1828.] Mr. Huskisson's Colonial Trade Bill, 1825. 263 



equivalent which she could afterwards export to the first mentioned 

 country, as an instrument for the purchase of that object of 

 desire. 



The first case is as simple as can be conceived. Supposing the money 

 price of all commodities to be equal in the two countries : if it required 

 in England a capital of 15,000/. to produce as much corn as could 

 be brought to market in America with a capital of 10,000/., while, with 

 a capital of 10,0001., England could manufacture as much cloth as would 

 have required in America a capital of 15,0001., it is plain that it would 

 be the interest of England to purchase her corn of America by the inter- 

 change of her cloth. Her consumers would thus be supplied with corn 

 at one-third less than the cost at which they could have purchased it at 

 home ; which, as far as it is involved in the production of this one article, 

 one-third of the capital of the country would have been liberated to the 

 production or purchase of other commodities. 



But supposing, to take the second case put, while their relative faci- 

 lities in the production of corn continued the same, America had made 

 successive improvements in the art of cloth-making, by which, first with 

 a capital of 10,000/., and subsequently with one of 8,000/., she could 

 manufacture a quantity of cloth equal to the produce of England's 

 10,000/. ; in either case, if there were no other commodity which she 

 could manufacture with the same facility as cloth, it would still continue 

 the interest of England to export her cloth in exchange for corn. In the 

 former case, as cloth, which would cost in the English market 10,000/., 

 would sell for no more than 10,000/. after it had arrived in America, 

 England w r ould lose the cost of carriage by the transaction ; but, with 

 10,000/. and the cost of carriage, she would still continue to supply 

 herself with corn, which would have cost her 15,000/. to produce at 

 home ; consequently, excepting so far as her profits were diminished by 

 the cost of carriage, she would still save 5,000/. in every 15,000/. In the 

 latter case, to compete in the American market, England must not only 

 lose the cost of carriage, but sell for 8,000/. cloth which cost her 10,000/. 

 in the making ; but she would still, in return for her cloth, purchase 

 corn which would have cost her 15,0001. Consequently, in the article of 

 cloth she would lose 2,OOOZ. and the cost of carriage. In reality, she 

 would be giving 12,000/. and the cost of carriage for her corn. Even 

 here, then, she would save something less than 3,000/. on every 

 15,000/. But supposing to put the third case America, still retaining 

 her relative superiority in the production of the corn, had even pushed 

 her improvements in cloth making to the point of producing with a 

 capital of 5,000/. a quantity of cloth, in the manufacture of which Eng- 

 land still continued to require 10,000/. if England and America were 

 the only two countries in the world capable of commercial interchange, 

 it would cease to be profitable to England to exchange her cloth for 

 corn, because she would lose 5,000/. and the cost of carriage, to save, 

 after all, no more than 5,0001. But the intervention of third countries 

 might still make it the interest of England to continue to purchase her 

 cloth from America. If there were any one country within the range 

 of her commercial relationship, in which England, by reason of either 

 natural or acquired superiority, could, for any amount of capital under 

 15,000/., purchase an equivalent, either in the precious metals or other- 

 wise, which she could export to America for the purchase of corn, it 



