From this sweep over the seas, it may readily be gathered how

comparatively insignificant the proportion in which the British colonies

are amenable for the cost of the British navy; and, on the contrary, how

large the cost incurred for the guardianship of the foreign commerce of

Great Britain. In the absence of those authentic data which would warrant

the construction of approximate estimates, we are willing, however, as

before, to accept the basis of Mr Cobden's--not calculations, but--rough

guesses; and as the colonial share of army, navy, and ordnance estimates

altogether, he taxes in "from five to six millions," of which four and a

half millions, according to a previous statement of his, were for the army

alone, we arrive at the simple fact, that the navy and ordnance are rated

rather widely at a cost ranging from half a million to one million and a

half sterling per annum. The mean term of this would be three quarters of

a million; but truth may afford to be liberal, and so we throw in the

other quarter, and debit the colonies with one million sterling for naval

service, which, so far as isolated sections of the great body political,

they can hardly be said, with exceptions noted before, either to receive

or need. We have before, and we believe conclusively, disposed of Mr

Cobden's colonial army estimates; and now we arrive at the total burden,

under the weight of which the empire staggers on colonial account.

Army charge, L.1,950,000, but say L.2,000,000

Navy and Ordnance, 1,000,000

----------

Total to Colonial debit, L.3,000,000

Mr Cobden enumerates a variety of expenditure against the colonies besides,

under the head of civil establishments, public works, and grants for

educational and religious purposes. We need not--there is no occasion to

discuss these minutiæ with him; we prefer to make him a bargain at once,

and so we throw in, against these civil contingencies for the colonies, the

whole lump of the estimates for the diplomatic and consular service, Dr

Bowring's commissionerships inclusive; all the charges for civil

government, education, religion, public works, &c., besides of those

stations, such as Gibraltar, Malta, the Ionian Isles, Singapore, Penang,

&c., occupied altogether, or chiefly, for the purposes of foreign commerce,

partially from political views, but assuredly not at all with reference to

colonial objects. If he be not content with this bargain of a set-off, we

are quite ready to call over the account with him at any time, crediting

him not more liberally than justly besides, with all the prodigal waste

imposed upon the country by the colonial imposture facetiously styled the

"self-supporting system," in his smart exposure of which our sympathies are

all with him, zealous advocates though we be of colonization, of

colonization on a national scale moreover, and therefore on a national and

commensurate scale of expenditure; which, however, can only be undertaken

by the government when the fiat of financial insolvency which, with the

Exchequer bill fraud, was the last legacy of Mr Spring Rice and Lord

Monteagle, shall be superseded, and the Treasury rehabilitated, and then

only by slow degrees, but sure. An individual may, perchance, thrive upon

an imposture, a government never; the late Ministry are the living evidence

of the truth. We can comprehend "self-supporting colonization" in the

individual sense of the pioneers and backwoodsmen of the United States; in

the "squatting" upon wild lands in Canada and the West Indies; in the

settlement of isolated adventurers among the savages of New Zealand; but

the "self-supporting" settlement of communities, or, as more fancifully

expressed, of "society in frame," is just as sound in principle, and as

possible in practice, as would be the calculation of the Canadian

shipwright, who should nail together a mass of boards and logs as a

leviathan lumber ship for the transport of timber, on the calculation that

at the end of the voyage it would be rated A1 at Lloyd's, or grow into the

solid power and capacity of a first-rate Indiaman, or man-of-war. We all

know that such timber floaters went to wreck in the first gale on our

coasts; the crews, indeed, did not always perish, they were only tossed

about at the mercy of the winds and waves with the wooden lumber which

would not sink, so long as hunger and helplessness did not disable hands

and limbs from holding fast. And just so with the "self-supporting system

of colonization."

Having ascertained, upon bases laid down by Mr Cobden himself, but without

adopting his slashing unproved totals, the extent to which colonial trade

is criminally accessory to the financial burdens of the United Kingdom,

(not, by the way, of the empire of which they form a component part,) it

behoves us now to establish the proportion in which we are taxed for

foreign trade, for there is clearly more than one vulture preying upon the

vitals of this unhappy land.

We established, in our September number, an army cost of about L.1,200,000

against foreign trade for Gibraltar, Malta, the Ionian Islands, Singapore,

Penang, &c. We may add, as a very low valuation, in the absence of

accounts, L.250,000 more for the war with China. Of the estimates for the

navy, L.6,322,000, and ordnance, L.1,849,000--total, L.8,175,000;--we are

fully entitled to charge about three-eighths to foreign commerce, or say

L.3,000,000. The numerous and extensive naval stations kept up for the

protection of our foreign commerce exclusively, together with the

Mediterranean, Levant, and Spanish coast naval expenditure, to no

inconsiderable extent for the same object, will sufficiently justify this

estimate. We have apportioned one million of the naval and ordnance

estimates for colonial purposes; one million more may be safely placed to

the account of the slave trade; the remainder, L.3,175,000, is certainly

an ample allowance for home naval stations, Channel fleet, if there be any,

Mediterranean and other naval armaments, so far as for political objects

only. We remain, therefore, for foreign trade with--

Garrisons, Gibraltar, &c., and reliefs at home, L.1,200,000

War with China, 250,000

Navy and Ordnance, 3,000,000

-----------

Total cost of foreign trade, L.4,450,000

Id. colonial, as before stated, 3,000,000

-----------

Excess foreign, L.1,450,000

This excess might justly be swelled to at least half a million more by a

surcharge of army expenditure in China; of navy expenditure on foreign

stations, that for China is not taken into account at all; and in respect

of various other items of smaller consideration, separately, although in

the aggregate of consideration, the account might still more be aggravated.

There would be some difficulty, it must be allowed, in clearly

disinvolving them from masses of general statements, although for an

approximate valuation it might not amount to an impossibility; we prefer,

however, to leave Mr Cobden in possession of all the advantages we cannot

make a clear title to. The advantages, indeed, are of dubious title, and

something of the same kind as the entry into a house of which the owner

cannot be found, or of which he cannot lay his hands on the title-deeds.

We have now disposed of the preposterous exaggerations of the

anti-colonial school, so far as that school can be said to be represented

by Mr Alderman Cobden, under the head of colonial cost to the metropolitan

state. We have reduced his amount of that cost to its fair approximate

proportions, item by item, of gross charge, so far as we are enabled by

those parliamentary or colonial documents, possessing the character of

official or quasi-official origin. We have necessarily followed up this

portion of our vindication of the colonies from unjust aspersions by a

concurrent enquiry into the cost at which our foreign trade is carried on,

in the national sense of the military, naval, and other establishments

required and kept up for its protection and encouragement. And, finally,

we have struck the balance between the two, the results of which are

already before the public.

There remains one other essential part of the duty we have undertaken to

fulfill. It is true that it did not suit the purposes of Mr Cobden to

enter himself into any investigation of the comparative profitableness of

foreign and colonial commerce, nor did he, doubtless, desire to provoke

such an investigation on the part of others. With the cunning of a

prejudiced partizan, he was content to skim superficially the large

economical question he had not scrupled to raise from the depths of

discomfiture and oblivion, in which abandoned by the colonial detractors,

his predecessors, who had tried their art to conjure "spirits from the

vasty deep," which would not come when they did "call for them." With

gross numerical proportions apparently in his favour, but well-grounded

convictions that more might be discovered than met the eye, or squared

with the desire, should the component elements of those proportions be

respectively submitted to the process of dissection, he preferred to leave

the tale half told, the subject less than half discussed, rather than

challenge the certain exposure of the fallacious assumptions on which he

had reconstructed a seemingly plausible, but really shallow dogma. A

foreign export trade of thirty-five millions he wished the world to

believe must represent, proportionally, a larger amount of profit, than

sixteen millions of colonial export trade; that the difference, in fact,

would be as thirty-five to sixteen, and so, according to his Cockerian

rule of calculation, it should be. But, it is said and agreed, that two

and two do not always make four, as in the present case will be verified.

We may, indeed, place the matter beyond dispute, by a homely illustration

level to every man's capacity. For example, a Manchester banker, dealing

in money, shall turn over in discounts and accounts-current, with a

capital of L.100,000, the sum of one million sterling per annum. As he

charges interest in current-account at the rate of 5 per cent, so he

allows the same. His profit, therefore, _quoad_ the interest on

current-accounts and balances in hand, is _nil_; but for the trouble of

managing accounts and for discounts, his charge is five shillings per

L.100. In lending out his capital, he realises five per cent more upon

that. But the return upon capital embarked, say, in the cotton manufacture,

is calculated, at the least, at an average of fifteen per cent. What, then,

are the relative profit returns upon the same sum-total of operations for

the banker and manufacturer?

Manufacturer's Balance Sheet.

On Capital.

Operations, L.1,000,000 Capital, L.100,000 Profit, 15 per cent, L.15,000

Banker's Balance Sheet.

Operations, L.1,000,000 Profit thereon, 5s. per L.100, L.2500

Capital, 100,000 Interest thereon, 5 per cent, 5000

Return on Capital, ------ 7,500

--------

Excess manufacturing profit, L.7500

That is, double the amount, or, as rateably may be said, 100 per cent

greater profit for the manufacturer than the banker. Now, what is true

of banking and commerce, may be--often is, true of one description of

commerce, as compared with another.

It is not meant to be inferred, however, that applied to colonial trade,

as compared with foreign trade, the analogy holds good to all the extent;

but that it does in degree, there can be no doubt, and we are prepared to

show. It will, we know, be urged, that there can be no two _sale_ prices

for the same commodity in the same market, a dictum we are not disposed to

impugn; but we shall not so readily subscribe to the doctrine, that the

prices in the home and colonial markets are absolutely controlled and

equalized by those of the foreign market. This is a rule absolute, not

founded in truth, but contradicted by every day's experience. It would be

equally correct to assert, that the lower rates of labour in the European

foreign market, or the higher rates in the North American, controlled and

equalized in the one sense, and in the other opposing, the rates in this

country, than which no assertion could be more irreconcilable with fact.

Prices and labour rates elsewhere, exercise an influence doubtless, and

would have more in the absence of other conditions and counteracting

influences, partly arising from natural, partly from artificially created

causes. Prices, in privileged home and colonial markets, cannot generally

fall to the same level as in foreign neutral markets, or, as in foreign

protected markets, where the rates of labour are low. Keen as is the

competition in the privileged home and colonial trade among the domestic

and entitled manufacturers themselves, it will hardly be denied that

larger as well as more steady profits are realized from those trades than

from the foreign and fluctuating trade, exposed, as in most cases the

latter is, to high fiscal, restrictive, and capricious burdens. These,

_pro tanto_, shut out competition with the protected foreign producer,

unless the importer consent to be cut down to such a modicum of price or

profit, as shall barely, or not at all, return the simple interest of

capital laid out. Such is the position of foreign, in comparison with home

trade.

The foreign glut, in such case, reacts upon the privileged home and

colonial markets, no doubt affecting prices in some degree, and if not

always the rates of labour, at all events the sufficiency of employment,

which is scarcely less an evil. But the reaction presses with nothing like

the severity, which in a similar case, and to the same extent only, would

follow from a glut in the home privileged markets. The cause must be

sought in the general rule, that the inferior qualities of merchandise and

manufactures are for the most part the objects of exportation only.

Consequently, in case of a glut, or want of demand abroad, as such are not

suited by quality for home taste and consumption, the superabundance of

accumulated and unsaleable stock, with the depression of prices consequent,

affects comparatively in a slight degree only the value and vent of the

wares prepared expressly for home consumption. But a different and more

modified action takes place in case of over-production of the latter, or

upon a failure of demand, arising from whatever cause. For, being then

pressed upon the foreign market, the superior quality of the goods

commands a decided preference at once, and that preference ensures

comparatively higher rates of price in the midst of the piled up packages

of warehouse sweepings and goods, made, like Peter's razors, for special

sale abroad, which are vainly offered at prime or any cost. These and

other specialties escape, and not unaccountably, the view and the

calculation of the speculative economist, who is so often astounded to

find how a principle, or a theory, of unquestionable truth abstractedly,

and apparently of general application, comes practically to be controlled

by circumstances beyond his appreciation, or even to be negatived

altogether. An example or two in illustration, may render the question

more clearly to the economical reader; although taken from the cotton

trade, they are not the less true, generally, of all other branches of

home manufacturing industry. As we shall have to mention names, a period

long past is purposely selected; but although the parties, so far as

commercial pursuits, may be considered as no longer in existence, yet they

cannot fail to be well remembered. The former firm of Phillips and Lee of

Manchester, were extensive spinners of cotton yarn for exportation, and

extensive purchasers of other cotton yarns for exportation also; but for

home manufacture they never could produce a quality of yarn equally

saleable in the home market with other yarn of the same counts, and

nominally classed of the same quality. The principal reason was, that they

spun with machinery solely adapted for a particular trade, and the

production of quantity was more an object than first-rate quality; to

these ends their machinery was suited, and to have produced a first-rate

article, extensive and expensive alterations in that machinery would have

been required. Mr Lee himself, the managing partner, was an ingenious and

theoretically scientific man, and often experimentalizing, but in general

practically with little success. When, therefore, the export trade in

yarns fell off, as, in some years during the war and the continental

system of Bonaparte, we believe it was almost entirely suspended, the

yarns so described of this firm, and of any others the same, could find no

vent--abroad no opening--at home not suited for the consumption. As the

firm were extremely wealthy the accumulation of stock was, however, of

small inconvenience; time was no object, the Continent was not always

sealed. With the great spinner Arkwright the case was entirely different;

at home as abroad his yarn products were always first in demand; his

qualities unequalled; his prices far above all others of even the first

order; his machinery of the most finished construction. If, perchance,

home demand flagged, the export never failed to compensate in a great

degree.

So with all other subdivisions of the same or other manufactures, more or

less. And this may explain the seeming phenomenon why; when the foreign

trade has been so prostrate as we have seen it during the last three years,

the home trade did not cease to be almost as prosperous as before.

Political economy would arbitrarily insist that, repelled from the foreign

market, or suffering from a cessation of foreign demand, the manufacturer

for exportation had only to direct his attention, carry his stocks to, and

hasten to swell competition and find relief in, the home market. In

products requiring little skill, such as common calicoes, such efforts

might, to some extent, be successful; but there the invasion ends. In all

the departments requiring greater skill, more perfect machinery, more

taste, and the peculiar arts of finish which long practice alone can give,

the old accustomed manufacturer for the home trade remains without a rival,

still prospering in the midst of depression around, and whilst secure

against intrusion in his own special monopoly of home supply, commanding

also a superiority in foreign markets for his surplus wares, in the event

of stagnation in home consumption, over the less finished and reputed

products of his less-skilled brethren of the craft.

In the enquiry into the advantages relatively of foreign and colonial

export trade, it is not pretended literally to build upon the premises

here established; the analogy would not always be strictly in point, but

the fact resulting of the greater gainfulness of one description of trade

over another is incontestable, and in the national sense perhaps much more

than the individual. We shall take it for granted that British and Irish

products and manufactures enjoy a preference on import into the colonies,

over imports from foreign countries, of at least five per cent, resulting

from differential duties in favour of the parent state: it may be more,

and we believe it will be found more; but such is the preference. This

profit must be all to the account of the British exporter; for it is not

received by the colonial custom-house, and whatever the reduction of

prices by excess of competition, it is clear prices would be still more

deranged by the introduction of another element of competition in more

cheaply produced foreign products at only equal rates of duty. Take, for

examples, Saxon hose, French silks, American domestics, but more

especially all sorts of foreign made up wares, clothes, &c. _Quoad_ the

foreigner, the preferential duties make two prices therefore, by the very

fact of which he is barred out. We shall now proceed to assess the

mercantile profits respectively upon the sums-total of foreign and

colonial trade by the correct standard; and then we shall endeavour to

arrive at a rough but approximate estimate of the value respectively of

foreign and colonial export trade in respect of the descriptions of

commodities exported from this country, classified as finished or partly

finished, in cases where the raw material is wholly or partially of

foreign origin, and measured accordingly by the amount of profit on

capital, and profit in the shape of wages, which each leave respectively

in the country. It will be understood that no more than a rough estimate

of leading points is pretended; the calculation, article by article, would

involve a labour of months perhaps, and the results in detail fill the

pages of Maga for a year, and after all remain incomplete from the

inaccessibility or non-existence of some of the necessary materials. There

are, however, certain landmarks by which we may steer to something like

general conclusions.

The profits on exports, as on all other trade, exceptional cases apart,

which cannot impeach the general rule, are measured to a great extent by

the distance of the country to which the exports take place, and therefore

the length of period, besides the extra risk, before which capital can be

replaced and profits realized. Within the compass of a two months'

distance from England, we may include the Gulf of Mexico west, the Baltic

and White Seas north, the Black Sea south-east, the west coast of Africa

to the Gulf of Guinea, and the east coast of South America to Rio Janeiro.

We come thus to the limits within which the smaller profits only are

realized; and all beyond will range under the head of larger returns. It

is not necessary to determine the exact amount of the profit in each case,

the essential point being the ratio of one towards the other. An average

return in round numbers of seven and a half per cent many, therefore, be

taken for the export commerce carried on within the narrower circle, and

of twenty per cent for the _voyages à long cours_, say those to and round

the two Capes of Good Hope and Horn. It is making a large allowance to say

that each shipment to Holland, France, or even the United States, for

example, realizes seven and a half per cent clear profit, or that the

aggregate of the exports cited yields at that rate. Twenty per cent on

exports to China and the East Indies, in view of the more than double

distance, and increase of risk attendant, does not seem proportionally

liable to the same appearance of exaggeration. Under favourable

circumstances returns cannot be looked for in less than a year on the

average, and then the greater distance the greater the risk of all kinds.

Classifying the exports upon this legitimate system, we find that, in

round numbers, not very far from eight-ninths of the total amount of

foreign trade exports come under the denomination of the shorter voyage.

Thus of these total exports of thirty-five millions, less than four

millions belong to the far off traffic. The account will, therefore, stand

thus:--

Foreign trade profit of 7-1/2 per cent on L.31,000,000 L.2,325,000

Do. 20 do. 4,000,000 800,000

------------

Total mercantile profit, L.3,125,000

The quantities colonial would range thus:--

Colonial trade profit, long voyage, of 20 per cent

on L.8,820,000 L.1,764,000

Colonial trade profit, short voyage, of 7-1/2 per cent

on L.7,180,000 538,000

------------

Total colonial profit, L.2,302,000

Truth, like time, is a great leveller--a fact of which no living man has

had proof and reproof administered to him more frequently and severely

that Mr Cobden himself. As culprits, however, harden in heart with each

repetition of crime, until from petty larceny, the initiating offence,

they ascend unscrupulously to the perpetration of felony without benefit

of clergy; so he, with effrontery only the more deeply burnt in, and

conscience the more callous from each conviction, will still lie on, so

long as lungs are left, and vulgar listeners can be found in the scum of

town populations. How grandiloquent was Mr Cobden with his "_new_ facts,"

brand new, as he solemnly assured the House of Commons, which was not

convulsed with irrepressible derision on the announcement! How swelled he,

"big with the fate" of corn and colony, as the mighty secret burst from

his labouring breast, "that the whole amount of their trade in 1840 was,

exports, L.51,000,000; out of that L.16,000,000 was (were) exported to the

colonies, including the East Indies; but not one-third went to the

colonies. Take away L.6,000,000 of the export trade that went to the East

Indies, and they had L.10,000,000 of exports," &c. Oh! rare Cocker; 10 not

the third of 16; "take away" one leg and there will only be the other to

stand upon. Cut off, in like manner, the twenty-one millions of exports to

Europe, and what becomes of the foreign trade? "An eye for an eye, and a

tooth for a tooth," is the old _lex talionis_, and we have no objection to

part with a limb on our side on the reciprocal condition that he shall be

amputated of another. We engage to wage air battle with him on the stumps

which are left, he with his fourteen millions of foreign against our ten

millions of colonial trade, like two _razées_ of first and second rates

cut down. Before next he adventures into conflict again--better had he so

bethought him before his colonial debut in the House last June--would it

not be the part of wisdom to take counsel with his dear friend and

neighbour Mr Samuel Brookes, the well-known opulent calico-printer,

manufacturer, and exporting merchant of Manchester, who proved, some three

or four years ago, as clearly as figures--made up, like the restaurateur's

_pain_, at discretion--can prove any thing, that the larger the foreign

trade he carried on, the greater were his losses, in various instances

cited of hundreds per cent; from whence, seeing how rotund and robust

grows the worthy alderman, deplorable balance-sheets notwithstanding,

which would prostrate the Bank of England like the Bank of Manchester, it

should result that he, like another Themistocles, might exclaim to his

family, clad in purple and fine linen, "My children, had we not been

ruined, we should have been undone!"

But _revenons á nos moutons_. According to Mr Cobden's _new_ facts,

borrowed from Porter's Tables, so far as the figures, the superior

importance and profit of foreign trade should be measured by the gross

quantities, and be, say, as 35 to 16. We have shown that the relation of

profit really stands as 31 to 23, starting from the same basis of total

amounts as himself. The total profit upon a foreign trade of thirty-five

millions, to place it on an equal rateable footing with colonial, should

be, not three millions and an eighth, but upwards of five millions, or the

colonial trade of sixteen millions, if no more gainful than foreign, should

be, not L.2,300,000, but about one million less. And here the question

naturally recurs, assuming the principle of Mr Cobden to be correct--as so,

for his satisfaction, it has been reasoned hitherto--at what rate of charge

nationally are these profits, colonial and foreign, purchased? Fortunately

the materials for the estimates are already in hand, and here they are:

Colonial trade--cost in Army, Navy,

Ordnance, &c., L.3,000,000

Colonial trade--profit to exporters, 2,302,000

----------

Deficit--loss to the country, L.698,000

Foreign trade--cost in Army, Navy,

Ordnance, &c., L.4,500,000

Foreign trade exporting profit, 3,125,000

----------

Deficit--loss to the country, L.1,375,000

As nearly, therefore, as may be, foreign trade costs the country twice as

much as colonial. Such are the conclusions, the rough but approximately

accurate conclusions, to which the _new_ facts of Mr Cobden and the old

hobby of Joseph Hume, mounted by the _new_ philosopher, have led; and the

public exposition of which has been provoked by his ignorance or

malevolence, or both. In order to gain less than 9 per cent average upon a

foreign trade of thirty-five millions, the country is saddled, for the

benefit of Messrs Brookes and Cobden, _inter alios_, with a cost of nearly

13 per cent upon the same amount; whilst the cost of colonial trade is

about 18-3/4 per cent on the total of sixteen millions, but the profit

nearly fifteen per cent. In the account of colonial profit, be it observed,

moreover, no account is here taken of the supplementary advantage derived

from the differential duties against foreign imports.

In the national point of view, the profitableness of the foreign export

trade, as compared with colonial, would seem more dubious still, when the

values left and distributed among the producing classes are taken into

calculation. Of the total foreign exports of thirty-five millions,

considerably above one-fifth--say, to the value of nearly seven and a half

millions sterling--were exported in the shape of cotton, linen, and

woollen yarns in 1840, the year selected by Mr Cobden, of which, in cotton

yarn alone, to the value of nearly 6,200,000. According to _Burn's

Commercial Glance for_ 1842, the average price of cotton-yarn so exported,

exceeds by some 50 per cent the average price of the cotton from which

made. Applying the same rule to linen yarn as made from foreign imported

flax, and to woollen yarn as partly, at least, from foreign wool, we come

to a gross sum of about L.3,750,000 left in the country, as values

representing the wages of labour, and the profits of manufacturing capital

in respect of yarn. The quantity of yarn, on the contrary, exported

colonially, does not reach to one-sixteenth of the total colonial exports.

In order to manifest the immense superiority nationally of a colonial

export trade in finished products, over a foreign trade in _quasi_ raw

materials, we need only take the article of "apparel." Of the total value

of wearing apparel exported in 1840, say for L.1,208,000, the colonial

trade alone absorbed the best part of one million. Now, it may be

estimated with tolerable certainty, that the average amount, over and

above the cost of the raw material, of the values expended upon and left

in the country, in the shape of wages and profits, upon this description

of finished product, does not fall short of the rate of 500 per cent. So

that apparel to the total value of one million would leave behind an

expenditure of labour, and a realization of profits, substantially

existing and circulating among the community, over and above the cost of

raw material, of about L.800,000, upon a basis of raw material values of

about L.160,000. Assuming for a moment, that yarns were equally improved

and prolific in the multiplication of values, the seven millions and a

half of foreign exports should represent a value proportionally of

forty-five millions sterling. The colonial exports comprise a variety of

similar finished and made-up articles, to the extent of probably about

four millions sterling, to which the same rate of home values, so swelled

by labour and profits, will apply.

It remains only to add, that the foreign export trade gave employment in

1840--the date fixed by Mr Cobden, but to which, in some few instances, it

has been impossible to adhere for want of necessary documents, as he

himself experienced--to 10,970 British vessels, of 1,797,000 aggregate

tonnage outwards, repeated voyages inclusive, for the verification of the

number of which we are without any returns, those made to Parliament by

the public offices bearing the simple advertence on their face, with

official nonchalance, that "there are no materials in this office by which

the number of the crews of steam and sailing vessels respectively

(including their repeated voyages) can be shown." And yet a "statistical

department" has now been, for some years, founded as part of the Board of

Trade, whose pretensions to the accomplishment of great works have

hitherto been found considerably to transcend both the merit and the

quantity of its performances. The proportion of foreign vessels sharing in

the same export traffic in 1840, was little inferior to that of the

British. Thus, 10,440 foreign vessels, of 1,488,888 tonnage, divided the

foreign export trade with 10,970 British vessels. The returns for 1840

give 6663 as the number of British vessels, and 1,495,957 as the aggregate

tonnage, carrying on the export trade with the colonies; thus it will be

seen that the exportation of _thirty-five millions_ of pounds' worth of

British produce and manufactures to foreign countries, employed only about

300,000 tons of British shipping more than the export to the colonies of

_sixteen millions_ of pounds' worth of products, or say, less than one

half. Proportions kept according to values exported respectively, foreign

trade should have occupied about 3,250,000 tons of British shipping,

against the colonial employment of 1,496,000 tons.

Nor is this all the difference, large as it is, in favour of colonial over

foreign trade, with respect to the employment of shipping. For it may be

taken for granted that, in fact, so far as the amount of tonnage,

_repeated voyages not included_, the colonial does actually employ a much

larger quantity relatively than foreign trade. It may be fairly assumed

that, on the average, the shipping in foreign trade make one and a half

voyages outwards--that is, outwards and inwards together, three voyages in

the year; for, upon a rough estimate, it would appear that not one-tenth

of this shipping was occupied in mercantile enterprise beyond the limits

of that narrower circle before assigned, ad within which repeated voyages

of twice and thrice in the year, and frequently more often, are not

practicable only but habitually performed. Taking one-tenth as

representing the one voyage and return in the year of the more distant

traffic, and one and a half outward sailings for the other nine tenths of

tonnage, we arrive at the approximative fact, that the foreign trade does

in reality employ no more (repeated voyages allowed for as before stated)

than the aggregate tonnage of 1,258,000, instead of the 1,797,000 gross

tonnage as apparent. Applying the same rule, we find that the long or one

year's colonial voyage traffic is equal to something less than two-ninths

of the whole tonnage employed in the colonial trade, and that, assuming

one and a half voyages per annum for the remainder trafficking with the

colonies nearer home, the result will be, that the colonial traffic

absorbs an aggregate of 1,113,000 actual tonnage, exclusive of repeated

voyages of the same shipping. Here, for the satisfaction of colonial

maligners, like Mr Cobden, we place the shipping results for foreign and

colonial traffic respectively.

The registered tonnage of the 13,927 British vessels above fifty tons

burden, stood, on the 31st of December 1841, (the returns for 1840 or 1839,

we do not chance to have,)

Tons.

At 2,578,862

Of which foreign trade, in the export of products

and manufactures to the value of _thirty-five

millions_ sterling, absorbed 1,258,000

Colonial trade in the transport of _sixteen

millions_ only of values, 1,113,000

Considering the greater mass of values transported,

the foreign trade should have employed, to have

kept its relative shipping proportion and

importance with colonial trade, above 2,400,000

We are, however, entirely satisfied, and it would admit of easy proof,

were time and space equally at our disposal for the elaborate development

of details, not only that the colonial trade gives occupation to an equal,

but to a larger proportion of registered British shipping than the foreign

trade. But we have been obliged to limit ourselves to the consideration of

such facts as are most readily accessible, so as to enable the general

reader to test at once the approximative fidelity of the vindication we

present, and the falsehood, scarcely glozed over with a coating of

plausibility, of the vague generalities strung together as a case against

the colonies by Mr Cobden and the anti-colonial faction. We have, moreover,

to request the reader to observe, that we have proceeded all along on the

basis of the wild assumptions of Mr Cobden's own self created and

unexplained calculations; that by his own figures we have tried and

convicted his own conclusions of monstrous exaggeration, and ignorant, if

not wilful, deception. The three fourths charge of army expenditure upon

the colonies, is a mere mischievous fabrication of his own brain. In

ordinary circumstances the colonial charge would not enter for more than

half that amount; and even with the extraordinary expenditure rendered

necessary by Gosford and Durham misrule in Canada, the colonial charge is

not equal to the amount so wantonly asserted. We have likewise not

insisted with sufficient force, and at suitable length of evidence, upon

the fact of the infinitely greater values proportionally left in the

country, in the shape of the wages of labour, and the profits upon

capital, by colonial than by foreign trade. It would not, however, be too

much to assume, and indeed the proposition is almost self-evident, that

whereas about 150 per cent may be taken as the average improved value of

the products absorbed by the foreign trade, over and above the first cost

of the raw material from which fabricated, where such material is of

foreign origin, the similarly improved excess of values absorbed by the

colonial trade, would not average less than from 250 to 300 per cent.

Other occasions may arise, hereafter, more convenient than the present,

for throwing these truths into broader relief; we are content, indeed, now

to leave Mr Cobden to chew the cud of reflection upon his own colonial

blunders and misrepresentations.

Here, therefore, we stay our hand; we have redeemed our pledge; we have

more than proved our case. Various laborious researches into the real

values of colonial and foreign exported commodities, have amply satisfied

our mind, as they would those of any impartial person capable of

investigation into special facts, of the superior comparative value, in

the mercantile and manufacturing, or individual sense, as well, more

specially, as in the economical and social, or national sense, of colonial

over foreign trade. Do we therefore seek to disparage foreign trade? Far

from it: our anxious desire is to see it prosper and progress daily and

yearly, fully impressed with the conviction that it is, as it long has

been, one of the sheet-anchors of the noble vessel of the State, by the

aid of which it has swung securely in, and weathered bravely, many a

hurricane--and holding fast to which, the gallant ship is again repairing

the damage of the late long night of tempest. But we deprecate these

invidious attacks and comparisons by which malice and ignorance would

depreciate one great interest, for the selfish notion of unduly elevating

another; as if both could not equally prosper without coming into

collision; nay, as if each could not contribute to the welfare of the

other, and, in combined result, advance the glory and prosperity of the

common country.

We have not deemed it proper, to mix up with the special argument of this

article those political, moral, and social considerations of gravest

import, as connected with the possession, the government, and the

improvement of colonial dependencies, which constitute a question apart,

the happy solution of which is of the highest public concernment; and

separately, therefore, may be left for treatment. But in the economical

view, we may take credit for having cleared the ground and prepared the

way for its discussion to no inconsiderable extent. Nor have we thought it

fitting to nix up the debate on differential duties in favour of the

colonies with the other objects which have engaged our labour. We are as

little disposed as any free trader to view differential duties in excess,

with favour and approval. The candid admission of Mr Deacon Hume on that

head, that in reference to the late Slave colonies the question of those

duties is "taken entirely out of the category of free trade," should set

that debate at rest for the present, at all events.

* * * * *

A SPECULATION ON THE SENSES.

How can that which is a purely subjective affection--in other words, which

is dependent upon us as a mere modification of our sentient

nature--acquire, nevertheless, such a distinct objective reality, as shall

compel us to acknowledge it as an independent creation, the permanent

existence of which, is beyond the control of all that we can either do or

think? Such is the form to which all the questions of speculation my be

ultimately reduced. And all the solutions which have hitherto been

propounded as answers to the problem, may be generalized into these two:

either consciousness is able to transcend, or go beyond itself; or else

the whole pomp, and pageantry, and magnificence, which we miscall the

external universe, are nothing but our mental phantasmagoria, nothing but

states of our poor, finite, subjective selves.

But it has been asked again and again, in reference to these two solutions,

can a man overstep the limits of himself--of his own consciousness? If he

can, then says the querist, the reality of the external world is indeed

guaranteed; but what an insoluble, inextricable contradiction is here:

that a man should overstep the limits of the very nature which is _his_,

just because he cannot overstep it! And if he cannot, then says the same

querist, then is the external universe an empty name--a mere unmeaning

sound; and our most inveterate convictions are all dissipated like dreams.

Astute reasoner! the dilemma is very just, and is very formidable; and

upon the one or other of its horns, has been transfixed every adventurer

that has hitherto gone forth on the knight-errantry of speculation. Every

man who lays claim to a direct knowledge of something different from

himself, perishes impaled on the contradiction involved in the assumption,

that consciousness can transcend itself: and every man who disclaims such

knowledge, expires in the vacuum of idealism, where nothing grows but the

dependent and transitory productions of a delusive and constantly shifting

consciousness.

But is there no other way in which the question can be resolved? We think

that there is. In the following demonstration, we think that we can

vindicate the objective reality of things--(a vindication which, we would

remark by the way is of no value whatever, in so far as that objective

reality is concerned, but only as being instrumental to the ascertainment

of the laws which regulate the whole process of sensation;)--we think that

we can accomplish this, without, on the one hand, forcing consciousness to

overstep itself, and on the other hand, without reducing that reality to

the delusive impressions of an understanding born but to deceive. Whatever

the defects of our proposed demonstration may be, we flatter ourselves

that the dilemma just noticed as so fatal to every other solution, will be

utterly powerless when brought to bear against it: and we conceive, that

the point of a third alternative must be sharpened by the controversialist

who would bring us to the dust. It is a new argument, and will require a

new answer. We moreover pledge ourselves, that abstruse as the subject is,

both the question, and our attempted solution of it, shall be presented to

the reader in such a shape as shall _compel_ him to understand them.

Our pioneer shall be a very plain and palpable illustration. Let A be a

circle, containing within it X Y Z.

[Illustration]

X Y and Z lie within the circle; and the question is, by what art or

artifice--we might almost say by what sorcery--can they be transplanted

out of it, without at the same time being made to overpass the limits of

the sphere? There are just four conceivable answers to this

question--answers illustrative of three great schools of philosophy, and

of a fourth which is now fighting for existence.

1. One man will meet the difficulty boldly, and say--"X Y and Z certainly

lie within the circle, but I believe they lie without it. _How_ this

should be, I know not. I merely state what I conceive to be the fact. The

_modus operandi_ is beyond my comprehension." This man's answer is

contradictory, and will never do.

2. Another man will deny the possibility of the transference--"X Y and Z,"

he will say, "are generated within the circle in obedience to its own laws.

They form part and parcel of the sphere; and every endeavour to regard

them as endowed with an extrinsic existence, must end in the discomfiture

of him who makes the attempt." This man declines giving any answer to the

problem. We ask him _how_ X Y and can be projected beyond the circle

without transgressing its limits; and he answers that they never are, and

never can be so projected.

3. A third man will postulate as the cause of X Y Z a transcendent

X Y Z--that is, a cause lying external to the sphere; and by referring the

former to the latter, he will obtain for X Y X, not certainly a real

externality, which is the thing wanted, but a _quasi-externality_, with

which, as the best that is to be had, he will in all probability rest

contented. "X Y and Z," he will say, "are projected, _as it were_, out of

the circle." This answer leaves the question as much unsolved as ever. Or,

4. A fourth man (and we beg the reader's attention to this man's answer,

for it forms the fulcrum or cardinal point on which our whole

demonstration turns)--a fourth man will say, "If the circle could only be

brought _within itself_, so--

[Illustration]

then the difficulty would disappear--the problem would be completely

solved. X Y Z must now of necessity fall as extrinsic to the circle A; and

this, too, (which is the material part of the solution,) without the

limits of the circle A being overstepped."

Perhaps this may appear very like quibbling; perhaps it may be regarded as

a very absurd solution--a very shallow evasion of the difficulty.

Nevertheless, shallow or quibbling as it may seem, we venture to predict,

that when the breath of life shall have been breathed into the bones of

the above dead illustration, this last answer will be found to afford a

most exact picture and explanation of the matter we have to deal with. Let

our illustration, then, stand forth as a living process. The large circle

A we shall call our whole sphere of sense, in so far as it deals with

objective existence--and X Y Z shall be certain sensations of colour,

figure, weight, hardness, and so forth, comprehended within it. The

question then is--how can these sensations, without being ejected from the

sphere of sense within which they lie, assume the status and the character

of real independent existences? How can they be objects, and yet remain

sensations?

Nothing will be lost on the score of distinctness, if we retrace, in the

living sense, the footprints we have already trod in explicating the

inanimate illustration. Neither will any harm be done, should we employ

very much the same phraseology. We answer, then, that here, too, there are

just four conceivable ways in which this question can be met.

1. The man of common sense, (so called,) who aspires to be somewhat of a

philosopher, will face the question boldly, and will say, "I feel that

colour and hardness, for instance, lie entirely within the sphere of sense,

and are mere modifications of my subjective nature. At the same time, feel

that colour and hardness constitute a real object, which exists out of the

sphere of sense, independently of me and all my modifications. _How_ this

should be, I know not; I merely state the fact as I imagine myself to find

it. The _modus_ is beyond my comprehension." This man belongs to the

school of Natural Realists. If he merely affirmed or postulated a miracle

in what he uttered, we should have little to say against him, (for the

whole process of sensation is indeed miraculous.) But he postulates more

than a miracle; he postulates a contradiction, in the very contemplation

of which our reason is unhinged.

2. Another man will deny that our sensations ever transcend the sphere of

sense, or attain a real objective existence. "Colour, hardness, figure,

and so forth," he will say, "are generated within the sphere of sense, in

obedience to its own original laws. They form integral parts of the sphere;

and he who endeavours to construe them to his own mind as embodied in

extrinsic independent existences, must for ever be foiled in the attempt."

This man declines giving any answer to the problem. We ask, _how_ can our

sensations be embodied in distinct permanent realities? And he replies,

that they never are and never can be so embodied. This man is an

Idealist--or as we would term him, (to distinguish him from another

species about to be mentioned, of the same genus,) an _Acosmical_ idealist;

that is, an Idealist who absolutely denies the existence of an independent

material world.

3. A third man will postulate as the cause of our sensations of hardness,

colour, &c., a transcendent something, of which he knows nothing, except

that he feigns and fables it as lying external to the sphere of sense: and

then, by referring our sensations to this unknown cause, he will obtain

for them, not certainly the externality desiderated, but a

_quasi-externality_, which he palms off upon himself and us as the best

that can be supplied. This man is _Cosmothetical_ Idealist: that is, an

Idealist who postulates an external universe as the unknown cause of

certain modifications we are conscious of within ourselves, and which,

according to his view, we never really get beyond. This species of

speculator is the commonest, but he is the least trustworthy of any; and

his fallacies are all the more dangerous by reason of the air of

plausibility with which they are invested. From first to last, he

represents us as the dupes of our own perfidious nature. By some

inexplicable process of association, he refers certain known effects to

certain unknown causes; and would thus explain to us how these effects

(our sensations) come to assume, _as it were_, the character of external

objects. But we know not "as it were." Away with such shuffling

phraseology. There is nothing either of reference, or of inference, or of

quasi-truthfulness in our apprehension of the material universe. It is

ours with a certainty which laughs to scorn all the deductions of logic,

and all the props of hypothesis. What we wish to know is, _how_ our

subjective affections can _be_, not _as it were_, but in God's truth, and

in the strict, literal, earnest, and unambiguous sense of the words, real

independent, objective existences. This is what the cosmothetical idealist

never can explain, and never attempts to explain.

4. We now come to the answer which the reader, who has followed us thus

far, will be prepared to find us putting forward as by far the most

important of any, and as containing in fact the very kernel of the

solution. A fourth man will say--"If the whole sphere of sense could only

be withdrawn _inwards_--could be made to fall somewhere _within

itself_--then the whole difficulty would disappear, and the problem would

be solved at once. The sensations which existed previous to this

retraction or withdrawal, would then, of necessity, fall without the

sphere of sense, ( see our second diagram;) and in doing so, they would

necessarily assume a totally different aspect from that of sensations.

They would be real independent objects: and (what is the important part of

the demonstration) they would acquire this _status_ without overstepping

by a hair's-breadth the primary limits of the sphere. Were such

phraseology allowable, we should say that the sphere has _understepped_

itself, and in doing so, has left its former contents high and dry, and

stamped with all the marks which can characterize objective existences."

Now the reader will please to remark, that we are very far from desiring

him to accept this last solution at our bidding. Our method, we trust, is

any thing but dogmatical. We merely say, that _if_ this can be shown to be

the case, then the demonstration which we are in the course of unfolding,

will hardly fail to recommend itself to his acceptance. Whether or not it

is the case, can only be established by an appeal to our experience.

We ask, then--does experience inform us, or does she not, that the sphere

of sense falls within, and very considerably within, itself? But here it

will be asked--what meaning do we attach to the expression, that sense

falls within its own sphere? These words, then, we must first of all

explain. Every thing which is apprehended as a sensation--such as colour,

figure, hardness, and so forth--falls within the sentient sphere. To be a

sensation, and to fall within the sphere of sense, are identical and

convertible terms. When, therefore, it is asked--does the sphere of sense

ever fall within itself? this is equivalent to asking--do the senses

themselves ever become sensations? Is that which apprehends sensations

ever itself apprehended as a sensation? Can the senses he seized on within

the limits of the very circle which they prescribe? If they cannot, then

it must be admitted that the sphere of sense never falls within itself,

and consequently that an objective reality--_i.e._ a reality extrinsic to

that sphere--can never be predicated or secured for any part of its

contents. But we conceive that only one rational answer can be returned to

this question. Does not experience teach us, that much if not the whole of

our sentient nature becomes itself in turn a series of sensations? Does

not the sight--that power which contains the whole visible space, and

embraces distances which no astronomer can compute--does it not abjure its

high prerogative, and take rank within the sphere of sense--itself a

sensation--when revealed to us in the solid atom we call the eye? Here it

is the touch which brings the sight within, and very far within, the

sphere of vision. But somewhat less directly, and by the aid of the

imagination, the sight operates the same introtraction (pardon the coinage)

upon itself. It ebbs inwards, so to speak, from all the contents that were

given in what may be called its primary sphere. It represents itself, in

its organ, as a minute visual sensation, out of, and beyond which, are

left lying the great range of all its other sensations. By imagining the

sight as a sensation of colour, we diminish it to a speck within the

sphere of its own sensations; and as we now regard the sense as for ever

enclosed within this small embrasure, all the other sensations which were

its, previous to our discovery of the organ, and which are its still, are

built up into a world of objective existence, _necessarily_ external to

the sight, and altogether out of its control. All sensations of colour are

necessarily out of one another. Surely, then, when the sight is subsumed

under the category of colour--as it unquestionably is whenever we think of

the eye--surely all other colours must, of necessity, assume a position

external to it; and what more is wanting to constitute that real objective

universe of light and glory in which our hearts rejoice?

We can, perhaps, make this matter still plainer by reverting to our old

illustration. Our first exposition of the question was designed to exhibit

a general view of the case, through the medium of a dead symbolical figure.

This proved nothing, though we imagine that it illustrated much. Our

second exposition exhibited the illustration in its application to the

living sphere of sensation _in general_; and this proved little. But we

conceive that therein was foreshadowed a certain procedure, which, if it

can be shown from experience to be the actual procedure of sensation _in

detail_, will prove all that we are desirous of establishing. We now, then,

descend to a more systematic exposition of the process which (so far as

our experience goes, and we beg to refer the reader to his own) seems to

be involved in the operation of seeing. We dwell chiefly upon the sense of

sight, because it is mainly through its ministrations that a real

objective universe is given to us. Let the circle A be the whole circuit

of vision. We may begin by calling it the eye, the retina, or what we will.

Let it be provided with the ordinary complement of sensations--the colours

X Y Z. Now, we admit that these sensations cannot be extruded beyond the

periphery of vision; and yet we maintain that, unless they be made to fall

on the outside of that periphery, they cannot become real objects. How is

this difficulty--this contradiction--to be overcome? Nature overcomes it,

by a contrivance as simple as it is beautiful. In the operation of seeing,

admitting the canvass or background of our picture to be a retina, or what

we will, with a multiplicity of colours depicted upon it, we maintain that

we cannot stop here, and that we never do stop here. We invariably go on

(such is the inevitable law of our nature) to complete the picture--that

is to say, we fill in our own eye as a colour within the very picture

which our eye contains--we fill it in as a sensation within the other

sensations which occupy the rest of the field; and in doing so, we of

necessity, by the same law, turn these sensations out of the eye; and they

thus, by the same necessity, assume the rank of independent objective

existences. We describe the circumference infinitely within the

circumference; and hence all that lies on the outside of the intaken

circle comes before us stamped with the impress of real objective truth.

We fill in the eye greatly within the sphere of light, (or within the eye

itself; if we insist on calling the primary sphere by this name,) and the

eye thus filled in is the only eye we know any thing at all about, either

from the experience of sight or of touch. _How_ this operation is

accomplished, is a subject of but secondary moment; whether it be brought

about by the touch, by the eye itself, or by the imagination, is a

question which might admit of much discussion; but it is one of very

subordinate interest. The _fact_ is the main thing--the fact that the

operation _is_ accomplished in one way or another--the fact that the sense

comes before itself (if not directly, yet virtually) as _one_ of its own

sensations--_that_ is the principal point to be attended to; and we

apprehend that this fact is now placed beyond the reach of controversy.

To put the case in another light. The following considerations may serve

to remove certain untoward difficulties in metaphysics and optics, which

beset the path, not only of the uninitiated, but even of the professors of

these sciences.

We are assured by optical metaphysicians, or metaphysical opticians, that,

in the operations of vision, we never get beyond the eye itself, or the

representations that are depicted therein. We see nothing, they tell us,

but what is delineated within the eye. Now, the way in which a plain man

should meet this statement, is this--he should ask the metaphysician

_what_ eye he refers to. Do you allude, sir, to an eye which belongs to my

visible body, and forms a small part of the same; or do you allude to an

eye which does not belong to my visible body, and which constitutes no

portion thereof? If the metaphysician should say, that he refers to an eye

of the latter description, then the plain man's answer should be--that he

has no experience of any such eye--that he cannot conceive it--that he

knows nothing at all about it--and that the only eye which he ever thinks

or speaks of, is the eye appertaining to, and situated within, the

phenomenon which he calls his visible body. Is _this_, then, the eye which

the metaphysician refers to, and which he tells us we never get beyond? If

it be--why, then, the very admission that this eye is a part of the

visible body, (and what else can we conceive the eye to be?) proves that

we _must_ get beyond it. Even supposing that the whole operation were

transacted within the eye, and that the visible body were nowhere but

within the eye, still the eye which we invariably and inevitably fill in

as belonging to the visible body, (and no other eye is ever thought of or

spoken of by us,)--_this_ eye, we say, must necessarily exclude the

visible body, and all other visible things, from its sphere. Or, can the

eye (always conceived of as a visible thing among other visible things)

again contain the very phenomenon (_i.e._ the visible body) within which

it is itself contained? Surely no one will maintain a position of such

unparalleled absurdity as that.

The science of optics, in so far as it maintains, according to certain

physiological principles, that in the operation of seeing we never get

beyond the representations within the eye, is founded on the assumption,

that the visible body has no visible eye belonging to it. Whereas we

maintain, that the only eye that we have--the only eye we can form any

conception of, is the visible eye that belongs to the visible body, as a

part does to a whole; whether this eye be originally revealed to us by the

touch, by the sight, by the reason, or by the imagination. We maintain,

that to affirm we never get beyond this eye in the exercise of vision, is

equivalent to asserting, that a part is larger than the whole, of which it

is only a part--is equivalent to asserting, that Y, which is contained

between X and Z, is nevertheless of larger compass than X and Z, and

comprehends them both. The fallacy we conceive to be this, that the

visible body can be contained within the eye, without the eye of the

visible body also being contained therein. But this is a procedure, which

no law, either of thought or imagination, will tolerate. If we turn the

visible body, and all visible things, into the eye, we must turn the eye

of the visible body also into the eye; a process which, of course, again

turns the visible body, and all visible things, _out_ of the eye. And thus

the procedure eternally defeats itself. Thus the very law which appears to

annihilate, or render impossible, the objective existence of visible

things, as creations independent of the eye--this very law, when carried

into effect with a thorough-going consistency, vindicates and establishes

that objective existence, with a logical force, an iron necessity, which

no physiological paradox can countervail.

We have now probably said enough to convince the attentive reader, that

the sense of sight, when brought under its own notice as a sensation,

either directly, or through the ministry of the touch or of the

imagination, (as it is when revealed to us in its organ,) falls very

far--falls almost infinitely within its own sphere. Sight, revealing

itself as a sense, spreads over a span commensurate with the diameter of

the whole visible space; sight, revealing itself as a Sensation, dwindles

to a speck of almost unappreciable insignificance, when compared with the

other phenomena which fall within the visual ken. This speck is the organ,

and the organ is the sentient circumference drawn inwards, far within

itself, according to a law which (however unconscious we may be of its

operation) presides over every act and exercise of vision--a law which,

while it contracts the sentient sphere, throws, at the same time, into

necessary objectivity every phenomenon that falls external to the

diminished circle. This is the law in virtue of which subjective visual

sensations are real visible objects. The moment the sight becomes one of

its own sensations, it is restricted, in a peculiar manner, to that

particular sensation. It now falls, as we have said, within its own sphere.

Now, nothing more was wanting to make the other visual sensations real

independent existences; for, _quà_ sensations, they are all originally

independent of each other, and the sense itself being now a sensation,

they must now also be independent of it.

We now pass on to the consideration of the sense of touch.

Here precisely the same process is gone through which was observed to take

place in the case of vision. The same law manifests itself here, and the

same inevitable consequence follows, namely--that sensations are

things--that subjective affections are objective realities. The sensation

of hardness (softness, be it observed, is only an inferior degree of

hardness, and therefore the latter word is the proper generic term to be

employed)--the sensation of hardness forms the contents of this sense.

Hardness, we will say, is originally a purely subjective affection. The

question, then, is, how can this affection, without being thrust forth

into a fictitious, transcendent, and incomprehensible universe, assume,

nevertheless, a distinct objective reality, and be (not as it were, but in

language of the most unequivocating truth) a permanent existence

altogether independent of the sense? We answer, that this can take place

only provided the sense of touch can be brought under our notice _as

itself hard_. If this can be shown to take place, then as all sensations

which are presented to us in space necessarily exclude one another, are

reciprocally _out_ of each other, all other instances of hardness must of

necessity fall as extrinsic to that particular hardness which the sense

reveals to us as its own; and, consequently, all these other instances of

hardness will start into being, as things endowed with a permanent and

independent substance.

Now, what is the verdict of experience on the subject? The direct and

unequivocal verdict of experience is, that the touch reveals itself to us

as one of its own sensations. In the finger-points more particularly, and

generally all over the surface of the body, the touch manifests itself not

only as that which apprehends hardness, but as that which is itself hard.

The sense of touch vested in one of its own sensations (our tangible

bodies namely) is the sense of touch brought within its own sphere. It

comes before itself as _one_ sensation of hardness. Consequently all its

_other_ sensations of hardness are necessarily excluded from this

particular hardness; and, falling beyond it, they are by the same

consequence built up into a world of objective reality, of permanent

substance, altogether independent of the sense, self-betrayed as a

sensation of hardness.

But here it may be asked, If the senses are thus reduced to the rank of

sensations, if they come under our observation as themselves sensations,

must we not regard them but as parts of the subjective sphere; and though

the other portions of the sphere may be extrinsic to these sensations,

still must not the contents of the sphere, taken as a whole, be considered

as entirely subjective, _i.e._ as merely _ours_, and consequently must not

real objective existence be still as far beyond our grasp as ever? We

answer. No, by no means. Such a query implies a total oversight of all

that experience proves to be the fact with regard to this matter. It

implies that the senses have not been reduced to the rank of

sensations--that they have _not_ been brought under our cognizance as

themselves sensations, and that they have yet to be brought there. It

implies that vision has not been revealed to us as a sensation of colour

in the phenomenon the eye--and that touch has not been revealed to us as a

sensation of hardness in the phenomenon the finger. It implies, in short,

that it is not the sense itself which has been revealed to us, in the one

case as coloured, and in the other case as hard, but that it is something

else which has been thus revealed to us. But it may still be asked, How do

we know that we are not deceiving ourselves? How can it be proved that it

is the senses, and not something else, which have come before us under the

guise of certain sensations? That these sensations are the senses

themselves, and nothing but the senses, may be proved in the following

manner.

We bring the matter to the test of actual experiment. We make certain

experiments, _seriatim_, upon each of the items that lie within the

sentient sphere, and we note the effect which each experiment has upon

that portion of the contents which is not meddled with. In the exercise of

vision, for example, we remove a book, and no change is produced in our

perception of a house; a cloud disappears, yet our apprehension of the sea

and the mountains, and all other visible things, is the same as ever. We

continue our experiments, until our test happens to be applied to one

particular phenomenon, which lies, if not directly, yet virtually, within

the sphere of vision. We remove or veil this small visual phenomenon, and

a totally different effect is produced from those that took place when any

of the other visual phenomena were removed or veiled. The whole landscape

is obliterated. We restore this phenomenon--the whole landscape reappears:

we adjust this phenomenon differently--the whole landscape becomes

differently adjusted. From these experiments we find, that this phenomenon

is by no means an ordinary sensation, but that it differs from all other

sensations in this, that it is the sense itself appearing in the form of a

sensation. These experiments prove that it is the sense itself, and

nothing else, which reveals itself to us in the particular phenomenon the

eye. If experience informed us that the particular adjustment of some

other visual phenomenon (a book, for instance) were essential to our

apprehension of all the other phenomena, we should, in the same way, be

compelled to regard this book as our sense of sight manifested in one of

its own sensations. The book would be to us what the eye now is: it would

be our bodily organ: and no _à priori_ reason can be shown why this might

not have been the case. All that we can say is, that such is not the

finding of experience. Experience points out the eye, and the eye alone,

as the visual sensation essential to our apprehension of all our other

sensations of vision, and we come at last to regard this sensation as the

sense itself. Inveterate association leads us to regard the eye, not

merely as the organ, but actually as the sense of vision. We find from

experience how much depends upon its possession, and we lay claim to it as

a part of ourselves, with an emphasis that will not be gainsaid.

An interesting enough subject of speculation would be, an enquiry into the

gradual steps by which each man is led to _appropriate_ his own body. No

man's body is given him absolutely, indefeasibly, and at once, _ex dono

Dei_. It is no unearned hereditary patrimony. It is held by no _à priori_

title on the part of the possessor. The credentials by which its tenure is

secured to him, are purely of an _à posteriori_ character; and a certain

course of experience must be gone through before the body can become his.

The man acquires it, as he does originally all other property, in a

certain formal and legalized manner. Originally, and in the strict legal

as well as metaphysical idea of them, all bodies, living as well as dead,

human no less than brute, are mere _waifs_--the property of the first

finder. But the law, founding on sound metaphysical principles, very

properly makes a distinction here between two kinds of finding. To entitle

a person to claim a human body as his own, it is not enough that he should

find it in the same way in which he finds his other sensations, namely, as

impressions which interfere not with the manifestations of each other.

This is not enough, even though, in the case supposed, the person should

be the first finder. A subsequent finder would have the preference, if

able to show that the particular sensations manifested as this human body

were essential to his apprehension of all his other sensations whatsoever.

It is this latter species of finding--the finding, namely, of certain

sensations as the essential condition on which the apprehension of all

other sensations depends; it is this finding alone which gives each man a

paramount and indisputable title to that "treasure trove" which he calls

his own body. Now, it is only after going through a considerable course of

experience and experiment, that we can ascertain what the particular

sensations are upon which all our other sensations are dependent. And

therefore were we not right in saying, that a man's body is not given to

him directly and at once, but that he takes a certain time, and must go

through a certain process, to acquire it?

The conclusion which we would deduce from the whole of the foregoing

remarks is, that the great law of _living_[21] sensation, the _rationale_

of sensation as a _living_ process, is this, that the senses are not

merely _presentative_--_i.e._ they not only bring sensations before us, but

that they are _self-presentative_--_i.e._ they, moreover, bring themselves

before us as sensations. But for this law we should never get beyond our

mere subjective modifications; but in virtue of it we necessarily get

beyond them; for the results of the law are, 1st, that we, the subject,

restrict ourselves to, or identify ourselves with, the senses, not as

displayed in their primary sphere, (the large circle A,) but as falling

within their own ken as sensations, in their secondary sphere, (the small

circle A.) This smaller sphere is our own bodily frame; and does not each

individual look upon himself as vested in his own bodily frame? And 2ndly,

it is a necessary consequence of this investment or restriction, that

every sensation which lies beyond the sphere of the senses, viewed as

sensations, (_i.e._ which lies beyond the body,) must be, in the most

unequivocal sense of the words, a real independent object. If the reader

wants a name to characterise this system, he may call it the system of

_Absolute or Thorough-going presentationism_.

[21] We say _living_, because every attempt hitherto made to

explain sensation, has been founded on certain appearances

manifested in the _dead_ subject. By inspecting a dead carcass we

shall never discover the principle of vision. Yet, though there is

no seeing in a dead eye, or in a camera obscura, optics deal

exclusively with such inanimate materials; and hence the student

who studies them will do well to remember, that optics are the

science of vision, with the _fact_ of vision left entirely out of

the consideration.

* * * * *

ON THE BEST MEANS OF ESTABLISHING A COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE

BETWEEN THE ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC OCEANS.

To shorten the navigation between the eastern and western divisions of our

globe, either by discovering a north-west passage into the Pacific, or

opening a route across the American continent, with European philosophers

and statesmen has for centuries been a favourite project, and yet in only

one way has it been attempted. Large sums of money were successively voted

and expended, in endeavouring to penetrate through the Arctic sea; and

such is the persevering enterprise of our mariners, that in all likelihood

this gigantic task eventually will be accomplished: but, even if it should,

it is questionable whether a navigable opening in that direction would

prove beneficial to commerce. The floating ice with which those high

latitudes are encumbered; the intricacy of the navigation; the cold and

tempestuous weather generally prevailing there, and the difficulty of

obtaining aid, in cases of shipwreck, must continue to deter the ordinary

navigator from following that track.

Enquiry, therefore, naturally turns to the several points on the middle

part of the American continent, where, with the aid of art, it is supposed

that a communication across may be effected. These are five in number, and

the facilities for the undertaking which each affords, have been discussed

by a few modern travellers, commencing with Humboldt. On a close

investigation into the subject, it will, however, appear evident, that

although the cutting of a canal on some point or order, may be within the

compass of human exertion, still the undertaking would require an enormous

outlay of capital, besides many years to accomplish it; and even if it

should be completed, the result could never answer the expectations formed

upon this subject in Europe. On all the points proposed, and more

especially in reference to the long lines, the difficulty of rendering

rivers navigable, which in the winter are swelled into impetuous torrents;

the want of population along the greater part of the distances to be cut;

the differences of elevation; and, above all, the shallowness of the water

on all the extremities of the cuts projected, thus only affording

admission to small vessels, are among the impediments which, for the time

being at least, appear almost insuperable.

Without entering further into the obstacles which present themselves to

the formation of a canal along any one of the lines alluded to, I shall at

once come to the conclusion, that for all the practical purposes of

commercial intercourse which the physical circumstances of the country

allow, a railroad is preferable, and may be constructed at infinitely less

expense. This position once established, the question next to be asked is,

which is the most eligible spot for the work proposed? On a careful

examination of the relative merits of the several lines pointed out, that

of the isthmus of Panama unquestionably appears to be the most eligible.

From its central position, and the short distance intervening between the

two oceans, it seems, indeed, to be providentially destined to become the

connecting link between the eastern and western worlds; and hence its

being made a thoroughfare for all nations, must be a subject of the utmost

importance to those engaged in commerce.

Some of our most eminent public writers of the day, anticipating the

advantages likely to result from the emancipation of Spanish America,

considered the opening of a passage across that isthmus as one of the

mightiest events which could present itself to the enterprise of man; and

it is well known, that during Mr Pitt's administration projects on this

subject were submitted to him--some of them even attempting to show the

feasibility of cutting a canal across, sufficiently deep and wide to admit

vessels of the largest class. Report says, that the minister frequently

spoke in rapturous terms on the supposed facilities of this grand project;

and it is believed, that the sanguine hopes of its realization had great

weight with him when forming his plans for the independence of the

southern division of the New World. The same idea prevailed in Europe for

the greater part of the last century; but yet no survey was instituted--no

steps taken to obtain correct data on the subject. Humboldt revived it;

and yet this great and beneficial scheme again remained neglected, and, to

all appearance, forgotten. At length the possession of the Marquesas

islands by the French, brought the topic into public notice, when, towards

the close of last April, and while submitting the project of a law to the

Chamber of Deputies for a grant of money to cover the expenses of a

government establishment in the new settlements, Admiral Roussin expressed

himself thus:--"The advantages of our new establishments, incontestable as

they are even at present, will assume a far greater importance hereafter.

They will become of great value, should a plan which, at the present

moment, fixes the attention of all maritime nations, be realized, namely,

to open, through the isthmus of Panama, a passage between Europe and the

Pacific, instead of going round by Cape Horn. When this great event, alike

interesting to all naval powers, shall have been effected, the Society and

Marquesas islands, by being brought so much nearer to France, will take a

prominent place among the most important stations of the world. The

facility of this communication will necessarily give a new activity to the

navigation of the Pacific ocean; since this way will be, if not the

shortest to the Indian and Chinese seas, certainly the safest, and, in a

commercial point of view, unquestionably the most important."

In his speech in support of the grant, M. Gaizot, in the sitting of the

10th inst., asserted that the project of piercing the isthmus of Panama

was not a chimerical one, and proceeded to read a letter from Professor

Humbolt, dated Angust 1842, in which that learned gentleman observed, that

"it was twenty-five years since a project for a communication between the

two oceans, either by the isthmus of Panama, the lake of Nicaragua, or by

the isthmus of Capica, had been proposed and topographically discussed; and

yet nothing had been yet commenced." The French minister also read

extracts from a paper addressed to the Academy of Sciences, by an American

gentleman named Warren, advocating the practicability of a canal, by means

of the rivers Vinotinto, Beverardino, and Farren, after which he

enthusiastically exclaimed, that should this great work ever be

accomplished--and in his own mind he had no doubt that some day or other

it would--then the value of Oceana would be greatly increased, and France

would have many reasons to congratulate herself on the possession of them.

This has thus become one of the most popular topics in France, where the

views of the minister are no longer concealed, and in England are we

slumbering upon it? Certainly we have as great an interest in the

accomplishment of the grand design as the French, and possibly possess

more correct information on the subject than they do. Why, then, is it

withheld from the public? What are our government doing?

To supply this deficiency, as far as his means allow, is the object of the

writer of these pages; and in order to show the degree of credit to which

his remarks may be entitled, and his reasons for differing from the French

as regards the means by which the great desideratum is to be achieved, he

will briefly state, that in early life he left Europe under the prevailing

impression that the opening of a canal across the isthmus of Panama was

practicable; but while in the West Indies, some doubts on the subject

having arisen in his mind, he determined to visit the spot, which he did

at his own expense, and at some personal risk--the Spaniards being still

in possession of the country. With this view he ascended the river Chagre

to Cruces, and thence proceeded by land to Panama, where he stopped a

fortnight. In that time he made several excursions into the interior, and

had a fair opportunity of hearing the sentiments of intelligent natives;

but, although he then came to the conclusion that a canal of large

dimensions was impracticable, he saw the possibility of opening a railroad,

with which, in his opinion, European nations ought to be satisfied, at

least for the present. Why he assumed this position, a description of the

locality will best explain.

The river Chagre, which falls into the Atlantic, is the nearest

transitable point to Panama, but unfortunately the harbour does not admit

vessels drawing more than twelve feet water.[22] There the traveller

embarks in a _bonjo_, (a flat-bottomed boat,) or in a canoe, made of the

trunk of a cedar-tree, grown on the banks to an enormous size. The

velocity of the downward current is equal to three miles an hour, and

greater towards the source. The ascent is consequently tedious; often the

rowers are compelled to pole the boat along, a task, under a burning sun,

which could only be performed by negroes. In the upper part of the stream

the navigation is obstructed by shallows, so much so as to render the

operation of unloading unavoidable. Large trunks of trees, washed down by

the rains, and sometimes embedded in the sands, also occasionally choke up

the channel, impediments which preclude the possibility of a steam power

being used beyond a certain distance up. No boat can ascend higher than

Cruces, a village in a direct line not more than twenty-two miles from

Chagre harbour; but owing to the sinuosities of the river, the distance to

be performed along it is nearly double. To stem the current requires from

three to eight days, according to the season, whereas the descent does not

take more than from eight to twelve hours.

From Cruces to Panama the distance is five leagues, over a broken and

hilly country. The town is situated at the head of the gulf, on a neck of

land washed by the waters of the Pacific; but the port is only accessible

to flat-bottomed boats, owing to which it is called _Las Piraguas_. The

harbour, or rather the roadstead, is formed by a cluster of small islands

lying about six miles from the shore, under the shelter of which vessels

find safe anchorage. The tides rise high, and, falling in the same

proportion, the sloping coast is left dry to a considerable distance

out--a circumstance which precludes the possibility of forming an outlet

in front of Panama. The obstacles above enumerated at once convinced the

writer that a ship canal in this direction was impracticable. The Spanish

plan was to make the Chagre navigable a considerable distance up, by

removing the shallows and deepening the channel; but owing to the great

inclination in the descent, and the immense volumes of water rushing down

in winter, the task would be a most herculean one; and, even if

accomplished, this part of the route could only serve for small craft. A

canal over five leagues of hilly ground would still remain to be cut.

Although the plan, so long and so fondly cherished in Europe, and now

revived in France, must, for the reasons here assigned, be abandoned, on

this account we ought not to be deterred from availing ourselves of such

facilities as the locality affords. The geographical position of the

isthmus of Panama is too interesting to be any longer disregarded. "When

the Spanish discoverers first overcame the range of mountains which divide

the western from the Atlantic shores of South America," said a

distinguished statesman,[23] "they stood fixed in silent admiration, gazing

on the vast expanse of the Southern ocean which lay stretched before them

in boundless prospect. They adored--even those hardened and sanguinary

adventurers adored--the gracious providence of Heaven, which, after lapse

of so many centuries had opened to mankind so wonderful a field of untried

and unimagined enterprize." The very same point of land where, in 1515,

the Spaniards first beheld the Pacific, is the spot formed by nature for

the realization of those advantages which their cautious policy caused

them to overlook. The Creator seems to have intended it for general

use--as the highway of nations; and yet, after a period of more than three

centuries, scarcely has the solitude which envelopes this interesting

strip of land been broken. Is Europe or America to blame for this?

[22] This is the first impediment to an oceanic canal, and one

equally felt on the other proposed lines. Captain Sir Edward

Belcher, when recently surveying the western coasts of America,

availed himself of the opportunity to explore the Estero Real, a

river on the Pacific side, which he did by ascending it to the

distance of thirty miles from its mouth, but he found that it only

admits a vessel drawing ten feet water. That intelligent officer

considered this an advantageous line for a canal, which by lake

navigation, he concluded might be connected with San Salvador,

Honduras, Nicaragua, and extended to the Atlantic; but the

distance is immense, the country thinly inhabited, and besides

unhealthy, and, after all, it could only serve for boats.

[23] Lord Grenville in his speech on Indian affairs, April 9,

1813.

In the present state of our trade, and the increasing competition which we

are likely to experience, unquestionably it would be advisable for British

subjects to exert themselves in securing a free passage across the isthmus

above-named. It is not, however, to be imagined that this is a new project

in our history. Towards the close of the seventeenth century, one was

formed in Scotland for the establishment of a national company to trade

with the Indies through the Pacific, which became so popular that most of

the royal burghs subscribed to it. The scheme originated with William

Patterson, a Scotchman, of a bold and enterprizing character, who, in

early life, is supposed to have been a Bucanier, and to have traversed

several sections of South America. At all events, he seems to have been

acquainted with the views of Captain, afterwards Sir Henry Morgan, who, in

1670, took and burned Panama.

In England, the "Scots Company" was strenuously opposed by the

incorporated traders to the East Indies, as well as by the West India

merchants. Parliament equally took the alarm, and prayed the king not to

sanction the scheme. So powerful did this opposition at length become,

that the sums subscribed were withdrawn. Nothing daunted by this failure,

Patterson resolved to engraft upon his original plan one for the

establishment of an emporium on the Isthmus of Darien, whither he

anticipated that European goods would be sent, and thence conveyed to the

western shores of America, the Pacific islands, and Asia; and, in order to

attract notice and gain support, he proposed that the new settlement

should be made a free port, and all distinctions of religion, party, and

nation banished. The project was much liked in the north of Europe, but

again scouted at the English court; when the Scotch, indignant at the

opposition which their commercial prospects experienced from King William's

ministers, which they attributed to a contrariety of interests on the

part of the English, subscribed among themselves L.400,000 for the object

in view, and L.300,000 more were, in the same manner, raised at Hamburg;

but, in consequence of a remonstrance presented to the senate of that city

by the English resident, the latter sum was called in.

Eventually, in 1699, Patterson sailed with five large vessels, having on

board 1200 followers, all Scotch, and many of them belonging to the best

families, furnished with provisions and merchandise; and, on arriving on

the coast of Darien, took possession of a small peninsula lying between

Porto Bello and Carthagena, where he built the Fort of St Andrew. The

settlement was called New Caledonia; and the directors having taken every

precaution for its security, entered into negotiations with the

independent Indians in the neighbourhood, by whom it is believed that the

tenure of the "Scots Company" was sanctioned. The Spaniards took offence

at this alleged aggression, and angry complaints were forwarded to the

court of St James's. To these King William listened with something like

complacency, his policy at the time being to temporize with Spain, in

order to prevent the aggrandizement of the French Bourbons. The new

settlement was accordingly denounced, in proclamations issued by the

authorities of Jamaica, Barbadoes, and the American plantations, and soon

afterwards attacked by a Spanish force. Pressed on all sides, the

adventurers, for a period of eight months, bore up against accumulated

misfortunes; when at length, receiving no succours from their copartners

at home, convinced that they had to contend against the hostility of the

English government, and their provisions being exhausted, the survivors

were compelled to abandon their enterprise and return to Scotland. To add

to their chagrin, a few days after their departure two vessels arrived

with supplies and a small reinforcement of men.

Incensed at the second failure of their favourite scheme, the Scotch

endeavoured to obtain from King William an acknowledgment of the national

right to the territory of New Caledonia, and some reparation for the loss

sustained by the disappointed settlers. Unsuccessful in their application,

they next presented an address to the ruling power, praying that their

parliament might be assembled, in order to take the matter into

consideration; when, at the first meeting, angry and spirited resolutions

were passed upon the subject. No redress was, however, obtained; and thus

terminated the Darien scheme of the seventeenth century, founded, no one

will venture to deny, on an enlarged view of our commercial interests, and

a just conception of the means by which they might have been promoted. In

the state of our existing treaties with Spain, the seizure of territory

possibly was unjust, the moment unseasonable, and the plan, in one respect,

obviously defective, inasmuch as the projectors had not taken into account

the hostility of the Spaniards, and could not, consequently, rely on an

outlet for their merchandize in the Pacific. Had the scheme been delayed,

or had the settlement survived some months longer, the War of Succession

would, however, have given to the adventurers a right of tenure stronger

than any they could have obtained from the English court; for it is to be

borne in mind that, on the 3d of November 1700, Charles II. of Spain died

leaving his crown to a French branch of the House of Bourbon--an event

which threw Europe into a blaze, and, in the ensuing year, led to the

formation of the Grand Alliance.

This short digression may serve to show the spirit of the age towards the

close of the seventeenth century, and more particularly the light in which

the Scotch viewed an attempt, made nearly a century and a half ago, to

establish a commercial intercourse with the Pacific; and, had they then

succeeded, other objects of still mightier import than those at first

contemplated--other benefits of a more extended operation, would have been

included in the results. The opportunity was lost, evidently through the

want of support from the ruling power; but it must have been curious to

see the English government, at the close of the war, endeavouring to have

conceded to them by the Spanish court, and in virtue of the memorable

Aziento contract of 1713, those very same advantages which the "Scots

Company" sought to secure, by their own private efforts, and almost in

defiance of a most powerful interest. And when our prospects in the same

quarter have been enlarged, to an extent far beyond the most sanguine

expectations of our forefathers--when, through the independence of South

America, we have had the fairest opportunities of entering into

combinations with the natives for the accomplishment of the

grand design--is it yet to be said that spirited and enlightened

Englishmen are not to be found, ready and willing enough to support a

scheme advantageous to the whole commercial community of Europe? It is

confidently understood that the best information on the subject has been

submitted to her Majesty's government, even recently. If so, is it then a

fact that no one member of the Cabinet has shown a disposition to lend a

helping hand?

But what have the South Americans done in furtherance of the scheme in

question? Among the projects contemplated by Bolivar, the Liberator, for

the improvement of his native land, as soon as its independence should

have been consolidated, was one to form a junction between the

neighbouring oceans, so far as nature and the circumstances of the country

would allow. In November 1827, he accordingly commissioned Mr John

Augustus Lloyd, an Englishman, to make a survey of the isthmus of Panama,

"in order to ascertain," as that gentleman himself tells us, "the best and

most eligible line of communication, whether by road or canal, between the

two seas." In March 1828 the commissioner arrived at Panama, where he was

joined by a Swedish officer of engineers in the Colombian service, and,

provided with suitable instruments, they proceeded to perform the task

assigned to them.[24] Their first care was to determine the relative height

of the two oceans, when, from their observations, it appeared that the

tides are regular on both sides of the isthmus, and the time of high water

nearly the same at Panama and Chagre. The rise in the Pacific is, however,

the greatest, the mean height at Panama being rather more than three feet

above that of the Atlantic at Chagre; but, as in every twelve hours the

Pacific falls six feet more than the Atlantic, it is in that same

proportion lower; yet, as soon as the tide has flowed fully in, the level

assumes its usual elevation. Although the measurements of Bolivar's

commissioners were not, perhaps, performed with all the exactitude that

could have been wished, sufficient was then and since ascertained to

establish the fact, that the difference between the levels of the two

oceans is not so great as to cause any derangement, in case the

intervening ground could be pierced.

[24] The result of their labours was published in the _Philosophic

Transactions_ for 1830, accompanied by drawings.

In the pursuit of his object, Mr Lloyd seems altogether to set aside the

idea of a canal, and leaving his readers to judge which is the best

expedient to answer the end proposed, he thus describes the topography and

capabilities of the country:--"It is generally supposed in Europe that the

great chain of mountains, which, in South America, forms the Andes,

continues nearly unbroken through the isthmus. This, however, is not the

case. The northern Cordillera breaks into detached mountains on the

eastern side of the province of Vevagna, which are of considerable height,

extremely abrupt and rugged, and frequently exhibit an almost

perpendicular face of bare rock. To these succeed numerous conical

mountains, rising out of savannahs or plains, and seldom exceeding from

300 to 500 feet in height. Finally, between Chagre on the Atlantic side,

and Chorrera on the Pacific side, the conical mountains are not so

numerous, having plains of great extent, interspersed with occasional

insulated ranges of hills, of inconsiderable height and extent. From this

description, it will be seen," continues Mr Lloyd, "that the spot where

the continent of America is reduced to nearly its narrowest limits, is

also distinguished by a break for a few miles of the great chain of

mountains, which otherwise extend, with but few exceptions, to its extreme

northern and southern limits. This combination of circumstances points out

the peculiar fitness of the isthmus of Panama for the establishment of a

communication across."

Here, then, we have an avowal, from the best authority before the public,

and founded on a survey of the ground, that the intervening country is

sufficiently open, even for a canal, if skilfully undertaken, and with

adequate funds--consequently it cannot present any physical obstacles in

the way of a railroad which cannot readily be overcome. The same opinion

was formed by the writer of these pages, when, at a much earlier period,

he viewed the plains from the heights at the back of Panama; and that

opinion was borne out by natives who had traversed the ground as far as

the forests and brushwood allowed. In the sitting of the Royal Academy of

Sciences, held in Paris on the 26th of last December, Baron Humboldt

reported, that the preparatory labours for cutting a canal across the

isthmus of Panama were rapidly advancing; to which he added that the

commission appointed by the government of New Granada had terminated their

survey of the localities, after arriving at a result as fortunate as it

was unexpected. "The chain of the Cordilleras," he observed, "does not

extend, as it was formerly supposed, across, since a valley favourable to

the operation had been discovered, and the natural position of the waters

might also be rendered useful. Three rivers," the Baron proceeded to say,

"had been explored, over which an easy control might be established; and

these rivers, there was every reason to think, might be made partially

navigable, and afterwards connected with the proposed canal, the

excavations for which would not extend beyond 12-1/2 miles in length. It

was further expected that the fall might be regulated by four double locks,

138 feet in length; by which means the total extent of the canal would not

be more than 49 miles, with a width of 136 feet at the surface, 56 at the

base, and 20 in depth, sufficiently capacious for the admission of a

vessel measuring 1000 to 1400 tons. It was estimated by M. Morel, a French

engineer, that the cost of these several works would not be more than

fourteen millions of francs."