July 28, 1904] 



NA TURE 



291 



ing employment for its own people." No proof has 

 ever been offered either from theory or statistics that 

 protection regularises the demand for labour, whether 

 permanently by stereotyping- an existing division of 

 labour, or temporarily by diminishing the amplitude 

 of the fluctuations related to the periodic ebb and flow 

 of commercial credit. It is true that when an industry 

 is well established, capital invested and labour 

 specialised, much temporary loss may ensue if a 

 sudden artificial diversion of the channels of trade is 

 made, and it often appears that this might be met 

 by protection ; and it is certain that a sudden removal 

 of protective barriers, already existing, would be 

 disastrous. Backed by such reasoning, there is 

 always a strong minority in favour of protection, just 

 as there used to be strenuous opposition to the intro- 

 duction of machinery, while the uncombined majority 

 of consumers is often mute. This line of argument at 

 best supplies a case for specific and temporary pro- 

 tection, and is completely dealt with by Prof. Smart 

 when he shows that as a matter of history it has not 

 proved possible to restrict protection to any point that 

 economic science might assign. 



" When a Government once adopts the protectionist 

 faith, it is driven by force of circumstances, not to 

 select and categorise, but to tax everything ; and when 

 it tries to let in some things free, or at a reduced rate, 

 is met with a storm of opposition from hundreds of 

 vested interests." 



Without assenting to or denying the plea that pro- 

 tection can be advantageous in some cases, it is shown 

 that practically vested interests are established, and 

 that science gives way to political exigencies, a con- 

 dition in which the pushful and unscrupulous succeed 

 better than the deserving. 



The treatment of the possibility and use of retali- 

 ation is marked by similar appreciation of the reasons 

 alleged in its favour, and practical examination of its 

 difficulties in detail. In the absence of any specific 

 proposals, it is always open to a retaliator to say that 

 the plans analysed are not the ones in question, but 

 most of the possible cases are considered, and the 

 special difficulties in England's way are shown. 



" So far as I can see, the only part of Retaliation 

 for which we are prepared is the threat of it. So 

 great is the power of the British Lion's roar that it 

 even seems enough to show that he is opening his 

 mouth ominously. Suppose the other beasts of the 

 forest do not fall down and creep to his feet, what 

 then? Would it not be better to change his mind? 

 It will scarcely be dignified to pretend that he was 

 only going to yawn." 



Prof. Smart admits the possibility of dumping, but 

 considers that its extent is much exaggerated, that in 

 the nature of things it is temporary, and that there is 

 no practical remedy. The reader is left with the im- 

 pression that a remedy would not be refused on any 

 pedantic grounds if a strong case were made out. 

 The absence of pedantry, and the broadness of view 

 finds the most deeply rooted which marks the whole book should make it at the 

 same time of great service to the hot-headed free trader, 

 and a not disagreeable corrective to the tariff reformer 

 who is not too sure of his ground. A. L. B. 



political arena to be settled by political methods,^ it 

 seems unnecessary to recapitulate arguments which 

 should be familiar, and we may be content to refer 

 readers to Lord .Avebury's " Free Trade," where they 

 will find two chapters of the " Essays and .Addresses " 

 recently reviewed in Xatlre expanded and brought 

 up to date. In it are many illuminating, if familiar, 

 statistics and telling arguments for use by the con- 

 vinced free trader; but it is not likely that a tariff 

 reformer will be influenced by these, for it is quite 

 obvious that his case is neither understood nor met. It 

 is no use to repeat that we have progressed wonderfully 

 since 1846, when the whole argument of the reformer 

 is that the continuance of this progress is threatened. 

 It is quite time that free traders realised that a picture 

 of the distress prevalent in the 'thirties does not carry 

 conviction to those who say that free trade has been 

 good, but there are now changed conditions and a 

 better way. This position is not essentially absurd, 

 and Lord Avebury's arguments, loose and inconclusive 

 as thev are in many cases, will not affect it. 



On the other hand, no tariff reformer can afford to 

 neglect Prof. Smart's argument. , It would not have 

 been surprising if, after fifty years' almost un- 

 questioned acceptance in Great Britain of the principle 

 of free trade, those to whom it had become axiomatic 

 had been found unprepared to meet a sudden attack 

 from new quarters, and with quite unusual weapons. 

 It would be idle to deny that the attack has been 

 sharp, that the defenders have learnt much, and that 

 economic science has benefited by the examination, 

 revision, and modification of its doctrines. No one 

 can now speak on the subject of foreign trade or 

 tariffs without a careful analysis of the possible effects 

 of the sudden changes artificially introduced by the 

 policy of foreign nations or of combined capitalists. 

 Prof. Smart is one of those found ready to meet the 

 attack, and tariff reformers will find it difficult to move 

 him or the readers of his book except by the hard 

 blows of rigid and convincing logic. 



For future readers there is a delightful note in the 

 preface that the book " was written during the 

 universal discussion which accompanied and followed 

 .Mr. Chamberlain's propagandism of Preferential 

 Tariffs, and Mr. Balfour's advocacy of Retaliation." 

 It may be hoped that the implied prophecy will be 

 fulfilled, and that the book may occupy a permanent 

 place as the best statement of the case for free trade 

 in 1904. Perhaps because Prof. Smart was " a Free 

 Trade manufacturer in this country, and a Protected 

 manufacturer in the United States," before he became 

 a teacher, his writings are always marked by a simple 

 practicalness as well as by lucid reasoning. There is 

 an almost complete absence of the use of technical 

 terms, but without them it is found possible to disrobe 

 arguments in favour of this or that modification 

 of freedom of trade of their speciousness, and 

 to show exactly in what circumstances thev are 

 true. Prof. Smart 



reason of the very general (foreign) approval of 

 protection in the idea that " the continued exist- 

 ence of a nation, as a nation, depends on its find- 

 NO. 18 I 3, VOL. 70] 



