JAMES. And wherefore not? Good cousin, tender cousin, COUNTESS. The freedom I would give you, is such freedom A stern hard smile, as is the vulture's glance, JAMES. Heaven have mercy on my soul! The woman's mad. Oh! if you e'er knew pity, I pray you, cousin, pity me. God knows, I would give all I have to please you. What A man, a gentleman, I'll not deceive you. COUNTESS. Utter no promise here, Or Perjury will shake the solid ground, Bethink you of the promises you swore To Ruthven-how you broke them-how he died. No-they shall never let you go. Your throne Is empty, and your kingly title done Save as a vantage word for better men To work with. Heaven and earth are tired and worn With all your baseness. COUNTESS. We take your honour-take your kingly name, Let no one enter. Guard the outer gates, And keep this man a prisoner, on your lives. [Exit?' On the second of these plays, we shall not enter into any detailed criticisms. We shall merely say, that though ingeniously constructed for the purpose of displaying the talent of an accomplished actor, and effective as we have no doubt it was in the hands of the present chief boast of our Stage-it does not appear to us equal to its predecessor; and, in particular, we would advise Mr White in his next performance to bridle in his comic muse; for, as regards the facetious portions of The King of the Commons, it has seldom fallen to our lot to peruse more tragical mirth. ART. X-Sophismes Economiques. Par M. FREDERIC BASTIAT. 12mo. Paris: 1846. M. BASTIAT has, in this well-written volume, collected and exposed the most popular Protectionist fallacies ;—those sophistical arguments which are most frequently employed in defence of protective duties on Imports, and against the freedom of trade. The publication of such a book is of itself a proof that the doctrines of Free-Trade are beginning to make some progress in France; and that the countrymen of Turgot are not all deluded by that spurious patriotism which identifies the exclusion of foreign goods with the promotion of national interests. The simplicity and directness of the argument in favour of Free-Trade, ought, indeed, to secure it a ready acceptance in all countries where reason can make itself heard, and where sectional interests have not a complete ascendancy. But the present state of France is similar to that of England at the time when Adam Smith wrote his Wealth of Nations. The manufacturers and merchants were at that time the principal champions of the restrictive system in England; the agriculturists-as he observes-were not infected with the same selfish and narrow-minded spirit as the trading part of the community.* The system of protection is, by the French tariff, extended indeed to all native products, whether of agriculture or manufacture; but the persons interested in manufactures are in France the most active and zealous advocates of protection. The landed interest principally desire protection in their capacity of owners of wood for burning. In England, however, partly owing to the vast increase of our manufacturing industry, and partly to the influence of the last war with France, the opinions and interests on this subject have been completely reversed since the time of Dr Smith. The manufacturers of England have ceased to confine their ambition to the supply of their native market; they work for the general market of the world. The monopoly of the English market is therefore no longer important to them; and instead of asking for the exclusion of foreign manufactures, they desire that all restrictions on foreign trade, which limit the external demand for their goods, should be abolished. On the other hand, the agricultural body has adopted the cast-off prejudices and alarms of the manufacturers and merchants ;-that system of selfish error which, from its authors and promoters, obtained the name of the Mercantile System. During the war, corn, although the importation was from 1800 to 1815 practically free, rose, on various accounts, to a very high price.† The range of high prices during this *Country gentlemen and farmers are, to their great honour, of all people the least subject to the wretched spirit of monopoly. Country gentlemen and farmers, dispersed in different parts of the country, cannot so easily combine as merchants and manufacturers, who, being collected into towns, and accustomed to that exclusive corporation spirit which prevails in them, naturally endeavour to obtain, against all their countrymen, the same exclusive privilege which they generally possess against the inhabitants of their respective towns. They accordingly seem to have been the original inventors of those restraints upon the importation of foreign goods, which secure to them the monopoly of the home market.'-Wealth of Nations, book iv. ch. 2. This passage was quoted by Sir Robert Peel, in his Speech on the introduction of the Corn-law measure, at the beginning of this Session. †The average prices of the imperial quarter of wheat for the following years, stood thus : Average Price. Year. 1810, 1011, 1812, 1813, S. d. 106 5 95 3 126 6 109 9 An allowance must, however, be made for the depreciation of the currency during this period. * period produced a double effect. In the first place, the existence of scarcity and dearness during the war, combined with the violent anti-commercial policy of Napoleon, had created a genuine conviction of the importance of relying on homegrown corn, exclusively of foreign supplies. The Corn-law Report of 1813, in which the modern protective policy of this country originated, puts forward the danger of this commercial dependence, as the main argument for prohibition; and it particularly dwells on the probability of large supplies of grain being obtained from Ireland, for the supply of the manufacturing population of England, under an improved system of cultivation. In the next place, the agricultural interest, having been accustomed for several years to an extraordinary height of prices, were desirous of preventing a sudden and (apparently to them) ruinous depreciation. Accordingly, the Report of 1813 recom mended that the importation of flour and meal should be totally probibited; that the importation of wheat should be prohibited when the price was under 105s; and that, when it reached this price, it should be admitted at a duty of 24s. 3d. a quarter.f These propositions, which now sound almost fabulous, were, at the time, considered fair and reasonable by statesmen still living; and it was then thought by persons favourable to freedom of commerce, that the government, which took up the subject in 1815, had made a great concession in fixing the point of prohibition at so low a price as 80s. instead of 90s. or 100s.-the amounts proposed by Sir Henry Parnell and the other advocates of restrictive policy. In consequence of the corn-law established in 1815, and modified by successive mitigations into the sliding-scale of 1842, the agricultural interest learnt to believe that their prosperity was identified with protection, and that rents would fall, or the land even go out of cultivation, if the duties on foreign corn were not maintained. During the same period, partly by the extension of the market for our own manu * Mr Tooke, in his History of Prices, vol. i. p. 309, has given some curious details as to the increase of the expenses of freight during the later years of the war. In 1809-12, the freight and insurance from the Baltic to London, was, on an average, for a quarter of wheat, 50s; in 1837, it was 4s. 6d. For a load of timber, the same expenses were L.10 in 1809-12; and L.1 in 1837. †This Report is printed at length in Hansard's Parl. Hist. vol. xxv. app. p. 55. An abstract of it may be found in the Annual Register for 1813 State Papers, p. 371. Sir H. Parnell's opinions on this subject afterwards underwent an entire change, and he became an advocate of a free trade in corn. See his speech on Mr Villiers' motion, House of Commons, 15th March 1838. factures, and partly by the repeal of protective duties on foreign manufactures, commenced by Mr Huskisson, continued by the administrations of Lord Grey and Lord Melbourne, and consummated by Sir Robert Peel,-the manufacturing and, to a great extent, the trading classes of the country, had been deprived of their interest in favour of commercial restrictions. Their opinions and conduct, no longer misled by self-regarding considerations, naturally inclined to that policy which is favourable to the interest of the general public. Hence there were petitions in favour of free-trade, signed by the principal merchants and traders of London; hence the Anti-corn-law Leaguea body mainly composed of members of the manufacturing interest, and supplied with funds by their contributions-attacked the protection enjoyed by the agriculturists, instead of making common cause with them, for the maintenance of all protective duties; and even proclaimed its advocacy of universal free-trade. It is by this separation of interests that the cause of the consumer, of the mere member of the general public-not belonging to any organised body, or enrolled under the standard of any peculiar interest has become triumphant. The joy of King Priam at the quarrels of the Grecian chieftains could not have exceeded the wondering delight with which Adam Smith would have heard of the English manufacturers and traders having become the champions of free-trade, and assailing the protective duties on agricultural produce. So long as all the powerful in. terests of a community-agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial-are bound together in a compact and firm alliance for the maintenance of a prohibitive system of import duties, the unconnected, undisciplined aggregate of consumers are, in the present state of opinion and intelligence, utterly helpless against such a coalition. But if, from any circumstances, the interests of those who have to sell begin to conflict, the cause of those who have to buy has some chance of success. Such has already been the case in England; and we will venture to predict, that, so soon as the protected interests of France, Germany, and the United States, begin to fall out amongst themselves—so soon as they cease to make a common prey of the consumer, and are found to do more harm to one another than to the public then, and not till then, will the prohibitory tariffs of these countries be relaxed. Since the open transition of Sir Robert Peel and Sir James Graham to the cause of universal free-trade, and the introduction of the comprehensive measure of commercial reform at the beginning of this session, it may be said that, with one exception, ali the leading statesmen of the present day,-all the public men who are likely, for some years to come, to guide the deliberations of |