namely；　to　export　manufactured　articles　and　import　raw　materials。
  How；　then；　did　they　act　under　the　circumstances？　Did　they　rest
  content　with　the　profits　accruing　from　the　trade　in　cloths　with
  Portugal　and　in　cotton　and　silk　manufactures　with　India？　By　no
  means。　The　English　Ministers　saw　farther　than　that。
  Had　they　sanctioned　the　free　importation　into　England　of　Indian
  cotton　and　silk　goods；　the　English　cotton　and　silk　manufactories
  must　of　necessity　soon　come　to　a　stand。　India　had　not　only　the
  advantage　of　cheaper　labour　and　raw　material；　but　also　the
  experience；　the　skill；　and　the　practice　of　centuries。　The　effect　of
  these　advantages　could　not　fail　to　tell　under　a　system　of　free
  competition。
  But　England　was　unwilling　to　found　settlements　in　Asia　in　order
  to　become　subservient　to　Asia　in　manufacturing　industry。　She　strove
  for　commercial　supremacy；　and　felt　that　of　two　countries
  maintaining　free　trade　between　one　another；　that　one　would　be
  supreme　which　sold　manufactured　goods；　while　that　one　would　be
  subservient　which　could　only　sell　agricultural　produce。　In　her
  North　American　colonies　England　had　already　acted　on　those
  principles　in　disallowing　the　manufacture　in　those　colonies　of　even
  a　single　horseshoe　nail；　and；　still　more；　that　no　horseshoe　nails
  made　there　should　be　imported　into　England。　How　could　it　be
  expected　of　her　that　she　would　give　up　her　own　market　for
  manufactures；　the　basis　of　her　future　greatness；　to　a　people　so
  numerous；　so　thrifty；　so　experienced　and　perfect　in　the　old　systems
  of　manufacture　as　the　Hindoos？
  Accordingly；　England　prohibited　the　import　of　the　goods　dealt
  in　by　her　own　factories；　the　Indian　cotton　and　silk　fabrics。（6*）
  The　prohibition　was　complete　and　peremptory。　Not　so　much　as　a
  thread　of　them　would　England　permit　to　be　used。　She　would　have　none
  of　these　beautiful　and　cheap　fabrics；　but　preferred　to　consume　her
  own　inferior　and　more　costly　stuffs。　She　was；　however；　quite
  willing　to　supply　the　Continental　nations　with　the　far　finer
  fabrics　of　India　at　lower　prices；　and　willingly　yielded　to　them　all
  the　benefit　of　that　cheapness；　she　herself　would　have　none　of　it。
  Was　England　a　fool　in　so　acting？　Most　assuredly；　according　to
  the　theories　of　Adam　Smith　and　J。　B。　Say　the　Theory　of　Values。　For；
  according　to　them；　England　should　have　bought　what　she　required
  where　she　could　buy　them　cheapest　and　best：　it　was　an　act　of　folly
  to　manufacture　for　herself　goods　at　a　greater　cost　than　she　could
  buy　them　at　elsewhere；　and　at　the　same　time　give　away　that
  advantage　to　the　Continent。
  The　case　is　quite　the　contrary；　according　to　our　theory；　which
  we　term　the　Theory　of　the　Powers　of　Production；　and　which　the
  English　Ministry；　without　having　examined　the　foundation　on　which
  it　rests；　yet　practically　adopted　when　enforcing　their　maxim　of
  importing　produce　and　exporting　fabrics。
  The　English　Ministers　cared　not　for　the　acquisition　of
  low…priced　and　perishable　articles　of　manufacture；　but　for　that　of
  a　more　costly　but　enduring　manufacturing　power。
  They　have　attained　their　object　in　a　brilliant　degree。　At　this
  day　England　produces　seventy　million　pounds'　worth　of　cotton　and
  silk　goods；　and　supplies　all　Europe；　the　entire　world；　India　itself
  included；　with　British　manufactures。　Her　home　production　exceeds　by
  fifty　or　a　hundred　times　the　value　of　her　former　trade　in　Indian
  manufactured　goods。
  What　would　it　have　profited　her　had　she　been　buying　for　a
  century　the　cheap　goods　of　Indian　manufacture？
  And　what　have　they　gained　who　purchased　those　goods　so　cheaply
  of　her？　The　English　have　gained　power；　incalculable　power；　while
  the　others　have　gained　the　reverse　of　power。
  That　in　the　face　of　results　like　these；　historically　attested
  upon　unimpeachable　evidence；　Adam　Smith　should　have　expressed　so
  warped　a　judgment　upon　the　Navigation　Laws；　can　only　be　accounted
  for　upon　the　same　principle　on　which　we　shall　in　another　chapter
  explain　this　celebrated　author's　fallacious　conclusions　respecting
  commercial　restrictions。　These　facts　stood　in　the　way　of　his　pet
  notion　of　unrestricted　free　trade。　It　was　therefore　necessary　for
  him　to　obviate　the　objection　that　could　be　adduced　against　his
  principle　from　the　effects　of　the　Navigation　Laws；　by　drawing　a
  distinction　between　their　political　objects　and　their　economical
  objects。　He　maintained　that；　although　the　Navigation　Laws　had　been
  politically　necessary　and　beneficial；　yet　that　they　were
  economically　prejudicial　and　injurious。　How　little　this　distinction
  can　be　justified　by　the　nature　of　things　or　by　experience；　we　trust
  to　make　apparent　in　the　course　of　this　treatise。
  J。　B。　Say；　though　he　might　have　known　better　from　the
  experience　of　North　America；　here　too；　as　in　every　instance　where
  the　principles　of　free　trade　and　protection　clash；　goes　still
  farther　than　his　predecessor。　Say　reckons　up　what　the　cost　of　a
  sailor　to　the　French　nation　is；　owing　to　the　fishery　bounties；　in
  order　to　show　how　wasteful　and　unremunerative　these　bounties　are。
  The　subject　of　restrictions　upon　navigation　constitutes　a
  formidable　stumbling…block　in　the　path　of　the　advocates　of
  unrestricted　free　trade；　which　they　are　only　too　glad　to　pass　over
  in　silence；　especially　if　they　are　members　of　the　mercantile
  community　in　seaport　towns。
  The　truth　of　the　matter　is　this。　Restrictions　on　navigation　are
  governed　by　the　same　law　as　restrictions　upon　any　other　kind　of
  trade。　Freedom　of　navigation　and　the　carrying　trade　conducted　by
  foreigners　are　serviceable　and　welcome　to　communities　in　the　early
  stages　of　their　civilisation；　so　long　as　their　agriculture　and
  manufactures　still　remain　undeveloped。　Owing　to　want　of　capital　and
  of　experienced　seamen；　they　are　willing　to　abandon　navigation　and
  foreign　trade　to　other　nations。　Later　on；　however；　when　they　have
  developed　their　producing　power　to　a　certain　point　and　acquired
  skill　in　shipbuilding　and　navigation；　then　they　will　desire　to
  extend　their　foreign　trade；　to　carry　it　on　in　their　own　ships；　and
  become　a　naval　power　themselves。　Gradually　their　own　mercantile
  marine　grows　to　such　a　degree　that　they　feel　themselves　in　a
  position　to　exclude　the　foreigner　and　to　conduct　their　trade　to　the
  most　distant　places　by　means　of　their　own　vessels。　Then　the　time
  has　come　when；　by　means　of　restrictions　on　navigation；　a　nation　can
  successfully　exclude　the　more　wealthy；　more　experienced；　and　more
  powerful　foreigner　from　participation　in　the　profits　of　that
  business。　When　the　highest　degree　of　progress　in　navigation　and
  maritime　power　has　been　reached；　a　new　era　will　set　in；　no　doubt；
  and　such　was　that　stage　of　advancement　which　Dr　Priestley　had　in
  his　mind　when　he　wrote　'that　the　time　may　come　when　it　may　be　as
  politic　to　repeal　this　Act　as　it　was　to　make　it。'（7*）
  Then　it　is　that；　by　means　of　treaties　of　navigation　based　upon
  equality　of　rights；　a　nation　can；　on　the　one　hand；　secure　undoubted
  advantages　as　against　less　civilised　nations；　who　will　thus　be
  debarred　from　introducing　restrictions　on　navigation　in　their　own
  special　behalf；　while；　on　the　other　hand；　it　will　thereby　preserve
  its　own　seafaring　population　from　sloth；　and　spur　them　on　to　keep
  pace　with　other　countries　in　shipbuilding　and　in　the　art　of
  navigation。　While　engaged　in　her　struggle　for　supremacy；　Venice　was
  doubtless　greatly　indebted　to　her　policy　of　restrictions　on
  navigation；　but　as　soon　as　she　had　acquired　supremacy　in　trade；
  manufactures；　and　navigation；　it　was　folly　to　retain　them。　For
  owing　to　them　she　was　left　behind　in　the　race；　both　as　respects
  shipbuilding；　navigation；　and　seamanship　of　her　sailors；　with　other
  maritime　and　commercial　nations　which　were　advancing　in　her
  footsteps。　Thus　England　by　her　policy　increased　her　naval　power；
  and　by　means　of　her　naval　power　enlarged　the　range　of　her
  manufacturing　and　commercial　powers；　and　again；　by　the　latter；
  there　accrued　to　her　fresh　accessions　of　maritime　strength　and　of
  colonial　possessions。　Adam　Smith；　when　he　maintains　that　the
  Navigation　Laws　have　not　been　beneficial　to　England　in　commercial
  respects；　admits　that；　in　any　case；　these　laws　have　increased　her
  power。　And　power　is　more　important　than　wealth。　That　is　indeed　the
  fact。　Power　is　more　important　than　wealth。　And　why？　Simply　because
  national　power　is　a　dynamic　force　by　which　new　productive　resources
  are　opened　out；　and　because　the　forc