ThisentirenullificationofnationalityandofStatepower，
thisexaltationofindividualismtothepositionofauthorofall
effectivepower，couldbemadeplausibleonlybymakingthemain
objectofinvestigationtobenotthepowerwhicheffects，butthe
thingeffected，namely，materialwealth，orratherthevaluein
exchangewhichthethingeffectedpossesses。Materialismmustcome
totheaidofindividualism，inordertoconcealwhatanenormous
amountofpoweraccruestoindividualsfromnationality，from
nationalunity，andfromthenationalconfederationofthe
productivepowers。Abaretheoryofvaluesmustbemadetopass
currentasnationaleconomy，becauseindividualsaloneproduce
values，andtheState，incapableofcreatingvalues，mustlimitits
operationstocallingintoactivity，protecting，andpromotingthe
productivepowersofindividuals。Inthiscombination，the
quintessenceofpoliticaleconomymaybestatedasfollows，viz。：
Wealthconsistsinthepossessionofobjectsofexchangeablevalue；
objectsofexchangeablevalueareproducedbythelabourof
individualsincombinationwiththepowersofnatureandwith
capital。Bythedivisionoflabour，theproductivenessofthe
labourisincreased；capitalisaccumulatedbysavings，by
productionexceedingconsumption。Thegreaterthetotalamountof
capital，somuchthegreateristhedivisionoflabour，andhence
thecapacitytoproduce。Privateinterestisthemosteffectual
stimulustolabourandtoeconomy。Thereforethehighestwisdomof
statecraftconsistsinplacingnoobstacleinthewayofprivate
industry，andincaringonlyforthegoodadministrationof
justice。Andhencealsoitisfollytoinducethesubjectsofa
State，bymeansofStatelegislativemeasures，toproduceforthem
selvesanythingwhichtheycanbuycheaperfromabroad。Asystemso
consistentasthisis，whichsetsforththeelementsofwealth，
whichsoclearlyexplainstheprocessofitsproduction，and
apparentlysocompletelyexposestheerrorsoftheprevious
schools，couldnotfail，indefaultofanyother，tomeetwith
acceptance。Themistakehasbeensimply，thatthissystematbottom
isnothingelsethanasystemoftheprivateeconomyofallthe
individualpersonsinacountry，oroftheindividualsofthewhole
humanrace，asthateconomywoulddevelopandshapeitself，under
astateofthingsinwhichtherewerenodistinctnations，
nationalities，ornationalinterests——nodistinctivepolitical
constitutionsordegreesofcivilisation——nowarsornational
animosities；thatitisnothingmorethanatheoryofvalues；a
mereshopkeeper\'sorindividualmerchant\'stheory——nota
scientificdoctrine，showinghowtheproductivepowersofanentire
nationcanbecalledintoexistence，increased，maintained，and
preserved——forthespecialbenefitofitscivilisation，welfare，
might，continuance，andindependence。
Thissystemregardseverythingfromtheshopkeeper\'spointof
view。Thevalueofanythingiswealth，accordingtoit，soitssole
objectistogainvalues。Theestablishmentofpowersof
production，itleavestochance，tonature，ortotheprovidenceof
Godwhicheveryouplease，onlytheStatemusthavenothingatall
todowithit，normustpoliticsventuretomeddlewiththe
businessofaccumulatingexchangeablevalues。Itisresolvedtobuy
whereveritcanfindthecheapestarticles——thatthehome
manufactoriesareruinedbytheirimportation，mattersnottoit。
Ifforeignnationsgiveabountyontheexportoftheir
manufacturedgoods，somuchthebetter；itcanbuythemsomuchthe
cheaper。Initsviewnoclassisproductivesavethosewhoactually
producethingsvaluableinexchange。Itwellrecogniseshowthe
divisionoflabourpromotesthesuccessofabusinessindetail，
butithasnoperceptionoftheeffectofthedivisionoflabouras
affectingawholenation。Itknowsthatonlybyindividualeconomy
canitincreaseitscapital，andthatonlyinproportiontothe
increaseinitscapitalcanitextenditsindividualtrades；butit
setsnovalueontheincreaseoftheproductivepower，which
resultsfromtheestablishmentofnativemanufactories，oronthe
foreigntradeandnationalpowerwhichariseoutofthatincrease。
Whatmaybecomeoftheentirenationinthefuture，istoita
matterofperfectindifference，solongasprivateindividualscan
gainwealth。Ittakesnoticemerelyoftherentyieldedbyland，
butpaysnoregardtothevalueoflandedproperty；itdoesnot
perceivethatthegreatestpartofthewealthofanationconsists
inthevalueofitslandanditsfixedproperty。Fortheinfluence
offoreigntradeonthevalueandpriceoflandedproperty，andfor
thefluctuationsandcalamitiesthencearising；itcaresnota
straw。Inshort，thissystemisthestrictestandmostconsistent
\'mercantilesystem，\'anditisincomprehensiblehowthattermcould
havebeenappliedtothesystemofColbert，themaintendencyof
whichistowardsan\'industrialsystem\'-i。e。asystemwhichhas
solelyinviewthefoundingofanationalindustry——anational
commerce——withoutregardingthetemporarygainsorlossesof
valuesinexchange。
Notwithstanding，wewouldbynomeansdenythegreatmeritsof
AdamSmith。Hewasthefirstwhosuccessfullyappliedthe
analyticalmethodtopoliticaleconomy。Bymeansofthatmethodand
anunusualdegreeofsagacity，hethrewlightonthemostimportant
branchesofthescience，whichwerepreviouslyalmostwholly
obscure。BeforeAdamSmithonlyapracticeexisted；hisworks
rendereditpossibletoconstituteascienceofpoliticaleconomy，
andhehascontributedagreateramountofmaterialsforthat
objectthanallhispredecessorsorsuccessors。
Butthatverypeculiarityofhismindbywhich，inanalysing
thevariousconstituentpartsofpoliticaleconomy，herendered
suchimportantservice，wasthecausewhyhedidnottakea
comprehensiveviewofthecommunityinitsentirety；thathewas
unabletocombineindividualinterestsinoneharmoniouswhole；
thathewouldnotconsiderthenationinpreferencetomere
individuals；thatoutofmereanxietyforthefreedomofactionof
theindividualproducers，helostsightoftheinterestsofthe
entirenation。Hewhosoclearlyperceivedthebenefitsofthe
divisionoflabourinasinglemanufactory，didnotperceivethat
thesameprincipleisapplicablewithequalforcetoentire
provincesandnations。
Withthisopinion，thatwhichDugaldStewartsaysofhim
exactlyagrees。Smithcouldjudgeindividualtraitsofcharacter
withextraordinaryacuteness；butifanopinionwasneededasto
theentirecharacterofamanorofabook，onecouldnotbe
sufficientlyastonishedatthenarrownessandobliquityofhis
views。Nay，hewasincapableofformingacorrectestimateofthe
characterofthosewithwhomhehadlivedformanyyearsinthe
mostintimatefriendship。\'Theportrait，\'sayshisbiographer，\'was
everfulloflifeandexpression，andhadastrongresemblanceto
theoriginalifonecompareditwiththeoriginalfromacertain
pointofview；butitnevergaveatrueandperfectrepresentation
accordingtoallitsdimensionsandcircumstances。\'
Chapter32
TheSystemofValuesofExchangeContinued——JeanBaptisteSay
andhisSchool
Thisauthoronthewholehasmerelyendeavouredtosystematise，
toelucidate，andtopopularise，thematerialswhichAdamSmithhad
gatheredtogetherafteranirregularfashion。Inthathehas
perfectlysucceeded，inasmuchashepossessedinahighdegreethe
giftofsystematisationandelucidation。Nothingnewororiginalis
tobefoundinhiswritings，saveonlythatheassertedthe
productivenessofmentallabours，whichAdamSmithdenied。Only，
thisview，whichisquitecorrectaccordingtothetheoryofthe
productivepowers，standsopposedtothetheoryofexchangeable
values，andhenceSmithisclearlymoreconsistentthanSay。Mental
labourersproducedirectlynoexchangeablevalues；nay，more，they
diminishbytheirconsumptionthetotalamountofmaterial
productionsandsavings，andhencethetotalofmaterialwealth。
Moreover，thegroundonwhichSayfromhispointofviewincludes
mentallabourersamongtheproductiveclass，viz。becausetheyare
paidwithexchangeablevalues，isanutterlybaselessone，inasmuch
asthosevalueshavebeenalreadyproducedbeforetheyreachthe
handsofthementallabourers；theirpossessoraloneischanged，
butbythatchangetheiramountisnotincreased。Wecanonlyterm
mentallabourersproductiveifweregardtheproductivepowersof
thenation，andnotthemerepossessionofexchangeablevalues，as
nationalwealth。SayfoundhimselfopposedtoSmithinthis
respect，exactlyasSmithhadfoundhimselfopposedtothe
physiocrats。
Inordertoincludemanufacturersamongtheproductiveclass，
Smithhadbeenobligedtoenlargetheideaofwhatconstitutes
wealth；andSayonhisparthadnootheralternativethaneitherto
adopttheabsurdviewthatmentallabourersarenotproductive，as
itwashandeddowntohimbyAdamSmith，orelsetoenlargethe
ideaofwealthasAdamSmithhaddoneinoppositiontothe
physiocrats，namely，tomakeitcompriseproductivepower；andto
argue，nationalwealthdoesnotconsistinthepossessionof
exchangeablevalues，butinthepossessionofpowertoproduce，
justasthewealthofafishermandoesnotconsistinthe
possessionoffish，butintheabilityandthemeansofcontinually
catchingfishtosatisfyhiswants。
Itisnoteworthy，and，sofarasweareaware，notgenerally
known，thatJeanBaptisteSayhadabrotherwhoseplainclear
commonsenseledhimclearlytoperceivethefundamentalerrorof
thetheoryofvalues，andthatJ。B。Sayhimselfexpressedtohis
doubtingbrotherdoubtsastothesoundnessofhisowndoctrine。
LouisSaywrotefromNantes，thatatechnicallanguagehad
becomeprevalentinpoliticaleconomywhichhadledtomuchfalse
reasoning，andthathisbrotherJeanhimselfwasnotfreefrom
it。1*AccordingtoLouisSay，thewealthofnationsdoesnot
consistinmaterialgoodsandtheirvalueinexchange，butinthe
abilitycontinuouslytoproducesuchgoods。Theexchangetheoryof
SmithandJ。B。Sayregardswealthfromthenarrowpointofviewof
anindividualmerchant，andthissystem，whichwouldreformthe
so-calledmercantilesystem，isitselfnothingelsethana
restrictedmercantilesystem。2*TothesedoubtsandobjectionsJ。
B。Sayrepliedtohisbrotherthat\'hisJ。B。Say\'smethod
method？viz。thetheoryofexchangeablevalueswascertainly
notthebest，butthatthedifficultywas，tofindabetter。\'3*
What！difficulttofindabetter？HadnotbrotherLouis，then，
foundone？No，therealdifficultywasthatpeoplehadnotthe
requisiteacutenesstograspandtofollowouttheideawhichthe
brotherhadcertainlyonlyingeneraltermsexpressed；orrather，
perhaps，becauseitwasverydistastefultohavetooverturnthe
alreadyestablishedschool，andtohavetoteachtheprecise
oppositeofthedoctrinebywhichonehadacquiredcelebrity。The
onlyoriginalthinginJ。B。Say\'swritingsistheformofhis
system，viz。thathedefinedpoliticaleconomyasthesciencewhich
showshowmaterialwealthisproduced，distributed，andconsumed。
ItwasbythisclassificationandbyhisexpositionofitthatJ。
B。Saymadehissuccessandalsohisschool，andnowonder：for
hereeverythinglayreadytohishand；heknewhowtoexplainso
clearlyandintelligiblythespecialprocessofproduction，andthe
individualpowersengagedinit；hecouldsetforthsolucidly
withinthelimitsofhisownnarrowcircletheprincipleofthe
divisionoflabour，andsoclearlyexpoundthetradeof
individuals。Everyworkingpotter，everyhuckstercouldunderstand
him，anddosothemorereadily，thelessJ。B。Saytoldhimthat
wasneworunknown。Forthatintheworkofthepotter，handsand
skilllabourmustbecombinedwithclaynaturalmaterialin
orderbymeansofthepotter\'swheel，theoven，andfuelcapital，
toproducepotsvaluableproductsorvaluesinexchange，hadbeen
wellknownlongbeforeineveryrespectablepotter\'sworkshop，only
theyhadnotknownhowtodescribethesethingsinscientific
language，andbymeansofittogeneraliseuponthem。Alsothere
wereprobablyveryfewhucksterswhodidnotknowbeforeJ。B。
Say\'stime，thatbyexchangebothpartiescouldgainvaluesin
exchange，andthatifanyoneexported1，000thalers\'worthof
goods，andgotforthem1，500thalers\'worthofothergoodsfrom
abroad，hewouldgain500thalers。
Itwasalsowellknownbefore，thatworkleadstowealth，and
idlenesstobeggary；thatprivateself-interestisthemost
powerfulstimulustoactiveindustry；andthathewhodesiresto
obtainyoungchickens，mustnotfirsteattheeggs。Certainly
peoplehadnotknownbeforethatallthiswaspoliticaleconomy；
buttheyweredelightedtobeinitiatedwithsolittletroubleinto
thedeepestmysteriesofthescience，andthustogetridofthe
hatefuldutieswhichmakeourfavouriteluxuriessodear，andto
getperpetualpeace，universalbrotherhood，andthemillenniuminto
thebargain。Itisalsonocauseforsurprisethatsomanylearned
menandStateofficialsrankedthemselvesamongtheadmirersof
SmithandSay；fortheprincipleof\'laissezfaireetlaissez
aller\'demandsnosagacityfromanysavethosewhofirstintroduced
andexpoundedit；authorswhosucceededthemhadnothingtodobut
toreiterate，embellish，andelucidatetheirargument；andwho
mightnotfeelthewishandhavetheabilitytobeagreat
statesman，ifallonehadtodowastofoldone\'shandsinone\'s
bosom？Itisastrangepeculiarityofthesesystems，thatoneneed
onlyadopttheirfirstpropositions，andletoneselfbeled
credulouslyandconfidinglybythehandbytheauthor，througha
fewchapters，andOneislost。WemustsaytoM。JeanBaptisteSay
attheoutsetthatpoliticaleconomyisnot，inouropinion，that
sciencewhichteachesonlyhowvaluesinexchangeareproducedby
individuals，distributedamongthem，andconsumedbythem；wesay
tohimthatastatesmanwillknowandmustknow，overandabove
that，howtheproductivepowersofawholenationcanbeawakened，
increased，andprotected，andhowontheotherhandtheyare
weakened，laidtosleep，orutterlydestroyed；andhowbymeansof
thosenationalproductivepowersthenationalresourcescanbe
utilisedinthewisestandbestmannersoastoproducenational
existence，nationalindependence，nationalprosperity，national
strength，nationalculture，andanationalfuture。
ThissystemofSayhasrushedfromoneextremeviewthatthe
Statecanandoughttoregulateeverything——intotheopposite
extreme——thattheStatecanandoughttodonothing：thatthe
individualiseverything，andtheStatenothingatall。Theopinion
ofM。Sayastotheomnipotenceofindividualsandtheimpotenceof
theStatevergesontheridiculous。Wherehecannotforbearfrom
expressingawordofpraiseontheefficacyofColbert\'smeasures
fortheindustrialeducationofFrance，heexclaims，\'Onecould
hardlyhavegivenprivatepersonscreditforsuchahighdegreeof
wisdom。\'
Ifweturnourattentionfromthesystemtoitsauthor，wesee
inhimamanwho，withoutacomprehensiveknowledgeofhistory，
withoutdeepinsightintoStatepolicyorStateadministration，
withoutpoliticalorphilosophicalviews，withmerelyoneidea
adoptedfromothersinhishead，rummagesthroughhistory，
politics，statistics，commercialandindustrialrelations，inorder
todiscoverisolatedproofsandfactswhichmayservetosupport
hisidea。IfanyonewillreadhisremarksontheNavigationLaws，
theMethuenTreaty，thesystemofColbert，theEdenTreaty，&c。he
willfindthisjudgmentconfirmed。Itdidnotsuithimtofollow
outconnectedlythecommercialandindustrialhistoryofnations。
Thatnationshavebecomerichandmightyunderprotectivetariffs
headmits，onlyinhisopiniontheybecamesoinspiteofthat
systemandnotinconsequenceofit；andherequiresthatweshould
believethatconclusiononhiswordalone。Hemaintainsthatthe
DutchwereinducedtotradedirectlywiththeEastIndies，because
PhilipIIforbadethemtoentertheharbourofPortugal；asthough
theprotectivesystemwouldjustifythatprohibition，asthoughthe
DutchwouldnothavefoundtheirwaytotheEastIndieswithoutit。
WithstatisticsandpoliticsM。Sayisasdissatisfiedaswith
history：withtheformerbecausenodoubttheyproducethe
inconvenient\'factswhichhesays\'havesooftenproved
contradictoryofhissystem\'——withthelatterbecausehe
understoodnothingatallofit。Hecannotdesistfromhiswarnings
againstthepitfallsintowhichstatisticalfactsmaymisleadus，
orfromremindingusthatpoliticshavenothingtodowith
politicaleconomy，whichsoundsaboutaswiseasifanyonewereto
maintainthatpewtermustnotbetakenintoaccountinthe
considerationofapewterplatter。
Firstamerchant，thenamanufacturer，thenanunsuccessful
politician，Saylaidholdofpoliticaleconomyjustasamangrasps
atsomenewundertakingwhentheoldonecannotgoonanylonger。
Wehavehisownconfessiononrecord，thathestoodindoubtat
firstwhetherheshouldadvocatetheso-calledmercantilesystem，
orthesystemoffreetrade。HatredoftheContinentalsystemof
Napoleonwhichhadruinedhismanufactory，andagainsttheauthor
ofitwhohadturnedhimoutofthemagistracy，determinedhimto
espousethecauseofabsolutefreedomoftrade。
Theterm\'freedom\'inwhateverconnectionitisusedhasfor
fiftyyearspastexercisedamagicalinfluenceinFrance。Henceit
happenedthatSay，undertheEmpireaswellasunderthe
Restoration，belongedtotheOpposition，andthatheincessantly
advocatedeconomy。Thushiswritingsbecamepopularforquiteother
reasonsthanwhattheycontained。Otherwisewoulditnotbe
incomprehensiblethattheirpopularityshouldhavecontinuedafter
thefallofNapoleon，ataperiodwhentheadoptionofSay\'ssystem
wouldinevitablyhaveruinedtheFrenchmanufacturers？Hisfirm
adherencetothecosmopoliticalprincipleundersuchcircumstances
proveshowlittlepoliticalinsightthemanhad。Howinlittlehe
knewtheworld，isshownbyhisfirmbeliefthecosmopolitical
tendenciesofCanningandHuskisson。Onethingonlywaslackingto
hisfame，thatneitherLouisXVIIInorCharlesXmadehimminister
ofcommerceandoffinance。Inthatcasehistorywouldhavecoupled
hisnamewiththatofColbert，theoneasthecreatorofthe
nationalindustry，theotherasitsdestroyer。
Neverhasanyauthorwithsuchsmallmaterialsexercisedsuch
awidescientificterrorismasJ。B。Say；theslightestdoubtasto
theinfallibilityofhisdoctrinewasbrandedasobscurantism；and
evenmenlikeChaptalfearedtheanathemasofthis
politico-economicalPope。Chaptal\'sworkontheindustryofFrance，
fromthebeginningtotheend，isnothingelsethananexposition
oftheeffectsoftheFrenchprotectivesystem；hestatesthat
expressly；hesaysdistinctlythatundertheexistingcircumstances
oftheworld，prosperityforFrancecanonlybehopedforunderthe
systemofprotection。AtthesametimeChaptalendeavoursbyan
articleinpraiseoffreetrade，directlyinoppositiontothe
wholetendencyofhisbook，tosolicitpardonforhisheresyfrom
theschoolofSay。SayimitatedthePapacyevensofarastoits
\'Index。\'Hecertainlydidnotprohibithereticalwritings
individuallybyname，buthewasstricterstill；heprohibitsall，
thenon-hereticalaswellastheheretical；hewarnstheyoung
studentsofpoliticaleconomynottoreadtoomanybooks，asthey
mightthustooeasilybemisledintoerrors；theyoughttoread
onlyafew，butthosegoodbooks，whichmeansinotherwords，\'You
oughtonlytoreadmeandAdamSmith，noothers。\'butthatnonetoo
greatsympathyshouldaccruetotheimmortalfatheroftheschool
fromtheadorationofhisdisciples，hissuccessorandinterpreter
onearthtookgoodcare，for，accordingtoSay，AdamSmith\'sbooks
arefullofconfusion，imperfection，andcontradictions；andhe
clearlygivesustounderstandthatonecanonlylearnfromhimself
\'howoneoughttoreadAdamSmith。\'
Notwithstanding，whenSaywasatthezenithofhisfame，
certainyounghereticsarosewhoattackedthebasisofhissystem
soeffectuallyandsoboldly，thathepreferredprivatelytoreply
tothem，andmeeklytoavoidanypublicdiscussion。Amongthese，
TanneguyduCh鈚elmorethanonceaministerofStatewasthe
mostvigorousandthemostingenious。
\'Selonvous，monchercritique，\'saidSaytoDuCh鈚elina
privateletter，\'ilneresteplusdansmon閏onomiepolitiqueque
desactionssansmotifs，desfaitssansexplication，unecha頽ede
rapportsdontlesextr閙it閟manquentetdontlesanneauxlesplus
importantssontbris閟。Jepartagedoncl\'infortuned\'AdamSmith，
dontundenoscritiquesaditqu\'ilavaitfaitr閠rograder
l\'閏onomiepolitique。\'4*Inapostscripttothisletterhe
remarksverynaively，\'Danslesecondarticlequevousannoncez，il
estbieninutilederevenirsurcettepol閙ique，parlaquellenous
pouvionsbienennuyerlepublic。\'
AtthepresentdaytheschoolofSmithandSayhasbeen
explodedinFrance，andtherigidandspiritlessinfluenceofthe
TheoryofExchangeableValueshasbeensucceededbyarevolution
andananarchywhichneitherM。RossinorM。Blanquiareableto
exorcise。TheSaint-SimoniansandtheFourrierists，withremarkable
talentattheirhead，insteadofreformingtheolddoctrines，have
castthementirelyaside，andhaveframedforthemselvesaUtopian
system。Quiterecentlythemostingeniouspersonsamongthemhave
beenseekingtodiscovertheconnectionoftheirdoctrineswith
thoseofthepreviousschools，andtomaketheirideascompatible
withexistingcircumstances。Importantresultsmaybeexpectedfrom
theirlabours，especiallyfromthoseofthetalentedMichel
Chevalier。Theamountoftruth，andofwhatispractically
applicableinourdaywhichtheirdoctrinescontain，consists
chieflyintheirexpoundingtheprincipleoftheconfederationand
theharmonyoftheproductivepowers。Theirannihilationof
individualfreedomandindependenceistheirweakside；withthem
theindividualisentirelyabsorbedinthecommunity，indirect
contradictiontotheTheoryofExchangeableValues，accordingto
whichtheindividualoughttobeeverythingandtheStatenothing。
Itmaybethatthespiritoftheworldistendingtothe
realisationofthestateofthingswhichthesesectsdreamofor
prognosticate；inanycase，however，Ibelievethatmanycenturies
mustelapsebeforethatcanbepossible。Itisgiventonomortal
toestimatetheprogressoffuturecenturiesindiscoveriesandin
theconditionofsociety。EventhemindofaPlatocouldnothave
foretoldthatafterthelapseofthousandsofyearstheinstruments
whichdotheworkofsocietywouldbeconstructedofiron，steel，
andbrass，norcouldthatofaCicerohaveforeseenthatthe
printingpresswouldrenderitpossibletoextendthe
representativesystemoverwholekingdoms，perhapsoverwhole
quartersoftheglobe，andovertheentirehumanrace。Ifmeanwhile
itisgiventoonlyafewgreatmindstoforeseeafewinstancesof
theprogressoffuturethousandsofyears，yettoeveryageis
assigneditsownspecialtask。Butthetaskoftheageinwhichwe
liveappearsnottobetobreakupmankindintoFourrierist
\'phalanst鑢es，\'inordertogiveeachindividualasnearlyas
possibleanequalshareofmentalandbodilyenjoyments，butto
perfecttheproductivepowers，thementalculture，thepolitical
condition，andthepowerofwholenationalities，andbyequalising
themintheserespectsasfarasispossible，topreparethem
beforehandforuniversalunion。Forevenifweadmitthatunderthe
existingcircumstancesoftheworldtheimmediateobjectwhichits
apostleshadinviewcouldbeattainedbyeach\'phalanst鑢e，\'what
wouldbeitseffectonthepowerandindependenceofthenation？
Andwouldnotthenationwhichwasbrokenupinto\'phalanst鑢es，\'
runtheriskofbeingconqueredbysomelessadvancednationwhich
continuedtoliveintheoldway，andofthushavingitspremature
institutionsdestroyedtogetherwithitsentirenationality？At
presenttheTheoryofExchangeableValueshassocompletelylost
itsinfluence，thatitisalmostexclusivelyoccupiedwith
inquiriesintothenatureofRent，andthatRicardoinhis
\'PrinciplesofPoliticalEconomy\'couldwrite，\'Thechiefobjectof
politicaleconomyistodeterminethelawsbywhichtheproduceof
thesoiloughttobesharedbetweenthelandowner，thefarmer，and
thelabourer。\'
Whilesomepersonsarefirmlyconvincedthatthisscienceis
complete，andthatnothingessentialcanfurtherbeaddedtoit，
those，ontheotherhand，whoreadthesewritingswith
philosophicalorpracticalinsight，maintain，thatasyetthereis
nopoliticaleconomyatall，thatthatsciencehasyettobe
constructed；thatuntilitisso，whatgoesbyitsnameismerely
anastrology，butthatitisbothpossibleanddesirableoutofit
toproduceanastronomy。
Finally，wemustremark，inordernottobemisunderstood，that
ourcriticismofthewritingsalikeofJ。B。Sayandofhis
predecessorsandsuccessorsrefersonlytotheirnationaland
internationalbearing；andthatwerecognisetheirvalueas
expositionsofsubordinatedoctrines。Itisevidentthatanauthor
mayformveryvaluableviewsandinductionsonindividualbranches
ofascience，whileallthewhilethebasisofhissystemmaybe
entirelyerroneous。
NOTES：
1。LouisSay，EtudessurlaRichessedesNations，Preface，p。iv。
2。ThefollowingaretheactualwordsofLouisSayp。10：\'La
richesseneconsistepasdansleschosesquisatisfontnosbesoins
ounosgo鹴s，maisdanslepouvoird\'enjouirannuellement。\'And
furtherpp。14to15：\'Lefauxsyst鑝emercantil，fond？surla
richesseenm閠auxpr閏ieux，a閠？remplac？parunautrefond？sur
larichesseenvaieursv閚alesou閏hangeables，quiconsiste？
n\'関aiuercequicomposelarichessed\'unenationquecommelefait
unmarchand。\'Andnote，p。14：\'L\'閏olemodernequirefutele
syst鑝emercantilaelle-m阭ecr殚unsyst鑝equilui-m阭edoit
阾reappel？lesyst鑝emercantil。\'
3。EtudessurlaRichessedesNations，p。36quotingJ。B。Say\'s
words：\'Quecettem閠hode閠aitloind\'阾rebonne，maisquela
difficult？閠aitd\'entrouvorunemeilleure。\'
4。Say，Courscompletd\'Economiepolitiquepratique，vii。p。378。
EndFourthBook
ThePolitics
Chapter33
TheInsularSupremacyandtheContinentalPowers——NorthAmerica
andFrance
Inallagestherehavebeencitiesorcountrieswhichhavebeen
pre-eminentaboveallothersinindustry，commerce，andnavigation；
butasupremacysuchasthatwhichexistsinourdays，theworld
hasneverbeforewitnessed。Inallages，nationsandpowershave
striventoattaintothedominionoftheworld，buthithertonot
oneofthemhaserecteditspoweronsobroadafoundation。How
vaindotheeffortsofthoseappeartouswhohavestriventofound
theiruniversaldominiononmilitarypower，comparedwiththe
attemptofEnglandtoraiseherentireterritoryintooneimmense
manufacturing，commercial，andmaritimecity，andtobecomeamong
thecountriesandkingdomsoftheearth，thatwhichagreatcityis
inrelationtoitssurroundingterritory。tocomprisewithin
herselfallindustries，arts，andsciences；allgreatcommerceand
wealth；allnavigationandnavalpower——aworld\'smetropolis
whichsuppliesallnationswithmanufacturedgoods，andsupplies
herselfinexchangefromeverynationwiththoserawmaterialsand
agriculturalproductsofausefuloracceptablekind，whicheach
othernationisfittedbynaturetoyieldtoher——a
treasure-houseofallgreatcapital——abankingestablishmentfor
allnations，whichcontrolsthecirculatingmediumofthewhole
world，andbyloansandthereceiptofinterestonthemmakesall
thepeoplesoftheearthhertributaries。Letus，however，do
justicetothisPowerandtoherefforts。Theworldhasnotbeen
hinderedinitsprogress，butimmenselyaidedinit，byEngland。
Shehasbecomeanexampleandapatterntoallnations——in
internalandinforeignpolicy，aswellasingreatinventionsand
enterprisesofeverykind；inperfectingindustrialprocessesand
meansoftransport，aswellasinthediscoveryandbringinginto
cultivationuncultivatedlands，especiallyintheacquisitionof
thenaturalrichesoftropicalcountries，andinthecivilisation
ofbarbarousracesorofsuchashaveretrogradedintobarbarism。
Whocantellhowfarbehindtheworldmightyetremainifno
Englandhadeverexisted？Andifshenowceasedtoexist，whocan
estimatehowfarthehumanracemightretrograde？Letusthen
congratulateourselvesontheimmenseprogressofthatnation，and
wishherprosperityforallfuturetime。Butoughtweonthat
accountalsotowishthatshemayerectauniversaldominiononthe
ruinsoftheothernationalities？Nothingbutunfathomable
cosmopolitanismorshopkeepers\'narrow-mindednesscangivean
assentinganswertothatquestion。Inourpreviouschapterswehave
pointedouttheresultsofsuchdenationalisation，andshownthat
thecultureandcivilisationofthehumanracecanonlybebrought
aboutbyplacingmanynationsinsimilarpositionsofcivilisation，
wealth，andpower；thatjustasEnglandherselfhasraisedherself
fromaconditionofbarbarismtoherpresenthighposition，sothe
samepathliesopenforothernationstofollow：andthatatthis
timemorethanonenationisqualifiedtostrivetoattainthe
highestdegreeofcivilisation，wealth，andpower。Letusnowstate
summarilythemaximsofStatepolicybymeansofwhichEnglandhas
attainedherpresentgreatness。Theymaybebrieflystatedthus：
Alwaystofavourtheimportationofproductivepower，1*in
preferencetotheimportationofgoods。
Carefullytocherishandtoprotectthedevelopmentofthe
productivepower。
Toimportonlyrawmaterialsandagriculturalproducts，andto
exportnothingbutmanufacturedgoods。
Todirectanysurplusofproductivepowertocolonisation，and
tothesubjectionofbarbarousnations。
Toreserveexclusivelytothemothercountrythesupplyofthe
coloniesandsubjectcountrieswithmanufacturedgoods，butin
returntoreceiveonpreferentialtermstheirrawmaterialsand
especiallytheircolonialproduce。
Todevoteespecialcaretothecoastnavigation；tothetrade。
Betweenthemothercountryandthecolonies；toencourage
seafisheriesbymeansofbounties；andtotakeasactiveapartas
possibleininternationalnavigation。
Bythesemeanstofoundanavalsupremacy，andbymeansofit
toextendforeigncommerce，andcontinuallytoincreaseher
colonialpossessions。
Tograntfreedomintradewiththecoloniesandinnavigation
onlysofarasshecangainmorebyitthansheloses。
Tograntreciprocalnavigationprivilegesonlyiftheadvantage
isonthesideofEngland，orifforeignnationscanbythatmeans
berestrainedfromintroducingrestrictionsonnavigationintheir
ownfavour。
Tograntconcessionstoforeignindependentnationsinrespect
oftheimportofagriculturalproducts，onlyincaseconcessionsin
respectofherownmanufacturedproductscanbegainedthereby。
Incaseswheresuchconcessionscannotbeobtainedbytreaty，
toattaintheobjectofthembymeansofcontrabandtrade。
Tomakewarsandtocontractallianceswithexclusiveregardto
hermanufacturing，commercial，maritime，andcolonialinterests。To
gainbythesealikefromfriendsandfoes：fromthelatterby
interruptingtheircommerceatsea；fromtheformerbyruining
theirmanufacturesthroughsubsidieswhicharepaidintheshapeof
Englishmanufacturedgoods。
Thesemaximswereinformertimesplainlyprofessedbyall
Englishministersandparliamentaryspeakers。Theministersof
GeorgeIin1721openlydeclared，ontheoccasionofthe
prohibitionoftheimportationofthemanufacturesofIndia，that
itwasclearthatanationcouldonlybecomewealthyandpowerful
ifsheimportedrawmaterialsandexportedmanufacturedgoods。Even
inthetimesofLordsChathamandNorth，theydidnothesitateto
declareinopenParliamentthatitoughtnottobepermittedthat
evenasinglehorse-shoenailshouldbemanufacturedinNorth
America。InAdamSmith\'stime，anewmaximwasforthefirsttime
addedtothosewhichwehaveabovestated，namely，toconcealthe
truepolicyofEnglandunderthecosmopoliticalexpressionsand
argumentswhichAdamSmithhaddiscovered，inordertoinduce
foreignnationsnottoimitatethatpolicy。
Itisaverycommoncleverdevicethatwhenanyonehasattained
thesummitofgreatness，hekicksawaytheladderbywhichhehas
climbedup，inordertodepriveothersofthemeansofclimbingup
afterhim。Inthisliesthesecretofthecosmopoliticaldoctrine
ofAdamSmith，andofthecosmopoliticaltendenciesofhisgreat
contemporaryWilliamPitt，andofallhissuccessorsintheBritish
Governmentadministrations。
Anynationwhichbymeansofprotectivedutiesandrestrictions
onnavigationhasraisedhermanufacturingpowerandhernavigation
tosuchadegreeofdevelopmentthatnoothernationcansustain
freecompetitionwithher，candonothingwiserthantothrowaway
theseladdersofhergreatness，topreachtoothernationsthe
benefitsoffreetrade，andtodeclareinpenitenttonesthatshe
hashithertowanderedinthepathsoferror，andhasnowforthe
firsttimesucceededindiscoveringthetruth。
WilliamPittwasthefirstEnglishstatesmanwhoclearly
perceivedinwhatwaythecosmopoliticaltheoryofAdamSmithcould
beproperlymadeuseof，andnotinvaindidhehimselfcarryabout
acopyoftheworkontheWealthofNations。Hisspeechin1786，
whichwasaddressedneithertoParliamentnortothenation，but
clearlytotheearsofthestatesmenofFrance，whoweredestitute
ofallexperienceandpoliticalinsight，andsolelyintendedto
influencethelatterinfavouroftheEdenTreaty，isanexcellent
specimenofSmith\'sstyleofreasoning。BynaturehesaidFrance
wasadaptedforagricultureandtheproductionofwine，asEngland
wasthusadaptedtomanufacturingproduction。Thesenationsought
toacttowardsoneanotherjustastwogreatmerchantswoulddowho
carryondifferentbranchesoftradeandwhoreciprocallyenrich
oneanotherbytheexchangeofgoods。2*Notawordhereofthe
oldmaximofEngland，thatanationcanonlyattaintothehighest
degreeofwealthandpowerinherforeigntradebytheexchangeof
manufacturedproductsagainstagriculturalproductsandraw
materials。Thismaximwasthen，andhasremainedsince，anEnglish
Statesecret；itwasneveragainopenlyprofessed，butwasallthe
morepersistentlyfollowed。If，however，EnglandsinceWilliam
Pitt\'stimehadreallycastawaytheprotectivesystemasauseless
crutch，shewouldnowoccupyamuchhigherpositionthanshedoes，
andshewouldhavegotmuchnearertoherobject，whichisto
monopolisethemanufacturingpowerofthewholeworld。The
favourablemomentforattainingthisobjectwasclearlyjustafter
therestorationofthegeneralpeace。HatredofNapoleon\'s
Continentalsystemhadsecuredareceptionamongallnationsofthe
Continentofthedoctrinesofthecosmopoliticaltheory。Russia，
theentireNorthofEurope，Germany，theSpanishpeninsula，andthe
UnitedStatesofNorthAmericawouldhaveconsideredthemselves
fortunateinexchangingtheiragriculturalproduceandraw
materialsforEnglishmanufacturedgoods。Franceherselfwould
perhapshavefounditpossible，inconsiderationofsomedecided
concessionsinrespectofherwineandsilkmanufactures，todepart
fromherprohibitivesystem。
Thenalsothetimehadarrivedwhen，asPriestleysaidofthe
Englishnavigationlaws，itwouldbejustaswisetorepealthe
Englishprotectivesystemasithadformerlybeentointroduceit。
Theresultofsuchapolicywouldhavebeenthatallthe
surplusrawmaterialsandagriculturalproducefromthetwo
hemisphereswouldhaveflowedovertoEngland，andalltheworld
wouldhaveclothedthemselveswithEnglishfabrics。Allwouldhave
tendedtoincreasethewealthandthepowerofEngland。Undersuch
circumstancestheAmericansortheRussianswouldhardlyhavetaken
itintotheirheadsinthecourseofthepresentcenturyto
introduceaprotectivesystem，ortheGermanstoestablisha
customsunion。Peoplewouldhavecometothedeterminationwith
difficultytosacrificetheadvantagesofthepresentmomenttothe
hopesofadistantfuture。
ButProvidencehastakencarethattreesshouldnotgrowquite
uptothesky。LordCastlereaghgaveoverthecommercialpolicyof
Englandintothehandsofthelandedaristocracy，andthesekilled
thehenwhichhadlaidthegoldeneggs。Hadtheypermittedthe
Englishmanufacturestomonopolisethemarketsofallnations，
GreatBritainwouldhaveoccupiedthepositioninrespecttothe
worldwhichamanufacturingtowndoesinrespecttotheopen
country；thewholeterritoryoftheislandofEnglandwouldhave
beencoveredwithhousesandmanufactories，ordevotedtopleasure
gardens，vegetablegardens，andorchards；totheproductionofmilk
andofmeat，orofthecultivationofmarketproduce，andgenerally
tosuchcultivationasonlycanbecarriedonintheneighbourhood
ofgreatcities。Theproductionofthesethingswouldhavebecome
muchmorelucrativeforEnglishagriculturethantheproductionof
corn，andconsequentlyafteratimetheEnglishlandedaristocracy
wouldhaveobtainedmuchhigherrentsthanbytheexclusionof
foreigngrainfromthehomemarket。Only，thelandedaristocracy
havingonlytheirpresentinterestsinview，preferredbymeansof
thecornlawstomaintaintheirrentsatthehighratetowhich
theyhadbeenraisedbytheinvoluntaryexclusionofforeignraw
materialsandgrainfromtheEnglishmarketwhichhadbeen
occasionedbythewar；andthustheycompelledthenationsofthe
Continenttoseektopromotetheirownwelfarebyanothermethod
thanbythefreeexchangeofagriculturalproduceforEnglish
manufactures，viz。Bythemethodofestablishingamanufacturing
poweroftheirown。TheEnglishrestrictivelawsthusoperated
quiteinthesamewayasNapoleon\'sContinentalsystemhaddone，
onlytheiroperationwassomewhatslower。
WhenCanningandHuskissoncameintooffice，thelanded
aristocracyhadalreadytastedtoomuchoftheforbiddenfruitfor
ittobepossibletoinducethembyreasonsofcommonsenseto
renouncewhattheyhadenjoyed。Thesestatesmenfoundthemselvesin
thedifficultpositionofsolvinganimpossibleproblem——a
positioninwhichtheEnglishministrystillfindsitself。Theyhad
atoneandthesametimetoconvincetheContinentalnationsofthe
advantagesoffreetrade，andalsomaintaintherestrictionsonthe
importofforeignagriculturalproduceforthebenefitofthe
Englishlandedaristocracy。Henceitwasimpossiblethattheir
systemcouldbedevelopedinsuchamannerthatjusticecouldbe
donetothehopesoftheadvocatesoffreetradeonboth
continents。Withalltheirliberalitywithphilanthropicaland
cosmopoliticalphraseswhichtheyutteredingeneraldiscussions
respectingthecommercialsystemsofEnglandandothercountries，
theyneverthelessdidnotthinkitinconsistent，wheneverthe
questionaroseofthealterationofanyparticularEnglishduties，
tobasetheirargumentsontheprincipleofprotection。
Huskissoncertainlyreducedthedutiesonseveralarticles，but
heneveromittedtotakecarethatatthatlowerscaleofdutythe
homemanufactorieswerestillsufficientlyprotected。Hethus
followedprettymuchtherulesoftheDutchwateradministration。
Whereverthewaterontheoutsideriseshigh，thesewise
authoritieserecthighdykes；whereveritrisesless，theyonly
buildlowerdykes。AftersuchafashionthereformoftheEnglish
commercialpolicywhichwasannouncedwithsomuchpompreduced
itselftoapieceofmerepolitico-economicaljugglery。Some
personshaveadducedtheloweringoftheEnglishdutyonsilkgoods
asapieceofEnglishliberality，withoutdulyconsideringthat
Englandbythatmeansonlysoughttodiscouragecontrabandtradein
thesearticlestothebenefitofherfinancesandwithoutinjuryto
herownsilkmanufactories，whichobjectithasalsobythatmeans
perfectlyattained。Butifaprotectivedutyof50to70percent
whichatthisdayforeignsilkmanufacturershavetopayin
England，includingtheextraduty3*istobeacceptedasaproof
ofliberalitymostnationsmayclaimthattheyhaveratherpreceded
theEnglishinthatrespectthanfollowedthem。
AsthedemonstrationsofCanningandHuskissonwerespecially
intendedtoproduceaneffectinFranceandNorthAmerica，itwill
notbeuninterestingtocalltomindinwhatwayitwasthatthey
sufferedshipwreckinbothcountries。Justasformerlyintheyear
1786，soalsoonthisoccasion，theEnglishreceivedgreatsupport
fromthetheorists，andtheliberalpartyinFrance，carriedaway
bythegrandideaofuniversalfreedomoftradeandbySay\'s
superficialarguments，andfromfeelingsofoppositiontowardsa
detestedGovernmentandsupportedbythemaritimetowns，thewine
growers，andthesilkmanufacturers，theliberalpartyclamorously
demanded，astheyhaddoneintheyear1786，extensionofthetrade
withEnglandastheonetruemethodofpromotingthenational
welfare。
Forwhateverfaultspeoplemaylaytothechargeofthe
Restoration，itrenderedanundeniableservicetoFrance，aservice
whichposteritywillnotdispute；itdidnotallowitselftobe
misledintoafalsestepasrespectscommercialpolicyeitherby
thestratagemsoftheEnglishorbytheoutcryoftheliberals。Mr
Canninglaidthisbusinesssomuchtoheartthathehimselfmadea
journeytoParisinordertoconvinceMonsieurVill鑜eofthe
excellenceofhismeasures，andtoinducehimtoimitatethem。M。
Vill鑜ewas，however，muchtoopracticalnottoseecompletely
throughthisstratagem；heissaidtohaverepliedtoMrCanning，
\'IfEnglandinthefaradvancedpositionofherindustrypermits
greaterforeigncompetitionthanformerly，thatpolicycorresponds
toEngland\'sownwell-understoodinterests。Butatthistimeitis
tothewell-understoodinterestsofFrancethatsheshouldsecure
tohermanufactorieswhichhavenotasyetattainedperfect
development，thatprotectionwhichisatpresentindispensableto
themforthatobject。Butwheneverthemomentshallhavearrived
whenFrenchmanufacturingindustrycanbebetterpromotedby
permittingforeigncompetitionthanbyrestrictingit，thenheM。
Vill鑜ewouldnotdelaytoderiveadvantagefromfollowingthe
exampleofMrCanning。\'
Annoyedbythisconclusiveanswer，Canningboastedinopen
Parliamentafterhisreturn，howhehadhungamillstoneonthe
neckoftheFrenchGovernmentbymeansoftheSpanishintervention，
fromwhichitfollowsthatthecosmopolitansentimentsandthe
EuropeanliberalismofMrCanningwerenotspokenquitesomuchin
earnestasthegoodliberalsontheContinentmighthavechosento
believe。ForhowcouldMrCanning，ifthecauseofliberalismon
theContinenthadinterestedhimintheleast，havesacrificedthe
liberalconstitutionofSpaintotheFrenchinterventionowingto
themeredesiretohangamillstoneroundtheneckoftheFrench
Government？Thetruthis，thatMrCanningwaseveryinchan
Englishman，andheonlypermittedhimselftoentertain
philanthropicalorcosmopoliticalsentiments，whentheycouldprove
serviceabletohiminstrengtheningandstillfurtherextendingthe
industryandcommercialsupremacyofEngland，orinthrowingdust
intotheeyesofEngland\'srivalsinindustryandcommerce。
Infact，nogreatsagacitywasneededonthepartofM。Vill鑜e
toperceivethesnarewhichhadbeenlaidforhimbyMrCanning。In
theexperienceofneighbouringGermany，whoaftertheabolitionof
theContinentalsystemhadcontinuallyretrogradedfartherand
fartherinrespectofherindustry，M。Vill鑜epossessedastriking
proofofthetruevalueoftheprincipleofcommercialfreedomas
itwasunderstoodinEngland。AlsoFrancewasprosperingtoowell
underthesystemwhichshehadadoptedsince1815，forhertobe
willingtoattempt，likethedoginthefable，toletgothe
substanceandsnapattheshadow。Menofthedeepestinsightinto
theconditionofindustry，suchasChaptalandCharlesDupin，had
expressedthemselvesontheresultsofthissysteminthemost
unequivocalmanner。
Chaptal\'sworkonFrenchindustryisnothinglessthana
defenceoftheFrenchcommercialpolicy，andanexpositionofits
resultsasawholeandineveryparticular。Thetendencyofthis
workisexpressedinthefollowingquotationfromit。\'Insteadof
losingourselvesinthelabyrinthofmetaphysicalabstractions，we
maintainaboveallthatwhichexists，andseekabovealltomakeit
perfect。Goodcustomslegislationisthebulwarkofmanufacturing
industry。Itincreasesorlessensimportdutiesaccordingto
circumstances；itcompensatesthedisadvantagesofhigherwagesof
labourandofhigherpricesoffuel；itprotectsartsand
industriesintheircradleuntiltheyatlengthbecomestrong
enoughtobearforeigncompetition；itcreatestheindustrial
independenceofFranceandenrichesthenationthroughlabour，
which，asIhavealreadyoftenremarked，isthechiefsourceof
wealth。\'4*
CharlesDupinhad，inhiswork\'OntheProductivePowersof
France，andontheProgressofFrenchIndustryfrom1814to1847，\'
thrownsuchaclearlightontheresultsofthecommercialpolicy
whichFrancehadfollowedsincetheRestoration，thatitwas
impossiblethataFrenchministercouldthinkofsacrificingthis
workofhalfacentury，whichhadcostsuchsacrifices，whichwas
sorichinfruits，andsofullofpromiseforthefuture，merely
fortheattractionsofaMethuenTreaty。
TheAmericantarifffortheyear1828wasanaturaland
necessaryresultoftheEnglishcommercialsystem，whichshutout
fromtheEnglishfrontierstheNorthAmericantimber，grain，meal，
andotheragriculturalproducts，andonlypermittedrawcottonto
bereceivedbyEnglandinexchangeforhermanufacturedgoods。On
thissystemthetradewithEnglandonlytendedtopromotethe
agriculturallabouroftheAmericanslaves，whileontheother
hand，thefreest，mostenlightened，andmostpowerfulStatesofthe
Unionfoundthemselvesentirelyarrestedintheireconomical
progress，andthusreducedtodisposeoftheirannualsurplusof
populationandcapitalbyemigrationtothewastelandsofthe
West。MrHuskissonunderstoodthispositionofaffairsverywell。
ItwasnotoriousthattheEnglishambassadorinWashingtonhadmore
thanoncecorrectlyinformedhimoftheinevitableconsequenceof
theEnglishpolicy。IfMrHuskissonhadreallybeenthemanthat
peopleinothercountriessupposedhimtobe，hewouldhavemade
useofthepublicationoftheAmericantariffasavaluable
opportunityformakingtheEnglisharistocracycomprehendthefolly
oftheircornlaws，andthenecessityofabolishingthem。Butwhat
didMrHuskissondo？HefellintoapassionwiththeAmericansor
atleastaffectedtodoso，andinhisexcitementhemade
allegations——theincorrectnessofwhichwaswellknowntoevery
Americanplanter——andpermittedhimselftousethreatswhichmade
himridiculous。MrHuskissonsaidtheexportsofEnglandtothe
UnitedStatesamountedtoonlyaboutthesixthpartofallthe
exportsofEngland，whiletheexportsoftheUnitedStatesto
Englandconstitutedmorethanhalfofalltheirexports。Fromthis
hesoughttoprovethattheAmericansweremoreinthepowerofthe
Englishthanthelatterwereinthatoftheformer；andthatthe
Englishhadmuchlessreasontofearinterruptionsoftradethrough
war，cessationofintercourse，andsoforth，thantheAmericans
had。Ifonelooksmerelyatthetotalsofthevalueoftheimports
andexports，Huskisson\'sargumentappearssufficientlyplausible；
butifoneconsidersthenatureofthereciprocalimportsand
exports，itwillthenappearincomprehensiblehowMrHuskisson
couldmakeuseofanargumentwhichprovestheexactoppositeof
thatwhichhedesiredtoprove。Allorbyfarthegreaterpartof
theexportsoftheUnitedStatestoEnglandconsistedofraw
materials，whosevalueisincreasedtenfoldbytheEnglish，and
whichtheycannotdispensewith，andalsocouldnotatonceobtain
fromothercountries，atanyratenotinsufficientquantity，while
ontheotherhandalltheimportsoftheNorthAmericansfrom
Englandconsistedofarticleswhichtheycouldeithermanufacture
forthemselvesorprocurejustaseasilyfromothernations。Ifwe
nowconsiderwhatwouldbetheoperationofaninterruptionof
commercebetweenthetwonationsaccordingtothetheoryofvalues，
itwillappearasifitmustoperatetothedisadvantageofthe
Americans；whereasifwejudgeofitaccordingtothetheoryofthe
productivepowers，itmustoccasionincalculableinjurytothe
English。Forbyittwo-thirdsofalltheEnglishcotton
manufactorieswouldcometoastandstillandfallintoruin。
Englandwouldloseasbymagicaproductivesourceofwealth，the
annualvalueofwhichfarexceedsthevalueofherentireexports，
andtheresultsofsuchalossonthepeace，wealth，credit，
commerce，andpowerofEnglandwouldbeincalculable。What，
however，wouldbetheconsequencesofsuchastateofthingsfor
theNorthAmericans？Compelledtomanufactureforthemselvesthose
goodswhichtheyhadhithertoobtainedfromEngland，theywouldin
thecourseofafewyearsgainwhattheEnglishhadlost。Nodoubt
suchameasuremustoccasionaconflictforlifeanddeath，as
formerlythenavigationlawsdidbetweenEnglandandHolland。But
probablyitwouldalsoendinthesamewayasformerlydidthe
conflictintheEnglishChannel。Itisunnecessaryheretofollow
outtheconsequencesofarivalrywhich，asitappearstous，must
soonerorlater，fromtheverynatureofthings，cometoarupture。
Whatwehavesaidsufficestoshowclearlythefutilityanddanger
ofHuskisson\'sargument，andtodemonstratehowunwiselyEngland
actedincompellingtheNorthAmericansbymeansofhercornlaws
tomanufactureforthemselves，andhowwiseitwouldhavebeenof
MrHuskissonhadhe，insteadoftriflingwiththequestionbysuch
futileandhazardousarguments，labouredtoremoveoutoftheway
thecauseswhichledtotheadoptionoftheAmericantariffof
1828。
InordertoprovetotheNorthAmericanshowadvantageousto
themthetradeofEnglandwas，MrHuskissonpointedoutthe
extraordinaryincreaseintheEnglishimportationsofcotton，but
theAmericansalsoknewhowtoestimatethisargumentatitstrue
value。FortheproductionofcottoninAmericahadformorethan
tenyearspreviouslysogreatlyexceededtheconsumptionof，and
thedemandfor，thisarticlefromyeartoyear，thatitspriceshad
falleninalmostthesameratioinwhichtheexporthadincreased；
asmaybeseenfromthefactthatintheyear1816theAmericans
hadobtainedfor80，000，000poundsofcotton24，000，000dollars，
whileintheyear1826for204，000，000poundsofcottontheyonly
obtained25，000，000dollars。
Finally，MrHuskissonthreatenedtheNorthAmericanswiththe
organisationofawholesalecontrabandtradebywayofCanada。It
istruethatunderexistingcircumstancesanAmericanprotective
systemcanbeendangeredbynothingsoseriouslyasbythemeans
indicatedbyMrHuskisson。Butwhatfollowsfromthat？Isitthat
theAmericansaretolaytheirsystematthefeetoftheEnglish
Parliament，andawaitinhumilitywhateverthelattermaybe
pleasedtodeterminefromyeartoyearrespectingtheirnational
industry？Howabsurd！Theonlyconsequencewouldbethatthe
AmericanswouldannexCanadaandincludeitintheirUnion，orelse
assistittoattainindependenceassoonasevertheCanadian
smugglingtradebecameunendurable。Mustwenot，however，deemthe
degreeoffollyabsolutelyexcessiveifanationwhichhasalready
attainedindustrialandcommercialsupremacy，firstofallcompels
anagriculturalnationconnectedwithherbytheclosesttiesof
race，oflanguage，andofinterest，tobecomeherselfa
manufacturingnation，andthen，inordertohinderherfrom
followingtheimpulsethusforciblygiventoher，compelsherto
assistthatnation\'sowncoloniestoattainindependence？
AfterHuskisson\'sdeath，MrPoulettThompsonundertookthe
directionofthecommercialaffairsofEngland；thisstatesman
followedhiscelebratedpredecessorinhispolicyaswellasinhis
office。Inthemeantime，sofarasconcernedNorthAmerica，there
remainedlittleforhimtodo，forinthatcountry，withoutspecial
effortsonthepartoftheEnglish，bymeansoftheinfluenceof
thecottonplantersandtheimporters，andbytheaidofthe
Democraticparty，especiallybymeansoftheso-calledCompromise
Billin1832，amodificationoftheformertariffhadtakenplace，
which，althoughitcertainlyamendedtheexcessesandfaultsofthe
formertariff，andalsostillsecuredtotheAmericanmanufactories
atolerabledegreeofprotectioninrespectofthecoarserfabrics
ofcottonandwoollen，neverthelessgavetheEnglishallthe
concessionswhichtheycouldhavedesiredwithoutEnglandhaving
beencompelledtomakeanycounterconcessions。
SincethepassingofthatBill，theexportsoftheEnglishto
Americahaveenormouslyincreased。Andsubsequentlytothistime
theygreatlyexceedtheEnglishimportsfromNorthAmerica，sothat
atanytimeitisinthepowerofEnglandtodrawtoherselfas
muchasshepleasesofthepreciousmetalscirculatinginAmerica，
andtherebytooccasioncommercialcrisesintheUnitedStatesas
oftenassheherselfisinwantofmoney。Butthemostastonishing
thinginthismatteristhatthatbillhadforitsauthorHenry
Clay，themosteminentandclearsighteddefenderoftheAmerican
manufacturinginterest。Foritmustberememberedthatthe
prosperityoftheAmericanmanufacturerswhichresultedfromthe
tariffof1828excitedsogreatlythejealousyofthecotton
planters，thattheSouthernStatesthreatenedtobringabouta
dissolutionoftheUnionincasethetariffof1828wasnot
modified。TheFederalGovernment，whichwasdominatedbythe
Democraticparty，hadsidedwiththeSouthernplantersfrompurely
partyandelectioneeringmotives，andalsomanagedtogetthe
agriculturistsoftheMiddleandWesternStates，whobelongedto
thatparty，toadoptthesameviews。
Theselasthadlosttheirformersympathywiththe
manufacturinginterestinconsequenceofthehighpricesofproduce
whichhadprevailed，which，however，weretheresultforthemost
partoftheprosperityofthehomemanufactoriesandofthe
numerouscanalsandrailwayswhichwereundertaken。Theymayalso
haveactuallyfearedthattheSouthernStateswouldpresstheir
oppositionsofarastobringaboutarealdissolutionoftheUnion
andevencivilwar。Henceitbecamethepartyinterestsofthe
DemocratsoftheCentralandEasternStatesnottoalienatethe
sympathiesoftheDemocratsoftheSouthernStates。Inconsequence
ofthesepoliticalcircumstances，publicopinionveeredroundso
muchinfavouroffreetradewithEngland，thattherewasreasonto
fearthatallthemanufacturinginterestsofthecountrymightbe
entirelysacrificedinfavourofEnglishfreecompetition。Under
suchcircumstancestheCompromiseBillofHenryClayappearedtobe
theonlymeansofatleastpartiallypreservingtheprotective
system。BythisbillpartoftheAmericanmanufactures，viz。those
offinerandmoreexpensivearticles，wassacrificedtoforeign
competition，inordertopreserveanotherclassofthem，viz。the
manufactureofarticlesofacoarserandalessexpensive
character。Inthemeantimeallappearancesseemtoindicatethat
theprotectivesysteminNorthAmericainthecourseofthenext
fewyearswillagainraiseitsheadandagainmakenewprogress。
HowevermuchtheEnglishmaydesiretolessenandmitigatethe
commercialcrisesinNorthAmerica，howeverlargealsomaybethe
amountofcapitalwhichmaypassoverfromEnglandtoNorthAmerica
intheformofpurchasesofstockorofloansorbymeansof
emigration，theexistingandstillincreasingdisproportionbetween
thevalueoftheexportsandthatofimportscannotpossiblyinthe
longrunbeequalisedbythosemeans。Alarmingcommercialcrises，
whichcontinuallyincreaseintheirmagnitude，mustoccur，andthe
Americansmustatlengthbeledtorecognisethesourcesofthe
evilandtodeterminetoputastoptothem。