FAIR-TRADE versus HISTORY.
!To Tim EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR." J
Stu,—Your reviewer asserts that "I both appeal to facts and disclaim the appeal to facts" (p. 609). I reply, that my endeavour was simply to appeal to tendencies ; that this con- sideration of tendencies serves the foundation of my argument. But your reviewer has discovered a passage which, in his opinion, is not in accord with the tenor of the work. Is he thereby justified in concluding from a part to the whole, and leaving the false impression that I am always appealing to facts, while discountenancing the system ?
There is another point in your reviewer's statement which, I think, leads to some confusion. Says he :—" Those nations which have progressed latterly have done so through a Free- trade policy." But what sort of Free-trade ? Is it inter- national Free-trade, for that is what is commonly meant by Free-trade, when used without qualification P No. But it is an internal Free-trade policy carried out under external Protection. Now, how can this double policy be called Free-trade ? Is it proper to ascribe to Free- trade alone, what is actually the product of Free-trade under Protection ? Your reviewer, however, distinctly states that the commercial progress of some foreign nations is "in spite of, and not because of, Protection." What experience have we of the progress of these nations without any external Pro- tection? We have none. The statement, therefore, is an assumption, not a fact. But I leave it to your reviewer to reconcile this action of his in disclaiming the fact of nations progressing through a policy of Free-trade under Protection,. and appealing to the supposed all-potent tendency of Free- trade, with his attitude towards me in the opening sentences. of his review. Is your reviewer right to ignore a fact which certainly proves an impediment to belief in his opinion P—I
Author of "Free-trade under Protection."
November 14th.
Previous page
