202 AMERICAN FARMS. 



benefited when the consumers — and all are consumers — 

 are permitted to procure every article required, from the 

 place where most cheaply produced. For if the manu- 

 facturers find it is profitable to rob one another a little, 

 for the chance to rob the multitudes a good deal, why 

 should not the farmers, or any of the cultivators of the 

 soil, find it equally profitable ? 



When England, in her old "protective days, sought by 

 this means to serve the interests of her farmers, she even 

 prohibited the use of cotton goods at one time, because 

 their use, it was thought, would sacrifice the farmers' 

 wool industries. It might be asked, why allow free 

 cotton to come into Canada to interfere with the con- 

 sumption of wool in the manufacture of light woollen 

 goods ? Or, why not force, by increase of protection, 

 Canadian consumers of grapes to depend upon her own 

 vineyards, as England did in the early days of her his- 

 tory ? Would it not be quite as much within the scope 

 of reason, as the efforts which are being put forth to 

 stimulate the growth of many of her highly protected 

 manufactures ? 



Sydney Smith's description of the tax system which 

 prevailed in England at the end of the French war, pre- 

 sents a picture of an ideal condition of universal taxa- 

 tion, which as well might serve the purpose of an ideal 

 of universal protection : " Taxes upon every article 

 which enters the mouth, or covers the back, or is placed 

 under the feet. Taxes upon every thing which it is 

 pleasant to see, hear, feel, smell, or taste. Taxes upon 

 warmth, locomotion, light, and every thing that comes 

 from abroad or is grown at home. Taxes on every thing 

 on earth or under the earth. Taxes on the raw material, 

 taxes on every fresh value that is added to it by the in- 



