ing than of relief to all classes of the community " (vol. ii. pp. 549, 556).

To state that prosperity was associated only with low prices of wheat was obviously inaccurate. But it served a purpose, as did also the assertion that in 1842 the corn merchants were ruined to the extent of £2,000,000 by the Corn Law. And these are instances of the partial method pursued by Cobden in order to attain the desired goal. Why did he not balance all the gains of the corn merchants with their losses? Because it was his object, no matter the soundness or truthfulness of the means, to achieve his end.

But if the pernicious Corn Law was the direct source of the loss of £2,000,000 to the corn merchant—a small section of an interest-what has been the effect of the want of that law upon the interest itself? Cobden complained that the corn merchants lost £2,000,000. But consumers gained thereby, for none of this money left the country.

Now, what is the charge of the protectionist? That the want of the Corn Law caused a loss of no less a sum than £425,000,000 to the agricultural interest between 1846 and 1866; and that all this money was expended abroad on the production of the first necessaries of life.

No wonder, then, that agriculture should become depressed-in spite, too, of the removal of the greatest burden upon the land, the destruction of the game that

ing than of relief to all classes of the community (vol. ii. pp. 549, 556).

To state that prosperity was associated only with low prices of wheat was obviously inaccurate. But it served a purpose, as did also the assertion that in 1842 the corn merchants were ruined to the extent of £2,000,000 by the Corn Law. And these are instances of the partial method pursued by Cobden in order to attain the desired goal. Why did he not balance all the gains of the corn merchants with their losses? Because it was his object, no matter the soundness or truthfulness of the means, to achieve his end.

But if the pernicious Corn Law was the direct source of the loss of £2,000,000 to the corn merchant-a small section of an interest-what has been the effect of the want of that law upon the interest itself? Cobden complained that the corn merchants lost £2,000,000. But consumers gained thereby, for none of this money left the country.

Now, what is the charge of the protectionist? That the want of the Corn Law caused a loss of no less a sum than £425,000,000 to the agricultural interest between 1846 and 1866; and that all this money was expended abroad on the production of the first necessaries of life.

No wonder, then, that agriculture should become depressed-in spite, too, of the removal of the greatest burden upon the land, the destruction of the game that