♦10 j4nlEssai/ on\Comm€rcial Policy. 



tion, that the loss of thirteen provinces was a benefit to the 

 empire. Had the colonies been permitted to trade imme- 

 diately with the states ot" Europe, a flow of wealth would 

 have reverted to them that ultimately would have assisted 

 the mother country, who, instead of holding her sove- 

 reignty over them bv the slender tie of opinion, might have 

 supported, by judicious internal taxation, such a formida- 

 ble military force in America as would have prevented the 

 division of the empire, and in periods of necessity would 

 have abetted her cause with the greatest effect. But from 

 these general speculations let us turn to the consideration 

 of facts ; and, to show that the mercantile machine of our 

 own countrv is not the only one that has been deranged by 

 the impolitic hands of statesmen, I am induced to quote an, 

 instance from the affairs of Russia that is most distinct and 

 unquestionable. 



The proprietors of the iron mines of Russia, about the 

 year l 798, took it into their heads that the immense forests 

 of that vast country were diminishing so rapidly, that un- 

 less the exportation of timber were prohibited a scarcity of 

 wood must ensue ; and they infected the government with 

 the same notion ; in consequence of which the exportation 

 of timber was partially prohibited. The British vessels 

 could not, as formerly, obtain deals to make up their car- 

 goes ; they were therefore obliged to take a larger quantity 

 of iron, the price of which was raised so high that it could 

 not be sold for an adequate profit in the British markets ; 

 and, as the q^uantity of Russian iron consumed by Great 

 Britain had been annually decreasing for several years be- 

 fore, the prohibition hastened the diminution. In the year 

 1781 Great Britain alone imported from Petershurgh nearly 

 50,000 tons of iron ; in ISOi the quantity was under 600o\ 

 Upon an eqiulity with this measure of the Russian govern- 

 ment may be placed that law of ours, which was passed in 

 1747, to prevent the insurance of French vessels, or their 

 cargoes, iu this countrv during the war with France; in 

 consequence of which regular offices of insurance were esta- 

 blished at Paris and in the principal ports of France; and 

 when peace was restored between the two countries, the 

 French had Ibimd the way so readily to their own insurance 

 offices, that we never after regained that part of their com-; 

 niercial profit which we formerly received in premiums. 

 But not to spend too much time in quoting detached in- 

 stances of the folly of limiting the modes and objects of 

 trade, I will endeavour to show that the country gentlemen 

 of England, by a narrow-minded jealousy uf the progress 



which 



