29(3 Sir Henry Parndl on " Financial Reform," $c. [[MARCH,, 



says Sir Henry, is one " easily solved, because, where the employment 

 of capital is free, the nett profit that may be obtained by the employ- 

 ment of it in commerce with independent countries, will always be as 

 great as if it were employed in the Colonial trade. The trade we carry 

 on with the United States proves this." 



On this point we would take leave to observe, that the trade with the 

 United States is one which can scarcely be classed as a trade with fo- 

 reigners. It is a trade which was first established through our ancient 

 Colonial policy, and which is still maintained by the essentially English 

 manners and habits of the people of the United States. Sir Henry will 

 not attempt to contend, that if the manners and habits of these citizens 

 approximated to those of the Russians, the French, the Spaniards, or 

 any other European nation that they would be our customers for one 

 tenth part of the goods they now buy from us ? The Russians, for in- 

 stance, from whom, in 1829, we took tallow, hemp, flax, &c., to the 

 amount of 3,442,653, only received from us British and Irish produce 

 and manufactures to the value of 1,849,312 ; whereas, the people of 

 the United States took our produce and manufactures to the extent of 

 6,541,428, and we only required their produce, in return, to the extent 

 of 5,820,580. The French were our customers to the extent of 

 448,437 only ; whilst we took their produce to the value of 3,159,307. 

 Spain and the Canaries only 410,822 ; although for their encourage- 

 ment, we received to the value of 978,612 of their commodities.* But 

 what then ? " every country contains within itself a market for all it can 

 produce !" and, therefore, who cares for their custom ? 



Another material point has been entirely overlooked in estimating the 

 advantage of our West India Colonies. The whole of the profits upon 

 capital employed there returns and is spent in the mother country. 

 It has been estimated, that for a long series of years, the sum thus 

 brought to enrich the mother country was somewhere between three and 

 Jive millions sterling per annum. We would ask Sir Henry, what trade 

 with " independent states" would yield any similar advantage ? 



With respect to another question, ' whether the capital employed in 

 our Colonies is more beneficially employed, than if employed in the 

 United Kingdom ?' Sir Henry affirms that " in the West India islands 

 it feeds and clothes slaves :" very true ! But who derives profit and em- 

 ployment in furnishing a great part of the food, and the w r hole of their 

 clothing ? Is it not the British agriculturist ? fisher ? and manufacturer ? 

 " It pays British agents, clerks, and managers," who could not find 

 employment at home, but who return to their native country to spend 

 their earnings so soon as they have acquired a moderate competency 

 f( It employs ships and sailors" who could not find employment else- 

 where ; " and although the gross profit upon it seems, in prosperous 

 times, to be very high, the nett profit is not greater than it is on capital 

 employed at home ;" perhaps not but suppose that the capital em- 

 ployed in the West Indies could be transferred to Great Britain, how 

 could it be profitably employed at home ? We apprehend it is not a want 

 of capital, but a want of customers to give employment to our manu- 

 facturing and agricultural labourers, that is the cause of our present 

 distress ; and that this distress has been augmented by diminishing, 

 through our absurd Colonial policy, the usual return of profits to the 



* Parliamentary Return No. 292, Sess: 1830. 



