| in the markets of Europe. 
| ture to restore the former restrictions, 
WOOL. 
nation has been benefited by an extension of the 
purposes to which this class of wools can be ap- 
plied. Nay, the general good of the wool-grow- 
ers themselves has been eminently served. The 
demand for their commodity has become more 
steady, and the trade been placed on a surer basis, 
by being founded on an enlarged demand, and 
supported, not by artificial regulations and fiscal 
restraints, but by an extension of the woollen 
manufacture. Soon after the peace of 1814, 
alarm was raised among the British wool-growers 
lest the price of the raw material should be re- 
duced below what they chose to term a remune- 
rating price. The government of the day, in an 
evil hour, yielded to the influence exerted; and 
in the year 1819, heavy duties were imposed on 
foreign wool, with the design of keeping up the 
price of the native produce, under the specious 
pretext of encouraging British agriculture. In 
six years, this monstrous law was repealed, but 
not until it had done all that the shortness of the 
time allowed for establishing the manufactures 
of foreign rivals, and giving them the ascendancy 
But the price of short 
wool continuing to decline, renewed efforts were 
made by the wool-growers to induce the legisla- 
This, in 
1828, led to a parliamentary inquiry, when a mass 
of evidence was produced, proving beyond all 
cavil the danger and evil of interfering, through 
the medium of duties and fiscal regulations, with 
the raw material of a manufacture which could 
only be sustained by freedom of trade and pro- 
duction. It was proved by the concurrent testi- 
mony of witnesses from all parts, that the cloth 
made from British wool alone could no longer 
| tind amarket in Europe, and was even deemed 
too coarse for the clothing of the labouring classes 
at home; and that, without a free command of 
_ the wool of other countries, a great part of the 
woollen export trade of Great Britain would be 
for ever lost. It may well excite surprise that 
any class of men amongst us should have dared 
to demand that the manufacturers of the country 
_ should be prevented from procuring the mate- 
rials of their manufacture where they could be 
| obtained cheapest and best; nay, should not only 
be prevented from exercising this natural and 
necessary right, but compelled to take from the 
wool-growers at home, and at a price enhanced 
by fiscal regulations, what was absolutely un- 
suited for the purposes of commerce. The dis- 
graceful law of 1819 had already shown that, by 
refusing to take the wools of other countries, we 
depressed the price of the raw material abroad, 
and thus gave an indirect premium to the fo- 
reign manufacturer; and that, by forcing our 
manufacturers to employ wools of inferior quality 
and higher price, we directly unfitted them for 
| competition in the general market of the world. 
It was of the repeal of the law of 1819 that the 
wool-growers thought fit to complain, as having 
produced the depreciation which had taken place 
IV. 
in the price of the clothing wools, not perceiving 
that, in admitting the depreciation from this 
cause, they admitted at the same time the mag- 
nitude and injustice of a burden, which had been 
so heavily taxing the manufacturing industry of 
‘our own country, and fostering that of others. 
What, it may be well asked, did the wool-grow- 
ers hope for by forcing up the price of wool by 
such expedients? ‘To the mere occupier of the 
land a forced rise of the raw material could only. 
be beneficial during a passing term. On the ter- 
mination of the lease, the benefit would go to the 
owner of the land in the shape of increased rent. 
Thus, in order to raise the rent of the land, the 
wool-growers were prepared to lay a tax on every 
consumer of wool, that is, on every individual in 
the kingdom, and to cripple the trader in his 
means to maintain his equality in the foreign 
markets. It is known that, in these times, the 
great danger to the manufacturing prosperity of 
the country is the progress of other nations in 
those arts in which we have hitherto excelled, 
and that our relative superiority in such arts can 
only be maintained by our being enabled to sup- 
ply the productions of them on the cheapest 
terms; and granting that the wool-growers could, 
by means of an ill-judged monopoly, have forced 
up for a time the price of the native wool, would 
they not thereby have abandoned a yet more safe 
and permanent means of effecting the end, 
namely, that which would have resulted from 
increasing the demand for the manufactured 
commodity? The injurious measure contended 
for was, however, happily resisted, never, it is to 
be trusted, to be brought forward again; and the 
trade of wool, by being thrown open to the world, | 
has been placed on a far surer foundation than if 
it had been made to rest on the narrow and in- 
secure basis of monopoly and restriction.” [Low’s 
Domesticated Animals. | 
The earliest dress known to have been made 
of wool was the simla, an upper garment resem- 
bling a blanket, referred to in Exodus xii. 34. 
and xxii. 26. The art of manufacturing woollen 
cloth was no doubt derived by the Greeks and 
Romans from either Egypt or Western Asia, and 
it probably passed into the central and western 
regions of Continental Europe about the time of 
the Roman conquest; but when it obtained 
footing or began to be understood in the British 
Islands, cannot be very distinctly conjectured. 
Britain probably contained few or no sheep till 
some time after the Roman conquest. No men- 
tion is made of them till about the beginning of 
the 8th century; and they could not be very. 
numerous till a general destruction of wolves 
took place, which happened about the middle of 
the 10th century. In the reign of Richard I, 
they were so far increased, that wool was become 
one of the capital commodities of the nation ; 
but no sooner did it become plentiful and valu- 
able than it fell a prey, first to arbitrary power, 
and next to the spirit of monopoly. With the 
3C 
