Brought over £1,147,148 Which added to the duties levied on the ten arti A revision of our tariff under any circumstances became in evitable; and if there were no other reasons but the injustice and absurdity of these duties, the people would be justified in lifting up their voice in favor of a change. When, then, her majesty's ministers found that there was an actual deficiency in the revenue, was it not plainly their duty to turn their attention to our tariff, and investigate the nature of that taxation which, while it yields nothing to the Exchequer, presses heavily upon the people? Would they not have deserved the most pointed censure if they had dared to impose FRESH TAXES on the country, without listening to the warnings of the committee, that revenue is sacrificed in order to support class interests, that the people at large are oppressed to support class interests, and that our commerce with foreign countries is sacrificed at the same shrine of monopoly? It was determined boldly, and we think wisely, to grapple with the monopolies, and by diminishing an excess of protective duties, to give the public the means of purchasing at a moderate rate the comforts and necessaries of life, and at the same time to obtain an increase of revenue which should enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to fill up the deficiency existing without having recourse to fresh taxes either on food or property. The Tories resist this plan: and now the conflict begins. They tell us to raise a loan: but the people understand that expedient too well; and have no desire to increase the national debt, swelled out already to such fearful dimensions by the profligate and scandalous loan-jobbing of Tory times. They say, Lay on fresh taxes, so that it is not on property: but will the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland bear fresh taxes? We think not; because fresh taxes would be unnecessary, unjust, and cruel. The Tories ask, Do we hope to raise revenue by lowering the customs' duties? They affect to ridicule the project; but it is perfectly obvious that high duties on articles of general consumption are impolitic as regards the revenue. High prices check consumption, and low prices encourage it. When such articles are dear, they are placed beyond the reach of the great mass of the community; but when the necessaries and comforts of life are to be purchased at a moderate price, millions become buyers, consumption is increased, and if subject to duties, the revenue is directly benefited to a vast extent. We need only refer to the case of coffee. In the year 1807 the duty was Is. 7d. per pound, and the quantity imported was 1,170,164 pounds, while the revenue was only £161,245. In the year 1812, the duty was reduced to 7d. per pound, and the quantity of coffee consumed rose to upwards of 8,000,000 pounds. In the year 1831, the duty was reduced to 6d., and the consumption rose to 21,842,200 pounds. In the year 1840, the consumption was 28,000,723 pounds, and the revenue was £922,000! Here is a complete vindication of the principle that advantage to the revenue and advantage to the community may and will go hand in hand. The Tories, however, quickly change their ground; they deny that the question ought to be one of revenue at all; and take their stand against free-trade on the grounds that protection,' as they term monopoly, if not a thing quite just in principle, is essential to the interests of the country. They tell us that we must encourage British interests; by which they mean that unjust advantages should be given to favored classes, to the prejudice of the whole community. Some of the Tories, indeed, profess that they are not influenced in their opposition to the government measures by an attachment to the monopolists; but are actuated by certain prudential considerations.' 'Others are wedded, they say, to free-trade in the abstract; but never can be induced to apply their principles practically! One of the principal writers against free-trade in corn says, that 'free'trade, abstractedly, is admitted to be a correct principle on every "side. Sir Robert Peel, in supporting the sugar monopoly said, 'I do not ask you to continue this exclusion for the purpose of supporting or maintaining the interests of any indi'vidual West India proprietor. I admit,' he added, ' that your liberality has been so great that if mere personal and peculiar ' interests were alone concerned, you might have a right to call upon them to sacrifice those personal interests to considerations of public advantage.' Sir Robert Peel durst not defend the monopoly by asserting that monopolies are just. No; he is compelled to admit that monopolies are in principle wrong, and therefore, as usual, has recourse to 'prudential considerations to defend that which on principle is indefensible. In the course of the same speech he protested that he was in favor of freetrade, on general principles; slippery words, that leave him at * An Address to the Farmers of England on Foreign Corn. By a Merchant. Painter, Strand, 1841. liberty to deny the application of those principles to any specific case; but still sufficiently explicit and definite to convince the electors of the united kingdom that the principle of free-trade is a righteous principle; that it is based on truth and justice, and that the ablest of the people's enemies, while endeavoring to defend their crooked and selfish policy, are constrained to concede the fact. False then in principle, MONOPOLY is bad in practice it is the prolific parent of many evils; it checks the intercourse between the families of the earth; it is a positive wrong to millions who consume the necessaries and comforts of life; it contracts, cripples, defeats, blocks up, and excludes from foreign markets, our manufactures, on which the greatness of the British isles depend; and further, it injures the revenue; thus doubly weakening the resources of the nation and overburdening the working population. 6 If God's free bounty bids this globe produce Binding all nature fast in love's harmonious chain.' FREE TRADE then must be the rallying cry at the elections; -free trade in corn, free trade in. timber, free trade in every necessary of life. But we are challenged as to the definition of the term free trade.' We are told that the ministerial measures do not carry out the principle strictly; and that if we were to have actual free trade we should have no import duties at all. Lord Stanley, making himself merry upon the subject during the debate upon the sugar question, said, 'Again I say, 'the noble lord may be right; again I say, the necessities of 'the revenue may compel him to take that course; but when ' he talks of upholding the principles of free trade, which he is 'to carry out with a simplicity and purity that are to be the 'wonder of all succeeding times, and an example to all future governments-I say the continuance by him of such heavy import duties, on articles of such general consumption and of 'such prime necessity, is in utter contradiction to his pre'tensions, and must deprive him of that character of the cham'pion of free trade, which he, and others for him, have been so 'anxious to assume.' Thus the ministerial financial measures have been opposed, at one time, because they do embrace the principle of free trade, and at another, because they do not. In the midst of the confusion which the Tories thus endeavor to create, for the purpose of diverting public attention from the merits of the real question at issue, this is certain;—the ministerial measures make an important advance toward free trade, if they do not carry out the principle to its utmost limits. There is no denying this; and, as a legitimate inference, if free trade be a good thing, those measures deserve the support of the country. But free trade does not mean that there should be no import duties. It means that there should be NO MONOPOLIES; that there should be No PROHIBITION of purchasing at the cheapest, and selling at the dearest, markets; that there should be no import duties EXCEPT FOR THE PURPOSES OF REVENUE; that those duties should not be unfairly thrown upon the articles of prime consumption-on the necessaries or comforts of life; it means that we should reciprocate with the nations of the earth, and exchange British manufactures for foreign productions. This is our notion of free trade. Lord Palmerston, in the best speech, among the very many able and statesman-like speeches, recently delivered in the House of Commons, conclusively replied to the objection adverted to. The question, as I have already stated,' observed the noble lord, is, between monopoly and free trade. The noble lord, the member for North Lancashire (Lord Stanley), and the right honorable baronet who spoke to-night, have given us their view of the meaning of free trade, and have taunted us with an intention or a desire to abolish altogether all duties on foreign produce, and to leave importation into this country utterly free from any charge at all. That is not my notion of free trade. That, at least, is not the free trade that I would establish. We must have a revenue derived from some source or other, and, in my opinion, there is no more legitimate or proper mode of deriving a revenue, than by laying a duty on the importation of foreign produce. BUT THEN I SAY, LET THOSE DUTIES BE LAID ON FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF REVENUE, Do not lay them on for the purpose of enabling a comparatively few men to carry on a losing trade at the expense of the rest of the community. I know that in an artificial state of society, such as that in which we live, it is impossible at once, and without some delay, to apply principles of this kind; because, suddenly adopted, they would derange a considerable branch of human transactions, and might possibly lead to the ruin of thousands of individuals. That is not our wish or our intention. The object at which we aim is to go on with the principles of free trade, as quickly and as straight forwardly as circumstances will admit. Protection, in the sense in which it is used by those who oppose the proposition now made by the government, is, in truth, nothing more than a tax laid upon the industry, the intelligence, and the activity of the mass of the community, in order to support the indolence and exclusiveness of a small portion.' Having thus settled, as we think satisfactorily, the general principles on which ministers profess to base the great questions which now agitate the country, and almost exclusively occupy the attention of electors, let us see how far their measure deserves the approbation and support of those who value the best interests of the community. And here we may just advert, in passing, to the anti-slavery ground, which has been assumed by the Tories in their opposition to the ministerial budget. We say assumed, and we use the word deliberately;-no similar instance of unblushing hypocrisy having occurred in modern times. In listening to the speeches of Lord Sandon and his supporters, we might have imagined that their political life had been signalized by highminded devotedness to the great interests of humanity. The zeal now avowed is apparently so energetic and unselfish, that it might naturally be supposed, by one ignorant of the past, that his lordship's eloquence had been frequently heard in the British Parliament, denouncing the servitude in which, till recently, our colonial fellow-subjects were held; and that the votes of his allies, so freely offered in his support, have frequently been recorded on behalf of the violated rights of the sons of Africa. The very reverse, however, of all this has been the case. From the first moment that Mr. Wilberforce introduced the subject of the slave-trade into St. Stephen's, down to the hour when party tactics might be served by the motion of the noble lord, the Tories have been the sworn opponents of every measure which contemplated the manumission of the negro, or the increase of his social comforts. The debates of successive parliaments bear ample witness to this fact, and bitter was the disappointment which the unswerving opposition of this party inflicted on the philanthropic men, who sought to free their country from the crime of perpetuating so foul a system. And yet these gentlemen, with unparalleled hardihood, can now present themselves to the British people as the friends of the negro's rights. Out upon such hypocrisy, which insults the intellect while it seeks to mislead the sympathies of the nation! Next to religious hypocrisy, that of benevolence is most disgusting, and of this the party in opposition has fur |