Manufactures of brass. The new system has reduced the duty on them from 50 to 30 per cent; the import has risen from the declared value of L.740 in 1824, to that of L.1103 in

1827.

China or earthen ware. The new system has reduced the duty from 75 per cent to 30, if ornamented, and 15 if plain this has raised the import from the declared value of L.7418 in 1824, to that of L.18,718 in 1827.

Iron. The new system has reduced the duty on foreign iron from L.6, 10s. to L.1, 10s. per ton; this has only raised the import from 12,091 tons in 1824, to 14,293 tons in 1827.

We need not go farther. Our readers already know what the difference between the two systems is touching gloves, silks, &c.

And now what restrictions and prohibitions have Mr Huskisson and Mr Grant abolished, and what freedom have they established in the general trade of this country?

When we look at exports, we find that they have merely permitted the export of wool, sheep, machinery, artizans, and mechanics; an export which in pecuniary amount is of trifling importance, and which in its nature is calculated to injure greatly general exports. While they have done this on the one hand, they have, on the other, by the diminution of bounties, drawbacks, transit duties on foreign manufactures, &c., and by the opening of the colonial market, done material direct injury to general exports. Every exportable article, important and unimportant, with two or three petty exceptions, was actually and practically as free from restriction and prohibition under the old system, as it now is; and many of them practically enjoyed much more of such freedom than they enjoy at present. In respect of general exports, the new system is in effect far more restrictive and prohibitory, than the old one was to the trade of this country.

What then are we to think of the calumnies which are heaped on the old system, and the adulation which is lavished on themselves and their new one, by Mr Huskisson and Mr Grant?

When, in turning to imports, we look at the articles not produced in this country, or not produced in it in sufficient quantity for its consump

tion, we find that in all of any moment the old system was just as free from restriction and prohibition, as the new one is. We find that, speaking generally, the only change which has been made in them is, duties on them have been, commonly in but a small degree, reduced, which the old system never intended to be either restrictive or prohibitory; and which it imposed on them from necessity for the sake of revenue. We find, further, that in reducing these duties, the new system, in general, makes such of them restrictive, as were intended to be so by the old one. This reduction of duties, upon the whole, has yielded no great benefit to general trade; in many cases, it has been too small to be felt; it was made when the country was flourishing, and needed no reduction; and it has greatly injured the financial concerns of the state. It has been chiefly owing to it, that our enormous public debt has not for some years undergone any diminution of moment. It has injured the country more on the one hand, than it has benefited it on the other.

And now, we ask again, what are we to think of the calumnies which are heaped on the old system, and the adulation which is lavished on themselves and their new one, by Mr Huskisson and Mr Grant?

When we look at the manufactured articles which this country can produce to any extent, we find that the new system gives to some precisely the same monopoly, in both form and effect, which was given them by the old one-that it gives to others a monopoly different in form from that given them by the old one, but exactly the same in operation-that to a further portion of them it gives a monopoly, but takes from the capital and labour employed in their production a large part of their profits and wages-and that it takes from a certain number more their monopoly, subjects them to unfair competition, and not only prevents the capital and labour employed in their production from obtaining adequate profits and wages, but to a wide extent destroys the one and deprives the other of bread. We find that in doing this it avoids injuring the capital and industry of some portions of the community, while it visits others with confiscation, ruin, and starvation; and we find further,

that it makes these unjust and iniquitous distinctions between the different portions of the community, rather from ignorant conjecture, wild caprice, and personal favour and animosity, than from fixed rule and principle. We perceive, in various instances, that in two trades, which both charge higher prices for their productions than are charged by foreigners, it fully protects the one, while it subjects the other to grievous injury; and that while it gives to one part of the community a prohibitory duty on the score of taxation and protection, it refuses to another part, which is equally burdened with taxation, and alike entitled to protection, all protection whatever. We see conclusive proofs that this system, in all this, fetters and injures in the most grievous manner the trade of vast portions of the community, without benefiting that of the remainder; and that it greatly fetters and injures the general trade of the country. On comparison, we find that it here differs from the old system to this extent; the latter protected all portions of the community alike, gave the same encourage ment and immunities to all, preserved the trade of all from real fetters and restrictions, and kept general trade in a course of boundless freedom, gigantic improvement and increase, and unexampled prosperity and happiness.

And now we ask once more, what are we to think of the calumnies which are heaped on the old system, and the adulation which is lavished on them selves and their new one, by Mr Huskisson and Mr Grant?

The glove trade, the silk trade, the shipping interest, and agriculture, are the important interests which are directly injured by the new system; now we will ask, why, when it would be as easy to give prohibitory duties to the two former, as to the cotton or any other trade, are such duties refused them? Why are not these two trades allowed to have the same prohibition, which is enjoyed by other trades? We have already disposed of the pleas of improvement and smuggling. Because, the Economists will reply, they cannot sell at so cheap a rate as foreigners; and each prohibition would compel the community to buy of them at a higher price than it can buy at of foreigners.

The foreign gloves and silks are
VOL. XXIV.

nearly all brought from France, which country practically takes nothing in payment for them but money; she rigidly excludes our manufactures, and there is every reason to believe that her purchases of us in other commodities would not be diminished, should her sales to us of gloves and silks wholly cease. Our conviction is, that if British silks were a shilling per yard dearer than French ones, and there were a proportionate difference of price in the gloves of the two countries, it would still be in reality cheaper for the community to buy British silks and gloves, than French ones. It would give in barter for British ones, corn, labour, manufactures, and taxed commodities of all kinds, from which it would draw a great profit; while it would give in barter for French ones, that which would affect the exchanges, in all probability to cause it loss, but certainly not to gain it profit.

We will, however, put this entirely out of the question. The Economists themselves must own, that their foreign cheapness ought to be regular and permanent; they must confess, that if foreign silks and gloves be cheaper than British ones for a few years, and then be for a few years dearer, it must be at any rate about as cheap to the community to buy British silks and gloves, as to buy foreign ones. They must admit this, because it is matter of arithmetical demonstration. They must likewise own, that the import of foreign ones constantly operates against this country on the exchanges; and that if at any time they contribute, in any great degree, to cause an export of gold, they will bring more loss on the community in a single year, than they will yield it profit in ten years. This cannot be questioned. Now, what is the fact? During peace, French silks and gloves may be cheaper than British ones; and during war, they must be, from circuitous transit, irregular supply, and other causes, dearer, unless they be smuggled: when this is looked at in connexion with the exchanges, it must be manifest to all, that British silks and gloves for the term of years, whatever they may be for the moment, must be as cheap to the community as French ones.

When this is established, it irresistibly follows, that the silk and glove

3 D

manufacturers, on every principle of right and justice, ought to have the same protection, profits, and wages, which are enjoyed by other manufacturers. The protection ought to be the same in effect. They ought to have the same monopoly which is enjoyed by other manufacturers; and if, from any cause, a duty will not give them it, they are entitled to direct prohibition. They have an undoubt ed right to be placed on an equality with the rest of the community, not only in form, but in reality; when it is manifest that their trades, for national interest, should be kept in existence.

In plain English, the language of the free trade people to the silk and glove trades is this:-Because you cannot sell at as cheap a rate as foreigners, you ought to be ruined and starved Because foreign workmen live on food different in kind from that of English ones, as well as much cheaper, you English workmen ought to be denied a sufficiency of necessaries-Because foreign workmen are in penury and distress, you English ones ought to be so-Because you do not possess natural and accidental advantages which it is physically impossible for you to possess, you ought to be consigned to ruin and want, while other trades ought to enjoy prosperity

and comfort.

We do not exaggerate: we merely strip the base and atrocious doctrines of their disguise, and exhibit themin their real form and nature.

Now, granting that the silk and glove trades had their old prohibition restored, what would follow? Would the empire be ruined? No one fears it. Would general war ensue? There is no danger of it. Would France attack our trade with retaliatory measures? She could not. What then would follow? The two trades would regain their prosperity-silks and gloves might be made a trifle dearer, but the community would gain more from the prosperity of the trade than it would lose from the advance-hundreds of thousands of people would be raised from want and suffering, to competence and comfort, to the great benefit of the whole community.

But then it would be the abandonment of free trade and the new system. Well, what have you gained

from them? Only injury. Other nations have increased their restrictions and prohibitions as you have abolished yours; and you cannot find that the abolition has yielded a single benefit to put into the scale against the evils you have reaped from it. Will not your principles and system admit of exceptions? You avowedly made the linen trade an exception to them, and you have made the exclusion of American ships from your colonies an exception to them, why then cannot you admit of more exceptions? Restore the prohibition, and you will still have your principles and system, subject, like all other principles and systems, to exceptions.

The reasons on which the silk and glove trades are treated as they are, would, in respect of wisdom, disgrace a schoolboy; in other matters they are a disgrace to the Ministry, Parliament, and the country.

The length to which Mr Huskisson, Mr Grant, and their partizans, carry their misrepresentations and boasting, is almost incredible. They have abolished various custom-house regulations, which were never intended to be restrictions on trade, and which had for their object to prevent fraud and smuggling, things which these gentlemen profess to detest; many of them had become a dead letter. Nevertheless, the swaggerers actually proclaim that in this they have established a new system!

The reduction of mere duties of revenue, they trumpet forth as part of a new system!

Incredible as it may appear, they confound the monopolies enjoyed by the East India Company and the Bank of England, with the monopolies enjoyed by the nation at large against foreign nations. They actually can see no difference between a monopoly which is enjoyed by a company of individuals against the rest of the community; and one enjoyed by the inhabitants of this country as a whole against the inhabitants of other nations. In consequence, they are calling for the abolition of the monopolies enjoyed by the East India Company and the Bank, for the sake of free trade and the new system! We need not say that these monopolies have nothing to do with the principles of either, and that they differ essential

ly and wholly from national monopoly.

While these gentlemen profess that it is as pernicious to give to the members of a manufacture or trade, who are scattered throughout the country, and who, instead of acting in concert, rival and compete with each other to the utmost, a monopoly against foreigners, as it is to give to a company of individuals a monopoly against the rest of the community; and while they loudly denounce all restrictions which give to the inhabitants of this country a monopoly against foreigners-while they do all this, they profess to be anxious that this nation should enjoy monopoly against foreign ones. They make it a matter of boast, when their new system brings no foreign manufactures into the country, and does not injure the monopoly of our manufacturers.

While they are anxious on the score of national benefit, to supply foreign nations with machinery and every thing necessary for enabling them to rival us in manufactures, they bewail the improvement of such nations in manufactures, and the increase of competition to which the improvement subjects this country, as matters of national evil.

To describe their system truly in plain language, Mr Huskisson and Mr Grant should speak as follows:

We have substituted one direct prohibition for another; this is our new system.

We have replaced one prohibitory duty with another; this is our new system.

We have abolished fetters and restrictions, which prevented foreign nations from injuring your export trade; this is our new system.

We have abolished fetters and restrictions, which prevented foreign nations from rivalling you in manufactures, and merely taking from you your markets; this is our new sys

tem.

We have abolished fetters and restrictions, which kept in prosperity the trade of your glove and silk manufacturers, shipowners, farmers, &c.; we have plunged the trade of these into distress, and we have grievously injured the trade of the whole community. This is our system.

More we need not say to enable our readers to judge correctly of the new system and its panegyrists. We must, however, repeat, that according to what was originally intended, the country has yet only had the beginning of the system. The existing protecting duties are to be lowered into extinction, or, at least, until they cease to exclude foreign manufactures and produce. The sugar monopoly has to be abolished. The prohibition of the export of machinery has to be wholly destroyed. In the next year the duty on foreign silks is to be greatly reduced. A great reduction in the duty on foreign butter and cheese has been for some time promised. Mr F. Lewis, in the last Session of Parliament, stated, that the present duties on corn might after a certain period be reduced; and the Marquis of Lansdowne said, that it would soon be necessary to reduce them. All protections are to be swept away until we are reduced as far as possible to the standard of the cheapest, the poorest, and the most wretched of foreign nations. This must take place if the system be persevered in. For three years this system has kept the country in a state of uncertainty, embarrassment, loss, and suffering; and if public ruin can be so long deferred, it must keep it in a similar state for perhaps four years longer; then the system will receive the finishing touch, and the destruction of the British empire will be completed.