Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1829-01-01

GABl,. SIERARD.
WIN. ]. BRANCH,
TRYAM NJ FARLAND,
II. BRITAIN
IA. LEONARD.
E"gf'st c'ctcs 9tAc 2ariG.-Wc publish below IN
article from the London Times which ridicules with
great justice and severity, English mpuencc in COIN.
planning ofthc American Tariff. The Times traces
that Tariff, to the necessity felt by the u States Of
countervailing the commercial policy of England,
motive which iii its opinion IS complete justification
of the measure.
Circumstances have concurred to keep the People
OF Virginia exceedingly in the dark Oh the subject of
the true design, and operation of the Tariff. The
system has had advocates here. The State, the
part OF 1t at least below the mountains has gone into
opposition to 1t with great unanmity and violence.
we speak IN the past tense, for unqucstionab there
has been, and there is still in progress, very striking
change in public opinion. 1t is longer uncommon
to find advocates of the protecting policy in lower Va
and facts brought to light by experience, are daily
encroachng upon old preudices and the ranks of the
AntTaritfitGs. In this situation of things, we deem
that we are dschargng duty in placing before the
public any thing which may tend to stimulate or en-
Tighten the present spirit Of enquiry
From TIE London Times Nor II
In abiding on Thursday last to the official rapcrs
relative To the American tariffs with which are pre-
sented number OF documents originally published in
the United States, we characterized the whole col
lection Us one OF extraordinary value and Importance
The most interesting feature of this publication is
That 1t contains full statement of the american case
considered III opposition to that of England on the
subject ofprotecting and prohibiting duties.
Nothing can in itself be more unreasonable-noth.
ing, we really think, in the mouth of an Englishnan
more innodest-than the habitual use of angry and
Vnhctyc language towards other countries on occa-
SION o their choosing TO adopt precedent which this
country has been the first to establish land so lonr as
II suited her purpose TO persist n for securing her
own manufacturing interests at the expense of thos,
~ all other nations.
Mr.. Huskissoa has been spoken of as the author of
what IS termed IA liberal system of commercial poll
cY, contrast with the old system ofcither literal or
virtual prohibitions. Now it is necessary TO distn-
gu5h between those acts Of Mr.. Husksson which re-
lax the navigation laws, affect the colonies and
those which profess only to facilitate the introduction
OF foreign produce manufactures 70 the humc-,nar
ket OF Great BrltalII The papers before us concern
themselves almost exclusively as we sha II do with tho
latter branch OF English lberalty and they can leave
no shadow OF doubt upon the minds of those who were
not already aware OF fact quite obvious and unuues
t!onaole that Mr. lluskisson, whether by REMOVING
prohibition, reducing an mpost, rave no ndul-
gcrcc TO the foreign manufacturer ofwhich that an-
uiacturer could in any instance tOkc any practical nd
cGHE1Se. Where free competition has been offer
gu ny MI lluSRlSSOn 10 foreign dealers the
objects of British industry it in cases where the
British manufacture had arrived ut a pitch of excel
lence which sets all real rivalry at defiance and
wherever such rivalry was still probable, why then
there was no TeLdrdttOn We do not say this as any
sort Ofrcprouch to Mr.. IIusksson further thor ba,
Ing applied to his own acts term which better fitted
his professions. He protested to he "libcral" while
hcwas merely observant and shrcwd. we believed
that where Mr.. HuskissOn failed 20 offer fair md
substantial reciprocity % other nations il was when
nd IN uDu spr in - no bod
icct what II hornets nest was brought about the
ears Of the right honorable gentleman from that mo-
mont when he first announced his intended substitu-
ton OF duty for Il prohibition III the silk trade to
that IN which, under storm of abuse and impreca-
Ton, nc completed that most sautary measure. That
was an act 10 which the Of 'llbcralty" had bv
arnonstrous error ofanguagc, been appropriated the
bcrality consisting in this,-th9t the rght honoura-
bic gentleman adjusted his duty for the critical pur-
pose (which purpose he has most skly Bccon1piish-
cd OF opening foreign markets TO British silks in ten
fold the degree TO which he admitted French slka in
20 Tie Briiish market.
But # Mr.. HusklssoD be not reproachable for this
practical protection of the home industry, under
protested system Of general reaxotion neither can
with the least prCcnce TO justice, foreign people be
condemned for following Mr.. HusIsson's example
The right hon. gentleman did nothing towards allow
ing either foreign manufacturers foreign producers
any access to this market, by which tive poods or
naive produce could ever infinitely suffer; and the
United States, by tho tariffs of 1874 and 1898 have
only gone the length Of such protection 70 their man
uacturcs rs it WAS not requisite for the naturedman
uactures OF England 20 protect by any new lcgisla-
ton. We accused france of illib"rnlifv toyarde
England; and why'bccause she effects Nv law those
purposes which England likewise secured nv law, SO
long as the imperfect state Of her native skill and can
ito! required such guardian.
we una in al exceedingly curious and instruc-
tive, though in some instances BIASED and partial
document, the proceedings Of a convention ofmanu-
tacturcTs Of Harrisburg, United States"-the follow
ing description Of the modern British policy conclu
ding with quotation from VI. ST. Crieq director Of
thc French Customs, which IS naioe and Just. "Thc
British Free Trade System forbids the importation of
every article which tho British soil or labour can pro-
tIcc ct;o?t in some ech articles ~, f.otu superior