upon every foreign commodity, equal to this
enhancement of the price of the home commodities
with which it can come into competition.
Whether taxes upon the necessaries of life,
such as those in Great Britain upon soap,
salt, leather, candles, &c. necessarily raise the
price of labour, and consequently that of all
other commodities, I shall consider hereafter,
when I come to treat of taxes. Supposing,
however, in the mean time, that they have
this effect, and they have it undoubtedly, this
general enhancement of the price of all commodities,
in consequence of that labour, is a
case which differs in the two following respects
from that of a particular commodity, of which
the price was enhanced by a particular tax
immediately imposed upon it.
First, It might always be known with great
exactness, how far the price of such a commodity
could be enhanced by such a tax, but
how far the general enhancement of the price
of labour might affect that of every different
commodity about which labour was employed,
could never be known with any tolerable exactness.
It would be impossible, therefore, to
proportion, with any tolerable exactness, the
tax of every foreign, to the enhancement of
the price of every home commodity.
Secondly, Taxes upon the necessaries of life
have nearly the same effect upon the circumstances
of the people as a poor soil and a bad
climate. Provisions are thereby rendered dearer,
in the same manner as if it required extraordinary
labour and expense to raise them.
As, in the natural scarcity arising from soil
and climate, it would be absurd to direct the
people in what manner they ought to employ
their capitals and industry, so is it likewise
in the artificial scarcity arising from such
taxes. To be left to accommodate, as well as
they could, their industry to their situation,
and to find out those employments in which,
notwithstanding their unfavourable circumstances,
they might have some advantage either
in the home or in the foreign market, is
what, in both cases, would evidently be most
for their advantage. To lay a new tax upon
them, because they are already overburdened
with taxes, and because they already pay too
dear for the necessaries of life, to make them
likewise pay too dear for the greater part of
other commodities, is certainly a most absurd
way of making amends.
Such taxes, when they have grown up to a
certain height, are a curse equal to the barrenness
of the earth, and the inclemency of
the heavens, and yet it is in the richest and
most industrious countries that they have been
most generally imposed. No other countries
could support so great a disorder. As the
strongest bodies only can live and enjoy health
under an unwholesome regimen, so the nations
only, that in every sort of industry have
the greatest natural and acquired advantages,
can subsist and prosper under such taxes.
Holland is the country in Europe in which
they abound most, and which, from peculiar
circumstances, continues to prosper, not by
means of them, as has been most absurdly
supposed, but in spite of them.
As there are two cases in which it will generally
be advantageous to lay some burden
upon foreign for the encouragement of domestic
industry, so there are two others in
which it may sometimes be a matter of deliberation,
in the one, how far it is proper to
continue the free importation of certain foreign
goods; and, in the other, how far, or
in what manner, it may be proper to restore
that free importation, after it has been for
some time interrupted.
The case in which it may sometimes be a
matter of deliberation how far it is proper to
continue the free importation of certain foreign
goods, is when some foreign nation restrains,
by high duties or prohibitions, the importation
of some of our manufactures into
their country. Revenge, in this case, naturally
dictates retaliation, and that we should
impose the like duties and prohibitions upon
the importation of some or all of their manufactures
into ours. Nations, accordingly,
seldom fail to retaliate in this manner. The
French have been particularly forward to favour
their own manufactures, by restraining
the importation of such foreign goods as could
come into competition with them. In this
consisted a great part of the policy of Mr. Colbert,
who, notwithstanding his great abilities,
seems in this case to have been imposed upon
by the sophistry of merchants and manufacturers,
who are always demanding a monopoly
against their countrymen. It is at present
the opinion of the most intelligent men in
France, that his operations of this kind have
not been beneficial to his country. That minister,
by the tariff of 1667, imposed very high
duties upon a great number of foreign manufactures.
Upon his refusing to moderate them
in favour of the Dutch, they, in 1671, prohibited
the importation of the wines, brandies,
and manufactures of France. The war of
1672 seems to have been in part occasioned
by this commercial dispute. The peace of
Nimeguen put an end to it in 1678, by moderating
some of those duties in favour of the
Dutch, who in consequence took off their prohibition.
It was about the same time that
the French and English began mutually to
oppress each other's industry, by the like duties
and prohibitions, of which the French,
however, seem to have set the first example.
The spirit of hostility which has subsisted between
the two nations ever since, has hitherto
hindered them from being moderated on either
side. In 1697, the English prohibited
the importation of bone lace, the manufacture
of Flanders. The government of that country,
at that time under the domination of Spain,