302 PARLIAMENTARY COLBERTISM 
A.D. 1689 
—1776. 
but the 
sountry 
had out- 
grown 
them. 
md Pitt 
cas well 
advised in 
{iscarding 
them 
ind re- 
verting 10 
he Tory 
radition, 
as to the 
benefit of 
‘rade 
Even those students who sympathise most strongly with 
she policy pursued by the Whigs, as expedient at the stage 
»f national development which England had reached at the 
Revolution, may yet be willing to admit that the country 
had outgrown this phase before 1776, and that the rules of 
the mercantile system were proving unnecessary and noxious. 
The swing of the pendulum brought Chatham and Pitt, who 
inherited much of the tradition of Toryism, into power; and 
under the influence of the younger Pitt, the system the 
Whigs had built up was discarded, and the economic policy 
of the country was completely recast on lines which were in 
accordance with the commercial and fiscal policy that had 
been advocated by the Tories. 
It had been the fundamental principle of Parliamentary 
Colbertism that commerce should be regulated so as to react 
favourably upon native industry. But there is another view 
of the benefit conferred on a nation by commerce; we may 
desire to extend trade because of the increased supply of the 
comforts of life which it brings from abroad to the con- 
sumer. This had been a recognised object of policy since 
‘he time of Edward IIL and it had been consciously adopted 
hy the Tory party in their advocacy of facilities for trade 
vith France, especially in 1718% They had been out-voted 
shen, but under changed circumstances their policy was 
carried into effect in 1786% The Physiocrats had over- 
shrown the power of Colbertism in France, so that our old 
rival was more ready to offer favourable terms; while the 
revival of Portuguese industries under the Marquis of 
Pombal had rendered the alleged benefits of the Methuen 
sreaty worthless. Under this conjunction of circumstances 
i See Vol. 1. p. 470. 3 See above, p. 461. 
3 Dowell, nm. 191. This treaty favoured French agriculture—particularly the 
production of wines, brandy and oil—and also the manufacture of glass, jewelry, 
French muslins and millinery. Competition forced the French cotton, hardware, 
saddlery and crockery manufacturers to improve their goods, but until they 
reached the English standard of excellence there was a temporary loss to France. 
The importation into England of silks, and of cotton and woollen materials 
mixed with silk, being still prohibited, the French manufacturers neither gained 
aor lost. It was urged in England that the treaty was in favour of France, since 
it ensured a sale for her natural products, and rendered industrial equality 
bossible. Koch and Schoell, 1. 461.