On the other hand, he gives a hint how the object might moreeasily be attained in respect of 'less important articles.' Theseless important articles are certainly not enumerated in theinstruction, but the subsequent experience of France has completelybrought to light what Mr Thompson meant by it, for at the time ofthe writing of this instruction the exports of linen yarn and linenfabrics of England to France were included in the term 'lessimportant.'
The French Government, moved by the representations andexplanations of the English Government and its agents, and with theintention of making to England a comparatively unimportantconcession, which would ultimately prove advantageous to Franceherself, lowered the duty on linen yarn and linen fabrics to suchan extent that they no longer gave any protection to Frenchindustry in face of the great improvements which the English hadmade in these branches of manufacture, so that even in the next fewyears the export of these articles from England to France increasedenormously (1838, 32,000,000 francs); and that France stood indanger, owing to the start which England had thus obtained, oflosing its entire linen industry, amounting to many hundredmillions in value, which was of the greatest importance for heragriculture and for the welfare of her entire rural population,unless means could be found to put a check on the Englishcompetition by increasing the duties.
That France was duped by Mr Poulett Thompson was clear enough.
He had already clearly seen in the year 1834 what an impulse thelinen manufacture of England would receive in the next few years inconsequence of the new inventions which had been made there, and inthis negotiation he had calculated on the ignorance of the FrenchGovernment respecting these inventions and their necessaryconsequences.The advocates of this lowering of duties now indeedendeavoured to make the world believe that by it they only desiredto make a concession to the belgian linen manufactures.But didthat make amends for their lack of acquaintance with the advancesmade by the English, and their lack of foresight as to thenecessary consequences?
Be that as it may, this much is clearly demonstrated, that itwas necessary for France to protect herself still more, underpenalty of losing the greater part of her linen manufacturing forthe benefit of England; and that the first and most recentexperiment of the increase of freedom of trade between England andFrance remains as an indelible memorial of English craft and ofFrench inexperience, as a new Methuen Treaty, as a second EdenTreaty.But what did Mr Poulett Thompson do when he perceived thecomplaints of the French linen manufacturers and the inclination ofthe French Government to repair the mistake which had been made? Hedid what Mr Huskisson had done before him, he indulged in threats,he threatened to exclude French wines and silk fabrics.This isEnglish cosmopolitanism.France must give up a manufacturingindustry of a thousand years' standing, bound up in the closestmanner with the entire economy of her lower classes and especiallywith her agriculture, the products of which must be reckoned aschief necessaries of life for all classes, and of the entire amountof between three and four hundred millions, in order thereby topurchase the privilege of exporting to England some few millionsmore in value of wines and silk manufactures.Quite apart from thisdisproportion in value, it must be considered in what a positionFrance would be placed if the commercial relations between bothnations became interrupted in consequence of a war; in case viz.
that France could no more export to England her surplus products ofsilk manufactures and wines, but at the same time suffered from thewant of such an important necessary of life as linen.
If anyone reflects on this he will see that the linen questionis not simply a question of economical well-being, but, aseverything is which concerns the national manufacturing power, isstill more a question of the independence and power of the nation.
It seems indeed as if the spirit of invention had set itselfthe task, in this perfecting of the linen manufacture, to make thenations comprehend the nature of the manufacturing interest, itsrelations with agriculture, and its influence on the independenceand power of the State, and to expose the erroneous arguments ofthe popular theory.The school maintains, as is well known, thatevery nation possesses special advantages in various branches ofproduction, which she has either derived from nature, or which shehas partly acquired in the course of her career, and which underfree trade compensate one another.We have in a previous chapteradduced proof that this argument is only true in reference toagriculture, in which production depends for the most part onclimate and on the fertility of the soil, but that it is not truein respect to manufacturing industry, for which all nationsinhabiting temperate climates have equal capability provided thatthey possess the necessary material, mental, social, and politicalqualifications.England at the present day offers the most strikingproof of this.If any nations whatever are specially adapted bytheir past experience and exertions, and through their naturalqualifications, for the manufacture of linen, those are theGermans, the belgians, the Dutch, and the inhabitants of the Northof France for a thousand years past.The English, on the otherhand, up to the middle of the last century, had notoriously madesuch small progress in that industry, that they imported a greatproportion of the linen which they required, from abroad.It wouldnever have been possible for them, without the duties by which theycontinuously protected this manufacturing industry, even to supplytheir own markets and colonies with linen of their own manufacture.
