34;I] PROTECTIVE TARIFFS 73

completed the Restoration system.

Wool

duties were run

up

stillfurther.

The

duties

on

blankets, caststeel, ropes,and

many

other commodities were doubled, trebled, quadrupled.

Meanwhile, as part of the system, France had imitated the agricultural customs policy of contemporary England.

The

Restorationbegan with a small dutyon grain. During thebad harvest years 1816-17 imports

had

even been encouraged

by

abounty.

But

this encouragement had led to the first import of grain

from

the

young

Russian port of Odessa.

The

thought ofthe virgin steppes terrified the landowners of the west, just asthatofthevirgin prairiesterrifiedtheirgrandsonssixtyyears

later.

They had

the ear of government.

The

manufacturing interest could hardly dispute their claim to participate in a poUcy

which

itregardedas essentialtoits

own

^life.

By

thelaw of July 1819, heavycorn duties

came

intoforce. "Perhapsfor the firsttime,"writes aFrenchhistorian, "_tariffrestrictions

on

the grain trade ofFrancewereaimed no longeratexport,with the object of securing the subsistence of the people, but at import, with the object of checking supplies

from

abroad^."

Subsequent lawscompletedthesystem. In 1821 a slidingscale ofcorn duties

was worked

out, followed

by

taxes

on

fresh and

salt

meat and on

cattle fattened for market. Further taxation of colonial sugar

had

already saved the beet growers and beet sugar factories

from

the depression which had followed the collapse of the continental system, a depression so severe that hardlyanyoftheoriginal factories

came

through.

The government

ofLouis Philippe

from

1830 to 1848 intro- duced

no

fundamental changeintariffpolicy. Ever since 181

5

there

had

been a current ofliberal opposition; and

from

time to time attempts were

made

to moderate the excesses of pro- tection

and

prohibition,

which

had ineffectcarriedonasystem of

war economy

into times of peace. But there

was

never a true reversal ofpolicy.

The

^tariff law ^of the thirties cut

down

the duties

on raw

^{wool and iron,}

among

others; substituted dutiesforprohibitions in certain cases^; and

removed

a

number

of export prohibitions

imposed

with a view to giving French

1 Levasseur, Hist, des classes ouvriires...et de I'industriede 1789 a 1870,

i> 574-

74

PROTECTIVE TARIFFS

^[ch

manufacturers the

monopoly

ofsuchconunoditiesassilk,hides, and building timber. But^reaction set in, led

by

the manufac- turinginterest

now

very powerfulinpolitics; andthe tarifflaw of 184^{1 raised}

more

^{duties than it} lowered.

A ^scheme

^{for a}

customs union between France and Belgium,

propounded

immediately after the creation of the Belgian state in 1830, which would haverevived the situation that had existedunder the Empire, had brokenagainst the opposition not only ofthe greatpowers,

who

^feared an increaseinthe economic strength ofFrance, butalso, as might havebeen expected, against that of the French manufacturers. Belgian industry also, strong as

it was, was hardly preparedto open the market to such

com-

moditiesasFrenchsilksandotherluxury manufactures,though the Belgian metallurgical industries, and certain branches of the Belgian textile industries,

would

almost certainly have invaded the French markets, in the absence of a tariff.

The

French governmentnegotiateda

number

ofcommercialtreaties

between 1830 and 1840, but their terms illustrate rather the strength of the protectionist spirit in France than the growth ofany decidedbeliefin the benefitsoffree internationalinter- course. Ministers from time to time tookhalting steps in the direction offreedom;buttheirgeneral attitudeiswell

summed up

inGuizot'sdeclaration,

made

in 1845, that

"he was

notone of those

who

believed that inmatters ofindustryand

commerce

established interests...ought to be lightly exposed to all the vicissitudes of unlimited foreign competition."

The

"con- servative principle" ought in his opinion to be adopted

"by

everyrationalgovernment^.

'

ThisdeclarationofGuizotcoincidedwith thegreat freetrade campaign in England, a campaign which

was welcomed

and furnished with effective

ammunition by

French economic thinkers. FredericBastiat'sEconomicFallacies,perhapsthe best series of popular free trade arguments ever written, began to appear in 1844 and soon

became

the text-book for controver-

sialists ofhis schoolthroughout Europe. Richard

Cobden was

feted inParis,and in 1847 therewas held at Brussels aninter- national Congress of Economists, thefirst thing of its kind in

' QuotedinLevasseur,II,83.

Ill]

PROTECTIVE TARIFFS

₇₅

modern

Europe,atatime

when

economistandfreetraderwere interchangeable terms. Bastiat had his organisation and his journalsinFrance,

where

the bare

word

freedom evoked

mem-

oriesof thegreatdaysof1789

among

peoplesickofthebourgeois liberalism of Louis Philippe's ministers. But

when

revolution

came

^{again, and the} bourgeois king

was

smuggled out of his country

by

the British consul at Havre, the restrictivesystem remainedalmost intact.

It

must

not be supposed that it was altogether eifective at

anytime.

Smuggling was

^afineartinevery country,and France has a frontierdifficulttowatch.

Nor was

itmerelytheordinary consumer

who was

ready to pay for smuggled articles ofgood quality.

There

were whole industries

whose

interests ran counterto the national policy.

As

weaving and spinning were usually distinct trades, the weavers, or those

who

supplied them,

had no

^economic incentive touse yarn

spun

at

home

if foreignyarn suited their purpose better. In consequence fine cotton

and

worsted yarns were extensively smuggled.

One

industryin particular, themuslin manufacture^{ofTarare inthe} 'DepartmentoftheRhone,

made

constantuseofprohibitedand smuggled yarn

—

^{Swiss and English}

— ^down

^{to the middle}

thirties. "

The

customshouses," itissaid," shuttheireyesand

made no

use of their right of search i"; because muslin

must

have the best ^{materials. Finally} a duty took the place of the prohibition; and, as there was

now

a legal

way

of^getting fine

yam,

themuslin^{people of}Tarare wereobligedeither topaythe high price or content themselves withthe best imitation of the foreignyarns

which

Frenchmills could produce.

§ 17.

The

^industrial

^{workman was}

^{not the} representative^

Frenchman

ⁱⁿ 1848; he isnotto-day. In 1848 he had not as a rule

become

^{a factoryhand. In}

many

^{tradeshe hadafairchance}

of

becoming

a master. But as a rule he had the interests and point ofview^{of the}

wage

^{earner. Inthe} largest tradegroup of

all the building trades

—

^{a group}

^which

^{economic historians}

are astonishinglyapttoneglect—he

had worked

before the days of mechanical ^invention,

and

continued to

work

after them, under an ^ordinary

wage

^contract, even though he ranked ^{as a}

1 Reybaud,Lecolon (1863), p. 133.

76

THE INDUSTRIAL WAGE EARNERS

^[ch.

master

mason

or mastercarpenter.

Among

such

men

the

wage

earners' point ofview was Ukelyto prevail. It was ^{certain to} prevail

among

those of

them who

were not ranked as masters.

The

nineteenth century was witnessing a slow increase in the average manufacturing establishment properly ^{so called,}which increased the gap between

wage

payer and

wage

receiver; but

il;had sofar seen no increase inthe size of the average house.

Earlier centuriescould

show

singlebuildingenterprises ofasize

which it had notlearnt to surpass or even equal

—

^a Versailles, a Fontainebleau ^{or a} Notre

Dame

de Paris. This then is

no case ofanineteenth century revolution, butof the continu- ance of an ancient system ofrelationships involvingthe

wage

contract

on

a large scale. Unskilled labourers also, inbuilding as inallothertrades,hadinheritedthe

wage

earner'sstandpoint from earlier centuries; for at the bottom of society there had

atalltimesbeenamassofunskilled diggers,carriersandhaulers,

who

didapeim'orth of

work

forapenny,astheysaid inmedieval England.

The

Revolutionhad swept

away

theancientgilds{Corporations de Metiers) in which the bulk of the skilled

men

had been organised.

On

theaverageaneighteenthcenturyhandicraftsman serveda four or five years' apprenticeship, followed

by

^three

years asjourneyman (compagnon), before he

was

legally eligible asamastercraftsman. Napoleon,

who

wasattracted

by

thedis- ciplinary sideof gildlife,wentnearto recreatingthegilds;and

afterthe Restorationtheir revivalwas for

some

years uiiderdis- cussion. Butit never

came

about.

The

widespread survival of apprenticeship and regular compagnonnage was a matter of customnotoflaw_;justasapprenticeship survived

by

customin

Englandafter the abolition ofthe apprenticeship clauses of the Elizabethan labour code,in 1813.

Not

content with destroying gilds, the revolutionary legis- lationin ₁79¹ had declaredall associations ofeithermasters or

men

illegal.

Such

alaw alwaysacts

more

effectivelyagainst

men

than against masters. This blow at the right of combination had beenfollowed,undertheEmpire,

by

definite legalrecogni- tionofaprivileged position for theemployerin

wage

disputes.

Under

Article 1781 ofthe CivilCode,themaster's

word

wasto

Ill]

THE INDUSTRIAL WAGE EARNERS

₇₇

betakenasdecisiveincourts of law,

when

questionsaroseasto the

amount

ofwages due.

The

standingargumentinfavour of this clause,

which

remainedinforce until 1868, was thatasthe

wage

contract

was made

between master and

man,

usually withoutwitnesses,

you

hadtotakethe

word

^ofoneortheother.

So

a clause

which

sprangout of conditions inwhich collective bargaining

was

rareor

unknown became

a permanent obstacle toitsintroduction.

The

Civil

Code

wasreinforced

by

the Penal Code.

Under

Articles291-294associations of

more

thantwenty persons were prohibited; and underArticles414-416 any con- certedstrikingor picketing

became

acriminal offence. Evidently the characteristic

methods

of collective actionwere understood

by workmen,

or the clauses

would

nothavebeen drafted. Itis

worthrecordingalso that the law of 1791 against combinations

was

largelytheresult of employers' complaints about collective action

and

incipient trade unionism. Masters in the building tradecomplainedof the^''tyranny" of a recentlyformed^''Federal

Union

of working carpenters,"

which

pretended to be a

mere

benevolent society but

was

really something more^. England can supply

many

^parallels.

Lastly, the government of Napoleon, in 1803, had initiated

andsubsequentlyhadgeneralisedthelivret,theworkman's book in

which

were inscribed his various employers' names.

No man

couldbe hired unless the record ^{of his last}employer was satisfactory,

and

the whole machinery ^{of the livret} was under the control of the powerful Napoleonic police.

So

the

hand

of the state layheavy

on

theworking

man.

^

Neither the RestorationnorthegovernmentofLouisPhilippe

made

any change^inthelaw, except, fromthe workman'spoint of view, forthe worse.

A

law^of1834 forbadeassociationseven oftwentypersonsiftheywerepartsof

some

largerwhole.This,

was

a direct

blow

at an ^illegal association, the Devoir Mutuel of the

Lyons

^weavers,

which had

organised ^{great strikes for} better piece rates

and

other privileges in 1831 and 1834. ^It

had

three thousand

members

and ^all the

methods

of a typical

and somewhat

revolutionary trade union.

There

were other so-called "societies of resistance," fighting unions, formed

» SeeLevine, The LaborMovement^inFrance,

New

York, 1912,p. ^17-