lectures on the industrial revolution in england-第11部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


t　famous　of　these　Acts　was　the　law　of　1651；　by　which　no　goods　of　the　growth　or　manufacture　of　Asia；　Africa；　or　America　were　to　be　imported　into　England；　Ireland；　or　the　Plantations；　except　in　ships　belonging　to　English　subjects；　and　manned　by　a　crew　three…fourths　of　whom　were　English；　while　no　goods　of　any　country　in　Europe　were　to　be　imported　except　in　English　ships；　or　ships　belonging　to　the　country　from　which　the　goods　came。　The　argument　used　by　the　promoters　of　the　law　was　that　by　excluding　the　Dutch　from　the　carrying　trade　to　this　country　we　should　throw　it　into　the　hands　of　English　shipowners；　and　there　would　he　an　increase　of　English　ships。　It　was　admitted；　indeed；　that　this　would　be　giving　a　monopoly　to　English　shipowners　and　English　sailors；　and　that　therefore　freights　would　be　dearer；　and　a　check　given　to　the　growth　of　commerce。　It　was　further　admitted　that　owing　to　their　higher　charges　English　ships　might　be　driven　out　of　neutral　ports；　but　the　contention　was；　that　we　should　secure　to　ourselves　the　whole　of　the　carrying　trade　between　America　and　the　West　Indies　and　England；　and　that　this　would　amply　compensate　for　our　expulsion　from　other　branches　of　commerce。　　　　　These　anticipations　were　on　the　whole　fulfilled。　The　price　of　freights　was　raised；　because　English　ships　cost　more　to　build　and　man　than　Dutch　ships；　and　thus　the　total　amount　of　our　trade　was　diminished。　We　were　driven　out　of　neutral　ports；　and　lost　the　Russian　and　the　Baltic　trades；　because　the　English　shipowners；　to　whom　we　had　given　a　monopoly；　raised　their　charge。　But　on　the　other　hand；　we　monopolised　the　trade　to　ports　coming　within　the　scope　of　the　Act；　the　main　object　of　which　was　'the　preservation　of　our　plantation　trade　entire。'　Our　shipping　received　a　great　stimulus；　and　our　maritime　supremacy　grew　with　it。　At　the　time　when　the　Navigation　Act　was　passed　our　colonial　trade　was　insignificant；　New　York　and　Jersey　were　Dutch；　Georgia；　the　Carolinas；　Pennsylvania；　Nova　Scotia　were　not　yet　planted；　Virginia；　Maryland；　New　England　were　in　their　infancy。　At　the　end　of　the　century　the　Barbados　alone　employed　400　vessels；　while　with　the　growth　of　the　colonies　the　English　power　at　sea　had　increased；　until　it　rivalled　the　Dutch。　In　the　next　century　the　continuous　development　of　the　American　and　East　Indian　trades　gave　us　a　position　of　unquestionable　maritime　superiority。　　　　　There　is　another　argument　in　favour　of　Protection；　at　any　rate　in　its　early　days。　Its　stimulus　helped　to　overcome　the　apathy　and　dulness　of　a　purely　agricultural　population；　and　draw　a　part　of　the　people　into　trade。　But　here；　as　everywhere；　Protection　involves　this　great　disadvantage；　that；　once　given；　it　is　difficult　to　withdraw；　and　thus　in　the　end　more　harm　is　done　than　good。　English　industries　would　not　have　advanced　so　rapidly　without　Protection；　but　the　system；　once　established；　led　to　perpetual　wrangling　on　the　part　of　rival　industries；　and　sacrificed　India　and　the　colonies　to　our　great　manufacturers。　And　our　national　dislike　to　Protection　deepens　into　repugnance　when　we　examine　the　details　of　the　system。　Looking　at　its　results　during　the　period　from　1688　to　1776；　when　it　was　in　full　force；　we　are　forced　to　acknowledge　that　Adam　Smith's　invectives　against　the　merchants；　violent　as　they　were；　were　not　stronger　than　the　facts　demanded。　　　　　But　the　maintenance　of　Protection　cannot　be　entirely　set　down　to　the　merchants。　Though　the　trading　classes　acquired　much　influence　at　the　Revolution；　the　landed　gentry　were　still　supreme　in　Parliament；　and　the　question　arises；　why　they　should　have　lent　themselves　to　a　policy　which　in　many　cases；　as　in　the　prohibition　of　the　export　of　wool；　was　distinctly　opposed　to　the　interests　of　agriculture。　Adam　Smith's　explanation　is　very　simple。　The　country　gentleman；　who　was　naturally　'least　subject　of　all　people　to　the　wretched　spirit　of　monopoly；'　was　imposed　upon　by　the　'clamours　and　sophistry　of　merchants　and　manufacturers；'　and　'the　sneaking　arts　of　underling　tradesmen；'　who　persuaded　him　into　a　simple　but　honest　conviction　that　their　interest　and　not　his　was　the　interest　of　the　public。　Now　this　is　true；　but　it　is　not　the　whole　truth。　The　landowners；　no　doubt；　thought　it　their　duty　to　protect　trade；　and；　not　understanding　its　details；　they　implicitly　followed　the　teaching　of　the　merchants。　But；　besides　this；　there　was　the　close　connection；　already　referred　to；　between　them　and　the　commercial　classes。　Their　younger　sons　often　went　into　trade；　they　themselves；　in　many　cases；　married　merchants'　daughters。　Nor　did　they　give　their　support　gratuitously。　they　wanted　Protection　for　themselves；　and　if　they　acquiesced　in　the　prohibition　of　the　wool　export；　they　persuaded　the　merchants　to　allow　them　in　return　a　bounty　of　5s。　a　quarter　on　the　export　of　corn。　　　　　One　of　the　worst　features　of　the　system　was　the　struggle　of　rival　interests　at　home。　A　great　instance　of　this　was　the　war　between　the　woollen　and　cotton　trades；　in　which　the　former；　supported　by　the　landed　interest；　for　a　long　time　had　the　upper　hand；　so　that　an　excise　duty　was　placed　on　printed　calicoes；　and　in　1721　they　were　forbidden　altogether。　It　was　not　till　1774　that　they　were　allowed　again；　and　the　excise　duty　was　not　repealed　till　1831。　To　take　another　instance：　it　was　proposed　in　Parliament　in　1750　to　allow　the　importation　of　pig　and　bar　iron　from　the　colonies。　The　tanners　at　once　petitioned　against　it；　on　the　ground　that　if　American　iron　was　imported；　less　iron　would　be　smelted　in　England；　fewer　trees　would　be　cut　down；　and　therefore　their　own　industry　would　suffer；　and　the　owners　of　woodland　tracts　supported　the　tanners；　lest　the　value　of　their　timber　should　be　affected。　These　are　typical　examples　of　the　way　in　which；　under　a　protective　system；　politics　are　complicated　and　degraded　by　the　intermixture　of　commercial　interests。　And　the　freer　a　government　is；　and　the　more　exposed　to　pressure　on　the　part　of　its　subjects；　the　worse　will　be　the　result。　As　an　American　observer　has　lately　said；　Protection　may　be　well　enough　under　a　despotism；　but　in　a　republic　it　can　never　be　successful。　　　　　We　find　still　stronger　illustration　of　the　evils　of　Protection　in　our　policy　towards　Ireland　and　the　colonies。　After　the　Cromwellian　settlement；　there　had　been　an　export　of　Irish　cattle　into　England；　'but　for　the　pacifying　of　our　landed　gentlemen；'　after　the　Restoration　the　import　of　Irish　live　stock；　meat　and　dairy　produce　was　prohibited　from　1660　to　1685。　As　cattle…farming　then　became　unprofitable；　the　Irish　turned　their　lands　into　sheepwalks；　and　not　only　exported　wool；　but　started　woollen　manufactures　at　home。　Immediately　a　law　was　passed　（1699）　confining　the　export　of　Irish　wool　to　the　English　market；　and　this　was　followed　by　the　imposition　of　prohibitive　duties　on　their　woollen　manufactures。　The　English　manufacturers　argued　that　as　Ireland　was　protected　by　England；　and　its　prosperity　was　due　to　English　capital；　the　Irish　ought　to　reconcile　themselves　to　restrictions　on　their　trade；　in　the　interests　of　Englishmen。　Besides；　the　joint　interests　of　both　kingdoms　would　be　best　considered　if　England　and　Ireland　respectively　monopolised　the　woollen　and　linen　industries；　and　the　two　nations　thus　became　dependent　on　one　another。　If　we　turn　to　the　colonies；　we　find　them　regarded　simply　as　markets　and　farms　of　the　mother　country。　The　same　argument　was　used：　that　they　owed　everything　to　England；　and　therefore　it　was　no　tyranny　to　exploit　them　in　her　interests。　They　were；　therefore；　not　allowed　to　export　or　import　in　any　but　British　vessels；　they　might　not　export　such　commodities　as　Englishmen　wanted　to　any　part　of　Europe　other　than　Great　Britain；　while　those　of　their　raw　materials　in　which　our　landowners　feared　competition　were　excluded　from　the　English　markets。　All　imports　into　the　colonies　from　other　parts　of　Europe；　except　Great　Britain；　were　forbidden；　in　order　that　our　manufacturers　might　monopolise　the　American　market。　Moreover；　every　attempt　was　made　to　prevent　them　from　starting　any　manufactures　at　home。　At　the　end　of　the　seventeenth　century　some　Americans　had　set　on　foot　a　woollen　industry'。　In　1719　it　was　suppressed；　all　iron　manufactures…even　nail…making…were　forbidden；　a　flourishing　hat　manufacture　had　sprung　up；　but　at　the　petition　of　English　hatters；　these　competitors　were　not　allowed　to　export　to　England；　or　even　from　one　colony　to　another。　Adam　Smith　might　well　say；　that　'to　found　a　great　empire；　for　the　sole　purpose　of　raising　up　a　people　of　customers；　may　at　first　sight　appear　a　project　fit　only　for　a　nation　of　shopkeepers。'　Nothing　contributed　more　than　this　commercial　system　to　the　Declaration　of　independence；　and　it　is　significant　that　the　same　year　which　saw　its　promulgation　saw　also　the　publication　of　the　Wealth　of　Nations。　　　　　Many　people　on　first　reading　the　Wealth　of　Nations　are　disappointed。　They　come　to　it　expecting　lucid　arguments；　the　clear　exposition　of　universal　laws；　they　find　much　tedious　and　confused　reasoning　and　a　mass　of　facts　of　only　temporary　interest。　But　these　very　defects　contributed　to　its　immediate　success。　It　was　because　Adam　Smith　examined　in　detail　the　actual　conditions　of　the　age；　and　wrote　a　handbook　for　the　statesman；　and　not　merely；　as　Turgot　did；　a　systematised　treatise　for　the　philosopher；　that　he　appealed　so　strongly　to　the　practical　men　of　his　time；　who；　with　Pitt；　praised　his　'extensive　knowledge　of　detail；'　as　well　as　'the　depth　of　his　philosophical　research。'　It　was　the　combination　of　the　two　which　gave　him　his　power。　He　was　the　first　great　writer　on　the　subject；　with　him　political　economy　passed　from　the　exchange　and　the　market…place　to　the　professor's　study；　but　he　was　only　groping　his　way；　and　we　cannot　expect　to　meet　with　neat　arrangement　and　scientific　precision　of　treatment　in　his　book。　His　language　is　tentative；　he　sometimes　makes　distinctions　which　he　forgets　elsewhere；　as　was　inevitable　before　the　language　of　economics　had　been　fixed　by　endless　verbal　discussions。　He　had　none　of　Ricardo's　power　of　abstract　reasoning。　His　gift　lay　in　the　extent　and　quickness　of　his　observation；　and　in　his　wonderful　felicity　of　illustration。　We　study　him　because　in　him；　as　in　Plato；　we　come　into　contact　with　a　great　original　mind；　which　teaches　us　how　to　think　and　work。　　　　　Original　peop