12. Pitt's Speech on the Income Tax [Speeches of William Pitt, edited W.S. Hathaway, 1806, Vol. III, pp. 282-333], 1798.

The remainder of the sum is that which must be raised either by a tax within the year, in the same manner as the assessed tax bill of last year, or by a loan. It will be to be considered, how the committee will divide that remaining sum between them. The sum to be provided for is upwards of twenty-three millions. Gentlemen will recollect that, in the debates upon the subject of the assessed taxes last session, two fundamental principles were established as the rule by which we should be guided in providing for the supplies for the service of the year. These were, first, to reduce the total amount to be at present raised by a loan; and next, as far as it was not reducible, to reduce it to such a limit, that no more loan should be raised than a temporary tax should defray within a limited time. In the first place, the tax acceded to by the House last session[392] was for the purpose of providing for the supplies of the year; and in the next place, for the purpose of extinguishing the loan raised in that year. From the modifications, however, which that measure underwent after its being first proposed, the produce of it was diminished to a considerable extent. Other means indeed were adopted to remedy the deficiency which was thus occasioned. The voluntary and cheerful efforts which, so honourably to individuals and to the country, came in aid of the assessed taxes, and the superior produce of the exports and imports beyond the estimate, brought the amount of the sums raised to that at which they had been calculated. The different articles were estimated at seven millions and a half, and this sum was fully covered by the actual receipts under the distinct heads. It gives me, indeed, the most heartfelt satisfaction to state, that notwithstanding the difficulties which the measure encountered from the shameful evasion, or rather the scandalous frauds by which its effects were counteracted, the total amount which was expected has yet been realized. The meanness which shrunk from fair and equal contribution has been compensated to the public by the voluntary exertions of patriotism. The produce of the assessed taxes, under all the modifications, and all the evasions, is four millions. I had taken it at four and a half after the modifications. The deficiency is supplied by the excess on head of voluntary contributions....

Satisfactory as it must be to review the circumstances to which we owe those advantages, and the benefits which the mode of raising the supplies to a considerable extent adopted last session has produced, it is unnecessary for me to state that, however the principle may deserve our approbation, it is still much to be desired that its effects should be more extensive, and its application more efficient.... Every circumstance in our situation, every event in the retrospect of our affairs, every thing which strikes our view as we look around us, demonstrates the advantages of the system of raising a considerable part of the supplies within the year, and ought to induce us to enforce it more effectually to prevent those frauds, which an imperfect criterion and a loose facility of modification have introduced; to repress those evasions so disgraceful to the country, so injurious to those who honourably discharge their equal contribution, and, above all, so detrimental to the great object of national advantage which it is intended to promote. In these sentiments, our leading principle should be to guard against all evasion, to endeavour by a fair and strict application to realize that full tenth, which it was the original purpose of the measure of the assessed taxes to obtain, and to extend this as far as possible in every direction, till it may be necessary clearly to mark the modification, or to renounce, in certain instances, the application of it altogether. If then, the committee assent to this principle, they must feel the necessity of following it up by a more comprehensive scale and by more efficient provisions. They will perceive the necessity of obtaining a more specific statement of income, than the loose scale of modification, which, under the former measure, permitted such fraud and evasion. If such a provision be requisite to correct the abuses of a collection, to obviate the artifices of dishonesty, to extend the utility of the whole system, it will be found that many of the regulations of the old measure will be adapted to a more comprehensive and efficient application of the principle. If regulations can be devised to prevent an undue abatement, and to proportion the burden to the real ability, means must be employed to reach those resources which, primâ facie, it is impossible under the present system of the assessed taxes to touch. While inaccuracy, fraud, inequality, be grievances which it is desirable to remedy, it will be an additional satisfaction, that when compelled to adopt means to prevent the defects of which we complain, we shall be enabled likewise to improve and to extend the benefits we have obtained. The experience which we have had upon the subject, proves that we must correct and remedy, in order to secure the advantages which the measure is calculated to afford. It is in our power to make them our own. I think I can show that whatever benefit the principle upon which we have begun to act, is fitted to bestow, may by a liberal, fair and efficient application, be carried to an extent far greater than has yet been obtained, an extent equal to every object of great and magnanimous effort, to every purpose of national safety and glory, to every advantage of permanent credit and of increased prosperity.

Impressed then with the importance of the subject, convinced that we ought, as far as possible, to prevent all evasion and fraud, it remains for us to consider, by what means these defects may be redressed, by what means a more equal scale of contributions can be applied, and a more extensive effect obtained. For this purpose it is my intention to propose, that the presumption founded upon the assessed taxes shall be laid aside, and that a general tax shall be imposed upon all the leading branches of income. No scale of income indeed which can be devised will be perfectly free from the objection of inequality, or entirely cut off the possibility of evasion. All that can be attempted is, to approach as near as circumstances will permit to a fair and equal contribution.... The details of a measure which attempts an end so great and important, must necessarily require serious and mature deliberation. At present all that I can pretend to do is, to lay before the committee an outline of the plan which endeavours to combine every thing at which such a measure ought to aim. This outline I shall now proceed to develop to the committee as clearly and distinctly as I am able.

The next point for consideration then, is the mode of contribution which shall be adopted. On this head it is my intention to propose that no income under 60l. a year shall be called upon to contribute, and that the scale of modification up to 200l. a year, as in assessed taxes, shall be introduced with restriction. The quota which will then be called for ought to amount to a full tenth of the contributor's income. The mode proposed of obtaining this contribution differs from that pursued in the assessed taxes, as instead of trebling their amount, the statement of income is to proceed from the party himself.

[A detailed estimate of income from different sources follows. One-fifth is deducted to allow for the remission of taxation on incomes under 60l. and graduation under 200l. from ¹⁄₁₂₀ to ¹⁄₁₀.]

For the sake of greater clearness I will recapitulate the heads in the same order that I have followed:—

Upon this sum a tax of 10 per cent. is likely to produce 10,000,000l. a year, and this is the sum which is likely to result from the measure, and at which I shall assume it.

I trust that it will not be necessary for me to go into any detail of argument to convince the committee of the advantages of the beneficial mode adopted last session, of raising a considerable part of the supplies within the year.... It will be manifest to every gentleman on the slightest consideration of the subject, that, in the end, the measure of raising the supplies within the year is the cheapest and the most salutary course that a wise people can pursue; and when it is considered that there is a saving of at least one-twelfth upon all that is raised, gentlemen will not suffer a superstitious fear, and jealousy of the danger of exposing the secrecy of income, to combat with a measure that is so pregnant with benefits to the nation. If gentlemen will take into their consideration the probable duration of peace and war, calculated from the experience of past times, they will be convinced of the immeasurable importance of striving to raise the supplies within the year, rather than accumulating a permanent debt. The experience of the last hundred, fifty, or forty years, will show how little confidence we can have in the duration of peace, and it ought to convince us how important it is to establish a system that will prepare us for every emergency, give stability to strength, and perpetual renovations to resource. I think I could make it apparent to gentlemen that in any war, of the duration of six years, the plan of funding all the expenses to be incurred in carrying it on, would leave at the end of it a greater burden permanently upon the nation than would be sustained, than they would have to incur for the six years only of its continuance, and one year beyond it, provided that they made the sacrifice of a tenth of their income. In the old, unwise, and destructive way of raising the supplies by a permanent fund, without any provision for its redemption, a war so carried on entails the burden upon the age and upon their posterity for ever. This has, to be sure, in a great measure, been done away and corrected, by the salutary and valuable system which has been adopted of the redemption fund. But that fund cannot accomplish the end in a shorter period than forty years, and during all that time the expenses of a war so funded must weigh down and press upon the people. If, on the contrary, it had at an earlier period of our history been resolved to adopt the present mode of raising the supplies within the year; if, for instance, after the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, the scheme of redemption had been adopted and persevered in to this time, we should not now, for the seventh year of the war, have had more to raise from the pockets of the people than what we have now to pay of permanent taxes, together with about a fourth of what it would be necessary to lay on in addition for this year. Fortunately, we have at last established the redemption fund: the benefits of it are already felt; they will every year be more and more acknowledged; and in addition to this it is only necessary, that instead of consulting a present advantage, and throwing the burden, as heretofore, upon posterity, we shall fairly meet it ourselves, and lay the foundation of a system that shall make us independent of all the future events of the world.[393]

13. Foreign Trade in the early Nineteenth Century [Committee on Orders in Council, Reports 1812 (III), pp. 38, 40, 41, 132-133, 522-523], c. 1812.

Have you had occasion to make any estimate, founded upon your own inquiries, of the number of workmen employed in the Birmingham manufactory[394]—and the neighbouring towns? I never particularly estimated for the whole of them, but in the year 1808 I took an estimate of the people employed in the American trade.... Those that could be ascertained to be (as nearly as could be) exclusively employed in the American trade were 50,000, exclusive of the nail trade, which employed from twenty to thirty thousand [of whom two-thirds were engaged in the American trade].

Can you state to the Committee, from your observation, what proportion the foreign trade generally bears to the trade for home consumption?... I should think it was considerably more than one half, including the United States.

Do you think it would amount to two-thirds? I should think not far from it.... Do you think the foreign trade is equal to two-thirds of the whole manufacture?—When the foreign trade is the same as in the year 1810, not in its present state; it is now very different....

To what cause do you ascribe the diminution of your trade to the Continent?—The risk of sending goods into many ports of the Continent is too great....

Then it is the French, Berlin, and other decrees that have produced this diminution of your trade to the Continent?—To my own particular trade. I cannot say how it is as to others.

[Evidence of John Bailey, exporter and home factor of Sheffield goods.]

What are the principal articles manufactured at Sheffield?—They are very numerous, I can present a list of them to the House; the principal articles are cutlery, files, edged tools, saws, and a great variety of other heavy articles.

Can you speak to the population of Sheffield, and such parts of the neighbouring parishes as are concerned in the Sheffield manufacture?—The population of the parish of Sheffield, as returned by the overseers in the year 1811, was 53,000 odd; but including those parts of parishes in which Sheffield goods are manufactured, the population amounts to 60,000 at least.

Can you tell what proportion of hands are employed in manufacturing for the American market?—For the American market, about 4,000 male adults, and 2,000 women and children, making a total of 6,000.

How many do you estimate are employed in manufacturing for the home trade?—Six thousand male adults, and one thousand women and children.

How many do you calculate are employed in the remaining parts of the Sheffield trade, namely, manufactures for the foreign market, exclusive of the American?—Two thousand male adults, and one thousand women and children.

This last market includes Spain and Portugal?—Spain, Portugal, the West Indies, South America, and Canada, with some few other parts.

What proportion does the American market bear to the home market, as far as regards the Sheffield goods?—The American exports amount, as nearly as I have been able to ascertain, to one-third of the whole manufactures of Sheffield; the home trade to, I think, three-sixths.

[He adds that the American trade had been affected by the Orders in Council and the Non-importation Act of the United States. The home trade with towns in the American trade had been injured also. Goods to the value of £400,000 were waiting in Sheffield and Liverpool warehouses.]

[Evidence of Robert MacKerrell, London merchant, dealing in cottons and muslins, and manufacturer of Paisley.]

Can you inform the Committee what the state of the trade was in the years 1808, 1809, 1810, and 1811?—In 1807 we felt the whole effect of the Berlin decree, we were entirely excluded from the Continent; I speak with regard to my own transactions and those of a vast number of my friends. We had in 1807, and previous to that, trades to the South of Europe, particularly in Portugal, which were uninterrupted, but which were likewise put an end to by the French invasion in November of that year. In 1808 the trade revived considerably; a great quantity of our goods, and of English merchandise, was introduced into the Continent through Heligoland; considerable exports were made to the Baltic; the trade in the Mediterranean increased very considerably; a very great trade was opened to this country in consequence of the Royal Family of Portugal removing to the Brazils, which likewise made an opening to Spanish South America. In 1809 the trade through Heligoland was most extensive; Bonaparte had his hands full with the Emperor of Germany and with the Spaniards, and had no time to attend to the coast; the trade during that year I may say was uninterrupted. The trade to the Mediterranean increased very much; the quantity of goods taken out that year greatly exceeded any previous year, for reasons that at that time we could not account for. The trade to the Brazils was equally extensive with the year before, vast exportations took place to South America, and in general, trade in the line in which I am engaged was reckoned a fair trade; the markets were never heavy.

[The Orders in Council increased the English export trade to the South of Europe, and Africa and the Levant were supplied with English substitutes for Continental cottons and linens.]

What has been the state of your trade for the last eighteen months, and, as far as you have been informed, of the country in general?—The state of the trade during the last eighteen months has been depressed; for the last twelve months it has been recovering, but for the six months previous it was very much depressed indeed.

To what do you attribute that depression?—We attribute the depression of trade which took place to the effect of the Berlin and Milan decrees. [Northern Europe, the Baltic, etc., were shut against English trade, and English ships were sequestered even in Swedish ports.]

14. Debate on the Corn Law [Parliamentary History, 1st Series, Vol. XXIX, Cols. 798-818], 1815.

... The general result of his reasoning was, in the first place, that it was quite impossible for us safely to rely on a foreign import. If they so did, a necessary result would be a diminution of our own produce, which would become more and more extensive every year, and consequently call for a greater annual supply from foreign countries—a supply which must progressively increase as the agriculture of the kingdom became less encouraged; and that, when the fatal moment arrived, the system of foreign supply would prove completely illusory.

The next point to be considered was the extent to which protection should be given. That was a point on which, undoubtedly, a difference of opinion was most likely to prevail. Some gentlemen would be for going considerably higher than others. Many thought the prohibition ought to be carried to a price considerably above that, without he obtained which it was conceived the agriculturalist could not cultivate. Others would wish that it should be placed much lower; and contend that because a particular species and degree of burden was likely to be removed, the protecting price ought to be much reduced. Now he would be inclined to agree to the first of these propositions, if the necessary effect of it would not be to bring up the price of corn to the highest possible rate, within the limits of the sum at which importation should commence. This certainly might be the case at the first moment, but he believed the ultimate result would not be so. He thought the final effect of the system would be to give such a powerful support to our own agriculture as would greatly increase the general produce of the country. It would excite a strong competition between the different parts of England, and between England and Ireland; so that the growth of corn, if Providence blessed us with favourable seasons, would be sufficiently large to afford an ample supply for the people of this country, and would enable them to be fed at a much cheaper rate, in the long run, than could be effected by the adoption of any other system.

Mr. Philips professed himself equally inclined either to proceed with, or defer the discussion, as might be most agreeable to the wishes of the House. Several members calling out "Go on," he began by stating his entire concurrence in the opinion of the right hon. gentleman who had moved the resolutions, that this was not a question on which the interests of the commercial and agricultural classes were at variance, but one in which those interests, when fairly and liberally considered, would be found to accord; for no resolution upon it calculated to promote the general prosperity of the country could be adopted without materially benefiting both classes. But if this were not the case, if the question were one in which the interests of two or more descriptions of our fellow-subjects were opposed, he should say that it was the duty of parliament not to legislate for the advantage of one class in contradistinction to, or at the expense of another, but to legislate for the benefit of the whole community. Looking at the question under the influence of this principle, he could not help feeling and expressing some surprise at the occasion of their present deliberations. What was the object of their deliberations? To provide a remedy for the low price of corn. That which all ages and countries had considered as a great national benefit was now discovered to be a great evil, against which we were imperiously called to legislate in self-defence. The real object of the resolutions, however disguised and disavowed, was to raise the price of corn. [Here Mr. Robinson expressed his dissent.] Mr. Philips proceeded to say that this not only was their object, but if that object were not attained, the advocates of the resolutions would regard them as nugatory. The right hon. gentleman must at least allow that their object was to raise the present price of grain; but he contended that moderation and uniformity of price would be their ultimate effect. It did seem somewhat inconsistent, on the part of the hon. gentleman, to tell the House that the effectual way to lower price was to acquiesce in a measure expressly intended to raise it. But how are this moderation and uniformity of price to be produced? By contracting the market of supply. Thus, while in all other instances moderation and uniformity of price are found to be in proportion to the extent of the market of supply, in the instance of corn they are to be in proportion to the limitation of it: and in a commodity peculiarly liable to be affected by the variation of seasons, moderation and uniformity of price, and abundance, are to be attained by preventing importations from foreign countries correcting the effect of varieties of climate, and of a scanty harvest in our own. To him it appeared that no measure could be better calculated to produce directly opposite consequences.

In considering the relation between the price of provisions and of labour, Mr. Philips observed that it was necessary to distinguish the countries and the trades from which examples were taken. In a new country where the value of land is extremely low, and agriculture rapidly progressive, in a new and thriving manufacture, the price of labour may be so high in proportion to that of the necessaries of life as to be little affected by their fluctuations.... But this state of things cannot exist in old manufactures, such as those generally established in this country, where competition has reduced profits, and that reduction of profit has brought the wages of the labourer to a level with his subsistence in tolerable comfort. In such manufactures if you raise the price of provisions without proportionately raising that of labour, to what privations and evils must you necessarily expose the labourer! He was ready to admit with the noble lord[395] that, ceteris paribus, the immediate effect of a high advance of provisions might probably be a reduction of the price of labour; because labourers being desirous of obtaining the same comforts that they had been used to, might be stimulated to more diligence. They might work sixteen hours a day instead of ten, and thus the competition for employment being increased among the same number of workmen, without any increase of demand, the price of labour might fall. But will any person contend that this state of affairs can long continue? The labourer must go to the parish, or turn to some more profitable employment, if by chance any can be found, or he must emigrate, or work himself out by overstrained exertion. The proportion being then altered between the demand for labour and the supply, its price will rise. This effect sooner or later must happen, but till it has actually taken place how dreadful must be the situation of the labourer!

Having thus shown both by reasoning and by reference to facts, that the price of provisions must ultimately and on the average regulate that of labour, he proceeded to show the effect that an advance of provisions must have on our manufacturing interests. And here Mr. Philips said that he wished on such topics, to reduce his reasoning as much as possible to numerical calculation. He would suppose, for the sake of argument, without at all entering into the enquiry, that three-fifths, or 60 per cent. of the labourer's wages were spent in provisions, and that provisions were 80 per cent. dearer here than they were in France, or any manufacturing country on the continent. By multiplying 60 by 80, and dividing by 100, the committee would see that the excess of the price of labour here above that of France would, from these datas, and according to his reasoning, be 48 per cent. He wished the committee to consider what must be the effect of such an excessive price of labour employed in our manufactures, when compared with the low price of labour employed in the manufactures of France, and what an advantage it must give to the French manufacturers in their attempts to rival us on the continent.

[After quoting Malthus] he observed that there were two ways of equalising subsistence and population, one by increasing food, the other by limiting population, and warned the committee against being led into measures whose tendency might be to produce that effect in the latter way. Why (said Mr. Philips) should a commercial and manufacturing country like this have such a jealousy and dread of the importation of corn? An importation of corn cannot take place without a corresponding export of commodities on which British industry has been employed. The export will increase your wealth, that wealth will increase your population, and that increased population will produce an increased demand for your agricultural produce.... Mr. Philips observed that no country in the world was so interested as this in establishing the principle of free trade, because no other country could profit equally by the general recognition of that principle. Foreign nations, mistaking, like the advocates of the regulation before the committee, the circumstances which have operated against our wealth for the causes of it, are now following our example. They are prohibiting or imposing restraints on the import of our fabrics, in order to encourage their own manufactures, from which they will receive inferior fabrics at a higher price. Let us convince them, by an example, of their mistake. Let us convince them that by leaving industry and enterprise unfettered, and by allowing capital to take its natural and voluntary direction, we are persuaded that the true interests of this country and of every other will be most effectually promoted.

Mr. Philips proceeded to say that Great Britain was geographically a commercial country, that commerce had stimulated her agriculture rather than agriculture had stimulated her commerce. It had given wealth to her people, and diffused fertility over her soil. Take care, said he, that in attempting to change the natural character of your country, you do not stop the progress of national prosperity....

15. The Corn Law of 1815 [Statutes, 55 Geo. III, 26]

IV. And be it further enacted, that whenever the average prices of British corn so made up and published shall respectively be below the prices hereinbefore stated, no foreign corn, or meal, or flour made from any of the respective sorts of foreign corn hereinbefore enumerated, shall be allowed to be imported into the United Kingdom for the purpose of home consumption, or taken out of warehouse for that purpose.

V. And be it further enacted, that the average price of the several sorts of British corn, by which the importation of foreign corn, meal or flour, into the United Kingdom shall be regulated and governed, shall continue to be made up and published in any manner now required by law; but that if it shall hereafter at any time after the importation of foreign corn, meal or flour shall be permitted, under the provisions of this Act, appear that the average prices of the different sorts of British corn respectively in the six weeks immediately succeeding the fifteenth day of February, the fifteenth day of May, the fifteenth day of August and the fifteenth day of November in each year, shall have fallen below the prices at which foreign corn, meal or flour may be, under the provisions of this Act, allowed to be imported for home consumption, no such foreign corn, meal or flour shall be allowed to be imported into the United Kingdom for home consumption from any place between the rivers Eyder and Bidassoa, both inclusive, until a new average shall be made up and published in the London Gazette for regulating the importation into the United Kingdom for the succeeding quarter.

16. Free Trade Petition[396] [Commons Journals, Vol. LXXV.], 1820.

The Petition, etc.,
Humbly sheweth

That foreign commerce is eminently conducive to the wealth and prosperity of a country, by enabling it to import the commodities for the production of which the soil, climate, capital, and industry of other countries are best calculated, and to export in payment those articles for which its own situation is better adapted.

That freedom from restraint is calculated to give the utmost extension to foreign trade, and the best direction to the capital and industry of the country.

That the maxim of buying in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest, which regulates every merchant in his individual dealings, is strictly applicable as the best rule for the trade of the whole nation.

That a policy founded on these principles would render the commerce of the world an interchange of mutual advantages, and diffuse an increase of wealth and enjoyments among the inhabitants of each State.

That, unfortunately, a policy the very reverse of this has been, and is, more or less, adopted and acted upon by the Government of this and of every other country....

That the prevailing prejudices in favour of the protective or restrictive system may be traced to the erroneous supposition that every importation of foreign commodities occasions a diminution or discouragement of our own productions to the same extent, whereas it may be clearly shown that although the particular description of production which could not stand against unrestrained foreign competition would be discouraged, yet, as no importation could be continued for any length of time without a corresponding exportation, direct or indirect, there would be an encouragement, for the purpose of that exportation, of some other production to which our situation might be better suited, thus affording at least an equal, and probably a greater, and certainly a more beneficial employment to our own capital and labour.

That, among the other evils of the restrictive or protective system, not the least is, that the artificial protection of one branch of industry, or source of production, against foreign competition, is set up as a ground of claim by other branches for similar protection, so that if the reasoning upon which these restrictive or prohibitory regulations are founded were followed out consistently, it would not stop short of excluding us from all foreign commerce whatsoever. And the same train of argument, which, with corresponding prohibitions and protective duties, should exclude us from foreign trade, might be brought forward to justify the re-enactment of restrictions upon the interchange of productions (unconnected with public revenue) among the kingdoms composing the union, or among the counties of the same kingdom.

That an investigation of the effects of the restrictive system at this time is peculiarly called for, as it may, in the opinions of your petitioners, lead to a strong presumption that the distress which now so generally prevails is considerably aggravated by that system, and that some relief may be obtained by the earliest practicable removal of such of the restraints as may be shown to be most injurious to the capital and industry of the community, and to be attended with no compensating benefit to the public revenue.

That a declaration against the anti-commercial principles of our restrictive system is of the more importance at the present juncture inasmuch as, in several instances of recent occurrence, the merchants and manufacturers in foreign States have assailed their respective Governments with applications for further protective or prohibitory duties and regulations, urging the example and authority of this country, against which they are almost exclusively directed, as a sanction for the policy of such measures. And certainly, if the reasoning upon which our restrictions have been defended is worth anything, it will apply in behalf of the regulations of foreign States against us. They insist upon our superiority in capital and machinery, as we do upon their comparative exemption from taxation, and with equal foundation.

That nothing would more tend to counteract the commercial hostility of foreign States than the adoption of a more enlightened and more conciliatory policy on the part of this country.

That, although, as a matter of mere diplomacy, it may sometimes answer to hold out the removal of particular prohibitions, or high duties, as depending upon corresponding concessions by other States in our favour, it does not follow that we should maintain our restrictions in cases where the desired concessions on their part cannot be obtained. Our restrictions would not be the less prejudicial to our capital and industry because other Governments persisted in preserving impolitic regulations.

That in thus declaring, as your petitioners do, their conviction of the impolicy and injustice of the restrictive system, and in desiring every practicable relaxation of it, they have in view only such parts of it as are not connected, or are only subordinately so, with the public revenue. As long as the necessity for the present amount of revenue subsists, your petitioners cannot expect so important a branch of it as the Customs to be given up, nor to be materially diminished, unless some substitute, less objectionable, be suggested. But it is against every restrictive regulation of trade not essential to the revenue—against all duties merely protective from foreign competition—and against the excess of such duties as are partly for the purpose of revenue and partly for that of protection, that the prayer of the present petition is respectfully submitted to the wisdom of Parliament.