r 



1826.] SMs. 371 



the government will be, not to invent impediments, but to afford the 

 fullest facilities to its admittance. 



We arc not, by these remarks, reflecting particularly on any govern- 

 ment ; nor do we charge our own with wilfully wronging the state by its 

 system of commercial regulations. That system was generated in 

 ignorance. The original object was revenue, without any thought of 

 the public, or any perception of evil consequences. The enormous 

 error is only beginning to be detected ; and happily the present 

 ministry are, perhaps, somewhat disposed to arrest its progress, or 

 rather to trace back the ruinous course. They have only to undo what 

 has been donc> and commit as little mischief in this backward career 

 as the unhappy nature of the case will allow. They have only to com- 

 bine speed and caution as wisely as they can ; let them seek the fullest 

 information, resolve deliberatel}', act resolutely, and persevere till the 

 object be finally accomplished. 



Precisely, then, because it operates to the advantage of the commu- 

 nity, do we support the principle of Free Trade. The argument on 

 which that principle is usually advocated, is to our minds unintelligible. 

 On all sides the economists and the government, who are pupils of the 

 same school, ring in our ears the mutual benefit of all parties — not only 

 of the seller, but the buyer, not only of the individuals but the nation, 

 not onlj' of one but of all nations. This is incomprehensible. If two 

 individuals make a bargain, what one gains the other loses ; where is the 

 mutual gain ? It is the same with two nations — the whole gain of the 

 one must be at the expense of the other ; the gain alone is not mutual ; 

 it is the gain and loss that is reciprocal, which will amount to no gain at 

 all. If we take three individuals, the first may sell to the second and 

 gain — the second, in like manner, may sell to the third and gain ; but 

 the gain of both the first and the second will be at the expense of the 

 third if he be the consumer. Take the three together, and there is no 

 gain at all ; things are differently distributed among them, but the loss 

 of the third is equivalent to the gain of the other two. In the com- 

 mercial intercourse of nations there is nothing to parallel this case. 

 To talk then of two nations freely trading with each other, and both 

 mutually and equally gaining, is sheer nonsense. If one nation consent 

 to bring its goods and pay an import duty, without charging that duty 

 upon the goods, the nation receiving the duty evidently has an advan- 

 tage. It is equivalent to the receipt of a tribute. If two nations again 

 trade with each other, and each pays the other import duties, but one 

 at a higher rate than the other, the nation receiving the higher rate will 

 benefit by the amount of the difference ; but wliere two nations are 

 trading perfectly free, or on equal duties, where the mutual gain is to 

 come from is past our comprehension. Money's worth, as we say, is 

 given, and no more. Let us be distinctly understood : by Free Trade 

 the community benefits, because then the public buys at the cheapest 

 rate, and the manufacturer sells at the lov/est. WHiere monopolies 

 exist, the manufacturer does not sell at this, the lowest remunerating 

 price, and of course the community suffers. Now, the result must, no 

 doubt, be the same with two countries as with one, under the same 

 circumstances of absolute freedom ; but is this what is meant by their 

 mutually benefiting each other ? No. The true statement is this — of 

 two countries, thus freely trading with each other, each will benefit ; but 

 each will benefit not at the other's cost, nor by the other's gain — a posi- 



3 B 2 



