Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-04-30
Eighteenth Congress.
SPEECH OF MIR. CLAY, OF KENTUCKy
Oah.c Bal to amend Tie several Acts imposing.
Duties on Imports.
CONCLUDED.

ot ftC ADstt 10 'IttVu US SGcPlU( ,lctS tglD0SllO
Duties on Imports.
CONCLUDED.
Q. The prohibitory policy, it Is confidently as
serted, is condemned BY tho wisdom OF Europe,
and by her most enlightened statesmen. Is this
the fact We call upon gentlemen to show, in
what instance nation, that has enjoyed its be-
ncfits, has surrendered it. [iIere Mr.. Barbour
rose, Mr.. Clay giving way, and said that Eng
land had departed from it in the China trade,
in allowing us to trade with the Fast India pos
sessions, and in tolerating our navigation to her
West. India colonics.] With respect to the
trade to China, the whole amount of what Eng
land has done is to modify the monopoly of the
East India Company III behalf Of one and small
part of her SUBJECTS, 10 increase the commerce
of an other, and the greater portion of them.
The abolition of the restriction, therefore, one
rates altogether among the subjects of England,
and does not touch nj all the interests of foreign
powers. Tue federation of our commerce to
British India is for the specie, with which we
mainly carry on that commerce, and which,
having performed its circuit, returns to Great
Britain In exchange for British manufactures.
The relaxation from the colonial policy, in the
instance Of orr trade and navigation with the
West Indies, is most unfortunate example for
tue honorable gentleman; for, it is an illustri-
Gus proof of the of our restrictive policy,
when rcsolutcly adhered to. Great Britain had
pTcSCrlDSu tG tsTiIIo OH WHICH We were W ne
gracously allowed to carry on that trade. The
effect of her regulations was, TO exclude our ma
vigation altogether, AID complete monopoly,
on the part of the British navigation, was Sc
cured We forbade it, unless our vessels should
he allowed a perfect reciprocity. Great Bri-
tain stood out long time but finally yielded,
AMI our navigation now fairly shares with hers
in the trade. Have gentlemen no other to ex-
hibit than these tri s~s relaxatons from the pro-
hibitory policy, which do not amount to drop
IN the buc!1c, to prove its abandonment by
Great Britain LIST them show us that her
laws are repealed which prohibit the INTRODUCED
on of our lour and provisions of French silks,
laces, porcelain, manufactures of bronze, mir
rers, woollcns; and of the manufactures of all
other nations and thea may be ready to
ALLOW. Great Britain has abolished her prohibit
tory policy. We find there, on the contrary,
that oy"tsrn of policy in full and rigorous ope-
ration, and a most curiously interyoven system
it is, as she enforces it. She begins by protect
lug all parts OF her immense domains against for
eign nations. She then protects the parent
county against the colonies and, finally one
part of the parent country against another. The
sagacity of Scotch industry has carried the pro-
cess ofdistiilation TO a perfection which would
place the art in England on footing ofdisadyan-
tageous competition, and English Installation
has been protected accordingly.-But suppose
1t we're even true that Great Britain had abo-
lished all restrictions upon trade, and allowed
the frccst introduction of the produce of foreign
labor, would that prove it unwise for us to adopt
the protecting system? The object OF protecti-
OFT is the establishment and PROJECTIONS of the
arts. In England, it has accomplished its pur-
pose, fulfilled its end. II she had not carried G.
very branc! of manufacture to the same high
state of perfection that any other nation has, she
has succeeded in many that she may safely
challenge the most unshackled competition in
II. al.
many of her writers recommend an abandon
ment Of the prohibitory system. Its to give
greater scope TO British industry and enterprise.
IL is upon the same selfish principle. The OBJ
ject Of the most perfect freedom of trade, with
such nation as Britain, and of the most rigor-
oas system of prohibiotion, with 4 nation whose
arts are in their infancy, may both be precisely
the same. In both cases, is to give greater ex-
pansion to native industry. They only differ in
i. the theatres of their operation. The abolition
ofthe restrictive system, by Britain, if by it she
could prevail upon other nations TO initiate her
example, would have the effect of extending the
consumption of British produce in other coun-
tries, where, her writers boldly affirm, il could
maintain fearless competition with the pro-
duce of native labor The adoption of the res
trictIve system, on the part of the United States,
by excluding the produce of foreign labor, would
extend the consumption OF American produce,
Unable in the infancy and unprotected state OF
the arts, TO sustain competition with foreign ia
brics. Let our arts breathe under the shade OF
protection; let them be perfected as they are
in England, and we shall then be ready, as
England now is said to be, to put aside protcCti-
on, and to enter upon the freest exchanges. To
what other cause, than to their whole prohbto-
~ policy, can you ascribe British prosperity ?
1t will not do to assign it to that of her antiqui-
ty; for France is no less ancient, though much
less rich and powerful, in proportion to the po-
pnation and natural advantages of France
Hallam sensible and highly approved writer
on the Middle Ages, assigns the revival of the
prosperity of the North of Europe to the success
ofthe woollen manufactures of Flanders, and
the commerce Of whichther fabrics became the
subject; aud the commencement of that o
England, To- the establishment of similar manu-.
features there, under the Edwards, and TO tho
prohibitions which began about the same time
As to the poor rates, the theme Of so much re-
proach, without England, and oFso much regret
within it, among her speculative writers, the
system was a strong proof, no less of her IN
bounded wealth, than of her pauperism. What
other nation can dispense, in the form ofregula-
ted charity, the enormous sum, believe OF ter
or twelve millions stcrlDg MIR. Barbour sta
ted, it was reduced 90 six; to which Mr.. Clay
replied, that he entertained no doubt but thai
the benign operation of British protection o
home industry had greatly reduced it, within th'
Fast few years, by the full employment Of hel
subjects, Of which her fourishiug trade bore eyi
Case The npmbsr ofRffish Po'iQcr7 vas th'