« ZurückWeiter »
were drawn battles. When the former terminated, no advantage had been gained on either side, and on the day of the engagement, as well as on the following day, “ both armies remained • in the peaceful occupation of their respective positions.” At Fuertes d'Honore, 'the great object of the contest, was the possession of that village ; and the result was, “that towards even•ing the fire on both sides gradually slackened, and the village, • as if by mutual consent, was divided by the combatants, the • upper part being occupied by the British, the lower by the • enemy."
The conduct of British officers of high rank is noticed in these volumes, with great frankness and independence. The timid measures of Sir Harry Burrard, after the battle of Rolica, and his injudicious interference with the plans of the Duke of Wellington (then Sir Arthur Wellesley) whom he superseded, are unreservedly pointed out; and the following accompanying remarks are manly and appropriate :
" Sir Harry Burrard, thrown accidentally and unawares into what could only be considered as a situation of transient command, it was scarcely possible to be expected that his measures would be marked by the confidence and boldness of purpose, which might have contributed so greatly to the success of the campaign. It was certainly not unnatural, that a person so situated should be unwilling to incur the responsibility of directing operations, of the propriety of which, and the chances of success which they afforded, he could form but a partial and imperfect judgment. Called summarily to decide in difficult and unexpected circumstances, Sir Harry Burrard will probably be considered to have decided wrong; yet he unquestionably decided to the best, of his judgment. Fault, therefore, can be attributed only to those who sacrificed the interest of their country, by placing a man of narrow capacity, yet of honest intentions, in a situation for which he was manifestly unfit. That officers of such acknowledged talent and pretensions as Sir John Moore and Sir Arthur Wellesley, should have been superseded in command by Sir Heu Dalrymple and Sir Harry Burrard, is a tolerable convincing proof that the selection of military leaders, was, in those days, regulated by principles very different from that of detur digniori."
The gross incapacity of Sir John Murray, near Tarragona, and the glaring want of military talent of Marshal Beresford, at the battle of Albuera, are plainly exhibited and judiciously censured; and in the other instances the same candour and boldness are displayed, without any mixture of undue harshness or severity.
In March, 1814, Ferdinand was restored to his dominions, in every part of which he was received with enthusiasm and
boundless loyalty. During the journey nothing could exceed the suavity of his deportment. He declared himself to be the father of his people. He professed bimself to be gratified with the arrangements which had been made upon his approach to the capital, expressed his acqmescence in the restrictions which had been imposed upon his prerogatives, and refrained from the exercise of any act of sovereignty. Instead of taking the road to Valencia, as prescribed to him by the Cortes, he went to Zaragoza, to view, as he alleged, the ruins of that celebrated city, and to pay a compliment to its brave inhabitants. But this hypocircy was not of long continuance. Upon arriving at Valencia he threw off the mask under which he had concealed his real designs, and issued a manifesto charging the Cortes with having violated the constitution, and introduced revolutionary innovations subversive of the royal authority. That the Cortes had committed errors is undoubted, but they proceeded from the head oot the heart. Their devotion to the cause which they had espoused was unquestionable. Under the pressure of every danger and temptation, they presented a bold and unwavering front, and never suffered their ardour to cool, until the great object which they aimed at had been obtained; and towards the termination of their session, they enacted many wholesome regulations. Ferdinand then revoked the freedom of the press, which the Cortes had, partially established; and he, subsequently, reinvested the Inquisition with its hateful power over the bodies and the souls of the people, and resumed all the functions of the monarchy, “without a single correction of any of the enorious abuses, which in the lapse of centuries, had crept into every department of the government,”
Such was the conduct of one, who had courted the smiles, and erouched beneath the frown of a foreign dictator—who had abandoned his throne to an usurper, without a single effort to maintain it, physical or moral. Such were the benefits which Spain derived from the restoration of her legitimate monarch, for whom she had exhausted her treasures and poured out her blood. Such was the gratitude of a coward, towards those who had rescued him from danger-of a tyrant, towards those to whom he was indebted for his liberty and his crown. i
Art. IX.-1. Speech of Mr. McDuffie against the Prohibi
tory System; delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States. April, 1830.
2. Second Speech of Mr. McDuffie against the Prohibitory
System ; delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States. May, 1830.
3. Speech of the Hon. George McDuffie, at a Public Dinner gwen to him by the citizens of Charleston, (S. C.) May, 1831.
I v discussing a question so complicated and involved as that of the practical operation and ultimate effects of our system of indirect taxation, upon the various interests and the several subdivisions of the Union, those who sincerely seek after the truth, naturally endeavour to dissipate the uncertainty and confusion which arise from the complexity of the subject, by pushing analysis to the very extreme of simplification. Accordingly, it seems to have been a leading object of Mr. McDuffie, in the Speeches under review, to resolve the great question in controversy, into the most plain and elementary propositions. Nothing but a deep and settled consciousness of truth could prompt to such a course of investigation, for it would be most obviously fatal to his purpose, if the doctrine be maintained, were erroneous.
We shall not enter upon a formal exposition of the theory of Mr. McDuffie, as his principles are laid down with too much force and clearness and illustrated with too much power and ingenuity to require any such elucidation from us. We propose, however, to examine and defend some of the positions assumed by that gentleman, as we think them well calculated not only to strip the Tariff of its disguise, but to exhibit its true relative operation upon the different sections of the Union.
The leading proposition of Mr. McDuffie that “it makes no difference to the producer, whether the duty be laid upon the * export of his cotton, or upon the import which might be obtained
for it,” has been controverted by a statesman of ability and reputation upon the ground “that the producer might export * his cotton, &c. to England or France and spend the proceeds
in either of those kingdoms, or he might apply them to the payment of a debt due to persons resident in Europe.” This
solution of the difficulty is, however, far from being satisfactory. The contested proposition is not merely theoretical, but is founded upon the actual state of that branch of our commerce of which cutton furnishes the exchange. It is a statistical fact, conclusively verified by the custom-house returns, that almost the entire amount of our exports of cotton is converted into European manufactures, which are imported into the United States under an average of duties amounting to forty-five per cent. It is upon this state of facts that a duty of forty-five per cent. upon the export of cotton would be no more burthensome to the planter, than is a corresponding duty upon the imports received in exchange for it. If it were generally true that the cotton planters of the South expended the whole proceeds of their crops in the amusements and enjoyments of Paris and London, or in paying debts contracted for similar objects by themselves or their ancestors, however much we might deplore the inevitable fate of their penniless posterity, we should never dream of ascribing it to the Tariff. It is undoubtedly correct, that in either of these modes the cotton planters could effectually avoid all the burdens of that system, but it would be the desperate policy of throwing away the inheritance of their children to avoid being deprived of it by highway robbery. It would be a singular spectacle that the cotton planters would exhibit, if, improving this hint, they should resolve to import no more articles subject to protecting duties in exchange for their cotton, nor perinit others to do it, but to expend the whole proceeds of their crops in Europe, in such manner, as to have nothing to bring into the United States upon which the government could collect any import duty! But it is strange that it should not have been perceived, that if imports, paying duties, were not brought into the United States in exchange for cotton, the question could, by no possibility, arise as to the comparative burdens imposed by an import and export duty. The contested proposition, in its very nature and terms, assumes-what is incontestibly true in point of fact—that such imports are received in exchange for cotton. To dispute, therefore, the equivalency of import and export duties, because there might, by possibility, be a sporadic case of an export without any corresponding import, is, in no respect, more pertinent to the issue, than it would be, to deny the mortality of a gun-shot, after death had resulted from it because, if it had not struck the victim, it certainly would not have killed him.
Two more reasons have been given-or rather one more reason in two different forms-why an import is not equivalent to an export duty in its operation on the planter. "He might • sell his crop for a bill of exchange, or sell it in Charleston or • New-York, for money. In none of these instances and in others • which might be stated, would he, as a producer, pay any duty • at all.” This is begging the question ; for it is evidently assumed, as a conceded postulate, that in selling his cotton in Charleston or New-York, for a bill of exchange or for money, the planter would obtain the same price for it, in those places, as if the Tariff were entirely repealed, or had never existed. Now, this is the very point in controversy, which we propose to examine hereafter, this not being the branch of the subject to which it properly belongs. The question whether a duty upon imports is equivalent, in its final operation, to a duty upon the correlative exports, has no dependence whatever upon the proposition, that the producer bears, a part of the burden of the duty upon imports ; though, as a matter of illustration, it certainly makes that proposition more plain and obvious. If the duty were laid upon the export of cotton, instead of the import of its equivalent, might not the planter, in that case also, sell his cotton in Charleston or New-York for a bill of exchange or for money? And might it not be said in that case, as well as in the one stated above, that the producer would pay no duty at all? The latent error of all the reasoning upon this subject consists in assuming that the planter, because he does not actually pay the duty, but leaves it to be paid by the first, or some subsequent purchaser, is not affected by it, in the same degree, as if he had paid it himself, in the first instance. This differs in nothing from assuming, that the planter, who sells his cotton at his own warehouse, is not burthened with the expense of transporting it to market, because he does not actually pay the freight, but leaves that to be done by the purchaser. Now, it must be apparent, that it is of no consequence, as it regards the burden imposed upon the planter, how many transfers inay be made of his cotton, before the freight or the duty is exacted. If the series were indefinitely protracted, the planter would be precisely as much affected by an exaction from the last purchaser, as froin the first, or even from himself; provided always that this exaction be not casual or accidental, but the result of a certain and established law, known to exist at the time of the first transfer. Nor is it of any more consequence, as it regards the effect upon the planter, how many forms his cotton may assume, before the exaction is made. Cotton converted into manufactures, by the simple process of exchange, is still the product of the planter, to all rational intents and purposes; and