[Footnote 57:  I think I am correct in saying that Sir Evelyn Wood was of a contrary opinion, but I have been unable to verify this statement by reference to any contemporaneous document.]

[Footnote 58:  On the 21st of March 1884 Sir Alfred Lyall wrote to Mr. Henry Reeve:  “The Mahdi’s fortunes do not interest India.  The talk in some of the papers about the necessity of smashing him, in order to avert the risk of some general Mahomedan uprising, is futile and imaginative.”—­Memoirs of Henry Reeve, vol. ii. p. 329.]

V

THE INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS OF FREE TRADE

PAPER READ AT THE INTERNATIONAL FREE TRADE CONGRESS AT ANTWERP, August 9-21, 1910[59]

I have been asked to state my opinion on the effect of Free Trade upon the political relations between States.  The subject is a very wide one.  I am fully aware that the brief remarks which I am about to make fail to do justice to it.

A taunt very frequently levelled at modern Free Traders is that the anticipations of their predecessors in respect to the influence which Free Trade would be likely to exercise on international relations have not been realised.  A single extract from Mr. Cobden’s writings will suffice to show the nature of those anticipations.  In 1842, he described Free Trade “as the best human means for securing universal and permanent peace."[60] Inasmuch as numerous wars have occurred since this opinion was expressed, it is often held that events have falsified Mr. Cobden’s prediction.

In dealing with this argument, I have, in the first place, to remark that modern Free Traders are under no sort of obligation to be “Cobdenite” to the extent of adopting or defending the whole of the teaching of the so-called Manchester School.  It may readily be admitted that the programme of that school is, in many respects, inadequate to deal with modern problems.

In the second place, I wish to point out that Mr. Cobden and his associates, whilst rightly holding that trade was to some extent the natural foe to war, appear to me to have pushed the consequences to be derived from that argument much too far.  They allowed too little for other causes which tend to subvert peace, such as racial and religious differences, dynastic considerations, the wish to acquire national unity, which tends to the agglomeration of small States, and the ambition which excites the desire of hegemony.

In the third place, I have to observe that the world has not as yet had any adequate opportunity for judging of the accuracy or inaccuracy of Mr. Cobden’s prediction, for only one great commercial nation has, up to the present time, adopted a policy of Free Trade.  It was, indeed, here more than in any other direction that some of the early British Free Traders erred on the side of excessive optimism.[61] They thought, and rightly thought, that Free Trade would confer