The Sun.
London, England, 1827-12-31 00:00:00

PRESENT MINISTERS.

The late report of Lord Goderich's resigna-
tion has given. rise to a good deal of discussion
as to the character of the present Ministers, and
their claims to the respect and confidence of the
country. The most remote prospect of a change
was naturally hailed with unbounded exultation
by their opponents ; hence they have been ex-
cited to new energy, and have arraigned with
more than usual clamour the policy by which the
afFairs of this country have been ruled for some
years past. The friends of Ministers have been,
on the other hand, compelled to stand on their
defence, and to re-consider the grounds on which
they gave them their confidence and supported
their measures, that they may be enabled to con-
tend against the clamour by which they are now
assailed.

The chief distinction between the present
Ministers and their opponents appears to be,
that while the latter are for conceding nothing
to the spirit of the times, the former think that
the period is favourable for a revision of our po-
licy, and for the correction of certain errors and
imperfections, which have been of long standing,
but which yet are acknowledged to be incon-
sistent with the most approved maxims of policy.
During the terror and the frenzy of the French
revolution, Government opposed an unbending
front to all innovations whatever. They con-
ceived that the fabric of the Constitution was
assailed by specious theories under the name of
reform ; that they were bound to make a stand ;
and not to recede one inch from their posi-
tions. That period is now past, but unhappily
some of those who were engaged in the conflict
still remain in the same attitude of obstinate de-
fence ; they cannot be reasoned out of their
visionary terrors ; and confounding the reform of
notorious evils, with speculative schemes of pro-
jectors, they are prepared blindly to oppose all
changes of whatsoever sort they be. These are
the opponents of the present Ministers, and they
revile them for going counter to the wisdom of
our ancestors, for not adhering to the maxims
which were in vogue a hundred years back, but
for giving, in opposition to those wise maxims
and the collective experience of ages, freedom to
trade, relaxing the restraints which by the
ancient policy of the country were imposed
on the exportation or importation of cer-
tain goods ; and which they contend have
eminently conduced to the prosperity and
wealth of the country. In order to understand
the force or the weakness of those objections,
and fully to comprehend how those restrictions
are calculated to operate, we may shortly consider
what is the nature of trade, and what are its
objects.
Trade is of course merely the exchange of one
commodity for another. When we have too
much of one particular commodity we exchange
it for some other of which we are in want. The
necessity for this exchange arises from the divi-
sion of labour, and from that diversity of pro-
duce which is the consequence of different soils
and climates. In a great community, where the
division of labour takes place, every one pursues
his own separate trade, and the consequence is
that they have all more of that particular com-
modity to which their labour is directed, than
they can use, and they depend of course on the
exchange which subsequently takes place for
supplying their wants. Thus the tailor, the
b a ke
r and
theproduce
t e butcher, cohfer theirc ano
wn
ne. neither
no
rf
;t
and
oley
con-
sume
must freely exchange it with each other.—
In the progress of improvement, different
districts of the same country attach themselves
to particular lines of industry ; and they depend,
in like manner, on a free exchange of their pro-
duce; for procuring what they are in want of.
Thus, Manchester and the adjacent country is
famous for cotton Manufactures ; Sheffield and
Birmingham for manufactures of iron ; and by
the free exchange of those commodities, Man-
chester is supplied with manufactures of iron
and steel, while Birmingham receives supplies
of cotton goods. Is it not clear that this free
exchange conduces to the wealth and prospe-
rity of both manufactures ; that it enables both
parties to carry on their industry with greater
skill—to establish their manufactures on a more
extended scale, and to improve in the cheapness
and perfection of their work? Supposing, how-
ever, that a cotton manufacturer were to arise in
Birmingham, and a worker in iron to begin bu-
siness in Manchester, would it be wise po-
licy to lay in Manchester a heavy duty on all
iron articles brought from Birmingham, and in
Birmingham a heavy duty on the importation of
all cotton goods ; and thus to force the inhabi-
tants of Manchester to pay an exorbitant price
for iron articles made by the apprentice hand of
their own native workmen ; and those of Bir-
mingham, to pay an equally exorbitant price for
cotton (roods of inferior workmanship ? Would
not this restrictive policy be prejudicial to the
prosperity of both towns ? Would it not lay the
wealth of both under contribution for the encou-
ragement ofttnheifroroewig-
nn
ino inducement to improve ; and would not this
restriction, therefore, operate as a bounty on
competition,gnor an ts Nvo, d 1:l
being freed Navem
sloth, ignorance, -and unskilfulness ? The
opponents of free trade, turn which way
they will, cannot get out of this dilemma,
for the same principle applies to the com-
merce of nations, as to different districts in
the same nation. France, owing to its peculiar
climate, has more of certain products, such as
wines and oils, than she can use : she exchanges
the surplus for the manufactures of Britain ; and
is it not clear that it is for the advantage of both
countries that this exchange should freely take
place, and that every impediment to it, whether
by actual prohibition or heavy duty, must seri-
ously obstruct the progress of wealth and in-
dustrystrictln
ni n b
s from which oth
Inv
ha tiicohn s
the
p Now r
e.e
ntth ems ei
Ministers
theers h
ar
ve e-
been anxious to release the industry of the
country—these are the obstructlons which they
have been endeavouring to clear out of the high-
way of commerce, that different countries might
be enabled freely to exchange with each other
their surpulus of produce. , This we con-
sider their great and undeniable merit ;
and what have their opponents to say in reply ?
They cannot hold that these restrictions are good
per se; they cannot seriously believe that it can
answer any end to prevent these who have more
of any commodity than they can use, from ex-
changing it with those who have too little of that
commodity and too much of some other. What
benefit can it produce to the butcher or the
baker, when they wish to make an exchange- of
their respective produce, to have obstacles thrown
in their way ? All commercial exchanges are,
however, of the same character; and the same
free exchange of their respective produce, that is