THE ERROR OF DISCOURAGING THE USE OF FOREIGN MANUFACTURES.

There is no principle better settled, either in public or domestic economy, than this—that it is for the interest of consumers to buy commodities at the best and cheapest rate. Every sensible person acts upon this rule in his own affairs so far as he is able; but in consequence of the system of prohibiting and discouraging foreign commodities, upon which our legislature has heretofore acted, the public has been obliged to pay for certain British commodities considerably more than their value. This is not the place to inquire why any vestiges of the system of protecting duties, as they are called, have been suffered to remain, or whether the complaints of various interests, against the modification of the protective system, have been well or ill founded; but it may still be useful for us to say a few words upon the groundlessness of the assertions that are in the mouths of many, in regard to the supposed injurious tendency of a taste for foreign commodities, in preference to British. We mention the subject, purely as one of public economy, and not in reference to any question immediately before Parliament, or the public.

Those who lament the use in this country of French silks, or French gloves, seem to take it for granted that the use of such articles throws out of employment, as a matter of course, a certain number of British artisans, and that the country is consequently impoverished in proportion. But such reasoners must be very ignorant of the nature of trade, because nothing is more certain than that the French have never yet given us gratis a single yard of silk, or a single pair of gloves, but that an equivalent in British produce or manufactures, or the value thereof, is given in exchange for every cargo of French goods that crosses the channel. Those who buy must also sell; nor can there be any trade, whether between nations or individuals, unless on a fair principle of reciprocity. This country, therefore, can never be impoverished, nor the demand for British labour diminished, by the importation of French silks, or any other foreign manufactures, in how large quantity soever.

It must, however, be admitted, that the tendency of any sudden change in the law which introduces foreign manufactures into the market, to the discouragement of British is necessarily, at first, to throw some workmen out of employment, by changing the direction of the demand for labour. This is one of the inconveniences that unavoidably follows an alteration in an old established system of policy; but we believe that the magnitude of such inconveniences has been very greatly exaggerated. At all events, if one demand for labour be closed by the abolition of restriction in a particular instance, it is quite clear that an equivalent demand must be opened in some other quarter, and therefore that the aggregate demand for labour in the country cannot be at all diminished. The question, therefore, comes to this, whether it is better that the persons occupied in a particular branch of labour should not be inconvenienced by being obliged to change the nature of their work, or that the whole mass of consumers should be enabled to buy a foreign commodity which can be imported better and cheaper than it can be made in Great Britain? The issue is between the few and the many; and, whether the benefit to be derived by the many, from the particular measure, is not greater than the loss or inconvenience to be consequently sustained by the few? Not that good, or evil, ought to be estimated by the numbers who would participate in the advantages of one measure, or another; but that governments ought never to be unmindful that it is the interest of the consumer, or in other words, of the nation at large, which it is their bounden duty to consult and advance, in preference to the subordinate claims of any class of individuals.

If then, it is certain, that the same encouragement is afforded to British industry, whether we consume what is made abroad, or what is manufactured under our own eyes, it is time that we should hear less of those foolish lamentations of the growing taste for foreign fashions, which are constantly in the mouths of those who will not take the trouble to reflect. We may be perfectly sure that neither does Don Miguel present us with port wine, nor will the supply of it be continued, any longer than we furnish to the Portuguese, British manufactures. The ladies of England have no more reason to fancy it ungenerous, or unpatriotic, to ornament themselves with the beautiful and elegant fabrics of France, than they have for considering it wrong to drink Chinese tea for their breakfasts, instead of a decoction from indigenous plants. Those who make it a matter of conscience to dress themselves exclusively in British stuffs, should, for consistency’s sake, use roasted wheat to the avoidance of coffee, and all other substitutes of the like nature, in preference to the genuine articles; for the simple reason that the substitutes are made in Great Britain, and that the original articles are produced out of it.

Whilst, therefore, we love and honour our country with an affection and reverence which other lands cannot so well claim from Englishmen, we must beg to repudiate that kind of patriotism which would force us into an absurd disregard of the advantages of living in a civilized age. It is not true patriotism, but the spirit of monopoly, that is fostered by the erroneous notions we condemn; and monopolies will always be hateful in the eyes of honest governments, for they are repugnant to the welfare of the mass of the people.

180