tries in which there is a redundant population at a loss for employment. Therefore it may be concluded, that the colonial proprietors reside in that place where their presence is most required to encourage industry and to advance the general interests of the empire.

Colonies, it would thus appear, in their most prominent features, stimulate enterprise, encourage the growth of master producers, and supply a continual source of employment to the British labourer. They truly form an integral portion of the empire; and if the community value the union of Scotland or Ireland, whose soil only yields corn, they ought to pause before they cast off provinces which produce articles of higher exchangeable value, and which immeasurably extend the taste for new gratifications.

1

If there be any correctness in this analogy, its must be admitted, that the mere exchange of co lonial commodities with the manufactures of the mother country, must not only yield no benefit to the parties immediately concerned, but must inflict great injury on the rest of the community, before the sweeping condemnation can be pronounced, that our distant territories are cumbersome and useless.

Whether this trade, as it has been established by the colonial system, is beneficial or prejudicial, is the next point to examine.

The reasoning and illustrations in this Section, principally apply to the West Indies. To our other

colonies they may be applicable, but in diminished degree. It was not necessary, in this stage of the undertaking, to particularize specific differences, since they will easily be distinguished by the reader.

SECTION II.

The Consumption of Manufactures increased.

THOUGH the colonial trade, in its confined and ordinary sense, the act of exporting cottons and woollens and importing sugar and rum, constitutes but a small feature in the advantages derived from distant possessions, yet it is the only one on which writers on either side of the question have expatiated at length. The colonies grew into importance under the influence of the mercantile sect. When that policy was in vogue, the object was to increase that branch of commerce which created a large balance of trade in favour of the mother country. All arguments in support of colonies were founded upon this doctrine. The political economists of more modern times have discussed the general colonial question in this partial point of consideration; and there are strong reasons for concluding that the fleeting opinions occasionally hazarded in public, inimical to extraneous dominion, proceed not from extended or accurate investigation, but are rather the rash conclusions of disputants who infer that the

colonial system is bad, merely because unstable arguments have been adduced by mercantile writers in support of it. It is possible, however, to arrive at last at the truth, though a wrong road be taken ; and political economists of the present day will deserve the more severe reprehension if, besides condemning the whole on the evidence of a part, they have even in that part which they have discussed, fallen into serious errors,

Colonial trade, in the sense generally considered, imposes on the colony the obligation to use all the manufactures of the mother country, and to send all its produce to the mother country in her ships, for sale.

These restrictions, it is affirmed, constitute a reciprocity of injuries, not of benefits. The colony is obliged to pay more than it would otherwise pay for the manufactures it requires. The inhabitants of the mother country are equally compelled to pay more than is necessary for colonial produce.

To illustrate the case by example: Great Britain requires for her domestic consumption 10,000 hogsheads of sugar,, worth suppose 500,000l.; for this sugar she gives in exchange manufactures of equal value: let us suppose that the colony could import the same manufactures from some other country for 400,000. So far as the colony is concerned, there

fore, it loses 100,000l.

This sum is not gained by the mother country. She has one thousand men engaged in raising

manufactures for her colony, which manufactures can be fabricated cheaper by another nation. The labour of these one thousand men then is misdirected. It is better to exchange the manufacture in which Great Britain excels with those in which the other nation excels, and to send the latter to the colony to purchase the sugar Great Britain requires. The labour of eight hundred men in this case will go as far as one thousand before. In obtaining, therefore, a nominally higher price from the colony for her manufactures, her industry generally derives no advantage; but in selling dear to the colony, she raises there the cost of production, and forces the colony to sell dear to us in return. The mother country derived no benefit from the high price she got for her exports, and she sustains a positive loss in the high price she pays for her imports, To all parties there is loss. Were trade free, were we not encumbered with colonies, the industry of Great Britain would naturally settle in the branches of trade which are best adapted to her; the labour of eight hundred men would purchase her sugar; she would be, consequently, a gainer by the labour of two hundred men by the loss of her colonies.

In this reasoning, there are two assumptions.

1st. It is assumed that, in trafficking with other nations, our productions are admitted into their territories with the same liberality, and on the same terms, as their productions are admitted by us.

2dly. It is assumed that, if our trade to the colo

nies be superseded, by allowing other nations to supply their wants on cheaper terms than we do at present, we have within ourselves other commodities which we can produce cheaper than those nations, which we can always dispose of to them, to procure our sugar.ioitabung sih raz

In regard to the first: It must be quite evident that, if all nations were to combine and levy high and exclusive duties on British manufactures, our trade would soon be restricted to our domestic consumption. The inhabitant of a foreign country, in purchasing an article for immediate use, considers merely its price; and if he reject the article for its dearness, he never considers whether that dearness be attributable to high duties, or to the high prime cost of the manufacture. Though we need not apprehend that a formal combination will ever be made against British industry simultaneously, yet many circumstances impel foreign states to encourage their own subjects at the expense of England. We have, within our home territory, no fine fruits, rich wines, nor any luxury to tempt the tastes of foreigners, and to incite them to industry, in order to compass the means of satisfying their appetites. We produce, in far the greatest quantity, clothing, which is common to most states, and which is not only common, but which it has been the policy of all governments to encourage specifically within their own dominions. Duties, therefore, we must expect will always be levied on