men, trade or navy; for, says our author, our court-men trusted neither to boat, nor net, nor line, but to parliament. Parliament was to make their market, to find their customers, and to fix the prices; but, in reality, made the fishermen lazy, lubberly and useless. "The Dutch," says Sir Walter Raleigh, "every where surpassed us; they had as many ships and vessels as eleven kingdoms of Christendom, let England be one." "Their own commodities," says the same author, "would not lade a hundred ships, yet they sent annually to the east countries 3000 ships. We but 100. To France, Spain, Portugal and Italy, 200 ships. We none. To Russia they sent 30 or 40. We but 3 or 4. We had great abundance of native commodities. They almost none; but they gathered and warehoused the produce and manufactures of all countries, and re-distributed them, and were the greatest carriers and the greatest shipowners in the world." "We are told they arrived at this pre-eminence" by the privileges they allowed to strangers, by the lowness of their customs (tariffs) and by the structure or roominess of their shipping, holding much merchandize, though sailing with fewer hands than our ships, thereby carrying their goods much cheaper to and from foreign parts than we can, whereby the Dutch gain all the foreign freights, whilst our ships lie still and decay, or else go to New Castle for coal." And yet, said Raleigh, England is better situated for a general store house.

To increase the cost of freight is to add to prices and diminish the market by lessening the number of buyers; therefore, to lessen the cost of conveyance is to lessen prices, and to bring commodities within the reach of a greater number of consumers.

Thus we have contrasted, so far, the result of the two systems of restrictions and free trade. Egland reaped the supposed benefits of the former and Holland the blessings of the latter. While the Dutch sent ships to every quarter of the world, the whole marine of England, public and private, did not exceed 268 vessels, large and small, and none over 500 tons. And why was this? Because, answers Mr. Ricardo, "instead of inviting competition, and becoming superior in the face of it, they trusted to acts of parliament, fell into inferiority, sought, by excess in charges, to maintain their position, and so diminished the whole amount of trade."

66

The Dutch, with their learned Grotius, not only defended but practiced the freedom of commerce and of the seas, and the progress of the two nations told the value of the two systems. England, under the pedant James I., who was indignant beyond measure that the Dutch, whom he called "blood suckers of his kingdom," should claim the right to navigate the narrow seas, laid deep the foundation of that national envy and hatred, on which, subsequently, grew up the notion that, to make room for the ships of England, the navy and commerce of Holland must be destroyed. For though Lord Bacon then warned his countrymen that monopolies were the "cankers of all trading," yet, "national animosity" prevailed over the good sense of the ablest men of that age. The English, at that time, claimed the right to "shut the sea," and under their Selden, pretended the exclusive right of navigating in the Channel and all the waters round the coast of the three kingdoms. Charles I., in a vain attempt to make him self popular with his people, adopted their common prejudice, and declared war against Holland, but in attempting to raise "ship-money," by which he aimed to conduct the war, he excited a revolution which cost him his crown and head. So much to secure his "princely honor," as he styled it!

But it still remained a common prejudice with the English, that it was necessary for the success of their shipping that the commerce of Holland should be destroyed. During the civil war, 1646, it was enacted by the republican parliament, that no goods the growth of her American colonies, could be shipped to foreign parts, except in English bottoms. Thus commenced the system of robbing the colonies, or, in other words, the colonial system, which has since constituted an important feature in their navigation laws. Thus, the colonists have ever since been kept as geese, to be plucked for the benefit of the mother country, and accounts for much of the wealth which England, after this period, so rapidly acquired. This, the colonial system, is that too which Mr. Clay says is identical with free trade; South Carolina free trade," as if the idea. of free trade had never been suggested before by any people, but was metaphysics peculiar to her, plagiarised from Sir Joshua Gee's favourite system! But Mr. Clay may see that long before America was discovered, the res

triction, which he has chosen to christen "the American system," was in full operation, and as soon as America was settled, enfolded it within its monopolizing grasp.

Four years later (1651) the famous navigation act of Cromwell was passed, which was dictated by the same spirit as the Berlin and Milan degrees of Napoleon, the French Cromwell. This act was passed, as we are told by Roger Coke, (Metropolitan) "with the immediate view to mortify the sugar islands, which favored the king." And the "decisive blow," its secondary object, "aimed at the naval power of the Dutch, who then engrossed the whole carrying trade of the world, fell not on that power, but in the course of two years, most severely on the British Greenland and Baltic trades." The authors did not know what Mr. Webster asserted in his speech against the protective system in Fanuel Hall, in 1844, that every thing which prevents the increase of commerce, must also prevent the increase of shipping, and that every restriction is an injury to commerce.† The British, by this act, had in view, besides the immediate objects we have mentioned, two others of which they were desirous. 1st. To monopolise all importations (says the same British author) into Great Britain from the other three quarters of the globe; and, like the dog in the manger, if she could not succeed, at least to prevent others from enjoying it; and 2ndly. To prevent any nation from engrossing the whole carrrying trade between Great Britain and the continent of Europe. One reason assigned for the adoption of this act was that Dutch

⚫ It is stated in the 2d. vol. of McCullagh's Industrial History of Free Nations, ch. 13, p. 339, London edition, that this celebrated act was carried through parliament by the influence and talents of the equally celebrated St. John, in resentment for some disrespectful treatment he had received while ambassador in Holland; and it is curious to observe the early and persevering opposition SouthCarolina has ever shown towards every branch of the restrictive system; for, it is stated in Graham's Colonial History, 1 vol., p. 377. that South-Carolina immediately declared that she "held the law of no force whatever," and rejected its enforcement then. Surely her perseverance deserves to be respected. As early as 1740, she had petitioned against restrictions in relations to vice.

"There was, however," said Mr. Webster, "one part of our national defence which the advocates of the new measures (a protective tariff) appeared to have quite overlooked or forgotten. He meant the navy. If the commerce of the country should cease, the navy must cease with it. This he thought too plain to be questioned. A country with a powerful navy, and little or no commerce, would be an anomaly in history. The great objec' a med at seemed to be, e ther to annihilate or g eatly d`m`n`sh our foreign trade. Where, then, are our seamen to come from for the navy."

freights were so much lower than the English, that her merchants employed Dutch vessels in preference to her own, wherefore it was enacted that goods of Asia, Africa and America, could only be imported into England, Ireland or any of the plantations, in English built vessels, owned by English subjects and navigated by English commanders, and three-fourths of the sailors Englishmen."

Thus the consumers of the whole kingdom were heavily taxed, and the commerce of the country lessened, while freights were doubled, for the exclusive interest of the shipowners "at home," or, at least, under the mistaken policy of an interested usurper, who was desirous of "mortifying" his opponents, and the colonies not only compelled to pay double frieghts, but to be deprived of every comfort necessary to their existence and progress, which the merchants of the mother country did not find it to their interest to bring them at reasonable prices. They were sheep whose golden fleeces were to be sheared, not only by the merchants "at home," but by the ship-owners also. No matter how long a merchant resides in the colonies he was never at home" until he returned with his wealth to old England, as is now too often the case with the sons of NewEngland in regard to their colonies of the South. The law further provided that no goods of the growth, production or manufacture of any European country should be imported into Great Britain or her colonies, except in British ships commanded and manned as above; or in such ships as were the real property of the people of the place or country in which the goods were produced, or from which they could only be, or more usually were exported.

66

The latter clause was especially intended to ruin the Dutch, who produced little or nothing, but carried for all the world, as we have said. As early as the 5 Eliz. foreign ships were excluded from the British fisheries and coasting trade. This act was intended as a further blow against the Hollanders; for they still continued to catch all the fish, and to supply the English, notwithstanding the measures of Queen Elizabeth. The act declared that the importation of all fish into England or Ireland, or exporta tion therefrom to foreign parts, or even from one home port to another, was prohibited, unless caught by their own fishermen. This is said to have been the beginnging of the coasting trade, notwithstanding the act of Elizabeth.

The navigation act of the republican parliament, though it has received the apology of Adam Smith, the father of free trade, on the ground that it was a measure necessary to the then safety of England, and that "defence was more important than opulence," yet he at the same time declares that it was "not favorable to foreign commerce, or to the growth of that opulence which can arise from it." Adam Smith knew, and admits, that the navigation laws were in violation of his principles, so ably illustrated in his Wealth of Nations, but like many great and wise men, he had not the courage to avow, unconditionally, an opinion at that time so much opposed to the popular prejudices of his country. A courage as seldom displayed in these boasted republican States of ours, as in any country of the world. And, at this commencement of the colonial system, it is mortifying to observe that this republican parliament of England was more tyrannical towards the colonies than Charles the I. or II., and all because "Dutch freights were low." Who would not submit himself sooner to the legislation of a Cromwell or a Bonaparte, than the two-penny policy of an Andrew Stewart, or the monopolizing spirit of an Abbot Lawrence?

It has been denied by some of the ablest British writers, contemporary and subsequent, and doubted by many, whether, in point of fact, the navigation law ever had the effect either of weakening the power of the Dutch, or increasing that of England. There can be no doubt that it was injurious to British commerce, and if so, we cannot see how it could contribute to her national defence. (See McGregor's Progress of America, 2d. vol., 1278. McCulloch's Com. Dict.)

One immediate result of this act was a destructive war between the English and Dutch, which did great injury to the former in the destruction of their commerce, while the Dutch soon recovered their superiority, in spite of all these restrictions. Upon the restoration, Charles II. would not permit Cromwell's act to stand upon the record. It was therefore repealed, but the principles of the act were re-enacted with the modification, that the restriction should apply only to goods of Russia and Turkey. This re-enactment constitutes what the English have long boasted of as their charta maratina. But in two years afterwards, 14th ch. 2nd., a supplemental statute was enacted, declaring that no