nation. These were noble sentiments, reflecting the highest honour on a city which, though not so conspicuous for trade as London or Liverpool, has nevertheless been always distinguished by its learning and sagacity. Committee The presentation of these petitions to both Houses of Parliament was attended with the happiest effect, and a committee was appointed to inquire into the means of improving and extending the foreign trade of the country. The session being far advanced, the committee had not sufficient the country. time to exhaust the inquiry. But they conferred a great service by exposing the numerous restrictions which fettered the trade of the country, and their report laid bare important facts for further consideration. The restrictions then in force had been imposed for the improvement of British navigation and the support of the British naval powers; for the purpose of drawing from commerce, in common with other resources, a proportion of the public revenue, and also to afford protection to various branches of domestic industry with a view to securing for them the internal supply of the country and a monopoly of the export trade to the several colonies. Upwards of a thousand laws were moreover in force hindering trade in every direction, and upon a review of all these circumstances the committee had no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion, that by far the most valuable boon that could be conferred on trade was freedom from all these interferences, as unlimited at least as was compatible with what was due to the vested interest, which had grown up under the existing system. This the committee recommended, and they concluded their report with a brilliant passage entirely subversive of the principle of protection and of the grounds on which it had hitherto been defended. The time when monopolies could be successfully supported, or would be patiently endured, either as respects subjects against subjects, or particular countries against the rest of the world, seems to have The committee consisted of Mr. Frederick Robinson, Lord Castlereagh, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Baring, Mr. Lamb, Mr. Thomas Wilson, Mr. Irving, Mr. Canning, Mr. Finlay, Mr. Wilmot, Mr. Gladstone, Lord Althorp, Mr. Wallace, Lord Milton, Sir John Newport, Sir N. W. Ridley, Mr. Keith Douglas, Mr. Huskisson, Mr. Sturges Bourne, Mr. Astell, and Mr. Alexander Robertson. CHAP. I.] HOSTILE TARIFFS. 149 1786 the treaty concluded with this country introduced a more liberal policy than had hitherto been prevalent; yet France had not attained to any unity in her tariff. She was divided, in this respect, into three divisions. The first comprised the provinces which adopted the tariff of 1664; the second, those which refused to submit themselves to it; and the third those provinces which, when they were united to the crown, made it a condition that their relations with foreign countries should be altogether free. The tariff of 1791 was the first applicable to the whole of France, and its leading characteristics were the abolition of all internal duties, the exclusion by prohibition of certain foreign manufactures, the permission to import other manufactures heretofore prohibited at certain rates of duties, the total exemption from duties of articles of food and raw materials, and a progressive rate of duties on certain kinds of merchandise not exceeding in any case 25 per cent. on manufactures. In 1813, and more especially by another tariff in 1816, very high duties were imposed, and all the prohibitions were maintained, but substantially the tariff of 1791 was confirmed. There was abundant protection, therefore, in favour of French manufactures. Yet with all this France was not very able to supply foreign markets with her produce and manufacture. In 1815 the total value of the imports of France for internal concumption did not exceed 8,000,000l., and her exports amounted only to double that amount. In fact the commercial dealings of France were at that time extremely small in relation especially to her large population and the position she occupied in the centre of Europe. The experience of France, and of all countries which followed her policy, might, indeed, have deterred England from relying with any confidence on the broken reed of protection; but no intelligent opinion was formed on the subject, and Petitions for the great works of Adam Smith and other economists free trade. had remained sterile of results, when, in 1820, the London merchants entrusted Mr. Baring with the famous petition, embodying a distinct enunciation of free-trade principles, and praying that every restrictive regulation of trade, not imposed on account of the revenue, including all duties of a protective character, might at once be repealed. As this is the first practi cal step in the way of commercial reform, initiated by the mercantile classes, it is well deserving of a conspicuous place in any history of our modern commerce. It is related that when Adam Smith expressed his objections to the laws of forestalling, the great Burke said to him, 'You, Dr. Smith, from your professor's chair, may send forth theories upon freedom of commerce, as if you were lecturing upon pure mathematics; but legislators must proceed by slow degrees, impeded as they are in their course by the friction of interest and the friction of prejudice.' The time had however now arrived when the theories on freedom of commerce, proclaimed by the economists, were urged on the government for adoption by men of mature judgment and of a practical cast of mind, men not usually given to speculative philosophy, but intently anxious to promote their own welfare and that of their country. Nor had London alone the honour of being the pioneer of so great a stride in commercial legislation. The Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce was as explicit and conspicuous in the advocacy of a free commercial policy, and we owe it to these petitions, that the question was removed out of the pale of barren scientific teaching, and became at once the subject-matter of practical legislation. There is something so clear and pointed in the terms of these petitions that we cannot do better than give them almost in extenso. trade. The London merchants started from the first cardinal principles of trade, that foreign commerce is eminently conducive to Principles of the wealth and prosperity of the country, by enabling international it to import the commodities for the production of which the soil, climate, capital, and industry of other countries are best calculated, and to export in payment those articles for which its own situation is better adapted; that freedom from restraint is calculated to give the utmost extension to foreign. trade, and the best direction to the capital and industry of the country; that the maxim of buying in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest, which regulates every merchant in his individual dealings, is strictly applicable as the best rule to the trade of the whole nation; and that a policy founded on these principles would render the commerce of the world an interchange of mutual advantage, and diffuse increased wealth and enjoyments among the inhabitants of each state. Mr. Huskisson's Policy.-The Navigation Laws.-Trade with Asia, Africa, and America.-European Trade.-Plantation Trade.-Mr. Huskisson's Colonial Policy.-Retaliatory Measures.-Reciprocity Treaties.-Depression of the Silk Manufacture.-Reduction of Duties on Woollen, Iron, and other Manufactures.-Raw Materials.-Timber Duties. - Differential Duties. Mr. Poulett Thomson's Declarations of Free Trade.-Trade with the East Indies. MUCH required to be done in order to develope the resources of the country after the severe straining to which they had been subjected, and earnestly did the Government and the Mr. Huskisnation give themselves to the work before them. son's policy. Fortunately for the inauguration of the new policy, the president of the Board of Trade under Lord Liverpool's administration was Mr. Huskisson, a man well trained for the onerous duties of his position by his earnest studies in political economy, by his former residence in France during the first years of the turmoil of the Revolution, and by his services in other departments of the state; and now the agreeable task is before us of examining the steps he took for gradually liberating trade from the many trammels by which it was clogged. First and foremost demanding consideration stood the navigation laws, which, although political in their scope and origin, interfered more or less with the whole trade of the The naviga country. Even after the political motive had ceased tion laws. to exist, a narrow commercial jealousy for the Dutch still supported the navigation laws. Our merchants and shipowners, at that time one and the same interest, could not bear to see Dutch ships carrying both British and American produce into the very ports of England. They conceived it a grievance that Dutch ships tions and protective duties, should exclude us from foreign trade, might be brought forward to justify the re-enactment of restrictions upon the interchange of productions (unconnected with public revenue) among the kingdoms composing the union, or among the counties of the same kingdom. Need of an investigation on the effects of the restrictive system. The petitioners further maintained that an investigation of the effect of the restrictive system at that time was peculiarly called for, since it might lead to a strong presumption that the distress which so extensively prevailed was greatly aggravated by that system; and that some relief might be obtained by the earliest practicable removal of such of the restraints as might be shown to be most injurious to the capital and industry of the community, and to be attended with no compensating benefit to the public revenue. They urged that a declaration against the anti-commercial principles of our restrictive system was the more important at that juncture, inasmuch as, in several instances of recent occurrence, the merchants and manufacturers of foreign countries had assailed their respective governments with applications for further protective or prohibitory duties and regulations, urging the example and authority of this country against which they were almost exclusively directed as a sanction for the policy of such measures. And that certainly, if the reasoning upon which our restrictions were defended was worth anything, it would apply in behalf of the regulations of foreign states who insisted upon our superiority of capital and machinery as we did upon their comparative exemption from taxation, and with equal foundation. Free trade essential to tile measures In the opinion of the London merchants nothing would tend more to counteract the commercial hostility of foreign states than the adoption of a more enlightened and more remove hos conciliatory policy on the part of this country. That abroad. although, as a matter of mere diplomacy, it might sometimes answer to hold the removal of particular prohibitions, or high duties, as depending upon corresponding concessions by other states in our favour, it does not follow that we should maintain our restrictions in cases where the desired concessions on their part cannot be obtained. Our restrictions would not be the less prejudicial to our capital and industry, |