1810.J 
colonist would be benefited, and the 
foreigner would remain as he now 1s: 
and the manufacturing interests would 
be little affected by it, or they might de- 
rive advantage from it. For if the Bri- 
tish_ planter’s duty, which is nearly two- 
pence per vound, were taken off, he 
could afford to sell his produce at one 
penny per pound less than he now does, 
and derive a larger revenue. Foreign 
cotton would of course sell at a lower 
rate; but this could only be considered as 
the fortune of trade, 
I apprehend that no principle, inde- 
pendent of the loss of the revenue, can 
be adduced against such an arrangement. 
Every principle of humanity calls loudly 
on our extending every fair and honour- 
able protection to our own citizens, in 
preference to those of foreign states; 
and these claims are peculiarly enforced 
by the present exigencies. 
But its opponents will find a more un- 
answerable argument to any thing they 
can state, in the singular fact which has 
been recorded in a former part of these 
pages, that American cotton-wool paid a 
duty less than that paid by cotton-wool 
of the British colonies, from the period 
of its first imposition to the month of 
April, 1805, when fairer regulations were 
framed, and have been since persisted in. 
This fact furnishes us with analogical 
reasoning, which may in the present case 
be employed a fortiori. 
At the same time it cannot be denied, 
that the present is by uo means the 
period at which the revenue of Great 
Britain can bear any diminution; if there- 
fore the same redress can be procured 
by other means, it would be decidedly 
preferable. But if these other means be 
inadequate or inexpedient, the question 
then resolves itself into one of policy, 
Whether it be better to lose a part, or 
the whole, of the revenue? There can be 
no doubt as to the decision, if the pre- 
mises be granted; and it cannot be de- 
nied, that, if the present ruinous system 
be persisted in with regard to the Bri- 
tish cotton colonies, that total loss must 
be the inevitable consequence. 
But there is no necessity that the fe- 
venue of this country should be at, all 
diminished, if a more extended policy be — 
adopted. Recently, for the benefit of 
. British colonists, an additional duty on 
foreign timber has been proposed and 
acceded to: thus admitting the very 
‘principle contended for in the earlier 
_ parts of these observations. 
Montury Mas, No, 205. 
On the present State of the Cotton Colonies. 
215 
Might not this, or any other protect- 
ing duty, be so managed as to compen- 
sate very amply for the change proposed, 
either by improving British resources, or 
by actual contribution into the imperial 
treasury? ‘This is an inquiry worthy of 
the attention of those who manage our 
commercial concerns, 
The colonists have suffered long’ with= 
out repining, and now they only claim 
Justice, which certainly prompts an ame- 
jiorated state of their affairs. All that 
they wish for, is such an adaptation of 
their peculiar case to existing circum- 
stances, as will preclude all unnecessary 
grievance. They do not, cannot, wish, to 
embarrass by whining complaint; they 
would accommodate themselves to the 
principles by which they have been 
heretofore taxed, without examining 
those principles with more minuteness 
than may suit their unstable and imper- 
fect nature. If however they are urged 
by dire necessity, they may with unquese 
tionable correctness shew, that the sys- 
tem of taxing British colonial produce 
originated in, and has existed by, error: 
by error, too, of the most pernicious 
nature, as it undermines those distince 
tions between commercial and agricul- 
tural objects, which, in a great trading 
nation ought to be most accurately de= 
fined, ‘These distinctions are not framed 
of metaphysical fantasy, but of sound 
substantial facts, open to examina- 
tion. 
Mr. Bosanquet, in his admirable tract 
on this subject, has clearly shewn that 
much of the grievances which the West 
Indies labour under, originate in the 
confusion of the principles of taxation. 
The distinctions pointed out between 
trade and commerce by this gentleman, 
appear to be perfectly unanswerable. 
It matters not what terms are used, so 
that they are made perfectly intelligible. 
Trade, he considers, as the “ first con- 
version into money of the grower’s pro- 
duce.” This is an act of necessity, and 
therefore not lable to taxation. This 
principle 1s recognized in the non-im- 
position of duties on corn and various 
other articles. The -inability. of the 
grower to command the supply in many 
instances, 1s the stronghold of those who 
contend, that articles of trade~ should 
never be liable to tax, 
Conmerce is the subsequent exchange 
of the same produce, made with a view 
to profit. This is an act of choice, and 
has always been considered a prolific 
tie source 
