We have said, that the importation of any article of consumption usually provided at home, was a proof by no means equivocal of a foreign rivalship. I shall say nothing, at present, of the methods to be used as a remedy for this inconvenience: these have been already discussed. We must now suppose, every one that might be contrived for this purpose, to become ineffectual; and that foreign industry is so far gaining ground, as daily, more and more, to supply the several branches of domestic consumption.
Upon this, the statesman will begin by laying the importation of such commodities under certain restrictions. If these do not prove sufficient, they must be increased; and if the augmentation produces frauds, difficult to be prevented, the articles must be prohibited altogether. By this method of proceeding, it will be found, that without any violent or sudden prohibition laid upon foreign trade, by little and little, every pernicious branch of it will be cut off, till at last it will cease altogether, as in the case mentioned above; to wit, when the most advantageous branches cannot be carried on without loss.
Something, however, must here be added, in order to restrain so general a plan of administration. Nothing is more complex than the interests of trade, considered with respect to a whole nation. It is hardly possible for a people to have every branch of trade favourable for the increase of her wealth: consequently, a statesman who, upon the single inspection of one branch, would lay the importation of it under limitations, in proportion as he found the balance upon it unfavourable to the nation, might very possibly undo a flourishing commerce.
He must first examine minutely every use to which the merchandize imported is put: if a part is re-exported with profit, this profit must be deduced from the balance of loss incurred by the consumption of the remainder. If it be consumed upon the account of other branches of industry, which are thereby advanced, the balance of loss may still be more than compensated. If it be a means of supporting a correspondence with a neighbouring nation, otherwise advantageous, the loss resulting from it may be submitted to, in a certain degree. But if upon examining the whole chain of consequences, he finds the nation’s wealth not at all increased, nor her trade encouraged, in proportion to the damage at first incurred by the importation, I believe he may decide, that such a branch of trade is hurtful; and therefore that it ought to be cut off, in the most prudent manner, according to the general rule.
The first object of the care of a statesman, who conducts a nation, which is upon the point of losing her foreign trade, without any prospect or probability of recovering it, is to preserve her wealth already acquired. No motive ought to engage him to sacrifice this wealth, the safety alone of the whole society excepted, when suddenly threatned by foreign enemies. The gratification of particular people’s habitual desires, although the wealth they possess may enable them, without the smallest hurt to their private fortunes, to consume the productions of other nations; the motive of preventing hoards; that of promoting[promoting] a brisk circulation within the country; the advantages to be made by merchants, who may enrich themselves by carrying on a trade disadvantageous to the nation; even, to say all in one word, the supporting of the same number of inhabitants, ought not to engage his consent to the diminution of national wealth.
Here follow my reasons for carrying this proposition so very far, even to the length of sacrificing a part of the inhabitants of a country to the preservation of its wealth; and I flatter myself, that when duly examined, I may avoid the smallest imputation of Machiavellian principles, in consequence of so bold an assertion.
While a people are fed with the produce of their own lands, the preservation of their numbers is quite consistent with the preservation of their wealth. If, therefore, in such a case, their numbers should be diminished upon a decay of foreign trade, either by their food’s being exported, or by their lands becoming uncultivated, I should never hesitate to lay the blame upon the statesman’s administration.
But an industrious people may (as has been said) carry their numbers far beyond the proportion of their own subsistence. The deficiency must be supplied from abroad, and must be paid with the balance of the trade in their favour. Now when this balance comes to turn against them, and when, consequently, a stop is put to the disadvantageous foreign trade, upon the principles we have been laying down, the statesman is reduced to this alternative; either annually to allow a part of the wealth already got, to be exported, in order to buy subsistence for the surplus of his people, as I may call them, or to reduce their numbers by degrees, either by encouragements given to their leaving the country, or by establishing colonies, &c. until they are brought down to the just proportion of national subsistence. If he prefers the first, supposing the execution of such a plan to be possible, the consequence will be, that so soon as all the wealth is spent, the whole society, except the proprietors of the lands, and these who cultivate them, must go to destruction. If he prefers the second, he remains independent of all the world with respect to the inhabitants he preserves. They remain in a capacity of maintaining themselves, and he may alter the plan of his political oeconomy as best suits his circumstances, relatively to other nations. While all his subjects are employed and provided for, he will remain at the head of a flourishing and happy people.
It may be here objected, that the first alternative is an impossible supposition. I allow it to be so, if you suppose it to be carried the length to which I have traced it; because no power whatsoever in a statesman, can go so far as to preserve numbers at the expence of the whole riches of his people. But I can very easily suppose a case, where numbers may be supported at an eminent loss to a state which finds itself in the situation in which we have represented it in our supposition.
Suppose a prince, upon the failure of his foreign trade, to increase his army, in proportion as he finds his industrious hands laid idle by a deficiency of demand for their labour; and let him fill his magazines for their subsistence by foreign importation, leaving the produce of his country to feed the rest of his subjects. By such a plan, every body will remain employed, and also provided for, and such a prince may be looked upon as a most humane governor. This I willingly agree to. I should love such a prince; but the more I loved him, the more I should regret that his project must fail, from a physical impossibility of its being long supported; and when it comes to fail by the exhausting of his wealth, it will not be his regrets which will give bread to his soldiers, nor employment to his industrious subjects, who will no longer find an equivalent for their labour.