Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1847-10-30
Very respectfully, yours, !.
A CONSTANT READER.
NOTE ny THE EDITORS.

Preferring to let London Correspondent de-
fend his own position, which he is every way
pabe of doing, we have now but word or two to
say in his behalf. If we correctly understand his
position, it is that British Statesmen have never
linquished the policy of protecting their own manu-
features. On two occasions, within the last six
years, if we do not mistake, there have been mod-
hcations of the British Tariff, but in each case the
amendments have been SO made as to aid and
tain the British manufacturers, by abolishing the
duties on raw materials and provisions, with the
effect of enabling them TO manufacture at less
In 1916 the duties on ordinary manufactures OF
wool, cotton, and linen taken off; but this APP
pears TO have been done upon the principle that
such duties were unnecessary, since the superior
advantages enjoyed by Great Britain, in her abun-
dance of skill and labor and the best and most
nomical machinery, for the manufacture of such
goods, were of themselves sufficient, when further
fortified by the advantages then conferred of cheap
food and cheap raw material, TO prevent foreign
competition in their own markets. This we have
supposed to be the policy of Sir ROBERT PEEL, as
regards the above descriptions of manufactures.
But such was not his policy in respect to other
manufactures, as is evidenced BY the above citations
from his. tariff, and much more SO by view of all
its charges. While the three kinds of manufactures
above specified are admitted free Of duty, when not
made up, it will be perceived that all others are
charged with ten per cent on their value, this be-
ing the highest rate in the tariff, except silks and
velvets and artificial flowers, which are charged at
fifteen and twenty-five per cent. Now, if this be
purely revenue tariff, without regard to protection
why is this discrimination made And how hap
pens it that, while certain goods in the manufacture
of which no nation can compete with Great Britain
admitted free, all others in which the People OF
France and the rest of the Continent can enter into
successful competition with her are taxed with the
1. 4 n. "a 10 his
policy, taken as whole, it appears to us, that our
correspondent spoke in his Letter Of the LIST instant
embracing in his remarks all kinds Of manufactures,
and referring well to Great Britain as to the other
nations of Europe In Justice to him we republish,
in this connexon much OF his letter as relates TO
the matter in controversy. lie says:
"Thee has been good deal Of speech at the Free
Trade Congress Brussels and resolutions pass
ed but do think that much light has been thrown upon
the subject and further Of opinion that the true ques
ton Of free trade scarcely touched upon DO its advo
Gates contend for unlimited free trade, or Tor free trade only
certain eTtent2 II for the former, why do not its Bril-
fish advocates recommend the abolition OF the ESGLIsH pro-
tecve duties in of Manchester cotton goods and Blr
mingham and Sheffield hardware and cutlery Mr. Brown,
the member Of Parliament for Lancashire, says England
sdoes not owe her commercial prosperity and supremacy
sprocfion but her climate and maritime position Does
he include manu- featuring part of commercial prosperi
ty If So let him and Mr. Viers and Mr. Golden advo-
the repeal Of all duties upon the importation Of foreign
manufactures into England and take the risk Of the future
support Of their constituents EunoPEAN freerades appear
to limit their exerons the repeal Of duties upon mate
riaL they have never, single instance, spoke about low
eng the protection upon anuucfurcs Of their respective
countries although they have not been sparng Of their
upon the United States because the silks and tho wines
the Continent and the cotton and wooen goods and hard
ware and cutlery Of England not admitted into New York
aud New Orleans duty free II Is time that these trade adj
vocates title, for they acting under
false coors. The ancorn-aw league was a very useful
movements il produced ncalculabe good but 10 call Sir Ro
bert Peel or Lord John Russell eerud because he
advocated that sauay reformation, would hc most decidedly
absurd seeing that neither has relaxed for instant in
his protection Of British manufactures Let yo, politicians
do the in respect to american manufactures and each
| will be aborng properly in his vocation"