the moderate content which the doctrine of evolution allows, or will they still hanker after a more satisfying solution of the problems of the universe? In other words, will they accept this earthly life as something worth possessing in itself, or will they still crave for a future life as the only possible justification of the present? No one can yet say. All that can be affirmed is that for some good time at least the evil of life will not cease to press on the human spirit. The growth of intelligence among the unfortunate, the poor, the downtrodden, will lead to many an eloquent denunciation yet. And, on the other hand, the growth of sympathy among the more cultivated few will dispose them to commiserate more heartily those whose fate is a hard and hopeless one. It may be safely said that we have not yet heard the judgment of humanity on its earthly lot. The opinion of a handful of writers, which is all that we have as yet, is, after all, not conclusive. It is not only too scanty, it is the utterance of those who may be presumed to belong to the successful half of the race.

It is self-evident that men will not praise the world till they find it praiseworthy. If, as Mr. Spencer tells us, a time is to come in which all men are to know what a happy life means, then, no doubt, optimism will be the universal creed. Meanwhile, it is a little unreasonable, perhaps, to ask the unlucky minority to join in the hallelujahs of the lucky majority, just because they happen to be the majority.

JAMES SULLY.

FAIR TRADE.

I AM not surprised that so many able and thoughtful men approach unwillingly the reconsideration of our commercial policy. For that policy, when it was adopted thirty-five years ago, gave us a substantial freedom of exchange which we long continued to enjoy, and which I have never ceased to account a priceless benefit. And, whilst that freedom was gained by one bold stroke of legislation, the dramatic issue of a controversy which had stirred the nation to its utmost depths--it is being gradually lost by the silent operation of influences not arising out of any act of this country, not visible to the general public, yet none the less pressing upon us with resistless force.

Freedom to exchange our manufactures for food is to a nation in our circumstances a matter of vital necessity. Our own Corn Laws deprived us of it in the period before 1846; their repeal opened the door, and we enjoyed practical freedom of exchange, until America and other nations gradually closed it again, just as completely as before, by heavy duties on our manufactures. If it was imperative to seek, and meritorious to find, in 1846, the freedom to exchange our calicoes, woollens, and hardware for food, it must be equally so now; and as the most effective means of doing it under the circumstances of 1846 were then the best, so the most effective means of doing it under the very different circumstances of 1881 are now the best. The one essential point is that it must be done. It is therefore not because I depreciate, but because I admire, the wisdom and courage which, a generation ago, saw the evil and grappled with it, and set our industries free, that I desire to see the same spirit rise again, to conquer the old foe which meets us to-day under a new face.

There were objectors in 1846: men who in former days had done great service to their country, and who sincerely believed that if the measures of their youth would not meet the new difficulties of their age, the case was hopeless and we bad better yield to fate. And such there are now. And as at that time it was not the energy or the eloquence of its advocates, splendid as they were, which at last brought about the change of policy, but the sufferings of the people, and their cry, which could not be hushed; so now I fear the matter will not be resolutely taken in hand until the people, pressed beyond endurance in many quarters, cry out that fiscal systems are for them-to enable

them to labour and to live in England-and not they for fiscal systems -to be starved and expatriated to justify them.

Mr. Bright tells us that it is not foreign tariffs, but unfavourable seasons and want of sunshine which depress our trade. It is both combined, however; and nothing can be gained by shutting our eyes against half the truth.

The disaster is serious enough when, through unfavourable weather, we lose 30,000,000l. worth of our own agricultural produce; but one-sided free trade doubles it. For had our consumers purchased this produce, as in a good season, from our own farmers, the money would have come round again through the home trade, giving employment to all our industries. Had it, in an adverse season, been purchased from our own colonists, the same result would have followed, as an immensely increased export of our manufactures would have paid the bill.

But buying it from America, who shuts out our manufactures by prohibitive duties, we have to pay her this extra amount by the transfer of securities; whilst our machinery and labour, losing the employment usually given by the home farmers, and failing to gain any from the American farmers to replace it, stand idle to that

extent.

Thus a second loss of 30,000,000l. worth of trade is superadded to the first loss of 30,000,000l. worth of produce.

However optimists may strive by special pleading to minimise them, I do not think it needful to enter into an elaborate exposition of the difficulties which exist: I need only appeal to the large classes who are painfully conscious of them. Our manufacturers are more and more excluded from the markets of the civilised world, not by fair competition, but by oppressive tariffs. At home they are met by the unrestricted competition of every article which can be made more cheaply in any country by dint of longer hours of work, lower wages, and a meaner style of living on the part of the workers. They enjoy the one advantage of cheap food, it is true; but that is purchased, as they are finding to their cost, by the ruin of those dependent upon agriculture, and the consequent paralysis of the home trade in the rural districts.

Under these circumstances, it has been proposed to establish an import duty of 10 per cent. on all foreign manufactures, not for protection, but to regain our power of bargaining with other nations, whose manufactures we buy, to admit ours as freely and fairly as we wish to admit theirs. And, to leave our hands free to do this, it is urged that we ought not to make or renew any commercial treaties but such as either establish free trade in manufactures on both sides, or are terminable at a year's notice.

As a matter of necessity, all raw materials of our manufacturing industries must be admitted duty free from every quarter.

It has been further proposed to impose a duty, not exceeding 10 per cent. on a low range of values, upon all articles of food imported from foreign countries, whilst admitting the same duty free from every part of our own Empire; the object, here again, being clearly not protection, but the diversion of the food-growing into our own colonies, with whose inhabitants experience teaches us we enjoy a return trade in our manufactures at least twenty times larger per head than with the Americans and Russians, from whom, at present, we are unfortunately obliged to buy most of our food, though they do their best to exclude our manufactures by oppressive import duties.

Now, it is natural and desirable that such proposals should be submitted to a searching criticism; but there can be no need for passionate denunciation, much less for misrepresentation of them, or for the attribution of disguised and unworthy motives to their authors and supporters. The most capable critics are usually also the most just; and what is wanted in this case is a perfectly calm and impartial consideration of the policy proposed-as to how far it would be likely to achieve the ends in view, what are the practical objections that can be alleged and substantiated, and whether the necessities of our position are such that we ought to carry it out in face of them. Very little criticism of this character has thus far been offered, but I propose in this article to examine and answer temperately so much as has come under my observation.

The question of the great excess of our imports over our exports has been much discussed: on one side, it has been argued that any such excess is a proof that we are going beyond our income and living on our capital; on the other side, we are told that it simply represents the growth of our income from foreign investments, of our earnings in the carrying trade, and of the profits of our foreign commerce. I believe neither view is necessarily correct. The true cause of such excess can only be ascertained by other tests; one of which, viz. the increase or diminution of the capital of our foreign investments in any given year, is entirely out of our reach. I have never concerned myself about any excess of imports over exports, however large, arising from the free operations of trade, investment, and exchange, but only about that artificial restriction of our exports by hostile tariffs which certainly cripples our industries, and so limits the creation of wealth. If at any time, through the action of such tariffs in artificially extending the manufacturing establishments of foreign nations, our own ironworks and textile factories are reduced to two thirds their proper production, we not only export less, but earn less. To this extent the disproportion between imports and exports marks national loss-the loss by costly establishments, with their workmen and all dependent handicrafts, reduced to partial or total idleness. In the three prosperous years 1871-73, when all our industries were actively and profitably employed, the excess of our imports over our exports

amounted only to 148 millions sterling. In the three adverse years 1877-79, when our great industries were very partially and unprofitably employed, the excess of imports over exports amounted to 380 millions sterling. Who can doubt that part of the increased difference and that part a very large sum-was national loss, arising from the contraction of earning and export in the three latter years, whilst consumption and import went on almost unabated? Or, in other words, that, but for the prohibitory American tariff, a much larger proportion of the value of our imports of food from that country in 1877-79 would have been paid for by the export of the productions of industries which would then have been active and not idle, instead of by the transfer of securities which actually took place.

But even if it could be proved, as it certainly cannot, that all this enormous disproportion of imports has been paid for out of our income, and without any diminution of our investments, that would still do nothing to reassure our working classes as regards the interests of labour. They are concerned in the acquisition of imports of food in exchange for the productions of their industry, rather than in payment of income due to us from our foreign investments. For suppose such investments to be increased fivefold; suppose England to contain multitudes of well-to-do people who owned them and lived upon the income, paid to them, let us say, in the shape of food from America, and clothing, furniture, and luxuries from France: is it not evident that the balance of trade might be satisfactorily accounted for by financiers, whilst our agriculture and manufactures were alike languishing, and every year affording less employment, and at lower wages, to fewer workmen? English land might be forced out of cultivation by American competition, or turned from arable to grass to such an extent as to more than half depopulate our rural districts and country towns, and drive the people into the larger cities and manufacturing districts, or to emigration. The demand for manufactures in the agricultural districts would thus be seriously reduced; whilst the free import of French manufactures and luxuries preferred by the ever-increasing class who lived on foreign incomes would curtail the employment of our artisans, whose wages would be still further reduced by the competition of the displaced agricultural labourers.

In one word, our imports would be acquired more and more in payment of interest or rents due from abroad to owners of foreign investments living in this country, and less and less in exchange for the handiwork of our industrial classes; and so the former would increase, whilst the latter would be driven, first to lower wages and diminished comforts, then to destitution, and finally to emigration without resources, and under the most painful conditions.

These are the inevitable consequences of a national policy which