thus do we discover how Cobden varied the " means to attain his "end."

This we are constrained to mention, in order to show that just as Cobden was not comprehensive enough in the management of his arguments (he was comprehensive enough for the object which he had in view), so was he not nice enough in the definition of his terms. It may also be pointed out, that in his abnormal treatment of words arose much obscurity. For it is evident that when he tells you that you are to have abundance, and in the same breath that that abundance does not exist, there must be some ulterior motive urging him to impress his "ideal" views upon his intelligent audience. Very probably to-day, as the result of the labours of the school board, the idea of abundance in the popular mind is reduced to its proper sphere. It is nearly certain that the unemployed—that portion of the honoured working classes whom Cobden so tenderly fostered, but the cause of whose disaster resides in the very principle he advocated as being sure to effect their elevation-have by a negative process a distinct idea of what abundance is not. But Cobden told the labouring crowd a generation ago they were always to have abundance. Does the present one believe that this is the fact? Have we reached a time when Cobden's boast that free trade would always bring abundance of the necessaries of life to this country, fails from being contrary to the fact? And what is the fact? That last year (1887) there was a deficiency of 2 millions of quarters. The country requires 26 millions,1 it got

1 On the calculation that each individual requires 5.65 bushels

a-year.

only 24. Do the traders look upon this result as substantiating Cobden's prediction, that we were always to have abundance?

But we suppose that the association of starvation with free trade will be regarded with the extreme of indignation by the abstract free-traders of the present day. We suppose they will receive this description of the actual state of the nation much in the same way as their predecessors received the warnings of the protectionists-by arrogantly ignoring them. But we beg leave to recall this difference between the attitude of the protectionists and free - traders within a comparatively short period of time. The free-traders, with Cobden at their head, proclaimed that the normal distress was due to protection. Let it be well considered that the distress consisted in bread being at a high price. There was no actual scarcity, but from the deficiency of the harvests there portended one. And how was this met? In Huskisson's time, far from there being anything like an insufficiency, there was a surplus. The warehouses were filled with corn, which was taken out of bond and the duty paid upon it, when there was a demand for it. Nay, so much of this corn was imported, owing to the speculation of the corn merchants, that its mere quantity became a nuisance. At one time it was rotting in the warehouses;1 and to satisfy the importunities of the corn merchants—and they were entitled to just consideration when their judgment did not overreach them in their patriotic undertakings-Huskisson was obliged to pass a measure

1 Huskisson's Speeches, vol. ii., pp. 555 and 568. Published by Murray, Albemarle Street, 1831.

which permitted of this excess supply being thrown into the markets during the three months which preceded the harvest.1 He was bound on the one side to protect the interests of the home growers.2 This was paramount. On the other, it was but fair that the services of the corn importers should be properly recognised, and in this manner he attempted to remove the evil consequences of their errors of judgment, at the same time that he blamed them for exceeding so far the demands of the country.3 This was the state of the corn supply in Huskisson's time: instead of there ever being a deficiency, there was always an actual or potential surplus. Where was the potential surplus ? In foreign ports, waiting shipment to this country when the contracted state of the home markets was favourable for its importation. Was there cause to fear an immediate scarcity? Surely not. The deficient harvests at home had first to be disposed of, but the produce would not last throughout the year. And Cobden has told us that even in 1839, when there was a failure of the harvests in this country and

4

1 Huskisson's Speeches, vol. ii., p. 402. "Warehoused Corn Bill." 2 What Huskisson desired was to make the trade in corn as free as possible under a due and proper protection to the British farmer.

3" He was sure that if any honourable gentleman objected to the admission of this corn" (in bond, and kept there because not in demand), "which was calculated to release a capital that had been so long locked up, he must take a very different view of this question from that which presented itself to his mind. It was not from any feeling of regard to the owners of the corn that he made this statement. They had speculated in the article, and must stand by the consequences of their speculation. They might have made a vast profit out of it; as things had turned out they had sustained a loss."--Huskisson's Speeches, vol. ii., p. 393.

+ Huskisson's Speeches, vol. ii., p. 397.

France, but were severe in the latter, the amount that we required was less than two million quarters.

But farmers had to be paid: they had to make all their income out of a smaller supply. To get the same value for a smaller quantity, you must raise the price. And consequently the price of corn rose, and continued to rise, until it reached the lowest figure at which foreign importation was permitted. Where, then, was the injustice? Was it unjust that the farmer should be fairly remunerated for his selfinterested patriotism in cultivating the soil? If not, then it is very evident that the effects of adverse seasons should be prevented from bearing too hardly upon him. The cause of the high price of bread was due to the singular influence of the seasons and to speculation in corn. When the seasons were favourable, the price of bread was low; it was made so by the competition of the farmers. For in those days the farmers did not know how to combine and form a ring. Had such been the case, then the free-traders might have cast their aspersions upon landlords and farmers, alike with credit to themselves and advantage to the community. But the "so-called" ring has arisen in the progress of free trade; and how far it is due to free trade, as we carry it on, is a subject large enough to be analysed in a separate essay.

You cannot, therefore, charge the landlords with snatching half the loaf of the poor labourer in payment of the farmer's rent. Nor can you accuse the farmers of using unfair means to get a better price than what they were justly entitled to.1 But Cobden com

1 We give a quotation from Cobden in order to show that the

plained of injustice, and where is it? We will not further allude to the disposition and the influence of the corn merchants to keep the price of corn as high as possible. But they form a very important link in the chain of communication which connected the home producer with the home consumer, and you cannot ignore their influence as Cobden did. Had he referred to them impartially, he would have reflected upon the common practice of those merchants in making their profits as high as ever they could make them.1

"enhanced" prices did not go into the farmers' pockets: "A short time ago I met a miller near Winchester, who told me the prices which he paid every year for the corn which he purchased before the harvest and after the harvest during five years. This statement I beg

Now, where did the difference go to? Most farmers not being able to hold out for the highest prices, it went into the pockets of the speculators." Cobden does not tell us who was responsible for this difference in prices! Cf. p. 21: "It has ruined the corn speculators."

1 At the expense of the consumer, and therefore, in the instance of bread, of the whole of the community. We quote a passage (p. 135) from an article published in 1841 by Ridgway, of Piccadilly, and signed F. C. "The scale of 1828 is eminently adapted to breed sudden and great fluctuations." (Huskisson's scale of 1827 was rejected.) "A careful inquiry into its merits, if undertaken by any one who has a previous knowledge of the tricks and manœuvres of markets, will easily lead to the detection of the temptations which it holds out