Vill鑜e was， however， much too practical not to see completelythrough this stratagem； he is said to have replied to Mr Canning，'If England in the far advanced position of her industry permitsgreater foreign competition than formerly， that policy correspondsto England's own well-understood interests.But at this time it isto the well-understood interests of France that she should secureto her manufactories which have not as yet attained perfectdevelopment， that protection which is at present indispensable tothem for that object.But whenever the moment shall have arrivedwhen French manufacturing industry can be better promoted bypermitting foreign competition than by restricting it， then he (M.
Vill鑜e) would not delay to derive advantage from following theexample of Mr Canning.'
Annoyed by this conclusive answer， Canning boasted in openParliament after his return， how he had hung a millstone on theneck of the French Government by means of the Spanish intervention，from which it follows that the cosmopolitan sentiments and theEuropean liberalism of Mr Canning were not spoken quite so much inearnest as the good liberals on the Continent might have chosen tobelieve.For how could Mr Canning， if the cause of liberalism onthe Continent had interested him in the least， have sacrificed theliberal constitution of Spain to the French intervention owing tothe mere desire to hang a millstone round the neck of the FrenchGovernment？ The truth is， that Mr Canning was every inch anEnglishman， and he only permitted himself to entertainphilanthropical or cosmopolitical sentiments， when they could proveserviceable to him in strengthening and still further extending theindustry and commercial supremacy of England， or in throwing dustinto the eyes of England's rivals in industry and commerce.
In fact， no great sagacity was needed on the part of M.Vill鑜eto perceive the snare which had been laid for him by Mr Canning.Inthe experience of neighbouring Germany， who after the abolition ofthe Continental system had continually retrograded farther andfarther in respect of her industry， M.Vill鑜e possessed a strikingproof of the true value of the principle of commercial freedom asit was understood in England.Also France was prospering too wellunder the system which she had adopted since 1815， for her to bewilling to attempt， like the dog in the fable， to let go thesubstance and snap at the shadow.Men of the deepest insight intothe condition of industry， such as Chaptal and Charles Dupin， hadexpressed themselves on the results of this system in the mostunequivocal manner.
Chaptal's work on French industry is nothing less than adefence of the French commercial policy， and an exposition of itsresults as a whole and in every particular.The tendency of thiswork is expressed in the following quotation from it.'Instead oflosing ourselves in the labyrinth of metaphysical abstractions， wemaintain above all that which exists， and seek above all to make itperfect.Good customs legislation is the bulwark of manufacturingindustry.It increases or lessens import duties according tocircumstances； it compensates the disadvantages of higher wages oflabour and of higher prices of fuel； it protects arts andindustries in their cradle until they at length become strongenough to bear foreign competition； it creates the industrialindependence of France and enriches the nation through labour，which， as I have already often remarked， is the chief source ofwealth.'(4*)Charles Dupin had， in his work 'On the Productive Powers ofFrance， and on the Progress of French Industry from 1814 to 1847，'
thrown such a clear light on the results of the commercial policywhich France had followed since the Restoration， that it wasimpossible that a French minister could think of sacrificing thiswork of half a century， which had cost such sacrifices， which wasso rich in fruits， and so full of promise for the future， merelyfor the attractions of a Methuen Treaty.
The American tariff for the year 1828 was a natural andnecessary result of the English commercial system， which shut outfrom the English frontiers the North American timber， grain， meal，and other agricultural products， and only permitted raw cotton tobe received by England in exchange for her manufactured goods.Onthis system the trade with England only tended to promote theagricultural labour of the American slaves， while on the otherhand， the freest， most enlightened， and most powerful States of theUnion found themselves entirely arrested in their economicalprogress， and thus reduced to dispose of their annual surplus ofpopulation and capital by emigration to the waste lands of theWest.Mr Huskisson understood this position of affairs very well.
