Thoughts on the mechanism of societies

by marquis de Charles Casaux

1st.

We find in the Statements of Sir Charles Whitworth, that the exports from England to the colonies, whose independence can no longer be disputed, amounted annually, upon a medium of 5 years, taken from 1769 to 1773, to the sum of 2,491,230l.

Now the two wars of 1739 and 1755, undertaken, it is said, for the protection of those colonies, that is, to preserve to the mother-country the monopoly of them, have cost Great Britain 99,141,625l.; and these 99 millions, though the interest has been reduced as often as possible, still cost England annually 3,500,000l.

It is then a sum of 3,500,000l. which, even so early as the year 1762, England had resolved to pay annually, in order to preserve, and the better to secure to herself the exclusive privilege of exporting annually to North-America, European goods to the amount of 2,491,230l.

2dly.

The imports from those colonies into Great Britain, upon a medium of the said 5 years, did not exceed the sum of 1,208,665l.—Great Britain, therefore, has enjoyed during the space of 5 years, a pretended balance of 1,282,565l. against those colonies;—but is that glorious balance any thing more than the advantage of having given to those colonies, in the space of 5 years, a credit in the sum of 6,412,825l. supposing that such sum was the amount of her claims in that part of America, or of the half, if in fact half only of that sum remained due to her, notwithstanding the enormous appearance in Sir Charles Whitworth’s Statements?

3dly.

If the colonies, now independent, will henceforth call in all the other nations of Europe to a share in the advantage of crediting them in the same manner, can it be supposed that England will not find in Europe, some other nation willing to receive that part of the English credit, which the independent colonies shall no longer think proper to make use of? In this case, can any thing more be required, on the part of England, than to manufacture in less quantity such goods as suit only the inhabitants of America, and somewhat more of those that may suit the different nations of Europe; and to this first operation to add the complaisance of receiving a greater quantity of their goods than she has imported hitherto?—In this case likewise, what ruinous consequences could England experience by exporting her goods to her neighbours, instead of sending them to America?

4thly.

If the complaints set up by England against the United States, are grounded only on their incapacity of making returns proportionate to the value of the goods exported there since the peace, are the United States to blame if European cupidity has exported to America, in the space of six months, as much as its inhabitants could consume and pay for in two years? Does such an event, almost infallibly the result of a long interruption of correspondence, prove any thing more than the necessity of a balance between production and consumption, the advantage of knowing as soon as possible the difference from the one to the other, the inconvenience of a trade, in which we lose sight of our capital for whole years together, and the advantage of a trade which would 5 or 6 months after return to the hands of the capitalist the stock he had laid out?