TOPICS OF THE DAY.

MINISTERIAL MASTERY OF FREE TRADE.

Dr reviewing the proceedings in Parliament the week before last, we commented • on Lord Jowl RUSSELL'S denial of the Budget being hastily concocted to meet the defeat on the Irish Registration Bill, and brought forward a fact that had walked the streets in the mouths of Whig retainers, as evidence of our previously-expressed opinion. The paragraph was extensively circulated through the country, without a single word of contradiction from the Ministerial press till last Sunday ; when the Examiner put forward the following, in a "leading article." Though the Spectator is not expressly named, the fact itself, and the old designation of "Tory-Radical," suffi- ciently mark the writer's intention,—although, if" Tory-Radical" means a professed Liberal forwarding Tory principles and destroy- ing those of his own party, it should apply with more truth to the Whigs and their serviles than to us. The pet lie of the Tories and their few remaining allies of the Tory-Radi- cal denomination, is that the Budget was an impromptu, a shift taken up for the nonce upon the defeat of the Irish Registration Bill. If there were no other proof of the falsehood of this story, it would be enough to refer to the speeches of Ministers on the question, and to ask whether they denote a hastily formed opinion. Are there in them any evidences of crudity ? Are the con- clusions arrived at not borne out by all the right arguments? Is the correct decision unaccompanied by the sound reasons for it Our readers, we are sure, will have observed that the speeches of Ministers, without any exception, on the monopolies, are remarkable for an intimate knowledge of the subject, and thoroughly digested opinions. To suppose that they can have so mastered an intricate question, impromptu, is paying a great compliment to their powers of application."

Except a few statistics derived from a similar source, and put into their second speeches by Mr. BARING and Mr. LABOUCEERE, the "mastery" displayed in the Ministerial orations is a schoolboy mastery of commonplaces, with, of course, the Parliamentary mode and the maturer mind of middle-aged gentlemen. Of the principles of economical science applied to our complicated tariff, there is not a trace of "intimate knowledge," but a total barrenness. Instead of "thoroughly digested opinions" touching the immediate matters in hand, there is a perfect unacquaintance with them, coupled with the uncertainty of ignorance in a dilemma. This, it may be fairly said, is mere counter-assertion ; we will then:fore adduce proofs.

The articles to have been affected by the Whig Budget were three—corn, sugar, and timber. The Ministerial principle of a fixed duty on corn being adopted, the rate of duty could have been told in a word—" eight shillings"; but Lord Joint RussELL's "thorough digestion of the subject" was such, that he first requiredfrve weeks to enable him to utter this one word, and when pressed by a supporter with the unfairness of the delay and the practical injury of keeping the agriculturists in so long a suspense at a critical season, he still required a week to enable him to say "eight shillings." What would be thought of a tradesman who should be unable to tell the price of a puffed article, on which he staked the credit of his shop, without a week's delay ? "Mastery" no doubt might be inferred, but not exactly in a line of performance likely to attract customers. The produce of the admission of foreign sugar at 36s. per hun- dredweight, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said "had been calcu- lated at 900,0001., but he took it" at 700,0001. In his first speech he gave no data for this conclusion : being twitted with the omission, he came down, after seventeen days' preparation, with a series of crammed statistics, from which it appeared he might have more than doubled his first estimate. These data (apparently furnished by Mr. PORTER) will be found at pages 6 and 7 of RtnowAy's cheap edition of the speech ; and they consist of a long-winded and rather heavy argument on the consumption of sugar per head at a certain price. But for plain people, who have not arrived at Ministerial mastery, there is a shorter and more intelligible way both to the certain and to the inferential increase. In 1838, the quantity of sugar entered for home consumption was 4,300,000 hundredweight ; in 1839, in consequence of the scarcity and dear- ness, the quantity was only 3,800,000 hundredweight, being a difference of 500,000 hundredweight. If we only imported as much foreign sugar as would have made up this difference—if we only consumed hereafter as we consumed in 1838—the 500,000 hundredweight at 36s. would have yielded the 900,000/. be rejected instead of the 700,000/. he took. But if the proposed Whig measure were worth any thing, "cheap sugar" would have become " cheap " enough to cause a vast increase of consumption. Now, an increase of less than two pounds per head in a year would be about 400,000 hundredweight; yielding an additional revenue of 700,0001., to say nothing of dear Colonial sugar that might be dis- placed, (on each hundredweight of which there would be a gain of 128. protective duty,) making a total increase of 1,600,000/. ;— Mr. BARING himself, in his second speech, made it 1,606,000/. Nay, as if there were to be no end to discrepancies—to the con- stant shifting men resort to when not sure of their ground—Mr. BARING in his second speech made out, that his alteration was useless ; calculating that he should get his 700,000/. from Colonial BuPP- Looking to the price of last year, and the proposed price, I estimate upon an increased consumption of 523,000 hundredweight of sugar ; now if I take that increased consumption, the additional revenue to be derived from these duties would be 660,0001.; and to raise that amount, every ounce that would be consumed would be British Colonial sugar, which would come in under the lowest rate of duty. There is not one ounce of the Foreign sugar that would pay the higher rate in this estimate. Now in this is not included the duty upon another article, molasses ; on which, as I formerly stated, the duty has

last year fallen off 40,000/. Taking, therefore, the duty on molasses the same as in 1839, it would make up the 700,0001."

Surely all this looks very like a "hastily-formed opinion," and the reverse of "thorough digestion."

But the funniest instance of "correct decision" was in " cheap timber" ; though to make this intelligible we must tell the story. The produce of the Timber-duties varies in different years from 1,200,000/. to 1,500,0001. The "enumerated" items under the generic term of "Wood" occupy twelve closely-printed pages ; but about six-sevenths of the revenue is derived from three heads ; the remainder affording a fine example of peddling taxation, but being left unnoticed by these men of "intimate knowledge," and we suspect being quite unknown. A few of these smaller items yield sums which, in our present financial plight, a Minister might pause upon : others are of this kidney—" Beech plank, Foreign," produces nothing ; "British Possessions," Is. 3d. ; "Boards, finn or white, under six inches," 9s. ld. ; "Board-pipe, exceeding five feet, from B. P." Is. 6d. ; and other items scarcely worth the paper their entry requires, much less the time and trouble of their levy, or the complexity and the interference with trade that levy pro- duces.

The three important articles of" Wood" are "battens," "deals," and "timber," that is cube fir. The duty now levied on Foreign timber is 55s. per load, on Canadian 10s. per load ; these rates being the standard from which the duties on the other items are calculated. In all cases where weather and wear are elements, Baltic timber is preferred, and, looking to the distant future, is as economical as the Canadian ; but the Canadian is used wherever the humbler classes arc in any way concerned ; Baltic being em- phatically the timber of the private rich man and of the great capital- ist. Now, what was proposed by these "Protectors of the Poor" ?- they double the tax to the humble consumer ; to the rich man they make a useless reduction of some five per cent., (calculating the cost of the commodity in addition to the duty,) in an article which no one uses except from necessity, and the trivial reduction on which, in an article of luxury, would not stimulate the consump- tion of a single foot. But the climax of "intimate knowledge," "thoroughly digested opinions," and "correct decision' " is to be found in the finan- cial gain to have been derived from the intended change in the Timber-duties. The Ministry proposed to reduce the duty on Baltic timber at the rate of 5s. per load, and to double that on Canadian : they calculated this change would produce 600,0001.; and they all along referred to the Report on the Import-duties as a guide upon the subject. Let us test their calculation by means of an appendix to that Report, where the respective sums pro- duced from the different items of Baltic and Canadian timber are exhibited more fully and readily than in common returns. We shall confine ourselves to the three great heads, taking only the

larger sums in them.

Not of the British Possessions in America.

Of any British Possessions in America.

Battens* 6 feet and not exceeding 16 feet long,

duty 10/. per 120 £ 25,088

Battens 16 feet and not exceeding 21 feet long, 11/. 10s. per 120 129,86-3

Deals* 6 feet and not above 16 feet long, 19/.

per 120, B. P. 2/. per 120 132,982 48,656 Deals 16 feet and not above 21 feet long, 22/ per 120 375,884

Deal-ends under 6 feet long, &c. 6/. per 120 22,628

Fir* 8 inches square or upwards, B. P. 10s. per load, other parts 21. 15s. per load 328,227 244,368

£1,014,672 £293,024

Thus we see, that by doubling the tax on Canadian timber, the revenue would gain to the extent of 290,0001., supposing no de- crease of consumption followed; but we have to deduct 10 per cent. on the 1,000,0001., produced by the Baltic which causes a positive loss of 100,0001.; leaving a net gain of 190,0001., where the Minis- ters calculated on 600,000/. Upon the financial part of the fixed duty on corn, all we know of' their "correct decision" is that it was to yield some 400,0001. a year. In 1837, according to the Finance Accounts,t the duty on corn imported into Great Britain produced 580,0001.; in 1838, 185,0001.; in 1839, 1,080,0001.; in 1840, 1,100,0001. Mr. Gone- BURN, OU the night of the Budget, is reported to have asked whether the expected 400,000/. was to be in addition to the 1,200,000/. they had levied last year, or a fixed 400,0001.? The question may be properly extended to the whole period ; but as we cannot get an answer, we will endeavour to give one. Lord Joun RUSSELL calculated, or rather asserted, that his fixed duty would "keep up the standing price of corn to front 50s. to 608. a quarter." In the plentiful years of 1835-36, English wheat was under 40s.; in plentiful years, therefore, no corn could come in, and instead of 400,0001. there would be nothing. In average years, it might yield something from half to the whole ; and in indifferent years, we might have their estimate doubled, trebled, or quadrupled, if so high a rate of duty could be levied in a scarcity. To recapitulate. This "intricate question" so "thoroughly digested" contained three schemes. On the sugar plan it is self-evident that their proposal would have yielded 900,000/.: with this sum brought before them they first rated the increase at 700,0001.; when they came to examine it they found out it might have been 1,606,0001. In timber, they calculated on a gain • Report from the Select Committee on Import-Dulles, pp. 294. 298, 299. -1 Finance Ace:mats for the respective years, page 26, and Account No. 15 in eagle.

volume.

f 600,0001.: it is matter of demonstration that they could only gain 200,0001. In corn, they talked of 400,0001.; but no one knows whether they meant 400,000/. or 1,500,000/. From their words their meaning was 400,0001.; from their wants, 1,500,0001.; from the facts of the case, and their own account of the working of their project, they might get "any thing or nothing." It depends upon the weather. Where is the "pet lie" now ?—with us, who on other sufficient evidence considered the Budget "an impromptu," or with the Whig mouthpiece, who refers to the speeches of Ministers, to ask

- - - "whether they denote a hastily-formed opinion. Are there in them any evidences of crudity ? Are the conclusions arrived at not borne out by all the right arguments ? Is the correct decision unaccompanied by the sound reasons for it 1 Our readers, we are sure, will have observed that the speeches of Ministers, without any exception, on the monopolies, are remarkable for an intimate knowledge of the subject, and thoroughly digested opinions. To sup- pose that they can have so mastered an intricate question impromptu, is paying a great compliment to their powers of application."

We have gone into the subject at so great length because its intrinsic importance justifies such an examination ; and because it also illustrates the reckless and unscrupulous manner in which complex questions are taken up to serve a purpose of any kind by the Whigs and their organs, without either care or knowledge. For had this person known any thing of the case in which he was re- tained, he would have seen that the "Ministerial Budget" was a 'witness not to be called, however imperative the angry instructions in his brief. From this analysis, too, our readers may infer why we were not "dissolved into ecstacies" by the Whig Free Trade pro- posals. If the Budget was an impudent and reckless impromptu, as every evidence Whether of fact or of inference induces us to believe, the Whigs cannot have even a conception of the question. If, as the Examiner asserts, "intimate knowledge and thorough digestion" produced such a Budget, they are evidently not the persons to settle satisfactorily the important and complicated subject of our commercial system. Either nature or inveterate habit has obviously unfitted them to be trusted with a question which affects the whole of our home and colonial industry, and may influence directly or indirectly the means of every British subject let him reside where he may.