1831.] Sir Henry Par mil on Financial Reform," tyc. 295 



Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Prussia, France, Spain and the Canaries, 

 Turkey and Continental Greece combined ! 



Under these circumstances it requires seme consideration of the 

 probable consequences before we can accede to the proposition that the 

 British manufacturer would sustain little injury by the loss of the West 

 India market ! 



Sir Henry justly observes, that "no law, perhaps, that was ever 

 made, is so entirely at variance in its enactments with the principle on 

 which it was proposed and professedly framed, as the Colonial act of 

 1825." In this we perfectly agree with him ; and we would be glad 

 if he could point out a single legislative measure devised at home and 

 imposed upon the Colonists during the last fifty years, which has opera- 

 ted beneficially ? The only operations of the acts alluded to, were to 

 create an annoyance to the Colonists, and entail an additional charge of 

 50,653 per annum upon them for custom-house officers beyond what 

 they formerly paid ! 



" If the planters of our Colonies are ever," says Sir Henry, " to 

 carry on a successful competition with foreigners in supplying foreign 

 countries with sugars, it is absolutely necessary that these restrictions 

 on food, lumber, &c. should be done away, or that they should be 

 countervailed by continuing to tax the people of England by high 

 duties on foreign sugar/' In this also we agree with him. But if 

 the people of this country are to impose upon the Colonists restrictions 

 on his trade, equal to 1,400,000 per annum, or 5s. 6d% per cwt. of 

 sugar, to promote their own interests, and if they allow the foreigner to 

 carry on the slave trade, which is interdicted to our planters, and 

 which gives the foreigner an advantage over us on raising sugar, of 

 about 17*. 3d. per cwt., surely the people of England are in common 

 justice entitled to give the planter something as an equivalent ? 



Let all these restrictions be removed, or let Europe redeem its pledge 

 to put down the slave trade ; and let the British planter have an equi- 

 valent for the 5*. 6f/| imposed upon him, and he will then be in a 

 situation to compete, successfully, with foreign colonies, " instead of 

 continually looking to Government and Parliament for relief/' 



In arguing for the repeal of the old monopoly system, he asserts, 

 <e that the possession of Colonies affords no advantages which could not 

 be obtained by commercial intercourse with independent states." We 

 think that at least, as regards our West India Colonies, this assertion is 

 equally absurd and unfounded. The same number of foreigners will 

 not consume the same quantity of British manufactures and produce, 

 as an equal number of British Colonists ; neither will they employ the 

 same number of British shipping and seamen ; in time of war they will 

 not, like colonies, form stations for the maintenance of our foreign trade, 

 nor assist in enabling the mother country, as in the late wars, to main- 

 tain her independence ; but, indeed, when we see in the very next page 

 Sir Henry asserting that " the capital which supplies commodities for 

 the Colonies would still prepare commodities if the Colonies ceased to pur- 

 chase them, and these commodities would find consumers, FOR EVERY 



COUNTRY CONTAINS WITHIN ITSELF A MARKET FOR ALL IT CAN PRO- 

 DUCE ! !" we may cease to feel surprise at any absurdity which, on 

 Colonial subjects, he may choose to put forth. 



With respect to the question whether our commerce with the Colonies 

 is more beneficial than with independent countries, the question, 



