Truly, my Friend, you cannot congratulate Free Trade on the decrease of pauperism, crime, and intemperance it has produced. FOOTNOTES: [45] “In fifty years, Great Britain has lifted her estimate on this point so rapidly that she spends five times as much for a given number of paupers? than she did fifteen years after the opening of the century.” (‘Practical Political Economy,’ by Profr. Bonamy Price, p. 237.) [46] _Comparative Cost of Relief to Paupers._ England £10 0 France 2 2 Belgium and Holland 1 3 (Mulhall’s Statistics, p. 346.) [47] _Expenditure in London Charities._ 1859. 1881. Orphanages £409,000 £458,000 Homes for aged 88,000 770,000 Asylums 25,000 156,000 Hospitals, &c. 301,000 596,000 ------- -------- Total 823,000 1,980,000 [48] The financial condition of many of the Trades Unions is causing serious alarm. The drain has been so heavy on them, that their capital is greatly reduced, and unless some change takes place, they will become bankrupt. The increase of pauperism will then be enormous. [49] _Fortnightly Review_, January, 1871. [50] _The Mail_, December 19th, 1883. CHAPTER XIV. JUGERNATH AFLOAT. I see, my Friend, that you are bringing out your trump card. “Behold!” you argue “the unfortunate condition to which America has been reduced by her protectionist policy; she has scarcely a ship afloat, whilst Free Trade England is carrying the commerce of the world.” First, I would ask, are you _quite_ sure that all this is caused by Free Trade? Don’t you think that it is just within the bounds of possibility that our shrewd American cousins may possibly find a quicker and more remunerative investment for their capital, in encouraging their home-productive industries, and in employing their home-labour productively, than in a keen competition with the English for a barren trade that is not worth having? Are you ignorant of the fact that the shipping trade has been a losing concern for some considerable period? Are you unaware of the fact that wheat has been frequently carried as ballast, and has paid no freight; that other articles have been carried at almost nominal rates? In the _Civil and Military Gazette_ of 7th December, 1883, under the Telegraphic Summary, I read-- “It is predicted that, unless freight rates to India speedily improve, a considerable number of steamers now engaged in the trade will be laid up.” I also read in the _Madras Mail_, January 9th, 1884, that an organ of the shipping interests in London has drawn up the probable “results of the gross working of thirteen steamers of a well-known Steam Navigation Company, the result of which is a total loss of £34,000 in one year’s trading.” Are the Americans to be pitied, because they have no share in this losing concern?