1826.] SMs. 37S 



country with a fresh and enormous expense, naainly to enforce the pro- 

 tection of the manufacture. All however fails ; the additional expense 

 is incurred, but the smuggler is not deterred ; his caution is sharpened, 

 but the silks find their way more than ever ; we do not say, in proportion 

 to the augmented police, but to the increasing desire for foreign goods. 

 In the meanwhile, the importance of the principles of Free Trade to the 

 interests of the commmiity spread far and wide ; the people murmur 

 louder and louder against monopolies, and the expenses entailed upon 

 the nation for their protection : the government finds itself compelled to 

 give way ; it must do something, or appear to be doing something. 

 Among the first steps to the approach of a political millenium, the 

 minister announces, as best calculated to tickle the ears of the ground- 

 lings, the abolition of the prohibitory laws, — this is charming. But, 

 growls the manufacturer — who believes, or affects to beheve, the minister 

 really intends his ruin — this is gross injustice; we have vested rights; 

 we have embarked our property under the faith of acts of parliament. 

 Then take, says the minister, a reduction of the duties on the raw 

 material. That is not enough. Then take, besides, a protecting duty 

 of 30 per cent, on the manufactured goods. Nor is that enough. Then 

 you can have no more, says the minister, and plumes himself on his 

 steadiness, and on his thus bravely and thus firmly supporting the prin- 

 ciples of Free Trade. 



The truth is, the minister, be his wishes what they may, cannot 

 do as he will. The manufacturing interest is too strong for him, or 

 rather, the embarrassments and complexities of our finances, He is 

 compelled to make a sort of delusive compromise. He repeals, there- 

 fore, the prohibitory laws, and in the same breath covers the trade with 

 a protecting duty. Do we mean then to say, that 30 per cent, will 

 really prove a protecting duty ? Yes, if that sum were really paid, we 

 verily think the protection and the prohibition would have precisely the 

 same effect. The trade would be in the same state as before ; foreign 

 silks would scaicely be seen in the open market, and smuggling woidd 

 thrive as before. But then, why, it may be asked, is all tSis alarm on 

 the part of the manufacturers ? Because, so far as this alarm is real, 

 they apprehend this 30 per cent, may partly be evaded ; and because 

 they are yet in the dark as to the rate at which the foreign manufacturer 

 can imderwork them. The statements vary from 10 to 50 per cent. 

 While this uncertainty exists, some apprehension will prevail ; if foreign 

 goods can be produced 40 or 50 per cent, lower than English, 30 per 

 cent, is no protection : if, however, the diflPerence be not more than 

 15 or 20 per cent., then 30 per cent, may seem amply sufficient for that 

 purpose ; for, what mean we by a protectmg duty ? One that will place 

 imported goods precisely on a level with our home-manufactures ? That 

 is the legal sense of the expression ; but such a protection would, in the 

 case of silks, be a mockery. WTiat woman, of any fashion, or preten- 

 sion to fashion, would purchase English silks, when she could get 

 foreign at the very same price ? Not that we suppose the quality of the 

 one must necessarily be inferior to the other. There can be no doubt, 

 whatever might be the fact at first, when the two came into open com- 

 petition, the difference would soon cease to be perceptible. But take 

 the worst supposition : when once every body coidd readily purchase 

 the foreign at a comparatively slight augmentation of price, the 

 sense of superiority arising from distinction would speedily vanish ; the 



