The Press.
London, England, 1853-07-16 00:00:00

WHAT IS Fltl4:E TRADE?

Dear Mr. Prests,-1. am surely approaching the
real meaning of the words British free trade—for,
with humble submission, I think I am discovering
what they do not mean. About a quarter of a cen-
tury ago, when " we" was at college Si. e., when I
was, for "we," correspondingly, is a singular word,
or is entitled to a singular verb), the advice given in
the chemistry and natural philosophy classes regard--
ing discovery was to take fresh courage from every
etibrt, as the unsuccessful taught something—viz.,
that " we" were on the wrong scent, and needn't
keep on that track any longer.
Now, British free trade can't mean "no taxation,"
so long as our industry is burdened for public pur-
poses with taxes, local, JAL, to the enormous amount
of about 140 million pounds sterling, of which the
Chatieellor of the Exchequer takes 52 millions.
It can't mean equal burdens on all the population ;
for that would be simply a poll-tax of about 50s. per
man, woman, and child, and that is not proposed.
It can't mean the same duties on all articles of
the same class; for, in the now list of customs, I
find "chicory, or any other vegetable matter appli •
cable to the use of chicory or cotlbe," is to pay less
than a id. for a short period and thereafter nothing,
whilst cocoa is to pay hi. per lb., and coffee, which
is surely " applicable to the uses of coffee," and
should pay the same duty, is to pay :hl. per lb.
It can't moan the same duties on foreign and Bri-
tish commodities in British markets; for colonial
butter is to pay 28. la. per cwt., whilst the foreign
article is to be burdened with ss. per cwt.; and Man-
chester cotton goods pay half the duties which are
levied on foreign manufactures of the same descrip-
tion when they enter British colonial ports--as, for
example Calcutta, Cape Town, and the ports of Bri-
tish North: America.
Free trade is so sacred a thing, I understand, that
it can admit of no compromise and no delay. It
does not aim at the destruction of any classes or of
any interests, whether they be agricultural or colo-
nial. On the contrary, it aims at universal prosperity;
and, though for the moment British farmers may
growl, and West India sugar-plantem may be any-
thing but sweet, yet ere long there will be a plecnix-
like revival of every suffering class, should there un-
fortunately be any such. Any way free trade is a
sacred, pure, unmixed, and inevitable thing--fiat
justitta, met e., " Let Britain 'knish, free
trade for ever !"
If we are to have it pure and unmixed, and at
once and for ever, where is it? Who is its proposer
and its seconder, and where is the free-trade budget?
At present we have home-grown necessaries abutt
dandy taxed, and foreign necessaries (?) free. We
have tailors and cobblers protected, and our general
artistuis exposed to unrestricted competition. We have
tiny mercantile marine without privileges in our cob
nial ports, to which our ships carry protected Man-
chester goods ; and shortly we are to admit slave
grown sugar, on the payment of only a part of that
taxation which British sugar bears for British pur-
poses at home and abroad.
But what is free trade?—wait a bit.—Dear Mr.
Press, yours respeetfully,
A Wout.o-ut: eoNsISTENT FREE-TRADER.
SLAY F. LA BOUR.
TO THE EDITOR tHe "THE PRESS."

your paper of •2ml July 1 observe a letter
regarding " Slave Labour." Statistics of a similar
kind I have seen before, but there is one particular
on which I have never seen any statistics given, mid
o► it some enlightenment is very desirable. Query ?
What is the difference in coat to the producer of
sugar in the Britieh IYet lathe Wand* and to tho