Page:The Economist 1843-08- Vol 1 Preliminary Number (IA sim economist 1843-08 1 preliminary-number).pdf/7

 had the constant tendency to cause a smaller quantity of sugar to exchange for a larger quantity of goods. The same quantity of sugar which exchanged, twenty years ago, for a given quantity of manufactures, iron or hardware, will now command at least three times the quantity of those articles. Thus, while the supply of these great necessaries is limited to a given quantity, the chief effect of increased production at home is to lower its exchangeable value for the article of which the quantity is fixed. If the producers of our sugar increased in the same proportion as the consumers have, the same relative value would be always maintained between the goods of this country and that article, because the demand would always increase in proportion to the supply; but the restriction affects us in two ways; first, by making sugar dear, and secondly, by making our goods cheap; inasmuch as we limit our market in other sugar growing countries in consequence of the practical prohibition to consume their produce. And thus it is, with these restrictions, that we have a constant tendency to that surplus or excess of one class of productions, which weighs down and depresses the great industrial interests of the country; that we have every day a greater tendency to that little trade, which makes trade profitless, and which brings about the exact state of things which at present exist.

There is no cure, there is no remedy, for all these evils but increased demand; there can be no increased demand without increased markets; and we cannot secure larger markets without an unrestricted power of exchange, and by this means add to our territory of land, as far as productive utility is concerned, the corn fields of Poland, Prussia, and above all, the rich and endless acres of the United States; to avail ourselves of the vast and rich productiveness of Brazil, Cuba, Java, &e.; and thus, at the same time that a plentiful and proportionate supply of all the great necessaries of life would be maintained, we should always, in exchange, have a corresponding demand for our increasing productions at home; the equilibrium of the various classes of producers would be restored and maintained. With free trade we might go on increasing our productions without limit, for in this only natural state of things increased production could only create the power and means of increased consumption. There is no other remedy. It is in vain that deputations of distressed interests pass resolutions merely affirming their distress; seek interviews with Ministers of the Crown only to repeat their resolutions, without an opinion to offer as to the cause or cure; all will be in vain until they have this important truth palpably and at all times before them, that they are increasing by millions, while the law practically prescribes only a fixes, stationary quantity of the great necessaries of life for their consumption, only the same number of customers with whom to exchange their productions, whatever may be the quantity: until this conviction compels them to demand an unrestricted exchange, until they demand as a simple act of justice and policy.

But we may be told these are all only opinions, well enough reasoned and difficult to answer, and perhaps very like the truth; but the experiment is great—we want something more than opinions. Well, then, we will endeavour to prove and illustrate every opinion we have offered to the full; and that by our own experience in four of the most important articles of the consumption of this country—Coffee and Sugar, as representing the Colonial interests; Wool and Corn, as representing the Home or Agricultural interests.

Previous to 1824 these two articles had been equally the objects of the greatest protection and care. The duty on Coffee was

West India 1s. 0d. per lb.

East India 1s. 6d. ,,

Foreign 2s. 6d. ,,

Since that period Coffee may be termed the pet article on which free trade has tried its experiments, and Sugar, on the other hand, the peculiar pet of protection.

In 1825 Mr Huskisson experimented on Coffee. He reduced the duties on

West India to 6d.

East India 9d.

Foreign 1s. 3d.

In 1835 the duty on East India was reduced to 6d., and a law was afterwards enacted that any coffee, of whatever growth, if imported from a British possession eastward of the Cape of Good Hope, or from that place, should be admitted at 9d. duty. So that practically the alteration made the duties thus:—

West India 6d.

East India 6d.

Foreign 9d.

And 1d. for extra freight.

Therefore, instead of 50 per cent. production, which West India coffee enjoyed against East India growth, and 150 per cent. against that of foreign growth; since 1835, the protection against East India has been entirely removed, and the protection against foreign reduced to 50 per cent. Here, then, is a great experiment of free trade, which, when it was begun in 1824, was denounced by the West India interest as the greatest chimera that had entered the head of a minister. Now let us see the result:—

In 1824 our total imports of coffee were lbs. 50,674,249

,, 1840 70,250,766

In 1821, of the total quantity imported, we consumed:—

Of West India, at the duty of 1s. 0d per lb 7,947,890

East India 1s. 6d. ,, 313,513 Foreign 2s. 6d. ,, 1,540

lbs. 8,262,943

In 1840, of the total quantity imported, we consumed:—

Of West India, at the duty of 6d. per lb. 14,443,399

Foreign 9d. ,,

and with the additional charge of 1d. for freight say 10d. ,, 14,143,433

Foreign direct 1s. 3d. ,, 77,504

lbs. 28,664,336