In the prosecution of a m...
The Times, 1824-04-12T00:00:00

In the prosecution sf a more liberal schc:ne of com- mercial pOicy than has yet bccn counfenance,d by the laws of England, Einisters hive no doutit laid their account for a good dtal of pertiniaciouxs resistanc', Lhough not so muech from sreculative men as froib parti(s who have an ima- gileid interest in the anicietit monop.lies, protections, and prohibitions. It is well that both i r. ROSINSO.N and Mr. HUs,rsso-, stand pledged so deeply to the imiprove- ;uents meditated, inasmuch as we find it ascertainied from day to day, and in the clearest manniier possible, so far as wods can demonstrate wvhat facts never fail to disprove, tlat every trade carried on in Great Britain must of ne- ceity go to ruin, if the sliglitest opening be afforded to foreign capital or industry to engage in it. The partial repeal of the Union dutics betweer. Great Britain and Ire- land fuirnished, about I8 months ago, a fair specimen of the kind of reasoning employed upon all questions of protect- ing dluty. The Irish merchants and manufacturers gave way to the most dismal forebodings of destruction to their dQmcs:ic trade, if exposed to a struggle with the English capitalists. What them- followed in point of fact? This English capitalist became himself the miostliheral customer to the Irish merchant; and rtow the Irishman becomes the most eager petitioner for a total repeal of those same restrictions, whose partial removal he had only a year ago demonstrated to be the certainl forerun- ners of his ruin. So it is with every thing else. The landed interest exclaim against anabolition of the tax on foreign wool imported: the woollen trade are to be reduced to beggary, if the export of native wool be permitted. The silk-manufacturer dreads that every cnokmaid in this coun- try will dress dinner in a pinafore of French levantine; andi nowv that a law is under consideration for enabling our arti- sans and machinery to emoigrate, pamphlets are scattered in all directions, to assure us that our gizan tic trade in cot- ton runs the risk of a fatal encounter from British iinple- ments an(l Britis!l hants. Uponl this last subject we are displsed to go the entire length proposed by kr. Husgissoxe, in the removal of all vexatious prohibi- tions. It *; perfectly monstrous that an industri- ous Ernglishman should be prevented from carrying his ingenuity to the most productive market, and turning to the best account, the talents wvhich his own sobriety and love of in(lependence have cultivated. Under what circum- stances, too, is it that such a restraint would naturally operate with most effiect upon the workman ? Not when the home market is alive-not when employment is plenti- ful, and when wrages are high; for then it rarely happens that any disposition to leave the country shows itself. No: it is when no employrent can be found at baome- wlhen the journeymen are at the mercy of their masters; or, (worse, if possible,) when Trasters have not the means to feed them-when their savings, if any thing has been saved for the day of trial, are eaten up, and emigration seems the only refuge from fa- inine;-then it is, under that extreme pressure ofwatit and misery, that the jealous master, and( the unfeeling law, step in to deprive the poor creature of his last asylum, and tell him that he must starve patiently for the gonl of the Bri- tish manufactures. But there is another ablsurdity, com- bined with gross injury, in this same law of which we are speaking. The law is wholly ineffectual to prevent the evil complained of, hut powerful to confirmn and to perpetuate it. The artisan cannat, by any device, be restrainied from quitting the country; but nothing can be easier than to exe- cute the vindictive provisions of the law, antl to puwish hin should he cver return within its jarisdiction. An Englishman, therefore, goes to work in France: he makes some money, and is Nisited with a longing for horne,--but prosQcution and imnprisonment stare him in the faee; and he remrnins a Frenchman, because England will no lonlger receive lhim but as a public offientler. AVith regard to m'chinery, the prohibition to export it, thouglh not s" cruel, is not less impolitic than the lawv against the migration of artisans. M-acllines are exported, in spite of the law, througlh fraud andl perjurv, and every species of immoral contrivance. Difficul ies, however, at- tend this practice, and the exported machines being unlcom- monly expensive, are therefore used as moilels, tobave others made after the same pattern abroa:. on the snot, and by English handls. This is prodtuc.ive of a serious mischief. English meclhanics are bribedl to set up a manufacture of maclhinery in foreign countries, which wQuld otherwvise supply themselves from En fllmfl. \Ve lose at once the exp-rt of our machines to Franca ; but France or Flanders will sinply otltor nations with those pieces of mechanism whirth it is unlawful to export fronm England; and thus,to protect ourcotton manufacture vhich triumphs irrecistibly over every rival, we establish against rurselves another mantfacture, in which other countries may secure for themselves the preference arising from lpriority, and in which, it may not be so easy to under- T-ime them by the mere force of capital, as we have found it in the cotton trade, for which we are thus foolishly alarmed.