list2-第40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！





　　　　Such　a　condition　existed　for　more　than　a　century　with　advantage



between　North　America　and　England；　exists　still　between　England　and



Canada；　and　will　probably　exist　for　centuries　between　England　and



Australia。



　　　　This　condition　becomes　fundamentally　changed；　however；　from　the



moment　in　which　the　colony　appears　as　an　independent　nation　with



every　claim　to　the　attributes　of　a　great　and　independent



nationality　　in　order　that　it　may　develop　a　power　and　policy　of



its　own　and　its　own　special　system　of　commerce　and　credit。　The



former　colony　then　enacts　laws　for　the　special　benefit　of　its　own



navigation　and　naval　power　　it　establishes　in　favour　of　its　own



internal　industry　a　customs　tariff　of　its　own；　it　establishes　a



national　bank　of　its　own；　&c。；　provided　namely　that　the　new　nation



thus　passing　from　the　position　of　a　colony　to　independence　feels



itself　capable；　by　reason　of　the　mental；　physical；　and　economical



endowments　which　it　possesses；　of　becoming　an　industrial　and



commercial　nation。　The　mother　country；　in　consequence；　places



restrictions；　on　its　side；　on　the　navigation；　commerce；　and



agricultural　production　of　the　former　colony；　and　acts；　by　its



institutions　of　credit；　exclusively　for　the　maintenance　of　its　own



national　economical　conditions。



　　　　But　it　is　precisely　the　instance　of　the　North　American　colonies



as　they　existed　before　the　American　War　of　Independence　by　which



Adam　Smith　seeks　to　prove　the　above…mentioned　highly　paradoxical



opinion：　that　a　country　can　continually　increase　its　exportation　of



gold　and　silver；　decrease　its　circulation　of　the　precious　metals；



extend　its　paper　circulation；　and　increase　its　debts　contracted



with　other　nations　while　enjoying　simultaneously　steadily



increasing　prosperity。　Adam　Smith　has　been　very　careful　not　to　cite



the　example　of　two　nations　which　have　been　independent　of　one



another　for　some　time；　and　whose　interests　of　navigation；　commerce；



industry；　and　agriculture　are　in　competition　with　those　of　other



rival　nations；　in　proof　of　his　opinion　he　merely　shows　us　the



relation　of　a　colony　to　its　mother　country。　If　he　had　lived　to　the



present　time　and　only　written　his　book　now；　he　would　have　been　very



careful　not　to　cite　the　example　of　North　America；　as　this　example



proves　in　our　days　just　the　opposite　of　what　he　attempts　by　it　to



demonstrate。



　　　　Under　such　circumstances；　however；　it　may　be　urged　against　us



that　it　would　be　incomparably　more　to　the　advantage　of　the　United



States　if　they　returned　again　to　the　position　of　an　English　colony。



To　this　we　answer；　yes；　provided　always　that　the　United　States　do



not　know　how　to　utilise　their　national　independence　so　as　to



cultivate　and　develop　a　national　industry　of　their　own；　and　a



self…supporting　system　of　commerce　and　credit　which　is　independent



of　the　world　outside。　But　（it　may　be　urged）　is　it　not　evident　that



if　the　United　States　had　continued　to　exist　as　a　British　colony　no



English　corn　law　would　ever　have　been　passed；　that　England　would



never　have　imposed　such　high　duties　on　American　tobacco；　that



continual　quantities　of　timber　would　have　been　exported　from　the



United　States　to　England；　that　England；　far　from　ever　entertaining



the　idea　of　promoting　the　production　of　cotton　in　other　countries；



would　have　endeavoured　to　give　the　citizens　of　the　United　States　a



monopoly　in　this　article；　and　to　maintain　it；　that　consequently



commercial　crises　such　as　have　occurred　within　the　last　decades　in



North　America；　would　have　been　impossible？　Yes；　if　the　United



States　do　not　manufacture；　if　they　do　not　found　a　durable　system　of



credit　of　their　own；　if　they　do　not　desire　or　are　not　able　to



develop　a　naval　power。　But　then；　in　that　case；　the　citizens　of



Boston　have　thrown　the　tea　into　the　sea　in　vain；　then　all　their



declamation　as　to　independence　and　future　national　greatness　is　in



vain：　then　indeed　would　they　do　better　if　they　re…enter　as　soon　as



possible　into　dependence　on　England　as　her　colony。　In　that　event



England　will　favour　them　instead　of　imposing　restrictions　on　them；



she　will　rather　impose　restrictions　on　those　who　compete　with　the



North　Americans　in　cotton　culture　and　corn　production；　&c。　than



raise　up　with　all　possible　energy　competitors　against　them。　The



Bank　of　England　will　then　establish　branch　banks　in　the　United



States；　the　English　Government　will　promote　emigration　and　the



export　of　capital　to　America；　and　through　the　entire　destruction　of



the　American　manufactories；　as　well　as　by　favouring　the　export　of



American　raw　materials　and　agricultural　produce　to　England；　take



maternal　care　to　prevent　commercial　crises　in　North　America；　and　to



keep　the　imports　and　exports　of　the　colony　always　at　a　proper



balance　with　one　another。　In　one　word；　the　American　slaveholders



and　cotton　planters　will　then　realise　the　fulfilment　of　their



finest　dreams。　In　fact；　such　a　position　has　already　for　some　time



past　appeared　to　the　patriotism；　the　interests；　and　requirements　of



these　planters　more　desirable　than　the　national　independence　and



greatness　of　the　United　States。　Only　in　the　first　emotions　of



liberty　and　independence　did　they　dream　of　industrial　independence。



They　soon；　however；　grew　cooler；　and　for　the　last　quarter　of　a



century　the　industrial　prosperity　of　the　middle　and　eastern　states



is　to　them　an　abomination；　they　try　to　persuade　the　Congress　that



the　prosperity　of　America　depends　on　the　industrial　sovereignty　of



England　over　North　America。　What　else　can　be　meant　by　the　assertion



that　the　United　States　would　be　richer　and　more　prosperous　if　they



again　went　over　to　England　as　a　colony？



　　　　In　general　it　appears　to　us　that　the　defenders　of　free　trade



would　argue　more　consistently　in　regard　to　money　crises　and　the



balance　of　trade；　as　well　as　to　manufacturing　industry；　if　they



openly　advised　all　nations　to　prefer　to　subject　themselves　to　the



English　as　dependencies　of　England；　and　to　demand　in　exchange　the



benefits　of　becoming　English　colonies；　which　condition　of



dependence　would　be；　in　economical　respects；　clearly　more



favourable　to　them　than　the　condition　of　half　independence　in　which



those　nations　live　who；　without　maintaining　an　independent　system



of　industry；　commerce；　and　credit　of　their　own；　nevertheless　always



want　to　assume　towards　England　the　attitude　of　independence。　Do　not



we　see　what　Portugal　would　have　gained　if　she　had　been　governed



since　the　Methuen　Treaty　by　an　English　viceroy　　if　England　had



transplanted　her　laws　and　her　national　spirit　to　Portugal；　and



taken　that　country　（like　the　East　Indian　Empire）　altogether　under



her　wings？　Do　not　we　perceive　how　advantageous　such　a　condition



would　be　to　Germany　　to　the　whole　European　continent？



　　　　India；　it　is　true；　has　lost　her　manufacturing　power　to　England；



but　has　she　not　gained　considerably　in　her　internal　agricultural



production　and　in　the　exportation　of　her　agricultural　products？



Have　not　the　former　wars　under　her　Nabobs　ceased？　Are　not　the



native　Indian　princes　and　kings　extremely　well　off？　Have　they　not



preserved　their　large　private　revenues？　Do　not　they　find　themselves



thereby　completely　relieved　of　the　weighty　cares　of　government？



　　　　Moreover；　it　is　worthy　of　notice　（though　it　is　so　after　the



manner　of　those　who；　like　Adam　Smith；　make　their　strong　points　in



maintaining　paradoxical　opinions）　that　this　renowned　author；　in



spite　of　all　his　arguments　against　the　existence　of　a　balance　of



trade；　maintains；　nevertheless；　the　existence　of　a　thing　which　he



calls　the　balance　between　the　consumption　and　production　of　a



nation；　which；　however；　when　brought　to　light；　means　nothing　else



but　our　actual　balance　of　trade。　A　nation　whose　exports　and　imports



tolerably　well　balance　each　other；　may　rest　assured　that；　in



respect　of　its　national　interchange；　it　does　not　consume　much　more



in　value　than　it　produces；　while　a　nation　which　for　a　series　of



years　（as　the　United　States　of　America　have　done　in　recent　years）



imports　larger　quantities　in　value　of　foreign　manufactured　goods



than　it　exports　in　value　of　products　of　its　own；　may　rest　assured



that；　in　respect　to　international　interchange；　it　consumes



considerably　larger　quantities　in　value　of　foreign　goods　than　it



produces　at　home。　For　what　else　did　the　crises　of　France



（1786…1789）；　of　Russia　（1820…1821）；　and　of　the　United　States　since



1833；　prove？



　　　　In　concluding　this　chapter　we　must　be　permitted　to　put　a　few



questions　to　those　who　consider　the　whole　doctrine　of　the　balance



of　trade　as　a　mere　exploded　fallacy。



　　　　How　is　it　that　a　decidedly　and　continuously　disadvantageous



balance　of　trade　has　always　and　without　exception　been　accompanied



in　those　countries　to　whose　detriment　it　existed　（with　the



exception　of　colonies）　by　internal　commercial　crises；　revolutions



in　prices；　financial　difficulties；　and　general　bankruptcies；　both



in　the　public　institutions　of　credit；　and　among　the　individual



merchants；　manufacturers；　and　agriculturists？



　　　　How　is　it　that　in　those　nations　which　possessed　a　balance　of



trade　decidedly　in　their　favour；　the　opposite　appearances　have



always　been　observed；　and　that　commercial　crises　in　the　countries



with　which　such　nations　were　connected　commercially；　have　only



affected　such　nations　detrimentally　for　periods　which　passed　away



very　quickly？



　　　　How　is　it　that　since　Russia　has　produced　for　herself　the



greatest　part　of　the