this way effectually operate without the intervention of the government.

Although the supposed desirability of making a community independent of foreign countries is one of the arguments most commonly advanced in favor of protection both in America and in our colonies, yet all the reasons which have been adduced against protection being maintained for this purpose by such a country as France apply with tenfold force to the United States and Canada. Great as is the improbability that France can ever be cut off from her supplies of foreign products, the improbability is still greater that the United States, Canada, and Australia, with their thousands of miles both of land and sea frontier, could ever be so completely surrounded by hostile forces that they could not continue to obtain supplies from foreign countries.

3. It is argued in favor of protection, and especially by writers on the subject in America, that the cost of exporting produce being paid by the exporting country, America would be placed at a disadvantage compared with England if the commerce between the two countries consisted chiefly in sending raw produce from America in exchange for manufactured goods; because the former, being in proportion to its value more bulky than the latter, will be more expensive to export.

It can be readily shown that this argument possesses no validity, for it is based on the erroneous assumption that the cost of exporting produce is paid by the exporting country. In order to prove the fallacy of this assumption, let us inquire what would be the effect of reducing from 6s. to 3s. the cost of sending a quarter of wheat from New York to Liverpool. If, after this reduction in freight took place, American wheat continued to sell in England at the same price as it did before, the profit realized on every quarter of American wheat sold in England would be increased by 3s.

This opportunity of securing extra profit would inevitably cause increased supplies of American wheat to be sent to England, and this would continue until the price of American wheat was so much reduced in England that it was not more profitable to sell it there than in America. The difference in the price of wheat in New York and in England cannot be permanently greater than the cost of exporting wheat from New York to England. If therefore this cost is reduced, the price of American wheat in England must be also reduced by nearly an equivalent amount. The fall in price would not probably be quite equal to the reduction in the cost of carriage; because as American wheat became cheaper in England the demand for it would become greater, and this increase in demand might produce a slight rise in its price in America. It still, however, is certain that a lessening of the cost of carriage would produce a reduction of price in the importing country of almost exactly the same amount, and consequently it follows that the cost of carriage instead of being borne, as is assumed by American protectionists, by the exporting country, falls almost entirely upon the importing country. It is obvious that the first effect of a rise in the freight between America and England would be to increase the price, to the English consumer, of wheat and all other produce imported from America; and any reduction in freights would in the same way confer a greater advantage upon England than upon America, because the price of all American produce in the English market would be reduced by an amount nearly equivalent to the saving in the cost of carriage.

4. The next argument advanced in support of protection. is that the home-trader needs protection, because, since he has to pay various taxes which cannot be levied from his foreign competitors, it is necessary, in order to place him in a posi tion of equality with them, that he should receive some compensating advantage.

With regard to this argument it may be remarked that the foreign producer has to pay the taxes which are imposed in his own country, and it is a mere matter of chance whether these taxes in the aggregate are heavier than those that are imposed in the protectionist country. If protectionists argue that the burdens on production are always more onerous in a protectionist country, such an admission may be fairly regarded as a conclusive condemnation of the protectionist system. The aggregate amount which has to be raised by taxation in an old country, such as England, is in proportion to her population far larger than is required by the Government in the United States. The imperial revenue raised in England at the present time represents a charge of about £2 10s. a head; whereas in the United States the charge is less than £1 10s. a head. If, therefore, the raising of this larger amount in England proves less burdensome to her industry than the raising of a smaller amount in protectionist countries, it proves that their system of taxation is radically defective.

It is also worthy of notice that if the home-trader is to be protected in proportion to the taxation which he has to bear, each addition that is made to taxation in a protectionist country will become doubly burdensome to the general community; because it will create a demand for fresh protection. Thus, if a larger revenue is required in America, and it becomes necessary to impose a tax on dwelling-houses and business premises, the American manufacturer would immediately put forward a claim for more protection. He might, for instance, urge that before this new taxation he was only just able to compete with his foreign rivals; the new burdens which he has to bear will place him at a disadvantage, and he will, therefore, claim that he should be compensated by heavier import duties being imposed on the goods which come into competition with those which he produces. The price of cotton and woolen goods, of iron, and of various

other manufactured articles, would thus be increased through the imposition of these higher duties. Consequently the people would be doubly taxed: they would not only have to provide the additional revenue which is required, but they would have to pay a higher price for all those various articles which were subjected to increased import duties. The increase of these duties, although extremely burdensome to the people, might not yield any additional revenue to the State; on the contrary, importation would probably be restricted, and thus the revenue yielded might be less than it was before.

The argument we are now considering affords a striking illustration of the mischievous influence which must be exerted by protection if a policy of commercial restriction is carried out with logical consistency. The tendency of protection must necessarily be to deprive the population of the country in which it is maintained of the advantages arising from any improvements in productive industry which may be introduced into other countries. Thus, if the production of a manufactured article were cheapened in England, so that the English manufacturer was able to sell it in France at a reduction of ten per cent. on its former price, the French manufacturer might not improbably put forward a claim to higher protective duties. It would be in strict accordance with the principles of protection if this claim were granted; and if it were granted the French people would lose the benefit they would otherwise gain in being able to purchase a particular article at a considerably reduced price. In the absence of protection, the home manufacturer who found himself placed at a disadvantage in consequence of his foreign competitor having adopted some improvement would be stimulated to adopt the same improvement, so as to be able to sell his goods at the same rate as the foreigner. It would thus become a trial of skill against skill instead of a competition of skill against restriction.

5. One of the most important advantages claimed for protection by its advocates is that it not only encourages various branches of home industry, but discourages the trade of foreign countries to a corresponding extent.

Thus it is argued that if iron were freely imported into the United States the many millions which are now expended in America in the purchase of iron, instead of being distributed among the American manufacturers of iron and their workpeople, would be sent to England. Such a transfer it is assumed would enrich England and impoverish America. It is, however, evident that those who hold this opinion must consider that a community is injured by any circumstance which promotes the prosperity of neighboring countries. Protectionists may perhaps hesitate to avow such a doctrine when stated in plain terms, but it can be readily shown that this is the conclusion to which the principles they profess inevitably lead.

Protection, as previously remarked, may be regarded as a survival of the mercantile system; the opinions which were propounded by its adherents bear a remarkable resemblance to those which are expressed by the protectionists of the present day. Thus when they insist on the harm which would be done to America if iron were more largely imported from England, they constantly speak as if the additional iron which would be bought from England would have to be paid for in hard cash, and it seems to be thought that America would constantly have more and more money drained away from her. Nothing, however, is more certain than that if America purchased goods more largely from England, the English people would in their turn increase their purchases of American produce. If it were advantageous for a country as far as possible to diminish the quantity of products imported, that country would derive the maximum profit from foreign commerce whose exports were large compared with her imports. To secure a large