the least possible expence.

The gain of the one

Both of them

For it enables

party is not the loss of the other. are benefited by this intercourse: both of them to save labour and expence in the production of commodities; and, in consequence, the wealth of the two countries is not only better distributed, but it is also greatly increased by the territorial division of labour established between them.

To set this important principle in a clearer point of view, let us suppose that in England a given number of men can, in a given time, manufacture 10,000 yards of cloth, and raise 1000 quarters of wheat, and that the same number of men can, in the same time, manufacture in Poland 5000 yards of cloth and raise 2000 quarters of wheat. It is plain, that the estab lishment of a free intercourse between the two countries would, under these circumstances, enable England, by manufacturing cloth and exporting it to Poland, to obtain twice the quantity of corn in exchange for a given expenditure of capital and labour that she could obtain in return for the same expenditure directly laid out in the cultivation of land at home; and Poland would, on the other hand, be enabled to obtain twice as much cloth in exchange for her corn as she could have done had she attempted directly to manufacture it. How ridiculous then to contend, that commerce is not a means of adding to the efficacy of labour, and, consequently, of increasing wealth! Were the intercourse between England and Portugal, and the West Indies put an end to, it

would require, at the very least, a hundred, or perhaps a thousand times the expence to produce Port wine, sugar, and coffee, directly in this country, that it does to produce the equivalents sent to Portugal and the West Indies in exchange for them..

"The commerce of one country with another is," to use the words of Mr Mill," merely an extension of that division of labour by which so many benefits are conferred on the human race. As the same country is rendered richer by the trade of one province with another; as its labour becomes thus infinitely more divided and more productive than it could otherwise have been; and as the mutual interchange of all those commodities which one province has and another wants, multiplies the accommodations and comforts of the whole, and the country becomes thus in a wonderful degree more opulent and happy; so the same beautiful train of consequences is observable in the world at large, that vast empire of which the different kingdoms may be regarded as the provinces. In this magnificent empire, one province is favourable to the production of one species of produce, and another province to another. By their mutual intercourse, mankind are enabled to distribute their labour as best fits the genius of each particular country and people. The industry of the whole is thus rendered incomparably more productive; and every species of necessary, useful, and agreeable accommodation is obtained in much greater abundance, and with infinitely less expence." *

*Commerce Defended, p. 38.

It would be quite inconsistent with the objects and limits of a work intended only to exhibit a systematic and general view of the principles of economical science, to enter on a detailed investigation of the policy of the various restrictions that have been imposed on the freedom of commerce-And, therefore, in the few observations I am now to offer on this subject, I shall chiefly confine myself to an examination of those restrictions that have for their object to promote the industry and employment of particular countries, by either partially or wholly preventing the importation of such articles from other countries as can be produced at home.

It cannot be doubted that, if either the whole or any considerable portion of an article, in general demand, be imported from abroad, the prevention of such importation will give an immediate advantage to the home producers of the article in question. But it should always be borne in mind that it is not with the interests of any particular class that the legis lator ought to concern himself.The circumstance of restrictions being advantageous to a single class, is not enough to show that they are expedient: To establish this it must also be shown that they are advantageous, or at least not injurious, to the consumers, or, in other words, to the public in general. If restrictions are advantageous to the latter, they ought to be maintained, but if they are injurious to them, they ought as certainly to be abolished. Consumption is the sole end and purpose of production; and the interests of the producer ought to be attended to

only so far as may be necessary for promoting the interests of the consumers.

We have already seen that no country can possibly employ a greater number of workmen than its capital can feed and maintain. But it is plain that no restrictive regulation can of itself add one single atom to that capital. It may, and indeed most frequently... does, divert a portion of it into channels into which it would not otherwise have flowed: This, however, i is its only effect, and the real question for our consideration is, whether the artificial direction which is thus given to a portion of the national capital, renders it more or less productive than it would have been, had it been left at liberty to seek out channels of employment for itself?

In discussing this question it may be observed, in the first place, that every individual is constantly exerting himself to find out the most advantageous methods of employing his capital and labour. It is true that it is his own advantage, and not that of the society, which he has in view; but as a society is nothing more than an aggregate collection of individuals, it is plain that each, in steadily pursuing his own aggrandizement, is following that precise line of conduct which is most for the public advantage. It is a consequence of this principle, that if no particular branches of industry were encouraged more than others, those would be preferred which naturally afforded the greatest facilities for acquiring individual fortunes, and, consequently, for increasing the capital of the country. Self-interest is the

I

most powerful stimulus that can be applied to excite the industry, and to sharpen the intellect and ingenuity of man; and no proposition can be more true than that each individual can, in his local situation, judge better what is advantageous and useful for himself than any other person. "The statesman," says Dr Smith, "who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would no where be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.” *

But, in the second place, it is evident, that the prevention of the importation of foreign produce has in effect the consequence, so justly censured by Dr Smith, of dictating to individuals in what manner they shall employ their capital and labour. If no such preventive regulations existed, no produce would ever be raised in one country that it could import at a cheaper rate from another. The conduct of the society would then be regulated by the same principles that regulate the conduct of each individual in private life; and it is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, not to attempt to make at home what it would cost him more to