ply.

Having brought the case of the "mutual sacrifices" thus far, is there
one of our readers who does not see a rank absurdity in the attempt to
insinuate that a compensation is given to the labourer? This measure, if
it has meaning at all, is framed with the view of benefiting the
manufacturing interest, of course at the expense of the other. Total
abolition of protective duties in this country must lower the price of
corn, and that is the smallest of the evils we anticipate;--for an evil
it is, if the effect of it be to reduce the labourer's wages--and it
must also tend to throw land out of cultivation. _But what will the
relaxation of the tariff do?_ Will it lower the price of manufactured
goods in this country to the agricultural labourer?--that is, after the
diminished duty is paid, can foreign manufactures be imported here _at a
price which shall compete with the home manufactures_? If so, the home
consumption of our manufactures, which is by far the most important
branch of them, is ruined. "Not so!" we hear the modern economist
exclaim; "the effect of the foreign influx of goods will merely be a
stimulant to the national industry, and a consequent lowering of our
prices." Here we have him between the horns of a plain and palpable
dilemma. If the manufacturer for the home market will be compelled, as
you say he must be, to lower his prices at home, in order to meet the
competition of foreign imported manufactured goods, which are still
liable in a duty, WHAT BECOMES OF YOUR FOREIGN MARKET AFTER YOU HAVE
ANNIHILATED OR EQUALIZED THE HOME ONE? If the foreigner can afford to
pay the freight and the duties, and still to undersell you at home, how
can you possibly contrive to do the same by him? If his goods are
cheaper than yours in this country, when all the costs are included, how
can you compete with him in his market? The thing is a dream--a
delusion--a palpable absurdity. The fact is either this--that not only
the foreign agriculturist but the foreign manufacturer can supply us
with either produce cheaper than we can raise it at home--in which case
we have not a foreign manufacturing market--or that the idea of "mutual
sacrifices" is a mere colour and pretext, and that to all practical
intents and purposes the agriculturist is to be the only sufferer.

A great change, however, does not necessarily imply a great measure.
This proposal of Sir Robert Peel does not, as far as we can see, embody
any principle; it