One of the worst features of the system was the struggle of rival interests at home.A great instance of this was the war between the woollen and cotton trades,in which the former,supported by the landed interest,for a long time had the upper hand,so that an excise duty was placed on printed calicoes,and in 1721they were forbidden altogether.It was not till 1774that they were allowed again,and the excise duty was not repealed till 1831.To take another instance:it was proposed in Parliament in 1750to allow the importation of pig and bar iron from the colonies.The tanners at once petitioned against it,on the ground that if American iron was imported,less iron would be smelted in England,fewer trees would be cut down,and therefore their own industry would suffer;and the owners of woodland tracts supported the tanners,lest the value of their timber should be affected.These are typical examples of the way in which,under a protective system,politics are complicated and degraded by the intermixture of commercial interests.And the freer a government is,and the more exposed to pressure on the part of its subjects,the worse will be the result.As an American observer has lately said,Protection may be well enough under a despotism,but in a republic it can never be successful.
We find still stronger illustration of the evils of Protection in our policy towards Ireland and the colonies.After the Cromwellian settlement,there had been an export of Irish cattle into England;'but for the pacifying of our landed gentlemen,'after the Restoration the import of Irish live stock,meat and dairy produce was prohibited from 1660to 1685.As cattle-farming then became unprofitable,the Irish turned their lands into sheepwalks,and not only exported wool,but started woollen manufactures at home.Immediately a law was passed (1699)confining the export of Irish wool to the English market;and this was followed by the imposition of prohibitive duties on their woollen manufactures.The English manufacturers argued that as Ireland was protected by England,and its prosperity was due to English capital,the Irish ought to reconcile themselves to restrictions on their trade,in the interests of Englishmen.
Besides,the joint interests of both kingdoms would be best considered if England and Ireland respectively monopolised the woollen and linen industries,and the two nations thus became dependent on one another.If we turn to the colonies,we find them regarded simply as markets and farms of the mother country.
The same argument was used:that they owed everything to England,and therefore it was no tyranny to exploit them in her interests.
They were,therefore,not allowed to export or import in any but British vessels;they might not export such commodities as Englishmen wanted to any part of Europe other than Great Britain;while those of their raw materials in which our landowners feared competition were excluded from the English markets.All imports into the colonies from other parts of Europe,except Great Britain,were forbidden,in order that our manufacturers might monopolise the American market.Moreover,every attempt was made to prevent them from starting any manufactures at home.At the end of the seventeenth century some Americans had set on foot a woollen industry'.In 1719it was suppressed;all iron manufactures-even nail-making-were forbidden;a flourishing hat manufacture had sprung up,but at the petition of English hatters,these competitors were not allowed to export to England,or even from one colony to another.Adam Smith might well say,that '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 nation of shopkeepers.'Nothing contributed more than this commercial system to the Declaration of independence,and it is significant that the same year which saw its promulgation saw also the publication of the Wealth of Nations.
Many people on first reading the Wealth of Nations are disappointed.They come to it expecting lucid arguments,the clear exposition of universal laws;they find much tedious and confused reasoning and a mass of facts of only temporary interest.But these very defects contributed to its immediate success.It was because Adam Smith examined in detail the actual conditions of the age,and wrote a handbook for the statesman,and not merely,as Turgot did,a systematised treatise for the philosopher,that he appealed so strongly to the practical men of his time,who,with Pitt,praised his 'extensive knowledge of detail,'as well as 'the depth of his philosophical research.'It was the combination of the two which gave him his power.He was the first great writer on the subject;with him political economy passed from the exchange and the market-place to the professor's study;but he was only groping his way,and we cannot expect to meet with neat arrangement and scientific precision of treatment in his book.His language is tentative,he sometimes makes distinctions which he forgets elsewhere,as was inevitable before the language of economics had been fixed by endless verbal discussions.He had none of Ricardo's power of abstract reasoning.His gift lay in the extent and quickness of his observation,and in his wonderful felicity of illustration.We study him because in him,as in Plato,we come into contact with a great original mind,which teaches us how to think and work.
Original people always are confused because they are feeling their way.
