WCP1607

[1]

Waldron Edge, Duppas Hill, Croydon

June 21^st 1879

Professor Bonamy Price

Dear Sir

As you are so good as to offer to discuss some points in the question at issue between the free-traders and myself, and as I am very desirous of enlightenment if it is to be had, I gladly accept your offer. First let me say that I have been all my life what is commonly called a "free-trader", and never thought of doubting the soundness of the general principles laid down by political Economists. My attention has ^however recently been tn[?]¹ called to the actual state of our relations with other countries in this ^commercial matters, and I enter into the discussion as one deeply interested in all great political and social questions. ^{have been led to consider how far the general principles of free-trade are applicable under the present social and political conditions of the world. I come to this discussion as one deeply interested in all} great social and political questions, and with an earnest desire to arrive at the truth; and in (A) As the subject is a very wide one

(B) I shall [two words crossed out, illeg.] strictly to ^{in this letter} confine myself to one point at a time as the only mode of limiting a ^{only connected with it.}

(A) ^order[?] ^{to limit the} discussions ^{of so wide a subject} within reasonable bounds, (B)

The position taken by Mr. Lowe, Sir Louis Mallet, & I presume by yourself is, that it ^is both impolite and [2] unjust to put countervailing or reciprocal duties on manufactured goods, in order to neutralize the effects produced by the protective duties or bounties of other countries whatever those effects may be.

I maintain on the other hand that it is impolite and unjust not to do so; — and, to test the question, I propose to apply the method of supposing an extreme case, since if the doctrines I oppose are sound they cannot in any possible case ^{which is a possible one} produce soil[?] results; and by ^{means of} such as case we shall be best able to trace out the effects produced by foreign protective duties on the welfare ^{general well-being} of our country.

I will, then, make the possible, though extreme supposition, that what happens now with some branches of manufacture shall happen with all, — that is, that foreign countries (some or many) become able to compete with us on equal terms. These countries, however, avoid all ^foreign competition in their home markets by high protective duties, while we open our ports freely to all the world.

The first result of this is ^{will be}, that they ^{foreign manufacturers will be} become able greatly [3] to undersell us in our home market, because, all the fixed charges connected with their respective manufactures ^industries are covered by the profits on the goods sold at home, and ^therefore, any surplus they can turn out by keeping their mills &c. always at full work ^{and their capital fully employed,} can be sold much lower and still be profitable. The result will be ^{It follows} that out home manufacturers, being ^having2 shut out ^no from a similar advantage ^outlet, will gradually be supplanted by the continued surplus goods of foreign countries.

As we are now arguing an imaginary case to test a principle, we will further suppose ^{to simplify matters, that} all the markets of the world to ^{are be equally} shut to us by high protective duties (as many of them are already), so that any manufacture which cannot compete with foreign produce at home is necessarily ruined.

Under these circumstances all out most important manufactures would cease to exist. Liverpool and Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, Bradford, Leeds, and all our great centres of industry would wither away by migration and famine, till they recurred [4] to the condition of small country towns. The population of England would necessarily diminish to the numbers that could be supported by agriculture, trades ^handicrafts, shopkeeping and petty indusdries[sic], and, as the national creditor could not under these circumstances be paid (this was Cobden’s positive opinion) the country would become bankrupt.

Mr. Lowe talks ^speaks of manufacturers as if they were an ^{a small} and unimportant portion of the community with altogether separate interests, and for whose benefit it is unfair to task[?] the rest of the population. But surely their interests, as a whole, are inextricably bound up with those of the whole nation. What portion of the community would not feel ^{suffer by} the anhihilation of our manufacturers? With them would fall in one common ruin half the shopkeepers of the country; half of those engaged in the thousand trades and professions that minister to the wealth and comfort of our vast population. Our Railways would almost all become bankrupt, and property of almost every kind would be depreciated to an incalculable extent.

[5] All this is, I think, the necessary result of free imports on our side, and high protective duties on the side of other nations, universally carried out.

Can you prove that this is not the necessary result of carrying out to their extreme limits the present commercial policy of this and other countries? Or, admitting it to be the necessary result, do you maintain that ^it would be wise and just of the government to bring the Country into this state of collapse and ruin ^{consistency, for to maintain inviolate} for the sake of the principle of free-imports?

Yours faithfully | Alfred R. Wallace [signature]

___________________________________________________________________

P.S. I have touched on some parts of this question in a very short reply (all that is allowed me) to Mr. Lowe in the forthcoming "Nineteenth Century".

As Mr. Lowe has dealt ^largely in assertions which appear to me to be directly contradicted by facts (some of which I have adduced) and as you "entirely agree ^concur" with Mr. Lowe, perhaps you will, kindly, at some [6] future time, enlighten me as to the point ^value of what Mr. Lowe ^{considers his} most crushing argument, — that foreign countries who protect their goods ^manufactures cannot possibly compete with us — in face of the fact that they do compete with us, as testified ^showne by the testimony of the manufacturers they compete with, by the returnes[sic] of Imports of such protected goods, and by the fact that such foreign protected goods are to be found in almost every retail shop in this country!

All reasonable discussion seems to me impossible with a man who makes such statements as the above without the slightest regard to actual facts! Yet he is considered a great Statesman!.

I remain | Yours very Faithfully | Alfred R. Wallace [signature]

A. R. W [signature]