$24 
ment, it sen grew into importance: some 
of the Carthaginian merchants most proba- 
bly found their way thither, or promoted the 
colonial speculations by loans; at any rate, 
hy furnishing a ready Metiatid for the rude 
produce. 
‘© Tn this stage of its progress, then, we 
find the colony trade left free: for, the first 
of the two treaties, prohibiting all the Ro- 
man ships of war to approach within a cer- 
tain distance of the coast, allows the trading 
vessels free access to all the harbours, both 
of the continent and the colonies: This in- 
tercourse is even encouraged with the port of 
Carthage, by a clause, fréeing the vessels 
entering, from almost all impost duties. The 
treaty includes the Roman and Carthaginian 
allies; by which were probably meant their 
colonies, as well as the friendly powers : and 
the clause which expressly includes the co- 
lony of Sicily, gives the Romans all the pri- 
vileges in that island, which the Carthagi+ 
nians themselves enjoyed. At this period, 
it is probable that the commerce of Rome 
excited no jealousy, and the wealth of the 
colonies liti!e avarice; although a dread of 
the military prowess of the former, seems’to 
ave given rise to the negotiation. 
“« Some time afterwards, another treaty, 
conceived in a different spirit, and formed 
exactly upon the principles of the mercantile 
system, was concluded between those cele- 
brated rival powers. The restrictions upon 
the navigation of the Roman ships of war, 
are here extended and enforced : the freedom 
ef entry into the port of Carthage is conti- 
nued, and into the ports of Sicily also, the 
Romans granting to the Carthaginians like 
privileges at Rome. But the Romans are 
debarred from plundering, trading, or set- 
thing (a singular conjunction) upon the coast 
ef Africa Propria Gwhich was peopled by 
Carthaginian colonies, and furnished large 
supplies of provisions and money to the city). 
‘The same restriction is extended to Sardinia ; 
and trading vessels are only permitted to 
_enter the harbours of that colony, for the 
space of five days, to refit, if driveti thither 
by stress of weather. A singular clause is 
inserted, to which close analogies may be 
traced in the modern questions of neutral 
rights and contraband of war:—if any Ro- 
man troops shall receive stores from a Car- 
thaginian port, or a port in the provincial 
territories of the state, they are bound not to 
turn them against either the republic or her 
allies. 
«© The substance of this very singular 
document, will suggest varions reflections to 
my readers. I shall only ol-serve, that we 
findin it the principles of the modern colpnial 
system clearly ainfolding themselves; and 
that we have ey ery reason to regret the scan- 
tiness of our knowledge of the Carthaginian 
story, which, in so faras relates to the com- 
merce of that people, breaks off here, and 
Jeaves us no trace of the farther restrictions 
must probably imposed by succeeding states- 
HISTORY, POLITICS, AND STATISTICS. 
men upon the growing trade ef the colo@ 
nies.” 
The Carthaginians, among the anti« 
ents, and the English, among the mo- 
derns, have had much experience in 
.colonizations: yet neither of these na- 
tions appear to have observed, that the 
reputation of dominion is useful to nei- 
ther party ; and that if colonies were 
founded independent, or autonomous, they 
could preserve a neutrality highly pro« 
fitable during the wars of the mother- 
country, whose commerce and territory 
would thus be less vulnerable. This in- 
dependence might indeed require occa- 
sionally an armed support, which would 
then become the object of a specific sub- 
sidiary treaty ; and the colonists would 
thus tax themselves for their own pro- 
tection. By retaining the monopoly of 
the colonial trade, we diminish our own 
returns, and we retard the commercial 
progress of the colonies; by retaining 
the sovereignty we bring on ourselves 
the whole expence of. defence; and if 
we attempt taxation, we incur, as the 
Carthaginians often did, an ungrateful 
war of the colonists for autonomy. 
In the second section much is said of 
the theory of the physiocratic sect. This 
doctrine how belongs to the learned 
Idmber of the schools. From Quesnay, 
its rst founder, to Dupont de Nemours, 
its last commentator, it was always a 
jargon, which escaped refutation by 
eluding intelligibility. Turgot was more 
than an economiste. Mirabeau the elder, 
and Mercier de Ja Riviere, are the least 
obscure apologists of the theory. ‘The 
use of puffing it into reputatton was 
merely seditious. It was an opinion well 
adapted to become an engine of revolu- 
tion in France. ‘Taxation on all obs 
jects of popular consumption was con- 
demned by these theorists: taxation on 
amass of proprietors, too strong to be 
taxed without their own consent, was 
recommended by these theorists; the 
theory therefore tended to please the 
croud, and to embody the landed inter- 
est. But now that it has accomplished 
its purpose, of bringing all the noble 
property under the operation of the con- 
tribution fonciere, it is laid aside by the 
Parisian sophists with a triumphal sneer: 
and the doctrine of indirect taxation is 
again recommiended to popular credu- 
lity, by the patronage of government. 
Nature and labour, matter and form, 
are the sources of all production and all 
