be so high as to diminish materially the demand for the produce, and compel the abandonment of some of the inferior qualities of land or mines. Supposing this to be the effect, the consumers, both in the country itself and in those which dealt with it, would obtain the produce at smaller cost; and a part only, instead of the whole, of the duty would fall on the purchaser, who would be indemnified chiefly at the expense of the landowners or mine-owners in the producing country.

"Duties on importation may, then, be divided into two classes: those which have the effect of encouraging some particular branch of domestic industry, and those which have not. The former are purely mischievous, both to the country imposing them and to those with whom it trades. They prevent a saving of labour and capital, which, if permitted to be made, would be divided, in some proportion or other, between the importing country and the countries which buy what that country does, or might, export.

"The other class of duties are those which do not encourage one mode of procuring an article at the expense of another, but allow interchange to take place, just as if the duty did not exist, and to produce the saving of labour which constitutes the motive to international as to all other commerce. Of this kind are duties on the importation of any commodity which could not, by any possibility, be produced at home; and duties not sufficiently high to counterbalance the difference of expense between the production of the article at home and its importation. Of the money which is brought into the Treasury of any country by taxes, of this last description, a part only is paid by the people of that country; the remainder by the foreign consumers of their goods.

"Nevertheless, this latter kind of taxes are, in principle, as ineligible as the former, though not precisely on the same ground."

On the subject of " Protection," Mr. Mill wisely says:

"Of these false theories, the most notable is the doctrine of protection to native industry; a phrase meaning the prohibition, or the discouragement by heavy duties, of such foreign commodities as are capable of being produced at home. If the theory involved in this system had been correct, the practical conclusions grounded on it would not have been unreasonable. The theory was, that to buy things produced at home was a national benefit, and the introduction of foreign commodities generally a national loss. It being at the same time evident that the interest of the consumer is to buy foreign commodities in preference to domestic whenever they are either cheaper or better, the interest of the consumer appeared in this respect to be contrary to the public interest; he was certain, if left to his own in. clinations, to do what, according to the theory, was injurious to the public. "It was shown, however, in our analysis of the effects of international trade, as it had been often shown by former writers, that the importation of foreign commodities, in the common course of traffic, never takes place except when it is, economically speaking, a national good, by causing the same amount of commodities to be obtained at a smaller cost of labour and capital to the country. To prohibit, therefore, this importation, or impose duties which prevent it, is to render the labour and capital of the country less efficient in production than they would otherwise be; and compel a waste of the difference between the labour and capital necessary for the home produc tion of the commodity, and that which is required for producing the things

with which it can be purchased from abroad. The amount of national loss thus occasioned is measured by the excess of the price at which the commodity is produced, over that at which it could be imported. In the case of manufactured goods, the whole difference between the two prices is absorbed in indemnifying the producers for waste of labour or of the capital which supports that labour. Those who are supposed to be benefited, namely the makers of the protected articles (unless they form an exclusive company, and have a monoploy against their own countrymen as well as against foreigners), do not obtain higher profits than other people. All is sheer loss to the country as well as to the consumer. When the protected article is a product of agriculture-the waste of labour not being incurred on the whole produce, but only on what may be called the last instalment of itthe extra price is only in part an indemnity for waste, the remainder being a tax paid to the landlords.

"In countries in which the system of protection is declining, but not yet wholly given up, such as the United States, a doctrine has come into notice which is a sort of compromise between free trade and restriction, namely, that protection for protection's sake is improper, but that there is nothing objectionable in having as much protection as may incidentally result from a tariff framed solely for revenue. Even in England, regret is sometimes expressed that a 'moderate fixed duty' was not preserved on corn, on account of the revenue it would yield. Independently, however, of the general impolicy of taxes on the necessaries of life, this doctrine overlooks the fact that revenue is received only on the quantity imported, but that the tax is paid on the entire quantity consumed. To make the public pay much that the Treasury may receive a little is not an eligible mode of obtaining a revenue. In the case of manufactured articles the doctrine involves a palpable inconsistency. The object of the duty, as a means of revenue, is inconsistent with its affording, even incidentally, any protection. It can only operate as protection in so far as it prevents importation; and to whatever degree it prevents importation it affords no revenue."

A writer on the subject in "Chambers' Encyclopædia," truly says of Free Trade, that:

"From its simplicity, it affords to those who expect to make political economy an exact science, the hope that they have obtained at least one axiom. But it has, in reality, been established as the result of a double experience, the one being the failure of all deviations from it, the other the practical success of the principle during the short period in which it has been permitted to regulate the commerce of this country.

"The many attempts made by Governments to regulate trade for the purpose of benefiting the communities over which they ruled, may be divided into two great classes: the one prohibited the exportation of commo. dities, the other encouraged exportation, and prohibited or discouraged importation. The former was the old rule in this and in other countries. It was supposed that the wealth of the country depended on its retaining within itself certain productions of native growth or industry, and their removal out of the country was prohibited or restrained. Until a late period, the exportation of machinery was prohibited; but this was an exceptional remnant of the old principle which had yielded to its converse in

which it was maintained that exportation is the source of wealth, and im portation is a wasting of a nation's substance. On this theory the great body of British commercial and financial legislation, which received its death-blow in 1846, was founded. By it a commercial community was then likened to an isolated human being possessed of a certain fund, which he must, of course, spend, so as to become so much the poorer, if he buys commodities, which, to him, is equivalent to a nation's importing them. The notion was founded on the analogy of the miser, who will, of course, increase his store by restricting his purchases. Communities, however, are not in the position of the miser, possessing separate capital, which he can protect and increase; they rather resemble the merchant who buys and sells, making a profit on what passes through his hands. Whatever communities import they pay for by exports. This can be shown by analysis in any class of a nation's transactions. If we pay for the goods we import by bills of exchange, these bills represent goods exported, otherwise they would not be paid. If we pay for goods in bullion it is the same thing; gold does not grow in this country, and every sovereign we send abroad to pay for goods has been got as the price of goods exported, unless it have been brought by any of our own people from the gold districts, and then it is virtually a produce of British industry. It is, in fact, a sort of dynamic law that importation causes exportation, just as a vacuum in physics is filled up by air, or the other nearest fluid.

"The progress made by this country since 1846 has afforded a wonderful experimental illustration of this truth, since the exports have been tripled. They were, in round numbers, forty, and are now, 120 millions."

Reverting to another branch of the subject, I venture to quote the following passage from a writer on the Corn-Laws in the same valuable work:

་་

"The results of the repeal are well known. Every evil prognostication has been falsified. Poor lands are as much cultivated as ever, and even more so. There has been no stoppage of imports by war or otherwise, nor are there likely to be. Manufacturers and shopkeepers have thriven better than previous to the repeal. Instead of falling, the rent of lands of all kinds has risen, and tenants and proprietors are alike satisfied. The working classes are better instead of worse employed. In place of disorder there is general contentment. The liberation of the trade in corn has not, how ever, lowered the price of bread to the extent that some persons anticipated. This is accounted for as follows: an increased demand in consequence of the population increasing in numbers, and also improving in means and taste; the cost of freight and other charges virtually protect the homegrower to the extent of several shillings a quarter; and a small duty of one shilling per quarter is still exigible, in order to pay the cost of registering imports. To these causes might be added the misdirection of capital from agriculture to manufactures in the United States, by which the export of bread stuffs from that country has never been fully developod. The substantial benefits arising from the repeal of the Corn-Law consist in the stimulus given to trade, the removal of apprehensions as to the effects of insufficient harvests, along with a certain modification and less fluctuation in price. No longer a gambling kind of trade, involving large capital, corn * This small impost has, however, now been removed in the Budget of 1869-70.

dealing has subsided into an ordinary branch of commerce, which is pureued by a largely augmented number of merchants."

Having thus proved by quotations from reliable authorities the wisdom of the principles now advocated, I proceed to show, from the experience of facts, that the result of the adoption and exercise of those principles proves practically that they are just and wise. It is an indubitable and admitted fact, that since the adoption of the present financial system in 1846, the commerce of the country has increased to an unprecedented extent.

But the Protectionists of the present day say that this is not attributable to Free Trade, but to railways, colonies, and increase of population. Passing by the fact that the increase of trade has necessitated the increase of railways, if we examine the matter we shall find that, on 1st of January, 1867, there were in Great Britain and Ireland 13,854 miles of railway, while in France at the same date, notwithstanding that she has double the number of square miles possessed by England, and a population exceeding ours by 9,000,000, there were only 8,200 miles of railway.

As to the Colonies the figures are quite as conclusive,

In 1846, the date of the removal of protective duties, we
exported to the colonies (including India) British pro-
duce amounting to
In 1867, in consequence of the free importation of goods,

we exported to the same colonies ...

£17,391,542.

£49,799,610.

In the year 1846 we exported to foreign countries British produce amounting to £40,394,334, while in the year 1867 we exported similar produce to the amount of £131,162,313, thus showing an increase of £90,767,979.

But I now proceed to show the fallacy of the "addition to population" theory advanced by the Protectionists.

In 1821 the census returns show a population of 21,193,458

Increase.

26,895,518 5,702,060
29,191,009 2,295,491

Now let us see what was the state of our exports at those periods:

In 1821 exports of British produce £36,659,630

1841
1861

Increase.

£51,634,623 £14,974,993 £125,162,814 £73,468,191

Thus the exports per head amounted to 34s. in 1821; in 1841, although the population had increased by nearly 6,000,000, they only amounted to 388., while in 1861, notwithstanding that there had only been an increase to the population of less than 2,300,000, the exports had increased to £4 58. per head.

Another fallacy advanced by the Protectionists is, that the increase of commerce (which they cannot deny) is principally owing to the gold discoveries in California and Australia. But we test

this, and we find that during the ten years ending 1867, the average import of gold bullion from Australia was £6,378,869, and from the United States £5,884,286, in all £12,263,155. In 1858 the total import of bullion from both sources was £13,567,227; in 1867 it was only £10,827,392, or nearly £3,000,000 less; but in the year 1858, when the import of gold was at its highest, we exported British produce to the value of £116,608,756; while in 1867, when the import of gold was at its lowest, we exported British produce to the value of £180,961,923, an increase of £64,333,167, notwithstanding a decreased import of that which the Protectionists say causes the increase of commerce. The total increase of the exports of British produce from 1846 to 1867 amounts to £123,000,000, and it is thus clearly proved that this increase cannot be assigned to the causes to which the Protectionists would fain attribute it, but is solely attributable to the sound policy of free imports.

In 1842 Sir Robert Peel commenced the remission of protective duties, or, as they may be more properly termed, obstructions to commerce, and from that date until 1844 his remissions amounted to £1,807,597. In consequence the exports from Great Britain rose from, in 1841, £51,545,116 to, in 1844, £58,534,705.

In 1845 the tariff was revised, in 1846 the Corn Laws were repealed, in subsequent years other duties were removed, and the protective duties on sugar gradually reduced with a view to their ultimate removal. The total remissions from 1845 to 1852 amounted to £8,633,216, while the exports in the latter year amounted to the sum of £78,076,854, or an increase of nearly £20,000,000 upon the amount of the exports in 1844.

In 1853 the tariff was again revised under Mr. Gladstone, who repealed 123 duties and reduced 133, the consequence of which was that in the year 1853 the exports rose to the amount of £98,933,781, or an increase of nearly £20,000,000 upon the preceding year.

The occurrence of the Russian War necessitated the imposition of war duties, and our exports fell in consequence to the sum of £95,688,085. But when those duties were reduced in 1856-7 to the extent of £3,831,965, exports immediately rose, amounting in 1857 to £122,066,107, and in 1859 to £190,411,529.

In 1860 another revision of the tariff took place, and the French treaty was made. Between 1860 and 1865 duties were remitted amounting to £9,471,420, and our exports in the latter year amounted to £165,835,725.

Another and an equally fallacious objection raised by Protec tionists is, that, by the present financial system, we have allowed our trade to pass into other hands.

To this there is one conclusive answer, viz., that in the year 1867 our exports were 250 per cent. greater than they were in 1841, when protection was in full swing.

It is further alleged that "since protection to British shipping has been abandoned, a large number of foreign vessels have been employed to bring to England the articles purchased abroad."