vitriol, copper in bars, and sheet ivory, mother of pearl, gallnuts, shumac, dyeing woods, Prussian blue, lake, indigo, &c.

These diminutions correct, it is true, in favour of French industry, solitary mistakes in the former regulations; but they still leave, on many of the above-named articles, very high duties; (as, for instance, on lake, 50, 75, and 100 fr. the metrical cwt.; on Prussian blue, 150 frs.: on indigo, 50 centimes to 2 frs. the kilogramme;) and cannot, on the whole, judging by the choice of the objects, be considered as a very favourable step towards the facilitation of the trade with Germany. Among the articles, the im-" port of which has been facilitated by a reduction of the duties, we find but one which does not appertain to the requisites for manufacturing industry, and which is of any importancenamely, engravings on copper, lithographic works, and music, which are relieved from the additional duty of five per cent of the value, but are still burdened with a fixed duty of 349 frs, 25 centimes (including the tithe) the 100 kilogrammes.

Among the projects which in 1834 were laid before the Chambers, we find even proposals for raising the duties; viz., a proposal of laying a duty of 50 frs. on raw sample linen yarn, of 70 frs. on raw twisted, of 90 frs. on bleached and coloured simple, and 150 frs. on coloured twisted yarn, per metrical cwt.

If it was gratifying not to find this rise in the Tariff of last summer, on the other hand, when we cast a glance over the natural commercial relations between the two countries, and the influence which the French Tariff has upon the occasional condition of its own land, it is certainly to be lamented in the common interests of the two countries, that the high duties, more especially upon the raw materials, which Germany has to offer, should be continued.

We ask what advantage has France derived from the extension of the restrictive regulations on raw German materials? What sacrifice has she to weigh against the advantages she would derive from the removal of these regulations? We find an answer to this question which the Minister of Trade laid before the Chamber of Deputies.

VOL. IV.-NO. XXXIII.

T T

After mentioning that no duty on cattle existed before 1816, and that the duty imposed in the year 1822, when the prohibitive system was developed in all its strength, was raised from 3 fr. to 50 fr., he continues in substance as follows: "We must acknowledge that this was an extraordinary step. Still the duty was far from producing the effects which had been expected from it. It weighed, on the contrary, in many provinces, with severe cruelty. The price of cattle did not sensibly increase; foreign importation continued in about the same proportion. The reason of this is quite clear. The northern department, which drew their supply of cattle from Belgium; the eastern department, which received their's from Baden and Switzerland, continued to import them from these countries; and paid the duty, high as it was, because they could not supply their wants from Normandy or Saintonge. The duty, therefore, was an oppressive burden on certain provinces, without affording a countervailing advantage to the others."

What grounds can one have for giving the slightest support to a measure on which such a judgment is pronounced?

An artificial revenue has been created for one class of producers, whilst, on a great portion of the German market, the price of cattle has increased far beyond the duty, which was to be expected as the result of the free competition with the German cattle trade. But it is a mistake to look upon such an artificial rise in the price as a general advantage, even for the agricultural classes. The more opulent proprietor may derive his advantage from it; the far more numerous class, which does not possess the means of providing for the future, is oppressed by a rise in the price of cattle, by the difficulty of purchasing them. It is known, that in many parts this useful instrument of agriculture represents in the hands of the less opulent classes a passive capital, which but too frequently forms in the contracts for cattle the object of mischievously usurious transactions for the great majority of the smaller landed proprietors. Instead of rendering the acquisition

of cattle difficult to this class, the general interests of agriculture require that it should be facilitated, in order that whilst this class of proprietors is unable to pay the higher price, it should not become a prey to usury.

(To be continued.)

CORRESPONDENCE

RESPECTING

THE QUADRUPLE ALLIANCE.

Paris, 19th October, 1836.

The information published in the "Portfolio" with regard to Spain, the execution of the quadruple alliance, and our relations with England in general, has produced a great sensation here; we have reason to believe that it has been appreciated in the highest quarter, because it explains the true state of the case with regard to important points; and it could only be received with joy by the public, which recognizes in the English alliance and in the execution of the quadruple treaty the guarantee of a happy future. The result has been the cessation at length of the common-place accusations, according to which our Government was said to be allied with Don Carlos and with Russia, or at least such assertions, if they are still repeated in certain journals, cease to produce any effect. There only remain some reproaches of a secondary character, according to which our Government is said to be not sufficiently energetic in preventing succours in favour of the Carlists-a negligence which, if it were true, might be capable of an injurious interpretation. These, and other reproaches, have even found their way into the columns of two journals of note-the "Morning Chronicle," and the "Courrier François."

Whilst acknowledging the good faith of these journals, which may have been deceived by reports, we think it im

portant to establish the truth on these points also. The London journal has, above all, insisted on a pretended carelessness of the Custom-house officers in the South; the "Courrier François" went farther; in its columns of yesterday it states:

"1. That under M. Thiers we had a legion in Spain; this legion has returned.

"2. The Douaniers no longer exercise any surveillance. "3. There had been a rivalry of good-will between England and France in favour of Spain; scarcely have the doctrinaires appeared than every thing is changed; we retire from the contest: and is not this," cries the "Courrier François," "a change in our policy-a change in our relations with England, according to which we may shortly see an end of our alliance ?"

Our reply to these questions is, that the French foreign legion has not returned to Spain that the Custom-house officers perform a stricter guard than ever, and that they are supported by the troops of the line that France and the French Government, opposed to Don Carlos, continue to show their interest towards the Government of Isabellafinally, that the French Ministry, whilst renouncing an intervention in Spain, seeks the alliance of England with infinitely more zeal than did M. Thiers.

But, instead of opposing assertion to assertion, we will combat facts which are not authenticated by official documents whose correctness no one can contest. What we have already said on the subject, we should have been able to prove by documentary evidence; but, henceforward, in order to reply to assertions the most generally spread at present, we shall lay before our readers the following communications: