in a private letter, they had no reason to expect ".4 In the case of most of these commodities, producers in the United Kingdom were little affected by the new tariffs. The chief objections were based on the effects of the tariffs on colonial producers and on Portuguese relations. Concessions were also made to France in the direction of opening up British markets to French cambrics, linens, millinery, and other finely wrought goods, and these concessions naturally aroused the opposition of manufacturers in the United Kingdom. But the principal advantages gained by France were in respect to commodities wherein she excelled because of superior soil, climate, and natural resources.

The principal commodities in regard to which the French, by agreeing to lower reciprocal duties, made concessions to the English, were articles in which England excelled not because of natural advantages but rather because of superior skill and enterprise. Cabinet-ware and articles made of iron, copper, and brass were to be admitted reciprocally at not more than ten per cent. ad valorem. Cottons, certain types of woollens, porcelains, earthenware, and pottery were to be admitted at twelve per cent. ad valorem.

On certain products, as cottons and irons, duties to countervail internal taxes were allowed. Bounties on export might also be countervailed.

Duties were specified on various other goods; and in the case of commodities not specified, the duties were to be the same as those charged to the most favored European nation. The most-favorednation clause applied also to the treatment of the ships of each nation; and any further commercial privileges granted by either nation to a third European nation were to be extended also to the other contracting nation; but France reserved the right to maintain. the Family Compact of 1761, and Great Britain reserved a similar right in respect to the treaty of 1703 with Portugal.

The treaty was to be subject to revision at the end of twelve years. A rupture of treaty rights was not to ensue in case of disagreement, unless there was an actual severing of diplomatic relations.5

The terms of the treaty that particularly affected the manufacturers were those which provided for new tariff schedules. These new schedules were significant because they were much lower

4 Journal and Correspondence of William, Lord Auckland, I. 154.

5 The texts of the treaty and the supplementary convention are in Parliamentary History, XXVI. 233-255, 268-272, and in Commons Journals, XLII. 266– 272, 289, 290. The treaty is also printed as an appendix to the first volume of the Journal and Correspondence of William, Lord Auckland.

than formerly, and because the English desired the reciprocal establishment of virtual free trade in many of their most important manufactures, particularly in those in which the transition to production by machines had made greatest progress.

The early actions of the manufacturers concerning the treaty were taken under the guidance of the General Chamber of Manufacturers of Great Britain. This body had been organized under the leadership of the cotton, iron, and pottery interests, and had successfully opposed the government's Irish and excise policies." The chamber continued to hold occasional general meetings, but its activity in connection with the treaty was directed mainly by the secretary and special committees. Numerous committee meetings were held, the Lords of Trade were interviewed, answers to various questions were secured from Mr. Eden, who negotiated the treaty, and extensive correspondence and interviews were conducted with manufacturers in various parts of the country. The letters received were in general favorable to the treaty, though there is evidence that special weight was given to the sentiments of the cotton, iron, and pottery manufacturers, who were enthusiastic in support of the treaty, and who had been from the first the chief factors in the chamber. On the basis of its investigations, the committee in charge of the chamber's relations to the treaty met on December 9, 1786, at the chamber's house in Fenchurch Street and adopted resolutions favoring the treaty. It was resolved that "from the best information the committee can collect from the Chambers of Commerce and Manufactures" and other sources, the treaty, based upon "liberal and equitable principles, promises to be advantageous to their manufacturing and commercial interests by opening a new source of fair trade to both nations", and by "securing a continuance of peace and good offices between two great and neighboring nations, so advantageously situated for availing themselves of the blessings of peace and an extended commerce ".?

Although the committee asserted that its action was based upon the carefully ascertained views of the constituents of the General Chamber, the resolutions of December 9, when published, gave rise to a controversy which divided the organization into hostile factions. Josiah Wedgwood and the Manchester and Birmingham manufacturers had been responsible for the organization and early activities

See the present writer's Rise of the Great Manufacturers in England, 1760-1790 (University of Pennsylvania thesis, 1919), pp. 62-76.

7 Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser, December 12, 1786, February 12, 17, 21, 1787. The Gazetteer during February printed much information concerning earlier activities of the chamber in relation to the treaty.

of the chamber, and they continued to direct its policies. It was maintained by the opponents of the treaty that the resolutions of December 9 were not representative of the sentiments of the manufacturers generally, and the resolutions were ascribed to the fact that "the Manchester, Birmingham, and Staffordshire manufacturers have, of course, great sway in that body". Other manufacturers, it was declared, opposed the treaty, and had trusted the General Chamber to represent their views. But since those favoring the treaty controlled the chamber, the opposing manufacturers, having been misrepresented till the treaty had been signed, "do not know where to communicate their thoughts, or how to collect the general sense and convey it with force to the minister ".8

But they resolved not to yield without a struggle. In order to give effect to their views in the approaching vote on the treaty in Parliament, they decided to contest the control of the General Chamber by the cotton, iron, and pottery men. On February 6, a general meeting of the chamber was held, and a debate of several hours took place on the propriety of the resolutions of December 9 favoring the treaty. A new committee was appointed to secure further information concerning various aspects of the question. On February 10 another general meeting was held. At this meeting the group favoring the treaty was severely criticized, hostile resolutions were adopted, and the House of Commons was petitioned to delay action in order to allow further consideration. The controversy continued for some time, and, although those favoring the treaty later at one time regained control, the division in the chamber served the purpose of the ministers in discrediting the organization; and those who supported the treaty, and had gained their ends in its adoption, were less eager, apparently, to press the fight in the chamber than were those who opposed the treaty.10

In relation to the question of commercial liberalism, the importance of the division in the General Chamber of Manufacturers over the treaty with France consists in the light it throws on the alignment of the manufacturers. The older groups of manufacturers were wedded to monopoly. The cotton, iron, and pottery manufacturers, who were profiting little by monopoly, and indeed were held in leash by trade restrictions, favored the breakdown of the

8 Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser, January 12, 1787.

9 See below, p. 28.

10 Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser, February 7, 12, 17, 19, 21, March 19, April 6, 1787; Jour. and Corresp. of Auckland, I. 429; Julia Wedgwood, The Personal Life of Josiah Wedgwood, p. 224; British Merchant for 1787, pp. 9–12.

monopolistic barriers in order that they might the more readily extend their enterprises into new fields.

The illiberal spirit of the older manufacturers as well as of the merchants is so well known as to need little comment. Their activities in the General Chamber in opposition to the treaty with France were in harmony with their traditional attitude. Their vigorous and successful fight for the adoption in 1788 of more rigorous measures against the export of raw materials in the woollen industry is typical of their continued dependence on monopoly.11 The spirit prevailing among them and the merchants was vigorously condemned by Adam Smith in well-known passages advocating freedom of trade. Smith made no distinction, however, between the attitude of the old and the new industrial groups. The interests of the landed class, and of wage-workers, he asserted, are "strictly and inseparably connected with the general interest of society". But merchants and manufacturers make up a class "whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public "; members of this class, indeed, "have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public". The sneaking arts", the "impertinent jealousy ", the "mean rapacity", the "monopolizing spirit", and the "interested sophistry of merchants and manufacturers confounded the common sense of mankind". To expect freedom of trade in Britain "is as absurd as to expect that an Oceania or Utopia should ever be established in it", for "the monopoly which our manufacturers have obtained against us" is too strong; they are able to "intimidate the legislature ".12

66

Adam Smith is thus seen to have been no herald of the rising industrialists. He seems to have had no conception of that profound change, even then in progress, by virtue of which the manufacturing interests were to become the successful champions of free trade and laissez-faire. But while the Wealth of Nations, even in the case of the later editions, is singularly silent concerning the change, other writings of the time afford striking recognition of the growth of liberalism among the new manufacturers. The merchants, as well as the older types of manufacturers, were contrasted with those in the cotton, iron, and pottery industries in respect to their attitude toward monopoly. Concerning the manufacturers, the British Merchant for 1787, an advocate of monopoly, distinguished between the "factions" factions" among the manufacturers. One

11 Concerning the wool bill, see Commons Journals, XLIII. 634–636; Annals of Agriculture (hostile to the manufacturers), VI. 509 ff., VII. 411 ff., IX. 657 ff. 12 Wealth of Nations, vol. I., bk. 1, ch. 11; vol. II., bk. 4, chs. 2, 3. The above passages occur in the eighth edition, published in 1796.

faction is interested essentially in maintaining control of the home markets; the members of the other faction are possessed of a "desire of an open trade", because they, "from their present ascendancy of skill, have nothing immediate to fear from competition, and everything to hope from the speculation of an increased demand". The latter faction the author identifies as consisting of the cotton, iron, and pottery manufacturers. Essentially the same distinction is made by other writers, including Sir Joseph Banks, president of the Royal Society, and Arthur Young. Young at various times condemned what he characterized as the narrow, monopolizing spirit of the older manufacturers, and praised the liberal and progressive spirit which he found in the newer industries. "The food that is wholesome and nourishing at Birmingham and Manchester", he wrote in 1792, "will not be poison at Leeds and the Devizes "13

That the new manufacturers themselves considered commercial liberalism "wholesome and nourishing", there is evidence aside. from the opinions of observers. The alignment in the General Chamber of Manufacturers in regard to the treaty of commerce with France is in itself important evidence. It will be recalled that the treaty, in relation to cottons, iron, and pottery, provided for reciprocal duties much lower than had existed. The manufacturers of these commodities, almost without exception, favored virtual free trade, and in consequence supported the treaty.

The cotton manufacturers were bitterly condemned by the opponents of the treaty for favoring a policy which it was alleged would cause harm to manufacturers less able than themselves to withstand French competition. But they were unmoved in their attitude, and went so far as to condemn in public meeting the action of the General Chamber of Manufacturers in petitioning Parliament for delay in considering the treaty. The vigorous support of the treaty by the cotton manufacturers is beyond dispute.1

The attitude of the Birmingham manufacturers in support of the

13 British Merchant for 1787, pp. 8, 12, 28; Historical and Political Remarks upon the Tariff of the Commercial Treaty, pp. 166-169; View of the Treaty of Commerce with France, pp. 75-83; Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser, December 14, 26, 27, 1786; Annals of Agriculture, VII. 159-175; IX. 360-363, 498, 499; XVI. 352; XVIII. 327, 328.

14 Parl. Hist., XXVI. 469, 494; Parl. Reg., XXI. 251, 252, 275, 276; XXII., pt. II., p. 107; Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser, October 20, 1786, January 12, February 15, 22, 1787; Dropmore MSS. (Historical MSS. Commission), I. 274; Jour. and Corresp. of Auckland, I. 429; Letter from a Manchester Manufacturer to the Rt. Hon. Charles James Fox on his Political Opposition to the Commercial Treaty with France, pp. 6, 10, 14, et passim; Wedgwood, Life of Josiah Wedgwood, p. 224; British Merchant for 1787, pp. 27, 28, 42, 43.