176 ADAM SMITH. 



left out of view, or only vaguely hinted at it. When 

 comparing the effects of the colonial trade as monopolized 

 with its eifects if left free, he assumes that all nations have 

 their colonial trade unfettered, and omits to remark that 

 any one doing so woidd not gain at all as he supposes, if 

 the others continued the exclusive system. Akin to this 

 is his overlooking the dilemma in which England, France, 

 and Holland were severally placed by the Spanish and 

 Portuguese monopolies. In order to share the advan- 

 tages of the colonial trade they were compelled to have 

 colonies of their own. It is one thing to ask, Whether 

 there b*e any benefit from this or that given country 

 planting colonies ? and another to ask, Whether the 

 colonial trade is ever otherwise than in some degree 

 beneficial? Possibly it would be better if two or three 

 nations should plant colonies, especially if they let 

 others profit by their traffic, that these others should 

 have none of their own. But who is so wild as to 

 expect that ever this could happen, that any nation 

 should be at all the expense, trouble, risk of founding 

 and rearing a settlement, and afterwards of governing 

 and protecting it, and then let all other nations benefit 

 equally by its commerce? Lastly, Dr. Smith has 

 omitted to consider the great advantage which a nation 

 derives from having once had colonial possessions, even 

 after they have thrown off the yoke and ceased to be 

 under the government of the mother country. The 

 market for her produce is thus continued ; the intercourse 

 of emigration and of trade is maintained between the 

 nations now become independent; common origin, com- 

 mon language, common laws and customs, making the 

 firm bond which naturally exists between the parent 



