which the buyer and seller divide between them. The exact shares in
which they divide the profit between them depend on some of the most
complicated considerations in the science of political economy.
Indeed, political economy can no more work out a case in figures,
even when every circumstance is given, than political economy can
tell in pounds sterling what should be the rent of a given farm. But
the point required for our present purpose is easy and certain,--
unless the English buyer got _some_ share in the profit he would not
give his gold for the wheat.

The great principle of Free Trade is that in this, and in all similar
cases, the individual shall be left to make what profit he can; that
his dealings with foreigners shall be interfered with by Government
in no way; that he shall not be checked in his operations by import
duties, bounties on exports, staples, or any other of the numerous
obsolete interferences in the statute-book. The principle is that
each individual can manage his own trade better than Government can
manage it for him; that, therefore, Government shall let any
individual do his best in trade his own way, knowing that whatever
profit an individual makes in foreign trade is an equal national
profit.

It may be shortly stated that in the old Protectionist theory,
destroyed by Adam Smith, gold was considered to be wealth. Hence, if
an individual bought foreign wheat for gold, the English suffered a
national loss of wealth, and the foreign nation made a national gain.
It is unnecessary to occupy space in refuting this (to us absurd)
idea, as no refutation can be more satisfactory than Adam Smith's
own.