economy among the poor. It was believed that by means of an agent, possessed of inexhaustible resources, called the Parish,' the whole population of England, whatever were their numbers or their conduct, could be insured a comfortable subsistence; that wives need not suffer for the faults of their husbands, or children for those of their parents; or any persons indeed, except rate-payers, for their own. Throughout the southern districts this opinion was acted on. on his refusal, the magistrate, undertook to repeal the penalty inflicted by nature on idleness, improvidence, prodigality, and dishonesty, and consequently to annul the rewards which she offers to industry, providence, and conscientiousness.

The overseer, or,

The discouraged qualities withered; the fostered ones spread with rank luxuriance. The working population became idle, insolent, and dishonest; they ceased to reproduce the fund from which their wages, or what was now substituted for wages, their relief, was to be afforded. Poor-rates began to absorb first, the rents of the landlord, and at length the profits of the farmers; the labouring population, trained to believe that their incomes depended not on the demand for their labour, but on the fears of the overseer, or the favour of the justice, broke out into systematic outrage and rebellion; and England seemed on the eve of events more resembling those of the revolution in St Domingo, than any that are recorded in modern history. Moral philosophers now pointed out the impossibility of uniting the immunities of slavery and the virtues of freedom. They showed that no improvement was to be hoped while idleness obtained the reward of diligence-while improvidence affected not the imprudent or the extravagant individual, but his parish-and while misconduct at most only transferred the labourer from the farmer to the overseer. Attention was drawn to their reasonings by the reduced value of some estates, by the abandonment of others, and by the fires and insurrections which terrified the south of England in the frightful autumn of 1830.

The short-sighted policy, the false humanity, and the base and selfish thirst for power and for popularity, which had fostered the existing abuses, were denounced by all except a few literary or political demagogues. It was acknowledged that the labourer can be a useful, or even a safe member of society, only while his welfare depends on himself—that independence cannot be made honourable except by making pauperism disgraceful— and that employment can be inade an object of desire only by making relief an object of aversion. The act which embodied gave effect to these principles was passed by acclamation;

and

and whatever might be the dangers to which the social system of England remained exposed, it was supposed to have escaped those which accompany or follow a profuse system of compulsory charity.

Not ten years have elapsed, and almost all the experience of the preceding half century seems to be forgotten. The WorkHouse is termed an oppression; the Home Secretary refers triumphantly to the extension of out-door relief. The House of Commons listens with apparent assent to the reprobation of a dietary which gives meat only once in a week, being about ten times as often as it is enjoyed by the independent labourer;* the Government thinks itself forced to dismiss more than half of the assistant Commissioners, on whose presence the whole maintenance of the reform depends, and whose number, when at the highest, was grossly inadequate; and the public opinion of England seems to be resuming all those errors which, ten years ago, disgusted by their folly and alarmed by their mischief.

Those who have read the publications, the titles of which are prefixed to this article, will anticipate that we take as a third instance the Mercantile System.' That system is well explained by Joshua Gee, who, in the earlier part of the eighteenth century, published a book entitled,- The trade and navigation of Great Britain considered; showing that the surest way for a 'nation to increase in riches is to prevent the importation of such 'foreign commodities as may be raised at home, and that this 'kingdom is capable of raising within itself and its colonies ma'terials for employing all our poor in those manufactures which we now import from such of our neighbours who refuse the 'admission of ours.'

6

6

To take,' says this author, the right way of judging of the increase or decrease of the riches of the nation by the trade we drive with foreigners, is to examine whether we receive money from them or send them money; for if we export more goods than we receive, it is most certain that we shall have a balance brought to us in gold and silver, and the mint will be at work to coin that gold and silver. But if we import more than we export, then it is as certain that the balance must be paid by gold and silver sent to them to discharge that debt. A nation may gain vast riches by trade and commerce, or, for want of a due regard and attention, be drained of them. I am 'afraid the present circumstance of ours carries out more riches

* See the Debate of the 23d February 1843.

"than it brings home. Whereas formerly great quantities of bullion were brought into this country by the Balance of Trade, ' and coined into money: the tables are turned, and as fast as we import bullion it is sent away to pay our debts. So, many 'places endeavour to keep out our manufactures, and still con'tinue to export their linen, hemp, flax, iron, potash, timber, ' &c., to us, which draws a very great treasure annually out of 'this kingdom. We send our money to foreign nations, and by employing their poor instead of our own, enable them to thrust ' us out of our foreign trade; and by imposing high duties on our 'manufactures, so to clog the importation of them that it amounts ' to a prohibition.'

For more than two hundred years the Mercantile System reigned with almost undisputed authority. At length it was shaken by the French Economists-it was conclusively refuted by Adam Smith-it was abandoned by the scientific and literary public throughout Europe, and by the mercantile public in Great Britain. Turgot and Pitt were among the first statesmen who acknowledged the erroneousness of the theory, and endeavoured to amend the practice to which it had given rise. The revolutionary wars arrested in each country the improvement of commercial legislation; and in France it does not seem to have recommenced on the return of peace. But in Great Britain the Mercantile, or, as it was afterwards called, the Protective system, became unpopular even among those who were supposed to profit by it. Thus, the principal commercial men of London presented, on the 8th of May 1820, that celebrated petition, in which they affirmed, That the maxim of buying in the cheapest market, and selling ' in the dearest, which regulates every merchant in his individual dealings, is strictly applicable as the best rule for the trade of every nation. That although, as a matter of mere diplomacy, 'it may sometimes answer to hold out the removal of particular 'prohibitions or high duties as depending on corresponding concessions, it does not follow that we should maintain our restrictions where the desired concessions cannot be obtained. That 'our restrictions would not be the less prejudicial to our capital ' and industry, because other governments persisted in preserving 'impolitic regulations.' And they ended by an earnest protest, against every restrictive regulation of trade not essential to the ' revenue; against all duties merely protective from foreign com'petition; and against the excess of such duties as are partly for the purpose of revenue, and partly for that of protection.'

Pp. 173, 215; 10, 100.

Lord Liverpool gave the celebrated answer, that he agreed in every sentiment expressed in this Petition; and that, if he were forming a Commercial Code, such should be its fundamental principles.

Unfortunately no change can be made in commercial legislation without immediate injury to individuals. No well-informed person doubts that, if no corn laws had existed, the landed proprietors of Great Britain would have been much richer than they now are. Less land would have been employed in producing corn, and more applied to raising green crops, meat, and the produce of the dairy and the garden; the wealth and population of the country, and consequently the demand for their produce, would have been much greater; and they would have enjoyed the advantage which the proximity of a town gives to the neighbouring country. But, mischievous as the corn laws have been, even to those who expected to profit by enacting them, it is not probable that they could be repealed without exposing some persons to immediate loss; and the same remark applies to almost all the monopolies created by the Mercantile System. Although those who enjoy such a monopoly, or, as it is usually called, such a protection, seldom profit by it; that is to say, are seldom richer, and often are poorer than they would have been if no such monopoly had existed, and they had not been seduced to divert their capital and industry from their natural courses, yet they almost necessarily lose by being deprived of it. Their fixed capital, their established connexions, and their peculiar knowledge or skill, lose a part of their value, or perhaps the whole. The advantage of the change is diffused over the general mass of consumers, the evil is concentrated on a comparatively small knot of producers; and it is difficult to estimate the power of an active minority opposed to that defenceless unenergetic body, the community at large.

The attempt to extricate the commerce of the country from the restrictions which centuries of unwise, or fraudulent, or oppressive legislation had imposed, and which never wanted their fierce defenders, was arduous, and its progress was necessarily slow. That progress, however, was felt to be beneficial, and Free Trade gradually became popular every where, except within the walls of Parliament. The landlords who constitute the House of Lords, and form the great majority of the House of Commons, have always attached a preposterous importance to their legal monopoly. They exaggerate the immediate evils of its removal, and even believe that they are gaining by its existence; and, with the bitter angry selfishness which is apt to inflame those who are forced to confess to themselves that they

gain by a public oppression, they endeavour to defend all other monopolies as outworks to their own. They fought the battle with a courage and a pertinacity which would have been honourable in a good cause, but with weapons which threw additional disgrace even on a bad one. Every commercial improvement was opposed by misrepresentation, by sophistry, by appeals to the passions of the many, and to the interests of the few; and, where these failed, by dogged, unblushing resistance. The leaders of the Tory party, however, urged on by the educated portion of the community, and immeasurably superior in knowledge and public spirit to the mass of their parliamentary supporters, carried on their reforms with the degree of vigour it must be confessed a very moderate one-which they thought consistent with the main object of all their policy, both foreign and domestic, the stability of their own Administration. Though, at the close of their long reign, not much appears to have been donethough their principal improvements were reciprocity navigation treaties, and the substitution of nearly prohibitory duties for absolute prohibitions-yet some progress towards a better system was made, and, as we have already remarked, that progress was felt to be beneficial.

The Whig Ministry, which, during less than eleven years, effected more for the benefit of the empire than had been done, or attempted, or apparently even desired, by their predecessors during a rule of half a century, after many important but partial improvements, at length ventured to propose an extensive system of commercial reform. They failed, as was foreseen by every one who was acquainted with the prejudices and the interests which they dared to oppose. But their sacrifice of office was not made in vain. Their successors have indeed thought themselves obliged to maintain some consistency in error: as respects Corn and Sugar, they have thought themselves forced to make the country pay the penalty of their factious opposition to what they know to be right; but on almost all other questions, the principles avowed by Sir Robert Peel and Mr Gladstone differ little from those of Lord Lansdowne and Lord John Russell. And for putting those principles in practice, they have an advantage of which it is scarcely possible to overrate the value. The liberal policy of the Whigs was constantly thwarted by the Opposition; that of the Tories is actively supported by it. To the Whigs the Opposition was a drag; to the Tories it is a stimulus. Formerly there was an engine at each end of the train-one pulling it forward and the other pulling it back. Now, while the engine in front is pulling, the engine behind is pushing. We may regret that those who sowed should not be allowed to reap;