to feed the people, and it may be said (how truly is not here a question) that this can only be through importations from abroad, whereas it is indifferent whether the people are clothed in silk or in cotton.

There may thus be one set of plausible reasons for protecting corn, leaving silk to chance, another for permitting corn to come freely from abroad, and protecting silk. The two questions are quite distinct, except when they rest upon the narrower ground of "existing interests."

Shipping too has its peculiar claim, as conducive to the defence of the country: nor is that claim negatived by the proof of any more profitable employment to which the capital invested in it could be diverted. There is in this case also an argument, not however so forcible on the other side, in the effect which expensive shipping has in raising the price of commodities in general.

We have already considered the case of the owners of ships,* on its peculiar ground; it is only mentioned now, as one of those to which the arguments of the petition, and of the Economists, do not afford an answer, and which may, as well as corn, form an exception to the general principle of freedom of which we are the advocates.

There is another ground of possible exception to the general argument of the petitioners, in the case of those applications of capital, which give more extensive and perhaps more healthful employment to the people. This may be urged as a great political object, independant therefore of ordinary rules; since our safety in war may depend upon the strength and numbers of our people, and the security of our government in peace may require that that people should be maintained.

In this country too, where the provision for the unemployed poor is more systematic, the question assumes a pecuniary character, inasmuch as all persons not subsisted by individual employers for their own profit must be subsisted by contributions from the whole community.

We believe that many writers on political economy would cut this matter short, by asserting that all applications of capital tend equally to the employment of the people, But Malthus, who is upon this part of the subject perhaps the best authority, does not support this doctrine; and, in any view, it forms a subject of consideration, which the petitioners have either overlooked, or have insufficiently pursued.

There is no doubt but that in former times the employment of the people, at sufficient and established wages, was one part of

• Vol. ix. 288.

Additions to Essay on Population.

the same system of laws regarding national industry, of which the prohibition of foreign manufactures was another. It is indeed only recently that the last of these laws has been repealed.

We hold this repeal to have been wise. We admit that the degree in which any branch of trade or manufacture gives employment to the people might be maintained in principle as a legitimate ground for protecting it; and we are not prepared to admit that employment of the people and " beneficial" application of capital, in the sense in which that expression is used by economists, are synonymous terms; but we nevertheless reject the principle of protecting manufactures, or even agriculture, for the sake of the industry which they promote, because we believe it impossible to reduce that principle to that point of certain advantage, at which alone it can overbear the higher principle of leaving men and things to themselves.

Difficulty and doubt attend every step in the attempt to regulate or direct national industry; we might grant, at least hypothetically, that it is not absolutely out of the nature of things to succeed in the attempt; but we would still contend that he who fails, as he probably will, is justly chargeable with rashness and presumption.

Nor must it be forgotten, that all branches of employment are so connected one with another, that the application of capital to any one operates certainly in some degree, but in what degree is quite uncertain, to the encouragement of almost every other,

These are all the grounds that occur to us on which, originally, and abstractedly from considerations of existing interests, an exception to the general rule of perfect freedom might, possibly, be justified.

We do not here inquire further in what degree, in that imaginary state of things, any of them ought actually to prevail; it is enough to say that, as exceptions to a general principle, not of political merely but of moral right, as restrictions upon man's natural liberty, they involve a serious responsibility in the statesman who adopts them; and that the error of omitting one which might be proved to be beneficial is much less than that of adopting one of which the necessity and advantage are questionable.

On the whole, then, we are unable to admit "protection to native industry" as a ground for permanently impeding the importation of foreign commodities.

We now proceed to those grounds of exception which are adventitious or occasional; and first, the protection of existing interests.

The petitioners do not specifically advert to this point, but they affirm, that of the "protective and prohibitory duties of our commercial code, it may be proved that while all operate as

a very heavy tax upon the community at large, very few are of any ultimate benefit to the classes in whose favour they were originally instituted, and none to the extent of the loss occasioned by them to other classes."

*

If the proposition contained in this passage were true, there would be little question of existing interests; no injury arises from taking away that which is not beneficial to the possessor. But we apprehend that the proposition is not correct; and Mr. Senior appears to be of the same opinion. "I should grieve," he says, "to be supposed indifferent to the partial evil which must accompany any change in the channels of commerce, however generally beneficial :" nor does he support the second proposition by which the first is qualified. He cannot affirm that even such injury as may be sustained will be more than compensated by the general benefit. "I am far even from thinking," he continues," that the peculiar evils sustained by those who are injured are balanced by the advantages sustained by those classes of producers who are peculiarly benefited by the change." Still less, assuredly, can it be balanced by an advantage not peculiarly felt by any one class of producers, but operating upon the numerous body of consumers. Mr. Senior, with a candour worthy of Malthus, admits and laments the existence of the evil, but justifies its infliction upon the general principle of public good. He argues, that a regard to existing interests would prevent every kind of improvement; bridges, where ferries existed; printing, where there were copyists; vaccination, in regard to the interests of medical practitioners; steam-boats, superseding the ordinary packets and coasters; the contemplated engine of Perkins, diminishing the consumption of coal. These, which are cases in which existing interests have been, or assuredly will be, disregarded, are the forcible illustrations of the argument, whereon Mr. Senior rests his opinion, that those interests ought always to give way.

he refers to another case, which, unfortunately, comes more home to our present purpose; "on what pretence," he asks, " can the man who throws the shuttle claim a protection which we should deny to him who works in the mine or navigates the collier?"

Now, before we attempt to state a principle by which the degree of favour shown to existing interests might reasonably be regulated, we must make a distinction which appears to us wanting in Mr. Senior's illustrations. The question between him who has the present interest, and those who, whether as consumers or producers of the improved commodity, would be benefited by the change, must be a question of degree. At least,

VOL. X. NO. XIX.

P. 59, see from p. 54 to p. 61.

G

it would not be manifestly absurd and unreasonable to contend, that, if there were not only, as is admitted by Mr. Senior, a balance of evil sustained by the former, but a great evil almost entirely uncompensated, the old interests have a claim, stronger than in the cases of a more nearly equal balance, to a deviation from the general principle.

We admit, that it may be contended, on the other hand, that the maintenance of that principle is, in itself, enough to turn the scale; and that although there may be no peculiar and visible benefit in the repeal of the restriction, every instance of such repeal is one part of a beneficial whole, and cannot be omitted without endangering a system of acknowledged good.

This may be, and apparently is, the view of Mr. Senior; and perhaps with this view he was justified in passing over the distinction which we, not prepared here to dispute its accuracy, but desirous of considering the question in every point of view, will now make.

If the question may fairly be considered as one of degree, the thrower of the shuttle is in a different situation from the owner of the ferry; not that his loss is to be estimated more highly, but that the gain of the community placed in the opposite scale is of much less weight.

In the case of the bridge, there is a positive, important, extensive advantage, felt immediately by a large part of the community, and ultimately by a much larger portion, and possibly by the state itself. In the other case, the benefit reaches perhaps a still larger portion of the community, but it is scarcely felt by any individual. Some persons get perhaps, somewhat cheaper, an article of luxury, or rather of fancy, which is by no means necessary to them, and for which, for all useful purposes, they have substitutes at hand.

There are some other circumstances of difference; those who are concerned or employed in the erection of the bridge are natives of the country, whereas the producers of the silk no longer prohibited are foreigners. We are aware that, in a discussion of the question regarding silk, all these observations would require qualification. There are other natives than the consumers who are benefited by the freedom of importation; the importers, for instance, and dealers, and possibly the ship-owners and sailors. Nor do we deny that even the producers of the article, at home, may derive advantage from the importation in the enlarged demand for their produce, occasioned by the cheapness which may possibly follow the importation of the foreign goods.

This is not the place for considering how all these questions affect the particular case of silk; our consideration is now confined to the position of the petitioners, that few restrictions are

beneficial to any body, and to Mr. Senior's opinion, placing all existing interests upon the same footing.

It appears to us that such interests are liable to be greatly affected by a change of system, and that they cannot be entirely disregarded. It is difficult to lay down any principle for the treatment of them. It follows, from the high ground upon which the rule of non-interference has been placed in this discussion, that a very strong case would be required to justify even a postponement of its application, on the plea of existing interests; but we are not prepared to admit, that the one general answer, private interests must yield to the public good, is sufficient in all cases. We shall return to this point when we consider the particular cases, wherein an exemption is now claimed.

The other occasional ground of exception is taxation. This ground is admitted in the petition, and by Mr. Senior, but only thus far: when a duty is imposed upon an article of native production, a corresponding duty is fairly laid upon a similar article, imported from a foreign country: the tax is an impost upon the consumption of the article, and there is certainly no reason for taxing the consumer who buys it at home, and exempting him who procures it from abroad. This is so obvious, and has in truth so little connection with the prohibitive system, that it would be unnecessary to mention it here; if taxation had not been put forward, in justification of restriction, to an extent not at all warranted by the true principle.

Protection is claimed for various products of native industry, on account of the high taxes which the natives of England pay, not on the particular product or its materials, but generally, in reference to their consumption, expenditure, or property. Owing to these burthens, it is alleged that the Englishman cannot manufacture silk, for instance, so cheaply as the Frenchman, and is therefore entitled to protection, by legal prohibition, or high duty, against the importation of the foreign article.

Mr. Senior answers, that if the taxes affect the manufacturers of the particular article which claims protection, they must equally affect all others; and the consequent obstacle to the export of the native manufactures forms the most effectual prohibition of the importation of the foreign. And he asks, why, because every man is required to pay something to the public creditor, should he therefore be required to pay a larger sum than is necessary to bis silk merchant?*

This latter approaches most nearly to the answer by which we would abide. We make no distinction as to the cause which

* P. 75.