Chapter CDXXIX: Act 8: Parliament 1. repeated in Act 99. Parliament 7 (26)

Colbert, the great minister of Louis XIV., was the first among
statesmen who had an economic system, "settled, complete and
consistent in all its parts; and it is to the eternal honor of
his name that he made it triumph in spite of obstacles of
every kind. Although this system was far from being
irreproachable in all its parts, it was an immense progress at
the time of its appearance; and we have had nothing since then
which can be compared with it, for breadth and penetration. …
It was … the need of restoring order in the finances which
gave rise to the attempts at amelioration made by Colbert.
This illustrious minister soon comprehended that the surest
way to increase public fortune was to favor private fortune,
and to open to production the broadest and freest ways. … One
of the first acts of his ministry, the reestablishment of the
taxes on a uniform basis, is an homage rendered to true
principles; and one cannot doubt that all the others would
have been in conformity with this glorious precedent, if the
science of wealth had been, at that time, as advanced as it is
to-day. Colbert would certainly have carried out in France
what Mr. Huskisson had begun in England at the time of his
sudden death. … The edict of September, 1664, reduced the
import and export duties on merchandise to suitable limits,
and suppressed the most onerous. 'It is our intention,' said
the king, 'to make known to all our governors and intendants
in what consideration we hold at present everything that may
concern commerce. … As the most solid and most essential means
for the reestablishment of commerce are the diminution and the
regulation of the duties which are levied on all commodities,
we have arranged to reduce all these duties to one single
import and one export duty, and also to diminish these
considerably, in order to encourage navigation, reestablish
the ancient manufactures, banish idleness.' … At the same time
Colbert prohibited the seizure for the tailles (villein-tax)
[see TAILLE AND GABELLE] of beds, clothes, bread, horses and
cattle serving for labor; or the tools by which artisans and
manual laborers gained their livelihood. The register of the
survey of lands was revised, so that property should be taxed
only in proportion to its value and the actual extent of the
land. The great highways of the kingdom and all the rivers
were then guarded by armies of receivers of tolls, who stopped
merchandise on its passage and burdened its transportation
with a multitude of abusive charges, to say nothing of the
delays and exactions of every kind. An edict was issued
ordering the investigation of these degrading charges; and
most of them were abolished or reduced to just limits. … The
lease of Customs duties being about to expire, Colbert
improved this occasion to revise the tariff; and although this
fatal measure has since been considered as the finest monument
of his administration, we think we should present it in its
true aspect, which seems to us to have been invariably
misapprehended. Colbert's aim in revising the customs was to
make them a means of protection for national manufactures, in
the place of a simple financial resource, as they formerly
were. Most articles of foreign manufacture had duties imposed
upon them, so as to secure to similar French merchandise the
home market. At the same time, Colbert spared neither
sacrifices nor encouragement to give activity to the
manufacturing spirit in our country. He caused the most
skilful workmen of every kind to come from abroad; and he
subjected manufactures to a severe discipline, that they
should not lose their vigilance, relying on the tariffs. Heavy
fines were inflicted on the manufacturers of an article
recognized as inferior in quality to what it should be. For
the first offence, the products of the delinquents were
attached to a stake, with a carcan and the name of the
manufacturer; in case of a second offence, the manufacturer
himself was fastened to it. These draconian rigors would have
led to results entirely contrary to those Colbert expected, if
his enlightened solicitude had not tempered by other measures
what was cruel in them.
{3065}
Thus, he appointed inspectors of the manufactures, who often
directed the workmen into the best way, and brought them
information of the newest processes, purchased from foreign
manufacturers, or secretly obtained at great expense. Colbert
was far from attaching to the customs the idea of exclusive
and blind protection that has ever been attributed to them
since his ministry. He knew very well that these tariffs would
engender reprisals, and that, while encouraging manufactures,
they would seriously hinder commerce. Moreover, all his
efforts tended to weaken their evil effects. His instructions
to consuls and ambassadors testify strongly to his
prepossessions in this regard. … The more one studies the
administrative acts of this great minister, the more one is
convinced of his lofty sense of justice; and of the liberal
tendencies of his system, which has hitherto been generally
extolled as hostile to the principle of commercial liberty. In
vain the Italians have hailed it by the name of 'Colbertism,'
to designate the exclusive system invented by themselves and
honored by the Spanish: Colbert never approved the sacrifice
of the greater part of his fellow citizens to a few privileged
ones, nor the creation of endless monopolies for the profit of
certain branches of industry. We may reproach him with having
been excessively inclined to make regulations, but not with
having enfeoffed France to a few spinners of wool and cotton.
He had himself summed up in a few words his system in the
memorial he presented to the king: 'To reduce export duties on
provisions and manufactures of the kingdom; to diminish import
duties on everything which is of use in manufactures; and to
repel the products of foreign manufactures, by raising the
duties.' Such was the spirit of his first tariff, published in
September, 1664. He had especially aimed at facilitating the
supply of raw materials in France, and promoting the interests
of her home trade by the abolition of provincial barriers, and
by the establishment of lines of customs-houses at the extreme
frontiers. … The only reproach that can be justly made against
him is the abuse of the protective instrument he had just
created, by increasing in the tariff of 1667 the exclusive
measures directed against foreign manufactures in that of
1664. It was no longer then a question of manufactures, but of
war, namely, with Holland; and this war broke out in 1672. …
From the same epoch date the first wars of commercial
reprisals between France and England, hostilities which were
to cost both nations so much blood and so many tears.
Manufactures were then seen to prosper and agriculture to
languish in France under the influence of this system."

_J. A. Blanqui,
History of Political Economy in Europe,
chapter 26._

ALSO IN,
_H. Martin,
History of France: The Age of Louis XIV.,
volume 1, chapter 2._

_J. B. Perkins,
France under the Regency,
chapter 4._

See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1683.

TARIFF: (Pennsylvania): A. D. 1785.
Beginning of "Protection" in Pennsylvania.

"Before the Revolution Pennsylvania had always been slow to
impose burdens on trade. While Massachusetts, New York and
South Carolina were raising considerable sums from imposts,
Pennsylvania commerce was free from restrictions. In 1780,
however, the need of revenue overcame the predilection of the
Quakers for free trade and they decided 'that considerable
sums can be raised by a small impost on goods and merchandise
imported into this state without burdening commerce.'
Accordingly, low duties were laid on wines, liquors, molasses,
sugar, cocoa and tea, with 1 per cent. on all other imports.
In 1782 the duties were doubled and the revenue was
appropriated to the defence of commerce on the Delaware river
and bay. This was done at the request of the merchants who
wished to have their interests protected and 'signified their
willingness to submit to a further impost on the importation
of goods for that purpose.' When peace came, however, the
merchants at once represented it as detrimental to the
interests of the state to continue the duties, and they were
repealed. In 1784 low duties were again imposed, and later in
the same year increased. Early in 1785 more careful provisions
were made for their collection. September 20, came the
important act 'to encourage and protect the manufactures of
this state by laying additional duties on certain manufactures
which interfere with them.' … More than forty of the articles
which Pennsylvania had begun to make were taxed at high
specific rates. Coaches and carriages, paid £10 to £20;
clocks, 30s.; scythes, 15s. per dozen; beer, ale and porter,
6d. per gallon; soap or candles, 1d. per pound; shoes and
boots, 1s. to 6s. per pair; cordage and ropes, 8s. 4d. per
hundred weight; and so on. The ten per cent. schedule included
manufactures of iron and steel, hats, clothing, books and
papers, whips, canes, musical instruments and jewelry. … The
Pennsylvania act is of importance because it shows the nature
of commodities which the country was then producing, as well
as because it formed the basis of the tariff of 1789."

_W. Hill,
First Stages of the Tariff Policy of the United States,
pages 53-54._

The preamble of the Pennsylvania act of 1785 set forth its
reasons as follows: "Whereas, divers useful and beneficial
arts and manufactures have been gradually introduced into
Pennsylvania, and the same have at length risen to a very
considerable extent and perfection, insomuch that in the late
war between the United States of America and Great Britain,
when the importation of European goods was much interrupted,
and often very difficult and uncertain, the artizans and
mechanics of this state were able to supply in the hours of
need, not only large quantities of weapons and other
implements, but also ammunition and clothing, without which
the war could not have been carried on, whereby their
oppressed country was greatly assisted and relieved. And
whereas, although the fabrics and manufactures of Europe, and
other foreign parts, imported into this country in times of
peace, may be afforded at cheaper rates than they can be made
here, yet good policy and a regard to the wellbeing of divers
useful and industrious citizens, who are employed in the
making of like goods, in this state, demand of us that
moderate duties be laid on certain fabrics and manufactures
imported, which do most interfere with, and which (if no
relief be given) will undermine and destroy the useful
manufactures of the like kind in this country, for this
purpose. Be it enacted" &c.

_Pennsylvania Laws, 1785._

The duties enacted, which were additional to the then existing
impost of 2½ per cent., were generally specific, but ad valorem
on some commodities as on British steel, 10 per cent.; earthen
ware, the same; glass and glass-ware, 2½ per cent.; linens the
same. Looked at in the light of recent American tariffs, they
would hardly be recognized as "protective" in their character;
but the protective purpose was plainly enough declared.

{3066}

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1789-1791.
The first tariff enactment.
Hamilton's Report on Manufactures.
The "American System" proposed.

"The immediate necessity of raising some ready money led to
the passage of a tariff bill at the first session of Congress.
It was prepared and carried through the House chiefly by
Madison; and its contents, no less than the general tone of
the debate in which it was discussed, showed a decided leaning
towards the protective system. But this legislation was
temporary, and was at the time known to be so. The permanent
system of the country was left for subsequent and more
leisurely development. When at last Congress felt able to give
the subject due attention, it applied as usual to Hamilton to
furnish information and opinions. A topic so important and so
congenial to his tastes called forth his best exertions. A
series of extensive investigations conducted by every feasible
kind of inquiry and research, both in foreign parts and in the
United States, furnished the material for his reflections. He
took abundant time to digest as well as to collect the great
mass of information thus acquired, and it was not until nearly
two years had elapsed since the order for the report was
passed that he sent in the document to the House of
Representatives. … The inferences and arguments constituted as
able a presentation of the protectionist theory as has ever
been made. … It is, however, an incorrect construction of that
report to regard it as a vindication of the general or
abstract doctrine of protection. Hamilton was very far from
assuming any such position; protection always and everywhere
was not his theory; protection was not his ideal principle of
commercial regulation. … So far from entertaining any
predilection for protection in the abstract, it would seem
that in a perfect commercial world he would have expected to
find free trade the prevalent custom. … If free trade were the
rule of the whole commercial world, Hamilton was not prepared
to say that the United States would find it for her interest
to be singular. But such were not the premises from which he
had to draw a conclusion. … The report of Hamilton determined
the policy of the country. For good or for evil protection was
resorted to, with the avowed purpose of encouraging domestic
manufacturing as well as of raising a revenue. … The
principles upon which Hamilton based his tariff were not quite
those of pure protection, but constituted what was known as
the 'American System'; a system which has been believed in by
former generations with a warmth of conviction not easy to
withstand."

_J. T. Morse, Jr.,
Life of Alexander Hamilton,
chapter 11._

Hamilton's celebrated report opens with an elaborate argument
to prove the desirability of manufacturing industries in the
country, and then proceeds: "A full view having now been taken
of the inducements to the promotion of manufactures in the
United States, accompanied with an examination of the
principal objections which are commonly urged in opposition,
it is proper, in the next place, to consider the means by
which it may be effected, as introductory to a specification
of the objects which in the present state of things appear the
most fit to be encouraged, and of the particular measures
which it may be advisable to adopt in respect to each. In
order to a better judgment of the means proper to be resorted
to by the United States, it will be of use to advert to those
which have been employed with success in other countries. The
principle of these are:

I. Protecting duties, or duties on those foreign articles
which are the rivals of the domestic ones intended to be
encouraged. Duties of this nature evidently amount to a
virtual bounty on the domestic fabrics, since by enhancing the
charges on foreign articles they enable the national
manufacturers to undersell all their foreign competitors. The
propriety of this species of encouragement need not be dwelt
upon, as it is not only a clear result from the numerous
topics which have been suggested, but is sanctioned by the
laws of the United States in a variety of instances; it has
the additional recommendation of being a resource of revenue.
Indeed, all the duties imposed on imported articles, though
with an exclusive view to revenue, have the effect in
contemplation; and, except where they fall on raw materials,
wear a beneficent aspect towards the manufacturers of the
country.

II. Prohibitions of rival articles, or duties equivalent to
prohibitions. This is another and an efficacious mean of
encouraging manufactures; but in general it is only fit to be
employed when a manufacture has made such a progress, and is
in so many hands, as to insure a due competition and an
adequate supply on reasonable terms. Of duties equivalent to
prohibitions there are examples in the laws of the United
States; and there are other cases to which the principle may
be advantageously extended, but they are not numerous.
Considering a monopoly of the domestic market to its own
manufacturers as the reigning policy of manufacturing nations,
a similar policy on the part of the United States, in every
proper instance, is dictated, it might almost be said, by the
principles of distributive justice; certainly by the duty of
endeavoring to secure to their own citizens a reciprocity of
advantages.

III. Prohibitions of the exportation of materials of
manufactures. The desire of securing a cheap and plentiful
supply for the national workmen; and, where the article is
either peculiar to the country, or of peculiar quality there,
the jealousy of enabling foreign workmen to rival those of the
nation with its own materials, are the leading motives to this
species of regulation. It ought not to be affirmed that it is
in no instance proper, but it is certainly one which ought to
be adopted with great circumspection and only in very plain
cases.

IV. Pecuniary bounties. This has been found one of the most
efficacious means of encouraging manufactures, and it is, in
some views, the best, though it has not yet been practiced
upon the government of the United States,—unless the allowance
on the exportation of dried and pickled fish and salted meat
could be considered as a bounty—and though it is less favored
by public opinion than some other modes. Its advantages are
these:

1. It is a species of encouragement more positive and direct
than any other, and for that very reason has a more immediate
tendency to stimulate and uphold new enterprises, increasing
the chances of profit, and diminishing the risks of loss in
the first attempts.

{3067}

2. It avoids the inconvenience of a temporary augmentation of
price, which is incident to some other modes, or it produces
it to a less degree, either by making no addition to the
charges on the rival foreign article, as in the case of
protecting duties, or by making a smaller addition. The first
happens when the fund for the bounty is derived from a
different object (which may or may not increase the price of
some other article according to the nature of that object);
the second when the fund is derived from the same or a similar
object of foreign manufacture. One per cent. duty on the
foreign article, converted into a bounty on the domestic, will
have an equal effect with a duty of 2% exclusive of such
bounty; and the price of the foreign commodity is liable to be
raised in the one case in the proportion of 1%, in the other
in that of 2%. Indeed, the bounty when drawn from another
source, is calculated to promote a reduction of price,
because, without laying any new charge on the foreign article,
it serves to introduce a competition with it, and to increase
the total quantity of the article in the market.

3. Bounties have not, like high protecting duties, a tendency
to produce scarcity. An increase of price is not always the
immediate, though where the progress of a domestic manufacture
does not counteract a rise, it is commonly the ultimate effect
of an additional duty. In the interval between the laying of
the duty and a proportional increase of price, it may
discourage importation by interfering with the profits to be
expected from the sale of the article.

4. Bounties are sometimes not only the best, but the only
proper expedient for uniting the encouragement of a new object
of agriculture with that of a new object of manufacture. It is
the interest of the farmer to have the production of the raw
material promoted by counteracting the interference of the
foreign material of the same kind. It is the interest of the
manufacturer to have the material abundant and cheap. If prior
to the domestic production of the material in sufficient
quantity to supply the manufacturer on good terms, a duty be
laid upon the importation of it from abroad, with a view to
promote the raising of it at home, the interest both of the
farmer and manufacturer will be disserved. By either
destroying the requisite supply, or raising the price of the
article beyond what can be afforded to be given for it by the
conductor of an infant manufacture, it is abandoned or fails;
and there being no domestic manufactories to create a demand
for the raw material which is raised by the farmer, it is in
vain that the competition of the like foreign article may have
been destroyed. It cannot escape notice that a duty upon the
importation of an article can no otherwise aid the domestic
production of it than by giving the latter greater advantages
in the home market. It can have no influence upon the
advantageous sale of the article produced in foreign markets,
no tendency, therefore, to promote its exportation. The true
way to conciliate these two interests is to lay a duty on
foreign manufactures of the material, the growth of which is
desired to be encouraged, and to apply the produce of that
duty by way of bounty either upon the production of the
material itself, or upon its manufacture at home, or upon
both. In this disposition of the thing the manufacturer
commences his enterprise under every advantage which is
attainable as to quantity or price of the raw material. And
the farmer, if the bounty be immediately to him, is enabled by
it to enter into a successful competition with the foreign
material. … There is a degree of prejudice against bounties,
from an appearance of giving away the public money without an
immediate consideration, and from a supposition that they
serve to enrich particular classes at the expense of the
community. But neither of these sources of dislike will bear a
serious examination. There is no purpose to which public money
can be more beneficially applied than to the acquisition of a
new and useful branch of industry, no consideration more
valuable than a permanent addition to the general stock of
productive labor. As to the second source of objection, it
equally lies against other modes of encouragement, which are
admitted to be eligible. As often as a duty upon a foreign
article makes an addition to its price, it causes an extra
expense to the community for the benefit of the domestic
manufacturer. A bounty does no more. But it is the interest of
the society in each case to submit to a temporary expense,
which is more than compensated by an increase of industry and
wealth, by an augmentation of resources and independence, and
by the circumstance of eventual cheapness, which has been
noticed in another place. It would deserve attention, however,
in the employment of this species of encouragement in the
United States, as a reason for moderating the degree of it in
the instances in which it might be deemed eligible, that the
great distance of this country from Europe imposes very heavy
charges on all the fabrics which are brought from thence,
amounting from 15% to 30% on their value according to their
bulk. …

V. Premiums. These are of a nature allied to bounties, though
distinguishable from them in some important features. Bounties
are applicable to the whole quantity of an article produced or
manufactured or exported, and involve a correspondent expense.
Premiums serve to reward some particular excellence or
superiority, some extraordinary exertion or skill, and are
dispensed only in a small number of cases. But their effect is
to stimulate general effort. …

VI. The exemption of the materials of manufactures from duty.
The policy of that exemption, as a general rule, particularly
in reference to new establishments, is obvious. …

VII. Drawbacks of the duties which are imposed on the
materials of manufactures. It has already been observed as a
general rule, that duties on those materials ought, with
certain exceptions, to be forborne. Of these exceptions, three
cases occur which may serve as examples. One where the
material is itself an object of general or extensive
consumption, and a fit and productive source of revenue.
Another where a manufacture of a simpler kind, the competition
of which with a like domestic article is desired to be
restrained, partakes of the nature of a raw material from
being capable by a further process to be converted into a
manufacture of a different kind, the introduction or growth of
which is desired to be encouraged. A third where the material
itself is the production of the country, and in sufficient
abundance to furnish a cheap and plentiful supply to the
national manufacturers. … Where duties on the materials of
manufactures are not laid for the purpose of preventing a
competition with some domestic production, the same reasons
which recommend, as a general rule, the exemption of those
materials from duties, would recommend, as a like general
rule, the allowance of drawbacks in favor of the manufacturer.
…

{3068}

VIII. The encouragement of new inventions and discoveries at
home, and of the introduction into the United States of such
as may have been made in other countries; particularly those
which relate to machinery. This is among the most useful and
unexceptionable of the aids which can be given to
manufactures. The usual means of that encouragement are
pecuniary rewards, and, for a time, exclusive privileges. …

IX. Judicious regulations for the inspection of manufactured
commodities. This is not among the least important of the
means by which the prosperity of manufactures may be promoted.
It is indeed in many cases one of the most essential.
Contributing to prevent frauds upon consumers at home and
exporters to foreign countries, to improve the quality and
preserve the character of the national manufactures; it cannot
fail to aid the expeditious and advantageous sale of them, and
to serve as a guard against successful competition from other
quarters. …

X. The facilitating of pecuniary remittances from place to
place—is a point of considerable moment to trade in general
and to manufactures in particular, by rendering more easy the
purchase of raw materials and provisions, and the payment for
manufactured supplies. A general circulation of bank paper,
which is to be expected from the institution lately
established, will be a most valuable means to this end. …

XI. The facilitating of the transportation of commodities.
Improvements favoring this object intimately concern all the
domestic interests of a community; but they may, without
impropriety, be mentioned as having an important relation to
manufactures. …

The foregoing are the principal of the means by which the
growth of manufactures is ordinarily promoted. It is, however,
not merely necessary that the measures of government which
have a direct view to manufactures should be calculated to
assist and protect them; but that those which only
collaterally affect them, in the general course of the
administration, should be guarded from any peculiar tendency
to injure them. There are certain species of taxes which are
apt to be oppressive to different parts of the community, and,
among other ill effects, have a very unfriendly aspect towards
manufactures. All poll or capitation taxes are of this nature.
They either proceed according to a fixed rate, which operates
unequally and injuriously to the industrious poor; or they
vest a discretion in certain officers to make estimates and
assessments, which are necessarily vague, conjectural, and
liable to abuse. … All such taxes (including all taxes on
occupations) which proceed according to the amount of capital
supposed to be employed in a business, or of profits supposed
to be made in it, are unavoidably hurtful to industry."

_A. Hamilton,
Report on Manufactures
(Works, volume 3)._

ALSO IN:
_State Papers and Speeches on the Tariff._

_R. W. Thompson,
History of Protective Tariff Laws,
chapters 6-7._

TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1815-1828.
The Corn Laws and Provision Laws.
The sliding-scale.

During the Napoleonic wars in Europe there was a prolonged
period of scarcity, approaching to famine, in Great Britain.
There were scant harvests at home and supplies from abroad
were cut off by the "Continental system" of Napoleon. "In 1801
wheat was 115 shillings and 11 pence per quarter; from 1801 to
1818 the price averaged 84s.; whilst in the 20 years ending
1874, it averaged only 52s. per quarter. … The cry of
starvation was everywhere heard amongst the working classes,
and tradesmen of all kinds suffered severely; whilst the only
well-to-do people were the Farmers and the Landlords. As soon
as the war was over, and our ports were opened for the
reception of foreign grain, prices came down rapidly. Then the
Landlords took alarm, and appealed to Parliament to resist the
importation of foreign grain, which they asserted, would be
the ruin of the English Farmers. They insisted that in this
country, the costs of cultivation were extremely heavy, as
compared with those of foreign producers of grain, and that
therefore the British Farmer must receive protection in order
to prevent his ruin. Hence a Parliament, composed mostly of
Landlords, proceeded, in 1815, to enact the Corn Law, which
excluded foreign wheat, except at high rates of duty, until
the market price should reach 80s. per quarter; and other
kinds of grain, until there was a proportionate elevation in
prices. The discussions in Parliament on this question made a
great impression, and led to a wide-spread sympathy, and to
the belief that there was need of a measure, which, according
to its advocates, would preserve our Agriculture from ruin,
and be at the same time a provision against famine. But by
many thoughtful and patriotic people this law was viewed with
intense dislike, and was characterised as an atrocious fraud.
The fact was, that … when rents ought either to have been
lowered, or the methods of cultivation improved, the Corn Law
was passed by the Landlords in order to keep out foreign corn
and to maintain high rents; and many of the common people saw,
or thought they saw, what would be the effect; for whilst the
legislature was engaged in the discussion of the question, the
people of London became riotous, and the walls were chalked
with invectives such as 'Bread or Blood,' 'Guy Fawkes for
ever,' etc. A loaf, steeped in blood, was placed on Carlton
House, (now the Tory Club House.) The houses of some of the
most unpopular of the promoters of the measure were attacked
by the mob. At Lord Eldon's house the iron railings were torn
up, whilst every pane of glass and many articles of furniture
were broken and destroyed, and it was facetiously remarked
that at last his lordship kept open house. The military were
called out, and two persons were killed; the Houses of
Parliament were guarded by soldiers, and, indeed, the whole of
London appeared to be in possession of the Army. In various
parts of the country similar disturbances prevailed. … Large
popular meetings were held at Spa Fields, in London, public
meetings were also held at Birmingham, and in many other parts
of the kingdom. … In some of the towns and populous
localities, the operatives having in view a large aggregate
meeting to be held on St. Peter's field in Manchester,
submitted themselves to marching discipline. … Regardless,
however, of the public demonstrations of dislike to the Corn
and Provision Laws, the Legislature persisted in upholding the
most stringent provisions thereof until the year 1828, when
the duties on the importation of grain were adjusted by a
sliding scale, in accordance with the average prices in the
English market.
{3069}
The following abstract may serve to denote the provisions of
the amended Law;—When the average price of wheat was 36
shillings the duty was 50 shillings 8 pence per qr.; when 46s.
the duty was 40s. 8d. per. qr.; when 56s. it was 30s. 8d. per
qr.; when 62s. it was 24s. 8d. per qr.; when 72s. it was 2s.
8d. per qr.; and when 73s. it was 1s. per qr. It was soon
found that as a means of protection to the British Farmer, the
operation of the sliding scale of duties was scarcely less
effective, by deterring imports of grain, than the previous
law, which absolutely excluded wheat until it reached 80s. per
quarter. The Act certainly provided that foreign grain might
at any time be imported, and be held in bond till the duty was
paid; a provision under which it was expected to be stored
until the price should be high, and the duty low; but the
expenses attendant upon warehousing and preserving it from
injury by keeping, were usually looked upon as an undesirable
or even dangerous investment of a merchant's capital. …
Agricultural protection, as exhibited by the Corn Law, would,
however, have been very incomplete without the addition of the
Provision Laws. By these Laws the importation of Foreign
Cattle and foreign meat were strictly prohibited. Butter and
Lard were indeed allowed to be imported, but they were not to
be used as food, and in order to provide against any
infraction of the law, the officers at the Custom Houses were
employed to 'spoil' these articles on their arrival, by
smearing them with a tarred stick. They could then be used
only as grease for wheels, or for the smearing of sheep. With
bread purposely made dear, with the import of cattle and of
flesh meat prohibited, and with lard and butter wilfully
reduced from articles of food to grease for wheels, there is
no difficulty in accounting for the frequent murmurs of
discontent, and for the starvation among the poorer classes in
every part of the Kingdom. Soup kitchens were opened almost
every winter, and coals and clothing gratuitously distributed
in many places; but such palliatives were regarded with
derision by all who understood the true causes of the evil.
Such help was scorned, and a cry for justice was raised;
scarcity was said to be created by Act of Parliament, in order
to be mitigated by philanthropy."

_H. Ashworth,
Recollections of Richard Cobden,
chapter 1._

ALSO IN
_D. Ricardo,
On Protection to Agriculture
(Works, pages 459-498)._

_J. E. T. Rogers,
The Economic Interpretation of History,
chapters 17-18._

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1816-1824.
The beginning of the protective policy (the "American System").

"The return of peace at the beginning of 1815 brought the
manufacturers face to face with a serious danger. War had been
their harvest time. Favored by double duties and abnormal
conditions their industry had attained a marvelous though not
always safe development. … By limitation, the double duties
were to expire one year after the conclusion of peace, and
unless Congress intervened promptly and effectually their
individual ruin was certain. … As new industries sprang up,
petitions were promptly laid before Congress praying for new
duties, for the permanence of the war duties, and for certain
prohibitions. … In laying before Congress the treaty of peace,
February, 1815, Madison called attention to the 'unparalleled
maturity' attained by manufactures, and 'anxiously recommended
this source of national independence and wealth to the prompt
and constant guardianship of Congress.' … To Dallas, Secretary
of the Treasury, the manufacturers had already turned. Six
days after the treaty of peace was ratified, the House,
February 23, 1815, called upon Dallas to report a general
tariff bill at the next session of Congress. … In his annual
report in December, 1815, Dallas had proposed the extension of
the double duties until June 30, 1816, in order to give time
for the elaboration of a new tariff bill; and after some
discussion Congress agreed to this plan. February 13 he
transmitted his reply to the resolutions of the previous
February, closing with a carefully prepared schedule of new
tariff rates. This, after being worked over in the Ways and
Means Committee, was embodied in a bill and introduced into
the House March 12, by Lowndes of South Carolina. Debate began
March 20, and continued till April 8, when the bill was
finally passed by a vote of 88 to 54. April 20 it passed the
Senate with some amendments, and April 27 received the
approval of Madison. … The features of Dallas' proposed tariff
were the enlarging of the ad valorem list from three groups at
12½, 15, and 20 per cent to eight groups at 7½, 15, 20, 22,
28, 30, and 33 1/3 per cent; the increase of specific duties
by about 42 per cent; and, most important of all, in the
article of coarse cottons, the insertion of a minimum, by
which, as far as the custom-house was concerned, no quality
was to be regarded as costing less than 25 cents per square
yard. Except in the case of coarse cottons the new rates on
articles which it was desired to protect fell slightly below
the double rates of the war. Three positions were brought out
in debate—two extremes, seeking the formulation of economic
reasons for and against the policy of protection, and a middle
party, composed mainly of men indifferent to manufacturing as
such, but accepting the establishment of manufactures as one
of the chief results of the war. … The two extremes, however,
were far from taking the positions assumed later by extreme
protectionism and extreme laissez-faire. … Only a few articles
occasioned any discussion, and these were items like sugar,
cottons, and woolens, which had been reduced in the Ways and
Means Committee from the rates proposed by Dallas. Dallas had
fixed the duty on cottons at 33 1/3 per cent, which was
reduced to 30 per cent in Lowndes' bill. Clay moved to restore
the original rate. … Later Webster proposed a sliding scale on
cottons, the rate to be 30 per cent for two years, then 25 per
cent for two more, and then 20 per cent. Clay moved to amend
by making the first period three years and the second one
year. … Lowndes assented to the motion. … Dallas proposed 28
per cent on woolens. The committee reduced this to 25 per
cent, and following the example set in the case of cottons,
Lowndes moved that after two years the rate be fixed at 20 per
cent. … After some debate the first period was made three
years, and Lowndes' amendment agreed to. The tariff of 1816
was a substantial victory for the manufacturers. … But … in
its working out the tariff of 1816 proved a bitter
disappointment to the manufacturing interest. The causes,
however, were widely varied. …
{3070}
Yet it would be easy to exaggerate the distresses of the
country. The years from 1816 to 1820 especially, were years of
depression and hard times, but the steady growth of the
country was hardly interrupted. In the main the tariff did not
fail of its legitimate object. For the most part the new
manufactures were conserved. … More and more there was a
growing impatience with the tariff of 1816, and a tendency to
lay the bad times upon its shoulders. … March 22, 1820,
Baldwin of Pennsylvania, chairman of the newly created
Committee on Manufactures, introduced a tariff bill embodying
the general demand of the protected interests. … The bill
passed the House by a vote of 90 to 69; it was defeated in the
Senate by one vote."

_O. L. Elliott,
The Tariff Controversy, 1789-1833
(Leland Stanford Junior University Monographs No.1),
pages 163-211._

"The revision of the Tariff, with a view to the protection of
home industry, and to the establishment of what was then
called, 'The American System,' was one of the large subjects
before Congress at the session of 1823-24, and was the regular
commencement of the heated debates on that question which
afterwards ripened into a serious difficulty between the
federal government and some of the southern States. … Revenue
the object, protection the incident, had been the rule in the
earlier tariffs: now that rule was sought to be reversed, and
to make protection the object of the law, and revenue the
incident. … Mr. Clay, the leader in the proposed revision, and
the champion of the American System, expressly placed the
proposed augmentation of duties on this ground. … Mr. Webster
was the leading speaker on the other side, and disputed the
universality of the distress which had been described;
claiming exemption from it in New England; denied the assumed
cause for it where it did exist, and attributed it to over
expansion and collapse of the paper system, as in Great
Britain, after the long suspension of the Bank of England;
denied the necessity for increased protection to manufactures,
and its inadequacy, if granted, to the relief of the country
where distress prevailed. … The bill was carried in the House,
after a protracted contest of ten weeks, by the lean majority
of five—107 to 102-only two members absent, and the voting so
zealous that several members were brought in upon their sick
couches. In the Senate the bill encountered a strenuous
resistance. … The bill … was carried by the small majority of
four votes—25 to 21. … An increased protection to the products
of several States, as lead in Missouri and Illinois, hemp in
Kentucky, iron in Pennsylvania, wool in Ohio and New York,
commanded many votes for the bill; and the impending
presidential election had its influence in its favor. Two of
the candidates, Messrs. Adams and Clay, were avowedly for it;
General Jackson, who voted for the bill, was for it, as
tending to give a home supply of the articles necessary in
time of war, and as raising revenue to pay the public debt."

_T. H. Benton,
Thirty Years' View,
volume 1, chapter 13._

ALSO IN
_A. B. Hart,
Formation of the Union,
sections 122 and 132 (chapters 11-12)._

_A. Walker,
Science of Wealth,
page 116._

_F. W. Taussig,
Tariff History of the United States,
pages 68-76._

_A. S. Bolles,
Financial History of the United States, 1789-1860,
book 3, chapter 3._

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1828.
The "Bill of Abominations."
New England changes front.

"In 1828 came another tariff bill, so bad and so extreme in
many respects that it was called the 'bill of abominations.'
It originated in the agitation of the woollen manufacturers
which had started the year before, and for this bill Mr.
Webster spoke and voted. He changed his ground on this
important question absolutely and entirely, and made no
pretence of doing anything else. The speech which he made on
this occasion is a celebrated one, but it is so solely on
account of the startling change of position which it
announced. … A few lines from the speech give the marrow of
the whole matter. Mr. Webster said: 'New England, sir, has not
been a leader in this policy. … The opinion of New England up
to 1824 was founded in the conviction that, on the whole, it
was wisest and best, both for herself and others, that
manufactures should make haste slowly. … When, at the
commencement of the late war, duties were doubled, we were
told that we should find a mitigation of the weight of
taxation in the new aid and succor which would be thus
afforded to our own manufacturing labor. Like arguments were
urged, and prevailed, but not by the aid of New England votes,
when the tariff was afterwards arranged at the close of the
war in 1816. Finally, after a winter's deliberation, the act
of 1824 received the sanction of both Houses of Congress and
settled the policy of the country. … What, then, was New
England to do? Was she to hold out forever against the course
of the government, and see herself losing on one side and yet
make no effort to sustain herself on the other? No, sir.
Nothing was left to New England but to conform herself to the
will of others. Nothing was left to her but to consider that
the government had fixed and determined its own policy, and
that policy was protection.' … Opinion in New England changed
for good and sufficient business reasons, and Mr. Webster
changed with it. Free trade had commended itself to him as an
abstract principle, and he had sustained and defended it as in
the interest of commercial New England. But when the weight of
interest in New England shifted from free trade to protection
Mr. Webster followed, it."

_H. C. Lodge,
Daniel Webster,
chapter 6._

"There was force in Webster's assertion, in reply to Hayne,
that New England, after protesting against the tariff as long
as she could, had conformed to a policy forced upon the
country by others, and had embarked her capital in
manufacturing. October 23, 1826, the Boston woollen
manufacturers petitioned Congress for more protection. … This
appeal of the woollen manufacturers brought out new demands
from other quarters. Especially the wool-growers came forward.
… May 14, 1827, the Pennsylvania Society for the Promotion of
Manufactures and the Mechanic Arts called a convention of wool
growers and manufacturers. The convention met at Harrisburg,
July 30, 1827. It was found necessary to enlarge the scope of
the convention in order to make allies of interests which
would otherwise become hostile. The convention went on the
plan of favoring protection on everything which asked for it.
The result was that iron, steel, glass, wool, woollens, hemp,
and flax were recommended for protection. Louisiana was not
represented, and so sugar was left out.
{3071}
It was voted to discourage the importation of foreign spirits
and the distillation of spirits from foreign products, by way
of protection to Western whiskey. … When the 20th Congress
met, the tariff was the absorbing question. Popular interest
had become engaged in it, and parties were to form on it, but
it perplexed the politicians greatly. … The act which resulted
from the scramble of selfish special interests was an economic
monstrosity. … May 19, 1828, the bill became a law. The duty
on wool costing less than 10 cents per pound was 15 per cent.,
on other wool 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. That on woollens
was 40 per cent. for a year, then 45 per cent., there being
four minima, 50 cents, $1.00, $2.50, $4.00. All which cost
over $4.00 were to be taxed 45 per cent. for a year, then 50
per cent. … The process of rolling iron had not yet been
introduced into this country. It was argued that rolled iron
was not as good as forged, and this was made the ground for
raising the tax on rolled iron from $30.00 to $37.00 per ton,
while the tax on forged iron was raised from $18.00 to $22.40.
Rolled iron was cheaper and was available for a great number
of uses. The tax, in this case, 'countervailed' an improvement
in the arts, and robbed the American people of their share in
the advantage of a new industrial achievement. The tax on
steel was raised from $20.00 to $30.00 per ton; that on hemp
from $35.00 to $45.00 per ton; that on molasses from 5 cents
to 10 cents per gallon; that on flax from nothing to $35.00
per ton. The tax on sugar, salt, and glass remained unchanged,
and that on tea also, save by a differential tonnage duty.
Coffee was classified and the tax reduced. The tax on wine, by
a separate act, was reduced one half or more. This was the
'tariff of abominations,' so called on account of the number
of especially monstrous provisions which it contained."

_W. G. Sumner,
Andrew Jackson as a Public Man,
chapter 9._

"The tariff of 1828 … was the work of politicians and
manufacturers; and was commenced for the benefit of the
woollen interest, and upon a bill chiefly designed to favor
that branch of manufacturing industry. But, like all other
bills of the kind, it required help from other interests to
get itself along."

_T. H. Benton,
Thirty Years' View,
volume 1, chapters 34._

_J. Schouler,
History of the United States,
chapter 12, section 2 (volume 3)._

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1832.
Clay's delusive act to diminish revenue.

President Jackson, in his message of December, 1831, "invited
attention to the fact that the public debt would be
extinguished before the expiration of his term, and that,
therefore, 'a modification of the tariff, which shall produce
a reduction of the revenue to the wants of the government,'
was very advisable. He added that, in justice to the interests
of the merchant as well as the manufacturer, the reduction
should be prospective, and that the duties should be adjusted
with a view 'to the counteraction of foreign policy, so far as
it may be injurious to our national interests.' This meant a
revenue tariff with incidental retaliation. He had thus
arrived at a sensible plan to avoid the accumulation of a
surplus. Clay took the matter in hand in the Senate, or rather
in Congress. … He recognized the necessity of reducing the
revenue, but he would reduce the revenue without reducing
protective duties. The 'American System' should not suffer. It
must, therefore, not be done in the manner proposed by
Jackson. He insisted upon confining the reduction to duties on
articles not coming into competition with American products. …
Instead of abolishing protective duties he would rather reduce
the revenue by making some of them prohibitory. … When
objection was made that this would be a defiance of the South,
of the President, and of the whole administration party, he
replied, as Adams reports, that 'to preserve, maintain and
strengthen the American System, he would defy the South, the
President and the devil.' He introduced a resolution in the
Senate, 'that the existing duties upon articles imported from
foreign countries, and not coming into competition with
similar articles made or produced within the United States,
ought to be forthwith abolished, except the duties upon wines
and silks, and that those ought to be reduced; and that the
Committee on Finance be instructed to report a bill
accordingly.'" After long debate Clay's" tariff resolution was
adopted, and in June, 1832, a bill substantially in accord
with it passed both houses, known as the tariff act of 1832.
It reduced or abolished the duties on many of the unprotected
articles, but left the protective system without material
change. As a reduction of the revenue it effected very little.
… The reduction proposed by Clay, according to his own
estimate, was not over seven millions; the reduction really
effected by the new tariff law scarcely exceeded three
millions. Clay had saved the American System at the expense of
the very object contemplated by the measure. It was extremely
short-sighted statesmanship. The surplus was as threatening as
ever, and the dissatisfaction in the South grew from day to
day."

_C. Schurz,
Life of Henry Clay,
chapter 13 (volume 1)._

ALSO IN
_H. Clay,
Life, Correspondence and Speeches
(Colton edition), volume 5, pages 416-428._

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1833.
The Southern opposition to protection.
Nullification in South Carolina.
The compromise tariff.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.

TARIFF: (Germany): A. D. 1833.
The Zollverein.