as possible. She needs no importation of food. The Mississippi valley and Texas alone, to say nothing of the undeveloped territories, afford her adequate assurance under this head. In the view of the people, it remains to utilize the resources of her area, soil and climate, and the ingenuity and energy of her citizens.

From the Protectionist point of view,-a view which contemplates an indefinitely long period,-it is held to be worth while to protect and nurse a variety of nascent industries in all those cases in which the conclusions of political economy and the relations of environment afford a reasonable presumption of eventual success. It is held (whether rightly or wrongly-experience must decide) that within a few years many of these nascent industries will be able to take care of themselves in the competition of nations, provided their infancy is nursed and fostered till they are able to walk or run without assistance. The most ardent Protectionist would scarcely contend that a protective tariff should not admit, from time to time, of wise and adroit readjustment, with a view of relieving raw material of its burdens and modifying, according to circumstances, the duties upon finished products. Commonsense and practical statesmanship may, it is thought, be trusted to deal with each case according to its peculiar merits.

When the Free-trader objects that during this period the consumer suffers, the answer commonly given is that production precedes consumption; that the producer is in turn a consumer; and that, although any specific class of producers forms, at any given time, a minority of the whole community, still the verdict of the whole people is in favour of making the Country self-sufficing. They are willing to make this effort, even at the cost of some incon

venience to the large majority of consumers. Such a verdict is rendered by a national majority in a population of some fifty millions. It is, therefore, simply an exercise of the popular will in the direction of submitting to temporary inconvenience, for the sake of what is (rightly or wrongly) regarded as a substantial element of future national greatness. However absurd such a view may appear to the uncompromising Free-trader, it can scarcely be pooh-poohed by a candid thinker as futile or unpatriotic.

Great weight is attached in this country to the distinction between the majority of a whole community and the majority of a section or fragment of that community. The majority of the South desired secession. But the majority of the whole of the United States desired unity. Why should the majority of a section prevail over the majority of the whole people, if democratic maxims are to be consistently observed? The uncompromising advocates of Free-trade in England make but slow progress in the conversion of America. These gentlemen, say the advocates of Protection here, have laid down some excellent principles, sound in tendency and full of practical insight. If all the nations of the world would accept their rules, there is no doubt whatever that England would for many years to come profit by such a result. But suppose one successful player proposes the adoption of a rule, and several other players decline to accept it. What then? The value of a rule is indefinitely discounted by the refusal of many players to accept it. Its effect is necessarily subject to the context of circumstances. It cannot be said to be either good or bad when taken away from its correlation with its surroundings; and one of the most important of its surroundings is the consent of many players to its adoption. If England likes to walk alone, she is of course.

at liberty to do so. But it would be fanciful use of English to call it walking in procession. It is further urged— possibly with some show of reason—that the English Freetrade school made a definite election between two familiar theories of national progress. It was competent to Parliament to say that they desired to make England selfsufficing all round; and, in this view, to protect and foster her agricultural and possibly other specific industries, according to the exigency of circumstances. It was also competent to Parliament to say that England's welfare would be best subserved by exclusive devotion to manufacture, trade and commerce; and that they were content that England should derive her food from foreign sources, because her people could be better employed in productive industries outside of agriculture. Perhaps, say American Protectionists, England judged wisely, in view of the special conditions affecting her case. But the conditions of America's case are widely different; and we do not care to pin our faith to a particular law or policy, if its application to a specific instance appears inappropriate and possibly disastrous. And so it has come to pass that the English view of free trade is not received in America with extraordinary cordiality.

It is unnecessary to say that the above crude remarks are not intended to make out a case for protection in America; but merely to indicate, in outline, the drift and tendency of popular feeling in this country on the subject. What bearing the existence and probable permanence of this feeling may have on the investments of foreign capitalists must, of course, be judged of by the parties concerned, according to their several idiosyncrasies and the conclusions of their particular schools of political economy. But the answers which they may think proper to give are

not wholly without meaning, if fairly applied to a comparative survey of various countries considered in one very limited aspect-viz., their relative merits as spheres of future investment. Our enquirer will not overlook the advantages of protection, whenever he proposes to invest in any particular form of protected industrial enterprise. There is of course to-day no sufficient ground for predicting that England will not maintain, for many years to come, the commercial supremacy which she has laboured hard to achieve. But there is abundant reason to say that the course, on which she is invited by the prophets of State socialism to embark, distinctly involves a denial of the principles and practice which have made her rich and strong. It may safely be affirmed that no people educated to regard the State as its dry-nurse could ever have made such a record as the history of England discloses. When the State is everybody's nurse, no doubt the nursery is kept in good order, but the children are slow in learning how to take care of themselves. Paris would never have fallen, if some twenty years of Imperial dry-nursing had not, weakened the backbone of the French people. State socialism and the impending shadow of indefinite change are very real elements in existing commercial depression in England. It is true that England is very rich. But capital divorced from confidence makes, at best, a poor show in the competition of the world. The owner of capital may honestly and sincerely desire to maintain the commercial supremacy of his own country. But, in nine cases out of ten, he would rather invest it on reasonably sound security elsewhere, than retain it in English investments on the basis of "ransom." An enquirer concerning the best mode of investing his modest competence may be perfectly willing to admit Mr. Glad

stone's pre-eminent ability in the management of Imperial finance, and his unrivalled lucidity in the exposition of his views. But he may be wholly unable to find in the Premier's policy that kind of re-assurance which he looks for in the protection of his outlay in lands, houses, ground-rents, or many other familiar and attractive forms of investment. In the writer's opinion, it is impossible for England to undertake the serious political retrogression involved in State socialism, without suffering the penalties of corresponding financial retrogression.

Beyond a doubt the institutions of America, considered in their various bearings on profitable and safe investment, leave much to be desired. But, in spite of many drawbacks, there would seem to be a reasonable prospect of that kind of internal peace which favours industrial development, of reasonable stability in public feeling and opinion, and at least as high a security for the rights of property as can be found elsewhere. Before England had been overtaken by the wave of democracy, no doubt real property was better worth having in that country than anywhere else in the world. Its ownership--according to measure and extent-conferred on a proprietor peculiar advantages dear to the heart of the average Englishman. On the large land-owner it conferred indirect political power and an appreciable access of social importance. On the owner of a modest estate an atmosphere of solidity distinct from the ordinary incidents of mercantile prosperity. The merchant, it was thought, might be swamped by speculation, or the professional man by ill health; but Providence favoured the man of acres. You always knew where to find him-or, at all events, his property. His estate in shire could not fly away.

The powers that govern the universe would, it was felt,