population. The assimilation of our condition, in this respect, to that of England, must, of necessity, be gradual and slow, awaiting and following the occupation of our yet unpeopled territory, and the full development of our internal resources.1 Under the disadvantage resulting from dear capital, high wages, and frequent business fluctuations, it is plainly impossible for our manufacturers, however great may be their ingenuity or their energy, to compete successfully with those older countries where the state of things is so unlike. From their very nature, these conditions admit of no great or sudden change. They are, for the most part, beyond the reach both of legislation and individuals. But, though we may not be able to alter, we can, at least, counteract them; and, if we fail to do this, the fault and the damage will be our own. It is true that the manufactures of a country may, under favoring circumstances, become so firmly established, as no longer to need protection; and there are some, who, in their zeal for free trade, make bold to affirm, that such is the case with our own manufactures. This can be said, however, only of a few articles; in regard to which, possession of the raw material, and nearness to the home-market, give us a decided advantage over the more distant producer. As applied to those important industries which give wealth and power to a nation, — its great manufactures of iron, cotton, wool, flax, and silk, the assertion cannot be sustained. How is it possible that the American producer, paying from ten to thirty per cent more for his labor, with money which costs him nine per cent (and is generally hard to get at that), should successfully contend with his British rival, who easily obtains at four per cent all the capital he wants? Let the man, who thinks this can be done with no protective aid on our part, just point out the way. It is probable that many, in their speculations on this question, unconsciously overestimate the advantage accruing to our manufacturers from the possession of so much raw material, and from their proximity to the home-market. The cost of freight, for instance, from Liverpool to New York, amounts, as may easily be scen,' to a very small percentage on the value of the article, when compared with the difference caused to our manufacturer by the higher cost of capital and labor. 7 1 "In the infancy of such a settlement, the demand for capital is urgent; for the capacities and wants of the settlers far exceed their means. The sources of its prosperity, as yet, are latent, and need to be developed. Clearings are to be made in the forests; buildings are to be erected; roads are to be opened; tools are to be provided; and nearly the whole of the complex machinery, through which an organized society applies its energies, is to be created out of the raw materials afforded by the land, the sea, and the forest.... The people are frugal by compulsion. The fruits of nearly all their toil then become capital, or are converted into means for the future more advantageous application of industry. The profits of what capital there is are also, of necessity, very great."-Bowen's Principles of Political Economy, p. 273. See Appendix, Nos. 128, 129, and 130. The question to be settled is one of no ordinary magnitude: for on its decision, right or wrong, hangs our country's future; so far, at least, as its chief material interests are concerned. Shall we, in brave contempt of all history and all experience, adopt the free-trade scheme, suffer our rising manufactures to languish and die, and become wholly an agricultural people? Shall we, by a course of policy beneficial only to other nations, incur the immense loss of power and profit which must ensue when the skill, the intelligence, and the persevering energies, that distinguish our countrymen, shall all be turned to one kind of labor, the least productive of any, and destined speedily to be overdone? The folly of such a course is most conclusively shown in the following passage from Prof. BOWEN's work, with which I close this section: “The loss which a country suffers by having a large portion of its people condemned to this rude labor, when most of them are capable, or may be made capable, of much finer work or more effective industry, is very great; so great, indeed, that I doubt whether any other single cause of national poverty can equal it. Men are differently constituted by nature, or by those circumstances which in early youth determine the bent of their inclinations and the applicability of their powers to one task rather than to another. The labor of a people is effectually used only when the field of employment in the country offers scope for every variety of taste and talent, and when no formidable or insuperable obstacles prevent any individual from finding out and performing just that task which God and Nature appointed him to do. If agriculture alone is pursued, all the mechanical skill of the people is wasted; all their fitness for commerce, all their enterprise in trade, is wasted. If four millions are obliged to be rude laborers, when three millions of them might be skilled artisans,—the labor of one of the latter being supposed to be equal in value to that of at least three of the former, then the value actually created is to the value which might be created as four is to ten: in other words, the yearly product of the material industry might be two and a half times greater than it is; and the yearly unproductive consumption need not be at all increased, since, in either case, there would be four millions of people to be supplied with food, clothing, and shelter. Of course, and here comes the application of the principle to present circumstances, the country could afford to pay a higher price for their manufac tures, for the sake of having the articles manufactured at home. They could afford to spend more; for they would have more to spend. The proposition, I think, can be laid down as a general one, that a country, the population of which is chiefly or altogether devoted to agriculture, cannot become wealthy, whatever may be the fertility of its soil or the favorableness of its situation. Of course, its inhabitants must buy manufactures with food; that is, they must exchange the products of rude labor for the products of skilled labor; that is, again, they must give the labor of three persons for the labor of one person. The general principle of economical science is to cause the industry of a country to take that direction in which it can be applied to the greatest advantage. Now, the fertility of the soil is one advantage; and the capacity of the people for the higher departments of labor, their skill and enterprise, is another. There is no reason for allowing either of these advantages to remain latent or unworked; and, in choosing between them, we are to be decided by their comparative amount and importance. Fortunate as this country is in the extent of its territory and the richness of its soil, this advantage is as nothing, nay, it would turn out to our positive detriment, if, in consideration of it, we should sacrifice the talents and the energies of our people, if we should doom our whole population, to the rude labor of turning up the earth for the sake of the trifling advantage of purchasing our manufactured goods at a little lower price."— Bowen's Principles of Political Economy, pp. 84 and 89. FREE TRADE. There is something highly pleasing and plausible in the thought of an unfettered and universal commerce. It chimes in with our best aspirations; for it suggests the welcome idea of peace among the nations, - of permanent peace; for in no other condition of things is free trade possible. It implies, in truth, far more than abstinence from hostilities; for it can never prevail until the great communities of the earth, hitherto so diverse in character and supposed interest, so suspicious and jealous of each other, shall have come into perfect accordance of thought, feeling, and action. Nor is this all. There is an expansion, a liberality, in the idea of free trade, which strongly commends it to generous hearts; and even to men of narrower aims, whose opinions and course on such questions are controlled by probabilities of profit and loss, the advocates of free trade often appeal successfully, with promises of commercial advantage and ultimate prosperity far surpassing all actual and all possible experience under the restrictive system. The alleged tendency of free industry or free trade to produce harmony among the nations, to foster at home and to spread more rapidly abroad the great blessings of civilization and Christianity, is one of the most effective arguments that have been used in its favor. If this be so, it lifts a question of political economy from the comparatively low basis of material interests to the higher level of moral and religious obligation. And nothing less than this is the praise claimed by Mr. CODDEN for the example of British free trade, when, after alluding to the example which England had given the world" of a free press, of civil and religious liberty, and of every institution that belongs to freedom and civilization,” he added, "We are now about to offer a still greater example: we are going to set the example of making industry free; to set the example of giving the whole world every advantage, in every clime and latitude and production, relying ourselves on the freedom of our industry. Yes: we are going to teach the world that other lesson. Don't think there is any thing selfish in this, or any thing at all discordant with Christian principles. I can prove that we advocate nothing but what is agreeable to the highest behests of Christianity. To buy in the cheapest market, and sell in the dearest,- what is the meaning of the maxim? It means, that you take the article which you have in the greatest abundance, and obtain from others that of which they have the most to spare; so giving to mankind the means of enjoying the fullest abundance of every earthly good, and, in doing so, carrying out to the fullest extent the Christian doctrine, of doing to all men as ye would they should do unto you." 1 1 Hansard, 3d series, vol. 84, p. 292. Dr. THOMAS CHALMERS, to whose acute understanding the fallacy of the economical argument for free trade was perfectly apparent, could not resist the appeal which it seemed to make to his benevolence, as the following passage shows: "We are not, therefore, of the number of those who rate very high the economic advantages of the sys tem of free trade. It will not much, if at all, enlarge that wealth which is in the hand of merchants; though, by its means, we may perhaps obtain a greater abundance of foreign commodities at the same cost, or obtain them cheaper than before. There will thus be a certain, though, we apprehend, a small, addition to the enjoy-ment of consumers; which, in spite of the constant preference given by mercantile economists to the means. over the end, to the benefit of producers over the benefit of customers, is really, after all, the great and only end of commerce. We can even imagine a slight extension given by means of free trade to agriculture; in as far as we may possibly, through it, obtain at a cheaper rate, either some of the materials of husbandry, or some of those articles which enter into the maintenance of husbandmen. Yet, notwithstanding this our humble estimate of the advantages of free trade in an economical point of view, there are certain attendant moral benefits, if we may so term them, which render the adoption of the system one of the best and wisest achieve ments of an enlightened national policy. In the first place, it cancels a thousand heart-burnings at home. The admission of one class to a particular trade, with the exclusion of all others, is felt, by the community at large, to be an injustice and a wrong; and it is well when this, and every other rankling topic of disaffection, are, as much as possible, done away. Government incurs a prodigious waste of popularity, whenever its policy stands associated in the public imagination with the failures and fluctuations of trade. . . . But the system is not more favorable to domestic than to foreign tranquillity. The Government which upholds it, not only stands forth in a fair and conciliatory aspect to its own subjects, but also to other nations. The abolition of the restrictive system in commerce is, in fact, the abolition of the sorest exasperations and jealousies which have taken place among the States of the civilized world. There is, therefore, a very high philanthropic interest involved in the maintenance of the opposite system. It is on the side both of internal and external peace. It would quiet many a discontent within our own territory, and dry up the teeming fountain of most of our modern wars." ... That these views must be approved by all who accept the premises from which they are drawn, is readily admitted. If there be within our reach a blessing so great, no effort for its attainment should be withheld. But benevolent motive and high moral aim, however commendable, are not all that is needed. Indeed, we well know that they may co-exist in human enterprises with a high degree of Quixotic folly. We all sigh for a peace that may be enduring, between the nations and among ourselves; 1 The following statement exhibits more fully Dr. CHAL MERS's reasoning on this point; the original being slightly condensed. Monopoly creates a limit to the extension of trade; and some imagine that the removal of monopoly removes the whole hinderance. But there is a natural limit, felt whenever the producing power is put forth to a greater extent than the purchasing power can meet. This is evinced in those glutted markets which result from over-trading. ADAM SMITH was too busy in beating down monopoly, fully to see this natural barrier, which is never far from the artificial wall. Hence mistaken notions in those who read his work; hence the brilliant but unrealized anticipations of CANNING, ROBINSON, and HUSKISSON, on the opening-up of new markets and the removal of old fetters; and hence the mania which was caught from their speeches, leading to wild adventure and wide ruin. The monopoly wall being down, men soon ran their heads against the exterior wall; and hence a revulsion, which was felt through the whole commercial world. Closely, though somewhat outside of the artificial barrier, Commerce is beset with a natural barrier, which she cannot overpass. See CHALMERS's Political Economy, p. 517. On Political Economy, in connection with the Moral State and Moral Prospects of Society. By THOMAS CHALMERS, D.D. Glasgow, 1832; p. 519. we long to behold a more enlightened public opinion, a purer patriotism, and a wider diffusion of all the priceless benefits which attend the progress of true Christianity. If, however, the advent of so bright a day depends, to any great extent, on the general adoption of free trade, the world, we fear, will have long to wait. Neither in the record of experience, nor in the nature of things, do we find any encouragement for the system of absolute and universal free trade. No such fact as the existence of a general, international, unrestricted commerce has occurred in all the past. To this remark, Switzerland, with its inland trade, and small, isolated territory, offers no exception. Still less, as already shown, do we find an exception in the partial and deceptive system which England holds up as an example of free trade. If the advantages of free trade are really so great and so obvious, it is quite unaccountable that men have been so late in discerning them, and are still so slow to secure them. When we look at the conditions of the case, and the obstacles to be surmounted before free trade can become the acknowledged creed and actual rule of the commercial natious, the probability of such an occurrence seems exceedingly small. The vast advantage of a trade wholly unobstructed, between the different parts and members of the same country, has been used as an argument for similar freedom in the commercial intercourse of different nations. The cases are wholly unlike. The people, in one case, are homogeneous in character, language, manners, and interests, and, what is far more important, are subject to the same laws and the same gencral authority: in the other case, there may be no correspondence in any one of these respects; and there must be the all-important difference of separate and independent governments. The limitations under which alone the theory of free trade is applicable are clearly stated in the "London Quarterly Review: ”— "If all the countries of the globe were actually, or were ready to become, constituent portions of one and the same great family, the theory of free-traders might seem plausible. But the plain truth is, that the whole analogy is forced and unnatural. By treating the human race as one great family, we are not following, but departing from, the apparent design of Providence, as indicated in the dispensations that everywhere present themselves to our observation. In these, we are totally unable to discover any trace of the ideal incorporation. Separated by natural and defined boundaries, often by broad tracts of ocean; differing even in physical organization; inhabiting portions of the earth's surface, varying in temperature, from the fervid heat of the torrid zone to the almost unendurable cold of the arctic regions; above all, absolutely unintelligible to each other by variety of language, the Deity seems to have stamped on the features of nature and of humanity, in unmistakable characters, that nations shall remain separate and distinct, each pursuing, under the restraints only of moral obligations and just laws, its own interests; and thus, in beautiful harmony with the similar arrangements among individuals of the same nation, each, however unconsciously, contributing to that general good which is but the aggregate of the separate good of all the parts."1 1 See London Quarterly Review, No. 171, p. 86.; see also Bowen's Political Economy, p. 473. |