om we are indebted for these is well informed on the
subject, and says that a more advanced state of opinion prevails among
the people of England, in relation to the operation of tariffs, than in
this nation generally so much more enlightened. It is a singular
spectacle which is thus presented to the eyes of the civilized world.
While the tendency of opinion, under an aristocratic monarchy, is
towards the loosening of the restraints under which the labour of the
people has long suffered, a large and powerful party in a nation, whose
theory of government is nearly a century in advance of the world, is
clamouring for their continuance and confirmation. Monarchical England
is struggling to break the chains that an unwise legislation has forged
for the limbs of its trade; but democratic America is urged to put on
the fetters which older but less liberal nations are throwing off. The
nations of Europe are seeking to extend their commercial relations, to
expand the sphere of their mutual intercourse, to rivet the market for
the various products of their soil and skill, while the "model republic"
of the new world is urged to stick to the silly and odious policy of a
semi-barbarous age.

We look upon the attempt which is making in Great Britain to procure a
revision of the tariff laws, as one of the most important political
movements of the age. It is a reform that contemplates benefits, whose
effects would not be confined to any single nation, or any period of
time. Should it be successful, it would be the beginning of a grand and
universal scheme of commercial emancipation. Let England--that nation so
extensive in her relations, and so powerful in her influences--let
England adopt a more liberal policy, and it would remove the only
obstacles now in the way of a complete freedom of industry throughout
the globe. It is the apparent unwillingness of nations to reciprocate
the advantages of mutual trade, that has kept back this desirable reform
so long. The standing argument of the friends of exclusiveness--their
defence under all assaults, their shelter in every emergency--has been
that one nation cannot pursue a free system until all others do, or, in
other words, that restriction is to be met by restriction. It is a
flimsy pretence, but such as it is, has answered the purposes of those
who have used it, for many centuries.

The practice of confining trade by the invisible, but potent chains of
law, has been a curse wherever i