rate.

But this is not the strength of the argument. In the Crimean War
England endured sixteen-pence in the pound _extra_, in addition to
all existing taxes (some of which were raised too), and the capital
thus taken from the people was destroyed (much of it) or dissipated
in the Crimea. But the sixteen-pence in the pound here suggested
would be in lieu of an equal amount of taxes taken off (it would be
rather less in amount than the taxes taken off): the nation
therefore, would not feel it at all, though individuals would feel it
in different ways. A poor man would have eightpence a week deducted
from his wages, but he would get his beer at three-fifths the present
price, his tea at two-thirds the present price, etc. He would soon
feel that he gained by the change. The rich would find that they
lost; but that loss would, I believe, be made up to them over and
over again.

First, I believe it is impossible to realise the effect on our trade
of having London, Liverpool, etc., free ports. We possess at present
half the ocean trade of the world: with our ports free, we should get
a yet larger share of the world's trade, and secure it permanently.
That is to say, we should certainly keep it until other nations
adopted Universal Free Trade.

Secondly, The fall in the price of tea, beer, etc., would be more
than the amount of the tax remitted: the freedom of universal
manufacture without any Government interference, the liberty to land
tea without delay, and put it into the market without having to
advance the duty, would cause at once a great activity in the trades,
and at the same time a fall in price. By diminishing the need for