« AnteriorContinuar »
pected would be reduced to obedience, with a view to reconcile them to the position of being producers of raw produce for the mother-country, and to a state of dependence for articles of manufacture. He panders, like a demagogue, to the assumed taste of the colonies; preaches against monopolies and corporations, of which they had so loudly complained; and in an edition published after the war broke out, is to be found, in the form of inuendo, the following shameful proposition: "That, if to each colony, which should detach itself from the general confederacy, Great Britain should allow a representation, a new method of acquiring importance, a new and more dazzling object of ambition, would be presented to the leading men of each colony, to draw some of the great prizes which sometimes come from the wheel of the great state lottery of British politics!"
In another place he says: "To attempt prematurely, and with an insufficient capital, to do all the three," agriculture, manufactures, and commerce, "is certainly not the shortest way for a society, no more than it would be for an individual, to acquire a sufficient one. . . The revenue of all the inhabitants of the country, is necessarily in proportion to the annual produce of their land and labor. It has been a principal cause of the rapid progress of our American colonies toward wealth and greatness, that almost their whole capitals have hitherto been employed in agriculture. They have no manufactures, those household and coarse manufactures excepted which necessarily accompany the progress of agriculture, and which are the work of the women and children in every private family. The greater part, both of the exportation and coasting trade of America, is carried on by the capitals of merchants who reside in Great Britain. Even the stores and warehouses, from which goods are retailed, in some provinces, particularly in Virginia and Maryland, belong, many of them, to merchants who reside in the mother-country, and afford one of the few instances of the retail trade of a society being carried on by the capitals of those who are not resident members of it. Were the Americans, either by combination, or by any other sort of violence, to stop the importation of European manufactures, and by thus giving a monopoly to such of their own countrymen as could manufacture the like goods, divert any considerable part of their capital into this employment, they would retard instead of accelerating the farther increase in the value of their annual produce, and would obstruct instead of promoting the progress of their country toward real
wealth and greatness. This would be still more the case, were they to attempt, in the same manner, to monopolize to themselves, their whole exportation. . . It is thus that the same capital will, in any country, put into motion a greater or smaller quantity of productive labor, and add a greater or smaller value to the annual produce of its land and labor, according to the different proportions in which it is employed, in agriculture, manufactures, and wholesale trade."
Not to speak of the defects and inclusiveness of this reasoning on certain points, it would be quite unnecessary to declare its aim, considering by whom, and in what circumstances, the advice was given, on the eve of the outbreak of the American revolution, and when the colonies were demanding the right to set up manufactures, and to engage in commerce, and were forbidden both. Nor does this reasoning appear to be very consistent with the principle of Free Trade. The facts recognised are very impressive, in view of our colonial history. One is amazed, that such prohibitions and restrictions could have been endured so long; and not less amazed, that they should have been advocated by Adam Smith, the father of the Free-Trade philosophy.
Notwithstanding the laudation of agriculture, above cited, for the sake of contenting the American colonists in their condition of "hewers of wood and drawers of water" to the parent-country, this same author, before he had finished the chapter, could record, without compunction, the following sentences: "The profits of agriculture seem to have no superiority over those of other employments... We see every day the most splendid fortunes that have been acquired in the course of a single life, by trade and manufactures, frequently from a very small capital, sometimes from no capital. A single instance of such a fortune acquired by agriculture, in the same time, and from such a capital, has not perhaps occurred in Europe during the course of the present century."
It mattered not whether the colonies should be reduced to obedience, or prove triumphant; the same theory of public economy, and the same argument, would be applicable, for the objects of British policy; and who will not believe, under all the circumstances, that the theory of Free Trade, which is allowed to have derived its grand impulse from the hand of Adam Smith, was framed, and the argument made, expressly for the case, under the advice of far-seeing British statesmanship? How, it may be asked, on any other hypothesis, could it have happened, that this
theory should have been so adroitly put forward in Great Britain three quarters of a century ago; how, otherwise, could it have happened that the argument should have been repeated and improved upon by her greatest writers, from that day to the present, calling upon all the world to adopt it, and yet that Great Britain herself should have gone steadily on in her old career, without relaxing her system of Protection a single whit? For, we have elsewhere shown, that such is the fact, not excepting even the pretended approximation to Free Trade, under the administration of Sir Robert Peel. Did the world ever witness such a spectacle of inconsistency, if it be supposed that this was not a profoundly devised state policy, putting in requisition, and keeping in employment, from age to age, the greatest literary talent of the empire?
From the time of Joshua Gee we hear no more from the mouths of British writers on public economy, of their going to their tasks "by order of the lords of trade." This would not do, after the policy of our hypothesis was adopted. When it was resolved to recommend Free Trade to the world, these connexions between the government and Free-Trade writers, were kept out of sight, as much as possible. Nevertheless, there are some facts, in the case of Adam Smith, bearing on this point, worthy of note. The motive proffered, to induce him to vacate his professor's chair, in the university of Glasgow, and travel with the young duke of Buccleugh on the continent, was, as stated in a note of Herron's Junius, "upon conditions which assured the philosopher an ample independence for his future life;" and the man who made this offer, was Charles Townsend, of whom the same authority says, " he was a man of splendid talents, of lax principles, and of boundless vanity and presumption. He had belonged to every party, and cared for none." He had been secretary at war under the Bute administration, and left the post with discredit. Under Lord Chatham he was chancellor of the exchequer; and under the duke of Grafton, he was one of the boldest advocates for the taxation of America. While he was a member of the administration, it is remarkable, that the sinecure place of "one of the commissioners of his majesty's customs in Scotland," was conferred upon Adam Smith, doubtless in part redemption of the pledge of "an ample independence for future life;" and this title of "commissioner, etc.," will be seen staring out on the titlepage of the early editions of the "Wealth of Nations," for gratitude, or ostentation, or both. That Adam Smith was a beneficiary of the British government, is evident enough; and
C. is the very first man I believe, who attempts to abback Senithy character.
OF THE THEORY OF FREE TRADE.
whether he was pensioned to indite matter at the bidding of mas-
Here, then, in the case of Adam Smith, who occupies the post
And how should it happen that nearly all British writers on this subject, from Adam Smith down to this time, and nearly or quite all the lecturers of the universities, and almost the entire periodical press, quarterlies, monthlies, weeklies, and dailies of Great Britain, should have become one solid phalanx of Free-Trade advocates, while the British government has practised nothing but Protection? This, certainly, is a very extraordinary spectacle. It is the instinct of the British nation, and nothing else—the instinct of selfpreservation and self-interest. It is their commercial and social position in relation to the rest of the world. They know that Free Trade practised everywhere else, and Protection practised only by themselves, are not only essential to their interests, but that it will bring the whole world, all nations, at their feet.
If it were possible to doubt this great conspiracy against mankind, from Adam Smith down to M'Culloch, the following extract from M'Culloch's own pen, in his Dictionary, proving at the same time his fidelity to his patrons, the British government, and his treason to all other nations, will be sufficient to settle the question:—
"Our establishments for spinning, weaving, printing, bleaching, &c., are infinitely more complete and perfect than any that exist elsewhere; the division of labor in them is carried to an incomparably greater extent; the workmen are trained from infancy to industrious habits, and have attained that peculiar dexterity and sleight of hand in the performance of their several tasks, that can only be attained by long and unremitted application to the same employment. Why, then, having all these advantages on our side, should we not keep the start we have gained? Every other people that attempt to set up manufactures must obviously labor under the greatest difficulties, as compared with us. Their establish
X. Of is always an assribute of the weak minded to beLeave in conspiracies, and to E exander fal plans where there
ments can not, at first, be sufficiently large to enable the division of employments to be carried to any considerable extent; at the same time that expertness in manipulation, and in the details of the various processes, can only be attained by slow degrees. It appears, therefore, reasonable to conclude, that such new beginners, having to withstand the competition of those who have already arrived at a very high degree of perfection in the art, must be immediately driven out of every market equally accessible to both parties; and that nothing but the aid derived from restrictive regulations and prohibitions, will be effectual to prevent the total destruction of their establishments," &c.
The passage in italics tells the story, and discloses the doom assigned to us, and to all nations, which adopt the Free Trade commended to them by the pensioned economists of Great Britain. And this the man, now extant, and rightful successor of the same class, in the line from Adam Smith, who, from his pulpit in London, preaches Free Trade to all the world, as the gospel of the Gentiles, but designed only to save the Jews. He testifies to his brethren, sub rosa, as above, that it will save no others, and that all nations, except the British empire, will be lost by it.
The motive of the British government, for such a systematic and stupendous fraud, as is here supposed, was a potent one: It was to become the richest nation in the world—in that way, the most powerful—and to maintain that ascendency.
It may be true, that the argument of this chapter impeaches the discernment of some portion of the American mind, of which one could wish to think better. That so many learned doctors and statesmen could have fallen so easily into this snare, may, at first sight, seem strange. But a moment's reflection will show, that it is not at all strange. The stratagem would never have succeeded, if it had not been planned to catch them. Public economy, as all must feel, who shall have attentively followed us through this volume, is one of the profoundest subjects, of an earthly origin, that ever engaged the human mind. It is but recently, compared with the history of most of the sciences, that it has set up a claim to be one of them. It can scarcely be said, indeed, that this claim was urgently insisted upon, till the hatching of the British state policy which is alleged above. It was meet, for the purpose in view, that it should assume this elevated and commanding position, to excite deference and respect, as a mere pretension. Such claims as these are not usually scrutinized at once, when they make a descent upon