be the system of gentlemen to the best interests of America—and he went on to say:

It was idle for us to endeavor to persuade other nations to join with us in adopting the principles of what was called "free trade." Other nations knew, as well as the no ble lord opposite, and those who acted with him, what we meant by "free trade" was nothing more nor less than, by means of the great advantages we enjoyed, to get a monopoly of all their markets for our manufactures, and to prevent them, one and all, from ever becoming manufacturing nations. When the system of reciprocity and free trade had been proposed to a French embassador, his remark was, that the plan was excellent in theory, but, to make it fair in practice, it would be necessary to defer the attempt to put it in execution for half a century, until France should be on the same footing with Great Britain, in marine, in manufactures, in capital, and the many other peculiar advantages which it now enjoyed. The policy that France acted on, was taht of encouraging its native manufactures, and it was a wise policy; because if it were freely to admit our manufactures, it would speedily be reduced to the rank of an agricultural nation; and therefore, a poor nation, as all must be that depend exclusively upon agriculture. America acted too upon the same principle with France. America legislated for futurity-legislated for an increasing population. America too, was prospering under this system. In twenty years, America would be independent of England for manufactures altogether. * *But

since the peace, France, Germany, America, and all the other countries of the world, had proceeded upon the principle of encouraging and protecting native manfactures."

But I have said that the system nominally called "free trade," so earnestly and eloquently recommended to our adoption, is a mere revival of the British colonial system, forced upon us by Great Britain during the existence of our colonial vassalage. The whole system is fully explained and illustrated in a work published as far back as the year 1750, entitled "The Trade and Navigation of Great Britain. considered, by Joshua Gee," with extracts from which I have been furnished by the diligent researches of a friend. It will be seen from these, that the South Carolina policy now, is identical with the long cherished policy of Great Britain, which remains the same as it was when the thirteen colonies were part of the British empire. work the author contends

In that

"1. That manufactures, in American colonies, should be discouraged or prohibited.

"Great Britain, with its dependencies, is doubtless as well able to subsist within itself as any nation in Europe. We have an enterprising people, fit for all the arts of peace and war. We have provisions in abundance, and those of the best sort, and are able to raise sufficient for double the number of inhabitants. We have the very best materials for clothing, and want nothing either for use or even for luxury, but what we have at home, or might have from our colonies: so that we might make such an intercourse of trade among ourselves, or between us and them, as would maintain a vast navigation. But we ought always to keep a watchful eye over our colonies, to restrain them from setting up any of the manufactures which are carried on in Great Britain; and any such attempts should be crushed in the beginning; for if they are suffered to grow up to maturity, it will be difficult to suppress them." Pages 177, 8, 9.

"Our colonies are much in the same state Ireland was in, when they began the woollen manufactory, and as their numbers increase, will fall upon manufactures for clothing themselves, if due care be not taken to find employment for them in

raising such productions as may enable them to furnish themselves with all their necessaries from us."

Then it was the object of this British economists to adapt the means or wealth of the colonists to the supply required by their necessities, and to make the mother country the source of that supply. Now it seems the policy is only so far to be reversed that we must continue to import necessaries from Great Britain, in order to enable her to purchase raw cotton from us.

"I should, therefore, think it worthy the care of the government to endeavor, by all possible means, to encourage them in raising of silk, hemp, flax, iron, [only pig to be hammered in England] pot ash, &c., by giving them competent bounties in the beginning, and sending over judicious and skilful persons at the public charge, to assist and instruct them in the most proper methods of management, which in my apprehension would lay a foundation for establishing the most profitable trade of any we have. And considering the commanding situation of our colonies along the sea coast; the great convenience of navigable rivers in all of them; the cheapness of land, and the easiness of raising provisions, great numbers of people would transport themselves thither to settle upon such improvements. Now, as people have been filled with fears that the colonies, if encouraged to raise rough materials, would set up for themselves, a little regulation would remove all those jealousies out of the way. They have never thrown or wove any silk as yet that we have heard of. Therefore, if a law was made to prohibit the use of every throwster's mill, of doubling or horsling silk with any machine whatever, they would then send it to us raw. And as they will have the providing rough materiasl to themselves, so shall we have the manufacturing of them. If encouragement be given for raising hemp, flax, &c., doubtless they will soon begin to manufacture, if not prevented. Therefore, to stop the progress of any such manufacture, it is proposed that no weaver shall have liberty to set up any looms without first registering at an office kept for that purpose, and the name and place of abode of any journeyman that shall work for him. But if any particular inhabitant shall be inclined to have any linen or woollen made of their own spinning, they should not be abridged of the same liberty that they now make use of, namely, to carry to a weaver, (who shall be licensed by the governor,) and have it wrought up for the use of the family, but not to be sold to any person in a private manner, nor exposed to any market or fair, upon pain of forfeiture.

"And, inasmuch as they have been supplied with all their manufactures from hence, except what is used in building of ships and other country work, one half of our exports being supposed to be in NAILS-a manufacture which they allow has never hitherto been carried on among them-it is proposed they shall, for time to come, never erect the manufacture of any under the size of a two shilling nail, horse nails excepted; that all slitting mills and engines, for drawing wire, or weaving stockings, be put down, and that every smith who keeps a common forge or shop, shall register his name and place of abode, and the name of every servant which he shall employ, which license shall be renewed once every year, and pay for the liberty of working at such trade. That all negroes shall be prohibited from weaving either linen or woollen, or spinning or combing of wool, or working at any manufacture of iron, further than making it into pig or bar iron. That they also be prohibited from manufacturing hats, stockings, or leather of any kind. This limitation will not abridge the planters of any privilege they now enjoy. On the contrary, it will turn their industry to promoting and raising those rough materials.”

The author then proposes that the board of trade and plantations should be furnished with statistical accounts of the various permitted manufactures, to enable them to encourage or depress the industry of the colonists, and prevent the danger of interference with British industry.

"It is hoped that this method would allay the heat that some people have shown for destroying the iron w rks on the plantations, and pulling down all their forgestaking away in a violent manner their estates and properties- preventing the hus bandmen from getting their ploughshares, carts, and other utensils mended; destroying the manu acture of ship building, by depriving them of the liberty of making bolts, spikes, and other things proper for carrying on that work, by which article returns are made for purchasing our woollen manufactures."-Pages 87, 88, 89.

Such is the picture of colonists dependent upon the mother country for their necessary supplies, drawn by a writer who was not among the number of those who desired to debar them the means of building a vessel, erecting a forge, or mending a ploughshare, but who was willing to promote their growth and prosperity as far as was consistent with the paramount interests of the manufacturing or parent State.

"2. The advantages to Great Britain from keeping the colonists dependent on her for their essential supplies.

"If we examine into the circumstances of the inhabitants of our plantations, and our own, it will appear that not one fourth part of their product redounds to their own profit, for, out of all that comes here, they only carry back clothing and other accommodations for their families, all of which is of the merchandise and manufacture of this kingdom."

After showing how this system tends to concentrate all the surplus of acquisition over absolute expenditure in England, he says:

"All these advantages we receive by the plantations, besides the mortgages on the planter's estates, and the high interest they pay us, which is very considerable; and therefore very great care ought to be taken in regulating all the affairs of the colonists, that the planters be not put under too many difficulties, but encouraged to go on cheerfully.

"New England, and the northern colonies, have not commodities and productr enough to send us in return for purchasing their necessary clothing, but are under very great difficulties; and therefore any ordinary sort sell with them And when they have grown out of fashion with us, they are new-fashioned enough there.”

Sir, I cannot go on with this disgusting detail. Their refuse goods, their old shop keepers, their cast-off clothes good enough for us! Was there ever a scheme more artfully devised by which the energies and faculties of one people should be kept down and rendered subservient to the pride, and the pomp, and the power of another! The system then proposed differs only from that which is now recommended, in one particular; that was intended to be enforced by power, this would not be less effectually executed by the force of circumstances. A gentleman in Boston, (Mr. Lee,) the agent of the free trade convention, from whose exhaustless mint there is a constant issue of reports, seems to envy the blessed condition of dependent Canada, when compared to the oppressed state of this Union; and it

is a fair inference from the view which he presents, that he would have us hasten back to the golden days of that colonial bondage, which is so well depicted in the work from which I have been quoting. Mr. Lee exhibits two tabular statements, in one of which he presents the high duties which he represents to be paid in the ports of the United States, and in the other, those which are paid in Canada, generally about two per cent. ad valorem. But did it not occur to him that the duties levied in Canada are paid chiefly in British manufactures, or on articles passing from one part to another of a common empire; and that to present a parallel case in the United States, he ought to have shown that importations made into one State from another, which are now free, are subject to the same or higher duties than are paid in Canada?

I will now, Mr. President, proceed to a more particular consideration of the arguments urged against the Protective System, and an inquiry into its practical operation, especially on the cotton growing country. And as I wish to state and meet the argument fairly, I invite the correction of my statement of it, if necessary. It is alleged that the system operates prejudicially to the cotton planter, by diminishing the foreign demand for his staple; that we cannot sell to Great Britain unless we buy from her; that the import duty is equivalent to an export duty, and falls upon the cotton grower; that South Carolina pays a disproportionate quota of the public revenue; that an abandonment of the protective policy would lead to an augmentation of our exports of an amount not less than one hundred and fifty millions of dollars; and finally, that the South cannot partake of the advantages of manufacturing, if there be any. Let us examine these various propositions in detail. 1. That the foreign demand for cotton is diminished; and that we cannot sell to Great Britain unless we buy from her. The demand of both our great foreign customers is constantly and annually increasing. It is true, that the ratio of the increase may not be equal to that of production; but this is owing to the fact that the power of producing the raw material is much greater, and is, therefore, constantly in advance of the power of consumption. A single fact will illustrate. The average produce of laborers engaged in the cultivation of cotton, may be estimated at five bales, or fifteen hundred weight to the hand. Supposing the annual average consumption of each individual who uses cotton cloth to be five

pounds, one hand can produce enough of the raw material to clothe three hundred.

The argument comprehends two errors, one of fact and the other of principle. It assumes that we do not in fact purchase of Great Britain. What is the true state of the case? There are certain, but very few articles which it is thought sound policy requires that we should manufacture at home, and on these the tariff operates. But, with respect to all the rest, and much the larger number of articles of taste, fashion, and utility, they are subject to no other than revenue duties, and are freely introduced. I have before me from the treasury a statement of our imports from England, Scotland and Ireland, including ten years, preceding the last, and three quarters of the last year, from which it will appear that, although there are some fluctuations in the amount of the different years, the largest amount imported in any one year has been since the tariff of 1824, and that the last year's importation, when the returns of the fourth quarter shall be received, will probably be the greatest in the whole term of eleven years.

Now, if it be admitted that there is a less amount of the protected articles imported from Great Britain, she may be, and probably is, compensated for the deficiency, by the increased consumption in America of the articles of her industry not falling within the scope of the policy of our protection. The establishment of manufactures among us excites the creation of wealth, and this gives new powers of consumption, which are gratified by the purchase of foreign objects A poor nation can never be a great consuming nation. Its poverty will limit its consumption to bare subsistence.

The erroneous principle which the argument includes, is, that it devoves on us the duty of taking care that Great Britain shall be enabled to purchase from us without exacting from Great Britain the corresponding duty. If it be true, on one side, that nations are bound to shape their policy in reference to the ability of foreign powers, it must be true on both sides of the Atlantic. And this reciprocal obligation ought to be emphatically regarded towards the nation supplying the raw material, by the manufacturing nation, because the industry of the latter gives four or five values to what had been produced by the industry of the former.