Chapter 27 Foreign imports of goods that can be produced domestically

By restricting, by high duties or absolute prohibitions, the importation from foreign countries of those goods which are capable of being produced at home, the domestic industries engaged in the production of these goods may more or less secure the monopoly of the home market.For example, as a result of the ban on the importation of live animals and preserved food from foreign countries, English cattlemen secured the monopoly of the domestic meat market.A high duty upon the importation of corn gives the same advantage to the producers of corn, as a high duty upon the importation of corn at a time of general abundance is tantamount to prohibiting its importation.The prohibition of the importation of foreign woolen goods has likewise favored the woolen manufactures.The same advantage has lately been obtained in the manufacture of silks, though the materials used are entirely of foreign origin.The linen manufacture has not yet achieved such benefits, but is making great strides towards it.There are many other kinds of manufactures which have likewise acquired wholly, or very nearly, monopolies in Great Britain to the disadvantage of their countrymen.The importation of the goods which Great Britain absolutely prohibits, or under certain conditions, is of such great variety that a person not well acquainted with the laws of customs duties can scarcely guess it.

This monopoly of the domestic market often gives great encouragement to the various industries enjoying the monopoly, and often causes a greater part of the labor and capital of the society to be diverted to this direction, there is no doubt. .But whether this measure will enhance all the industries of the community, or direct them in the most favorable direction, is perhaps not very evident. The total industry of a society can never exceed what the capital of the society can sustain.Just as any individual man must be able to employ a number of workers in some proportion to his capital, so must all the members of a great society continue to employ a number of workers in some proportion to the whole capital of that society, never exceed this ratio.No regulation of commerce can cause any society to increase the quantity of industry beyond what its capital can sustain.It can only turn a part of industries that were not included in a certain direction to this direction.Whether this artificial direction is more beneficial to society than the natural one is not certain.

Every individual is constantly striving to find the most profitable employment for the capital at his disposal.It is true that he does not consider the interest of the society, but his own, but his study of his own interest will naturally, or rather necessarily lead him to choose the use which is most beneficial to the society. In the first place, every one desires to invest his capital as near as possible to his native land, and consequently employs it as far as possible in the maintenance of domestic industry, if in so doing he obtains the ordinary profits of capital, or very little less than the ordinary profits. limited profit.

If, therefore, the profits were equal, or nearly equal, every wholesale merchant would naturally prefer a domestic trade to a foreign trade in consumer goods, and a foreign trade in consumer goods to a conveyance trade.When investing in foreign trade of consumer goods, the capital is often not under its own supervision, but the capital invested in domestic trade is often under its own supervision.He is better acquainted with the character and position of those in whom he trusts, and, if he happens to be deceived, has a clearer understanding of the laws of his country under which he must obtain compensation.As regards the transport trade, the merchant's capital may be said to be dispersed in two foreign countries, and no part is necessary to be brought back to his own country, nor is any part subject to his personal supervision and control.For example, an Amsterdam merchant who ships corn from Königsberg to Lisbon, and fruit and wine from Lisbon to Königsberg, must generally invest half his capital in Königsberg and the other half in Lisbon.No part needs to flow into Amsterdam.Such a merchant should naturally live in Königsberg or Lisbon, and only some very special circumstances would make him choose Amsterdam as his residence.However, his uneasiness at being far from his capital often prompted him to send a part of the Knigsberg cargo that would have gone to Lisbon, and the Lisbon cargo that was destined for Knigsberg, without double charges of loading and unloading, and without tax and duty. Paid, shipped to Amsterdam.He voluntarily pays this special expense for the personal supervision and control of certain parts of the capital.It is also due to this circumstance that the country which carries a considerable share of the trade is often the central or general market for the goods of all countries with which it trades.In order to avoid the expense of a second loading and unloading, merchants have always endeavored, as far as possible, to sell the goods of various countries in their own market, and thereby, as far as possible, convert the conveyance trade into a foreign trade in consumer goods.In the same way, a merchant who trades abroad in consumer goods, when he collects his goods to be shipped to foreign markets, will always be willing to sell at home as much of the goods as he can, at an equal or almost equal profit.As he thus converts, as far as possible, his foreign trade in consumer goods into a domestic trade, he avoids the risk and trouble of exporting.Thus, if I may say so, the own country is always the center around which the capitals of the inhabitants of each country constantly circulate and are constantly tending, although for special reasons these capitals are sometimes driven out of that center and are placed in more distant places. use.I have shown, however, that the capital employed in the domestic trade will tend to set in motion a greater quantity of domestic industry, and enable a greater number of the inhabitants of the country to derive income therefrom, than an equal amount of capital invested in the foreign trade of consumer goods. and job opportunities.The capital employed in the foreign trade of consumer goods has the same advantage over an equal capital invested in the conveyance trade.With equal or nearly equal profits, therefore, each individual will naturally employ his capital in such a way as to give the greatest aid to domestic industry, and to secure income and employment to as many inhabitants of the country as possible.

Secondly, Every individual who employs his stock in the support of a domestic industry, must endeavor to direct that industry, so that its produce may be of the greatest possible value. The result of labor is what it adds to its object, or to the raw material on which it is labored.The magnitude of the laborer's profit is in proportion to the magnitude of the value of the produce.But he who employs his capital to support an industry, with profit as his sole object, will naturally endeavor to make the produce of the industry which he supports with his capital the greatest possible value, that is to say, exchangeable for the largest quantity of money or other goods.

But the annual revenue of every society is always exactly equal to the exchange value of the whole annual produce of its industry, or rather exactly the same thing as that exchange value.As every individual, therefore, endeavors to employ as much as possible his capital in support of domestic industry, and to manage it in such a manner that the value of its produce may be as high as possible, he must endeavor to maximize the annual revenue of the community. .Indeed, he generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows to what extent he himself promotes that interest.As he prefers to invest in the support of domestic industry rather than foreign industry, he thinks only of his own safety; and as he manages industry in such a way as to maximize the value of its produce, he thinks only of his own interest.On this occasion, as on many others, he was directed by an invisible hand to endeavor to achieve an end which he had not intended to achieve.Nor is it harmful to society just because something is not intended.The pursuit of his own interest often enables him to promote the interest of the society more effectually than he really intends to promote.I have never heard how much good is done by those who pretend to trade for the public happiness.As a matter of fact, such affectation is not common among merchants, and it is not necessary to try to dissuade them.

As to what kind of domestic industry a capital may be employed, and whose produce can be of the greatest value, each man in his local position can evidently judge much better than a statesman or legislator.If statesmen attempt to direct private persons how their capital should be employed, they are not only troubling themselves to attend to the least of attention, but they are assuming a policy which cannot be safely entrusted to any individual nor to any individual. Powers of a Committee or Senate.Nothing could be more dangerous than to entrust such power to a man who so arrogantly and absurdly thinks he is entitled to it.

To monopolize the domestic market of the produce of any particular art or manufacture of a domestic industry is to direct in some measure how private persons should employ their capital, and such control must almost invariably be useless or injurious.Such controls are evidently useless if the produce of the domestic industry is as cheap in the home market as that of the foreign industry.If the price cannot be kept equally low, the regulation must, generally speaking, be injurious.If a thing costs less to buy than it costs to make at home, one will never want to make it at home, is the adage every savvy parent knows.A tailor does not want to make his own shoes, but buys them from a shoemaker.The shoemaker does not want to make his own clothes, but hires a tailor to make them.Farmers don't want to sew clothes or make shoes, but rather hire those different craftsmen to do it.They all feel that it is for their own advantage to concentrate all their energies on some advantage to their neighbours, and to buy what they have at the price of a part, or the same thing, a part, of the produce of their labour. Any other items needed.

What is shrewd in the conduct of every private family is seldom absurd in the conduct of a great state.If foreign countries can supply us with goods cheaper than we can make them ourselves, we had better buy from them a part of the goods which we profitably employ our own industry to produce.The general labor of a country, being always in proportion to the capital which sustains its industry, can never be diminished by it, any more than the labor of the artisans mentioned above is diminished, but left to find the most advantageous employment at will.It is certainly not the most profitable use of labour, when employed in the production of commodities which are cheaper to buy than to produce.Labor thus diverted from the production of commodities which are manifestly more valuable than this, must, in some measure, detract from the value of its annual produce.It is supposed that such commodities are cheaper to buy from foreign countries than to manufacture them at home.Therefore, if left to itself, only a part of the commodity produced at home, or a part of its price, can be bought by employing labor with an equal amount of capital.Hence, as a result of the above-mentioned regulations, the labor of the state is diverted from a more favorable to a less favorable employment.The exchange value of its annual produce, instead of increasing at the will of the legislator, must decrease.

It is true, that by means of such controls a particular manufacture is sometimes more rapidly established than it could have been otherwise, and after some time the particular commodity can be made at home at the same or less cost.The labor of the society, however, may, by this regulation, be more rapidly diverted to some advantageous particular use, but neither the total quantity of labor nor revenue can thereby be increased.Social labor can only increase proportionally with the increase of social capital; how much social capital increases depends only on how much society can gradually save in social income.And the immediate result of such a regulation is the reduction of the income of the community, and any measure which reduces the income of the community will not necessarily increase the capital of the society rapidly; which will increase rapidly if capital and labor are left to find natural employments. .

Without that regulation, though the particular manufacture could not have been established in the society, it would not have been the poorer by it at any period of its development.At all periods of the development of this society, the whole of its capital and labor may, though employed in different objects, be employed in the most expedient employment at that time.At all times its revenue may be the greatest that capital can afford, and capital and revenue may increase with the greatest possible speed. Sometimes a country has such a natural advantage in the production of particular commodities that the whole world considers it futile to struggle against it.By glazing, hotbeds, and warm walls, Scotland can also grow excellent grapes, and make excellent wines, at about thirty times the cost of wines of at least the same good quality that can be purchased abroad.Is it reasonable to prohibit the importation of all foreign wines by law, simply to reward the production of Bordeaux and Bougondi in Scotland?But if it were obviously unreasonable for Scotland not to purchase from foreign countries a certain quantity of wine which it required, but to employ thirty times as much stock and labor in its manufacture as it would require, then the capital and labor employed , just one-thirtieth more, or even one-thirty-hundredth more, is also unreasonable. Although the degree of unreasonableness is not so alarming, it is completely unreasonable.Whether the superiority of one country over another is inherent, or acquired later, is of little importance in this respect.As long as country A has this advantage and country B does not have this advantage, it is always more beneficial for country B to buy from country A than to manufacture by itself.The superiority of the craftsmen of one art over the other was acquired only later, but both of them considered it more advantageous to exchange each other's products than to manufacture them themselves. It is the merchants and manufacturers who derive the greatest advantage from the monopoly of the domestic market.The prohibition of the importation of foreign cattle and pickles, and the imposition of high duties on foreign corn, amounted, in years of good abundance, to the English herdsman and farmer, but not so much as the merchant and manufacturer would have benefited from similar restraints.Manufactures, especially those of fine manufacture, are more easily transported from one country to another than corn and cattle.Therefore, foreign trade usually takes the sale of manufactured goods as its main business.A small interest in manufactures, even in the home market, will enable foreigners to sell at a lower price than the produce of our labourers.But this cannot be done without a great advantage in the native produce of the land.If under these circumstances the free importation of foreign manufactures were allowed, some of the domestic manufactures might be injured, and some might be completely destroyed, with the result that a great part of capital and labor would be removed from their present employment, and forced to Find other uses.But the freest importation of the native produce of the land cannot have such an influence on the agriculture of the country. For example, even if the importation of livestock had become so free, so little could have been imported, and it had had little effect on the British cattle industry.Live livestock is probably the only commodity that is more expensive to transport by sea than by land.Because livestock can walk, livestock can carry themselves when transported by land.But by sea, not only the cattle, but also their food and drink, are transported, at great expense and trouble.The short sea distance between Ireland and Great Britain makes the importation of Irish cattle easier.The importation of Irish cattle has of late been permitted only for a limited period, but it would not greatly affect the interests of the British herdsmen if they were allowed to be permanently imported freely.All that part of Britain near the Irish Sea is pasture land.The imported Irish cattle have to be driven over great distances, at great expense and trouble, to their proper market.Fat livestock cannot travel so far, so only lean livestock can be imported. This import will not harm the interests of the places where the livestock are raised or fattened, because it reduces the value of the lean livestock, so it is beneficial to these places. Such input will only harm the interests of the breeding places.The fact that Irish cattle have been brought in little since their importation was permitted, and that thin cattle are still sold at a high price, seems to prove that even the breeding-countries of Britain are not much affected by the free importation of Irish cattle.The common people of Ireland, it is said, sometimes opposed violently the exportation of cattle.But if the exporters felt that they had a great interest in continuing to export cattle, they could easily overcome the opposition of the Irish masses when the law supported them. Besides, cattle and fattening lands are necessarily much improved lands, while breeding lands are generally uncultivated.To raise the price of lean cattle, by increasing the value of uncultivated land, is nothing less than a bounty against improvement.Where the whole country has been greatly improved, it is more advantageous to import lean cattle than to breed them.Therefore, what is now the Netherlands is said to believe in this principle.The hills of Scotland, Wales, and Northumberland are places which cannot be greatly improved, and which seem destined by nature to be the stockyards of Britain.The free importation of foreign cattle has had no effect but to prevent these places from taking advantage of the increasing population and improvement of the rest of the United Kingdom, that is, to raise the price of cattle to very high prices, and to prevent comparisons of improved and cultivated lands at home. The local tax is a real tax. Like live cattle, the freest importation of pickles could not much affect the interest of the British herdsmen.Pickled food, not only is a heavy commodity, but is of inferior quality, and more expensive, by reason of the greater labor and expense involved, when compared with fresh meat.Therefore, although this pickled food can compete with the pickled food of the country, it must not compete with the fresh meat of the country.Although it can be used as food on ocean-going ships, and the like, it does not account for a large part of people's food.The fact that, since the free importation of pickles was supposed to have been permitted, the importation of pickles from Ireland has not been great, is evidence that the cattlemen of our country have nothing to fear from this free importation.The price of livestock does not seem to have been appreciably affected by it. Even the importation of foreign corn has little effect on the interest of the British farmers.Grain is a much bulkier commodity than livestock meat.Meat at fourpence a pound costs as much as wheat at a pound.The fact that even in times of great famine the importation of foreign corn is insignificant may assuage our peasants' fears of the free importation of foreign corn.According to the papers of well-informed students of the corn trade, the average annual importation of all kinds of corn amounted to but 23,728 quarters, or one-571th part of the consumption of the country.But as corn bounties in good years lead to an output in excess of what the actual state of cultivation would allow, so in lean years they must necessarily lead to an import in excess of what the actual state of cultivation would allow.In this way, a good harvest this year cannot compensate for a poor harvest next year.As the average output must be augmented by this bounty, so the average import must be augmented by it more than the actual state of cultivation would require.If there had been no bounty, less corn would be exported, and therefore perhaps less imported, on an annual average, than at present.The corn merchants, that is to say, the traffickers of corn between England and other countries, will lose much business by it, and suffer very much, but so far as the squires and farmers are concerned, the losses are very limited, and I have said that a bounty system is most desirable It is not the squires and farmers who carry on the practice, but the corn merchants. It is a great honor to the squire and the farmer, of all peoples, to be among the least despicably possessive.The proprietor of a large manufacturing plant is sometimes alarmed when he discovers that another plant of the same kind has been built within twenty miles of him.The Dutch, who carried on the woolen manufactures in Abbeville, ordered that no factories of the kind should be built within sixty miles of that town.Farmers and gentry, on the other hand, are generally willing to promote, rather than prevent, the cultivation and improvement of neighboring farms.Most manufactures have secrets to keep, but they have none, and if they discover a new and advantageous method, they are generally glad to tell their neighbors about it, and to spread it as far as possible.Old Cato once said: Pius Questus, stabilissimusque, minimeque invidiosus; minimeque malecogitantes sunt, qui in eo studio occupati sunt. (This is the most esteemed profession, and those who are engaged in it live the most stable lives, are least hated, and are least dissatisfied.) Squires and farmers, scattered throughout the country, are not easy to combine However, merchants and manufacturers live together in the city and are easy to combine.They are all infected with the habit of franchise associations prevalent in the cities. They generally obtain exclusive privileges that violate the interests of the residents of each city, and naturally try their best to obtain exclusive privileges that violate the interests of all fellow countrymen.The method of securing the monopoly of the domestic market and of limiting the importation of foreign goods appears to have been their invention.Squires and farmers, forgetting the magnanimity due to their own position, arose to claim a monopoly in the supply of corn and butcher's meat, perhaps in imitation of the merchant and manufacturer, and, as they intended to oppress themselves, to stand on an equal footing with them. .As to the fact that free trade affects their interests much less than that of merchants and manufacturers, they have perhaps not taken time to consider. The prohibition of the importation of corn and cattle by permanent laws is, in effect, a regulation that the population and industry of a country should never exceed what can be sustained by the native produce of the country's land. But it seems generally only in two cases to be expedient to impose some burden upon foreign industry, in order to reward domestic industry. First, certain industries are necessary for national defense.The national defense of Great Britain, for example, is largely determined by the number of sailors and ships it has.The laws of navigation of Great Britain, therefore, of course endeavor to keep the national shipping monopolized by the native seamen and ships, either by the absolute prohibition or by the heavy taxation of foreign shipping.The regulations of the navigation law are roughly as follows: 1. The owner, captain and three-quarters of the crew of any ship that trades with the British settlements and colonies or trades along the coast of Great Britain must be British subjects. Offenders will confiscate the ship and its cargo. 2. There are many very large imports which can only be imported into Great Britain by ships of the above-mentioned class, or by ships of the country from which the commodity originates, whose owner, captain, and three-quarters of the crew are nationals of that country, but by ships of the latter class, Alien tax must be doubled.If imported by another ship, the penalty is confiscation of the ship and its cargo.When this decree was issued, the Dutch were the great carriers in Europe, and they are still the great carriers in Europe.But after this decree was promulgated, they could no longer act as carriers for Great Britain, and could no longer import goods from other European countries into our country. 3. There are many very large imports that can only be imported by ships from the country of origin. Even the use of British ships is prohibited. Violators will confiscate the ship and its cargo.This regulation may also be specially designed for the Dutch.Holland was then, as it is now, a great market for all sorts of European goods, and by this regulation English ships could not set off in Holland for the goods of any other country in Europe. 4. All kinds of pickled fish, whalebone, whale fin, whale oil, and blubber, which are not caught and prepared by British ships, are subject to double the foreigner's tax when imported into Britain.At that time, the only people in Europe who provided fishing to other countries were the Dutch, and it is still mainly the Dutch.With this regulation, they would have to pay a very heavy tax on the supply of fish to England. When the Act of Navigation was enacted, although Britain and the Netherlands were not actually at war, the hatred between the two countries had reached its peak.This enmity had begun during the long parliamentary reign which enacted this law, and soon broke out in the Dutch wars of the Cromwells and Charles II.Therefore, it is not impossible to say that several items of this famous decree are based on ethnic hatred.But these entries are as sensible as the results of deliberation.The national animosity of the time, aimed at weakening the only Dutch naval power which might endanger the security of England, was just as the most sober deliberation could conceive. The laws of navigation are unfavorable to foreign commerce, that is, to the wealth increased by it.In the commercial relations of a country to foreign countries, as in the relations of an individual merchant to those with whom he deals, it is advantageous to buy cheap and sell dear.But a country is most likely to have an opportunity of buying cheap when there is perfect freedom of trade, which encourages all nations to send to it what it wants.For the same reason, it is also most likely to sell dearly, because buyers congregate in its market, and the price of goods may be raised as high as possible.The Act of Navigation, it is true, imposes no duty on foreign ships which come to England to export British produce.Even the foreigner's tax, which was usually levied on exported and imported goods in the past, will no longer be required to be paid on most of the exported goods due to certain subsequent laws and regulations.But all this is not enough to lessen the injurious tendencies of the laws of navigation to foreign commerce.If foreigners are prohibited by us or charged high tariffs by us, they cannot come here to sell, nor can they come here to buy.Foreigners who come to our country empty-shipped to load must lose the fare of the passage from their country to Great Britain.So reducing the number of sellers means reducing the number of buyers.Thus we not only buy foreign goods more dearly, but sell our own goods cheaper than when trade was perfectly free.But, as national defense is so much more important than national wealth, the laws of navigation are perhaps the wisest of all English commerce regulations. The second occasion when it is generally advantageous to impose some burden upon foreign industry, in order to reward domestic industry, is when the domestic produce is levied at home.In this case, it seems reasonable also to impose the same tax upon the like produce of foreign countries.This method will not give to domestic industry the monopoly of the home market, nor will it bring into any particular use more stock and labor than would naturally flow into it.The effect of the taxation is merely to divert any part of the stock and labor which would have been directed to this use, from the less natural ones, while the domestic and foreign industries, after the taxation, can still be kept under about the same conditions as they were before the taxation. compete with each other.In Great Britain, when such duties are imposed on the produce of domestic industry, much higher duties are generally imposed upon the importation of foreign commodities of the same kind, lest the domestic merchants and manufacturers should complain noisily that they It's going to be sold cheap in the country. Concerning this second restriction of free trade, it has been thought that, in some cases, it should not be confined to those foreign commodities which are imported into the country, and compete with those with which it is taxed, but should be extended to a large number of foreign commodities.If the necessaries of life, they say, are taxed at home, it is justified not only to tax the same necessaries imported from foreign countries, but also to tax every foreign commodity imported into the country, which competes with the produce of any industry of that country.Such taxation, they say, must necessarily raise the price of subsistence, and as the result of the raising of the price of the labourer's subsistence, the price of labour.The prices of every commodity, therefore, produced by the industry of the country, which are not directly taxed, will all be raised by this taxation, because the price of the labor which produces them will rise.This taxation, they say, though only upon the necessaries of life, amounts to a tax on all the produce of the country.They hold that, in order to place domestic industry on an equal footing with foreign industry, any foreign commodity imported into this country, which competes with any of its own, must be taxed in proportion to the increase in the price of the domestic commodity. Whether taxes on the necessaries of life, such as those in England on lime, salt, hides, candles, etc., necessarily raise the price of labour, and consequently of all other commodities, I shall examine later, when I consider taxes.But assuming, however, that this tax has this effect (as it undoubtedly has), the general rise of the prices of all commodities thus caused by the rise of the price of labour, is as follows, and the rise of particular commodities by direct imposition of special taxes The situation is different. First, How far this particular tax will raise the price of a particular commodity can always be determined with great accuracy.But the extent to which a general rise in the price of labour, may affect the prices of the various produce of labour, cannot be determined with any degree of exactness.It cannot, therefore, be done with any degree of exactness in imposing duties on every foreign commodity in proportion to the rise in the price of each domestic commodity. Secondly, Taxes on the necessaries of life have about the same effect upon the condition of the people as poor soil and unfavorable climate.Bread has therefore become more expensive than it was before, just as it requires extraordinary labor and expense to produce it in poor soil and unfavorable climate.It is unreasonable to instruct a people how to employ their capital and labor when soil and climate cause natural want; .It is evident that in both cases it is in the best interest of the people to adapt them as far as possible to their circumstances, and to find an employment for their labour, which, under unfavorable circumstances, may enable them to occupy a somewhat superior position in the domestic or foreign market. .To impose a new tax on them, to whom their tax burden is already too heavy, and to require them to pay an exorbitant price for the necessaries of life, as well as to pay an exorbitant price for most of the other goods, is certainly the least desirable remedy. reasonable. Such taxes, when they reach a certain height, do as much harm as those of poor soil and bad weather.But it is the wealthiest and most industrious countries where such taxes are most commonly imposed.No other country can afford such a big chaos.Only the strongest bodies can live and be in good health under an unwholesome diet, so only a nation which has the greatest inherent and after-acquired advantages in every industry can exist and prosper under such taxes.The country in Europe with the greatest taxation of this kind is Holland, and Holland continues to prosper not because of this kind of taxation, as it is unreasonable to imagine, but because of special circumstances in Holland which make it impossible prevent its continued prosperity. In the two cases above mentioned, it is generally advantageous to impose some burden on foreign industry, in order to reward domestic industry, but in the following two cases, there is room for consideration. (1) In one case, to what extent it is proper to continue to permit the free importation of certain foreign goods; Afterwards, it is appropriate to resume free input. The extent to which it is proper to continue to permit the free importation of certain foreign commodities has sometimes come to be considered, when a foreign country, by high duties or prohibitions, restricts the importation into that country of certain manufactures of ours.On this occasion vengeance naturally drives us to vengeance, and we impose the same duties on some or all of their manufactures, or prohibit their importation into our country.States usually retaliate in this way.The French, in order to protect their own manufactures, are especially fond of restricting the importation of all foreign commodities which can compete with them.That appears to be much of Colbert's policy.Colbert, not small in talent, seems here to be deceived by the sophistry of merchants and manufacturers, who are always claiming a monopoly that is injurious to their fellow men.The best minds in France now think that his behavior is not good for France.This minister promulgated the Tariff Act in 1667, imposing extremely high duties on most foreign manufactures.The Dutch were unable to request a reduction in tariffs. In 1671, the import of French wine, brandy and manufactured goods was prohibited.The war of 1672 was partly due to this commercial dispute.In 1678, the Nimeg Peace Treaty granted the Dutch request to reduce these tariffs, and the Dutch then withdrew the import ban.England and France began at about the same time to oppress each other's industries by the same high tariffs and prohibitions, but it seems that France was the first to do so.The animosity that has existed since then has prevented them from reducing tariffs.In 1697, Britain banned the import of twist lace made in Flanders.The government of Flanders, then a Spanish dominion, prohibited the importation of English woolen goods in retaliation.In 1700, England withdrew its ban on the importation of Flemish lace, on the condition that Flanders withdraw its ban on the importation of British woolen fabrics. A policy of retaliation for the repeal of a high tariff or prohibition which is condemned is a good policy if it achieves the purpose of repeal.Generally speaking, the restoration of large foreign markets more than offsets the temporary difficulties incurred by the temporary high prices of certain articles.To judge whether this revenge will produce that effect, requires less the knowledge of the legislator than the skill of the so-called negotiator or statesman, for the considerations of the legislator are to be guided by immutable general principles, And the considerations of the cunning animal, the worldly so-called statesman or statesman, are at the mercy of the temporary vicissitudes of events.在沒有撤銷這種禁令的可能性的時候，為了要賠償我國某些階級人民所受的損害，再由我們自己來傷害我們的利益，不僅傷害那些階級的利益而且傷害幾乎一切其他階級的利益，似乎不是一個好辦法。在我們鄰國禁止我國某種製造品時，我們通常不但禁止他們同種製造品，而且禁止他們其他幾種製造品，因為僅僅前者，很少能繪他們以顯著的影響。這無疑可給我國某些部門的工人以鼓勵，替他們排除了一些競爭者，使他們能在國內市場上抬高他們的價格。不過，因鄰國禁令而蒙受損害的那些我國工人，決不會從我國的禁令得到利益。反之，他們以及我國幾乎所有其他階級人民，在購買某些貨物時，都不得不支付比從前更為昂貴的價格。所以，像這一類的法律，對全國課了真實的稅，受益的不是受鄰國禁令之害的那一階級工人，卻是另一階級人民。 在外國貨物的自由輸入已經中斷若干時候以後，使在什麼程度上或使用什麼方式來恢復自由輸入才適當成為一個也許是值得深思的問題的場合是，本國的某些製造業，由於一切能和它們的製造品競爭的外國貨物，都課有高關稅或被禁止輸入而擴大起來，能僱用許許多多工人的時候。在這場合，人道主義也許要求，只能一步一步地、小心翼翼地恢復自由貿易。如果驟然撤廢高關稅與禁止，較低廉的同種類外國貨物，即將迅速流入國內市場，把我國千千萬萬人民的日常職業與生活資料奪去。由此而起的混亂，當然很大。但依據下達二個理由，這混亂也許比一般所想像的小得多。 第一，無獎勵金通常亦可輸出到歐洲其他各國的製造品，都不會受到外國商品自由輸入的大影響。這種製造品，輸往外國，其售價必與同品質同種類的其他外國商品同樣低廉。因此，在國內，其售價目必較低廉，因而仍能控制國內市場。即使有一些愛時髦的人，有時只因為是外國貨，便愛好起來，本國製造的同種類貨物，雖價廉物美，亦為他們所不取，然而這種愚行，總不會那麼普及，所以對人民一般職業沒有顯著的影響。我國毛織品製造業、鞍皮業、鐵器業中，即有很大一部分製造品，每年不依賴獎勵金而輸往歐洲其他各國，而僱用職工最多的製造業，亦就是這幾種製造業。從自由貿易受到最大損害的，也許是絲製造業，其次是麻布製造業，但後者所受損失比前者少得多。 第二，這樣恢復貿易自由，雖將使許多人民突然失去他們通常的職業和普通的謀生方法，但他們不會因此而失業或無生計。上次戰爭結束時，海陸軍裁減了十萬以上，所減人數等於大的製造業所僱用的人數，他們頓時失去了他們平素的職業，無疑會感到困難，但他們並不因此便被剝奪了一切職業與生計。水兵的較大部分也許逐漸轉移到商船上去服務，在這當中，被遣散的海陸軍兵士，都被吸收在廣大的人民群眾中，受雇於各種職業。十萬多慣於使用武器，而且其中有許多慣於劫掠的人，他們的位置起了那麼大的變化，卻不曾引起大的動亂，也不曾引起顯著的混亂。任何地方，流氓的數目並未因此而顯著增加，而且，據我所知，除了商船海員外，無論何種職業的勞動工資也未曾減少。要是我們比較兵士和任何種類製造業工人的習慣，我們就可發現，後者改業的可能性比前者大，因為兵士一向賴餉給為生，而製造業工人則專賴自身勞動為生。前者習於怠惰與閒蕩，後者習於勤勉與刻苦。由一種辛勤勞動改為另一種辛勤勞動，當然比由怠惰閒蕩改為勤勞容易得多。此外，我曾說過，大部分製造業，都有性質相似的旁系製造業，所以，工人很容易從這些製造業的一種轉到另一種。而且這類工人的大部分，有時還被雇從事農村勞動。以前在特定製造業上僱用他們的資財，仍將留在國內，按另一個方式，僱用同數的人。國家的資本和從前相同，勞動的需要也和從前相同，或大致相同，不過是在不同地方和不同職業上使用。誠然，海陸軍士兵如被遣散，有在不列顛或愛爾蘭任何都市或任何地方操任何職業的自由。讓我們恢復國王陛下的一切臣民有選擇任何職業的天賦自由，像海陸軍士兵所享受的那樣，換言之，摧毀同業組合的專營的特權、撤廢學徒法令（這二者都是對天賦自由的實際侵害），再撤廢居住法，使貧窮工人在此他此業失了業的，能在被地彼業就業，無須擔心已被人檢舉，亦無須擔心被迫遷移，這樣社會與個人，由於某特定製造業工人的偶然遣散而蒙受的損害，就不會大於他們從士兵的遣散所遭受的損害。我國的製造業工人，無疑對國家有很大的功績，但和以血肉保衛國家的那些人相比，他們的功績就顯得小，對於他們，用不著有更好的待遇。 不能期望自由貿易在不列顛完全恢復，正如不能期望理想島或烏托邦在不列顛設立一樣。不僅公眾的偏見，還有更難克服的許多個人的私利，是自由貿易完全恢復的不可抗拒的阻力。如果軍隊的將校，都像製造業者反對在國內市場增加競爭者人數的法律那樣激烈和那樣一致地反對縮小兵力，都像製造業者鼓動他們工人，以暴力攻擊這種法律的提議者那樣激烈和那樣一致地鼓動他們的士兵，以暴力攻擊縮減兵力的提議者，那末要想縮編軍隊，正如現在想在任何方面減縮我國製造業者既得的危害我們同胞的獨佔權同樣危險。這種獨佔權，已經在那麼大的程度上增加了某些製造業的人數，他們像一個過於龐大的常備軍一樣，不但可以脅迫政府，而且往往可以脅迫立法機關。贊助加強此種獨佔權提案的國會議員，不僅可獲得理解貿易的佳譽，而且可在那一個以人數眾多和財富龐大而占重要地位的階級中，受到歡迎與擁護。反之，要是他反對這類提案，要是他有阻止這類提案的權力，那末，即使他被公認是最正直的人，有最高的地位，有最大的社會功績，恐仍不免受最不名譽的侮辱與誹謗，不免受人身的攻擊，而且有時有實際的危險，因為憤怒和失望的獨佔者，有時會以無理的暴行，加害於他。 大製造業經營者，如果由於在國內市場上突然遇到了外國人競爭，不得不放棄原業，其損失當然不小。通常用來購買材料支付工資的那一部分資本，要另覓用途，也許不會十分困難。但固定在工廠及職業用具上的那一部分資本，其處置卻不免造成相當大的損失。對於他們的利益，公平的考慮，要求這種變革不要操之過急，而要徐緩地、逐漸地，在發出警告很久以後實行。要是立法機關的考慮，不為片面利益的吵吵嚷嚷的要求所左右，而為普遍幸福的廣大見地所指導，那末它為此要特別小心，不建立任何新的這一類獨佔，也不推廣已經建立的獨佔。這樣的法規，在一定程度上給國家帶來紊亂，而後來的救濟，也難免引起另一種紊亂。 至於在什麼程度上，可對外國商品輸入課稅，不是為著防止輸入，而是為著籌集政府收入，那是我以後考察賦稅時所要考察的問題。但為防止輸入，甚或為減少輸入而設的稅，顯然是既破壞貿易自由，也破壞關稅收入的。第三章論對其貿