make than to buy. Each individual avails himself of the peculiar productive powers and capacities of every other individual. The tailor, as Dr Smith has remarked, does not attempt to make his own shoes, but buys them from the shoemaker. The shoemaker, on his part, does not attempt to make his own clothes, but employs a tailor. And the farmer makes neither the one nor the other, but exchanges his corn and cattle for the clothes and shoes of these artificers. In all civilized societies, each individual finds it for his advantage to employ his industry in some particular business; and to exchange a part of his peculiar produce for such parts of the produce of the industry of others as he may have occasion for. And it is certainly no easy matter to discover why that conduct which is universally admitted to be wise and proper in individuals, should be foolish and absurd in the case of a state,—that is, in the case of the total number of individuals inhabiting a particular tract of country!

It must be remembered that the utmost freedom of commerce will not enable foreigners to supply us with those commodities that can be as cheaply produced here as in other countries. Home producers have always great advantages over foreigners. The price of their commodities is not enhanced by the expence of conveyance from distant countries; and they are intimately and familiarly acquainted with the language, laws, fashions, and credit of those with whom they deal. A foreigner is deprived of almost all these advantages-advantages with which nothing

but the comparative cheapness of his goods could ever enable him to contend. But if a foreigner can supply us with any article cheaper than we can raise it at home, why should we not buy it from him? Why should we not extend the same principle to foreigners we find so extremely advantageous in conducting our intercourse with our next neighbours? Though our ports were open for the reception of all the commodities of all the commercial nations in the world, it is certain no one would purchase any portion of them unless he found it for his advantage, that is, unless he obtained the article purchased from the foreigners by a less sacrifice than he could have obtained it for from his own countrymen. And it is obvious, that, in allowing this purchase to be made, or this intercourse to take place, we not only allow our own citizens to buy the goods which they want in the cheapest market, but we also allow them to sell their own goods in the dearest market, or to exchange them where they get the greatest quantity of other produce in their stead.

It has been said, and I believe truly, that, had it not been for restrictions on importation, several manufactures that now furnish employment to a considerable population, would most probably never have had any existence amongst us. But, while I admit this statement, I deny that it forms any valid objection to the principles now laid down. It is just as little for the interest of nations as of individuals to engage indiscriminately in every possible employment. The grand principle of the division of

labour ought to be equally respected by communities as by single families. Every people will always find it for their advantage to addict themselves in preference to those branches of industry in which they have a superiority over others. For it is by this means only that they can ever fully avail themselves of the peculiar capacities of production given to each particular nation, and that their capital, and the labour of their husbandmen and artizans, can be rendered most efficient.

It is most certainly true, that, after a restrictive and artificial system has been long acted upon, its abolition must necessarily be productive of considerable embarrassment and hardship to individuals: And for this reason, no wise, just, and liberal government will ever rashly adopt any measure, however expedient and proper in itself, that might have the im mediate effect to injure a considerable class of its subjects. Every change in the public economy of a great nation ought to be cautiously and gradually effected. Those who have capital employed in businesses, carried on under the protection of a restrictive regulation, ought to be afforded a reasonable time, and every facility, either to withdraw entirely from their businesses, or to prepare to withstand the free competition of foreigners. But this is all they can justly claim. The fact of our having departed, on one or more occasions, from the sound principle of the freedom of industry, can never be alleged as a sufficient reason why we should obstinately persevere in a course of policy which has been ascertained to be

LR

most inimical to the public interests, or why we should refuse to avail ourselves of the earliest opportunity of reverting to a better system. To act on such a principle would be to perpetuate the worst errors and absurdities, and would be a proceeding utterly inconsistent with all the ends and objects of government.

It is abundantly certain, too, that the loss and inconvenience that must always follow the exchange of an exclusive for a liberal commercial system, have been very greatly exaggerated. But, whatever might be the case in this respect in other countries, our superiority in the arts is so very great, that only a very inconsiderable proportion of our population would be driven from the employments now exercised by them by the freest importation of foreign products. Admitting, however, that this measure might have the effect to force a few thousand workmen to abandon their present employments, it is material to observe, that equivalent new ones would, in consequence, be opened to receive them; and that the total aggregate demand for labour would not be in any degree diminished by the abolition of the restrictive system. Suppose that, under a system of free trade, we imported a considerable proportion of silks and linens now wholly manufactured at home: It is quite certain, inasmuch as neither the French nor Germans would send us their commodities gratis, that an equivalent amount of British commodities would have to be sent abroad to pay those we imported from them ; And hence it is obvious that such of our artificers

as had previously been engaged in our silk and linen manufactures, and were thrown out of these employments, would immediately obtain employment in the manufacture of the products that must be exported as equivalents for the foreign silks and linens. Should we import ten or twenty millions worth of foreign commodities this year more than we imported last year, it is undeniably certain we shall have to export ten or twenty millions worth more of our peculiar products to pay them. And, therefore, if exportation be a good thing, and the most ardent admirers of the restrictive system admit it to be such, importation must also be a good thing -for the two are inseparably and indissolubly connected; and to separate them, even in imagination, infers a total ignorance of the most obvious principles. All commerce, whether carried on by individuals of the same or of different countries, is founded on a fair principle of reciprocity. Buying and selling are in commerce, what action and reaction are in physics, always equal and contrary. If we will not buy from others, it is utterly impossible that others can buy from us. Every sale infers an equal purchase; and every purchase infers an equal sale. To prohibit buying is, therefore, exactly the same thing, in effect, as to prohibit selling. No merchant ever did, or ever will, export a single bale of goods, if he is prevented from importing a greater value in its stead. But it is impossible that he can do this, if the commodities which foreigners have to give as equivalents for ours are excluded. In whatever degree, there

LR