“What a fearful charge against you, free traders,” say the protectionists, “is this long succession of distinguished statesmen, this imposing race of writers, who have all held opinions differing from yours!” This we do not deny.  We answer, “It is said, in support of established errors, that ’there must be some foundation for ideas so generally adopted by all nations.  Should not one distrust opinions and arguments which overturn that which, until now, has been held as settled; that which is held as certain by so many persons whose intelligence and motives make them trustworthy?’”

We confess this argument should make a profound impression, and ought to throw doubt on the most incontestable points, if we had not seen, one after another, opinions the most false, now generally acknowledged to be such, received and professed by all the world during a long succession of centuries.  It is not very long since all nations, from the most rude to the most enlightened, and all men, from the street-porter to the most learned philosopher, believed in the four elements.  Nobody had thought of contesting this doctrine, which is, however, false; so much so, that at this day any mere naturalist’s assistant, who should consider earth, water, and fire, elements, would disgrace himself.

On which our opponents make this observation:  “If you suppose you have thus answered the very forcible objection you have proposed to yourselves, you deceive yourselves strangely.  Suppose that men, otherwise intelligent, should be mistaken on any point whatever of natural history for many centuries, that would signify or prove nothing.  Would water, air, earth, fire, be less useful to man whether they were or were not elements?  Such errors are of no consequence; they lead to no revolutions, do not unsettle the mind; above all, they injure no interests, so they might, without inconvenience, endure for millions of years.  The physical world would progress just as if they did not exist.  Would it be thus with errors which attack the moral world?  Can we conceive that a system of government, absolutely false, consequently injurious, could be carried out through many centuries, among many nations, with the general consent of educated men?  Can we explain how such a system could be reconciled with the ever-increasing prosperity of nations?  You acknowledge that the argument you combat ought to make a profound impression.  Yes, truly, and this impression remains, for you have rather strengthened than destroyed it.”

Or again, they say:  “It was only in the middle of the last century, the eighteenth century, in which all subjects, all principles, without exception, were delivered up to public discussion, that these furnishers of speculative ideas which are applied to everything without being applicable to anything—­commenced writing on political economy.  There existed, however, a system of political economy, not written, but practised by governments.  It is said that