M. Louis Adolphe Thiers, afterward President of the French Republic, on the 22d of January, 1870, addressed it as follows:

"Every nation has three great affairs, which should be the object of its ardent and constant solicitude: liberty first, its greatness next, and finally its material prosperity. Liberty, which consists not merely in the right of the nation to criticise its government, but in the right of governing itself by its own hands, and conformably to its own ideas; greatness, which does not consist in subjecting its neighbors by brute force, but in exercising over them so much influence that no question shall be resolved in the world against its interests and security; prosperity, finally, which consists in drawing from its own soil, and from the genius of its inhabitants, the greatest possible amount of well-being.

"And do not think that this anxiety for the prosperity of the country has anything in common with that passion for material interests which the highest minds despise. There is no work of higher morality than to diminish the sum of the evils which weigh upon man, even in the most civilized societies. To make man less unhappy,—that is, to make him better,-it is to make him more just towards his government, to his fellow-beings, towards Providence itself.

66

'We are told that we would have a hot-house industry. What, then, are the nations which have sought to develop among themselves a national labor? They are the nations which are intelligent and free. When the foreigner brings them a product, after they have found it serviceable, they desire to imitate it. The nations which do not have this desire are the indolent nations of the East; intelligent and free nations seek to appropriate for themselves the products brought to them by foreign nations.

"It is urged that all the protections accorded to industry constitute monopolies, and that, to enrich a few monopolists, we burden the whole country. It is true there is a monopoly; but it is not in France, it is abroad. I desire to say that this little monopoly, which you accord to French industry, destroys the monopoly of foreign industry.

When the linen industry was destroyed in France by the English production by power, a kilogram of thread was worth

seven francs. We protected the linen industry in France. This protection permitted competition; and the French product compelled the English manufacturers to lower their prices to three francs fifty centimes.

"If England were the only country to produce certain objects, could you have them at the same price? Certainly not. It is competition, sustained by a just protection, which destroys foreign monopoly.

"Cotton is the grand textile of modern times. What is the importance of the industry of cotton among us? We work up 600,000 or 700,000 bales, which represent in value 300,000,000 francs. When the cotton has been spun, woven, converted into plain cloths, printed cloths, haberdashery, hosiery, its value is forty times that sum. No industry has superior or equal importance. It is exposed to a double rivalry, that of the English and of the Swiss.

"The English have over us immense advantages: great capital, raw material, an enormous commerce, machines in the greatest number, coal at the cheapest price, and finally, which is a capital point, have the cheapness which results from an immense production. Whilst we move 6,000,000 of spindles, they move 34,000,000; we work up 600,000 bales of cotton, they work up 3,000,000.

"A kilogram of cotton yarn was worth twenty-seven francs in our war days; after peace it was as high as fourteen francs. We created a competition with England and it fell to three francs. Every time you protect a national product you cause the price of the domestic product to fall, and you prevent monopoly."

Turkey, ill-governed and ignorant, did not adopt a protective policy. Formerly she produced wool, silk, corn, and cotton, in large quantities; coal, iron and copper abound. Two hundred years ago her trade with Europe was large, and her merchants rich. But, in an evil hour, the government made a treaty with England and France, agreeing to charge no more than three per cent. duty on their imports, and to exempt their vessels from port charges. Great Britain forbade the exporta

tion of her machinery to Turkey, as well as of her mechanics, who might have gone there to make it.

Of course, Turkish manufactures were ruined.

In Scutari, there were six hundred looms in 1812; but forty remained in 1821; and of two thousand weaving shops in Tournova in 1812, but two hundred were left in 1830. As in most purely agricultural countries, the cultivators are in debt. Twenty years ago the total exports of Turkey were but $33,000,000, while those of England to that country were but $11,000,000 yearly. Egypt, under the relentless grasp of British policy, is compelled to free trade, and is poor as well as powerless.

This summary of the protective policy of leading nations on the European continent refutes all contrary assertions.

CHAPTER V.

BRITISH FREE TRADE A DELUSION.

Forty years ago England adopted what she calls free trade, but what is really an inconsistent and deceptive approach toward a theory which no civilized nation ever carried out in practice. For centuries she was rigidly protective, and then modified her course; acting in both cases for what was held as her own best interest.

Brief paragraphs from an excellent address by H. H. Adams, of Cleveland, (Report of the Tariff Convention at Chicago, November, 1881,) will give glimpses of the rigidity of English protection and prohibition in past days:

“We find as far back in her history as 870 she enacted laws regulating the importation of goods manufactured on the continent by the Germans, and 'dues' were paid on goods. Even then they were not to forestall the market to the prejudice of the citizens.'

"In or about 1431, the laws prohibiting the importation of goods, except in English ships, were enacted. In 1504 an act of Parliament was made to regulate or restrict the importations of foreignmade silk (19 Henry, VII., c 21), prohibiting ‘all persons for the future from bringing into the realm to be sold any manner of silk wrought by itself, or with any other stuff in any place out of this realm.'

"In 1567 a law was enacted that for the exportation of sheep the offender should forfeit all his effects, suffer imprisonment for a year, and then have his left hand cut off in a market town, and on a market day, to be there nailed up; and for the second offense should suffer death,'

24

"Some of the enactments of parliament for the years 1559 to 1603 were as follows:

The exportation of wool prohibited.

The coasting trade restricted to English vessels.

The importation of minerals, finished leather, etc., prohibited. The immigration of skilled labor-smiths, miners, etc.—was encouraged, and duties laid on imported cloths

“In 1700 the importation of calicos, chintzes and muslins prohibited

"In 1720, any person found wearing a printed calico dress was fined five pounds, and the seller fined twenty pounds. The exportation of machinery for working flax was not repealed until England opened her ports to free trade in 1842.

“In 1646, after noting in preamble the benefits arising from cus toms, received on imports, from the plantations in Virginia and other places in America, Parliament inaugurated restrictive measures on goods exported from her colonies. 'None, in any of the ports of the said plantations, do suffer any ship or vessel to load any goods, of the growth of the plantations, and carry them to foreign ports, except in English bottoms.'

"We have to thank our good mother for her jealous care over us displayed by the act of Parliament (in 1731) prohibiting, under forfeiture of ship and cargo, carrying into any part of her American colonies, sugar, rum or molasses grown in the plantations of any foreign power."

In Oliver Cromwell's day that great man saw Holland gaining a large share of the ocean carrying trade of the world, her ships on every sea and her war vessels numerous and powerful. He felt that England must win this supremacy in peace and in war, and that a great commercial marine was the nursery of a powerful war navy. Under his inspiring guidance rigid navigation laws-forbidding the importation of foreign products save in English vessels, or in those of the country from whence those products came-were passed. This and other measures to encourage ship building crippled the carrying