10
nerative, not in unremunerative labours. Employment, not in the unremunerative labour of growing corn, or barley, or meat, but employment in the remunerative labour of growing fruit, and flowers, and jam. "We are growing less corn every year," say the pessimists. "We have one million of acres less under wheat than we had ten years ago." And this, forsooth, they call a misfortune. Can they not see that in this beneficial process we are converting unremunerative into remunerative labour? Can they not see that in reducing our wheat area one million of acres we are liberating the labour of 300,000 or 400,000 men? Removing them from the unremunerative labour of growing wheat to the remunerative labour of growing fruit, and flowers, and jam. Is it only a dream of happy Arcadia, or is it a reality, that in a few years our population will withdraw from the ruder arts of husbandry—will no longer toil and moil in the demoralising atmosphere of unsuccessful manufacturing competition, but, guileless and happy, will, under conditions of compulsory peace, employ their leisure in the truly rural occupation of growing fruit and flowers and making jam. But the strongest argument against diminishing our home supply of wheat, and one that almost makes me doubt the sanity of my countrymen is, that
"IT PREVENTS OUR GOING TO WAR!"
They say that if we went to war with any maritime Power we should be starved into peace in a fortnight. Of course we should. And this, forsooth, is called a national danger. I say, on the other hand, it is the greatest national security that human ingenuity could devise. (Loud cheers.) Who so safe as those who cannot fight? (Renewed cheers.) I say that Free Trade is steadily extinguishing our home supply of food; in making us absolutely and entirely dependant on foreign nations for food, is working a miracle in the cause of civilisation, of humanity, of peace that nothing else could have effected. As far as England is concerned, Free Trade has made peace compulsory. Let jingoes rave and patriots declaim, England can never, under free trade, carry on a war with a maritime power; our fleets would be employed in guarding our grain ships; our coasts, our colonies, our coaling stations would be at the mercy of our enemies. In a month wheat would be up to 200s. a quarter; and I defy the most warlike Minister that ever lived, I defy Lord Salisbury himself, to carry on war with wheat at 200s. a quarter. "But," say the pessimists, still not happy, "the English are, after all, at heart, a proud, fierce nation, and if insulted would rush into war," ready or not ready. Well, all I can say is that if, after; a few more years of Radical rule, they have any pride left, they had better put it in their pockets; it will only cause them mischief. (Loud cheers.) I have been twitted, like my friend Mr. Cobden, with having advocated the
NAVAL SUPREMACY
of England at any cost. Whatever idle words I may have been compelled to speak on that matter, you know perfectly, I have never put them into practice! Strengthen the navy, indeed! On the contrary, I confidently
