There is no principle better settled, either in public or domestic
economy, than this--that it is for the interest of consumers to buy
commodities at the best and cheapest rate. Every sensible person acts
upon this rule in his own affairs so far as he is able; but in
consequence of the system of prohibiting and discouraging foreign
commodities, upon which our legislature has heretofore acted, the public
has been obliged to pay for certain British commodities considerably
more than their value. This is not the place to inquire why any vestiges
of the system of protecting duties, as they are called, have been
suffered to remain, or whether the complaints of various interests,
against the modification of the protective system, have been well or ill
founded; but it may still be useful for us to say a few words upon the
groundlessness of the assertions that are in the mouths of many, in
regard to the supposed injurious tendency of a taste for foreign
commodities, in preference to British. We mention the subject, purely as
one of public economy, and not in reference to any question immediately
before Parliament, or the public.
Those who lament the use in this country of French silks, or French
gloves, seem to take it for granted that the use of such articles throws
out of employment, as a matter of course, a certain number of British
artisans, and that the country is consequently impoverished in
proportion. But such reasoners must be very ignorant of the nature of
trade, because nothing is more certain than that the French have never
yet given us gratis a single yard of silk, or a single pair of gloves,
but that an equivalent in British produce or manufactures, or the value
thereof, is given in exchange for every cargo of French goods that
crosses the channel. Those who buy must also sell; nor can there be any
trade, whether between nations or individuals, unless on a fair
principle of reciprocity. This country, therefore, can never be
impoverished, nor the demand for British labour diminished, by the
importation of French silks, or any other foreign manufactures, in how
large quantity soever.
It must, however, be admitted, that the tendency of any sudden change in
the law which introduces foreign manufactures into the market, to the
discouragement of British is necessarily, at first, to throw some
workmen out of employment, by changing the direction of the demand for
labour. This is one of the inconveniences that unavoidably follows an
alteration in an old established system of policy; but we believe that
the magnitude of such inconveniences has been very greatly exaggerated.
At all events, if one demand for labour be closed by the abolition of
restriction in a particular instance, it is quite clear that an
equivalent demand must be opened in some other quarter, and therefore
that the aggregate demand for labour in the country cannot be at all
diminished. The question, therefore, comes to this, whether it is better
that the persons occupied in a particular branch of labour should not be
inconvenienced by being obliged to change the nature of their work, or
that the whole mass of consumers should be enabled to buy a foreign
commodity which can be imported better and cheaper than it can be made
in Great Britain? The issue is between the few and the many; and,
whether the benefit to be derived by the many, from the particular
measure, is not greater than the loss or inconvenience to be
consequently sustained by the few? Not that good, or evil, ought to be
estimated by the numbers who would participate in the advantages of one
measure, or another; but that governments ought never to be unmindful
that it is the interest of the consumer, or in other words, of the
nation at large, which it is their bounden duty to consult and advance,
in preference to the subordinate claims of any class of individuals.
If then, it is certain, that the same encouragement is afforded to
British industry, whether we consume what is made abroad, or what is
manufactured under our own eyes, it is time that we should hear less of
those foolish lamentations of the growing taste for foreign fashions,
which are constantly in the mouths of those who will not take the
trouble to reflect. We may be perfectly sure that neither does Don
Miguel present us with port wine, nor will the supply of it be
continued, any longer than we furnish to the Portuguese, British
manufactures. The ladies of England have no more reason to fancy it
ungenerous, or unpatriotic, to ornament themselves with the beautiful
and elegant fabrics of France, than they have for considering it wrong
to drink Chinese tea for their breakfasts, instead of a decoction from
indigenous plants. Those who make it a matter of conscience to dress
themselves exclusively in British stuffs, should, for consistency’s
sake, use roasted wheat to the avoidance of coffee, and all other
substitutes of the like nature, in preference to the genuine articles;
for the simple reason that the substitutes are made in Great Britain,
and that the original articles are produced out of it.
Whilst, therefore, we love and honour our country with an affection and
reverence which other lands cannot so well claim from Englishmen, we
must beg to repudiate that kind of patriotism which would force us into
an absurd disregard of the advantages of living in a civilized age. It
is not true patriotism, but the spirit of monopoly, that is fostered by
the erroneous notions we condemn; and monopolies will always be hateful
in the eyes of honest governments, for they are repugnant to the welfare
of the mass of the people.
---------------------