list1-第11节

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