of means resulting from the increased will and power of the public, by the natural increase of population and wealth, to that extent exactly is it the result of the "demand" being drawn from some other things that have not been so reduced.

As an abstract principle, a "rule without exception," there can be no such thing as an increase of demand in a greater proportion than decrease of price, "so that, if one thousand are sold at 1s. many more than two thousand would be sold at 6d." Even "these facts," as far only as they themselves go, have not "established" such a rule; for the most important one among them, that of newspapers, is, we think we have shown, clearly an exception. And as to an increase capable of giving an increased revenue, it is utterly out of the question.

The foregoing article was written some time ago, and with a very indistinct view to publication. But the recent discussions of the subject, both here and in England, led the writer to revise it with that view; and in the course of fulfilling that intention, he met with the report of Lord Brougham's speech, on the new financial measures of Sir Robert Peel, which contains the following passages:

enue.

"Well, then, it was suggested that by lowering the duties of customs and excise, you would increase the consumption, and thus raise the revAll experience was against this resource for any immediate practical effect. Let not noble lords imagine that he was opposed to the lowering of the customs and excise. Quite the contrary. He entertained no doubt that increased revenue would be the result, the certain consequence, of reduction in the duties of customs and excise, and would remove many of the hardships which now pressed on the consumers; but his opinion was that such remedies would now come too late to cure the present difficulties. They would tell no doubt in the course of time, but that was not what was now wanted. He repeated, that such a remedy would come too late. There were abundant illustrations of what he thus stated. When the noble lord opposite (the earl of Ripon) was in office, about twenty years ago, he made the attempt to get an increased revenue by lowering the duties, and in that year the duties on wines were reduced 54 per cent. What became of the consumption? It was very much increased, but the revenue fell one third; and now after a lapse of twenty years, it had not come up to its former amount, but was at the present day one fifth less. The same might be said of tobacco. A reduction of the duty took place to the amount of 25 per cent, from 4s. to 3s. per pound. He would not say that the consumption was not increased by this. It was, to a considerable amount, but there was a considerable deficiency in the revenue, and at the present day it amounted to about one seventh of what it had been before the reduction of duties took place. A great reduction had also been made in sugar. The duty was lowered from 27s. to 24s. per cwt., or 11 per cent. The consumption rapidly increased. In fact, the reduction answered admirably for all purposes but those of revenue.'

There is in these remarks so much of confirmation of our reasoning, that we almost doubt whether we have construed correctly those which his lordship made in 1825. Still, as the reader will perceive from the passage we have put in italics, there is enough of the doctrine reasserted by him to remove the doubt, and make the reasoning against it, if worth any thing at all, worth as much as it was before.

ART. VI.-OUR TRADE WITH ENGLAND.

To the Editor of the Merchants' Magazine :

It is not often that we see the candid confession by an advocate of a protective tariff, that the corn laws of England are the very principles of political economy upon which we are so anxious that our own government should act; yet if I understand your correspondent, Mr. Colman, right, he not only admits, but proclaims this doctrine. It has been popular in this country, by men of all classes, to decry these laws as extremely injurious and wrong, operating peculiarly hard on the agriculture and commerce of this country, and inflicting evils of a more serious character on the lower classes, not only in England, but in all Europe. We have always had the opinion, and the article of your correspondent does much to establish its truth, that the corn laws of England were beneficial to the agriculture of this country. Our wheat, exported through the British provinces, does not come in competition with the wheat of Europe; but let the ports of England be opened, and our grain would be effectually excluded. In exchange for this, however, our manufacturers would find a market for low-priced cottons and woollens in those grain-growing countries, because they can be manufactured here cheaper than in any other part of the world. England is aware of our advantage in this respect, and has excluded our manufactures from her East Indies.

Let us examine the corn laws, their origin and effects, and we can perhaps judge more accurately of the propriety of adopting this feature of transatlantic policy. The superior strength and influence of the landholders has led England to adopt her present system. Its object, and to a considerable extent, its effect, is to exclude foreign grain, and increase the price. Land is enhanced in value; the laborer, unable to purchase or even rent, is driven from the soil to the mill. The influx of laborers in every branch of manufactures reduces the price of labor, while breadstuffs advance; and here commences the practical working of the system. The laborer, whose wages barely furnish the means of subsistence, though not always that, now finds that he has no time to devote to mental or moral culture. From a man, he becomes a mere machine without voluntary effort.

Those countries adapted to the culture of grain, unable to sell their products in England, are unable to buy her manufactures; and the blow aimed at foreign labor recoils on the head of the poor operative, first driven from the land to the mill, degraded from a man to a menial, and now again the victim of an unjust policy. The peasantry of Poland and Russia are anxious to buy the products of the English spindle and loom, at prices which will compensate labor, if England will but take their grain and feed her own starving and rebellious children.

Although England would find a successful rival in the United States in coarse goods, the market for finer fabrics would be almost exclusively her own. In proportion, however, as her policy becomes more liberal will her ability to manufacture cheap be increased. Such is the policy of the present administration. Sir Robert Peel's new tariff proposes a great reduction in the number of dutiable articles, as well as in the ad valorem rate. It requires no superior sagacity to discern that the true interests of England are to be greatly advanced by this measure. Buying cheap, under a low system of duties, all the materials of manufacturing, she will

be able to offer more facilities to other countries to buy her goods, and at the same time the products of the world will find a ready market in her manufacturing towns and cities. England will see her commerce on the increase, and the labor of her artisans and operatives will be more equitably rewarded.

Continental wheat

But what is to be the effect on the United States? will take the place of American, and our agriculture will, to a small extent, be depressed. Our manufactures too, will suffer, as the ability of England to compete successfully with us will be increased.

Let me call attention to an extraordinary statement for an advocate of a protective tariff to put forth. In the first sentence of your correspondent's article, he says: "I have always been a warm advocate for what is called Home Industry, holding that, in the main, political economy does not essentially differ from domestic economy; and believing that a family, to be really prosperous and independent, must from within itself and from its own resources supply its own wants." No man will question this proposition as a theory, yet the protectionists, if we understand their policy, act in direct opposition to it. If a farmer raise wheat and buy his cloth with it, he as certainly supplies this want from his own resources as if he manufactured the cloth in his own dwelling. This is just what the advocates of free trade propose: to produce every thing for which our soil, climate, and condition of the people are suited, and exchange our surplus for those articles which we cannot produce at all, or only at an exorbitant rate; thus from within ourselves and from our own resources supplying our wants. On the other hand, it is proposed that we produce directly, not by an exchange of products, every article necessary or convenient. We have no idea that any person in his senses proposes to carry this policy to its extreme, though the time is not long past when there were such; yet we will trace it there, that its true character may be exposed. Unnecessary expense would be incurred, and abortive attempts made to grow the plant of China by the waters of the St. Croix and Kennebec ; human art and ingenuity would in vain seek to raise coffee on the banks of the Mohawk and Hudson; woollen and cotton mills, driven by steam, would spring up on the prairies of the west, while the flocks of the mountains would find unnatural pasturage on the savannahs of the south; the hard and unfruitful maple would take the place of the copious cane; the mulberry, orange, and lemon would be found in the green-houses of St. Petersburg; while the navy of England would be supplied with timber from artificial forests. This policy when applied to families is even more pernicious. No scheme can be more Quixotic than one which would lead every family to confine itself to those articles which were produced by its own members. Industry asks nothing, and surely can receive nothing beneficial, at the hand of legislation. Labor desires to be let alone. Labor is the propelling power in society, not the propelled; hence the fruitlessness of every attempt to render it the servant of law.

Your correspondent shows that in 1840, our exports to England exceeded the imports from that country by $25,034,422, and supports the doctrine that a high tariff will diminish our imports and increase our exports. Now the tariff of England in 1840 was higher than our own, yet the balance of trade was against her. If Mr. Colman were correct, England ought to have exported great and imported small quantities of the products of labor.

MERCANTILE LAW DEPARTMENT.

DIGEST OF RECENT ENGLISH CASES.

BILL OF EXCHANGE.-NOTICE OF DISHONOR.

At Law. The following were the notices of non-payment of six bills of exchange. 1st. "Sir-A bill for £29 17s. 3d., drawn by Ward on Hunt, due yesterday, is unpaid, and I am sorry to say, the person at whose house it is made payable, don't speak very favorably of the acceptor's punctuality. I should like to see you upon it to-day." 2d. "Mr. Maine: Sir-This is to give you notice, that a bill drawn by you, and accepted by Josias Bateman, for £47 16s. 9d., due July 19, 1835, is unpaid, and lies due at Mr. John Furze's, 65 Fleet-street." 3d. "Sir-William Howard's acceptance for £21 4s. 4d., due on Saturday, is unpaid. He has promised to pay it in a week or ten days. I shall be glad to see you upon it as early as possible." 4th. "Sir-This is to give you notice, that a bill for £176 15s. 6d., drawn by Samuel Maine, and accepted by George Clisby, dated May 7th, 1835, at four months, lies due and unpaid at my house." 5th. "P. Johnson, Esq.: Sir-This is to give you notice that a bill for £20 17s. 7d., drawn by Samuel Maine, accepted by Richard Jones, dated May 21, 1835, at four months, lies due and unpaid at my house." 6th. "P. Johnson, Esq. Sir-This is to give you notice, that a bill for £148 10s., drawn by Samuel Maine, and accepted by George Parker, dated May 22, 1835, lies due and unpaid at my house." Held, not sufficient notices of dishonor.

MEMORANDUM IN WRITING.-PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.

At Law. The traveller of the plaintiffs sold the defendants 150 mats of sugar, on account of the plaintiffs. At the time of the sale, one of the defendants wrote the following entry in their book, which the plaintiffs' traveller, on being requested so to do, then signed-viz, “Of North, Simpson, Graham, & Co., 150 mats Ma. sugar, a 71–6 as sample, per sea, Fenning's wharf. First and second ship. (Signed,) Joseph Dyson." The sugar was sent to the wharf, and invoices transmitted to the defendants. Whilst at the wharf, the sugar was destroyed by fire. Dyson had, upon many previous occasions, sold sugars for the plaintiffs to the defendants on credit, upon which occasions similar sale notes had been signed by him, and these contracts the defendants had always performed, but

Held, that the entry above mentioned, was not a sufficient memorandum in writing within the Statute of Frauds, requiring contracts to be in writing, to bind the defendants, Dyson not being their agent for that purpose.

ARBITRATION.-SETTING ASIDE AWARD.-UMPIRE.-REFUSAL TO HEAR WITNESSES.-WAIVER.

At Law. If an umpire either refuse to rehear the evidence already given before the arbitrators, or to hear further evidence, the award may be set aside.

And it is no waiver of the objection that the party did not insist on it at the time he attended to hear what award the arbitrators had made.

GOODS SOLD AND DELIVERED.

At Law. The defendant directed the plaintiff to make a coat for him. He after wards wrote to say, he should have no occasion for it, and directed the plaintiff to dispose of it for him. Plaintiff accordingly sold the coat, and apprised the defendant of his so doing.

Held, upon these facts, that an action was maintainable for goods sold and delivered to the defendant.

CONTRACT.-ACCEPTANCE AND DELIVERY.

At Law. The defendant having purchased goods under a verbal agreement, to be

paid for on delivery, went to the plaintiff's warehouse, where the goods were, and directed the mark on one of the packages to be altered from "No. 1," to " No. 12," and the goods to be sent to St. Catherine's Docks. The mark was altered accordingly. The defendant having, on the following day, refused to pay for the goods, the present action was immediately commenced, subsequently to which the defendant wrote in the plaintiff's books, under entry of the goods ordered, the words, "Receive the above, J. B."

Held, that there was no evidence of a delivery and acceptance of the goods within the Statute of Frauds, and that the receipt, having been given after action brought, did not constitute an acceptance.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.-CONSTRUCTION OF AGREEMENT.-DEMAND.

At Law. The defendant, being indebted to the plaintiff's intestate, upon two bills of exchange, which were overdue, gave the following written promise in 1803: "I hereby debar myself of all future plea of the Statute of Limitations, in case of my being sued for the recovery of the amounts of the said bills, and of the interest accruing thereon, at the time of my being so sued; and I hereby promise to pay them, separately or conjointly, with the full amount of legal interest on each and both of them, whenever my circumstances may enable me so to do and I may be called upon for that purpose." An action was brought upon this agreement in 1838, and the issue was, whether a right of action accrued under the agreement within six years? It appeared that the defendant became of ability to pay in 1825, but there was no evidence to show that the plaintiff's intestate was aware of the ability until 1838, in the month of November of which year he demanded payment.

Held, first, that no demand was necessary beyond the bringing of an action; and, secondly, that the action having been brought after the expiration of six years from the period of the defendant having become of ability to pay, of which the plaintiff was bound to have informed himself, he was not entitled to recover.

CONTRACT.CONSIDERATION.-PROMISE TO PAY EXTRA WAGES TO A SERVANT OF THE

GOVERNMENT.

At Law. The plaintiff, who was a cook on board a merchant ship, was engaged by the defendant to serve in that capacity on board a man-of-war, of which the defendant was captain, and extra wages, in addition to the ordinary pay, were promised him. The plaintiff went on board the defendant's ship, and was rated in the usual way, and acted as cook, receiving pay as a seaman.

Held, that there was a good consideration for the promise of the defendant to pay the extra wages, and that an action might be maintained by him, against the defendant, in respect of them.

HORSE RACE.-STEEPLE CHASE.-WAGER.

At Law." B. bets A. £100 to £25 p. p. Mr. R.'s brown mare beats A.'s mare Matilda, four miles across a country, thirteen stone each."

Held, a legal wager; and that A.'s mare having beat Mr. R.'s, A. was entitled to recover the £100 in an action of assumpsit.

CARRIER. STOPPAGE IN TRANSITU.-BANKRUPTCY.-TAKING POSSESSION.—EVIDENCE.AUTHORITY.-CONFIRMATION.

At Law.-B., a merchant at Liverpool, ordered a cargo of timber to be sent from Quebec, in a vessel belonging to and chartered by a shipowner at Montrose. The tim. ber was to be delivered at a port in Lancashire. The price was not paid; and before the arrival of the vessel in England, B. became a bankrupt. On the 18th of July, before the arrival of the vessel, the defendants, who were the correspondents in this country of the consignor, sent to the shipowner a notice of stoppage in transitu, whereupon the ship.