cause it was over and beyond what the foreign markets required of the English manufacturers. How was it induced? By underselling the foreign manufacturers. Thus the manufacturers desired to increase their supplies. But if they undersell, they must produce at a cheaper cost than before,1 and so the Corn Laws were abolished. They gained the day, and the demand from foreign markets at once became surrounded with dangers. The Englishman had robbed the foreigner of his share of the market; but that share the foreigner could very easily gain back. And it was just the temporary character of this part of foreign demand that gave it its artificiality. It was not a permanent one. But the other constant demand was permanent; it had been permanent up to the very day when the repeal of the Corn Laws was effected. The English manufacturer, not content with this constant demand, required an increased one. He exchanged a secure market for an uncertain one. Now, observe what happened. The foreigner put into operation forces to resuscitate his paralysed industries. But the very means which enabled him to gain back what had formerly been plundered from him, invested him with the power of rapidly reducing what, up to that time, had been a constant demand. Now it was in this that the danger resided.

1 The price might also have been reduced by a diminution in the cost of transit. Had free trade not been introduced the price of manufactured goods would have fallen, owing to the action of this force alone. As it turned out, two forces determined that prices should fall-cheap bread and cheaper conveyance. But the money value of commodities underwent, at the same time, an increase, owing to a greater quantity of gold being in circulation in 1850 and after.

But they might reference to the

But the manufacturers of this country complained of the rivalry they were experiencing on the part of the foreigner. And this was the friendly way which Cobden advised should be taken to put an end to that rivalry. The complaints of the manufacturers, it is certain, were unfounded at that time. The state of the export trade proves that they were so. have had some future misgiving with security of their foreign markets. Perhaps they were anticipating dangers, and preparing to counteract their influence. But whatever they feared or strove to win, they made conditions favourable for the increased activity of the foreigner's trade.1 And who is to blame if the constant demand, under protection, for their manufactures has become so seriously reduced under free trade?

The reason is plain, therefore, why we call the demand induced by free trade an artificial demand. It was probable from the very first that it would vary. The event shows that it has done so; and by this time it has nearly disappeared in some countries.

But this artificial demand caused an increased market for our goods abroad, which led to an increased production at home. The consequent increased circulation of the trade markets was associated with increased profits to the British manufacturer, and increased employment and better wages to the British labourer. (We must remark here, regarding the rise in the wages of labour, that more influences than one existed to raise them:

1 They supplied other nations with the stimulus of more fully providing for themselves, in order that they should not be supplanted by British manufactured goods.

there was, 1, the alteration in the currency, already noticed-and 2, the gold discoveries; both these acted in conjunction with increased demand for labour.)

There was, therefore, between free trade and prosperity, the intermediate state of increased circulation. That such is the fact, and we think there can scarce be a doubt of it, is proved by the following circumstance: when the trade markets of this country began to get less active, then prosperity became diminished. We produce, it is said, exactly the same amount to-day that we did five years ago. There ought to have been an increase, if we are to provide for an increasing population; but this increase may, for present purposes, be left out of consideration. The markets are stagnant. Why? Because profits are low. The British manufacturer can no longer grow rich upon monopoly prices, for his monopoly has been taken away from him. Why are his profits low? Because he is undersold by his foreign rivals.1 There is no increased circulation-the rather is trade circulation depressed. There is no prosperity. For there is no constant demand for our manufactures, as there was in the days of protection; nor fitful demand, as during the first twenty years of free-trade operation. But the free-trade principle is still acting. If prosperity be a direct result of it, why are we not prosperous? Let us see, then, what are the direct effects of free trade. The chief one exists in the tendency to lower prices.2 The price of corn tends to 1 Yet free trade was to make him compete better with his rivals— p. 130.

2 In direct opposition to what Cobden stated, p. 73, free trade was to enlarge the circle of exchanges, by which means prices were to be sustained. He accused Sir Robert Peel of being unstatesmanlike in

fall, because a superior amount imported from abroad determines that it shall fall. And with a fall in the price of corn, the corn land goes out of cultivation. But why does not the price of butchers'-meat undergo a similar fall? The reason is, because the English masterbutchers have a monopoly of the market, and by common consent they determine that prices shall be as high as the people will bear them. But this is unjust ; this was never the intention of Cobden, you will say. But then Cobden did not foresee "all" the events of his complicated policy. Could he have unravelled them all, we think he would never have considered it in the light of a boon to the working classes to have, by the same process which makes their bread cheaper, their butchers'-meat made dearer, and other agricultural produce in proportion. The gain to be derived from such a change is hypothetical. But with this displacement of the scales, let us consider the number of workmen which free trade has sent out of employment. It is a lamentable fact that the agricultural labourer has been divorced from the soil. Then in what does he gain? You will reply, if a free-trader, Oh! his labour will be diverted from less to more remunerative sources. Then, as protectionists, we ask you, Where is this more remunerative employment of which you speak? How do you explain the circumstance that there are so many unemployed labourers at the present day, if these remunerative occupations exist?

Thus, from the lowering of the price of wheat, we see,

attempting to degrade prices by the tariff of 1842. But Cobden "did not think his tariff caused the reduction of one farthing in the pric articles of consumption."

as a direct result, the land going out of cultivation and the accumulation of unemployed labour. And, in addition, there exists another phenomenon which can be directly traced to free-trade action. Competition, so much feared by the manufacturers of 1840, induced by our partial free-trade system, has at last become unequal. The manufacturers have already felt that it is so. They are beginning to acknowledge it. They cannot produce nowadays as cheaply as the foreigner ;1 and, besides, the latter has the advantage of a duty on his rival's produce, and a bounty, when requisite, upon his exports. The disadvantages of our manufacturer are accumulating; but the surroundings in which he finds himself are of his own making. Is it the fact that, at the present day, the foreigner undersells the English merchants in their own market? How is it to be harmonised with Cobden's prediction ? 2

The influence of over-speculation was, in Sir Robert Peel's time, paramount in the causation of distress. But with a change in surrounding circumstances, new causes of distress appear. We would, then, invite our free-trade opponents to inquire into

1. The cause which sends land out of cultivation, and whether this effect was "predicted" by Cobden, or desired by him; and,

1 In spite of bread being cheaper than even Cobden anticipated it would be. This is marvellous. "Whenever," Cobden said, "you find bread cheap, you will always find labour prosperous," p. 129. But he argued from protective experience. He is in error, however. Occasionally depression existed along with cheap bread.

2 He stated that the manufacturers did not seek a law to enhance to enrofits of their business, and that they did not fear foreign comsustaine