CONTENTS OF THE BUDGET." No. I.-Letter to THE LORD JOHN RUSSELL, on the proposed Alteration in the Import Duties upon Corn and No. II.-Letter to THE LORD JOHN RUSSELL, on the manner No. III.-Letter to THE RIGHT HON. SIR R. PEEL, Bart. M.P., No. IV.-Letter to THE RIGHT HON. LORD STANLEY, on Coloni- sation, considered as a means of removing the causes No. V.-Letter to THE RIGHT HON. LORD ELLIOT, on Coloni- No. VII.-Letter to THE RIGHT HON. SIR R. PEEL, Bart, M.P., on the expediency of establishing Differential Duties in favour of the British Colonies; and on the Effects which the importation of Corn and Cattle from foreign parts is calculated to produce, upon the well-being of the Working Classes, upon the progress of Agricul- ture, and upon the Value of Landed Property in the No. VIII.-Letter to THE FRIENDS OF EXTENDED COLONISATION, on the causes of the failure of the Financial Branch of the South Australian experiment. No. IX.-Letter to the RIGHT HON. SIR R. PEEL, M.P., &c., LETTER X. ΤΟ NASSAU WILLIAM SENIOR, Esq. IN REPLY TO THE ARTICLE, "FREE TRADE AND RETALIATION," IN THE EDINBURGH REVIEW, No. CLVII. MY DEAR SENIOR, AMONGST candid inquirers, sincerely devoted to the advancement of useful knowledge, a scientific controversy, to whichsoever side the victory may lean, can scarcely fail to terminate advantageously to both parties. Covetous of the approbation awarded to the successful advocates of truth, and solicitous to shun the discredit which ultimately awaits the propagators of error, I received with unmixed satisfaction your announcement at the Political Economy Club, that it was your intention to reply in the Edinburgh Review to the principles of commercial policy which I had advanced in the series of Letters published under the title of "The Budget." I at once perceived that, whether attended with success or with failure, the proposed refutation would prove beneficial to myself. I felt that, in the event of your success, I should be enabled to correct the misconceptions into which I might have fallen, and to escape the discredit of continuing to advocate error; and I ventured to hope, that, in the event of your failure, the positions which so able and distinguished an economist could not successfully assail, might be regarded by the public as in harmony with the established doctrines of commercial science. The satisfaction communicated by the announcement of your intention to reply to "The Budget," the perusal of the reply did not abate. My satisfaction, however, was accompanied with something of surprise upon finding that you had failed to correct your original error of confounding the principles of international exchange which I had borrowed from Ricardo, with the theory of the mercantile economists. You may remember, that when you first hazarded at the Political Economy Club the assertion, that the reciprocal theory, as presented in "The Budget," was a reproduction of the old mercantile system, I distinctly disavowed all concurrence or participation in the doctrines thus imputed to me; and you can scarcely have forgotten, that in the course of the discussions upon the series of questions proposed by some of the most able members of the Club, it was shown, with an accuracy of logical exposition to which I can make no pretensions, that the principles of international exchange, which, in common with more distinguished economists, I have endeavoured to elucidate and to establish, have no conceivable connection with the exploded theory, that wealth consists in the precious metals. Under such circumstances, the formal and confident reiteration of the statement that I have reproduced the mercantile system, is a mistake which you will yourself regret, but of which I have the less cause to complain, since, while making the reassertion, you show it to be erroneous. You present us with a quotation from the writings of Joshua Gee, and you inform us that the mercantile system is well explained by him in the following propositions, namely—“ that the surest way for a nation to increase its riches is to prevent the importation of such foreign com modities as may be raised at home;" that "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 money to them ;" and that "the importation, from places which endeavour to keep out our manufactures, of hemp, flax, iron, and timber, draws a very great treasure annually out of this kingdom.” Now, in showing that these are the cardinal positions of the mercantile system, you show that that system is not the system reproduced in "The Budget." The principles which I have advanced in that publication, are reproductions of the Ricardo doctrine of international exchange, and are directly the reverse of those contained in your quotation from Joshua Gee. I have not stated in "The Budget," that "the surest way for a nation to increase its riches is to prevent the importation of such foreign commodities as may be produced at home." The whole scope and purport of that publication is, to show that wealth can only be increased by increasing the efficacy of labour; that the surest way by which that efficacy can be increased, is to give free scope to the international divisions of employment; and that restrictions upon the importation of foreign commodities diminish the riches of a country in all cases except those in which they may so operate as to restore to domestic labour that proportionate power of commanding foreign productions which may be due to its superior efficacy, and of which, from accidental circumstances, it may have been deprived. Nothing has ever been advanced by me in any way analogous to the doctrine, that "foreign trade enriches or impoverishes a country by causing a balance in the precious metals to be received or to be paid." My conclusions are uniformly derived from the principles established by Ricardo, that international exchange resolves into a trade of barter, and that there can be no balance of trade beyond |
