because it caused a demand for labour; and which would make it an advantage to turn our fields into a wilderness, and grow cotton in England in defiance of the climate. 14. The fallacy, though so palpable in such extreme con.. clusions, is, as I have said, one of the most persistent in Political Economy, and it is important to notice it in view of some theories still to be considered. Meanwhile, it is the special merit of the anonymous author of the 'Considerations' that he exposes it thoroughly and irrefutably. He had to meet the inference that the manufacture of English silk would be destroyed by the admission of Indian silk. Most writers, like Davenant, tried to shirk this difficulty, or to meet it by erroneous reasons. The author shows that the apparent injury really meant nothing more than the diversion of labour to functions which it could more efficiently discharge. Not only does he show this conclusively, and meet all the objections which could be suggested, but he is led to explain the advantages of machinery and of the organisation of labour. His illustration, taken from the many processes involved in watchmaking, is as clear and striking as Adam Smith's pins, and the few errors which are mixed with his sound arguments are not more conspicuous than in the case of his greater predecessor. No economical writer of the century showed more of that power of close reasoning which is so admirably displayed in the writings of Ricardo. Unfortunately, the oblivion in which his name and essay are buried is a sufficient proof of the futility of clear argument when brought into conflict with the sheer stupidity and selfishness of mankind. 15. Between the time of Davenant and the time of Adam Smith various writers, of more or less ability, dealt with economical questions; but none of them worked out a general theory of sufficient coherence to make an epoch in the study. There is a mixture of palpable error with occasional glimpses of sounder principles. An essay, for example, upon the 'Doctrine of Foreign Trade,' published in 1750 by a Mr. Richardson, and erroneously attributed by Adam Smith to Sir Matthew Decker, has been noticed for its unqualified 'demonstration of the evils of monopoly generally. Yet it begins with a statement of the Balance of Trade theory, and is full of economical errors. Franklin, in whom the acuteness of the philosopher was curiously blended with the cunning of the trader, has left some keen remarks upon the evils of protection.' He adopts the formula said by him to have been used by some French merchants to Colbert : laissez-vous faire (sic.); but, in the same breath he adduces a palpable fallacy in favour of a system of bounties. In a few essays devoted to economical questions Hume shows his usual perspicuity. He was little likely to be deluded by the gross sophistry, or seduced by the narrow prejudices, of the supporters of the mercantile system. His point of view was too elevated, and his logical sensibility too acute, for him to sanction blunders worthy of a tradesman in a country town. He saw with perfect clearness, and explained with admirable precision, that domestic commerce meant simply an intercourse of good offices' between the different classes of a people, and the different districts which were fitted by nature to supply each other's wants. The principle was as applicable to nations as to provinces. The mercantile theory, in prescribing the accumulation of money as an ultimate end, aimed at a result as chimerical as the attempt to heap up water above the proper level. From such principles, he says, 'we may learn what judgment we ought to form of those numberless bars, obstructions, and imposts, which all nations of Europe, and none more than England, have put upon trade from an exorbitant desire of amassing money which will never heap up beyond its proper level whilst it circulates; or from an ill-founded apprehension of losing their specie, which will never sink below it. Could anything scatter our riches it would be such absurd contrivances. The general ill effect, however, results from them that they deprive neighbouring nations of that free communication and exchange which the Author of the world has intended by giving them soils, climates, and geniuses so different from each other.' He denounces the silly jealousy to which these restrictions pandered; and ventures to acknowledge that not only as a man but as a British subject' he prays for the flourishing com See eg. Note respecting Trade and Manufactures' (Works, vi. 61), which is identical nearly with an argument in Richardson's tract ('Scarce Tracts,' p. 255). * Franklin, vi. 87. Hume's Works, iii. 324, Interest.' 3 Ib. vi. 88. Ib. iii. 333, ' Balance of Trade.' • Ib. iii. 343. merce of Germany, Spain, Italy, and even France itself. am at least certain,' he adds, 'that Great Britain and all those nations would flourish more did their sovereigns and ministers adopt such enlarged and benevolent sentiments towards each other.'1 16. Even Hume had not emancipated himself from some characteristic errors. He has an odd impression, though nobody had explained so clearly the true functions of money, that a State ought to aim at keeping its cash on the increase.? He could see the effect, that is, of rising prices in stimulating production, whilst the effect on discouraging demand escaped his notice. Similarly, whilst attacking the Balance of Trade theory, he is yet in favour of some protective duties. His keen insight required to be corrected and checked by the general principles which only revealed themselves on a more systematic treatment of the whole subject. But, in spite of these errors, Hume's acute remarks, appearing, as they did, in his most successful book, should have dissipated some of the prejudices which he asserted had never been governed in such matters by reason. It may, indeed, be taken for granted that they had a considerable effect upon Adam Smith, who is said to have taught similar doctrines at Glasgow in 1753, the year, that is, after the publication of these essays. Smith speaks of Hume with affectionate reverence, and must have been confirmed, if not indoctrinated, in the new principles by the authority of his master. 17. One writer already mentioned demands some further notice before we pass to a different school. The doctrine of Free Trade was generally associated with the new philosophy of the time. Prohibition was not merely injurious economically, but was an infringement of the rights of man. Yet one sturdy opponent of the new ideas must be reckoned amongst its advocates. Josiah Tucker was given to odd combinations of theory. Nature had designed him for a shrewd tradesman; fate had converted him into a clergyman. His residence at Bristol, then the second city in the kingdom, had stimulated his commercial tendencies. He was chosen by one of the tutors of George III. to write a treatise called the Elements 1 Hume, iii. 348, 'Jealousy of Trade.' Ib. iii. 344, 'Balance of Trade.' 2 lb. iii. 315, 'Money.' of Commerce and Theory of Taxes,' for the instruction of the heir to the throne. He found, however, that his principles were not adapted for the shelter of royal patronage; and he could have had few less promising pupils for the reception of new ideas. Tucker, however, pursued his studies; and Warburton spitefully said of him that the Dean's trade was his religion, and religion his trade. There was enough truth in the epigram to make it stinging, but there seems to have been nothing sordid in Tucker's character. If his religion was not of the most spiritual kind, he was at least honest and independent. Objecting to North's plan for raising an American revenue, he says, in a pamphlet addressed to Burke, 'I trust you will have more generosity than to tell the Prime Minister that this is my opinion; lest he should deny me a bishopric, which you say I am aiming at; and which certainly is not likely to be obtained by this mode of proceeding.'1 Burke's insinuation, indeed, seems to have been rather unjust; for Tucker's arguments exposed him to the contempt of Johnson,3 as decidedly as they brought him into conflict with Franklin, Priestley, and Burke himself. Adopting in politics Johnson's sound Tory view, and bitterly ridiculing the rights of man, he agreed on the other hand with Tom Paine's revolutionary view that America ought to be at once declared independent. The consummation, indeed, which the Americans regarded as a privilege to be won was regarded by him as a punishment to be inflicted. The effect of casting off the colonists would be to reduce them to the end of time to a set of little commonwealths and principalities more engaged in internal disputes than in foreign wars. His argument, in fact, is given in a single phrase, which has since become proverbial. What are we to gain, he asks, by conquering America? Not an increase in trade; that is impossible; for a shopkeeper will never get the more custom by beating his customers, and what is true of a shopkeeper is true also of a shopkeeping nation.'" A parallel argument appears in Adam Smith. To found a great empire for the sole purpose of raising up a people of customers may, at first sight, appear a project fit only for a 1 'Letter to Burke,' p. 52. 2 Burke's Works, ii. 413. Johnson, viii. 200. Tucker's Works, iii. 119. nation of shopkeepers. It is, however, a project altogether unfit for a nation of shopkeepers, though extremely fit for a nation whose government is influenced by shopkeepers.'1 Tucker, indeed, was rather too much of the shopkeeper; though shrewd enough to see and to expose with great clearness the folly of the war, even when regarded from that point of view. A war for commerce between different parts of the same empire was as absurd as a war between Manchester and Norwich, and he declared that our posterity may regard the present madness of going to war for the sake of trade, riches, or dominion, with the same eye of astonishment and pity that we see the madness of our forefathers in fighting under the peaceful Cross to recover the Holy Land.'3 Our trade will be carried on just so long as we can offer the Americans the best market, and no longer, and will therefore be independent of political connection. He answers the taunt about trade and religion by the very fair argument that a system of universal commerce is the plain teaching of the divine constitution of the world. Almighty Providence has made different nations to supply each other's wants instead of cutting each other's throats; and, therefore, to preach Free Trade is to preach pure Christianity. 18. Tucker is everywhere a shrewd writer, and he discusses many economical problems in the same general spirit. He is, indeed, rather intricate in his reasoning, and a hot-headed conservatism does not blend very felicitously with his commercial liberalism. He blunders a good deal in his theories about population, regarding an increase of numbers as the proper end of a statesman-to be pursued by such doubtful methods as a tax upon bachelors-and emigration as simply a pernicious drain. But he is full of acute remarks, and may be credited with the rare glory of having made a political prophecy which was actually fulfilled. In half a century, he says, writing in 1774, two great and right measures will have been adopted-a separation from America and a union with Ireland; and perhaps that which happens to be first accom 6 1 Wealth of Nations,' i. 276. 2 Tucker's Works, ii. 68. Ib. ii. 89. 4 Ib. ii. 200. See 'Two Sermons.' |