Page:History of the Anti corn law league - Volume 2.pdf/358

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
344
LORD J. RUSSEL

enjoyment of high profits—and Sir R, Peel's act of 1819 and of last year for the resumption of cash payments—measures which, though they were founded on sound principles, from which it would be a great misfortune to depart materially, had still produced the evil which was generally the result of a contraction of the currency, and had injured the industrious classes to a considerable extent. He then adverted to the policy of restriction and monopoly, or, as it was sometimes called, the policy of giving protection to native industry, which had grown up during the war, and on which he contended that parliament might legislate with benefit by overturning altogether that erroneous system. He showed that the chief monopolies which now existed had been introduced by ministers who were still living, and that the policy which in Adam Smith's time was called the mercantilo system, had been adopted, according to that high authority, by the country gentlemen from a wish to protect the interests and promote the welfare of the commercial classes. The experience of our times led us to form a very different conclusion from that forned by Adam Smith. Our manufacturers now saw that it was of no advantage to them to have restrictions imposed upon articles imported into this country; and had adopted the theory of Adam Smith that the policy of restriction was mischievous, that it favoured one class at the expense of another, and that it injured the labouring classes inore than any other. He proved that our manufacturers were correct in the views which they now entertained, by taking a retrospect of the history of the restrictions formerly imposed on timber and wool. He gave that history as a specimen of the mischief created by the high duties imposed during the war, and of the emptiness of the apprehensions entertained of the evils likely to accrue from the remission of those duties. He contended that history also showed that under protective duties the labourer was less able to educate his children, to live in