willing to work longer hours for a lower rate of wages, we should do all we possibly could to get that man to demand the higher rate, or go in for shorter hours, and if he would not do it we should even go so far as to strike against him, and every Trades Union in the country would uphold us for doing so. Mind you, that is if it is our own countrymen we are dealing with ; but if it is the foreigner who is working the longer hours for the lower rate of wages, we say. Oh, let him send his articles into this country as much as ever he likes, for that is Free Trade, and we don’t intend to have any protection here.” If we protect ourselves against low wages and long hours in our own country, why should we not protect ourselves against the very same things on the continent ? (Hear, hear.) The Trades Unionists themselves seem to be beginning to draw the line about this cheapness. It seems that even for them it is possible for some things to be a little bit too cheap, and they are now carrying on an agitation in London and other great cities to stop the very cheapest thing of the lot, — PAUPER IMMIGRATION into this country. They are beginning to draw the line at the N 5 German, the Italian, and the Polish Jew ; but I cannot see why they should begin to kick up a bother about these people when they come into this country, and yet say nothing while they stop in their own countries and make an article and send it here. (Hear, hear.) The result, so far as we are concerned, is exactly the same. If a Polish Jew comes into the east end of London, and into one of the sweating dens, and makes boots or shoes or hats cheaper than English workmen can turn them out, we agitate against him, and try to get an Act of Parliament to alter it, but if he stops in Poland or Germany to make them, and sends them here and cuts down our wages, we call it Free Trade, and don’t trouble our heads about it. There is another instance in which -Tmdes Unionists are beginning to strike against cheapness. There is a great agitation taking place at Enfield and other places about something we have been buying remarkably cheap in this country for a long while, GERMAN SWORDS AND BAYONETS. Trades Unionists say they draw the line at German swords and bayonets. This is one of the most splendid specimens of cheapness or political economy you ever had — it is buying in the cheapest market. Just look at these swords and bayonets from simply a money point of view. This Government, and the last Government, and all the Governments for a long while back, following the custom of the country to buy in the cheapest markets, have been buying them from Germany. We have been lately putting the English soldier, after he is drilled and equipped, leaving his life out of the question — and I am one of those bigoted people who think that the life of an English soldier is priceless — (applause) — and after he has cost this country at the least ^£100 in hard cash, in front of an enemy, and letting him depend upon a German bayonet that would not poke a hole through a pound of butter, because you can get it for Is. 3d. cheaper than you can get a good article made for in your own country. (Hear, hear.) But you go a little bit further. You send out one of those magnificent ironclads, which cost in some cases about a million of money, and the men who have to defend it and keep it from being taken by the enemy have to depend upon a German hoop-iron cutlass, which is 2s. 9d. cheaper than you can get a good article for here. That is a specimen of cheapness and dearness. (Shame.) But there is another thing. There has been a 6 lot of talk in the House of Parliament within the last few weeks hj Mr. Howell, Mr. Cremer, and other labour members as to whether it is a fact that mats and other articles are being made bj PRISON LABOUR and sent into the market cheaper than they can be turned out by other labour outside, and as Mr. Cremer said, the other night, it is not a question of how many are turned out, but the price they are turned out at. (Hear, hear.) He said it was forcing down the price of mat making all over the country ; that it was a terrible piece of injustice, and that they ought to put a stop to it. But when the mats came from Germany, or Belgium, or Italy, and are sold at exactly the same price, he and his friends say let them come, and as many as they like, for that is a different thing — it is Free Trade. (Laughter.) That is a fair specimen of our way of doing business. We look altogether at the consumer, and don’t trouble much about the p];oducer. In the old times of protection they went right to the other extreme. They passed all sorts of laws to protect the producer, but never troubled their heads for a single minute about the consumer. We Pair- Traders say it is possible to strike the line between two — ^to look after the interests of the consumer and not neglect the interests of the producer. (Hear, hear.) I want to compare ourselves with the country where they look at this question from another point of view — the United States of America ; because that is the HOTTEST PROTECTIONIST COUNTRY in the world, and we in England come closest to Free Trade. More- over, they have the same wants and requirements, habits, and modes of life as ourselves. But before I leave Germany I should like to say that the Germans, even under their system of Protection, are getting far better off than they were under Free Trade. They were almost Free Traders until 1879, and since then they have been strong Pro- tectionists, and I find from their returns that between 1879 and 1884 the number of their people employed has increased by 32 per cent., the total wages have increased by 52 per cent., and the wages per head of the population have increased 14 per cent. I don’t contend for a single minute that every country under Protection or Fair-Trade is bound to flourish. I simply say this, that when you protect the trade of a country you give it the opportunity of flourishing if it is 7 able to do it. I don’t pretend for a moment that a country like . Eussia is going all at once to jump into a flourishing state even with the assistance of Protection. I will tell you what I mean. Suppose a farmer has a big farm and a lot of cattle. He makes up his mind he will grow a field of wheat, but before he does that what has he got to do ? He must protect the field with a fence. But if he protects it ever so much it is not -a certainty he is going to have a good crop. The fence does not ensure the crop; it only gives him an opportunity of getting one if he is able. That is just as far as we Fair-Traders go. The great reason why I want to compare America with us is because America has TRIED BOTH SYSTEMS. I am often told the reason she is so prosperous is because she has got such vast natural resources, such a vast amount of coal and iron and uncultivated land; but she had all those vast natural resources 50 years ago, when she was a Free Trade country. A great many people have an idea that we have a sort of patent right in this Free Trade system. America had it before we thought of it. America was a strong Protectionist country till 1833. Then she tried a tariff for revenue purposes, very much the same as we have got to-day, and it had almost the same results as our policy is having. In the winter of 1833 the inevitable results began to show themselves — ^the shops and factories began to close in all the manufacturing cities, and the soup kitchens began to open. In 1839, when she had had about six years of this sort of Free Trade a most extraordinary thing took place. When the President went to draw his annual salary of £5000 he found that there was no money in the treasury, and it is on record that he took Grovernment scrip and bonds to a stockbroker and sold them out till he paid himself his own wages. They kept it up till 1842 ; then they went back to Protection, and at once the shops began to open and the soup kitchens to close. In 1847 once more they went in for Free Trade, which lasted till the war between the Horth and the South. Now, you may ask how it was that, after they had seen what a bad thing Free Trade was, they went back to it. It was simply for this reason — as soon as ever the Southern States got in a Demo- cratic President they went in for Free Trade, because they were the producers of nothing but the raw material, cotton ; and Free Trade 8 was the best system for them. They now have had another good try. The solid South,” along with the Democratic party of the North, tried once more to get in a Democratic President, but they failed,, simply because the people had an idea that President Cleveland, if re-elected, meant to go in for Free Trade. He was the most popular President they had had since President Lincoln, and if he had only been clever enough to keep his mouth shut he would have been President to-day, but he issued that wonderful message which, when it came over to this country, the Times and other newspapers got hold of, and said, ‘‘What we have been agitating for so long is about to take place. America is going to be a Free Trade country,” and they held such a jollification about it that they did what they did not intend to do — they FRIGHTENED THE WORKING MEN of the United States. These working men said, “ If it is going to be such -a good thing for England it certainly will be a bad thing for us ” ; and it was nothing else but that President’s message which put President Harrison in President Cleveland’s place. (Hear, hear.)- Some of you will want to know how it is that I undertake to know so much about America. I wdll tell you. I have been four times to the United States, and on one occasion worked there at my trade for over three years. I was sent out the year before last by my association to gather information in America, and last year I went there again at the invitation of a number of working men, to explain to them the condition of English working men under Free Trade. During that visit I had the opportunity of visiting over thirty towns in America, and in every one I had the privi- lege of going over many of the large mills and factories, of inspecting the time sheets, and looking through the wage books^. and the conclusion came to was this, that the working classes of America are better housed, better fed, and better clothed than the working classes of any other country on the face of the earth, and.that it was Protection pure and simple that did it. I should like to give a* few authentic figures to show you the rate of WAGES THEY GET. The wages which come closest to English wages are in the cotton trade. The cotton trade in America does not produce very much 9 higher wages than here. Taking all those employed — men, women, and young people — in England, the average is about 19s. 7d. a week, and the average in America is only 28s. Id., so that they only have 8s. 6d. the best of it. The woollen trade goes a step higher. In England the wages average about 26s. 7d. a week, in America it is 43s. 3d. ; so that the Americans have 16s. 8d. the best of it. But taking one trade with another all through, the average paid in England is £35 6s. for twelve months, against £73 in America, or above double. But, then, the actual figures of wages are no test at all ; what you want is to know what you are going to buy with the wages, because if a man gets double wages and takes it all to keep himself alive it is no use having them. I will tell you exactly how they stand. I will give you what it costs a man to live, not in New York, but all through the country at large. A sovereign or a dollar is bound to buy a little bit more food there than here, because if food is not cheaper there than here how can they afford to send it here and sell it cheaper than we can? (Hear, hear.) A sovereign will buy more flour, more meat, more butter, more coffee, tea, and lamp oil there than here. It will buy as much cotton sheeting, shirting, as much print, calico, and boots, as here. There is a wonderful thing about those boots. The pair I have on at present cost three dollars — 12s. 6d. — in Boston, America, not in a little shop, but in an ordinary good shop. The average wages in my trade — silversmith and electro-plate worker — in America is three dollars a day — 12s. 6d. — and in London 6s., so that it takes one day’s wages to buy my boots in America, and two days’ wages in London. Which country is cheapest, and which is dearest in that particular case ? There are some things a sovereign will buy less of there than here : sugar, woollen goods, and hats, as well as ' house rent. There is a most COMICAL THING ABOUT HATS. They are the dearest things you can buy in America, and boots are the cheapest. I will show you the position of the working classes in one State, about which the Cobden Club has got out leaflets in this country. They are putting this terrible thing before the people of this country — they say in Massachusetts — which is a State the most of any other place like England, settled by English people, a climate very much like the English climate, the soil not so good for cultivation, and 10 the trades very similar to ours. They say in Massachusetts that out of over 800,000 working men in 1887 there were 241,000 idle for four months out of the twelve. That is a terribly bad business, but I always had an idea that what an Englishman wanted was not any more work than he could possibly help, but as much money as he could possibly get. (Laughter.) Let us look at it from that point of view. There were 241,000 people only had eight months’ work out of twelve ; for four months they had no work. There is not a single workhouse in all Massachusetts, no place where the able-bodied man can go to stop a day except the police station ; though there are almshouses in some places, but only for old people. All these 241,000 people were out of work for four months, and yet nobody died of starvation during that time ! What does that mean ? Why, simply that 241,000 people kept themselves twelve months with eight months’ wages. (Hear, hear.) As I said to some of the members of the Cobden Club last night, I should never have published that leaflet if I had been you.” That is what the working class of this country have been looking for so long. (Laughter, and hear, hear.) You simply say. Here is a country under Protection where you can keep yourself twelve months with eight months’ wages. It knocks the socialist and eight hours’ move- ment into a cocked hat. (Laughter.) I said, ‘‘Why, you will just do the very opposite of what you intended to do.” (Hear, hear.) I think the Cobden Club should not have said that under Protection a man can live twelve months on eight months’ wages. If they wanted to frighten us they should have said that under Protection a man works twelve months and only lives eight on the money. (Laughter.) Let us see how they stand under the two systems in Massachusetts, and I take the figures from the report of the Labour Bureau. I find that the wages of mechanics were 25 per cent, higher in 1885 under Protection than in 1860 under Free Trade, while the purchasing power of the money was 26 per cent, greater. According to my figuring it puts them 51 per cent, better off under the present system than under the one they used to have. The wages in that State are 62 per cent, higher on an average than they are in England, and the cost of living 17 i per cent, higher, which puts them 45 per cent, better off than working men in England. Now the Cobden Club, who are our strongest opponents, tells the English working man that he has got very little to grumble about, because he has got such a lot of money 11 in the Post Office Savings Bank. I have often made inquiries at meetings, and never happened to drop on the working man who has got any great amount of money there. Anyhow, there is money there, but we will see if it is very much to brag about. The total amount in Post Office Savings Banks and in trustee savings banks in Great Britain does not come to <£3 per head of the population, but in the State of Massachusetts the sum is £28 4s. per head for every man, woman, and child. Now then, if Free Trade makes a man have £3, and Protection almost ten times as much, I think that argument is altogether on our side. (Hear, hear.) I want to show what it is that does it. We all know the working man in America is in a better position than the working man in this country, because if it is not so why do not some of them emigrate to this country to look for a living ? A great American statesman said the other day, ‘‘ If Free Trade leads to prosperity, and Protection leads to adversity, how* comes it that, since 1860, over three millions of British subjects have come to the United States to look for a living, while, at the same time, an American emigrant seeking work in England would be a curiosity worthy of the British Museum. There are no tracks in that direction.” Now there is . THE CITY OF HOLYOAK. It is in a very flourishing condition, and depends almost entirely upon the manufacture of paper. The people are all paid good wages, live in good houses, and the manufacturers make good profits. A little while back the duty on paper going into America was 35 per cent., and the Democratic party leaning towards Free Trade knocked off 20 per cent., thinking 35 per cent, was too much. That put the people of Holyoak in just this position. The Germans could make paper in Germany, pay the carriage to America and the 15 per cent, duty, and just undersell the people of Holyoak by one cent, (a half-: penny) a pound — which, of course, makes a considerable difference when a ton is bought. Suppose it happens in England — and it is taking place in England — that the foreigner can just bring goods into this country and sell them a little cheaper than we can produce them, what do we do with all our trades unions? we come down a little bit in our wages, and, as the Cobden Club calls it. 12 BEAT THE FOREIGNER ON HIS MERITS. (Laughter.) But the American does not do that. He does not want to beat the foreigner on his merits in that way, so he agitates and combines, and sends a deputation to Congress, and gets a 20 per cent, duty put on the foreigner, and so he keeps up his profits and keeps up his wages. That is how he “ licks ’’ the foreigner on his merits. And so you have the two ways explained. Which do you think the best way — the English way of levelling down, and you never know when you will come to a stop ; or the American way of levelling up ? I think the levelling up has the best of it. (Applause.) Look at another trade. When I was in America I went to the MACCLESFIELD OF AMERICA — Paterson. The people there seem to be in a better position than in any other place I came across, and they almost all of them work at the manufacture of silk. No doubt some of you are aware that John Eyle took the silk trade there from Macclesfield. I want to know what is the difference between the two places. The climate of Paterson is not a bit better, perhaps not so good for the manufacture of silk as that of Macclesfield, the machinery is about the same, almost all the foremen in Paterson are Macclesfield people, the talk is the same you hear in Macclesfield, in fact, it is almost like being in Macclesfield. In Paterson, however they are flourishing ; you know how they are in Macclesfield. The only difference between the two places is this, that the Protectionist American levels up, and does not let the people on the continent send in the silk cheaper than he can turn it out himself, while the people of Macclesfield are compelled to compete with the surplus production of all Europe. (Hear, hear.) Now, Americans would not believe me in many cases if I told them some of these things, and I could not blame them, because it does not look reasonable. They used to say to me, “ You never can make us believe that the working men have got a vote in England. If they have a vote they cannot have Free Trade, or if they have Free Trade they cannot have a vote.” I had to give it up — that was the dilemma they put me in. They also used to say, ‘‘You put yourselves into such a comical position in your country, for here we fix the price of the article, but 13 THE FOEEIGNER FIXES THE PRICE for you. (Applause.) We Americans reckon up wkat our manu- facturers can get a fair profit on, and what the working men can get fair wages on, and we say no foreigner in the world shall send any article lower than that. But you in England do not fix it. You have to hunt all over the world and find whether this man can grow this thing cheaper, and whether the other man can manufacture the other thing cheaper, and you have got to bring down your prices to the foreigner’s, and he fixes it.” (Applause.) What could I say? — for that is the actual fact. (Hear, hear.) In this country we have all got a little too much selfishness. I suppose it is nothing but right for every man to look after himself, but I am afraid we carry it too far. As I have already said some of us have got far enough into Protection to be willing to protect ourselves, but we cannot take the further step of pro- tecting other people. (Hear, hear.) If I am a manufacturer of boots it is very easy to convince me that to import foreign boots into this country is a piece of injustice, but it is hard to convince me that to import hats is unjust also. That is the point. In America they work one thing with another. There is one industry they have not got into the country at all — the manufacture of tin plates. We have the monopoly in that. You would think in a minute that as there are no tin-plate manufacturers in America they would not trouble about it, as there is no competition with them. But the greatest agitators for putting an extra protective duty on tin plates going into America are the agriculturists, and they agitate because they want them manu- factured in their country. They look at it from this point of view : They say, We are quite willing to pay a little bit more for our tin cans and other articles if we can only get them manufactured in our own country, because we want the people who make them to work in this country, and spend their wages here instead of spending them in a foreign country. But then every Free Trader will tell you about the consumer having to pay a higher price if there is a tax or tariff put on the article. The duty a short time back on iron and steel was 17 dollars a ton, and at that time it was seven dollars a ton higher in America than here, so that the Yankee pays seven dollars and the Englishman the other ten. But the Yankee gets the whole of the 17 dollars towards paying the rates and taxes of his country, so that he 14 gets the best of it. (Hear, hear.) But suppose jou pay all the lot of it, and that is what the free trade or tariff reform party in America always take for their text. They say, “ If you put on a tax’ you pay it yourselves. THE TARIFF IS A TAX.” I had a splendid illustration of what they mean. When in America I dropped across a man with whom I was apprenticed and worked with for many years in England. The first thing he said was. Have you come here about the election ?” I said, ''I have come to look round a bit.” He said, ‘‘Now, don’t you forget, the tariff is a tax.” (Laughter.) I replied, “There is one question I should like to ask you, Jim ; what was it drove you out of England ? Was it not foreign competition ?” He said, “ We don’t want Free Trade in electro- plate goods in this coimtry.” (Laughter.) That is just it. It is other trades ; we none of us want Free Trade in our o^ trades. I went to his house, and the first word I said was, “ Why, this is a good lot better house than your foreman had in Brummagem.” He said it was, and he was getting a bit higher wages than his foreman used to do ; ^ then he whispered, “ Don’t tell them when you get back what wages we get. We don’t want swarms of them over.” (Laughter.) They are very much like the lad who gets uj) at the back of the cart — he’s not so eager to help up another lad who is running up behind. This friend of mine said, “ You don’t understand this question. You have no idea how we are affected by these tariffs. We are taxed from the crown of our head to the sole of our feet. From our hats to our boots it is one long tax.” Well, I could not deny it. Then he looked round and said, “ That piano is taxed, and that sewing machine, and that carpet. We never had to pay a tax on them in the old country.” His wife said, “ Noa, Jim, because we hadn’t them in the old country.” (Laughter.) He said, “ Well now, that woman always puts her voice in when it ain’t wanted.” (Eenewed laughter.) That is just the milk that is in the cocoa-nut. He was getting exactly double wages, he had paid the tax on the piano, the sewing machine, and carpet, but in the old country he only got half the wages, and he paid no taxes, and he never had the piano, sewing machine, and carpet. (Hear, hear.) That is just the difference ]5 between the. tariff being a tax and not. There are one or two questions I should like to ask you when you hear a Free Trader tell you what a wonderful thing it is to have everything coming in so cheap. I want you to ask yourselves how you can possibly help the carpenter by bringing in FOREIGN WOODWORK cheaper than he can turn it out in this country ; or the shoemaker by foreign shoes, or the hatter by foreign hats, and you will find that individually you are injuring every particular trade. Yet the Cobden Club people ask you to believe you are benefited. It is not possible. If you cannot make up your minds about it, ask your wives when you get home whether it is best for you to make such and such an article .in this country and get a Irving, and keep her and the children, or whether it is best for us to buy the article of the foreigner, and get you thrown out of work. If you say the last is the best, your wife will say you have got a drop too much drink if you are not a strict teetotaler, and if you are a teetotaler she will say you are mad. (Laughter.) In reply to a vote of thanks, the Lecturer supplemented his remarks by a reference to FLOUR GRINDING IN AMERICA. He said : Millions of dollars of capital are invested, and thousands of people are kept at work in this industry, and a great deal of the flour is sent here. I am not one of those who think that sending it here is such an extraordinary good thing for the people of this country. Suppose for the sake of argument — and I don’t believe it — that it comes cheaper than we can grind it for ourselves. The flour itself may come at a lower price ; but we must take into consideration the thousands who would be employed if it was ground here. I believe Ireland is the portion of this kingdom of all others that is injured by this foreign flour. I was there last year to look for myself, and I believe the Irishman has a great deal to grumble about. He often grumbles, there is no mistake about that — (laughter) — but some people have an idea he ought to be very happy and contented. But in some parts of Ireland it is scarcely possible for him to be so, especially in Connemara and other portions of Galway, where the soil cannot be cultivated with any great amount of profit. What are they to do when their children grow up? will the farm keep them all? 16 There are no factories, or collieries, or ironworks, or anything for a young fellow to do but hang about, READY TO LISTEN TO THE FIRST AGITATOR who comes along. Once they had a wonderfully good industry, and that was flour grinding. They had water mills by the hundred from one end of the country to the other, but this foreign flour smashed up almost every one of them. I think it would be a little bit cheaper to have our flour ground in Ireland, even if it did in money value cost a little bit more, because I hold that anything is cheap which will help to make a countiy contented and happy. What we ought to do is to foster Irish industries, and so make Ireland prosperous, and she would soon make herself contented. But it is the consumer our system looks at. ^Last week Lord G-eorge Hamilton was asked in the House of Commons about THE PORK FOR THE NAVY. He said they bought the whole of the pork from Denmark, and when he was asked why not from Ireland, he did not say Ireland could not produce it, or that it was not as good in quality, but that they could get it 9^ per cent, cheaper from Denmark. I contend that it would have been more patriotic to have said, ‘‘ Though we can get it so cheap, we will have it from Ireland, and encourage our own people.” (Applause.) It amounts to this, suppose there are c£100,000 worth of pork required. Take <£1000 worth. Mne and a half per cent, off that would mean that you could get it for £95 less from Denmark than from Ireland. That is £95 gained. But the Irish pig breeder and pork curer and packer have lost the whole £1000, so which is the loss and which is the gain ? (Hear, hear.) I believe that in things of this description we should encourage our own country as much as possible, for one thing is certain — if we do not look after ourselves, no one else wiU look after us. (Applause.) FAIR-TRADE. PUBLISHING OFFICE, 185, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E.C. 3388] WiTHBRBT & Co., Printers, 325a, High Holbom, W.C.