按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
namely； to export manufactured articles and import raw materials。
How； then； did they act under the circumstances？ Did they rest
content with the profits accruing from the trade in cloths with
Portugal and in cotton and silk manufactures with India？ By no
means。 The English Ministers saw farther than that。
Had they sanctioned the free importation into England of Indian
cotton and silk goods； the English cotton and silk manufactories
must of necessity soon come to a stand。 India had not only the
advantage of cheaper labour and raw material； but also the
experience； the skill； and the practice of centuries。 The effect of
these advantages could not fail to tell under a system of free
competition。
But England was unwilling to found settlements in Asia in order
to become subservient to Asia in manufacturing industry。 She strove
for commercial supremacy； and felt that of two countries
maintaining free trade between one another； that one would be
supreme which sold manufactured goods； while that one would be
subservient which could only sell agricultural produce。 In her
North American colonies England had already acted on those
principles in disallowing the manufacture in those colonies of even
a single horseshoe nail； and； still more； that no horseshoe nails
made there should be imported into England。 How could it be
expected of her that she would give up her own market for
manufactures； the basis of her future greatness； to a people so
numerous； so thrifty； so experienced and perfect in the old systems
of manufacture as the Hindoos？
Accordingly； England prohibited the import of the goods dealt
in by her own factories； the Indian cotton and silk fabrics。（6*）
The prohibition was complete and peremptory。 Not so much as a
thread of them would England permit to be used。 She would have none
of these beautiful and cheap fabrics； but preferred to consume her
own inferior and more costly stuffs。 She was； however； quite
willing to supply the Continental nations with the far finer
fabrics of India at lower prices； and willingly yielded to them all
the benefit of that cheapness； she herself would have none of it。
Was England a fool in so acting？ Most assuredly； according to
the theories of Adam Smith and J。 B。 Say the Theory of Values。 For；
according to them； England should have bought what she required
where she could buy them cheapest and best： it was an act of folly
to manufacture for herself goods at a greater cost than she could
buy them at elsewhere； and at the same time give away that
advantage to the Continent。
The case is quite the contrary； according to our theory； which
we term the Theory of the Powers of Production； and which the
English Ministry； without having examined the foundation on which
it rests； yet practically adopted when enforcing their maxim of
importing produce and exporting fabrics。
The English Ministers cared not for the acquisition of
low…priced and perishable articles of manufacture； but for that of
a more costly but enduring manufacturing power。
They have attained their object in a brilliant degree。 At this
day England produces seventy million pounds' worth of cotton and
silk goods； and supplies all Europe； the entire world； India itself
included； with British manufactures。 Her home production exceeds by
fifty or a hundred times the value of her former trade in Indian
manufactured goods。
What would it have profited her had she been buying for a
century the cheap goods of Indian manufacture？
And what have they gained who purchased those goods so cheaply
of her？ The English have gained power； incalculable power； while
the others have gained the reverse of power。
That in the face of results like these； historically attested
upon unimpeachable evidence； Adam Smith should have expressed so
warped a judgment upon the Navigation Laws； can only be accounted
for upon the same principle on which we shall in another chapter
explain this celebrated author's fallacious conclusions respecting
commercial restrictions。 These facts stood in the way of his pet
notion of unrestricted free trade。 It was therefore necessary for
him to obviate the objection that could be adduced against his
principle from the effects of the Navigation Laws； by drawing a
distinction between their political objects and their economical
objects。 He maintained that； although the Navigation Laws had been
politically necessary and beneficial； yet that they were
economically prejudicial and injurious。 How little this distinction
can be justified by the nature of things or by experience； we trust
to make apparent in the course of this treatise。
J。 B。 Say； though he might have known better from the
experience of North America； here too； as in every instance where
the principles of free trade and protection clash； goes still
farther than his predecessor。 Say reckons up what the cost of a
sailor to the French nation is； owing to the fishery bounties； in
order to show how wasteful and unremunerative these bounties are。
The subject of restrictions upon navigation constitutes a
formidable stumbling…block in the path of the advocates of
unrestricted free trade； which they are only too glad to pass over
in silence； especially if they are members of the mercantile
community in seaport towns。
The truth of the matter is this。 Restrictions on navigation are
governed by the same law as restrictions upon any other kind of
trade。 Freedom of navigation and the carrying trade conducted by
foreigners are serviceable and welcome to communities in the early
stages of their civilisation； so long as their agriculture and
manufactures still remain undeveloped。 Owing to want of capital and
of experienced seamen； they are willing to abandon navigation and
foreign trade to other nations。 Later on； however； when they have
developed their producing power to a certain point and acquired
skill in shipbuilding and navigation； then they will desire to
extend their foreign trade； to carry it on in their own ships； and
become a naval power themselves。 Gradually their own mercantile
marine grows to such a degree that they feel themselves in a
position to exclude the foreigner and to conduct their trade to the
most distant places by means of their own vessels。 Then the time
has come when； by means of restrictions on navigation； a nation can
successfully exclude the more wealthy； more experienced； and more
powerful foreigner from participation in the profits of that
business。 When the highest degree of progress in navigation and
maritime power has been reached； a new era will set in； no doubt；
and such was that stage of advancement which Dr Priestley had in
his mind when he wrote 'that the time may come when it may be as
politic to repeal this Act as it was to make it。'（7*）
Then it is that； by means of treaties of navigation based upon
equality of rights； a nation can； on the one hand； secure undoubted
advantages as against less civilised nations； who will thus be
debarred from introducing restrictions on navigation in their own
special behalf； while； on the other hand； it will thereby preserve
its own seafaring population from sloth； and spur them on to keep
pace with other countries in shipbuilding and in the art of
navigation。 While engaged in her struggle for supremacy； Venice was
doubtless greatly indebted to her policy of restrictions on
navigation； but as soon as she had acquired supremacy in trade；
manufactures； and navigation； it was folly to retain them。 For
owing to them she was left behind in the race； both as respects
shipbuilding； navigation； and seamanship of her sailors； with other
maritime and commercial nations which were advancing in her
footsteps。 Thus England by her policy increased her naval power；
and by means of her naval power enlarged the range of her
manufacturing and commercial powers； and again； by the latter；
there accrued to her fresh accessions of maritime strength and of
colonial possessions。 Adam Smith； when he maintains that the
Navigation Laws have not been beneficial to England in commercial
respects； admits that； in any case； these laws have increased her
power。 And power is more important than wealth。 That is indeed the
fact。 Power is more important than wealth。 And why？ Simply because
national power is a dynamic force by which new productive resources
are opened out； and because the forc