doctor, after having inflicted a deadly wound by this maxim, undertakes to provide a sovereign and infallible remedy for the evil. which, to do him and his system justice, we shall exhibit in his own words:-It remains to examine how far the prescription applies a remedy to the evil.

I." Though a number of people should, by restoring the freedom of trade, be thrown all at once out of their ordinary employment, and common method of subsistence, it would by no means follow, that they would thereby be deprived either of employment or subsistence.”*

II. "To the greater part of manufactures, there are other collateral manufactures of so familiar a nature, that, a workman can easily transfer his industry from one to the other.

III." The greater part of such workmen, too, are occasionally employed in country labour.

IV. "The stock, which employed them in a particular manufacture before, will still remain in the country, to employ an equal number of people in some other way.

V." The capital of the country remaining the same, the demand for labour will still be the same, though it may be exerted in different places, and for different occupations.+"

Here are five distinct propositions, more clear and plain than Dr. Smith's usually are; but, as we hope to make appear, all highly erroneous, calculated to lead those statesmen astray, who square their system by them, and pregnant with ruin to those nations which may be unfortunate enough to carry them into operation.

The main point is the facility of "transferring industry” from one branch to a "collateral manfuacture." All the rest are but subsidiary to, or explanatory of this fallacious assumption.

Two questions arise here, both important, ard both demanding affirmative answers, in order to support the doctor's hypothesis.

I. Are there such "collateral manufactures," as he assumes, in which men, bereft of employment in those departments of manufacture, which are to be destroyed by the doctor's grand and captivating idea of “restoring the freedom of commerce," may " transfer their industry?” It may be conceded, that there is an affinity between the

* Wealth of Nations, Hartford, 1818, I. 329. + Idem. 330.

weaving of cotton and woollen, and a few other manufactures. But this cannot by any means answer the doctor's purpose. Where will he, or any of his disciples, find "collateral manufactures," to employ printers, coach-makers, watch-makers, shoe-makers, hatters, paper-makers, bookbinders, engravers, letter-founders, chandlers, saddlers, silver-platers, jewellers, smiths, cabinet-makers, stonecutters, glass-makers, brewers, tobacconists, potters, wiredrawers, tanners, curriers, dyers, rope-makers, brickmakers, plumbers, chair-makers, glovers, umbrellamakers, embroiderers, calico-printers, paper-stainers, engine-makers, turners, wheel-rights, and the great variety of other artists and manufacturers? There is no such affinity as he has presumed. And it may be asserted, without scruple, that if, by what the doctor speciously styles "restoring the freedom of trade," five hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand hatters, shoe-makers, printers, or chandlers, are "thrown out of their ordinary employment,' there is no " collateral manufacture of so familiar a nature," that they "can easily transfer their industry from one to another."

We state a case, plain and clear. We will suppose five hundred workmen, and a capital of five hundred thousand dollars, employed in the manufacture of watches, coaches, and silverplate; and that Switzerland, or Paris, or London, fills our markets at such rates as to overwhelm at once all competition, and suppress the manufactories. Where are the "collateral manufactures," to receive those oppressed and forlorn workmen, whose prospects, and those of their families, are thus blasted? Are they to become hatters, or shoemakers, or tailors, or saddlers, or weavers or smiths, or carpenters? Is there a man who can per suade himself into the belief of such an order of things Is there a man who can persuade himself, that "the gene ral industry of the country will not thereby be diminished?” No: and it is a matter of inexpressible astonishment, that such an idea could have ever been hazarded, in a sober and serious book, which has been so long regarded as a guide to statesmen and legislators. It will not stand the test of a moment's investigation. As well might we sup pose, that, on shutting up the courts of justice, and ex pelling the whole corps of lawyers, they might at once commence the medical profession, without any previous study, as that hatters, or tailors, or shoemakers, or weav

ers, or watch-makers, or printers, whom the grand system of "purchasing commodities cheap," and the equally grand system of "restoring the freedom of commerce," might bereave of employment, should find those "collateral manufactures" which Dr. Smith has so kindly provided for them.

We explicitly declare, that we are far from charging the doctor with an intention to mislead or deceive. We believe him, like many other theorists, to have been duped by his own system. But be this as it may, we trust it will appear that a more deceptious ground never was assumed. We use strong and unequivocal language; as the political heresy we combat is of the most pernicious tendency; is supported by the most imposing and formidable name in the whole range of political science; and ranks among its disciples a large portion of those of our citizens whose situations as legislators of the Union and of the several states, render their errors on this vital point pregnant with the most destructive and ruinous consequences.

II. Suppose every branch of manufactures, without exception, to have some "collateral manufacture:" can those who are devested of employment by "restoring the freedom of trade," "transfer their industry" so "easily" as Dr. Smith supposes?

We answer distinctly, No: or, at all events, on so small a scale, as to be unworthy of notice, in discussions involving the best interests and the happiness of nations. To test the correctness of this opinion, let it be observed, that, in manufacturing countries, all the departments are generally full, and not only full, but there are almost always supernumeraries in abundance: and therefore, had these " collateral manufactories" really existed to the full extent the doctor's theory would require, and not been "fancy sketches," derived from his fertile imagination, there would be no vacancy, to which the objects of the doctor's care could "transfer their industry."

Although this appears so plain and palpable, as not to admit contradiction or dispute, yet, on a point of such magnitude, it cannot be time ill-spent, to illustrate it by example.

There are very few branches between which there is so much affinity as the cotton and woollen. And if the doctor's theory would ever stand the ordeal of examination, it would be in the case of these two" collateral manufac

tures." Suppose, then, that, by the introduction of East India muslins, four or five hundred thousand persons, (about one-half of the whole number engaged in the cotton manufacture) in England, are at once thrown out of employment. Can any man be led to believe, that they could find a vacuum in the " collateral" woollen manufacture" to which" they could easily transfer their industry?” Fatuity alone could harbour the supposition. They would find all the places full and overflowing.

But the strongest argument against the doctor's "collateral manufactures," and "transfers of industry,” remains. He obviously did not calculate the results of his own system, nor take into consideration, that, to give it free operation, its pernicious effect would not be confined to one or two branches of industry. It would extend to the whole body. The flood of importation would bear down in one mass of ruin, all those articles within his description of being "purchased cheaper elsewhere." What then becomes of his "collateral manufactures?" and "transfers of industry," and " employment of capital," and all those elegant, sounding phrases, with which he rounds off his paragraphs? Are they not swept away, "like the baseless fabric of a vision," not leaving " a trace behind?"

The doctor with great gravity informs us, that "the greater part of such workmen are occasionally employed in country labour." This is most extravagantly erroneous; for of all the manufacturers in England or any other country, there is not probably one in five, that has ever been in his life twelve months at " country labour." Their habits and manners wholly incapacitate them for that kind of employment. A jeweller, a watchmaker, a hatter, a shoemaker, or a weayer, would be almost as unfit for "country labour," as a ploughman, or a gardener, or a shepherd, to make hats or coats.

But suppose for a moment, through courtesy, we admit with Dr. Smith, that all these different manufacturers are so much accustomed to "country labour," as to be adepts at it, what inference is to be drawn from the admission? Did the doctor believe, did he intend the world to believe, or does there live a man who can believe, that when, by the grand project of "restoring the freedom of trade," and "buying commodities from foreign countries," which can supply us with them "cheaper than we our

selves can make them," thousands and tens of thousand's of people are "all at once thrown out of their ordinary employment, and common means of subsistance," they can find employment at "country labour?" However extravagant and childish the idea is, the doctor must have meant this, or the words were introduced without any meaning whatever.

But it is well known, that except in harvest time, there is in the country no want of auxiliaries. The persons attached to farms are generally, at all other seasons, amply adequate to execute all the "country labour" that is necessary.

Dr. Smith, in order to prove the impropriety of those laws whereby rival manufactures are wholly excluded, observes,

"If the domestic produce can be brought there as cheap, the regulation is evidently useless. If it cannot, it is evidently hurtful."

This passage is ambiguous, and written in a style very different from that usual with Dr. Smith, who is as lavish of words as any writer in the English language, and equally lavish of explanations and amplifications. But here he falls into the contrary extreme. He does not condescend to give us the reason for those assertions. He leaves the reader to divine why "the regulation is useless?" why "hurtful?" We must, therefore, endeavour to explore the meaning. It appears to be, if we understand the first sentence of this maxim, that "all restrictions or regulations," in favour of domestic industry, to the exclusion of rival manufactures, are "useless," if the articles can be made at home as cheap" as the imported ones; because in that case the domestic manufacturer is secure from injury by the competition.

This is extravagantly erroneous. Suppose our woollen manufacturers sell their best broadcloth at eight dollars per yard, and that foreign broadcloth to an immense amount is imported "as cheap." Is it not obvious, that the glut in the market, and the ardent competition between the two parties, would produce the effect which such a state of things has never failed to produce, that is, a reduction of the price below the minimum at which the manufacturer could support himself by his labours, and that he would therefore be ruined?

* Wealth of Nations, I, 319.