The first of the North American advocates of free trade， asunderstood by Adam Smith -- Thomas Cooper， President of ColumbiaCollege -- denies even the existence of nationality； he calls thenation 'a grammatical invention，' created only to save periphrases，a nonentity， which has no actual existence save in the heads ofpoliticians.Cooper is moreover perfectly consistent with respectto this， in fact much more consistent than his predecessors andinstructors， for it is evident that as soon as the existence ofnations with their distinct nature and interests is recognised， itbecomes necessary to modify the economy of human society inaccordance with these special interests， and that if Cooperintended to represent these modifications as errors， it was verywise on his part from the beginning to disown the very existence ofnations.
For our own part， we are far from rejecting the theory ofcosmopolitical economy， as it has been perfected by the prevailingschool； we are， however， of opinion that political economy， or asSay calls it '閏onomie publique，' should also be developedscientifically， and that it is always better to call things bytheir proper names than to give them significations which standopposed to the true import of words.
If we wish to remain true to the laws of logic and of thenature of things， we must set the economy of individuals againstthe economy of societies， and discriminate in respect to the latterbetween true political or national economy (which， emanating fromthe idea and nature of the nation， teaches how a given nation inthe present state of the world and its own special nationalrelations can maintain and improve its economical conditions) andcosmopolitical economy， which originates in the assumption that allnations of the earth form but one society living in a perpetualstate of peace.
If， as the prevailing school requites， we assume a universalunion or confederation of all nations as the guarantee for aneverlasting peace， the principle of international free trade seemsto be perfectly justified.The less every individual is restrainedin pursuing his own individual prosperity， the greater the numberand wealth of those with whom he has free intercourse， the greaterthe area over which his individual activity can exercise itself，the easier it will be for him to utilise for the increase of hisprosperity the properties given him by nature， the knowledge andtalents which he has acquired， and the forces of nature placed athis disposal.As with separate individuals， so is it also the casewith individual communities， provinces， and countries.A simpletononly could maintain that a union for free commercial intercoursebetween themselves is not as advantageous to the different statesincluded in the United States of North America， to the variousdepartments of France， and to the various German allied states， aswould be their separation by internal provincial customs tariffs.
In the union of the three kingdoms of Great Britain and Irelandthe world witnesses a great and irrefragable example of theimmeasurable efficacy of free trade between united nations.Let usonly suppose all other nations of the earth to be united in asimilar manner， and the most vivid imagination will not be able topicture to itself the sum of prosperity and good fortune which thewhole human race would thereby acquire.
Unquestionably the idea of a universal confederation and aperpetual peace is commended both by common sense and religion.(2*)If single combat between individuals is at present considered to becontrary to reason， how much more must combat between two nationsbe similarly condemned？ The proofs which social economy can producefrom the history of the civilisation of mankind of thereasonableness of bringing about the union of all mankind under thelaw of right， are perhaps those which are the clearest to soundhuman understanding.
