manufactures are so well established and flourishing as to defy competition, and command the markets of the world, we will then consent to admit yours on a footing of reciprocity. Till then, permit us to adhere to our present policy.' If Mr Huskisson did not wince a little at this retort courteous, his power of face must be at least on a par with his intellectual talent, which is certainly respectable.

The beautiful consistency of the British mode of reasoning upon this subject is rendered, if possible, still more conspicuous by a recollection of the suddenness of their conversion to the principle of free and unrestricted trade. For centuries in succession, they kept their ports hermetically sealed against any foreign product, which could possibly be made at home. If every bale and parcel of manufactures from every part of the world had been infected with the plague, the exclusion could not have been enforced with a more strict and relentless jealousy. For the same general purpose the colonies, and those in particular which now form the United States, were prohibited from exercising any species of manufacturing industry, and compelled to receive every article of use, comfort, or luxury, from England. The convenience of every other nation, of their own subjects in every other part of the world, was systematically sacrificed to the promotion of domestic manufactures in the British islands. By a resolute and persevering adherence to this system they finally carry their manufactures to such a height of perfection, that they have not only nothing to fear from foreign competition in the home market, but can enter with advantage into competition with foreign nations even in their own markets. No sooner does this take place, than the statesmen of England perceive at once the error of the exclusive system upon which they have been acting for centuries, and the incontestible truth of the opposite one, as a universal rule of practice. At the same moment they commence a series of negotiations with foreign governments, for the benevolent purpose of engaging them to ruin their own manufactures. for the sake of promoting those of Great Britain; and from this time forward, all such foreign governments as do not choose to adopt this patriotic policy, but, on the contrary, continue to act on the principles that have made the prosperity of England, are saluted by the unanimous voice of all the British politicians and writers of all parties and classes with the agreeable charges of gross stupidity, shameful ignorance, and we

know not what.

They are greater geese than John Bull.' They out-Herod George Rose, and would satisfy Lord Malmesbury.' Their systems are more iniquitous and absurd than anything in the commercial codes of Austria and Spain.' "There is no possibility of accounting for the existence of such blockheads as the leading American statesmen, unless by supposing, on the old theory of the metempsychosis, that the soul of Lord Lauderdale (who by the by will probably hear with some surprise the news of his own death) has revived, and now animates another body on the western side of the Atlantic.' In the mean time we may hope, that, under the full effulgence of all this new light upon the subject, the liberal system is at least carried into complete execution in Great Britain itself. Quite the contrary. Still, as before, not a pennyworth of anything foreign is admitted, that can possibly come into competition with any product of domestic industry. Bread itself, the staff of life, must be bought by the people at two or three times its natural price, rather than endanger the interest of the landholders by the admission of foreign grain. In times of scarcity we are invited to relieve their distress, but when plenty returns, the door is again shut in our faces. In short, the commercial liberality of our excellent elder brother stops, as it begins, at the point which appears most suitable for the promotion of his own domestic industry. Against this system we make, as we have said before, no complaint. We think it, on the contrary, the true and correct one. But we really do wonder at the barefacedness with which the British writers upbraid foreign nations in the foulest and most unmeasured language, for no other cause than acting upon British principles, because these principles, when acted upon by others, do not happen to be in exact accordance with British interests.*

*The writer of an article on Russia in the Quarterly Review for January, 1829, takes the British residents at Brussels pretty severely to task for spending their fortunes abroad, although, as he admits, 'they are able to live there, with comparative affluence, on an annual income which would not enable them, without the strictest economy, to struggle through life at home.' In other words, he conceives, that they ought to pay three or four times as much for the necessaries and comforts of life as they cost elsewhere, rather than not have them of English produce. Pursuing his author into Germany, he finds, to his great surprise, that the natives of that country prefer their own hardware, though of inferior quality, to the British. Consistency would seem to require, that their conduct in this respect should be com

We hardly know a parallel for this inconsistency, unless it be in the conduct of the same British government upon the question of the slave trade. After carrying on this traffic for centuries to a greater extent than any other nation; after buying of Spain the monopoly of it between her and her colonies; after a debate upon the subject of twenty years' continuance in both houses of Parliament, Great Britain finally resolves to abolish it. From that moment the propriety of abolishing it is so perfectly clear, that it is a crime for any other nation to hesitate a moment. The aid of the British navy is politely offered to all the friendly and allied powers for the enforcement of their own laws on the subject, and his Catholic Majesty (like a lawyer who takes a fee on both sides of the same case) is now bribed not to carry on at all the trade, which he was before bribed to allow Great Britain to carry on for him. Both these examples exhibit the intense nationality of John Bull in a remarkable and somewhat ludicrous point of view. As respects the slave trade, the really humane, we may almost say, sacred character of the cause throws a veil over all sorts of irregularities, and makes even absurdity respectable. In the other case there is no such palliating circumstance; and we would really counsel our transatlantic brethren to be a little more circumspect in their egotism, unless they wish to make their island the laughing-stock as well as the workshop of the world.

We conceive, however, that, for the reasons we have stated, the opinions of the British writers on this question ought not, as such, to be allowed much weight. Independently of the direct interest which they have in opposing our system, and giving them all the credit for honesty, ability, and even disinterested attachment to the United States, to which they are fairly entitled, and as much more as they choose to claim, the essential difficulties which we have indicated still remain, and must for ever incapacitate them from giving us any counsel on

mended as a trait of laudable patriotism; but, instead of this, they are severely reprimanded, and treated with the unceremonious qualification of muzzy-headed smokers. This,' says he, is carrying patriotism or prejudice to a great length indeed. We venture to say, that a pair of English scissors may be afforded at Leipsic for three half pence, better than any that can be made in Germany for six pence; but it would be difficult to persuade the muzzy-headed smokers of this.' The worthy critic appears to us to carry both patriotism and prejudice a little farther than even the Germans.

the subject of real value. They cannot possibly possess the necessary knowledge of facts, nor can they, even with the best intentions in the world, avoid looking at the question through the medium of their own habitual feelings and opinions. Their judgments are therefore necessarily suspicious, and can carry no authority with them, excepting such as they may derive from the intrinsic strength of the reasoning by which they are supported. There is one point of view indeed, and one only, under which the British opinions on this subject are entitled, as such, to some attention; and that is, when we consider them as indications of the efficiency of the Tariff for the accomplishment of its objects. We are far from supposing, that the British writers intend to deceive us when they represent themselves as arguing the question exclusively with reference to American interests; but we are not quite sure, that they have not partially deceived themselves, and that the singular zeal for our welfare and prosperity, which they unanimously profess on this occasion, is not, in some degree at least, the effect of a secret consciousness, that their own manufactures will be injured by the permanent establishment of the American system. We are aware, that they pointedly and loudly disclaim any such fears, and profess the most perfect security; nor are we any more disposed to doubt the sincerity of these protestations than that of the others; but it is not impossible, or rather it is quite consistent with the ordinary course of human feeling and action in such cases, that these writers should express their hopes under the form of opinions, and should endeavor to persuade others of what they would gladly persuade themselves. Without intending, in short, to represent the British politicians as worse or better than those of any other country, we are strongly inclined to regard their present extraordinary and unprecedented zeal for our good as merely an indirect expression of that which they usually and ordinarily feel for their own; and must venture to interpret their profuse and repeated professions of perfect security, as unconscious and involuntary indications of a good deal of real apprehension at bottom. Thus considered, these publications are valuable to us as proofs of the extent to which the Tariff is likely to operate upon Great Britain. It can never, of course, be the wish or the policy of the United States to adopt any measure for the direct purpose of injuring that or any other country, excepting in time of war; but it is clear, that in the present case we can only effect

our object, which is that of protecting and extending our own manufactures, by diminishing the importation of British ones. The extent, to which this diminution takes place, is therefore an exact measure of the benefit that will accrue to ourselves; and if we have reason to suppose, from the loudness and unanimity of the expression (in whatever way, direct or indirect,) of British feeling on the occasion, that the diminution is likely to be considerable, we know by the best possible evidence, that we are on the right track; that the Tariff is what we meant that it should be; and that, by giving it a fair trial, we shall be able to assure ourselves, whether the adoption of a bona fide American policy be or be not as beneficial a thing to us as we have reason to suppose it. When, therefore, we find the British writers so busily engaged in endeavoring to reason, persuade, advise, coax, flatter, wheedle, and frighten us out of our system, we ought to look upon them as exhorting us all the time, by the strongest arguments they could possibly use, and the only ones to which we could safely listen, to persevere in it. Such, in our view, is the only lesson which the British opinions on this subject are fitted, as such, to convey to us, and it is one which, we trust, will not be lost upon the American public.

But although we can derive no other instruction than this from the British opinions on the Tariff, considered as such, it is nevertheless natural and proper to give a reasonable degree of attention to the arguments by which they are supported. We owe it to ourselves to improve every opportunity for extending our information and correcting our conclusions upon matters of public policy; and if the British can really give us any valuable hints upon the one now under consideration, we ought to allow them their just weight, however questionable the shape under which they come. Having therefore, in the preceding pages, cautioned our readers against the error of putting implicit faith in such suggestions, and shown, as we trust, satisfactorily, that the authority of the British writers is of a negative, rather than positive kind, we shall now proceed to examine, with the brevity that suits the present occasion, their reasoning, and particularly that of the Edinburgh Reviewer. There is little or no novelty in the statement of the argument given in the article before us, but it may be fairly enough considered as a summary, in a not very powerful form, of what can be said upon the subject; and we shall of course have opportunity