When in Britain in the 1900s a debate broke out about Joseph Chamberlain's proposals for protective tariffs, one consequence — among other perhaps more important repercussions — was to split an academic economic community which until then had been held together with some difficulty by Alfred Marshall. Now it was possible to discern alongside theoretical economists a group of economic historians. The historians welcomed Chamberlain's view, while the theoreticians who were still deeply committed to classical traditions opposed it.

How should I see my present role in the light of this historical background? There are certainly economic historians who today take the same side as their early predecessors. Among them are not just old-fashioned enemies of theory, but also historical econometricians — so-called cliometricians, who do not simply pronounce value judgements but attempt to test hypotheses with the help of carefully constructed mathematical models.

Despite this I should perhaps join the impressive majority of theorists who since the end of the eighteenth century have again and again opposed the growth of protectionism. In 1930, over a thousand university teachers signed an appeal to the US President not to sign the now infamous Hawley-Smoot tariff law if it were to receive the support of Congress (as seemed likely).