There is no reason whatever, why a nation should not follow a cosmopolitical ideal rather than a national one, any more than that for the sake of a universal peace, which would benefit the world economically as well as morally, it should not follow Tolstoi and the Quakers and disband its army, dismantle its fortresses, throw away its arms, and sell its ships of war for old iron. No reason whatever; provided the ambition to see your own country strong and great, fearless, independent and free among the nations is nothing to you, or provided that the high concrete ideal of practical justice and morality which England as a nation carries with her to all the peoples over whom her flag waves, - not only to the advantage of inferior and less advanced nations, but as a far-shining example to the whole world, - is nothing to you; - a justice and an example, be it said, which of its kind is the most perfect flower of civilization yet realised, but which, were the material power and economic resources on which it rests broken or destroyed, and England in consequence wiped out of the high circle of nations, would be as completely effaced over large tracts of humanity, as the arts and sciences of Greece and Rome were for centuries after the Barbarians had conquered the Empire in war.

Nor, again, would it matter that a nation should study the economic interests of the world as a whole as a higher moral ideal than studying its own exclusively, provided that it can make up its mind to seeing its capital and wealth drifting away to foreign nations, as they are successively driven out of one industry after another by foreign competition; and, what is morally of more concern, is prepared to see the workmen engaged in these trades, who of all others have the first claim on a nation's protection (inasmuch as having been deprived of the instruments of production by the capitalists, they are helpless to protect themselves), dismissed in batches as so much dead stock, or 'scrapped' like useless machinery, so that they must either find other trades which are still alive, to absorb them, or (as that is impossible owing to the highly specialized and differentiated nature of all modern industries, and to the technically restricted capabilities of the separate workmen) be compelled to emigrate, - and if they refuse, be told to go into the workhouse. or starve.

But we may go farther and say, that there is no reason why the leaders of a nation, and those who formulate its political and economic creed, should not try and realise their economic ideal of what is best for the world rather than for their own nation, provided they frankly and honestly avow it as their principle of policy on every platform, so that the nation itself is not misled, instead of getting a national sanction for their ideal under cover of its being best for the economic welfare of the nation itself; otherwise, while playing their cards according to the rules of one game, they are professing to play them by the rules of another; - they are in fact really playing a cosmopolitical game, and not a national one, - quite a different matter. If this course were scrupulously adhered to, and it were openly announced by the Free Trade leaders everywhere, that their principle and their policy were for the best economic interests of the world as a whole, even if they were not best for their own particular nation, can the result of their appeal be doubtful? I apprehend not; for if the history of the world and of life have taught us anything it is this, that with however single-minded a devotion individuals may fight for a cause which is to redound to the greatest good of the world as a whole (with all honour and credit to them be it said), no nation in its corporate capacity as a nation can or will fight for any economic good, as such, that is not primarily to its own advantage, however eager and willing it may be to sacrifice its economic interests where its religion or its national honour and integrity are concerned.

And hence, for a principle of Free Trade which is to have as its primary end a cosmopolitical and not a national benefit, frankly and openly avowed, I can anticipate in the present stage of the world a following like that of Tolstoi and the Quakers, but little more. I have mentioned this aspect of the moral problem here, because I have not forgotten how at the time of the Free Trade controversy Mr. Hobson, whose defence of Free Trade was largely prompted by his sympathies with this cosmopolitical point of view, had both the penetration and candour to admit that from a national point of view there was no security whatever under a regime of Free Trade that both capital and labour under the stress of foreign competition should not be compelled to migrate from the soil of their own home. The surprise expressed at Mr. Hobson's attitude by his followers, was doubtless owing to the belief which was almost universally held by Free Traders and Protectionists alike before the appearance of the article in the Fortnightly in which I ventured to give reasons for believing the contrary; - the belief, namely, that if Free Trade were made universal to-day it would not only be best for the world as a whole but for each individual nation in it.