increased demand, not in a greater proportion than the price, has decreased, which the position as a whole shows is, as before shown, but the decrease in the revenue. Exactly that which you give back to the people, you take from the government.

But this is mere hypothesis. Let us go to the "facts." The reader will perceive that they are contained in four parcels of evidence adduced by Mr. Hill, in proof of his position, "that no reduction hitherto made in the price of any article in general demand, has diminished the total amount of public expenditure upon that article." And an excellent position it is, and in strict accordance with reason and common sense, which clearly point out, that there are no reasons why it should. But why should it have increased the "total expenditure?" why at all, more than in proportion to the increase of means by the natural increase of population and wealth? Much more, why in a degree capable of producing an increased revenue? If our hypothesis has failed to show the reader how it can (apparently, that is) do the one, and how it can not do either the one or the other, let us see what we can make out of "these facts." Let us open the first parcel and arrange them in the following tabular form:

It is clear, however, that we can make nothing out of this, for it gives us no account either of the amount of "public expenditure," or of the rate of duty, both of which are necessary to our purpose; and the statement must go with the reader for what it is worth. No doubt it involves a large increase of expenditure. Had the facts entered into particulars, we might have been able to have formed a judgment. But let us see what we can make out of the second parcel, which we will also state in a tabular form:

Here we have the means of forming a judgment. We have the amount of consumption and of public expenditure and price stated; and the rate of duty is well known, and the amount of revenue, therefore, easily ascertained. We have all the elements of perfect proof. We doubt if in the entire practice of taxation in England, there is any one "fact" so well calculated to prove the theory as this of newspapers. It is freer from anomalies than any other thing; the impost is through the medium of the stamp-office; smuggling and speculation therefore can have little or nothing to do with it-withdrawal of demand from other things may, perhaps;

These, with some per centages, the reader will see, we have added to the table.

but as nearly as possible the true principle of operation stands naked and alone.

Here we see that, during the period stated, consumption, that is, "the demand," has increased 50 per cent, and the price decreased only 47 per cent; but the expenditure has increased 2 per cent, and the amount of revenue decreased 116 per cent. Now increase of demand in a greater proportion than price decreases, can only arise from increased expenditure, and will any one for a moment deny, that this "fact" of increased expenditure, upon which the increase of demand depends, cannot be fully and satisfactorily accounted for on other principles; viz, the increased will and power of the public, resulting from the natural increase of popu lation and wealth during the same period? We think not.

Let us contemplate this tabular view for a while. It is a "fact," not an hypothesis. We see Mr. Hill's position fully sustained, as, indeed, why should it not be ? We see that the amount of public expenditure has not diminished. But how fares it with the rule of the select committee, and the showing of the great statesman? Not a glimpse-no, not one solitary glimpse of confirmation, either of the one or the other, can there be found in the analysis of this most important fact.

Let us also state the third parcel in a tabular form.

Here we see demand increased 65 per cent, and price decreased only 50; expenditure increased 10 per cent, and revenue decreased 41. Mr. Hill's position is again fully sustained; and if the reader thinks that the 10 per cent increase of expenditure is more than the increase of population and wealth, during the same period, will account for, and will not admit the force of our reasoning as to anomalies, then is a glimpse of confirmation of the rule of the select committee discernible; but of the showing of the great statesman, not even a shadow.

We will also state the fourth parcel in a tabular form.

Here, demand has increased 293 per cent, and price decreased only 200, and expenditure has increased 31 per cent. There is no revenue in the case; and we contend that to whatever extent the 31 per cent increase of expenditure, from reduction of price in this case, and the 10 per cent from reduction of rate of duty in the preceding case, is beyond the increase

*The increase of population during the twelve months may be fairly stated at 14 per cent; surely quite enough to account for the 2 per cent increased expenditure. And as to revenue, it would take a “demand” for 115,622,160 papers! at an "expenditure” of £2,288,355 to give, at a duty of 1d., the same amount of revenue, viz, £481,759, that the duty of 3 gave.

of means resulting from the increased will and power of the public, by the natural increase of population and wealth, to that extent exactly is it the result of the "demand" being drawn from some other things that have not been so reduced.

As an abstract principle, a "rule without exception," there can be no such thing as an increase of demand in a greater proportion than decrease of price, "so that, if one thousand are sold at 1s. many more than two thousand would be sold at 6d." Even "these facts," as far only as they themselves go, have not "established" such a rule; for the most important one among them, that of newspapers, is, we think we have shown, clearly an exception. And as to an increase capable of giving an increased revenue, it is utterly out of the question.

The foregoing article was written some time ago, and with a very indistinct view to publication. But the recent discussions of the subject, both here and in England, led the writer to revise it with that view; and in the course of fulfilling that intention, he met with the report of Lord Brougham's speech, on the new financial measures of Sir Robert Peel, which contains the following passages:

“Well, then, it was suggested that by lowering the duties of customs and excise, you would increase the consumption, and thus raise the revenue. All experience was against this resource for any immediate practical effect. Let not noble lords imagine that he was opposed to the lowering of the customs and excise. Quite the contrary. He entertained no doubt that increased revenue would be the result, the certain consequence, of reduction in the duties of customs and excise, and would remove many of the hardships which now pressed on the consumers; but his opinion was that such remedies would now come too late to cure the present difficulties. They would tell no doubt in the course of time, but that was not what was now wanted. He repeated, that such a remedy would come too late. There were abundant illustrations of what he thus stated. When the noble lord opposite (the earl of Ripon) was in office, about twenty years ago, he made the attempt to get an increased revenue by lowering the duties, and in that year the duties on wines were reduced 54 per cent. What became of the consumption? It was very much increased, but the revenue fell one third; and now after a lapse of twenty years, it had not come up to its former amount, but was at the present day one fifth less. The same might be said of tobacco. A reduction of the duty took place to the amount of 25 per cent, from 4s. to 3s. per pound. He would not say that the consumption was not increased by this. It was, to a considerable amount, but there was a considerable deficiency in the revenue, and at the present day it amounted to about one seventh of what it had been before the reduction of duties took place. A great reduction had also been made in sugar. The duty was lowered from 27s. to 24s. per ewt., or 11 per cent. The consumption rapidly increased. In fact, the reduction answered admirably for all purposes but those of revenue."

There is in these remarks so much of confirmation of our reasoning, that we almost doubt whether we have construed correctly those which his lordship made in 1825. Still, as the reader will perceive from the passage we have put in italics, there is enough of the doctrine reasserted by him to remove the doubt, and make the reasoning against it, if worth any thing at all, worth as much as it was before.

ART. VI.-OUR TRADE WITH ENGLAND.

To the Editor of the Merchants' Magazine:

Ir is not often that we see the candid confession by an advocate of a protective tariff, that the corn laws of England are the very principles of political economy upon which we are so anxious that our own government should act; yet if I understand your correspondent, Mr. Colman, right, he not only admits, but proclaims this doctrine. It has been popular in this country, by men of all classes, to decry these laws as extremely injurious and wrong, operating peculiarly hard on the agriculture and commerce of this country, and inflicting evils of a more serious character on the lower classes, not only in England, but in all Europe. We have always had the opinion, and the article of your correspondent does much to establish its truth, that the corn laws of England were beneficial to the agriculture of this country. Our wheat, exported through the British provinces, does not come in competition with the wheat of Europe; but let the ports of England be opened, and our grain would be effectually excluded. In exchange for this, however, our manufacturers would find a market for low-priced cottons and woollens in those grain-growing countries, because they can be manufactured here cheaper than in any other part of the world. England is aware of our advantage in this respect, and has exIcluded our manufactures from her East Indies.

Let us examine the corn laws, their origin and effects, and we can perhaps judge more accurately of the propriety of adopting this feature of transatlantic policy. The superior strength and influence of the landholders has led England to adopt her present system. Its object, and to a considerable extent, its effect, is to exclude foreign grain, and increase the price. Land is enhanced in value; the laborer, unable to purchase or even rent, is driven from the soil to the mill. The influx of laborers in every branch of manufactures reduces the price of labor, while breadstuffs advance; and here commences the practical working of the system. The laborer, whose wages barely furnish the means of subsistence, though not always that, now finds that he has no time to devote to mental or moral culture. From a man, he becomes a mere machine without voluntary effort.

Those countries adapted to the culture of grain, unable to sell their products in England, are unable to buy her manufactures; and the blow aimed at foreign labor recoils on the head of the poor operative, first driven from the land to the mill, degraded from a man to a menial, and now again the victim of an unjust policy. The peasantry of Poland and Russia are anxious to buy the products of the English spindle and loom, at prices. which will compensate labor, if England will but take their grain and feed her own starving and rebellious children.

Although England would find a successful rival in the United States in coarse goods, the market for finer fabrics would be almost exclusively her own. In proportion, however, as her policy becomes more liberal will her ability to manufacture cheap be increased. Such is the policy of the present administration. Sir Robert Peel's new tariff proposes a great reduction in the number of dutiable articles, as well as in the ad valorem rate. It requires no superior sagacity to discern that the true interests of England are to be greatly advanced by this measure. Buying cheap, under a low system of duties, all the materials of manufacturing, she will

be able to offer more facilities to other countries to buy her goods, and at the same time the products of the world will find a ready market in her manufacturing towns and cities. England will see her commerce on the increase, and the labor of her artisans and operatives will be more equitably rewarded.

Continental wheat

But what is to be the effect on the United States? will take the place of American, and our agriculture will, to a small extent, be depressed. Our manufactures too, will suffer, as the ability of England to compete successfully with us will be increased.

Let me call attention to an extraordinary statement for an advocate of a protective tariff to put forth. In the first sentence of your correspondent's article, he says: "I have always been a warm advocate for what is called Home Industry, holding that, in the main, political economy does not essentially differ from domestic economy; and believing that a family, to be really prosperous and independent, must from within itself and from its own resources supply its own wants.' No man will question this proposition as a theory, yet the protectionists, if we understand their policy, act in direct opposition to it. If a farmer raise wheat and buy his cloth with it, he as certainly supplies this want from his own resources as if he manufactured the cloth in his own dwelling. This is just what the advocates of free trade propose: to produce every thing for which our soil, climate, and condition of the people are suited, and exchange our surplus for those articles which we cannot produce at all, or only at an exorbitant rate; thus from within ourselves and from our own resources supplying our wants. On the other hand, it is proposed that we produce directly, not by an exchange of products, every article necessary or convenient. We have no idea that any person in his senses proposes to carry this policy to its extreme, though the time is not long past when there were such; yet we will trace it there, that its true character may be exposed. Unnecessary expense would be incurred, and abortive attempts made to grow the plant of China by the waters of the St. Croix and Kennebec; human art and ingenuity would in vain seek to raise coffee on the banks of the Mohawk and Hudson; woollen and cotton mills, driven by steam, would spring up on the prairies of the west, while the flocks of the mountains would find unnatural pasturage on the savannahs of the south; the hard and unfruitful maple would take the place of the copious cane; the mulberry, orange, and lemon would be found in the green-houses of St. Petersburg; while the navy of England would be supplied with timber from artificial forests. This policy when applied to families is even more pernicious. No scheme can be more Quixotic than one which would lead every family to confine itself to those articles which were produced by its own members. Industry asks nothing, and surely can receive nothing beneficial, at the hand of legislation. Labor desires to be let alone. Labor is the propelling power in society, not the propelled; hence the fruitlessness of every attempt to render it the servant of law.

Your correspondent shows that in 1840, our exports to England exceeded the imports from that country by $25,034,422, and supports the doctrine that a high tariff will diminish our imports and increase our exports. Now the tariff of England in 1840 was higher than our own, yet the balance of trade was against her. If Mr. Colman were correct, England ought to have exported great and imported small quantities of the products of labor.