"plenty," the great end of the free-traders, was achieved, and is yet being attained, through means diametrically opposed to those portrayed by Cobden. Did he not honestly declare that the stimulation of a foreign competition in corn would compel British farmers to expend more capital on the soil, and employ more labour, in order that they might produce at least one-fourth more than they grew under the system of protection?1 Did he not assert that, rather than fear the result of being swamped with foreign corn, we should become a cornexporting country under free trade? 2 Free trade will undoubtedly attract an abundance of food to this country, if only there is the demand for it, and such a demand continued during our manufacturing prosperity. But it will be said there is ever a demand for food. Not, however, in the economical sense. The free-trade economist's notion of demand is something more than a mere desire. There must be existing, with this desire, the ability to pay for what you want. Obviously, therefore, if the labouring classes are to continue demanding food from the western hemisphere, and to enjoy an abundance of it, they must possess the means of acquiring it. That is, they must be efficiently employed. What are the facts? Do you admit that, from a comparison of the export with the import trade, the labour of this country suffers a very serious loss? and one, too, which there is proper ground for assuming, is increasing. If that is the fact, and it is not in the mere statement of the precise 1 Cobden's Speeches, p. 51. 2 Ibid., p. 115: "We should be a corn-exporting country if we grew as much as we may." neous and dangerous course which was pursued when cheapness and plenty" were sought without reference to demand for labour. It was not the first occasion when cheap provisions, the importance of which was recognised by Huskisson, became the care of the legislator. That distinguished statesman spent the whole of his official life in the endeavour to secure steady prices to the consumer. He set aside all schemes which, however much they might cheapen food, tended to encroach upon demand for labour. Cheapness, he asseverated, was a very good thing when associated. with demand; but "cheapness without demand was a sign of distress." He foresaw the influence which cheapness in itself, without being related to production, would have upon demand. Contrary to the free-trade policy, Huskisson conserved the sphere of demand. "You must not," he said, "injure demand by cheapening food." Cobden said, " Make bread cheap, and let demand take care of itself." But what can be more absurd than to accuse the free-trader of independence? Was it not to unfetter industries to allow of labour pursuing its "natural" channels-to improve to the very utmost the surrounding conditions of the labouring man, that Richard Cobden laboured, and, so far as regards one generation, with the exception of the agricultural labourer, not in vain? It was to remove abnormal interferences, as he thought, and as he termed "unnatural," because (as protectionists conceive, duly) restrictive, not to create them afresh, that the principle of free trade was put into operation. Is it just, then, to accuse the free-trade neous and dangerous course which was pursued when cheapness and plenty" were sought without reference to demand for labour. It was not the first occasion when cheap provisions, the importance of which was recognised by Huskisson, became the care of the legislator. That distinguished statesman spent the whole of his official life in the endeavour to secure steady prices to the consumer. He set aside all schemes which, however much they might cheapen food, tended to encroach upon demand for labour. Cheapness, he asseverated, was a very good thing when associated with demand; but "cheapness without demand was a sign of distress." He foresaw the influence which cheapness in itself, without being related to production, would have upon demand. Contrary to the free-trade policy, Huskisson conserved the sphere of demand. "You must not," he said, "injure demand by cheapening food." Cobden said, "Make bread cheap, and let demand take care of itself." But what can be more absurd than to accuse the free-trader of independence? Was it not to unfetter industries to allow of labour pursuing its "natural" channels-to improve to the very utmost the surrounding conditions of the labouring man,—that Richard Cobden laboured, and, so far as regards one generation, with the exception of the agricultural labourer, not in vain? It was to remove abnormal interferences, as he thought, and as he termed "unnatural," because (as protectionists conceive, duly) restrictive, not to create them afresh, that the principle of free trade was put into operation. Is it just, then, to accuse the free-trade |