Conclusion of the Mercantile System

Though the encouragement of exportation, and the discouragement of importation, are the two great engines by which the mercantile system proposes to enrich every country, yet, with regard to some particular commodities, it seems to follow an opposite plan: to discourage exportation, and to encourage importation. Its ultimate object, however, it pretends, is always the same, to enrich the country by an advantageous balance of trade. It discourages the exportation of the materials of manufacture, and of the instruments of trade, in order to give our own workmen an advantage, and to enable them to undersell those of other nations in all foreign markets; and by restraining, in this manner, the exportation of a few commodities, of no great price, it proposes to occasion a much greater and more valuable exportation of others. It encourages the importation of the materials of manufacture, in order that our own people may be enabled to work them up more cheaply, and thereby prevent a greater and more valuable importation of the manufactured commodities. I do not observe, at least in our statute book, any encouragement given to the importation of the instruments of trade. When manufactures have advanced to a certain pitch of greatness, the fabrication of the instruments of trade becomes itself the object of a great number of very important manufactures. To give any particular encouragement to the importation of such instruments, would interfere too much with the interest of those manufactures. Such importation, therefore, instead of being encouraged, has frequently been prohibited. Thus the importation of wool cards, except from Ireland, or when brought in as wreck or prize goods, was prohibited by the 3rd of Edward IV.; which prohibition was renewed by the 39th of Elizabeth, and has been continued and rendered perpetual by subsequent laws.

The mercantile system aims to enrich every country mainly by encouraging exports and discouraging imports. Yet for some goods, it seems to follow the opposite plan. It discourages their export and encourages their import. The system claims, however, that its ultimate goal is always the same: to enrich the country through a favorable balance of trade. It discourages the export of raw materials and tools to give our own workers an advantage. This enables them to sell their goods for less than workers from other nations in all foreign markets. By restricting the export of a few inexpensive goods, it aims to bring about much larger and more valuable exports of other goods. It encourages the import of raw materials so that our own people can manufacture goods more cheaply. This is meant to prevent greater and more valuable imports of manufactured goods. I do not find any encouragement for importing tools, at least in our statute book. Once manufacturing has grown large enough, making tools itself becomes the business of many very important industries. Giving special encouragement to tool imports would interfere too much with their interests. Such imports have therefore often been prohibited rather than encouraged. For example, a law passed in the third year of Edward IV prohibited the import of wool cards. It made exceptions for wool cards from Ireland and for those brought in as wreck or prize goods. The prohibition was renewed in the 39th year of Elizabeth, and later laws continued it and made it permanent.

The importation of the materials of manufacture has sometimes been encouraged by an exemption from the duties to which other goods are subject, and sometimes by bounties.

Imports of manufacturing materials have sometimes been encouraged by exempting them from duties imposed on other goods. At other times, they have been encouraged by subsidies.

The importation of sheep’s wool from several different countries, of cotton wool from all countries, of undressed flax, of the greater part of dyeing drugs, of the greater part of undressed hides from Ireland, or the British colonies, of seal skins from the British Greenland fishery, of pig and bar iron from the British colonies, as well as of several other materials of manufacture, has been encouraged by an exemption from all duties, if properly entered at the custom-house. The private interest of our merchants and manufacturers may, perhaps, have extorted from the legislature these exemptions, as well as the greater part of our other commercial regulations. They are, however, perfectly just and reasonable; and if, consistently with the necessities of the state, they could be extended to all the other materials of manufacture, the public would certainly be a gainer.

Imports of several manufacturing materials have been encouraged by exempting them from all duties, if properly declared at the customs office. These materials include sheep’s wool from several countries, cotton from all countries, and unprocessed flax. They also include most dyes, most raw hides from Ireland or the British colonies, and seal skins from the British Greenland fishery. Pig iron and bar iron from the British colonies, as well as several other manufacturing materials, are also exempt. The private interests of our merchants and manufacturers may perhaps have pressured the legislature into granting these exemptions. They may also have secured most of our other trade regulations in the same way. These exemptions are, however, perfectly fair and reasonable. If they could be extended to all other manufacturing materials without compromising the state’s needs, the public would certainly benefit.

The avidity of our great manufacturers, however, has in some cases extended these exemptions a good deal beyond what can justly be considered as the rude materials of their work. By the 24th Geo. II. chap. 46, a small duty of only 1d. the pound was imposed upon the importation of foreign brown linen yarn, instead of much higher duties, to which it had been subjected before, viz. of 6d. the pound upon sail yarn, of 1s. the pound upon all French and Dutch yarn, and of £2:13:4 upon the hundred weight of all spruce or Muscovia yarn. But our manufacturers were not long satisfied with this reduction: by the 29th of the same king, chap. 15, the same law which gave a bounty upon the exportation of British and Irish linen, of which the price did not exceed 18d. the yard, even this small duty upon the importation of brown linen yarn was taken away. In the different operations, however, which are necessary for the preparation of linen yarn, a good deal more industry is employed, than in the subsequent operation of preparing linen cloth from linen yarn. To say nothing of the industry of the flax-growers and flaxdressers, three or four spinners at least are necessary in order to keep one weaver in constant employment; and more than four-fifths of the whole quantity of labour necessary for the preparation of linen cloth, is employed in that of linen yarn; but our spinners are poor people; women commonly scattered about in all different parts of the country, without support or protection. It is not by the sale of their work, but by that of the complete work of the weavers, that our great master manufacturers make their profits. As it is their interest to sell the complete manufacture as dear, so it is to buy the materials as cheap as possible. By extorting from the legislature bounties upon the exportation of their own linen, high duties upon the importation of all foreign linen, and a total prohibition of the home consumption of some sorts of French linen, they endeavour to sell their own goods as dear as possible. By encouraging the importation of foreign linen yarn, and thereby bringing it into competition with that which is made by our own people, they endeavour to buy the work of the poor spinners as cheap as possible. They are as intent to keep down the wages of their own weavers, as the earnings of the poor spinners; and it is by no means for the benefit of the workmen that they endeavour either to raise the price of the complete work, or to lower that of the rude materials. It is the industry which is carried on for the benefit of the rich and the powerful, that is principally encouraged by our mercantile system. That which is carried on for the benefit of the poor and the indigent is too often either neglected or oppressed.

The greed of our great manufacturers, however, has sometimes extended these exemptions far beyond what can fairly be called their raw materials. Under 24 Geo. II, chapter 46, a small duty of just 1d. per pound was imposed on imported foreign brown linen yarn. This replaced much higher duties: 6d. per pound on sail yarn, 1s. per pound on all French and Dutch yarn, and £2:13:4 per hundredweight on all spruce or Muscovia yarn. But our manufacturers were not satisfied with this reduction for long. Under 29 Geo. II, chapter 15, even this small duty on imported brown linen yarn was removed. The same law gave a bounty on exports of British and Irish linen priced at no more than 18d. per yard. Yet the various operations needed to prepare linen yarn require much more labor than the later process of weaving it into linen cloth. Even leaving aside the labor of flax growers and flax dressers, at least three or four spinners are needed to keep one weaver constantly employed. More than four-fifths of all the labor needed to produce linen cloth goes into preparing the yarn. But our spinners are poor people, usually women scattered throughout the country, without support or protection. Our great master manufacturers make their profits not by selling the spinners' work, but by selling the weavers' finished work. They have an interest in selling the finished product for as much as possible and buying the materials for as little as possible. They have extracted bounties from Parliament for exporting their own linen, high duties on all imported foreign linen, and a complete ban on the use of some kinds of French linen at home. By these means, they try to sell their own goods for as much as possible. By encouraging imports of foreign linen yarn, they bring it into competition with yarn made by our own people. In this way, they try to buy the poor spinners' work for as little as possible. They are just as intent on keeping down their own weavers' wages as the earnings of the poor spinners. Their efforts to raise the price of the finished product or lower the price of the raw materials are in no way intended to benefit the workers. Our mercantile system chiefly encourages labor carried on for the benefit of the rich and powerful. Labor carried on for the benefit of the poor and needy is too often neglected or oppressed.

Both the bounty upon the exportation of linen, and the exemption from the duty upon the importation of foreign yarn, which were granted only for fifteen years, but continued by two different prolongations, expire with the end of the session of parliament which shall immediately follow the 24th of June 1786.

The bounty on linen exports and the exemption from import duty on foreign yarn were granted for only fifteen years. Both were continued through two separate extensions. They expire at the end of the parliamentary session immediately following June 24, 1786.

The encouragement given to the importation of the materials of manufacture by bounties, has been principally confined to such as were imported from our American plantations.

Bounties to encourage imports of raw materials for manufacturing have mainly applied to materials imported from our American colonies.

The first bounties of this kind were those granted about the beginning of the present century, upon the importation of naval stores from America. Under this denomination were comprehended timber fit for masts, yards, and bowsprits; hemp, tar, pitch, and turpentine. The bounty, however, of £1 the ton upon masting-timber, and that of £6 the ton upon hemp, were extended to such as should be imported into England from Scotland. Both these bounties continued, without any variation, at the same rate, till they were severally allowed to expire; that upon hemp on the 1st of January 1741, and that upon masting-timber at the end of the session of parliament immediately following the 24th June 1781.

The first bounties of this kind were granted around the beginning of this century for naval stores imported from America. Naval stores included timber suitable for masts, yards, and bowsprits, as well as hemp, tar, pitch, and turpentine. The bounty of £1 per ton on mast timber also applied to timber imported into England from Scotland. So did the bounty of £6 per ton on hemp. Both bounties remained at the same rate until they were allowed to expire. The hemp bounty expired on 1 January 1741. The mast timber bounty expired at the end of the parliamentary session immediately following 24 June 1781.

The bounties upon the importation of tar, pitch, and turpentine, underwent, during their continuance, several alterations. Originally, that upon tar was £4 the ton; that upon pitch the same; and that upon turpentine £3 the ton. The bounty of £4 the ton upon tar was afterwards confined to such as had been prepared in a particular manner; that upon other good, clean, and merchantable tar was reduced to £2:4s. the ton. The bounty upon pitch was likewise reduced to £1, and that upon turpentine to £1:10s. the ton.

The import bounties for tar, pitch, and turpentine changed several times while they were in effect. Originally, the bounty was £4 per ton for tar, £4 for pitch, and £3 for turpentine. Later, the £4 bounty for tar applied only to tar prepared in a particular way. The bounty for other good, clean, marketable tar was reduced to £2 and 4 shillings per ton. The bounty for pitch was also reduced to £1 per ton, and that for turpentine to £1 and 10 shillings per ton.

The second bounty upon the importation of any of the materials of manufacture, according to the order of time, was that granted by the 21st Geo. II. chap.30, upon the importation of indigo from the British plantations. When the plantation indigo was worth three-fourths of the price of the best French indigo, it was, by this act, entitled to a bounty of 6d. the pound. This bounty, which, like most others, was granted only for a limited time, was continued by several prolongations, but was reduced to 4d. the pound. It was allowed to expire with the end of the session of parliament which followed the 25th March 1781.

The second bounty granted, in chronological order, for importing materials used in manufacturing was for indigo from the British plantations. It was established by 21 Geo. II, chapter 30. Under this act, plantation indigo qualified for a bounty of 6d. per pound if it was worth three-fourths of the price of the best French indigo. Like most other bounties, this one was granted only for a limited time. It was extended several times, but reduced to 4d. per pound. It was allowed to expire at the end of the parliamentary session following 25 March 1781.

The third bounty of this kind was that granted (much about the time that we were beginning sometimes to court, and sometimes to quarrel with our American colonies), by the 4th. Geo. III. chap. 26, upon the importation of hemp, or undressed flax, from the British plantations. This bounty was granted for twenty-one years, from the 24th June 1764 to the 24th June 1785. For the first seven years, it was to be at the rate of £8 the ton; for the second at £6; and for the third at £4. It was not extended to Scotland, of which the climate (although hemp is sometimes raised there in small quantities, and of an inferior quality) is not very fit for that produce. Such a bounty upon the importation of Scotch flax in England would have been too great a discouragement to the native produce of the southern part of the united kingdom.

The third bounty of this kind was granted under 4 Geo. III, chapter 26. It applied to hemp, or undressed flax, imported from the British plantations. It was granted around the time we were beginning to court our American colonies at one moment and quarrel with them at the next. The bounty lasted twenty-one years, from 24 June 1764 to 24 June 1785. It was £8 a ton for the first seven years, £6 for the next seven, and £4 for the last seven. The bounty was not extended to Scotland, whose climate is not well suited to growing hemp. Hemp is sometimes grown there in small quantities, though it is of inferior quality. Such a bounty on Scottish flax imported into England would have discouraged flax production too much in the southern part of the united kingdom.

The fourth bounty of this kind was that granted by the 5th Geo. III. chap. 45, upon the importation of wood from America. It was granted for nine years from the 1st January 1766 to the 1st January 1775. During the first three years, it was to be for every hundred-and-twenty good deals, at the rate of £1, and for every load containing fifty cubic feet of other square timber, at the rate of 12s. For the second three years, it was for deals, to be at the rate of 15s., and for other squared timber at the rate of 8s.; and for the third three years, it was for deals, to be at the rate of 10s.; and for every other squared timber at the rate of 5s.

The fourth bounty of this kind was granted by 5th Geo. III. chap. 45 for wood imported from America. It was granted for nine years, from 1 January 1766 to 1 January 1775. During the first three years, the bounty was £1 for every 120 good deals. It was 12 shillings for every load of other squared timber containing 50 cubic feet. During the second three years, the bounty was 15 shillings for every 120 deals. It was 8 shillings for every load of other squared timber. During the final three years, it was 10 shillings for every 120 deals. It was 5 shillings for every load of other squared timber.

The fifth bounty of this kind was that granted by the 9th Geo. III. chap. 38, upon the importation of raw silk from the British plantations. It was granted for twenty-one years, from the 1st January 1770, to the 1st January 1791. For the first seven years, it was to be at the rate of £25 for every hundred pounds value; for the second, at £20; and for the third, at £15. The management of the silk-worm, and the preparation of silk, requires so much hand-labour, and labour is so very dear in America, that even this great bounty, I have been informed, was not likely to produce any considerable effect.

The fifth bounty of this kind was granted under 9th Geo. III. chap. 38 for importing raw silk from the British plantations. It was granted for twenty-one years, from January 1, 1770, to January 1, 1791. For the first seven years, it was £25 for every £100 in value. For the second seven years, it was £20, and for the third, £15. Raising silkworms and preparing silk require a great deal of manual labor. Because labor is so expensive in America, I have been told that even this large bounty was unlikely to have any considerable effect.

The sixth Bounty of this kind was that granted by 11th Geo. III. chap. 50, for the importation of pipe, hogshead, and barrelstaves and leading from the British plantations. It was granted for nine years, from 1st January 1772 to the 1st January 1781. For the first three years, it was, for a certain quantity of each, to be at the rate of £6; for the second three years at £4; and for the third three years at £2.

The sixth bounty of this kind was granted by 11th Geo. III, chap. 50. It applied to imports of pipe, hogshead, and barrel staves and heading from the British plantations. It was granted for nine years, from January 1, 1772, to January 1, 1781. For the first three years, the rate was £6 for a certain quantity of each. It was £4 for the next three years and £2 for the final three years.

The seventh and last bounty of this kind was that granted by the 19th Geo. III chap. 37, upon the importation of hemp from Ireland. It was granted in the same manner as that for the importation of hemp and undressed flax from America, for twenty-one years, from the 24th June 1779 to the 24th June 1800. The term is divided likewise into three periods, of seven years each; and in each of those periods, the rate of the Irish bounty is the same with that of the American. It does not, however, like the American bounty, extend to the importation of undressed flax. It would have been too great a discouragement to the cultivation of that plant in Great Britain. When this last bounty was granted, the British and Irish legislatures were not in much better humour with one another, than the British and American had been before. But this boon to Ireland, it is to be hoped, has been granted under more fortunate auspices than all those to America. The same commodities, upon which we thus gave bounties, when imported from America, were subjected to considerable duties when imported from any other country. The interest of our American colonies was regarded as the same with that of the mother country. Their wealth was considered as our wealth. Whatever money was sent out to them, it was said, came all back to us by the balance of trade, and we could never become a farthing the poorer by any expense which we could lay out upon them. They were our own in every respect, and it was an expense laid out upon the improvement of our own property, and for the profitable employment of our own people. It is unnecessary, I apprehend, at present to say anything further, in order to expose the folly of a system which fatal experience has now sufficiently exposed. Had our American colonies really been a part of Great Britain, those bounties might have been considered as bounties upon production, and would still have been liable to all the objections to which such bounties are liable, but to no other.

The seventh and last bounty of this kind was granted under 19th Geo. III, chapter 37, for importing hemp from Ireland. Like the bounty for importing hemp and undressed flax from America, it was granted for twenty-one years, from June 24, 1779, to June 24, 1800. The term was likewise divided into three periods of seven years each. In each period, the Irish bounty was paid at the same rate as the American bounty. Unlike the American bounty, however, it did not extend to imports of undressed flax. That would have discouraged the cultivation of flax in Great Britain too much. When this last bounty was granted, the British and Irish legislatures were on little better terms than the British and American legislatures had been before. But it is to be hoped that this benefit to Ireland has been granted under more favorable circumstances than all those granted to America. The same goods on which we paid bounties when imported from America faced substantial duties when imported from any other country. The interests of our American colonies were regarded as the same as those of the mother country. Their wealth was considered our wealth. It was said that whatever money was sent to them came all back to us through the balance of trade. We could never become a farthing poorer, it was said, by any expense we incurred on their behalf. They were ours in every respect. The money was spent on improving our own property and providing profitable employment for our own people. I believe there is no need now to say anything more to expose the folly of a system that fatal experience has sufficiently exposed. If our American colonies had really been part of Great Britain, those bounties might have been considered bounties on production. They would still have been open to all the objections that apply to such bounties, but to no others.

The exportation of the materials of manufacture is sometimes discouraged by absolute prohibitions, and sometimes by high duties.

Exports of raw materials for manufacturing are sometimes discouraged by outright bans and sometimes by high tariffs.

Our woollen manufacturers have been more successful than any other class of workmen, in persuading the legislature that the prosperity of the nation depended upon the success and extension of their particular business. They have not only obtained a monopoly against the consumers, by an absolute prohibition of importing woollen cloths from any foreign country; but they have likewise obtained another monopoly against the sheep farmers and growers of wool, by a similar prohibition of the exportation of live sheep and wool. The severity of many of the laws which have been enacted for the security of the revenue is very justly complained of, as imposing heavy penalties upon actions which, antecedent to the statutes that declared them to be crimes, had always been understood to be innocent. But the cruellest of our revenue laws, I will venture to affirm, are mild and gentle, in comparison to some of those which the clamour of our merchants and manufacturers has extorted from the legislature, for the support of their own absurd and oppressive monopolies. Like the laws of Draco, these laws may be said to be all written in blood.

Our woollen manufacturers have been more successful than any other class of workers in persuading the legislature of their importance. They have convinced it that the nation’s prosperity depends on the success and expansion of their particular business. They have obtained a monopoly against consumers by securing a complete ban on importing woollen cloth from any foreign country. They have also obtained another monopoly against sheep farmers and wool growers. They did this by securing a similar ban on exporting live sheep and wool. People rightly complain about the severity of many laws passed to protect government revenue. These laws impose heavy penalties for actions that had always been considered innocent before the laws made them crimes. But I dare say that our cruellest revenue laws are mild and gentle by comparison with some other laws. Those laws were forced from the legislature by the clamour of our merchants and manufacturers. They serve to support their own absurd and oppressive monopolies. Like the laws of Draco, these laws may be said to be written entirely in blood.

By the 8th of Elizabeth, chap. 3, the exporter of sheep, lambs, or rams, was for the first offence, to forfeit all his goods for ever, to suffer a year’s imprisonment, and then to have his left hand cut off in a market town, upon a market day, to be there nailed up; and for the second offence, to be adjudged a felon, and to suffer death accordingly. To prevent the breed of our sheep from being propagated in foreign countries, seems to have been the object of this law. By the 13th and 14th of Charles II. chap. 18, the exportation of wool was made felony, and the exporter subjected to the same penalties and forfeitures as a felon.

Under the 8th of Elizabeth, chapter 3, anyone who exported sheep, lambs, or rams faced severe penalties. For a first offence, the exporter had to give up all their goods forever and spend a year in prison. Then their left hand was to be cut off in a market town on a market day and nailed up there. For a second offence, the exporter was to be convicted of a felony and put to death. The law seems to have been intended to prevent our breed of sheep from spreading to foreign countries. Under the 13th and 14th of Charles II, chapter 18, exporting wool became a felony. An exporter faced the same penalties and forfeitures as a felon.

For the honour of the national humanity, it is to be hoped that neither of these statutes was ever executed. The first of them, however, so far as I know, has never been directly repealed, and serjeant Hawkins seems to consider it as still in force. It may, however, perhaps be considered as virtually repealed by the 12th of Charles II. chap. 32, sect. 3, which, without expressly taking away the penalties imposed by former statutes, imposes a new penalty, viz. that of 20s. for every sheep exported, or attempted to be exported, together with the forfeiture of the sheep, and of the owner’s share of the sheep. The second of them was expressly repealed by the 7th and 8th of William III. chap. 28, sect. 4, by which it is declared that “Whereas the statute of the 13th and 14th of king Charles II. made against the exportation of wool, among other things in the said act mentioned, doth enact the same to be deemed felony, by the severity of which penalty the prosecution of offenders hath not been so effectually put in execution; be it therefore enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that so much of the said act, which relates to the making the said offence felony, be repealed and made void.”

For the sake of the nation’s reputation for humanity, it is to be hoped that neither law was ever enforced. The first, however, has never been directly repealed, as far as I know. Serjeant Hawkins seems to consider it still in force. It may, however, perhaps be regarded as effectively repealed by the 12th of Charles II, chapter 32, section 3. That law does not explicitly remove the penalties imposed by earlier laws. Instead, it imposes a new penalty of 20 shillings for every sheep exported or attempted to be exported. It also requires the forfeiture of the sheep and of the owner’s share of the sheep. The second law was expressly repealed by the 7th and 8th of William III, chapter 28, section 4. That law declares: “The law of the 13th and 14th of King Charles II was made against the export of wool. Among other things, it makes that offense a felony. Because of the severity of that penalty, offenders have not been prosecuted as effectively as they might have been. Therefore, by the authority stated above, the part of that law making the offense a felony is repealed and made void.”

The penalties, however, which are either imposed by this milder statute, or which, though imposed by former statutes, are not repealed by this one, are still sufficiently severe. Besides the forfeiture of the goods, the exporter incurs the penalty of 3s. for every pound weight of wool, either exported or attempted to be exported, that is, about four or five times the value. Any merchant, or other person convicted of this offence, is disabled from requiring any debt or account belonging to him from any factor or other person. Let his fortune be what it will, whether he is or is not able to pay those heavy penalties, the law means to ruin him completely. But, as the morals of the great body of the people are not yet so corrupt as those of the contrivers of this statute, I have not heard that any advantage has ever been taken of this clause. If the person convicted of this offence is not able to pay the penalties within three months after judgment, he is to be transported for seven years; and if he returns before the expiration of that term, he is liable to the pains of felony, without benefit of clergy. The owner of the ship, knowing this offence, forfeits all his interest in the ship and furniture. The master and mariners, knowing this offence, forfeit all their goods and chattels, and suffer three months imprisonment. By a subsequent statute, the master suffers six months imprisonment.

However, the penalties remain severe enough. These include penalties imposed by this milder statute and earlier penalties that it does not repeal. Besides forfeiting the goods, the exporter must pay three shillings for every pound of wool exported or attempted to be exported. That is about four or five times the wool’s value. Any merchant or other person convicted of this offense loses the right to collect any debt or money owed to him by an agent or anyone else. Whatever his fortune, and whether or not he can pay these heavy penalties, the law intends to ruin him completely. But the morals of the great body of the people are not yet as corrupt as those of the statute’s authors. I have therefore never heard of anyone taking advantage of this clause. If the person convicted cannot pay the penalties within three months of judgment, he is to be transported for seven years. If he returns before those seven years are over, he is liable to the punishment for felony, without benefit of clergy. A shipowner who knows of the offense forfeits all his interest in the ship and its equipment. The master and sailors, if they know of the offense, forfeit all their goods and possessions and are imprisoned for three months. Under a later statute, the master is imprisoned for six months.

In order to prevent exportation, the whole inland commerce of wool is laid under very burdensome and oppressive restrictions. It cannot be packed in any box, barrel, cask, case, chest, or any other package, but only in packs of leather or pack-cloth, on which must be marked on the outside the words WOOL or YARN, in large letters, not less than three inches long, on pain of forfeiting the same and the package, and 8s. for every pound weight, to be paid by the owner or packer. It cannot be loaden on any horse or cart, or carried by land within five miles of the coast, but between sun-rising, and sun-setting, on pain of forfeiting the same, the horses and carriages. The hundred next adjoining to the sea coast, out of, or through which the wool is carried or exported, forfeits £20, if the wool is under the value of £10; and if of greater value, then treble that value, together with treble costs, to be sued for within the year. The execution to be against any two of the inhabitants, whom the sessions must reimburse, by an assessment on the other inhabitants, as in the cases of robbery. And if any person compounds with the hundred for less than this penalty, he is to be imprisoned for five years; and any other person may prosecute. These regulations take place through the whole kingdom.

To prevent exports, the entire domestic wool trade is subject to very burdensome and oppressive restrictions. Wool cannot be packed in a box, barrel, cask, case, chest, or any other container. It can be packed only in leather or pack-cloth bundles. The word WOOL or YARN must be marked on the outside in large letters, at least three inches long. Otherwise, the wool and its packaging are forfeited. The owner or packer must also pay eight shillings for every pound of wool. Wool cannot be loaded onto a horse or cart or carried by land within five miles of the coast, except between sunrise and sunset. Otherwise, the wool, horses, and vehicles are forfeited. If wool is carried or exported from or through a hundred bordering the coast, that hundred must pay a penalty. A hundred is a local administrative district. The penalty is £20 if the wool is worth less than £10. If it is worth more, the penalty is three times its value, plus three times the legal costs. The claim must be brought within a year. The penalty is collected from any two inhabitants. The court sessions must reimburse them by levying a charge on the other inhabitants, as in cases of robbery. Anyone who settles with the hundred for less than this penalty must be imprisoned for five years. Any other person may then prosecute. These regulations apply throughout the whole kingdom.

But in the particular counties of Kent and Sussex, the restrictions are still more troublesome. Every owner of wool within ten miles of the sea coast must give an account in writing, three days after shearing, to the next officer of the customs, of the number of his fleeces, and of the places where they are lodged. And before he removes any part of them, he must give the like notice of the number and weight of the fleeces, and of the name and abode of the person to whom they are sold, and of the place to which it is intended they should be carried. No person within fifteen miles of the sea, in the said counties, can buy any wool, before he enters into bond to the king, that no part of the wool which he shall so buy shall be sold by him to any other person within fifteen miles of the sea. If any wool is found carrying towards the sea side in the said counties, unless it has been entered and security given as aforesaid, it is forfeited, and the offender also forfeits 3s. for every pound weight, if any person lay any wool, not entered as aforesaid, within fifteen miles of the sea, it must be seized and forfeited; and if, after such seizure, any person shall claim the same, he must give security to the exchequer, that if he is cast upon trial he shall pay treble costs, besides all other penalties.

But in Kent and Sussex, the restrictions are even more troublesome. Every owner of wool within ten miles of the coast must report in writing to the nearest customs officer. Within three days after shearing, the owner must report the number of fleeces and where they are stored. Before moving any of them, the owner must give similar notice of their number and weight. The notice must also state the buyer’s name and residence and where the fleeces are to be taken. In those counties, no one within fifteen miles of the sea can buy wool without first posting a bond to the king. The bond guarantees that the buyer will not sell any of the wool to anyone else within fifteen miles of the sea. If wool is found being carried toward the coast in those counties, it is forfeited unless it has been registered and security given as described above. The offender also forfeits 3 shillings for every pound of wool. If anyone places wool within fifteen miles of the sea without registering it as described above, it must be seized and forfeited. If anyone claims the wool after it has been seized, they must give security to the exchequer. This guarantees that, if they lose at trial, they will pay triple costs, in addition to all other penalties.

When such restrictions are imposed upon the inland trade, the coasting trade, we may believe, cannot be left very free. Every owner of wool, who carrieth, or causeth to be carried, any wool to any port or place on the sea coast, in order to be from thence transported by sea to any other place or port on the coast, must first cause an entry thereof to be made at the port from whence it is intended to be conveyed, containing the weight, marks, and number, of the packages, before he brings the same within five miles of that port, on pain of forfeiting the same, and also the horses, carts, and other carriages; and also of suffering and forfeiting, as by the other laws in force against the exportation of wool. This law, however (1st of William III. chap. 32), is so very indulgent as to declare, that this shall not hinder any person from carrying his wool home from the place of shearing, though it be within five miles of the sea, provided that in ten days after shearing, and before he remove the wool, he do under his hand certify to the next officer of the customs the true number of fleeces, and where it is housed; and do not remove the same, without certifying to such officer, under his hand, his intention so to do, three days before. Bond must be given that the wool to be carried coast-ways is to be landed at the particular port for which it is entered outwards; and if my part of it is landed without the presence of an officer, not only the forfeiture of the wool is incurred, as in other goods, but the usual additional penalty of 3s. for every pound weight is likewise incurred.

When such restrictions are imposed on inland trade, we may believe that coastal trade cannot be very free either. An owner may carry wool, or have it carried, to the coast for shipment by sea to another coastal port or place. But before bringing the wool within five miles of the departure port, the owner must register it there. The entry must include the weight, marks, and number of packages. Otherwise, the owner forfeits the wool, along with the horses, carts, and other vehicles. The owner also faces the penalties and forfeitures imposed by other laws against exporting wool. This law (1st of William III. chap. 32), however, is very indulgent. It declares that no one is prevented from carrying wool home from the place where it was sheared, even within five miles of the sea. But within ten days of shearing, and before moving the wool, the owner must send a signed statement to the nearest customs officer. The statement must give the true number of fleeces and say where they are stored. The owner must also give the officer signed notice three days before moving the wool. A bond must be given to guarantee that wool shipped along the coast will be landed at the port named in the outward entry. If any of it is landed without an officer present, the wool is forfeited, as with other goods. The usual additional penalty of 3s. for every pound of wool is also incurred.

Our woollen manufacturers, in order to justify their demand of such extraordinary restrictions and regulations, confidently asserted, that English wool was of a peculiar quality, superior to that of any other country; that the wool of other countries could not, without some mixture of it, be wrought up into any tolerable manufacture; that fine cloth could not be made without it; that England, therefore, if the exportation of it could be totally prevented, could monopolize to herself almost the whole woollen trade of the world; and thus, having no rivals, could sell at what price she pleased, and in a short time acquire the most incredible degree of wealth by the most advantageous balance of trade. This doctrine, like most other doctrines which are confidently asserted by any considerable number of people, was, and still continues to be, most implicitly believed by a much greater number: by almost all those who are either unacquainted with the woollen trade, or who have not made particular inquiries. It is, however, so perfectly false, that English wool is in any respect necessary for the making of fine cloth, that it is altogether unfit for it. Fine cloth is made altogether of Spanish wool. English wool, cannot be even so mixed with Spanish wool, as to enter into the composition without spoiling and degrading, in some degree, the fabric of the cloth.

To justify their demand for such extraordinary restrictions and regulations, our woolen manufacturers made several confident claims. They said English wool had a special quality that made it superior to wool from any other country. They claimed that foreign wool could not be made into any passable product without some English wool mixed in. They also claimed that fine cloth could not be made without English wool. Therefore, they argued, England could monopolize almost the entire world woolen trade if exports of English wool were completely stopped. With no rivals, England could sell at whatever price it pleased. In a short time, it could gain an incredible amount of wealth through a highly favorable balance of trade. Like most doctrines confidently asserted by a considerable number of people, this one was unquestioningly believed by far more people. It still is. Almost everyone unfamiliar with the woolen trade, or who has not made particular inquiries, believes it. Yet the claim that English wool is needed to make fine cloth is completely false. In fact, English wool is entirely unsuitable for it. Fine cloth is made entirely from Spanish wool. English wool cannot even be mixed with Spanish wool without spoiling and degrading the cloth to some degree.

It has been shown in the foregoing part of this work, that the effect of these regulations has been to depress the price of English wool, not only below what it naturally would be in the present times, but very much below what it actually was in the time of Edward III. The price of Scotch wool, when, in consequence of the Union, it became subject to the same regulations, is said to have fallen about one half. It is observed by the very accurate and intelligent author of the Memoirs of Wool, the Reverend Mr. John Smith, that the price of the best English wool in England, is generally below what wool of a very inferior quality commonly sells for in the market of Amsterdam. To depress the price of this commodity below what may be called its natural and proper price, was the avowed purpose of those regulations; and there seems to be no doubt of their having produced the effect that was expected from them.

Earlier in this work, I showed that these regulations have lowered the price of English wool. They have brought it not only below its natural price today, but far below its actual price under Edward III. After the Union, Scotch wool became subject to the same regulations, and its price is said to have fallen by about half. The Reverend Mr. John Smith, the very accurate and intelligent author of the Memoirs of Wool, makes a further observation. He notes that the best English wool generally sells for less in England than much poorer wool commonly sells for in Amsterdam. The stated purpose of these regulations was to lower the price of wool below what might be called its natural and proper price. There seems to be no doubt that they had the intended effect.

This reduction of price, it may perhaps be thought, by discouraging the growing of wool, must have reduced very much the annual produce of that commodity, though not below what it formerly was, yet below what, in the present state of things, it would probably have been, had it, in consequence of an open and free market, been allowed to rise to the natural and proper price. I am, however, disposed to believe, that the quantity of the annual produce cannot have been much, though it may, perhaps, have been a little affected by these regulations. The growing of wool is not the chief purpose for which the sheep farmer employs his industry and stock. He expects his profit, not so much from the price of the fleece, as from that of the carcase; and the average or ordinary price of the latter must even, in many cases, make up to him whatever deficiency there may be in the average or ordinary price of the former. It has been observed, in the foregoing part of this work, that ‘whatever regulations tend to sink the price, either of wool or of raw hides, below what it naturally would be, must, in an improved and cultivated country, have some tendency to raise the price of butcher’s meat. The price, both of the great and small cattle which are fed on improved and cultivated land, must be sufficient to pay the rent which the landlord, and the profit which the farmer, has reason to expect from improved and cultivated land. If it is not, they will soon cease to feed them. Whatever part of this price, therefore, is not paid by the wool and the hide, must be paid by the carcase. The less there is paid for the one, the more must be paid for the other. In what manner this price is to be divided upon the different parts of the beast, is indifferent to the landlords and farmers, provided it is all paid to them. In an improved and cultivated country, therefore, their interest as landlords and farmers cannot be much affected by such regulations, though their interest as consumers may, by the rise in the price of provisions.’ According to this reasoning, therefore, this degradation in the price of wool is not likely, in an improved and cultivated country, to occasion any diminution in the annual produce of that commodity; except so far as, by raising the price of mutton, it may somewhat diminish the demand for, and consequently the production of, that particular species of butcher’s meat, Its effect, however, even in this way, it is probable, is not very considerable.

One might think that this reduction in price discouraged wool production and greatly reduced the annual output. Output might not have fallen below its former level. But it might have fallen below what it would probably have been under present conditions. With an open and free market, the price would have been allowed to rise to its natural and proper level. I am inclined to believe, however, that these regulations cannot have greatly affected the annual output, though perhaps they reduced it a little. Wool is not the main reason a sheep farmer devotes labor and capital to raising sheep. He expects his profit less from the price of the fleece than from the price of the carcass. In many cases, the usual price of the carcass must make up for any shortfall in the usual price of the fleece. As noted earlier in this work, ‘any regulations that lower wool or rawhide prices below their natural level must tend to raise meat prices in a developed and cultivated country. The price of both large and small livestock fed on such land must be sufficient. It must cover the rent the landlord and the profit the farmer can reasonably expect from developed and cultivated land. If it does not, they will soon stop feeding livestock on that land. Any part of this price not paid for the wool and hide must therefore be paid for the carcass. The less one brings in, the more the other must bring in. Landlords and farmers do not care how this price is divided among the parts of the animal, provided they receive the whole amount. In a developed and cultivated country, therefore, such regulations cannot greatly affect their interests as landlords and farmers. But the rise in food prices may affect their interests as consumers.’ According to this reasoning, then, the lower price of wool is unlikely to reduce its annual output in a developed and cultivated country. The only exception is that higher mutton prices may somewhat reduce demand for mutton and, consequently, its production. Even this effect, however, is probably not very considerable.

But though its effect upon the quantity of the annual produce may not have been very considerable, its effect upon the quality, it may perhaps be thought, must necessarily have been very great. The degradation in the quality of English wool, if not below what it was in former times, yet below what it naturally would have been in the present state of improvement and cultivation, must have been, it may perhaps be supposed, very nearly in proportion to the degradation of price. As the quality depends upon the breed, upon the pasture, and upon the management and cleanliness of the sheep, during the whole progress of the growth of the fleece, the attention to these circumstances, it may naturally enough be imagined, can never be greater than in proportion to the recompence which the price of the fleece is likely to make for the labour and expense which that attention requires. It happens, however, that the goodness of the fleece depends, in a great measure, upon the health, growth, and bulk of the animal: the same attention which is necessary for the improvement of the carcase is, in some respect, sufficient for that of the fleece. Notwithstanding the degradation of price, English wool is said to have been improved considerably during the course even of the present century. The improvement, might, perhaps, have been greater if the price had been better; but the lowness of price, though it may have obstructed, yet certainly it has not altogether prevented that improvement.

Although its effect on the quantity of annual production may not have been very great, its effect on quality might be thought necessarily very great. English wool may not have declined in quality from earlier times. Yet its quality might be lower than it would naturally have been, given the present state of improvement and cultivation. One might suppose that this decline was nearly proportional to the fall in price. The quality of wool depends on the breed, the pasture, and how the sheep are managed and kept clean throughout the growth of the fleece. It seems natural to imagine that the care given to these matters depends on the likely reward. That reward is the price the fleece will bring for the labor and expense involved. However, the quality of the fleece depends largely on the animal’s health, growth, and size. The same care needed to improve the carcass is, in some respects, enough to improve the fleece. Despite the fall in price, English wool is said to have improved considerably even during the present century. Perhaps the improvement would have been greater if the price had been better. But although the low price may have hindered improvement, it certainly has not prevented it altogether.

The violence of these regulations, therefore, seems to have affected neither the quantity nor the quality of the annual produce of wool, so much as it might have been expected to do (though I think it probable that it may have affected the latter a good deal more than the former); and the interest of the growers of wool, though it must have been hurt in some degree, seems upon the whole, to have been much less hurt than could well have been imagined.

These harsh regulations, therefore, seem to have affected neither the quantity nor the quality of the annual wool yield as much as might have been expected. Though I think they probably affected quality much more than quantity. The interests of wool growers must have suffered to some degree. But on the whole, they seem to have suffered much less than might have been imagined.

These considerations, however, will not justify the absolute prohibition of the exportation of wool; but they will fully justify the imposition of a considerable tax upon that exportation.

However, these considerations do not justify a complete ban on wool exports. But they do fully justify a substantial tax on those exports.

To hurt, in any degree, the interest of any one order of citizens, for no other purpose but to promote that of some other, is evidently contrary to that justice and equality of treatment which the sovereign owes to all the different orders of his subjects. But the prohibition certainly hurts, in some degree, the interest of the growers of wool, for no other purpose but to promote that of the manufacturers.

A sovereign owes justice and equal treatment to all groups of citizens. Clearly, it is contrary to that duty to harm one group, even slightly, solely to benefit another. But the prohibition certainly harms wool growers to some degree, solely to benefit manufacturers.

Every different order of citizens is bound to contribute to the support of the sovereign or commonwealth. A tax of five, or even of ten shillings, upon the exportation of every tod of wool, would produce a very considerable revenue to the sovereign. It would hurt the interest of the growers somewhat less than the prohibition, because it would not probably lower the price of wool quite so much. It would afford a sufficient advantage to the manufacturer, because, though he might not buy his wool altogether so cheap as under the prohibition, he would still buy it at least five or ten shillings cheaper than any foreign manufacturer could buy it, besides saving the freight and insurance which the other would be obliged to pay. It is scarce possible to devise a tax which could produce any considerable revenue to the sovereign, and at the same time occasion so little inconveniency to anybody.

Every class of citizens must contribute to the support of the government or commonwealth. A tax of five or even ten shillings on every tod of wool exported would bring the government considerable revenue. It would harm wool growers somewhat less than the ban on exports, because it would probably not lower wool prices quite as much. The tax would give manufacturers enough of an advantage. Though they might not buy wool quite as cheaply as under the ban, they would still pay at least five or ten shillings less than any foreign manufacturer. They would also save the shipping and insurance costs that foreign manufacturers would have to pay. It is hardly possible to devise a tax that would bring the government considerable revenue while causing so little inconvenience to anyone.

The prohibition, notwithstanding all the penalties which guard it, does not prevent the exportation of wool. It is exported, it is well known, in great quantities. The great difference between the price in the home and that in the foreign market, presents such a temptation to smuggling, that all the rigour of the law cannot prevent it. This illegal exportation is advantageous to nobody but the smuggler. A legal exportation, subject to a tax, by affording a revenue to the sovereign, and thereby saving the imposition of some other, perhaps more burdensome and inconvenient taxes, might prove advantageous to all the different subjects of the state.

Despite all its penalties, the ban does not prevent wool from being exported. As is well known, wool is exported in great quantities. The large price difference between domestic and foreign markets creates a strong incentive to smuggle. Even the full force of the law cannot prevent it. This illegal trade benefits no one but the smuggler. Legal exports subject to a tax could provide revenue to the government. This could avoid the need for other taxes that might be more burdensome and inconvenient. In this way, legal exports might benefit everyone in the state.

The exportation of fuller’s earth, or fuller’s clay, supposed to be necessary for preparing and cleansing the woollen manufactures, has been subjected to nearly the same penalties as the exportation of wool. Even tobacco-pipe clay, though acknowledged to be different from fuller’s clay, yet, on account of their resemblance, and because fuller’s clay might sometimes be exported as tobacco-pipe clay, has been laid under the same prohibitions and penalties.

Exporting fuller’s earth, or fuller’s clay, has been subject to nearly the same penalties as exporting wool. Fuller’s clay was thought necessary for preparing and cleaning woolen goods. Tobacco-pipe clay is known to be different from fuller’s clay. Yet the same prohibitions and penalties apply to it because the two clays look alike. Fuller’s clay might sometimes be exported as tobacco-pipe clay.

By the 13th and 14th of Charles II. chap, 7, the exportation, not only of raw hides, but of tanned leather, except in the shape of boots, shoes, or slippers, was prohibited; and the law gave a monopoly to our boot-makers and shoe-makers, not only against our graziers, but against our tanners. By subsequent statutes, our tanners have got themselves exempted from this monopoly, upon paying a small tax of only one shilling on the hundred weight of tanned leather, weighing one hundred and twelve pounds. They have obtained likewise the drawback of two-thirds of the excise duties imposed upon their commodity, even when exported without further manufacture. All manufactures of leather may be exported duty free; and the exporter is besides entitled to the drawback of the whole duties of excise. Our graziers still continue subject to the old monopoly. Graziers, separated from one another, and dispersed through all the different corners of the country, cannot, without great difficulty, combine together for the purpose either of imposing monopolies upon their fellow-citizens, or of exempting themselves from such as may have been imposed upon them by other people. Manufacturers of all kinds, collected together in numerous bodies in all great cities, easily can. Even the horns of cattle are prohibited to be exported; and the two insignificant trades of the horner and comb-maker enjoy, in this respect, a monopoly against the graziers.

Under chapter 7 of the 13th and 14th years of Charles II, exports of raw hides were prohibited. So were exports of tanned leather, except as boots, shoes, or slippers. The law gave our bootmakers and shoemakers a monopoly against both our graziers and our tanners. Later statutes allowed our tanners to escape this monopoly by paying a small tax. The tax is only one shilling per hundredweight of tanned leather, or 112 pounds. Tanners have also obtained a refund of two-thirds of the excise duties on their goods, even when exported without further manufacture. All leather goods may be exported duty free. The exporter is also entitled to a refund of all excise duties. Our graziers remain subject to the old monopoly. They are separated from one another and scattered throughout the country. They can therefore unite only with great difficulty, whether to impose monopolies on their fellow citizens or to free themselves from monopolies imposed by others. Manufacturers of all kinds, gathered in large numbers in every great city, can easily unite. Even cattle horns are prohibited from export. In this respect, the two insignificant trades of horners and comb-makers enjoy a monopoly against the graziers.

Restraints, either by prohibitions, or by taxes, upon the exportation of goods which are partially, but not completely manufactured, are not peculiar to the manufacture of leather. As long as anything remains to be done, in order to fit any commodity for immediate use and consumption, our manufacturers think that they themselves ought to have the doing of it. Woollen yarn and worsted are prohibited to be exported, under the same penalties as wool even white cloths we subject to a duty upon exportation; and our dyers have so far obtained a monopoly against our clothiers. Our clothiers would probably have been able to defend themselves against it; but it happens that the greater part of our principal clothiers are themselves likewise dyers. Watch-cases, clock-cases, and dial-plates for clocks and watches, have been prohibited to be exported. Our clock-makers and watch-makers are, it seems, unwilling that the price of this sort of workmanship should be raised upon them by the competition of foreigners.

Restrictions on exporting partly manufactured goods, whether through bans or taxes, are not limited to leather. As long as any work remains to make goods ready for immediate use and consumption, our manufacturers think they should do it themselves. Exports of woollen yarn and worsted are banned, with the same penalties as for wool. We even tax exports of undyed cloth, and our dyers have thus gained a monopoly at the expense of our clothiers. Our clothiers could probably have defended themselves against this monopoly. But most of our leading clothiers also happen to be dyers. Exports of watch cases, clock cases, and clock and watch faces have also been banned. Our clockmakers and watchmakers are apparently unwilling to have foreign competition raise the price they pay for such workmanship.

By some old statutes of Edward III, Henry VIII. and Edward VI. the exportation of all metals was prohibited. Lead and tin were alone excepted, probably on account of the great abundance of those metals; in the exportation of which a considerable part of the trade of the kingdom in those days consisted. For the encouragement of the mining trade, the 5th of William and Mary, chap.17, exempted from this prohibition iron, copper, and mundic metal made from British ore. The exportation of all sorts of copper bars, foreign as well as British, was afterwards permitted by the 9th and 10th of William III. chap 26. The exportation of unmanufactured brass, of what is called gun-metal, bell-metal, and shroff metal, still continues to be prohibited. Brass manufactures of all sorts may be exported duty free.

Old statutes from the reigns of Edward III, Henry VIII, and Edward VI prohibited the export of all metals. Only lead and tin were exempt, probably because they were so abundant. At the time, exports of these metals made up a considerable part of the kingdom’s trade. To encourage mining, chapter 17 of the fifth year of William and Mary exempted iron, copper, and mundic metal made from British ore. Later, chapter 26 of the ninth and tenth years of William III permitted the export of all copper bars, whether foreign or British. The export of unmanufactured brass, gun-metal, bell-metal, and shroff metal is still prohibited. All kinds of manufactured brass goods may be exported duty free.

The exportation of the materials of manufacture, where it is not altogether prohibited, is, in many cases, subjected to considerable duties.

Where exporting manufacturing materials is not completely prohibited, it is often subject to considerable duties.

By the 8th Geo. I. chap.15, the exportation of all goods, the produce of manufacture of Great Britain, upon which any duties had been imposed by former statutes, was rendered duty free. The following goods, however, were excepted: alum, lead, lead-ore, tin, tanned leather, copperas, coals, wool, cards, white woollen cloths, lapis calaminaris, skins of all sorts, glue, coney hair or wool, hares wool, hair of all sorts, horses, and litharge of lead. If you except horses, all these are either materials of manufacture, or incomplete manufactures (which may be considered as materials for still further manufacture), or instruments of trade. This statute leaves them subject to all the old duties which had ever been imposed upon them, the old subsidy, and one per cent. outwards.

The Act of 8 George I, chapter 15, made exports of all goods produced or manufactured in Great Britain duty-free. These were goods on which earlier laws had imposed duties. The following goods, however, were exceptions: alum, lead, lead ore, tin, tanned leather, copperas, coal, wool, cards, white woollen cloth, lapis calaminaris, skins of all sorts, glue, rabbit hair or wool, hare wool, hair of all sorts, horses, and litharge of lead. Except for horses, all these are either materials for manufacturing, unfinished manufactured goods, or tools of trade. Unfinished manufactured goods may be regarded as materials for further manufacturing. The Act leaves all these goods subject to all the old duties ever imposed on them, including the old subsidy and the one percent export duty.

By the same statute, a great number of foreign drugs for dyers use are exempted from all duties upon importation. Each of them, however, is afterwards subjected to a certain duty, not indeed a very heavy one, upon exportation. Our dyers, it seems, while they thought it for their interest to encourage the importation of those drugs, by an exemption from all duties, thought it likewise for their own interest to throw some small discouragement upon their exportation. The avidity, however, which suggested this notable piece of mercantile ingenuity, most probably disappointed itself of its object. It necessarily taught the importers to be more careful than they might otherwise have been, that their importation should not exceed what was necessary for the supply of the home market. The home market was at all times likely to be more scantily supplied; the commodities were at all times likely to be somewhat dearer there than they would have been, had the exportation been rendered as free as the importation.

The same law exempts many foreign dyes from all import duties. Each dye, however, is later subject to an export duty, though not a very heavy one. Our dyers apparently thought it was in their interest to encourage imports of these dyes by removing all import duties. They also thought it was in their interest to discourage exports a little. But the greed behind this remarkable piece of commercial ingenuity most likely defeated its own purpose. It necessarily taught importers to take greater care not to bring in more than the home market needed. As a result, the home market was always likely to be less well supplied. The goods were always likely to be somewhat more expensive there than if exports had been as free as imports.

By the above-mentioned statute, gum senega, or gum arabic, being among the enumerated dyeing drugs, might be imported duty free. They were subjected, indeed, to a small poundage duty, amounting only to threepence in the hundred weight, upon their re-exportation. France enjoyed, at that time, an exclusive trade to the country most productive of those drugs, that which lies in the neighbourhood of the Senegal; and the British market could not be easily supplied by the immediate importation of them from the place of growth. By the 25th Geo. II. therefore, gum senega was allowed to be imported (contrary to the general dispositions of the act of navigation) from any part of Europe. As the law, however, did not mean to encourage this species of trade, so contrary to the general principles of the mercantile policy of England, it imposed a duty of ten shillings the hundred weight upon such importation, and no part of this duty was to be afterwards drawn back upon its exportation. The successful war which began in 1755 gave Great Britain the same exclusive trade to those countries which France had enjoyed before. Our manufactures, as soon as the peace was made, endeavoured to avail themselves of this advantage, and to establish a monopoly in their own favour both against the growers and against the importers of this commodity. By the 5th of Geo. III. therefore, chap. 37, the exportation of gum senega, from his majesty’s dominions in Africa, was confined to Great Britain, and was subjected to all the same restrictions, regulations, forfeitures, and penalties, as that of the enumerated commodities of the British colonies in America and the West Indies. Its importation, indeed, was subjected to a small duty of sixpence the hundred weight; but its re-exportation was subjected to the enormous duty of one pound ten shillings the hundred weight. It was the intention of our manufacturers, that the whole produce of those countries should be imported into Great Britain; and in order that they themselves might be enabled to buy it at their own price, that no part of it should be exported again, but at such an expense as would sufficiently discourage that exportation. Their avidity, however, upon this, as well as upon many other occasions, disappointed itself of its object. This enormous duty presented such a temptation to smuggling, that great quantities of this commodity were clandestinely exported, probably to all the manufacturing countries of Europe, but particularly to Holland, not only from Great Britain, but from Africa. Upon this account, by the 14th Geo. III. chap.10, this duty upon exportation was reduced to five shillings the hundred weight.

Under the statute mentioned above, gum senega, or gum arabic, was among the listed dyeing materials that could be imported duty-free. It was, however, subject to a small duty when re-exported, amounting to only threepence per hundredweight. At that time, France had exclusive trade with the region near the Senegal, which produced the most of this gum. The British market could not easily be supplied by importing it directly from where it grew. Under the 25th Geo. II., therefore, gum senega could be imported from any part of Europe. This was contrary to the general provisions of the Navigation Act. The law, however, did not mean to encourage this kind of trade, which ran so contrary to England’s general mercantile policy. It therefore imposed a duty of ten shillings per hundredweight on such imports. None of this duty was to be refunded when the gum was exported. The successful war that began in 1755 gave Great Britain the same exclusive trade with those countries that France had enjoyed before. As soon as peace was made, our manufacturers tried to take advantage of this position. They sought to establish a monopoly for themselves against both the growers and the importers of the gum. Under the 5th Geo. III., chap. 37, therefore, gum senega could be exported from his majesty’s African dominions only to Great Britain. Its export was subject to all the same restrictions, regulations, forfeitures, and penalties as the listed commodities of the British colonies in America and the West Indies. Its import was subject to a small duty of sixpence per hundredweight. But its re-export was subject to the enormous duty of one pound ten shillings per hundredweight. Our manufacturers intended that the entire output of those countries should be imported into Great Britain. They wanted to buy it at their own price. To make this possible, they intended that none should be exported again, except at a cost high enough to discourage export. Their greed, however, defeated its own purpose on this occasion, as it did on many others. The enormous duty made smuggling so tempting that great quantities of the gum were secretly exported. It was exported not only from Great Britain but also from Africa, probably to all the manufacturing countries of Europe, but especially to Holland. For this reason, the 14th Geo. III., chap. 10, reduced the export duty to five shillings per hundredweight.

In the book of rates, according to which the old subsidy was levied, beaver skins were estimated at six shillings and eight pence a piece; and the different subsidies and imposts which, before the year 1722, had been laid upon their importation, amounted to one-fifth part of the rate, or to sixteen pence upon each skin; all of which, except half the old subsidy, amounting only to twopence, was drawn back upon exportation. This duty, upon the importation of so important a material of manufacture, had been thought too high; and, in the year 1722, the rate was reduced to two shillings and sixpence, which reduced the duty upon importation to sixpence, and of this only one-half was to be drawn back upon exportation. The same successful war put the country most productive of beaver under the dominion of Great Britain; and beaver skins being among the enumerated commodities, the exportation from America was consequently confined to the market of Great Britain. Our manufacturers soon bethought themselves of the advantage which they might make of this circumstance; and in the year 1764, the duty upon the importation of beaver skin was reduced to one penny, but the duty upon exportation was raised to sevenpence each skin, without any drawback of the duty upon importation. By the same law, a duty of eighteen pence the pound was imposed upon the exportation of beaver wool or woumbs, without making any alteration in the duty upon the importation of that commodity, which, when imported by British, and in British shipping, amounted at that time to between fourpence and fivepence the piece.

In the book of rates used to levy the old subsidy, beaver skins were valued at six shillings and eight pence each. Before 1722, the various subsidies and duties on imported beaver skins amounted to one-fifth of that value, or sixteen pence per skin. All but half the old subsidy was refunded when the skins were exported. The half that was not refunded amounted to only twopence. This import duty had been thought too high for such an important manufacturing material. In 1722, the valuation was reduced to two shillings and sixpence. This reduced the import duty to sixpence, of which only half was to be refunded on export. The same successful war brought the country that produced the most beaver under British rule. Beaver skins were among the enumerated commodities, so their export from America was confined to the British market. Our manufacturers soon realized how they could take advantage of this. In 1764, the import duty on beaver skins was reduced to one penny, but the export duty was raised to sevenpence per skin. None of the import duty was refunded on export. The same law imposed a duty of eighteen pence per pound on exports of beaver wool or woumbs. It made no change to the import duty on that commodity. At the time, the import duty amounted to between fourpence and fivepence per piece when the commodity was imported by British people in British ships.

Coals may be considered both as a material of manufacture, and as an instrument of trade. Heavy duties, accordingly, have been imposed upon their exportation, amounting at present (1783) to more than five shillings the ton, or more than fifteen shillings the chaldron, Newcastle measure; which is, in most cases, more than the original value of the commodity at the coal-pit, or even at the shipping port for exportation.

Coal can be considered both a material used in manufacturing and a tool of trade. Accordingly, heavy duties have been placed on coal exports. These duties currently (1783) amount to more than five shillings per ton, or more than fifteen shillings per chaldron, Newcastle measure. In most cases, this is more than the original value of the coal at the pit or even at the export port.

The exportation, however, of the instruments of trade, properly so called, is commonly restrained, not by high duties, but by absolute prohibitions. Thus, by the 7th and 8th of William III chap.20, sect.8, the exportation of frames or engines for knitting gloves or stockings, is prohibited, under the penalty, not only of the forfeiture of such frames or engines, so exported, or attempted to be exported, but of forty pounds, one half to the king, the other to the person who shall inform or sue for the same. In the same manner, by the 14th Geo. III. chap. 71, the exportation to foreign parts, of any utensils made use of in the cotton, linen, woollen, and silk manufactures, is prohibited under the penalty, not only of the forfeiture of such utensils, but of two hundred pounds, to be paid by the person who shall offend in this manner; and likewise of two hundred pounds, to be paid by the master of the ship, who shall knowingly suffer such utensils to be loaded on board his ship.

The export of tools of the trade, properly speaking, is usually restricted by outright bans rather than high duties. For example, the 7th and 8th of William III, chapter 20, section 8, prohibits exporting frames or machines for knitting gloves or stockings. The penalty is the forfeiture of any frames or machines exported or intended for export. There is also a fine of forty pounds. Half goes to the king and half to the person who reports the offense or sues for the fine. Similarly, the 14th Geo. III, chapter 71, prohibits exporting any tools used in cotton, linen, woolen, and silk manufacturing to foreign countries. The penalty is the forfeiture of the tools and a fine of two hundred pounds for the offender. The ship’s master must also pay two hundred pounds if he knowingly allows such tools to be loaded aboard his ship.

When such heavy penalties were imposed upon the exportation of the dead instruments of trade, it could not well be expected that the living instrument, the artificer, should be allowed to go free. Accordingly, by the 5th Geo. I. chap. 27, the person who shall be convicted of enticing any artificer, of or in any of the manufactures of Great Britain, to go into any foreign parts, in order to practise or teach his trade, is liable, for the first offence, to be fined in any sum not exceeding one hundred pounds, and to three months imprisonment, and until the fine shall be paid; and for the second offence, to be fined in any sum, at the discretion of the court, and to imprisonment for twelve months, and until the fine shall be paid. By the 23d Geo. II. chap. 13, this penalty is increased, for the first offence, to five hundred pounds for every artificer so enticed, and to twelve months imprisonment, and until the fine shall be paid; and for the second offence, to one thousand pounds, and to two years imprisonment, and until the fine shall be paid.

When such heavy penalties were imposed on exporting the lifeless instruments of trade, it was hardly to be expected that the living instrument, the craftsman, would be allowed to leave freely. Accordingly, under 5 Geo. I, chapter 27, anyone convicted of enticing a craftsman in any British manufacturing trade to go abroad to practise or teach that trade faced penalties. For a first offence, the penalty was a fine of up to one hundred pounds and three months in prison. The offender would remain imprisoned until the fine was paid. For a second offence, the fine was set at the court's discretion. The offender would also be imprisoned for twelve months and until the fine was paid. Under 23 Geo. II, chapter 13, the penalty for a first offence was increased to five hundred pounds for each craftsman enticed. It also included twelve months in prison and further imprisonment until the fine was paid. For a second offence, the penalty was one thousand pounds and two years in prison, with further imprisonment until the fine was paid.

By the former of these two statutes, upon proof that any person has been enticing any artificer, or that any artificer has promised or contracted to go into foreign parts, for the purposes aforesaid, such artificer may be obliged to give security, at the discretion of the court, that he shall not go beyond the seas, and may be committed to prison until he give such security.

Under the first of these two laws, a court may require a craftsperson to give security against going abroad. It may do so if there is proof that someone has been enticing the craftsperson to go abroad. It may also do so if the craftsperson has promised or contracted to go abroad for the purposes already mentioned. The court decides whether to require this security. The craftsperson may be imprisoned until it is given.

If any artificer has gone beyond the seas, and is exercising or teaching his trade in any foreign country, upon warning being given to him by any of his majesty’s ministers or consuls abroad, or by one of his majesty’s secretaries of state, for the time being, if he does not, within six months after such warning, return into this realm, and from henceforth abide and inhabit continually within the same, he is from thenceforth declared incapable of taking any legacy devised to him within this kingdom, or of being executor or administrator to any person, or of taking any lands within this kingdom, by descent, devise, or purchase. He likewise forfeits to the king all his lands, goods, and chattels; is declared an alien in every respect; and is put out of the king’s protection.

If a craftsman has gone overseas and is practicing or teaching his trade in a foreign country, he may be ordered to return. The warning may come from any of his majesty’s ministers or consuls abroad, or from a current secretary of state. He must return to this kingdom within six months of the warning and live here continuously thereafter. If he does not, he is no longer allowed to receive any inheritance left to him in this kingdom. Nor may he act as executor or administrator of anyone’s estate, or acquire land in this kingdom by inheritance, will, or purchase. He also forfeits all his lands, goods, and personal property to the king. He is declared a foreigner in every respect and is no longer under the king’s protection.

It is unnecessary, I imagine, to observe how contrary such regulations are to the boasted liberty of the subject, of which we affect to be so very jealous; but which, in this case, is so plainly sacrificed to the futile interests of our merchants and manufacturers.

I imagine it is unnecessary to point out how these regulations contradict the much-praised liberty of the subject. We pretend to guard that liberty so jealously, but here we plainly sacrifice it to the pointless interests of our merchants and manufacturers.

The laudable motive of all these regulations, is to extend our own manufactures, not by their own improvement, but by the depression of those of all our neighbours, and by putting an end, as much as possible, to the troublesome competition of such odious and disagreeable rivals. Our master manufacturers think it reasonable that they themselves should have the monopoly of the ingenuity of all their countrymen. Though by restraining, in some trades, the number of apprentices which can be employed at one time, and by imposing the necessity of a long apprenticeship in all trades, they endeavour, all of them, to confine the knowledge of their respective employments to as small a number as possible; they are unwilling, however, that any part of this small number should go abroad to instruct foreigners.

The admirable aim of all these regulations is to expand our own manufacturing. But they do this not by improving it, but by weakening the manufacturing of all our neighbors. They also seek to end, as far as possible, the troublesome competition of such hateful and disagreeable rivals. Our master manufacturers think it reasonable that they alone should have the benefit of all their countrymen’s ingenuity. In some trades, they restrict the number of apprentices who can be employed at one time. In all trades, they require a long apprenticeship. By these means, they all try to limit knowledge of their respective trades to as few people as possible. Yet they are unwilling to let any of these few people go abroad to teach foreigners.

Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer.

Consumption is the only goal and purpose of all production. Producers’ interests should be considered only as much as necessary to promote consumers’ interests.

The maxim is so perfectly self-evident, that it would be absurd to attempt to prove it. But in the mercantile system, the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce.

This principle is so obvious that it would be absurd to try to prove it. But in the mercantile system, consumers’ interests are almost constantly sacrificed to producers’ interests. The system seems to treat production, not consumption, as the ultimate purpose of all industry and commerce.

In the restraints upon the importation of all foreign commodities which can come into competition with those of our own growth or manufacture, the interest of the home consumer is evidently sacrificed to that of the producer. It is altogether for the benefit of the latter, that the former is obliged to pay that enhancement of price which this monopoly almost always occasions.

Restrictions on imports of all foreign goods that compete with goods grown or made at home clearly sacrifice consumers’ interests to producers’ interests. Consumers are forced to pay the higher prices that this monopoly almost always causes, entirely for the benefit of producers.

It is altogether for the benefit of the producer, that bounties are granted upon the exportation of some of his productions. The home consumer is obliged to pay, first the tax which is necessary for paying the bounty; and, secondly, the still greater tax which necessarily arises from the enhancement of the price of the commodity in the home market.

Export subsidies for some products benefit only the producer. Consumers at home must pay the tax needed to fund the subsidy. They must also pay an even greater tax because the product’s price inevitably rises in the domestic market.

By the famous treaty of commerce with Portugal, the consumer is prevented by duties from purchasing of a neighbouring country, a commodity which our own climate does not produce; but is obliged to purchase it of a distant country, though it is acknowledged, that the commodity of the distant country is of a worse quality than that of the near one. The home consumer is obliged to submit to this inconvenience, in order that the producer may import into the distant country some of his productions, upon more advantageous terms than he otherwise would have been allowed to do. The consumer, too, is obliged to pay whatever enhancement in the price of those very productions this forced exportation may occasion in the home market.

Under the famous trade treaty with Portugal, duties prevent consumers from buying a product from a neighboring country. Our own climate cannot produce it. Consumers must instead buy it from a distant country, though its product is acknowledged to be of worse quality. Consumers at home must accept this inconvenience so that producers can sell some of their products in the distant country on more favorable terms than they otherwise could. Consumers must also pay any higher prices for those same products that this forced export may cause in the home market.

But in the system of laws which has been established for the management of our American and West Indian colonies, the interest of the home consumer has been sacrificed to that of the producer, with a more extravagant profusion than in all our other commercial regulations. A great empire has been established for the sole purpose of raising up a nation of customers, who should be obliged to buy, from the shops of our different producers, all the goods with which these could supply them. For the sake of that little enhancement of price which this monopoly might afford our producers, the home consumers have been burdened with the whole expense of maintaining and defending that empire. For this purpose, and for this purpose only, in the two last wars, more than two hundred millions have been spent, and a new debt of more than a hundred and seventy millions has been contracted, over and above all that had been expended for the same purpose in former wars. The interest of this debt alone is not only greater than the whole extraordinary profit which, it never could be pretended, was made by the monopoly of the colony trade, but than the whole value of that trade, or than the whole value of the goods which, at an average, have been annually exported to the colonies.

But the laws governing our American and West Indian colonies have sacrificed the interests of consumers at home to those of producers. They have done so even more extravagantly than all our other trade regulations. A great empire has been established solely to create a nation of customers. These customers were required to buy from our producers whatever goods those producers could supply. The monopoly might have allowed our producers to charge a little more. For the sake of that small increase, consumers at home have had to pay the entire cost of maintaining and defending the empire. For this purpose, and this purpose alone, more than two hundred million pounds were spent in the last two wars. More than a hundred and seventy million pounds of new debt was incurred. This was in addition to all that had been spent for the same purpose in earlier wars. The interest on this debt alone exceeds the entire extra profit that anyone could claim was made from the monopoly on colonial trade. It even exceeds the entire value of that trade, or the average annual value of goods exported to the colonies.

It cannot be very difficult to determine who have been the contrivers of this whole mercantile system; not the consumers, we may believe, whose interest has been entirely neglected; but the producers, whose interest has been so carefully attended to; and among this latter class, our merchants and manufacturers have been by far the principal architects. In the mercantile regulations which have been taken notice of in this chapter, the interest of our manufacturers has been most peculiarly attended to; and the interest, not so much of the consumers, as that of some other sets of producers, has been sacrificed to it.

It should not be very difficult to determine who devised the whole mercantile system. We may believe it was not consumers, whose interests have been entirely neglected. It was producers, whose interests have been so carefully considered. And among producers, our merchants and manufacturers have been by far the chief architects. The mercantile regulations discussed in this chapter have paid particular attention to the interests of our manufacturers. They have sacrificed the interests of consumers, but even more those of some other groups of producers, to manufacturers' interests.