If then, the acquisition of natural advantages would be worth paying for, why object to a small expenditure to procure advantages which are allowed to be equivalent to those natural advantages?
As the author has given one supposed case, as he conceived illustrative of the question, I may be permitted to give another, also illustrative of it, not like his, however, springing from assumptions liable to be objected to, but, as will be seen, framed upon his very principles and admissions.
A certain country has the acquired advantage over another of possessing the knowledge of a particular art, which this other wants.The latter, therefore, imports from the former all the goods, the product of that art, which it has occasion for.As it has to pay for these goods, it luckily happens that it, on its side, has also acquired advantages in possessing the knowledge of another art, which the former wants, and the commodities produced by which it has occasion for.In this way, the one sort of goods pays for the other.The natural and acquired advantages of these two countries are either similar or equivalent.That is, their soil, climate, convenience of situation for trade, and their knowledge of other arts, though not exactly the same, are on the whole equally balanced, their population and capital are equal.In short, they as much resemble two neighboring artificers, according to the comparison of our author, exercising different trades, as extensive communities inhabiting separate countries well can resemble single workmen whose dwellings are contiguous.The peculiar manufacture of the one nation is hats, of the other silk goods.The silk goods which the one annually consumes cost it £2,000,000; the hats which the other consumes, the same sum.Of these sums 25 per cent.is made up of transport, including in the term, not the mere freight, but the whole charges paid for internal transport, for warehousing, and for the profits of the different capitals, and wages of the various individuals concerned in collecting the commodities in the one country, carrying them to, and distributing them over the other.Thus the annual sum which these commodities cost each country, over and above the expense of producing them, is £400,000.In this situation things have long remained, and must continue to remain, unless altered by some change in the policy, or great revolution in the affairs of the two countries."It being only for the sake of profit that any man employs a capital in the support of industry," and, from the acquired advantages which each country enjoys over the other in the production of its peculiar manufacture, it being impossible for any projector to manufacture hats, in the country where hats have not hitherto been made, or silks, in the country where silks have not hitherto been made, but at an outlay of more than 25 per cent over what they cost in the country where these respective manufactures are established, no such project will be entered on.The legislators of the two countries, have hitherto agreed with our author, that, as it is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy; what is prudence in the conduct of every private family can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom;and that, whether the advantages which one country has over another be natural or acquired, is of no consequence, it being an acquired advantage only, which one artificer has over his neighbor, who exercises another trade, though they both find it for their advantage, rather to buy of one another, than to make what does not belong to their peculiar trade.Acting on these principles, they have thought it improper to make any alteration in the system.
About this time however a change takes place in their opinions, and they begin to think, that as, though it would not be very prudent in the tailor, that he might have his shoes made in his own workshop instead of his neighbors, to set about making them.himself, or the shoemaker, for the same reason, to set about making his own coat, yet, if there were a town in which there were no shoemakers, but more than enough of tailors, and another, a dozen miles off, in which there were no tailors, hut more than enough of shoemakers, it would be a beneficial change for some of the tailors to remove to the one town, and some of the shoe-makers to the other, that the inhabitants of both might have the articles fabricated by these different sorts of tradesmen, made at home, that is, within their respective towns, so, two countries, of which the one made no hats, and the other no silk goods, might mutually benefit by the introduction of the manufacture in which each was deficient, the inhabitants of each in like manner as the inhabitants of each town, having that provided at home, which they must otherwise go abroad for, and thus being saved like them, the expense and inconvenience of transportation.
Though such a change, in either case, could not he brought about without expense, and though "its immediate effect would therefore be to diminish the revenue of the society," yet, as after a certain time, it would be likely that the new manufacture would be made at home in each case "as cheap or cheaper than abroad," its ultimate effect would be, more than proportionably, to increase the revenues of both towns and both countries.
