We cannot but wonder at the sagacity with which this great genius，without any previous study of the systems of political economy，comprehended the nature and importance of manufacturing power.Wellwas it for him and for France that he had not studied thesesystems.'Formerly，' said Napoleon， 'there was but one descriptionof property， the possession of land； but a new property has nowrisen up， namely， industry.' Napoleon saw， and in this way clearlyenunciated， what contemporary economists did not see， or did notclearly enunciate， namely， that a nation which combines in itselfthe power of manufactures with that of agriculture is animmeasurably more perfect and more wealthy nation than a purelyagricultural one.What Napoleon did to found and promote theindustrial education of France， to improve the country's credit， tointroduce and set going new inventions and improved processes， andto perfect the means of internal communication in France， it is notnecessary to dwell upon in detail， for these things are still toowell remembered.But what， perhaps， does call for special notice inthis connection， is the biassed and unfair judgment passed uponthis enlightened and powerful ruler by contemporary theorists.
With the fall of Napoleon， English competition， which had beentill then restricted to a contraband trade， recovered its footingon the continents of Europe and America.Now for the first time theEnglish were heard to condemn protection and to eulogise AdamSmith's doctrine of free trade， a doctrine which heretofore thosepractical islanders considered as suited only to an ideal state ofUtopian perfection.But an impartial， critical observer mighteasily discern the entire aBsence of mere sentimental motives ofphilanthropy in this conversion， for only when increased facilitiesfor the exportation of English goods to the continents of Europeand America were in question were cosmopolitan arguments resortedto； but so soon as the question turned upon the free importation ofcorn， or whether foreign goods might be allowed to compete at allwith British manufactures in the English market， in that case quitedifferent principles were appealed to.(3*) Unhappily， it was said，the long continuance in England of a policy contrary to naturalprinciples had created an artificial state of things， which couldnot Be interfered with suddenly without incurring the risk ofdangerous and mischievous consequences.It was not to be attemptedwithout the greatest caution and prudence.It was England'smisfortune， not her fault.All the more gratifying ought it to befor the nations of the European and American continents， that theirhappy lot and condition left them quite free to partake withoutdelay of the blessings of free trade.
In France， although her ancient dynasty reascended the throneunder the protection of the banner of England， or at any rate bythe influence of English gold， the above arguments did not obtaincurrency for very long.England's free trade wrought such havocamongst the manufacturing industries which had prospered and grownstrong under the Continental blockade system， that a prohibitiver間ime was speedily resorted to， under the protecting aegis ofwhich， according to Dupin's testimony，(4*) the producing power ofFrench manufactories was doubled between the years 1815 and 1827.
NOTES：
1.'Eloge de Jean Baptiste Colbert， par Necker' (1773) (OEuvresCompletes， vol.xv.).
2.See Quesnay's paper entitled， 'Physiocratie， ou du Gouvernementle plus avantageux au Genre Humain (1768)，' Note 5， 'sur la maximeviii，' wherein Quesnay contradicts and condemns Colbert in twobrief pages， whereas Necker devoted a hundred pages to theexposition of Colbert's system and of what he accomplished.It ishard to say whether we are to wonder most at the ignorance ofQuesnay on matters of industry， history， and finance， or at thepresumption with which he passes judgment upon such a man asColbert without adducing grounds for it.Add to that， that thisignorant dreamer was not even candid enough to mention theexpulsion of the Huguenots； nay， that he was not ashamed to allege，contrary to all truth， that Colbert had restricted the trade incorn between province and province by vexatious police ordinances.
3.A highly accomplished American orator， Mr Baldwin， Chief Justiceof the United States， when referring to the Canning-Huskissonsystem of free trade， shrewdly remarked， that， like most Englishproductions， it had been manufactured not so much for homeconsumption as for exportation.
Shall we laugh most or weep when we call to mind the rapture ofenthusiasm with which the Liberals in France and Germany， moreparticularly the cosmopolitan theorists of the philanthropicschool， and notably Mons.J.B.Say， hailed the announcement of theCanning-Huskisson system？ So great was their jubilation， that onemight have thought the millennium had come.But let us see what MrCanning's own biographer says about this minister's views on thesubject of free trade.
'Mr Canning was perfectly convinced of the truth of theabstract principle， that commerce is sure to flourish most whenwholly unfettered； but since such had not been the opinion eitherof our ancestors or of surrounding nations， and since inconsequence restraints had been imposed upon all commercialtransactions， a state of things had grown up to which the unguardedapplication of the abstract principle， however true it was intheory， might have been somewhat mischievous in practice.' (ThePolitical Life of Mr Canning， by Stapleton， p.3.) In the year1828， these same tactics of the English had again assumed aprominence so marked that Mr Hume， the Liberal member ofParliament， felt no hesitation in stigmatising them in the House asthe strangling of Continental industries.
4.Forces productives de la France.