2.France， said Pitt， has advantages above England in respect ofclimate and other natural gifts， and therefore excels England inits raw produce； on the other hand， England has the advantage overFrance in its artificial products.The wines， brandies， oils， andvinegars of France， especially the first two， articles of suchimportance and of such value， that the value of our naturalproducts cannot be in the least compared with them.But， on theother hand， it is equally certain that England is the exclusiveproducer of some kinds of manufactured goods， and that in respectof other kinds she possesses such advantages that she can defywithout doubt all the competition of France.This is a reciprocalcondition and a basis on which an advantageous commercial treatybetween both nations should be founded.As each of them has itspeculiar staple commodities， and each possesses that which islacking to the other， so both should deal with one another like twogreat merchants who are engaged in different branches of trade， andby a reciprocal exchange of their goods can at once become usefulto one another.Let us further only call to mind on this point thewealth of the county with which we stand in the position ofneighbours， its great population， its vicinity to us， and theconsequent quick and regular exchange.Who could then hesitate amoment to give his approval to the system of freedom， and who wouldnot earnestly and impatiently wish for the utmost possibleexpedition in establishing it？ The possession of such an extensiveand certain market must give quite an extraordinary impulse to ourtrade， and the customs revenue which would then be diverted fromthe hands of the smuggler into the State revenue would benefit ourfinances， and thus two main springs of British wealth and ofBritish power would be made more productive.
3.Since List wrote these lines， the duties which foreign silkmanufacturers had to pay on the import of their goods into Englandhave been totally abolished.The results of their abolition may belearned from Mr Wardle's report on the English silk trade， asfollows： London， in 1825， contained 24，000 looms and 60，000operatives engaged in silk manufacture.At the present time thesehave dwindled to 1，200 looms and less then 4，000 operatives.InCoventry， in 1861， the ribbon trade is stated to have givensubsistence to 40，600 persons； while at the present time probablynot more than 10，000 persons are supported by it， and thepower-looms at work in Coventry have decreased from 1，800 to 600.
In Derby the number of operatives employed in silk manufacture hasdecreased from 6，650 (in 1850) to 2，400 at present.In theCongleton district they have decreased from 5，186 (in 1860) to1，530 (in 1884)； while of the forty silk-throwsters' works whichthat district contained (in 1859) only twelve now remain， with'about three-fourths of their machinery employed.' In Manchesterthis trade has practically died out， while at Middleton theindustry is 'simply ruined.' These results (stated by Mr Wardle)may account for the decrease in England's imports of raw silk， from8，000，000 pounds (in 1871) to less than 3，000，000 pounds.
On the other hand， since List wrote， the United States ofAmerica have increased and steadily maintained a considerableprotective duty on the importation of foreign silk manufactures.
The results of that policy were publicly stated by Mr Robert P.
Porter (member of the United States' Tariff Commission)， in aspeech in 1883， to have been as follows：
Five thousand persons were employed in silk manufacture in theUnited States before the Morill tariff (1861).In 1880 their numberhad increased to 30，000.The value of silk manufactures produced inthe States increased from 1，200，000 l.in 1860 to more than8，000，000 l.in 1880.'Yet the cost of the manufactured goods tothe consumer， estimated on a gold basis， has steadily declined ata much greater rate than the cost of the raw material.' Afterreference to the earthenware and plate-glass manufactures， MrPorter adds： 'The testimony before the Tariff Commission showedunquestionably that the competition in the United States hadresulted in a reduction in the cost to the American consumer.Inthis way， gentlemen， I contend， and am prepared to provestatistically.that protection， so far as the United States areconcerned， has in every case ultimately benefited the consumer； andon this ground I defend it and believe in it.' -- TRANSLATOR.
4.Chaptal， De l'Industrie Fran鏰ise vol.ii.， p.147.