ABSTRACT
T he non-economic side of the protectionist case next claims our attention, and this is often regarded as its stronghold. It is plain that economic arguments pure and simple cannot be decisive. A protectionist may accept the free-trade doctrines so far as wealth alone is concerned, but he may deny that the increase of opulence is the sole or even a principal end of national policy. He may hold, with Adam Smith, " that defence is of much more import ance than opulence,” or his ideal society may be one in which it is not desirable to have great masses of accumu lated wealth. And this is just as true of the opposite sentiment. A free-trader may think that the economic arguments for protection have a good deal of weight ; he may believe that by protection new industries would be fostered and the stage of manufactures and commerce more speedily reached, and at the same time hesitate to gain these advantages by the instrument of protective duties, with their corrupting effects on politics ; or he may even think that a ruder and poorer state of society is preferable.
