the reflux of gold to this country, and does lower sensibly the price
which the Americans get for their wheat from us. Errors in political
economy avenge themselves--often fearfully--on their perpetrators.
But our objector will still want to have explained to him where the
L150,000,000 sterling required in England annually comes from. It is
not essential to, or indeed any part of, my present argument to
explain this; but I will anticipate matters so far as to say shortly
here that this L150,000,000 is, roughly speaking, the interest on
English capital invested in foreign countries paid in cash to the
owners resident in England--it is equivalent to an annual tribute.

Professor Henry Fawcett's _Lectures on Free Trade_ is a sound and
admirable book: it is occupied a good deal with the practical
question why so few foreign nations have adopted Free Trade, and how
such foreign nations are to be converted to the orthodox creed of
Adam Smith. But, as I think, unfortunately Professor Fawcett has in
that book used the words Reciprocity and Retaliation pretty freely.
Their mere use is enough to fortify a French or American
Protectionist in his present policy; he naturally says, "The English
Free-traders themselves admit that we are making money out of them:
we take their gold for our wine and wheat; we refuse to give our gold
for their cutlery and broadcloth: those English have now to come to
us whining for Reciprocity; as to their Retaliation we are not
alarmed--we know they _must_ have wheat and _will_ have wine." I
would wish to expunge the words Reciprocity and Retaliation from the
subject, as being words merely suggestive of false views. But the
most fatal course to the adoption of a Free Trade policy by foreign
nations has been our plan of humbling, begging (and indirectly giving
a consideration for) Commercial Treaties. Such a course is enough to
(and does) counterbalance with foreign nations all our theoretical