abundance means in his terminology, we discover that it is made to represent a relatively low price of bread. There could not possibly be, according to his own account, a greater abundance than what existed in his day, if only there was the money to buy dear bread with. Did he refer to the abundance of the future? Then it is evident that he went against his limited knowledge of the subject of the capacity of corn-growing States. For he assured the farmers that they had nothing to fear from the foreigner. The stimulus he applied to them was for their own benefit.2 Nay, he went farther. He predicted that the produce of the British farmers would be increased.3

By abundance, therefore, he meant low price of bread, and more than that, a uniformly low price of bread. But we are well aware that "abundance" did follow the free intercourse of this country with corn-growing States; and that the fact that it did so has prejudiced many people (and some free-traders who argue from the book of Cobden by taking two passages, and arbitrarily connecting them) into the belief that Cobden was a prophet. Now nothing can be more certain than that the

1 In 1839 the importation of wheat amounted to 2,500,000 quarters. On what ground did Cobden assert that we should never be able to import more than this? On the ground that more was not then grown in corn-growing States. It is certain that one of the reasons which Cobden offered the farmers in order that they might not be frightened by competition was the fact, based upon past experience, that a moderate importation of wheat-say 300,000 quarters-always sent up the price to 40s. and upwards. The reader will understand that such experience would not be adapted to new conditions.

2 P. 71. 1. The farmers had only to fear a competition of two and a half million quarters. 2. Prices rose with increased importation. 3 To the extent of one-fourth of the whole produce !-P. 52.

sort of abundance, in the sense with which we have experienced it, was far from the mind of Cobden. He did not predict that our markets would, in process of time, be swamped with foreign corn. It remains for us to-day to be aware of the fact. But that abundance which the farmers of Cobden's times and the protectionists feared, but which Cobden himself relegated to the limbo of exploded ideas, has come to pass, in spite of what Cobden intended should happen. He declared that he so legislated as to acquire a comparatively low but uniform and steady price of bread. Did he intend that the price of corn should be gradually displaced to a lower and yet lower level? On the contrary, the “impossible" abundance prevented such a phenomenon. But what is the fact? Instead of corn fluctuating between high and low prices, but on a level which remunerated the farmer, and was gradually receding, as it did under protection, the price of corn has, under free trade, entered upon one vast fluctuation, in which there is but one tendency, and that of decline. The highest point we have passed long ago; the lowest, it is the belief of many, we have yet to reach, supposing that it is the desire of the nation to persevere any further in what Lord Melbourne described as "the maddest of all mad courses."

1 Huskisson endeavoured to effect this by allowing as free an intercourse as possible under a policy of protection. He devised a sliding scale with this object in view-Revision of the Corn Laws, p. 386, vol. ii. Cobden attempted to reach a steady price by an absolute free trade. Both Huskisson and Cobden had the welfare of British agriculture at heart. But while Huskisson treated the corn problem separately, Cobden mixed it up with the prosperity of manufacture and political and social advancement.

It is impossible but that the conduct which the freetraders thought it wise to follow, must be associated with a dangerous distrust of leaders by the people on future and similar occasions. It may be a fine art to arouse enthusiasm on a false basis, or any basis. But if the people of this country have learnt, by the unhappy consequences which have overtaken them in their blind attachment to a disastrous policy, to regard with greater care all the possible future developments of this or that legislation, perhaps the lesson will be worth the burden which these consequences have already entailed and yet entail upon them. The free-traders raised the cry of "protection and starvation." And what was the foundation of it? They created a fierce enthusiasm, and an intelligent multitude was betrayed into sowing the seed of its own ruin. Thus there is reason for distrust, and much distrust. The people were told— though falsely-that the landlords were their despotic rulers. They will learn soon, if they do not already know it, that it was speculation carried to excess which formed the prime source of that temporary distress from which they were suffering in 1837. How long will it take to destroy the influence of that false and misguided association of protection and starvation?

1 The efficient representation of the towns had commenced in Huskisson's time; for advancing their claims he lost his seat in the Ministry of 1828. The Reform Bill of 1832 extended the electorate. Thus progress was gradually being effected in the distribution of power. It was Cobden's intention that this progress should be hastened by free trade. Since Cobden's days the power of the people has greatly increased; instead of pursuing a uniformly steady course, it has advanced by a leap. Free trade is responsible for this. Admit that it has induced some of those political consequences Cobden anticipated, it has ultimately been at the expense of the material prosperity of labour.

Certainly the appearance of a deficiency of two millions in the quantity of corn needed to feed the nation at 5.65 bushels per head, which occurred in 1887, is likely to go some way towards rending it asunder. Would it be a wise thing to preach from the text of free trade and starvation? It would not. What change is to take place must be effected, not by the enthusiasm of a crowd, however intelligent it may be, nor by the policy of a single individual or of a faction, but by the collective wisdom of the nation. The present trade difficulties of the nation require not enthusiasm to solve, but reason to unravel and judgment to decide, what is the best course out of them.1

And thus the argument leads us to a more elaborate analysis of the contents of the question than the freetraders have yet offered. They give "signs"; but what do they say about tendencies? They have placed us in the best of positions to acquire cheap food. We have had, we still may have abundance. Yes; but the tendency to abundance has already received a severe shock. Abundance is beginning to decline. How do the freetraders explain the phenomenon? There must be a

1 With regard to the objects to be attained, we adduce two statements of Huskisson: 1. "But it was said that to withdraw our protection from the manufactures of the country and to continue it to the growers of corn, was acting upon an erroneous system. I deny this position entirely, and contend that reasoning from analogy, in a case like the present, must necessarily lead to an erroneous conclusion. . . When there was an accumulation of cotton the manufacturer could contract his supply; but could a similar measure be adopted by the agriculturist when there was an accumulation of corn?"—Vol. ii. p. 347. 2. "Cheapness is a good thing-but cheapness without demand is a sign of distress." It is necessary to consider these two points in reference to the claims of producers.

cause or causes in the background to account for the change. The free-traders tell the labouring masses, "We have given you cheap bread;" but they forget to say that they have taken away from part of them the capabilities of acquiring it. When foreign labour displaces our own, for us to maintain the balance, we must displace the foreigners. Are we doing that? Let the free-traders examine these questions a little more carefully, not from a mass of figures, which are only apt to confuse, but from a consideration of tendencies; let them picture to themselves not only what forces are in operation, but also what determines the intensity of those forces. Let them bring forward a comprehensive statement of cause and effect, in order that their opponents may examine it, and trace their errors, if there be any (and there are many in Cobden), to their hidden

sources.

"Give us the means," reply the labourers, "of obtaining that bread which you have made so cheap for us." And have they not the undoubted right of inquiring whether it was originally intended that their labour should be displaced by that of the foreigner? Let us take it for granted, and Cobden would not have objected to its occurrence, that some labour was displaced.1 Then the older free-traders rejoiced over the additional resources thus accruing to the natural industries of the country. The weak markets, those which had to be

1 And, we may add, continues to be displaced.

2 What is a natural industry? Cobden talks of our cottons and woollens being natural industries, because well established and cheaply produced. Compare such industries with the cultivation of tobacco and the growth of the vine. In the one case, the skill of the workman, in