our Liberal friends free-trade [231] means more than this, and is specially valued as a stimulant to the production of wealth, as they call it, and to the increase of the trade, business, and population of the country.  We have already seen how these things,—­trade, business, and population,—­are mechanically pursued by us as ends precious in themselves, and are worshipped as what we call fetishes; and Mr. Bright, I have already said, when he wishes to give the working-class a true sense of what makes glory and greatness, tells it to look at the cities it has built, the railroads it has made, the manufactures it has produced.  So to this idea of glory and greatness the free-trade which our Liberal friends extol so solemnly and devoutly has served,—­to the increase of trade, business, and population; and for this it is prized.  Therefore, the untaxing of the poor man’s bread has, with this view of national happiness, been used, not so much to make the existing poor man’s bread cheaper or more abundant, but rather to create more poor men to eat it; so that we cannot precisely say that we have fewer poor men than we had before free-trade, but we can say with truth that we have many more centres of industry, as they are called, and much [232] more business, population, and manufactures.  And if we are sometimes a little troubled by our multitude of poor men, yet we know the increase of manufactures and population to be such a salutary thing in itself, and our free-trade policy begets such an admirable movement, creating fresh centres of industry and fresh poor men here, while we were thinking about our poor men there, that we are quite dazzled and borne away, and more and more industrial movement is called for, and our social progress seems to become one triumphant and enjoyable course of what is sometimes called, vulgarly, outrunning the constable.

If, however, taking some other criterion of man’s well-being than the cities he has built and the manufactures he has produced, we persist in thinking that our social progress would be happier if there were not so many of us so very poor, and in busying ourselves with notions of in some way or other adjusting the poor man and business one to the other, and not multiplying the one and the other mechanically and blindly, then our Liberal friends, the appointed doctors of free-trade, take us up very sharply.  “Art is long,” says The Times, “and life [233] is short; for the most part we settle things first and understand them afterwards.  Let us have as few theories as possible; what is wanted is not the light of speculation.  If nothing worked well of which the theory was not perfectly understood, we should be in sad confusion.  The relations of labour and capital, we are told, are not understood, yet trade and commerce, on the whole, work satisfactorily.”  I quote from The Times of only the other day.  But thoughts like these, as I have often pointed out, are thoroughly British thoughts, and we have been familiar with them for years.