It was precisely because they did so that they were able to undersell foreign competitors in foreign markets, and especially in newly discovered spheres of enterprise. The policy of free trade, as enunciated by Messrs. Cobden and Bright, was at all events robust in fibre and liberal in aspiration. On their theory, it was to be competent to the consumer to buy whatever he required in the cheapest market. Raw materials for specific industries were to come to him untaxed, and the necessaries of life, which he consumed while converting raw materials into finished products, were to be relatively cheap. But the modern Liberal or shall we say Socialist ?-school disregards the doctrines of free trade which favour free contract and promote self-help. Contribution in the form of school fees was an important element in the arguments offered in support of compulsory education. Offer the people free education, and you at once diminish the value, in their eyes, of the commodity supplied, and invite them to be wholly dependent, instead of partially self-supporting. Offer the poorer classes of the people a subsidy from the State as a means of livelihood, instead of stimulating the thrift and responsibility underlying the duties of good citizenship, and you sap the morals and weaken the backbone of that very labouring class which it is the delight of the demagogue to flatter and mislead. If the lessons derivable from many years' experience in the imperfect administration of a defective poor-law have failed to convince the Socialist school that its champions are preparing the downfall of England's commercial supremacy, "neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead." Limit by statutory enactment the hours of labour, and you reduce, at ore stroke, the productive capacity of a community wich is probably,

taken as a whole, the most efficient producer in the world. And what do you get in return for this gratuitous legislative interference? Certainly not an increase in the national wealth. For the German and Belgian artisan will work longer hours for less wages; and, if so, the capitalist who employs him can, with a fair profit, take up contracts which the English employer of labour could not safely touch. You certainly do not benefit the skilled artisan of the highest class. It is his ambition to utilize his superior physique, his great power of endurance, and the valuable skill which enables him to produce more rapidly as well as more effectually than the average workman, for the advancement in life of himself and his family. To limit the hours of labour is to level him down against his will.

It is indeed said that, by authoritatively restricting the hours devoted to production, you will improve the happiness of the people and their physical and material welfare. Nobody doubts that, in a certain limited sense, less work and more play is reasonably desired by every working bee in the great national hive. The Saturday half-holiday, and such additional periods of rest and refreshment as may be voluntarily agreed upon between the employer and employed, are doubtless tonic and wholesome arrangements. But is it quite clear that legislative restriction of the hours of labour will, in the long run, tend to a beneficial result, without involving a serious set-off in point of disadvantage?

Suppose the limitation of production by statutory enactment causes the withdrawal of capital from current enterprise, and the transfer of valuable contracts from English to foreign artisans. You will have compelled an industrious community to work below its maximum

productive power; and you will practically transfer, by legislative enactment, a large portion of the work, which it would gladly have performed, to other producing communities in which supply and demand are permitted to take care of themselves. You will have taught a selfreliant community to look for its prosperity to the State, instead of to its own unassisted energy and skill. Against the improved happiness, which your State socialism confers on its nurselings, you must set off the diminution of vigour which arises from dependence. If the survival of the fittest-subject to certain reasonable and humane limitations-be the law of societies and nations, the least governed is, in the long run, the most likely to survive. Whom then do you benefit by your restrictive legislation? Only the demagogue, who hopes to attain office by the votes of the ignorant whom he has misled, and the officers of his pet organizations, who will be paid liberal salaries for drilling ignorant voters into the acceptance of untenable doctrines. Neither history nor analogy affords sufficient ground for believing that the temporary protection of specific industries tends to demoralize or pauperize a people in the same sense or to the same extent as State socialism. It is not denied by the advocates of protection in this country that the right of the consumer to buy what he needs in the cheapest market is sustained by the general tenour of free institutions. But they argue that other considerations must be taken into account. These may be briefly summarized as follows:

1. The statesman who desires the welfare of the country for which he legislates must have regard to the America, not exclusively of to-day or to-morrow, but to the America of twenty-five, fifty, one hundred years hence. The international competition for the commercial supremacy of the

world is not a short race, but a very long one. In such a race the competitors are all handicapped; and weight will tell every yard of the way from the start to the finish.

2. If that be so, it is prudent to consider what weight America has to carry in the race, as compared with other competitors. The answer popularly given to this question is that she has several points in her favour-economical, political, and social.

(a.) Economical. She possesses immense territorial area and great varieties of climate, which may hereafter enable her to compete with foreign countries in many—not to say most of the staple articles of commerce. For example: If her cotton product were worked up on or near the ground where it is raised, great economies in transportation and handling of raw materials might be effected. If her iron industry (rolling, nail, hardware mills etc.) were prosecuted on the ground where the coal and the iron lie close together, a similar great saving would result. If her potteries were established in the neighbourhood of her great mines of kaolin and china-clay, like economical benefits would be derived therefrom. With advantages of this kind at the outset, the gradual influx of capital, the gradual importation of highly educated or skilled artisans, and the gradual training of her own people in special industrial schools will give her a fair chance of competing with the world within a reasonable period of some (say) twenty-five years, and possibly a good deal earlier.

(b) Political.-America has no foreign policy. Its absence is a great saving to the National Exchequer. She is free from the necessity of maintaining great armaments, which make heavy calls on the vigourous manhood of a nation, as well as on its pecuniary resources. For the successful development of industrial enterprise, freedom

from foreign complication is an eminently favourable condition. There is nothing to distract her attention from the development of her internal resources. From the investor's point of view, in quietness and confidence is strength. Sir Henry S. Maine has indicated, in his recent admirable essays,* the vast difficulties which attend government by the multitude. So strongly is a kindred opinion held by a large section of the keenest observers in America, that some States have exchanged annual for biennial sessions of their Legislatures. The result has been eminently satisfactory. As long as a Legislature is in session, it is impossible to foresee what tinkering with property will be devised. Investors are hushed and afraid, and active business is chilled. If drastic legislation against property is proposed, capital will inevitably flee away. In these States the general desire is that things of no particular moment may exhaust the session. When an adjournment for two years is announced, everybody rejoices and settles down to business. This feeling involves no disrespect on the part of the people for their chosen representatives. They may be the best of men. But thirst for "making a record" and proposing violent measures is felt to be fatal to prosperity. The maiden speech of a thoroughly Radical orator may be the knell of a new railroad, coal mine, cotton mill, iron furnace, municipal loan, or the like. The country wants repose and time to develope its latent wealth. The restless demagogue is its very worst enemy. The substitution of biennial for annual sessions is more significant than pages of didactic exposition. It is a great example of the political sagacity of the American people; and it is immensely reassuring to the investor.

* " 'Popular Government," Sir Henry S. Maine,