sionally such moderate and cautious alterations as the lapse of time or change of circumstances may have rendered indispensable. With this party, therefore, adherence to established and tried arrangements is the rule; change or innovation being merely the exception. But the very reverse of this sound principle is the leading characteristic of the Economists. With this party the rule of action is, that, whatever our forefathers established must be wrong; that every old arrangement or institution ought, therefore, to be swept away, in order to clear the ground for the wild experiments of some conceited projector, or crazy constitution-grinder.

Much industry has been employed in heaping obloquy upon those who are desirous to let well alone, and not to tamper with arrangements, which have been found to work well in practice. They are, it is true, firmly opposed to the experiments and crude projects of wild and unprincipled innovators; on this account they are held up as political bigots, wedded to every abuse, merely because it is ancient; and averse from every modern improvement. We must, however, be allowed to state in their behalf, that their attachment for the ancient and established arrangements of the community does not rest, as their calumniators would fain make us believe, upon a blind and superstitious veneration for antiquity, for "the wisdom of their forefathers," although they do not admit that their forefathers were exactly the fools which they are represented to have been by some of our modern luminaries; but upon the conviction, that these arrangements have, from the length of their standing, become so intimately interwoven with the whole fabric of society, that no change can now be carried into practical effect, without at least endangering, and perhaps irreparably injuring the interests and property of some particular class of fellow-subjects. If the community presented a tabula rasa, unencumbered with any existing institutions or regulations, then, indeed, would there be an open field, whereon philosophers and economists might be allowed to disport themselves to their heart's content;

producing no injury, they might under these circumstances be permitted to proceed without opposition. But unfortunately this is not the true state of the case. Our stupid ancestors had no philosophers, no economists, no shining lights, no itinerant lecturers, no "schoolmaster" among them; they indulged in no enlarged and magnificent views of general policy; contracted their political horizon within the limits of their own country: limited their care to the interests of this realm alone; and paid little regard to the concerns of other nations, provided the inhabitants of this island exerted their industry, and secured a liberal reward for their labour. In this perhaps they were wrong, illiberal, and narrow-minded. But although we should disapprove of the principles on which they acted, still we cannot escape from the consequences which have resulted from them. We may lament the state of things which has grown out of the practical operation of these principles; but we cannot shut our eyes to its existence. Under the shelter of the policy introduced by our ancestors, the arrangements of society had become exceedingly complicated; from time to time various laws of a prohibitory or restrictive character have been passed for the protection and encouragement of particular branches of industry. These laws cannot now be touched, without affecting in a very material degree, or perhaps even annihilating the individual interests which have sprung up under them. That statesman must, therefore, be much more gifted with philosophy than humanity, who can sanction changes in the arrangements of society, which, however beneficial they may in the end prove to the mass of the community, are sure to exhibit their first effects in destroying the property of private individuals, and reducing them and their families to a state of destitution and beggary.

We are inclined, indeed, to an opinion, entertained, we believe, by a considerable and a daily increasing number of our fellow subjects, that in recent times the persons administering the government of this country have evinced rather too great a facility in listening to the

suggestions of speculative theorists, and sanctioning alterations affecting in a serious degree the interests and property of particular classes. A judicious Minister will be always extremely slow and cautious in adopting changes, which cannot fail to affect particular interests; a wise and considerate Statesman will oppose all innovation until it has been so generally and so unequivocally demanded by public opinion, that to resist any longer would be inexpedient, if not unsafe; his conduct under such circumstances should put it into his power to say to the injured individual, or class, with an honest conscience," I have protected your particular interests as long as I could; but I can no longer contend against the united voice of the community: I therefore give you warning, to make the best preparation you can against the moment when the change thus called for must be carried into effect." And in every instance where such a measure may be practicable, ample compensation ought to be made to every individual whose interests or property might be affected by such a change.

For these reasons we are disposed to think, that the promoters of the changes which have been recently effected in our commercial policy, have stopped short of the point at which they ought to have aimed. To the silk-weavers, for instance, they might, and we think should, have addressed the following language:"You are now engaged in a manufacture which can be upheld in this country only by high protecting duties and prohibitory restrictions: the public at large can buy silk goods, of foreign manufacture, fifty per cent under the price at which you can afford to sell commodities of the same quality it appears to us impolitic any longer to prevent the public from having access to this cheaper market. We are aware that this change will be attended with the effect either of driving you altogether from your present employment, or of reducing your wages fifty per cent, in order to compete with your foreign rivals; but we will enable you to embark in a new branch of industry: we will put it in your power to transfer your labour from factories to fields, which,

being fertilised by your industry, will yield from an equal quantity of work a more abundant supply of the necessaries of life than you can secure by continuing your present employment. In this manner the public will enjoy the benefit of cheap silk, while you will derive, from a new and healthy occupation, a full compensation for the losses which you would otherwise have sustained from the change."

If the adherents of Free Trade had reasoned and acted in the manner just suggested, they would have turned aside much of the opposition which their measures have encountered; for the fair opponents of Free Trade ground their objections to the system more, perhaps, upon the effect which it must have upon the social condition and interests of individuals, than upon any general principles of public policy. They have no objection to cheap commodities in themselves; they only object to this advantage to the wealthier classes, when purchased, as it must be, at the expense of the working portion of the community. It may be inconsistent with the theories of the Political Economists, that a rich citizen's wife should be called upon to give a peck of wheat for a yard of silk fabricated in Spitalfields, which she might get from France for half a peck; but if this substitution of French for English silk goods should have the effect either of depriving the Spitalfields weaver altogether of his employment, or cause a reduction of his wages in his own branch of industry, while no opening for his labour should present itself elsewhere, we take upon ourselves to contend, that the admission of foreign silks, when attended with such consequences, is an odious and intolerable act of cruelty. It affords us but little consolation to reflect, that the sleek and pampered citizen should save the value of half a peck of wheat in the purchase of the splendid robe which enfolds her ample frame, when we know that this advantage is obtained at the expense of withholding this quantity of food from the hungry family of the lean and hard-working weaver.

It must, indeed, be conceded to the Free Trade Economists, that the French manufacturer receives only half the food and half the manufac

tured articles in payment for his labour that the English manufacturer was heretofore accustomed to receive; and hence the article made by this ill-requited workman can be offered cheapest in the market. The wealthy consumer is thus enabled to obtain it at a lower price; but the question is, if, by the demand for labour in England, and by the active employment of every individual, the recompense obtained by the labouring class here is greater than that which is obtained by the same class in France, whether this is to be considered as a benefit or an evil? The rich man, no doubt, pays more,— or, to speak more correctly, before the Free Trade system came into operation, used to pay more, for the same quantity of labour in England than in France; but we would humbly submit it to the consideration of the Economists, whether this did not produce a great social and political advantage, by promoting the more equal distribution of wealth among all the members of the community. Instead of looking at institutions which affect this object as faulty, we cannot help regarding them as the means of diffusing inestimable blessings among the mass of the people. Is that law wise, is that law humane, is that law friendly to the interests of the industrious poor, which would throw one part of the population out of employment, and produce a glut of labour, and a consequent diminution of the earnings of industry, to enable the rich consumer to purchase more articles of luxury from a foreigner? The truth, however, is, that the self-styled Economists of England regard the poor merely as animals to be driven to death; their aim is to get out of the poor the largest possible quantity of labour for the most scanty remuneration upon which they can be made to subsist. In the vaunted system of those renowned philanthropists, the working classes are set down as animated machines, from the use of which it is sound policy to draw the greatest amount of profit at the least cost. But the real friend of the industrious poor, the enlightened and humane advocate of the lower orders, the man who has the happiness and improvement of his fellow-creatures sincerely at heart, will, as the first

step to civilization, morality, and education, exert all his energy to give employment to the bulk of the people, and insure an adequate reward for their labour. While one human being languishes in inaction and misery, he will stoop to raise him from his abject situation, and do all that lies in his power to give him the means of providing for himself: If he cannot absolutely realise the benevolent and amiable wish of Henry IV., that every peasant may have his chicken in his pot on Sunday, he will at least endeavour to render him independent of the charity of others, and relieve him from absolute want; he will ask, not at how low a money price the luxurious sons of affluence can purchase foreign silks, or pierglasses, or French wines; but his chief, if not only solicitude, will be, to ascertain whether the loom of the native manufacturer is at work; whether the spade of the labourer is employed in digging the ground; his constant enquiry will be, not whether luxury revels in palaces, but whether plenty and content bless the cottage of the poor?

Whatever obloquy, therefore, may be thrown upon that system under which Great Britain had arrived at a pitch of unexampled prosperity; with whatever contempt the wise statesmen of the present day may speak of these measures, which all tended to foster national industry, the time is not probably far distant when a fatal experience of the evils resulting from an opposite line of policy will produce in the public mind a full conviction of their wisdom and utility. The laws which protected particular manufactures, and prohibited the free importation of corn, gave employment to the general body of the people, and security to the capital which put their industry in motion. These laws gave to every man a full scope for the exertion of his skill, or the application of his property to any pursuit or occupation which held out to him the promise of the greatest return of profit; exacting from him in return no condition, except that he should consent to share his advantages with his fellow-citizens. These laws secured profitable employment to the poor, and restrained the rich from seeking enjoyments to be derived from fo

reign sources, when these could have been supplied at home. They ministered to the wants of the needy, rather than to the craving desires of the affluent They protected property and capital engaged in profitable production, as well as the wages of labour. They sacrificed no man or class of individuals to the blind envy of the multitude; but so long as one human being could be found destitute of the means of providing for his own subsistence, the state, like an affectionate parent, watched over and protected the beginnings of his humble industry. But far different is the course pursued by the Political Economists of the present day; in the midst of wide-spreading misery and suffering, they persevere, with a callousness of feeling, and a disregard of all warnings, peculiar to themselves, in the prosecution of experiments which threaten to destroy for ever the prosperity of this once happy land.

The Political Economists promised those whom they deluded into the folly of countenancing their experiments, that other nations would be induced to follow the example which we set them, and abolish all restrictions upon the importation of foreign commodities. But other nations, blind to the advantages which were held out to them, spurned the suggestions and exhortations of the philosophers. The French, the Dutch, the Prussians, all, in their turn, laughed at the simplicity of the Free Traders, when proposing that foreign commodities should be permitted to compete with the productions of native industry; nay, the Americans went so far as to establish a prohibitory system at the very moment we were relaxing our own. This is the celebrated reciprocity system, for the introduction of which the statesmen and philosophers of this country claim so much credit. Its advantages, however, are all on one side-We allow foreign industry to come into free competition with that of our own population; while other nations rigidly exclude all wrought commodities which can be manufactured at home.

In their eagerness to secure to the rich and monied classes the advantage of cheap commodities, the philosophers have felt no scruples in

throwing an overwhelming burden upon the shoulders of that class which has vested its capital in the purchase of real property. The thousands of able-bodied workmen whom the new system has thrown out of employment, have necessarily fallen for subsistence upon the poor-rates; nay, so great is the reduction which has taken place in the wages of labour, that a very considerable portion of the maintenance of the workmen constantly employed in the cotton trade is drawn from the parish funds. It is indeed calculated, that in almost every district where the cotton trade has been able to support itself, half the expense of fabricating the wrought commodity is defrayed out of the poor-rates. It thus appears, that an immense tax is levied upon the owners of real property, in order to pay a premium upon the production of cotton goods. No wonder, therefore, that under these circumstances-with wages reduced to a minimum, and one-half of this minimum taken, not out of the capital of the manufacturer, but out of the pockets of the agricultural classes-the cotton manufacture should as yet be able to maintain its ground. The same observation will apply to the silk trade, to the iron trade, and, indeed, to almost every other trade. They are now upheld against foreign competition solely by the bounty which is raised for their support by taxing the owners of real property. In order that the wealthy and monied classes may get their commodities at a cheap rate, half the expense of fabricating them is, in many instances, taken out of the pockets of the owners of real property. A system thus partial and oppressive should by all means be abolished. The agriculturists should, for their own sake, make every effort in their power to withdraw this superabundant population from the factories, in which they are now, at least, partially unproductive, and settle them either as cottagers or colonists in some country district, where they may, by field-labour, replace the whole of the food required for their support.

It will perhaps be said, that, to effect this object, a considerable outlay of capital will be required in the first instance. It will be necessary