word,' he remarks, formerly appropriated to the ontology and pneumatology of the schools, but now understood as equally applicable to all those inquiries which have for their object to trace the curious branches of human knowledge to their first principles in the constitution of our nature.' 'Accordingly,' he continues, it will be found, on a review of the history of the moral sciences, that the most important steps which have been made in some of those, apparently the most remote from metaphysical pursuits, (in the science, for example, of political economy,) have been made by men trained to the exercise of their intellectual powers by early habits of abstract meditation.'

On the whole, we greatly commend the scope and general execution of the present volume; and are led to anticipate that the analytical and philosophical spirit displayed in it, will, when extended to the whole scheme proposed by the author, produce a comprehensive elementary work, both useful to students, and acceptable to the profession generally.

A. H. Eirrett,

ART. VI.-1. Debate in the British House of Commons on the American Tariff, July 18, 1828.

2. The American Tariff; an Article in the Edinburgh Review for December, 1828.

3. Commerce of the United States and West Indies; an Article in the London Quarterly Review for January, 1829.

In our late article on the 'Definitions in Political Economy' of Mr Malthus, we took occasion to allude to some remarks upon the Tariff thrown out by a writer in the Edinburgh Review, in a preceding number of that journal; and intimated that if he should, as he then expressed the intention of doing, enter upon a formal discussion of the subject in a future number, we might perhaps in turn be induced to offer some further observations upon it in reply. The writer alluded to has since redeemed his pledge, by publishing the article of which the title is quoted above. It is not, we think, very powerful in substance, or very courteous and candid in manner, and of course does not imperiously call for an answer. But as the question is still under controversy among ourselves; and as British opinions on all subjects have a good deal of weight in this country, although

upon this at least, in which Great Britain is a party directly interested, they are perhaps entitled, as such, to very little; we shall briefly examine on this occasion those which are stated in the article alluded to, as well as those which have been put forth in one or two other quarters of considerable authority in the mother country in reference to the same subject. The article in the London Quarterly Review, of which the title is prefixed, is principally devoted to the question of the Colonial trade, but takes up at the close that of the Tariff, and it is to this latter part alone that we propose at present to direct our attention. The debate in the House of Commons was short and accidental, but afforded opportunity for several members of different parties to express in general terms their respective views; and it is more for this reason, than for the purpose of particularly noticing the arguments advanced by the speakers, that we have included it among the subjects of this article.

It is in fact the most remarkable circumstance in the state of opinion upon this question in the mother country, that all persons of all parties, who have said anything about it, have concurred, we believe without a single exception, in condemning the American system. Whigs, tories, and radicals, economists and anti-economists, politicians that differ completely upon almost every other point, seem to agree exactly upon this. Thus in the House of Commons Mr Huskisson, a liberal tory, opens the debate by a decided condemnation of our protecting policy. Mr Hume, a thorough reformer, is equally clear against the system, although he finds some apology for it in the British corn laws. Mr Peel, the minister, and a pure tory, agrees with pleasure to Mr Huskisson's request for a copy of the Tariff, and cordially joins him in denouncing this unlucky measure. Messrs Trant, Robinson, and Stuart hold the same language; and finally Mr C. Grant closes the debate by expressing the satisfaction he had experienced on hearing his Right Honorable friend (Mr Huskisson) bring forward the motion, which is then agreed to without opposition. This unanimity among the different parties in the House is, we think, a remarkable thing; and it is also worth attention that most, if not all the persons, who have expressed opinions against the Tariff on this and other occasions, are more concerned about the interest of the United States than that of England. They pass over, somewhat lightly, the question, how far this measure may affect their own manufacturers, and are generally inclined to think VOL. XXX.-No. 66.

21

6

that it will do them little or no harm; but they are all fully satisfied that it is fraught with the most pernicious consequences to us. Mr Huskisson states his decided impression, that the interest of the United States would be greatly prejudiced by the course they were about to pursue, and declares that he can prove it to a demonstration;' but does not apprehend that Great Britain will suffer by the duties which the Americans have imposed for the protection of their industry.' Mr Hume pronounces the protecting policy foolish, narrow, injurious, and mischievous; and adds, that it was manfully opposed by all the intelligent men in Congress;' but, has no hesitation in saying, that, if America should shut out every article of British manufacture, an ample market for them would easily be found in other quarters.' Mr Peel has no doubt that even should the immediate result be to encourage our domestic industry, the final effect would be against us;' and Mr Grant rejoices that the subject has been started, because it affords an opportunity for giving us a little wholesome advice in regard to the mistaken course of policy which we are pursuing, and which must in the end operate to the detriment of the funds of the United States, by lessening the amount of our import duties, and making it necessary for us to increase our direct taxes.'

The same exclusive regard for the interest of the United States is observable in the opinions expressed in other quarters, and some of these good-natured critics are evidently quite out of humor with us for not being more attentive to our own good. If America,' says the Courier newspaper, fancies that she will promote her own prosperity by shutting herself in surly selfishness from the world, she will be grievously disappointed. The system of exclusion laid down in this Tariff will produce her as little profit in a commercial view, as honor in a national one.' In like manner the burden of the article in the Edinburgh Review now before us is the fatal influence which the Tariff must necessarily exercise, not on Great Britain, but on ourselves. What we object to in their conduct,' says the Review, is, that they mistake wherein their own interest really lies, and that their restrictions and prohibitions, by narrowing the field of commercial enterprise, are a public and general nuisance, though it is certain that they are infinitely more injurious to themselves than to any other people.' Again, in a tone of mingled flattery and reproach, like that of a kind parent endeavoring to coax a promising but wayward

boy; Why should Jonathan, who is so very sharp-sighted on other practical questions, be so very blind on this? and afterwards, in the same style of elegant pleasantry; Who will now presume to say that John Bull is the greatest goose in the world? Had he been in Jonathan's place, we believe he would have said, that it was clearly for his interest to buy his woollens, cottons, and hardware, wherever he could get them cheapest.' 'In our ignorance we long imagined that John Bull had been the most gullible of animals, but if Jonathan can swallow such assertions as these, then John has not a vestige of claim to that distinction.' All this display of argument and humor is completely disinterested, for America cannot inflict any material injury on us by refusing to buy our products, although at present she might injure us by refusing to sell.' The writer in the Quarterly does not yield in disinterestedness to his brother of Edinburgh, and is, if possible, even more decidedly and exclusively American. We shall point out the effects of the Tariff, not as they regard Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany, and the Netherlands, but as they regard the interests of the United States as a whole.' He then proceeds to enlarge upon the subject, principally under a political point of view; enters at some length into the controversy that has arisen among us, whether the Tariff law be or be not consistent with the constitution; and concludes by affirming, that whether we succeed in preventing the importation of foreign manufactures, or whether the people obtain their supplies by the contraband trade, the Tariff will in either event infallibly destroy the revenue. Notwithstanding the complete security felt by these writers in regard to the effect of the Tariff on British interests, they sometimes admit, for argument's sake, that it may to a certain extent diminish the imports of manufactured goods; but the supposition of even this extreme case gives them no alarm. They have a remedy prepared, to the application of which they evidently look forward with much complacency. There is a grand corrector ready, whose influence upon vicious commercial and financial legislation they consider as hardly less beneficial, than that of the school-master is supposed by Mr Brougham to be upon political institutions in general. The smuggler, provided we allow him to bring back equivalents, will take care of our interests.' Under such high protection they are of course safe ;

'The gods take care of Cato,'

and the British statesmen and writers are quite at leisure to devise the best means of saving poor Jonathan from the disastrous consequences of his own ignorance and folly.

Poor Jonathan will doubtless feel himself too highly flattered by these unusual testimonies of interest and friendship on the part of his respectable elder brother to suppose for a moment that anything more is meant than meets the ear; nor will he probably resent very highly the reflection implied in them upon his capacity to take care of himself, when he finds it sugared over by so many pretty compliments and fond familiarities. Admitting therefore that the regard for our interest professed by these writers, and by all classes of the British public on this occasion, is entirely sincere and disinterested, and offering with equal sincerity our best acknowledgments in return, we may still perhaps be permitted to inquire, whether it be quite certain that this zeal is according to knowledge. Are our transatlantic friends so fully acquainted with all the circumstances, geographical, statistical, and political, of our situation, as to be able to judge with unerring certainty, at three thousand miles' distance, what measures will best promote our good? Supposing their disposition to serve us to be as great as our own to serve ourselves, and their ability as much greater, as they may think proper to imagine it, do they possess the complete magazine of facts which would enable them to exhibit this disposition and exert this ability in such a way as to produce beneficial results? Is not their inferiority to us in this latter respect necessarily as obvious, as their superiority may be, and in their own judgment probably is, in the other? Differences among intelligent and candid men turn much less frequently upon general principles, than upon the manner of applying them. In this particular case there is little or no dispute about principles, and the only question is about the form under which acknowledged truths are to be reduced to practice in the United States. Now will any British statesman of tolerable candor undertake to affirm, that his advantages for coming to a correct opinion upon such a question are equal to ours? Would any prudent British physician so far commit himself, as to declare positively upon the strength of a reported case, that a patient who had received the best medical advice that could be had at New York or Boston, had been improperly treated? And yet how few and simple are the symptoms of even the most difficult and complicated case of illness com