Dialogue II.

Well, Charlie, how are you? Are you ready for another turn at Free-Trade and its belongings? because I have some matters I should like to have cleared up a bit.

Quite ready, and at your service.

How is it possible, then, that we in this country should have gone on all these years deluding ourselves, not only accepting a Free-trade policy ourselves, but urging its acceptance on others everywhere, if it be the fallacy you aver it to be? I cannot understand it.

You may well say that; its a sort of thing no "fellah" can understand; but the fact is, journalists, political economists, and statesmen have, for the last thirty years or more, declaimed against protection, and bolstered up the doctrines of Free-trade so persistently, and at the same time denied expression of opinion opposed to their views, that at last they have come to believe a lie. Journalists have it all their own way; their columns have been closed against all protective proclivities, coming from whatever quarter, and a determination to write down and hound, after a rowdy fashion (vide Appendix), any expression of opinion which may be at variance with their own cherished goddess, Free-trade.

But journalism is supposed to be a reflection of public opinion, and do you think the Free-trade question has not been faithfully represented?

Faithfully represented, did you say? I can hardly suppress a laugh at your simplicity! Ask the Times, Daily Telegraphy and other leading journals, of the verity of their statements relating to Free-trade. For years past, whenever I have met with that delectable little word, "Free-trade," I know at once there is some untruth or lurking sophistry underlying it. The Times, Daily Telegraph, and other journals have over and over again stated that we have Free-trade with France. France emphatically ignores Free-trade altogether; she will have none of it. The fact of a commercial treaty between the two countries precluded the operation of Free-trade. France never at any time made the slightest pretension to Free-trade, and the relaxation of her tariff had little or nothing to do with the question. At the time the treaty was made prohibition was abolished, and protection substituted, and that was all. I do not make this statement without book, and my authority is Mr. Cobden himself, through whose instrumentality the treaty was brought about, and I will give you chapter and verse in support of what I say. I cite Mr. Cobden's own words in a letter written by him on the subject of the treaty.^* "The French Government has begun with the repeal of the duties on raw materials, giving notice that after a certain time the prohibitive system will cease, and foreign manufactures be admitted at revenue duties which will operate as a protection to home producers What think you of that. "Protection to home producers!" Protection, be it understood, is the antithesis of free trade.

Well, clearly on that point, on the testimony of Mr. Cobden, the press has wholly mis-represented the case, and France has never at any time abandoned protection. That must be conceded, anyhow. There is, however, an awkward difficulty to get over, and which, I think, will be a poser to you; that this country has made such wonderful progress since having adopted a Free-trade policy: and to its operation, it is said, we owe mainly the prosperity which we have so long and richly enjoyed. What do you say to that?

That such a statement cannot be borne out by facts. I deny that Free-trade has had anything to do with the augmented prosperity of this country, or that it has contributed in the smallest degree to it. We should not have had one bit the less prosperity had we never heard of Free-trade. There is about the same logical connection between Free-trade and our prosperity as—if the mouse eat the cheese the clock would strike. There was the repeal of the Corn Laws, but that has nothing to do with the matter. It was not only politic, but it had become a political necessity for the Corn Laws to be repealed, and because the repeal could not longer be deferred. The prosperity which we have enjoyed for the last thirty years you ascribe altogether to a wrong cause. I repeat Free-trade has nothing to do with it. Free-trade and the gold-diggings came into being

^* News of the World, May 20, 1860.

page 6 simultaneously, and it is to the goldfields of California, Australia, and New Zealand that we owe mainly our prosperity. They have given a great impetus to trade, not only in this country but in all countries—in fact have revolutionised the world. At the time of the agitation for the repeal of the Corn Laws it was strongly urged that their baneful operation arose from our having to pay for imported corn in hard cash—gold, and the withdrawal of a million or two at that time deranged the whole commercial and monetary system. Well, if such was the case, then it is so no longer, as we can now send away annually some eight or ten millions of gold without producing the least derangement, but what would be the consequences to ourselves if there were to be a sudden stoppage of supplies from these sources? I rather think we should discover that such stoppage would occasion some slight disturbance in our commercial and monetary affairs! Now pay attention to what I am going to repeat—not my own ipse dixit, mind you. I appeal to authority, and I adduce the testimony of Mr. Gladstone in support of my assertion that Free-trade has had nothing to do with our increased prosperity of late years. At the time Mr. Gladstone was Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, he is reported to have said:—^* "There is again a misapprehension in that while the increase of the trade of this country of late years has been undoubtedly a remarkable increase, yet it has been less than the increase in the trade of foreign countries." And again:—"The exports of France in 1854 were £78,000,000, and in 1863 they were £141,000,000, being an increase of 81 per cent. The exports of the United Kingdom in 1854 were £116,000,000, and in 1863 £197,000,000, an increase of no more than 70 per cent." And then the report goes on to state:—"That a country (France) which had done so little in the way of relaxing its commercial laws had achieved, relatively, more than a country which had done much, and made great progress on the road of commercial freedom." Here, then, is the fact that France has achieved, relatively, more in commercial progress with protection than this country with Free-trade, and I think that circumstance conclusively proves my position, and refutes the idea that this country owes its increased prosperity of late years to the operation of Free-trade.

I quite agree with you. The whole thing is a mistake. We had got hold of the wrong pig. But look here: it is confidently affirmed that we never needed protection, and that we should have got along much better without ever having had it; that it only proved a drag and an hindrance; and in proof of this it is said, see how much better off we are under a Free-trade regime than when protection obtained; and this being the case, we strongly urge its acceptance on other countries, in the belief that it would benefit them in like manner.

I have already pointed out that, to apply a uniform rule, the conditions must be equal. Free-trade, perhaps, might have done in the days of Abraham, or had the world to begin de novo; but, in an advanced state of civilisation, the whole thing assumes a different aspect. Expediency plays an active and leading part in all matter pertaining to Government, social, public, political, or otherwise, and the doctrine of non intervention on matters relating to trade, or anything else, on the part of a Government is an absurdity; and such is Free-trade. It is helplessly left to drift, and without direction. For ages it has been deemed no part of the function of Government to educate the people, but, notwithstanding it has been so long ignored, at last such function is recognised; and it is no less the function and duty of Government, when needed, to direct, control, foster, and encourage the trade of the people whom they govern; and this brings me to the question of protection you have just raised. Protection, where needed, then, in trade or anything else, is the most natural thing in the world, notwithstanding all that may be said by the partisans of Free-trade to the contrary. To aver that, because this country does not now need protection, it never did need it, is so palpably absurd, that; an eman-cipated schoolboy might refute it; and yet the statement is accepted by intelligent multitudes as an established fact. Now, John, my boy, what would you think of an individual, having attained to man's estate, and capable of taking care of himself, pompously asserting that, inasmuch as in his manhood he did not require protection, therefore he never did require it; that it way quite a mistake on the part of his mamma that he had had infantile nursing, and that parental protection

^* Times April 28, 1865.

page 7 during his childhood was a preposterous proceeding; that he could have got on much better without that sort of tiling, in proof whereof he did not require it now? What would you say of such an individual?

What would I say? Why I should vote him an ass! But are you quite sure the simile is a correct one?

Quite sure and no mistake. It is a case, not only of analogy, but it is a perfect parallel. In one case, as in the other, self-refutation is stamped, as not a particle of proof can be adduced in support of a proposition so peurile. Development in both cases is the expression and result of the fostering care and protection bestowed upon them. Where is the country that has attained to any position commercially without the fostering care and protection here indicated? Has England, with her boasted Free-trade policy? At one time we prohibited the exportation of machinery; an act, no doubt, highly suggestive of our great love for Free-trade; and that other countries should participate in the profits resulting from its use! For two hundred years protection was the order of the day with England; nor was protection ever abandoned so long as there was anything to protect. We throve and prospered under it until we had attained that state of commercial development which is at once the wonder and envy of the world. Here then is an example for others to "go and do likewise."

At a banquet at which the Hon. Reverdy Johnston was entertained, at Newcastle, when adverting to Free-trade, he said: "Another thing would seem to be reasonable, that when it is proposed to start a system of Free-trade that start should be a fair one. (Applause.) What would you think of a man who undertook to enter the pugilistic lists without training? Assuredly you think he would be beaten by the man who had been trained. Now you have trained yourselves, and how long have you taken to do it? Somewhere about two centuries! Now when your machinery is complete, and your workpeople are brought to such perfection in the industry they are engaged in—now that our labour is comparatively dear, and when we have not the art that you have—you propose to us to run the race of Free-trade!" These are the sentiments of a highly-educated, enlightened American gentleman; and it might be added the race must be a handicap race. England is the powerful and fleet horse to be weighted, and we saddle you with a tariff which will enable us to compete successfully and to our advantage.

Bravo! Well done! I like that. It is becoming more interesting the further we proceed. Go on!

If we give our attention to the culture of anything in a general way we look for a promising result; but it would appeal, according to Free-trade notions such a course, at all events, as relates to the culture of trade, protection and encouragement on the part of a Government should be strenously deprecated, that such interference must necessarily result in disaster. Helps to trade must not be; but social and sundry other helps are orthodox and allowable: "Strain at a gnat and swallow a camel!" I will give you, however, a striking illustration to the contrary. You will find the subjoined account of the manufacture of beet sugar in the "Chemistry of Common Life," by Professor Johnson:—

"As early as 1747, Margraaf, in Berlin, drew attention to the large quantity of sugar contained in the beet, and recommended its cultivation for the manufacture of sugar. Fifty years later the attempt was made in Silesia, under royal patronage; but as only two or three per cent, of crystallised sugar could be extracted, the work failed and was abandoned. Later, again, the Continental system of Napoleon I., which raised the price of sugar to five shillings (six francs) a pound, and especially the offer of a prize of a million of francs for the successful manufacture of sugar from plants of home-growth, stimulated to new trials, both in Germany and France. New methods, new skill, new machinery, and the results of later chemical research were all applied, and with the aid of high duties on a foreign sugar, the manufacture struggled on through a period of very sickly infancy. In Germany fewer improvements were introduced, so that the new manufactories erected in that country during the reign of Napoleon were one after another given up; but in France they became so firmly established that even after the cessation of the Continental system few of them were abandoned. A more complete extraction of the sap, a quicker and easier method of clarifying and filtering it, and the use of steam to boil it down enabled the French maker to extract four to live per cent. of refined sugar from the hundred pounds of beet, page 8 and thus to conduct his operations with a profit. In this improved condition the manufacture, after a struggle of twenty years, returned again towards the north, and spread not only over Belgium and the different states of Germany, but over Poland, and into the very heart of Russia. At the present time not less than 362 millions of pounds of beet sugar are manufactured on the continent of Europe!"

It is now twenty years since the foregoing account was published, and since that period considerable progress has been made; and I believe at the present time large importations of beet sugar are made to this country, and that it can now compete successfully with cane sugars. The manufacture of beet sugar in France and other continental countries has become an important branch of national industry; and I adduce this case as an answer to and to confute the Free-trade doctrine of non-interference by the State in matters affecting trade. Here, at all events is something tangible:—"Under royal patronage"—"with the aid of high duties on foreign sugar," the manufacture struggled on through a very sickly infancy, and we know the result. Having gone through a very sickly infancy, and the other stages of development, it now stands forth in its vigour, a stable flourishing industry—a type of what may be accomplished by judicious protection and State encouragement.

I have often heard it remarked that for the State to give encouragement by protection or subsidy to any particular branch of industry would partake of class legislation, and that it would be unjust to the rest of the community in obliging them to pay more than if such commodity were obtained from a foreign source. What are your views upon that matter?

That reminds me of the story of the belly and limbs—belly got all and limbs none—and therefore apparent, not real, a just cause of complaint. I apprehend the same kind of injustice obtains in the case you have just brought to my notice. Were this exclusiveness confined to a privileged few there would be manifest injustice; but when free to all, as is the case, it ceases to have even the semblance of unfairness. The whole question resolves itself into one of expediency. Do the public interests on the whole gain by such arrangement? There are other things in the world besides £ s. d., and it is possible to have value received indirectly, as evinced by our own packet subsidies, educational rates, &c. Free-traders are men of one idea who cannot see beyond their nose, and therefore take no cognisance of the social and political element, which has a most important bearing upon this question.

In a whining letter which appears in the Times, January 10th, 1866, deploring the perversity and dulness of the Yankees,—the Yankees, as everybody knows, are a very dull people, and don't know on which side their bread is buttered, because of their rejection of Free-trade, and their liking for protection, which is, as a matter of course, roundly condemned,—states that "Five years ago, when the census of 1860 was taken, the manufacturers of the country had not the benefit of the high tariff of the war; yet they employed 1,041,349 men, and 270,897 women, and it is supposed directly influenced 6,000,000 of people. It is five years since these figures were collected, and during the interval no nation has made such rapid strides in the development of diversified industry as the United States." You see the truth will crop out'; "no nation has made such rapid strides in the development of diversified industry as the United States; and this, too, we are told, under that exploded system, Protection! and mind you, the manufacturers, as here indicated, are not the only people benefited, as Free-traders would have us suppose, but millions of others besides are beneficially affected as a legitimate consequence of manufacturing. Just imagine 6,000,000 of people directly influenced by the manufacturing industry of the States, and that by the adoption of a Free-trade policy, on the testimony of the Hon. Reverdy Johnston and the dictates of common sense, because of having to compete with a more powerful rival, such industry would be greatly impaired if not wholly destroyed! Then we are told that, abandoning employment so profitable, they could give their attention to growing corn. Growing fiddle-sticks! Who is to take the corn when grown? Is there any dearth of corn at the present time? Rather rich the idea; the people of the New England States, the wealthiest, most intelligent, and influential, abandoning their present profitable and luxurious position, and going corn growing, with Indian corn at 12 cents per bushel, and millions of bushels page 9 being consumed in the back States as fuel. At this price it is cheaper fuel than coals at five dollars per ton: so says the "Journal of the Society of Arts," June 14th, under "General Notes."

The policy of the United States is eminently protective. People are invited from the old country; and strong inducements are held out to them to settle upon land; and the inducements offered to artisans and others are no less inviting under the fostering and protective care of the government to settle in the States, and follow their own craft. Hence reciprocity is established between them, the one consuming the products of the farm—the other home manufactures. What a nice condition the country would be in were they all reduced to a monotonous, dead level of farming. It would be a nice country to live in, would it not?

Well, it is astonishing that leading men belonging to all parties, Whig, Tory, and Radical, have so long and successfully deluded the public upon this question. Why, it appears to me nothing but "a refuge of lies," got up to cheat and deceive, sinister and base; and the professions and motives of its partisans may well be called in question. "The hands are the hands of Esau, while the voice is the voice of Jacob."

We may well impeach their professions and motives, and I will give you a few facts to sustain you in this belief. As to political parties, Whig, Tory, and Radical, in this matter they are all tarred with the same brush. They have all fallen down and worshipped this fetich—the goddess Free-Trade. It is not the first time in the world's history that the cry has been raised, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians:" and for the self-same reason that their craft was in danger. I dare say you have seen gentlemen of a certain order manipulate with thimbles and a pea, and how dexterous they are in their movements, and how they manage to gull greenhorns, credulous in their own power to detect the pea! when, lo! the thimble is raised, and to their consternation there is no pea—victims of misplaced confidence. There appears a strong resemblance between the Free-trade movement and the thimble trick. Again, if a hostile army were to invade a country for the express purpose of destroying machinery and all the manufacturing appliances of that country, it would in all probability be called an act of spoliation; but if through the agency of Free-trade the same destruction were brought about, more euphonious terms would be used; it would be said to be in conformity with "political economy," according to "sound economics," an "enlightened commercial policy," and such like unmeaning expressions. I am a little discursive, you know, and I claim to be so, and to present the case in my own way; and in order to show you I am not peculiar in my views as to the ruin that would be wrought I shall quote from the Times and Daily Telegraph. The Times, April 25, 1805, states:—"It has been thought that our zeal for Free-trade was part of a design to benefit ourselves by the ruin of our neighbours." The Daily Telegraph confirms this idea, for we find it saying, November 29, 1864, in adverting to the French treaty:—"We decline to think him (Emperor Napoleon) so amiable an enthusiast as to be willing to ruin the trade of France to please Mr. Cobden." You see murder will out; and this, too, by journals whose leanings are decidedly in the Free-trade interest. That word ruin is a significant expression.

The plot thickens the further we proceed; but what about the apostles of Free-trade? cannot you interview them a bit? The Times and the Telegraph are big fish, and we will have no small fry.

I have something to say of the apostles too. I think on one occasion one of them was so polite as to classify protectionists as knaves and fools. Suppose we return the courtesy, and assume the same thing of Free-traders; and you must determine yourself whether there is anything to justify the allegation. It is of no use drawing it mild, for they have not; and nothing less than a strong drastic would have any effect. You recollect the cotton dearth during the American war; that this country, and particularly the Lancashire folk, were greatly distressed and embarrassed for want of the raw material, as our supplies were cut off from America. The apostles came out strong on that trying occasion. Would you be surprised to hear that their faith in their cherished nostrum failed on that occasion, and that they were ready to revert to the old state of things directly opportunity offered?—ready to impose a bounty analagous to the old Corn Law to stimulate the growth of cotton in India; but, honest men, this bounty was to be at the expense of India for the benefit of the people of Lancashire. The Lancashire page 10 manufacturer was to receive the benefit of the bounty on the growth of cotton. "Mr. Cobden admits the truth of the taunt; on this Indian question he flings the principles of Free-trade to the winds."

To convince you there is no exaggeration in these statements I commend to your perusal a leader in the Times on this subject, and which is too good to be omitted or curtailed, and I shall give it you in extensor (vide Appendix).

Well, I never! So they proved false apostles after all. Who after that exposure would believe these immaculate men were sincere in their professions and preachings? Was there not, under cover of Free-trade, some sinister ulterior purpose to accomplish?

Anything that is considered good is ascribed to Free-trade; nor should I be greatly surprised if fine weather were placed to its credit. But, on the contrary, should anything be not favourably reported upon where protection obtains, or receives the culture and attention of the State, oh, that arises because of such culture and attention—a departure from "sound economics;" by which is meant Free-trade.

In the Argus, a Melbourne paper, which writes in the interests of Free-trade, we find a leader promulgating such trash as the following, emanating from an Englishman, an advocate of Free-trade. In speaking of the United States and the protection awarded to manufacturers of woollen goods, this sagacious Englishman says: "You will find the best protection to your manufacturers to consist in Free-trade, and we have only to dread your rivalry when you adopt that policy." If this "sagacious Englishman" be right, wherefore all the fuss made in this country in deprecating the protective policy of the United States? According to this "sagacious Englishman" a Free-trade policy in the United States would be damaging to our manufacturing interests, a state of things, no doubt, devoutly to be desired by us! Again, this sapient writer in the Argus goes on to say, "But the wool-growers are also protected, and the most strenuous advocates of the present tariff on that staple were the representatives of the State of Ohio. What has been the result? The number of sheep in that State has declined from 7,688,845 in 1863 to 4,302,904 in 1871; while the decrease in Michigan is said to be still greater." You see, it is as I said, Free-traders are men of one idea, under strong delusion, and who cannot see beyond their nose. Did it ever occur to this sapient writer that there might be some other cause or causes which had operated in producing this declension in the number of sheep? It is pretty certain wool-growing was not very flourishing to begin with, which induced the State to give a bounty, the same in principle as the apostles recommended for the growth of cotton in India, to encourage its production; and we only need intensify those causes, notwithstanding the bounty, to account for the decrease. If culture and care be given with a view to production in anything, we expect as a natural consequence a propitious result; but this writer, suffering, no doubt, from monomania,—Free-trade on the brain,—infers just the contrary.

The doctrine of Free-trade teaches that every every country has some peculiarity of its own pertaining to natural productions; Australia, wool; America, cotton, &c.; and that it would be better for these countries to confine themselves to these specialities. By so doing production generally would be augmented, and the world at large benefited thereby.

Yes, it is assumed these countries may produce any amount of corn, cotton, wool, butter, cheese, mutton, &c., and that they only need produce them in order to dispose of them profitably. That is another of the Free-trade fallacies. Any one who has been in a colony, Australia or New Zealand, for instance, knows very differently. Wool is an article readily disposed of, but gives employment to comparatively few. But what about agricultural and dairy produce generally? There is only a very limited market; and in proof of this I lately received a New Zealand journal, wherein it was stated that fresh butter was being hawked about at Wellington, and offered at sixpence per pound; and at the Hutt, a few miles from Wellington, the price was fourpence per pound. Fourpence a pound for fresh butter. Who would not like to make fresh butter at fourpence a pound? But why don't they send it to England, and so realise a good figure for it? Well, if they could send their produce by telegraph, I dare say they would: but the transit and through the tropics is sixteen thousand miles, and not so easily done as said; and if New Zealand understands her own interests good care will be taken not to be bamboozled by the so-called Free-trade dodge.

New Zealand effected a loan a short time ago better than a million sterling, and I wish to point out how in my opinion this and other loans may, under a protective policy, be turned to good account. I will give an extreme case. We will assume that a good portion of the loan is paid away in wages to men employed on public works, and that their wages are expended wholly in goods imported. It follows that in payment the money leaves the country, and there is an end of it. Now for other side: We will assume that, instead of imported goods, the goods are wholly the produce of the colony. It follows that the money is retained, and that it will go on fructifying and reproducing itself over and over again; and by that means lessen the necessity of future borrowing. It appears to me the Government should initiate, encourage by bounties and protective duties, amounting, if need be, to prohibition, in the first place certain manufacturing industries—prohibition first, and a gradual lessening of protection afterwards, in order to invigorate and stimulate into healthy action. This is something, mind you, very different from pampering; a five per cent, at one time may be as effective a protection as fifty per cent, at another. All England rejoices in a good harvest, and why? because of not having to import foreign grain; and to New Zealand, depend upon it, the saving of imported articles which the colonists themselves can produce would prove no less beneficial to the colony. Let New Zealand be, as far as possible self-sustaining. New Zealand is too remote from European markets to avail hersel of them to advantage.

Well, I think we have looked at this Free-trade question from almost every point of view, and it cannot be sustained by fact, experience, or common sense; the whole thing is a piece of contemptible humbug, and an offence to our common understanding; and I would suggest this dialogue be printed and published for the edification and profit of the Free-trade community. It will give them something to ruminate upon—a bone to pick.

We have appealed to authority, and they stand convicted out of their own mouths. We have appealed to the "inexorable logic of facts." We have appealed to experience and common sense, based upon that experience, and the verdict is against them. Can Free-traders adduce a single case which would serve as a precedent to sustain them in their views? Not one. Certainly not. In England, with two centuries of protection, that sort of thing will no longer pass muster, and every other country rejects all overtures with contempt and derision; and that fact alone speaks volumes. The press often speaks of the advocates of Free-trade in France and America; but be it understood the meaning they attach to Free-trade in those countries is something very different to it as understood here. For instance, in abrogating the French commercial treaty, it is spoken of as a return to protection; and I have already pointed out, on the authority of Mr Cobden, that that treaty abolished prohibition, and substituted protection; and therefore they cannot mean an abandonment of protection, which has always obtained, and which is the antithesis of Free-trade.

If England wishes to have Free-trade by all means let her have it, nobody desires to deprive her of it. If to England Free-trade be political economy, to other countries it would prove political folly. England has the vantage ground; she has attained the platform of security, and has nothing to fear from foreign rivalry; and protection with her, having nothing to protect, would only be a work of supererogation; but the fact cannot be ignored that two centuries of protection were required before this enviable position was attained. England built up her manufacturing fabric by the scaffolding of protection; and when the scaffolding was no longer needed it was removed as so much lumber; and now, forsooth, we preach to other countries that they would get on much better were they to use no scaffolding, that is, protection, at all! Very logical, certainly, only other countries don't see it. Have as much Free-trade as you please as relates to internal traffic, and also, as a rule, as relates to natural products. All countries acquiesce so far; but it is quite another thing as applied to manufactures.

This country, under the guise of Free-trade, had hoped to acquire the monopoly of manufacturing; and, undoubtedly, were other countries such ninnies as to adopt a Free-trade policy we should have succeeded to our heart's content. This country would then have become the workshop of the world, and we should have secured to ourselves the almost exclusive use of steam power, machinery, and invention; as other countries would not be able to compete with us, and the consequence would have been the destruction of their own manufacturing industry, page 12 which they will never consent to, for obvious reasons. Manufacturing is as necessary to the well-being of a country as the nose is to a man's face. Without a manufacturing, mining, and industrial population you cannot have a market for the products of the farm—beef, mutton, milk, &c.; and, therefore, it necessarily follows that every country will protect its manufacturing interests from destructive competition by not throwing its ports open for the free admission of manufactured goods to a more powerful rival. What gives the high value to land and the products of land in England but its manufactures? Remove the manufacturing element and what would they be worth? Apply the same reasoning to other countries; and, as sure as effect follows cause, the same results will be obtained. Hence a most powerful reason why other countries adopt a protective policy, to say nothing of the social and political aspect of the question, and the advantages resulting therefrom. Free-trade, then, simply means to concede to England the monopoly of manufacturing, the rest of the world being reduced to "hewers of wood and drawers of water," mere producers of natural products raw material. If Free-trade don't mean that, it means nothing at all; and all its partisans have to say about it is idle talk.

Don't you think it would be better for us in this country first to set our own house in order before preaching to others in this matter? Look at the attitude of the working men of this country—an attitude so thoroughly opposed to all Free-trade notions, in spirit and in practice, by strikes and other proceedings, that Free-traders had better hide their heads and for ever be hushed into silence.

What has gone before relates to foreign trade, but this is a home-thrust. Yes, the doctrine has been taught that labour, like a soulless bale of cotton, was regulated by supply and demand, and called political economy. The answer, and in a most conclusive way too, is the existing trade combinations and organisation for the avowed purpose of protection to trade interests. The old leaven protection still works in the midst of us; it is an instinct of our nature. Working men claim to have an equitable share of the profits on the articles produced by them; and righteously so, regardless of supply and demand, and they fling the so-called Free-trade and political economy, as affecting themselves, to the dogs.

Look here! Do they mean throwing up the sponge? It is announced by the Daily Telegraph that, "The Cobden Club is about to abandon its dinner this year, grieved at the sight of protection rearing its ill-omened head in Australia, America and France." They have lost their appetite; their case must be bad indeed; they see themselves as others see them. But were I in their place I would "Never say die"—not until dead; and then you know they couldn't.