to the fact, that a belief is fast spreading among the people of Pennsylvania, that domestic manufactures must be protected as a means necessary and indispensible to prevent general impoverishment.-Whether the belief be well or ill founded, we do not presume to say; it is sufficient, for the purpose of these observations, that the notion rapidly gains ground.

The vast, the unspeakable importance of the inquiry is therefore manifest to every one that will reflect upon the probable consequences of such a state of things, as we cannot but see there is reason to anticipate-when the states which produce corn, hemp and flax, are convinced that they are sinking into ruin, and that a new scheme of industry, with new rules of trade are necessary for their salvation; while those which cultivate cotton, sugar and tobacco, feel themselves growing richer, and regard any alteration as destructive of their prosperity. With interests so diametrically opposed, what harmony or agreement, can be expected? A single individual may be moved to seek the crown of martyrdom, but nations, communities or states have not yet been known, for the sake of any abstract principle, to court self-immolation.

We do not aver that the real interests of the north and of the south are so much at variance. But such is the doctrine at present taught in many of the publications on the subject of domestic manufactures, and it is a doctrine that for all we see, is likely to gain full possession of the puble mind. It is on this account we repeat, what we long since advanced, that from the time of the declaration of independence there has scarcely been a question before this nation so pregnant with the most serious and awful consequences.

It is a question, however, that has not yet exercised the most influential and powerful minds among our statesmen or citizens. The discussion has not called forth such powers of argument, such efforts of research, nor such investigation

as have been brought into action by the comparatively unimportant disquisition on the restriction of slavery in Missouri. As far as the discussion has yet proceeded, the advocates for manufactures have plainly the advantage in the field of argument, and have exhibited much more closeness of reasoning, and a far better knowledge of facts, the only kind of knowledge that on this question can be very availing. The general principles of political economy, as they are to be found in the works of the best European writers, form but an unsafe guide in an inquiry that respects a country so peculiarly circumstanced as ours; and the common place topics of that science, so constantly quoted and appealed to by the opponents of further encouragement, are in a great degree inapplicable to the controversy.

To talk of buying cheap and selling dear, of 'procuring the greatest possible quantity of produce with the least possible expenditure of labour, and of capital;' and all the other generalities which may easily be culled in thousands from the pages of the Edinburgh Review, answers exceedingly well to give an air of plausibility and eloquence to an ‘address' or a 'resolution,' but goes very little way towards convincing an American, what is the true policy dictated by the peculiar situation of his country. We want facts; statistical facts; and when we are well informed, as to them, general principles, may then be applied and particular inferences may be safely deduced, but not before.

In the two memorials, above mentioned, proceeding from highly respectable associations, there is to be seen a very remarkable exemplification of this too common proneness to put forward certain maxims of political economy unquestionably incontrovertible in themselves, and very important to be observed, but applied very unaptly, in aid of the cause which it is intended to support.

Thus congress are gravely informed, in the Remonstrance of the Fredericksburgh Society, that the prosperity and happiness of society depend not upon immunities privi

leges and monopolies granted to one class or order of society, at the expense of another,' &c. that all free trade of whatever description must be a mutual benefit to the parties concerned in it;' that countries should study to direct their labours to those departments of industry for which their situation and circumstances are best adapted,' &c. &c.; all which as general principles no one denies or doubts. But the question is left untouched whether the manufacturing industry of a whole nation can be called a monopoly; or measures taken to save it from the attacks of foreign jealousy— 'an immunity'; that we have at present 'free trade' with any nation on earth, is not asserted, and would be difficult to establish, nor is any attempt made to show the mutual benefit' arising from our commerce with Great Britain in particular. That the situation and circumstances' of the United States are best adapted' to agriculture without manufactures, is equally unproved, and these generalities, of which the above are but specimens, leave the question precisely where it was before.

The same Remonstrance, is still more unfortunate in its facts; doubtless without any intention to misrepresent; thus the Virginia Agriculturists are made to say we ask no tax upon manufacturers for our benefit, neither do we desire any thing of government, to enable us to cultivate the soil as profitably as we could wish, but to leave us free, so far as it depends on them, to carry our products to the best markets we can find, and to purchase what we want in return on the best terms we can, either at home or abroad,' &c.

One is almost tempted to conclude from the positiveness of the assertion in the above sentence, that the gentlemen who made it, were not aware of the existence of any duties, whose effect or object is to protect agricultural industry, and particularly the agricultural industry of the southern states, from the dangers of foreign competition. Yet tobacco in the leaf is subject to a duty of fifteen per cent; manufactured

tobacco, pays ten per cent. per pound, and snuff twelve cents, for the protection of the agriculturists of Virginia, and the other states that raise tobacco. Cotton is subjected to a heavy duty, hemp, cheese, spirits distilled from grain, and coals are also dutied, to the benefit of agriculture. Whether the primary object of these imposts was merely revenue, or a protection of agriculture from foreign rivalship, we know not; certain it is the effect cannot be mistaken. The truth therefore is that at this moment a manufacturer of cotton goods, is not allowed by the policy of our laws, when he purchases his raw material to enjoy the benefit of that maxim which the Remonstrance upholds, to buy as cheap as you can, no matter where,' but is forced to procure his cotton from his own countrymen, without having the advantage of that competion between the foreign and domestic growth of the article, which the Remonstrance declares it is the duty of every wise and just government to secure to him.' He buys his tobacco, his hemp, his whiskey, his cheese under the same disadvantages; disadvantages imposed on him, for the benefit of the agriculturists, yet, it is said, he must not expect any reciprocity of favour; the planter, and the farmer from whom he is obliged to buy his cotton, tobacco, whiskey, &c. at a price, ten per cent. higher than he need give for them, if the laws allowed him free access to a foreign market, are not to be prevented from going into that same foreign market, and purchasing goods there at a price lower than the manufacturer of their own country can afford, (because of the operation of these very laws,) to sell them for. This is an important fact, and quite lost sight of in most of the essays, resolutions, &c. against domestic manufactures. Whether the present system in this respect is right or wrong, we do not pretend to say; the Fredericksburgh Remonstrance, terms the tillers of the earth,' the fountain head of all wealth, of all power, and of all prosperity.' It claims for them, however, no exclusive privileges; and those who

drafted it probably were not aware that the law gave them any exemption from foreign rivalship. We do not purpose, at present to contend for either the plan adopted, or the plan proposed, but to remark upon the obvious deficiencies in the reasoning which are addressed to the public on either side.

Mr. Carey's Three Letters are worthy the attention of all such as desire to form their opinions impartially on the subject. He is a zealous, a persevering, and an able advocate. He has written much, and of course thought much on this question, and his writings have the advantage of being free from the crudeness, and looseness as to statistics, that impair the value of so many productions, of less experienced champions, of either side.

It has appeared to us that in his writings, and in the Addresses of the Philadelphia Society, there has been too frequent a reference to the example of England, and too confident a reliance on the inductions made from circumstances in her history. Let him answer this objection in his own words; the following extract is from the seventh page.

'Some of our politicians have written long essays protesting against citing the example of England, in consequence of the immense numbers, and the distress and misery of her poor-and the wasteful wars she wages, which they charge to the account of her manufactures! The misery of her poor arises from their labour being superseded by machineryand her wars arise from her ambition. To censure the system by which she acquires wealth, for the ill uses to which it is applied, would be as absurd, as to censure agriculture for the waste of the money made by an industrious, but extravagant farmer or planter.

'The case of France is more decisive and more recent, and not so well known. She has, merely by protecting the industry of her subjects, healed all the wounds she received by the profligate ambition of her rulers-by the ravages of