importance, in particular to the British empire, well deserves à place; we propose now therefore to present some reflections on the relation of a country with its colonies, and of colonies with other states. In the former Article, we were led to the conclusion that, in the actual constitution of the world, domestic manufacturing industry, commerce, and navigation, stand often in need of protective regulation as well for their maintenance as creation; and this will be found, we believe, still more to accord with national policy in respect to colonial possessions. Before proceeding to the question of restraint, or freedom of intercourse, it may not be amiss to advert to some objections occasionally advanced against these dependencies altogether. It is sometimes insisted that colonies are burdens; and that the wealth and strength of a country would be increased by seeking the productions of detached states and settlements of other countries. Among these arguments, it is scarcely necessary to dwell upon the allegation that colonies are a source of depopulation, since the principle which regulates the increase of mankind is, at this day, so completely established. Were the colonies not possessed by us, we should not be more numerous. As emigration takes place, the numbers fill up so long as the means of support remain; in fact, with a new world risen, within a few generations, from our foreign settlements, the people of this country have, at the same time, greatly multiplied. The instance of Spain is commonly cited; but Uztariz, a writer of that country entitled to every degree of credit, remarks that Cantabria, Navarre, and the other northern provinces, had furnished, for centuries, nearly the whole of the emigrators to America; yet they suffered no diminution of numbers. From this conclusive appeal to experience, he proves the error of the popular opinion, that Spain was drained of people by the possession of her colonies. Those provinces,' he says, most abound with inhabitants, whence the greatest number of Spaniards have gone abroad. From the provinces of Toledo, La Mancha, and the neighbourhood, few go to the Indies, and yet these are the least populous parts of Spain.' As mankind always presses on the extreme means of subsistence, it might rather be alleged of these foreign settlements that they provide an advantageous outlet to the overflowings of states. Society adapts itself in education and character to the probable pursuits of its members, and these establishments requiring enterprize and intelligence, their possession tends to elevate the pursuits of life. In distant regions, the adventurers remain subjects of the samé community, assisting its production, attached to its interests, the support of their country in an important part of its L L4 foreign foreign relations; their beneficial industry removed, but not sacrificed. It is urged against colonies that they occasion a drain of capital; in other words, an abstraction from the mother country of a main spring of its prosperity. It is this erroneous principle which pervades the arguments of Adam Smith against the colonial system. The fallacy of the reasoning has been exposed by Mr. Buchanan, and other commentators, by an appeal to facts. While our colonies have grown into important states, with incalculable resources, this country has risen contemporaneously to the highest pitch of industry and wealth. An ingenious French author, Ganilh, has entered into an estimate of the extraordinary progress of capital in America from European origin, the substance of which ́ may be thus stated in British money. United States, value of cultivated lands, houses, Productions and Mines of South America £456,000,000 366,000,000 200,000,000 £1,022,000,000 The Europeans who have peopled the new world, he reckons at one million; and allowing each to have carried with him the value of £12, he considers this capital of twelve millions to have produced property exceeding in value one thousand millions.* The same twelve millions employed in Europe during the space of two centuries, according to the general rate of increase, could not be calculated to have reached above ten-fold, or 120 millions. But the fallacy of the argument that colonies are a drain of capital, might have been more conclusively derived from the nature of capital itself. All production being in a constant succession of consumption and renewal, that portion of the production which is employed in obtaining any subsequent renewal is the 'The revenue of New Spain (Mexico) in 1712, was, Francs, 16,000,000 In the same interval (Depons, Voyage to Terra Firma) the plains in the neighbourhood of the Caraccas have produced treble the number of animals which they formerly possessed.'-De Pradt on Colonies. In little more than a century, the European possessions in the West Indies have risen to the immense production of the present day, which may be estimated annually thus: sugar 200,000 ton; coffee 50,000; rum 80,000 tun; besides cotton, cocoa, pimento, &c. many of which articles were either introduced within that period, or were previously wholly uncultivated. capital. capital. It consists of the food, materials, and implements which, through the medium of the labourer, raise the next production. Of the total production, a part is consumed unproductively, or without a return of material objects; a part productively, or with a return; the latter is the capital: dependent on production, capital rises and falls with it. In the New World, the production, in proportion to the means which created it, was large, and little of the excess was abstracted for unproductive consumption; but at every process of renewal more and more was contributed in addition to the previous capital to assist in the ensuing production: the fruits of nature sprung up faster than the population to consume them. In Europe, the occasional withdrawing of capital to America did not impair the customary production, but it served rather to increase the profit; and the habit of saving out of that profit replaced the capital withdrawn. It has been said of colonies that they are a burden to a country on account of the expense of administration and protection. If we knew precisely the extent of military and naval force stationed at foreign settlements, and the charge of civil administration there and at home occasioned by their possession, we could ascertain the actual annual expense of these dependencies to the country. In making up this account, something must be allowed for the naval force necessarily to be kept up in those remote quarters, although we had no colonies. The plantations themselves contribute. In the West Indies, some of the islands pay a duty of 41 per cent.; others, and more especially Jamaica, have sustained a great part of the expenses of their own government and defence. The British North American colonies and East India possessions, provide greatly or entirely for the expenditure, military and civil, appertaining to them. After determining the charge in its actual extent drawn from the taxes of this country for the maintenance of the colonies, it will remain to compare that pecuniary amount with the advantages resulting to its industry from their possession: on adverting to these the latter will be found greatly to preponderate. From the ties of intercourse between protecting and dependent states, it must be obvious that they give rise to the formation of multifarious commodities on the part of an European country, to pay for the exotic productions necessarily flowing into it. If the articles produced equal the expense of the colonies, in this view alone, their possession is a source of wealth and enjoyment, and not a burden. An examination of the value of the colonial intercourse compared with that of independent nations must lead to a conviction that an amount of exports is made to the colonies exclusively originating in their demand, much exceeding the real expense. expense. If a certain portion of the total exports be thus owing to these possessions, the labour of the producers of that excess must, without them, evidently determine and cease. Even could we without the colonies rely on possessing the same extent of production, and consequently power to purchase of them or of other states, still the security and permanence of an intercourse under our control, is an important consideration. The certainty of a home trade is acquired. The whole of the produced wealth is the property of British subjects. It is not on one side that of foreigners; nor are we exposed to interruptions from caprice or policy, or the occurrence of hostilities between other powers. A foreign state may, by regulations, draw its supplies, even of the staples and manufactures in which this country is confessedly superior, from other sources. This acquired stability in our relations will repay even a large sacrifice. If then production be created by a colonial connexion, on that production must depend its requisite capital, which without it must perish. This capital, though occupied on its specific production, will be partly applicable to the calls of the state, and strengthen the resources of government. It is wealth diffused through every part of society, which at the time of need, like a peaceful population in the hour of danger, may be drawn forth to meet the exigence of the occasion. In the abundant productions of colonies, transmitted to the parent state, an excess arises which is re-exported, and for which portion, and its returned value, that state becomes the medium. This gives birth to commercial capital, which like that of agriculture and manufactures is dependent on production, although in remoter quarters. Mercantile capital may even be possessed by a people who have neither husbandry nor manufactures, and it is peculiarly the offspring of regulation, and sometimes of accident. It is this capital which Dr. Smith has specified as employed in transporting either rude or manufactured produce from the places where it abounds, to those where it is wanted.' This capital is more available and disposable than that immediately assisting production; and, as we shall endeavour to show in the sequel, is especially at the Command of countries possessing colonies. The employment of seamen, attendant upon a colonial trade, is an object of primary importance. The productions of the tropics being to be procured in Europe only by means of navigation, the appropriation of a large portion of their conveyance has ever been accounted a source of strength and security. Without the possession of colonies, it is difficult to say how this can be attained, unless the sources of the produce were independent states, and would forego (what no state possessing shipping ever did forego) discriminating discriminating duties and favour to its own vessels. It would be impertinent in us to observe further, how important a consideration a numerous mercantile marine is to this country. Colonial possessions, scattered over all parts of the world, become secure marts from which commerce can be carried on with every quarter: without them, the intercourse with many places, in an imperfectly civilized or often disturbed state, would be precarious and hazardous. They confer, wherever situated, a local influence, upholding the character and interests of the country. It is thus Jamaica and other West India islands are the means of an extensive intercourse with South America, secure amid the troubles to which that quarter has been, and may yet be, subject. Thus, in the Mediterranean, Gibraltar and Malta, although not in themselves productive, become beneficial chains of communication with Barbary, and other parts in their vicinity. Our various East India possessions, besides the commerce actually held with them, are the means of conducting an intercourse with every shore of the Indian Ocean. We might enlarge on the advantages resulting to nations from the possession of colonies, but, considering them as sufficiently manifest, and especially to states having maritime interests, we shall proceed to examine the policy by which their intercourse is regulated; and this investigation will tend more strongly to illustrate these advantages. The zealous promoters of free trade have not only held it forth to practice in the intercourse of home territories, but they would extend its operation to every colonial dependence. This principle has not hitherto been adopted by the rulers of other countries possessing colonies, nor by any of the great statesmen of our own country. Their aim has rather been to establish the intercourse of foreign settlements on a footing, which, while it afforded protection to their interests, served to ensure the fullest advancement to the power, wealth, and resources, of the parent state. Influenced perhaps by the opinions of the mercantile body, one view, in the minds of those who first formed these regulations, was to oblige, as far as possible, other countries to draw their supplies of the produce of the colonies from the country possessing them, and by that means to attract an influx of the precious metals, giving rise to what is called a favourable exchange, because it induces that influx, and an active circulation. Erroneous as was the object-for we cannot assent to the great doctrine of the mercantile system, that wealth consists in the abundant supply of the precious metals,-yet we are disposed to believe, that the means employed to attain that end were often better adapted to arrive at real wealth,-the abundance of |