State to continue its protection to them. If all the nations were to start afresh, if they had never been influenced by any commercial policy, then he admitted the principle of free trade as being efficient to induce all these beneficial results claimed for it by its admirers. We had not, however, to deal with abstract cases; we had certain facts of experience before us, and our policy must be so framed as to develop rather than injure the several interests of the nation. This was Sir Robert Peel's view,1 and it was carried down from Edmund Burke, William Pitt, and William Huskisson. But, on the contrary, Sir Robert Peel vacillated, and we know the reason of it. It was not simply to inaugurate a grand commercial policy, but it was, in his judgment, to save the State.

The idea of a universal free trade had been conceived, but the opportunity of giving it effect had passed by. One restraining influence which prevented many eminent men from advocating what, on the first blush, appears to be so fascinating a policy, was the way in which such a total change would be received by other nations.

For those nations pursued a self-interested course, exactly as we did. If we changed our policy in an arbitrary fashion, and to their detriment, was such conduct likely to be regarded without jealousy and without

1 Speeches, vol. ii. p. 187: "I stated, and I am now ready to repeat that statement, that if we had to deal with a new society, in which those infinite and complicated interests which grow up under institutions like those in the midst of which we live, had found no existence, the true abstract principle would be 'to buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest.' And yet it is quite clear that it would be utterly impossible to apply that principle in a state of society such as that in which we live, without a due consideration of the interests which have grown up under the protection of former laws.”

increasing any irritation which might be felt from existing commercial restrictions? It might be argued, and most probably would be argued by the foreigner, from the nature of international treaties of commerce, that England found it to her interest to remove all, or nearly all, restrictions upon her external trade. What was the motive of such a policy? To set us an example, and perhaps force us to follow it. But what would be the outcome of such a policy? Certainly, on the one side, England's continued prosperity. What share should we possess of prosperity? We should have to produce for England what she wants. But these wants are not manufactures. And our manufactures would be certainly impaired if not destroyed. The stimulus to the growth of our towns would in great part be absent. And while we advanced but slowly, England would be making rapid strides." Under such circumstances England would be able to afford the loss of all her industries which were not "natural" industries, and even of agriculture, which was such.

Would other nations agree to this state of commercial affairs? Experience had to decide. And that experience has told us that not only have foreign nations recovered from the crushing blow which our isolated policy inflicted at first upon them, but also that they have grown so rapidly as to be able now to retaliate upon the free-trade country the miserable consequences of her arbitrary action. Our manufactures were admitted so long as they were wanted, and we

1 Universal free trade would have restricted, in a very large degree, the industries of nations. For instance, at starting, our manufactures would have swamped all foreign manufactures.

received partly in return for them other articles and food-stuffs. But the time has come when our manufactures are no longer received on the same favourable terms. Our industries have been checked; for the manufactures of other nations are protected. But all the while we are compelled to depend upon foreign supplies for the larger part of our food. And thus we are receiving an increasing supply of wheat and certain goods, while they are taking a constantly decreasing quantity of our manufactures from us.

It was to secure this result, which unfortunately for the free-trade policy has not been effected, that our manufacture was elevated, while all other interests were left each to work out its own progress as best it might.

This was the vision which Cobden saw, and it was the certainty of its becoming a reality that led him into the unscientific position of applying the same kind of treatment to all the various industries, as well old and well-established (but one needing protection) as young and growing, and therefore the more necessary to be conserved, of his country. He changed our commercial policy, but he left it with many weak points. Against these are levelled the energies of all nations able to take advantage of them. Now, in what way does our manufacturing superiority-the stronghold

1 To the extent, during the last ten years, of £200,000,000 of wheat, according to the statement of Lord Derby, reported in the 'Standard.' But according to the economical doctrines of Cobden, we ought to pay for their food with the produce of our manufacture Hence the "stimulus" to our industries, which has grown so big as not to have been even dreamt of by Cobden. But what he thought would be a stimulus to our manufacture, time has shown to be nothing of the kind. At present, year by year, we do not pay for all our food with our manufactured goods.

which he thought he had made unassailable—make amends for these inroads? For if we lose in one direction, we must balance the loss by an equivalent gain in another, unless we agree upon the conclusions, that the nation can bear the loss without any internal derangements; that it is expedient for this country to experience a "transitory depression," so as to check the rapid advance of the working classes; and that we are doing our duty to mankind in bolstering up a principle which is eventually to end in the regeneration of the world,1 and that in the process we must needs suffer some of those adverse consequences which belong to the attainment of this ennobling object.

Most people who are not free-traders, are witnesses to the sacrifices which their country has already made and is continuing to make. Is this phenomenon of bleeding into other countries to go on till we ourselves are so reduced as to become (when it is too late!) aware of it? Is it to proceed for the benefit of a particular class, who are opposed to any alteration in our fiscal system on the ground that it will lead to a general revision, in which their own special interest (already grown too big at the expense of the general public) will be relieved from the monopoly which at present supports it? or for the maintenance of the popularity of that party in the State, whose only claim upon the people is that it has developed the principle of free trade? But regard the conditions of the country when these successive increments to the power of free-trade were established, and trace the underlying

1 In Cobden's words, "Free trade was to unite all nations in the bonds of peace."

motive which prompted them. They were introduced at such times when their results could not be otherwise than favourable.1 If you question the soundness of those reforms, you are presented with a series of statistics to the effect that production was increased and that consumers were benefited by lower prices. This is supposed to be a final argument; but the problem has another aspect. It has to do with the "remote" as well as the "immediate" consequences of change. Will these conditions remain the same? If they alter, so that while prices are cheap, and become cheaper because demand is decreased from inability to acquire, the means of consumers (who are also producers but in other branches of industry) are contracted, then these so-called benefits appear of doubtful advantage. Why? Because the reform which made some articles cheap, has made the production of other articles unremunerative. This is but one of the collateral results of such reforms. But it takes time to become sufficiently intense to be observed as a "sign." In the interval, however, there was increased activity: and for this blessing conferred, the support of those interests are exchanged; and thus a party became powerful by successive but temporary stimulations applied to the various trade industries of the country.

But the general public did not perceive that such periods of increased activity would be temporary. It was not the object of the Liberal leaders to expose the evanescent nature of their action. Admit the tem

1 When, by reason of the fact that capital was being diverted from agriculture, there was a glut of money in the markets, it was therefore concluded that the nation could afford the remissions.