United States in the only market open to them, they will naturally and of necessity begin to doubt whether remaining a portion of the British empire will be of that paramount advantage which they have hitherto found it to be.'

*

In cases where a purely artificial branch of production has been created by fiscal legislation, the cessation of which is demanded by the general welfare, it would be harsh and unjust to make a sudden change, without any regard for the interests which have been called into being by the act of the government. A striking instance of an artificial industry of this kind, created by protecting duties, (not indeed in favour of colonies, but against them,) is afforded by the beet-root sugar of France. After the existence of this manufacture for some years, under the shelter of protective duties, it was found that the loss to the revenue, and the high price to the public, were no longer tolerable, and it was decided to put an end to the system. It was first proposed to give a compensation of forty million francs to the growers of beet-root, and to prohibit the home manufacture; but it was ultimately thought preferable to adopt a gradual change, and to raise the duty on home-made sugar by annual increments, until it reaches the duty on colonial sugar. This transition began in August 1844, and the change will be complete in August 1848. A similar choice of means presents itself for the extinction of the more important of our colonial protections. We might either give compensation to the vested interests, (which, with respect to the Canada sawmills, and the Cape wine establishments, would undoubtedly be an advantageous bargain for the public;) or we might make the abolition gradual, and thus afford time for the withdrawal of capital invested in the protected industries, and for the adaptation of the colonial interests to the altered state of the law.

The following is, in a few words, a summary of the principles

* Address of 12th May 1846. In his answer to this address, Mr Gladstone says Her Majesty's government conceive that the protective principle cannot with justice be described as the universal basis, either of the general connexion between the United Kingdom and its colonies, or even of their commercial connexion.'-Despatch to Lord Cathcart, 3d June 1846. (House of Lords, sessional paper, No. 169.) By the protective principle, is here meant the principle of protecting colonial industry at the expense of the mother country. Not only is Mr Gladstone's proposition undeniably true; but (if he had been looking merely to historical truth) he might have added, that the generally received maxim w ith respect to colonial trade was formerly the very reverse-viz. that the industry of the mother country was to be protected at the expense of the colony,

upon which the relation of England to her colonies-especially with reference to her colonial trade-ought, in our opinion, to be regulated. It should be constantly borne in mind, that each colony is a separate and distinct community, occupying a territory distant from England, though politically dependent upon the imperial government. Owing to this separateness and remoteness, its local and subordinate government ought to be conducted as much in accordance with the opinions and wishes of the inhabitants as is compatible with the condition of political dependence, and the maintenance of the supremacy of the British crown. For the expenses of its military and naval defence, England must not expect any direct compensation. Nor ought she to subject the trade of the colony to any restrictions for her own exclusive advantage. She ought to assume no preference in the markets of the colony, and should rest contented with the establishment of a perfectly free trade on both sides. She ought to permit her colony to trade freely with all the world, and open her own ports to its products. But, on the other hand, she ought not to sacrifice her own interests, by levying at home discriminating duties for the supposed benefit of the colony ;—a system of fiscal privilege which excludes cheaper and better foreign goods from her own markets, and gives just offence to foreign nations..

No. CLXX. will be published in October.

Edinburgh: Printed by Ballantyne and Hughes, Paul's Work.

THE

EDINBURGH REVIEW,

OCTOBER, 1846.

No. CLXX.

ART. I.-Letters to the Right Honourable Lord John Russell, on the Expediency of Enlarging the Irish Poor-Law, to the full extent of the Poor-Law of England. By G. POULETT SCROPE, Esq. M.P. 8vo. London: 1846.

THE

HE people of Ireland and of Great Britain are among the most dissimilar Nations in Europe. They differ in race, in religion, in civilisation, and in wealth. To extend similar laws and institutions to countries not merely widely different but strongly contrasted, is to act in violation of all sound legislation and wise government. Yet such is the course we have pursued in Ireland-such the system by which she has been governed. We have transplanted into that country the laws and institutions in use amongst ourselves, without duly inquiring as to their fitness and adaptation to the condition of her peopleas if whatever suits us must suit them. We have neither prepared the soil, nor considered whether the climate would ripen the fruits which, in our blind and selfish calculations, we vainly expected to gather.

It is no doubt true, that when neighbouring countries, originally distinct states, become subject to the same Sovereign, the laws and institutions of each will influence those of the others; and if one member of the United Empire far exceeds the rest in

VOL. LXXXIV. NO. CLXX.

S †

wealth and population, its example will, in many respects, be irresistible. But though, in this way, the Imperial Legislation for Ireland must always be somewhat warped by the necessity of considering what exists in England, we hope that we shall no longer see in it the prevalence of blind imitation. We hope that no more laws will be transferred to Ireland merely because they exist in England. We hope that the English institutions which Ireland has as yet escaped, will not be forced upon her by a mere spirit of system. Above all, we earnestly hope that England will not impose upon her institutions, of which the utility is questionable which produce perhaps a balance of good, against which is to be set a great, though perhaps an inferior, amount of evil-unless we are convinced, that it is not merely possible, or even probable, but certain, that the same scale will preponderate in Ireland. And we not only hope, but trust, that, when such a question arises, the opinions and the wishes of the Irish People will have their weight; that we shall not abuse the omnipotence which the Union gave to the British portion of the Imperial Parliament, by setting at nought, on an Irish question, the decision of the Irish members; by treating them as if they were ignorant of their own country, and we understood it,―by acting, in short, as if our superiority in strength implied superiority of knowledge, not only as to our own affairs, but as to theirs.

we

Those who have watched the tendency of English opinions in Irish matters must know, that we are not here supposing an imaginary case. Among the English laws from which Ireland as yet is in a great measure free, there is one of which both the good and the evil are enormous. Such are its powers of mischief, that it threatened, not twelve years ago, to destroy the industry of the most laborious, the wealth of the richest, and the morality of the most civilized nation in Europe. Our readers are of course aware, that we allude to the ENGLISH POOR-LAW. In a former Article,* traced the History of this institution. We showed that its origin was an attempt to restore or preserve the expiring system of prædial slavery. From the Statute of Labourers passed in the year 1349, down to the thirty-ninth of Elizabeth, passed in 1597, the Legislature strove, by restrictions more vexatious than those of any continental police, and by punishments more savage than those of Russia-by chaining, whipping, branding, mutilation, and death-to prevent the labouring population from changing their employers, or leaving their parishes; and to force them to

* No. CXLIX of this Journal, for October 1841.

do the work and accept the wages which the Justices (that is to say, their employers, the landlords) should fix. To be a person ' able to work, not having a lord or master'that is to say, to be an able-bodied person out of work, or to be a loiterer' that is to say, a person searching for employment out of his parish, was a crime for which a man or a woman was to be whipped, on the first offence; sold as a slave, to be fed on bread and water, and refuse meat, and caused to work by beating, chaining, or otherwise,' for the second; and hanged for the third.

Of course, persons thus confined to their parishes must be supported there. The earlier statutes assumed, that the ablebodied slave would be made to earn his maintenance, and the impotent receive alms, But, in the sixteenth century, the prac tice of almsgiving was checked,-by the suppression of Convents, the diminished influence of the Clergy, and the prevalence of a religion which does not, like the Roman Catholic, treat blind indiscriminate charity as a virtue. And the increase of manufactures and of agricultural improvement, required the employer of labour to possess capital. The labouring classes were in a worse condition than that of ordinary slavery. If they left their parishes, they were whipped, branded, and chained. If they stayed there, no fund was set apart for their maintenance. To provide such a fund was the principal object of the legislation of Henry the VIII., Edward, Philip, and Mary and Elizabeth. The 27th Henry VIII. enacted, that it should consist of voluntary alms, to be collected and applied by the churchwardens, and two others of every parish. The 1st Edward VI. cap. 3. associated with them the curate. The 5 and 6 Edward VI. cap. 2, followed by the 2 and 3 Philip and Mary, cap. 5, invoked the aid of the Bishop. All these attempts seem to have failed; and the consequences of so brutal an oppression are strikingly shown in the preamble of the 14 Eliz. cap. 5, which recites, That all parts of this realm of England and Wales be presently with rogues, vagabonds, and sturdy beggars, exceedingly pestered; by means whereof daily happeneth in the said realm horrible murders, thefts, and other great outrages;'-these rogues, vagabonds, and sturdy beggars, being persons who ventured to seek abroad the maintenance which was not afforded to them at home. Elizabeth was not to be trifled with. After enacting that rogues, vagabonds, and sturdy beggars, shall, for the first offence, be grievously whipped and burnt with a hot iron of the compass of an inch; for the second, be deemed felons; and for the third, suffer death; the statute orders the justices of the peace by their good discretion, to tax and assess all the inhabitants of their divisions at such weekly charge as shall be sufficient to main