We

of reciprocity is a mirage, so much the greater their victory; but assertions will not do, we must have argument based upon facts. must have the practical experiences of our merchants, manufacturers, and farmers put before us, and not the visionary theories of gentlemenpoliticians, lawyers, and brokers-the latter of whom have it to their interest to keep matters as they are, having never been better off than they are now because the impossibility of investing money in agriculture and manufacture with any profit has become an established fact with few exceptions, and investments are consequently being made in foreign mines and other enterprises of a more or less risky character, all of which, so far as the broker or financier are concerned, bring grist to the mill, while at the same time the country is being impoverished by them, because they are non-productive drones in the hive. Statistics, unquestionably, have always been and always will be manipulated to suit either party; nevertheless, they may be so used (if used with political morality) as to clinch an argument when all else fails. But do not let us have figures quoted showing the increase of our trade since ten or twenty years ago, (whether we should not have increased without Free Trade quite as much or more has yet to be proved, other countries having done so), without attention also being called to the immense increase of populations and the consequent increased demand, and the consequent necessity for increased trading facilities to employ them; but let us have the ratio of increase of trade to the population, and compare this with the trade of other countries under protection in like proportion to their increased population.

Since the result of the Lincolnshire election was published, provincial papers, and many of the London ones, have quoted Mr. Lowther's protective speeches as the cause of the change in that county; though the Times holds that the support obtained from the upholders of reciprocity could have been done without, the chief cause being dissatisfaction at the little done by the Government since taking office. However this may be, a sudden change has taken place, and with the return of Mr. Eckroyd for Preston, Mr. Lowther for Lincolnshire, and Sir George Elliot for Durham, (with a majority of 652, which is a gain of 1793 votes seeing that he was beaten by 1141 votes at the General Election), we may fairly conclude that the state of trade has some little to do with it. The withdrawal of Blandford from Cambridgeshire is also not without its significance, backed as it was by these words-"There is not the entire unanimity among the Liberals of this constituency that I anticipated, and therefore I shall not continue the contest." With the breakdown among the agriculturalists, and the outcry for work which is spreading among the masses, it is not to be wondered at that we should find Liberals even beginning to enquire if some means cannot be found to fight the hostile tariffs of other countries.

Legislation, which shall assist in the development of our Colonies, seems to be one means to the desired end; another would seem to be a revision of the land laws, so that transfers may be as easily affected as in stocks, without the plundering which now goes on in conveyancing;

and another would seem to be such a change in our bankruptcy laws (under the existing ones we are said to be losing twenty-five millions a year), so that instead of it being one of the proudest moments in a man's life when he has passed through the Court with his discharge, as it appears to be now, it shall be regarded as a lasting disgrace until he shall have paid the uttermost farthing-except of course where unavoidable misfortune has overtaken him. But it will be no half measures that will effect these reforms, for in the land question class interests will beset us, not only from landlords, but, perhaps, more than any other section of the community, from the lawyers; and in the bankruptcy reform we shall have to contend against not only the accountant and the many Court parasites, but the fraudulent and dishonest of the world, whose name, alas! is Legion. Meanwhile, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that reciprocity, protection, fair trade (call it what you like), is coming to the front. "It is useless," says Lord Dunraven, "for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to sit like King Canute, defying the tide, and using rather strong language; the tide is rising in spite of him, and is already lapping around the feet of his ducal throne. In vain do the veterans of free trade flourish their forty-year-old mops; they cannot keep out the sea. Strong barriers composed of arguments, not assertions, must be raised. New dykes, made of living, solid facts, not dead, decaying hopes, must be thrown up to stem the flood, if stemmed it is to be!" My object in writing this paper has been to place before the reader, as far as the small space allowed and my capabilities would admit of it, a slight résumé of some of the aspects in which this question is regarded at the present moment, and not with any idea of making a personal attack upon free-trade principles. There can be no doubt if a principle is worth upholding, the more freely its reasons for existence are ventilated the better for all classes of the community; and if free trade is still to triumph, the only way to victory will be by meeting its opponents in a spirit of calm reasoning and liberal tolerance, not by angry, overbearing utterances and the use of ugly epithets. I fear we are a long way off that happy condition of political enthusiasm, "when none are for the party, but all are for the state;" but this is the banner that the free-trade champion must unfurl if he would wrest the banner of reciprocity from the opposing army.

SEEPE-N.

FAIR TRADE A DELUSION.

THERE can be no doubt in the minds of all those who have carefully noted passing events, that there is a rapidly growing disposition abroad at this time to inquire carefully into the working of our one-sided Freetrade system with a view to some alteration; whilst many do not hesitate to advocate the imposition of import duties all round, not excepting the food of the people.

It is becoming the election cry of the Conservative party, out of office, though how they would think it prudent to act, in office, remains to be seen, and it has already had much to do with their gaining at least two by-elections; so that it would appear to be wise to endeavour to argue the question calmly and dispassionately with a view to informing the ignorant and converting the erring, and not politic to be satisfied with mere denunciation.

Ignoring the numerous causes that have been generally held sufficient to account for depression in trade, such as the natural reaction after inflated years, reckless trading, and bad quality of goods, waste by war, and loss in foreign loans; and especially during recent years, a succession of bad harvests, many are tempted now, in utter despair, to charge all their losses upon free imports, and the increased competition of foreign manufacturers. Forgetting that foreign goods are bought to benefit ourselves, and not to oblige the foreigner; and that the bulk of them are food and raw material, they do not hesitate to recommend the imposition of protective duties on certain manufactures (if not on all imports) so that a few may perchance be benefitted at the expense of the nation.

This seems to compel an earnest inquiry into the case, and the wide spread dissemination of sound opinions through all sources, and must be my apology for venturing to offer in these pages a few thoughts on a subject of so much importance. I cannot pretend to write an exhaustive paper, which would only be to reproduce the works of others, and I am chiefly anxious, by means of a few queries and suggestions, to stimulate thought and research; whilst possibly showing, in general terms, the impossibility of successfully reverting to the old tariffs. This loud demand for "Reciprocity" has come to the front very recently, and is the outcome of bad times; it was not heard of in the golden years of the past decade; all the results of 30 years trading seem to show that even one-sided Free-trade has been most beneficial to our peculiar circumstances and needs; and even Lord Beaconsfield declared that those who desired to return to "Protection" were following an ignisfatuus of a most dangerous character. So that the utmost caution should be observed in any attempt that may be made to retrace our

1

steps; and especial care taken that we do not throw away the advantages we possess, even for the sake of a desirable object, and one, moreover, which we cannot compel our neighbours to give us.

The cry is twofold-protection for the home manufacturer and agriculturist; and retaliation on the foreign competitor, to make him give us free access to his markets. Some do not hesitate to demand protection for all; others advocate a tentative process commencing with the chief imports from one country-say, wines, silks, and gloves from France. The bolder few desire to convince the masses of the people that a slight increase in the cost of food would be more than compensated for by an increase of work and wages; while the cautious many, fearing the effects of any imposts on corn, and believing that the English farmer must find a remedy in new land laws and wiser farming, believe that a little retaliation would cure the evil, and that policy and patriotism justify the attempt.

I believe that directly any attempt were made to carry the latter view into practice, a demand would be made for fair play all round, and that the farmers would call out for some relief as well as the manufacturers; and that as no Government would dare to tax the people's food again, and risk a repetition of the terrible scenes of fifty years ago; and remembering that in those palmy days of protection, hundreds of farmers were ruined, and that recently, in America (the land of high tariffs) there has been as much distress as here, the question would, almost of necessity, settle itself, and the agitation collapse.

Supposing, however, that some attempt may be made to test the subject, I wish to offer a few arguments against what we must believe to be a mistaken and even dangerous policy.

And first we must never forget how small is the proportion of imported manufactures compared with those we export; and that whilst we are taking steps to punish foreigners for not dealing with us more freely, they may retaliate upon us in their turn to the loss of much valuable custom. It seems arbitrary, also, that by these meditated changes, the English consumer should be compelled to buy whatever the English manufacturers should choose to offer him (being no longer stimulated by competition), whether it were dear or inferior; and not allowed to choose his own market. It is argued, however, that we should find new markets in our colonies, and that to ensure this, and to make up for the exclusion of food from other foreign parts, we should receive their grain and other produce free; but at this moment our colonies are decidedly protectionist, and are not showing themselves willing to oblige us, good customers as we are, so that we must be careful not to lose the customers we have, even if on hard terms, until we have secured other and better

ones.

But would the particular manufacturer be at once and permanently benefitted? He has put a tax on his rival's goods, and no doubt feels himself to be already a rich man. At once the price of his commodity rises, and he sees good profits and a free field. But the price having risen, is not the foreigner as well able to compete as before? And may

not the manufacturer find that demand is lessened at home, because of the increased price, and that his sales abroad have ceased altogether; and so his last state be worse than the first? And surely as the game of protection went on, we should find that demand decreased, money would not go so far, a compensating increase in trade and wages would not result, and ruin would come to many with certain steps. At all events when the sure cycles of time brought round such periods of depression and reaction as we must always experience, the state of the poor, with dear food, would be fearful to behold, and the country would be in rebellion. We must not look to foreign countries, nor to our colonies for our example. Most European nations have been forced into their condition by the stern necessities arising from war and other losses; whilst it is very natural for young colonies to fence themselves in. But these are all strong in their extent of country and their large and undeveloped resources; in which respect England cannot compare with them. And while we may regret that we cannot sell as freely as we could wish, and are justified in striving to convert all nations to our creed, we surely cannot improve our position by refusing to buy well, especially when our purchases consist mainly of the necessities of life, and the essentials of manufacture. It seems strange that alarm should be felt at the relative proportions of imports and exports; the preponderance of the former being chiefly caused by the great demands of this country for food, and the indebtedness of foreign countries who pay their interest in kind. Nor do our exports by any means represent the whole of our assets; we must look to our investments and all savings to supplement these, and regard the state of the account generally as one proof of assured wealth. There are, doubtless, several trades which have suffered severely from foreign competition whose case it may not be easy to meet; but as it is impossible to protect them alone, even if it were otherwise politic, a remedy must be sought in improved and cheapened production. The highest authorities of all parties are united in asserting the necessity for free imports, though hoping for freer access to other countries as the years roll on; and I have tried to show that any attempt to reverse this policy would fail to produce the desired result, and certainly give rise to lamentable consequences.

There are already signs of a change of opinion abroad and of returning prosperity. Many lessons ought to have been learned from the past; and if only we can be blessed with a few good harvests, and land tenure in England be improved, we need not fear for our country's future wellbeing, nor be tempted to hinder the intercourse of nations.

PAX.