Now such a conjunction was naturally to be expected. But it could not be expected to continue. For the price of bread and the rate of wages, instead of being governed by a single tendency,1 are each of them separately controlled by external forces,2 both which tend to reduction. Thus a low price of bread is associated in the long-run with a low rate of wages. But it does not alone cause this low rate. For the same principle which cheapens bread also depreciates labour in this country.

But, say you, what is the relative difference between high prices and high wages, and low prices and low wages? Are not the labouring classes as well off now with low wages and low price of bread as they were when wages were high and bread dear? The answer is emphatically, "They are not." And the proof resides in the existence and operation of tendencies. With a higher price of bread there was an increased demand for labour. This was constantly in operation in the extension of the cultivation of the soil. It was occasionally in action when improvements lessened the cost of the production of goods. Thus the tendency existed to improve wages.

But what is the cause of the present low rate of wages? Competition amongst the labourers. Instead of there being a demand for labour, the labour market is overstocked. And this competition is effected by the entry of foreign produce.

1 Viz., the lowest cost at which the least remunerative soils would yield a return.

2 The price of wheat regulated by the price at Chicago. The wages of labour regulated by the amount of labour thrown out of employment by foreign competition.

We would here remind the reader of the incompleteness of the free-trader's treatment of the question of cheapness. He says free trade has made articles cheap; and the discussion is ended so far as he is concerned. He affords an instance of a prejudiced mind, selecting just those very points which appear to strengthen his conclusion, and exercise a fascinating sway, over those who are ignorant of the magnitude of the problem. The free-trader, therefore, does not completely relate this cheapness of some articles (1) to its reaction upon the price of other articles in the same category; and (2) to its influence upon the labour of the nation. The references which he makes to these points are utterly insufficient.

Now, can there be any motive which impels the freetrader thus to treat what in reality is an intricate problem in so one-sided a manner? We think there is such a motive, and that it is a very strong one; and we believe it is a motive which is purely political in its composition. We go further than this. We assert that, by means of the cheapness which free trade has effected in certain commodities, free-trade politicians have already been enabled to advance democratic reforms. We are aware that they have advanced some of these radical changes before their time, and when the country was unprepared for them. It is thus that they have become the recipients of the popular favour. Thus have they pushed forward

1 The true statement is, free trade has made some articles cheap.

2 The principle of free trade was conceived in an economical spirit. It was advocated and carried by a section of the community, to the disadvantage of the whole. To carry it, Cobden used it as a political lever; and it has been put to political uses ever since.

reforms till "order" is obscured in the agitation for so-called progress. And thus it comes about that certain democratic politicians demand that the soil be forced into cultivation. Smaller farms are to be constructed, and wheat is to be grown. But how such farms are to remunerate their tenants, so long as the conditions surrounding our agriculture remain as they are at present, is what they do not explain.

It is quite clear that while the question of our depressed industries and agriculture is treated from the political view, no hope can be entertained of their ever being raised from the decline in which they are sinking. In 1846, when our trades were in a state of activity and when the depression from which they had just sufered had passed off, as it always did pass off under potection, still the agitation for free trade continued. What was the reason? Why did the manufacturers proceed to legislate, when their business was in a state of activity again?

The reason is single. 1 Free trade was but the harbinge of great political reforms. Those political reforms ad, as their immediate object, the repression of the asumed tyranny of the landed proprietors, and the extension of the political power of the people.

Those reforms, too, had as their basis the advancement of the material wellbeing of the masses, and the

1 Before he return of prosperity Cobden had promised all sorts of reforms. When prosperity arrived, if he desired still to continue popular, le was compelled to go forward with them. See Cobden, p. 251: "We are financial reformers. We have a habit of doing one thing at time." Then why were not a "proper currency" and national surces of improvement allowed to operate untrammelled by free trade

concomitant improvement in their education, so that they should become capable of discharging their functions as a political factor in the government of the country.

Now the political advancement of the people has been effected, but their material prosperity is being retarded. Hence the danger. The power which they have been invested with will be used, not to the self-interest of the nation as a whole, but to their own selfish ends. There are sufficient signs of this at the presen day. When a member of the Ministry asserts that before long there will be returned to Parliament Socialist members, it is as much as to say that the old party lines have been rudely torn up; that the old Liberalism ias become incorporated with Conservatism; and that the new Liberalism or Radicalism will foster Socialistic doctrines. This political phenomenon is the result of the unequal operation of free trade. It is a natural, though a disastrous, result of it. For a popular party to remain popular, it must in the end pande: to the wants of the masses.

It has been stated that the verdict of 1846 isirresistible. But it is well known that Mr Disraeli n 1850, and again in 1851, attempted to dispute its soundness. How was it acquired? It was acquired mainly hrough the influence of the manufacturers.1 It was taken to be the will of the people. But the will of the people does not differ essentially from the will of an ndividual. It may therefore be supported on an eroneous foundation. It certainly springs from the opinionof their

1 In 1846 the free-trade agitation was supported by a quarter of a million of money out of the manufacturers' pockets.

advisers. And that opinion, in Cobden's instance, is assuredly constructed upon doctrines the most false and anticipations the most vain.

But on the assumption that the will of the people cannot be wrong, those who advocate free-trade doctrines, having already changed their front and argued contrary to their master's speculations, come forward and say that "things will right themselves." For this conclusion what proof do they possess? They cannot derive it from the experience which the course of free trade affords them. For this experience is composed of three stages: the prosperous stage, the stage of equilibration, and lastly, the stage of depression. They are bound, therefore, to argue upon general grounds and adduce tendencies. If there are tendencies towards recovery, let them enumerate them; if there are signs, let them bring them forward. And at the same time, let them also correlate these signs of improvement with their predecessors in the stage of prosperity. Let them inquire whether they reach the same significance. And lastly, let them wait awhile and compare those signs of increased vitality with increased depression sure to follow.1

A small sign is not enough to satisfy the labour interests of the nation. It must be a sign which shall indicate that our agricultural labour has not been destroyed in vain. But for such a sign, with present adverse forces in operation, we look in vain!

1 Cf., for the proof of this, the treatment of the question of free trade, in 'Free trade,' published by William Blackwood & Sons, 1887.