There is a good dearness--that which results from an increase of demand; for this indicates the augmentation of the general wealth.
There is also a good cheapness, resulting from abundance.

And there is a baneful cheapness--such as results from the cessation of demand, the inability of consumers to purchase.
And observe this: Prohibition causes at the same time both the dearness and the cheapness which are of a bad nature; a bad dearness, resulting from a diminution of the supply (this indeed is its avowed object), and a bad cheapness, resulting from a diminution of the demand, because it gives a false direction to capital and labor, and overwhelms consumers with taxes and restrictions.
So that, _as regards the price_, these two tendencies neutralize each other; and for this reason, the protective system, restricting the supply and the demand at the same time, does not realize the high prices which are its object.
But with respect to the condition of the people, these two tendencies do not neutralize each other; on the contrary, they unite in impoverishing them.
The effect of free trade is exactly the opposite.

Possibly it does not cause the cheapness which it promises; for it also has two tendencies, the one towards that desirable form of cheapness resulting from the increase of supply, or from abundance; the other towards that dearness consequent upon the increased demand and the development of the general wealth.

These two tendencies neutralize themselves as regards the _mere price_; but they concur in their tendency to ameliorate the condition of mankind.

In a word, under the protective system men recede towards a condition of feebleness as regards both supply and demand; under the free trade system, they advance towards a condition where development is gradual without any necessary increase in the absolute prices of things.
Price is not a good criterion of wealth.