Seas。　As　soon；　however；　as　united　and　vigorous　nations　appeared　on
  the　political　stage；　it　became　manifest　at　once　that　Venice　was
  merely　a　city　and　her　aristocracy　only　a　municipal　one。　It　is　true
  that　she　had　conquered　several　islands　and　even　extensive
  provinces；　but　she　ruled　over　them　only　as　conquered　territory；　and
  hence　（according　to　the　testimony　of　all　historians）　each　conquest
  increased　her　weakness　instead　of　her　power
  At　the　same　period　the　spirit　within　the　Republic　by　which　she
  had　grown　great　gradually　died　away。　The　power　and　prosperity　of
  Venice　　the　work　of　a　patriotic　and　heroic　aristocracy　which　had
  sprung　from　an　energetic　and　liberty…loving　democracy…maintained
  itself　and　increased　so　long　as　the　freedom　of　democratic　energy
  lent　it　support；　and　that　energy　was　guided　by　the　patriotism；　the
  wisdom；　and　the　heroic　spirit　of　the　aristocracy。　But　in　proportion
  as　the　aristocracy　became　a　despotic　oligarchy；　destructive　of　the
  freedom　and　energies　of　the　people；　the　roots　of　power　and
  prosperity　died　away；　notwithstanding　that　their　branches　and
  leading　stem　appeared　still　to　flourish　for　some　time　longer。'（5*）
  A　nation　which　has　fallen　into　slavery；'　says　Montesquieu；（6*）
  'strives　rather　to　retain　what　it　possesses　than　to　acquire　more；
  a　free　nation；　on　the　contrary；　strives　rather　to　acquire　than　to
  retain。'　To　this　very　true　observation　he　might　have　added　　and
  because　anyone　strives　only　to　retain　without　acquiring　he　must
  come　to　grief；　for　every　nation　which　makes　no　forward　progress
  sinks　lower　and　lower；　and　must　ultimately　fall。　Far　from　striving
  to　extend　their　commerce　and　to　make　new　discoveries；　the　Venetians
  never　even　conceived　the　idea　of　deriving　benefit　from　the
  discoveries　made　by　other　nations。　That　they　could　be　excluded　from
  the　trade　with　the　East　Indies　by　the　discovery　of　the　new
  commercial　route　thither；　never　occurred　to　them　until　they
  actually　experienced　it。　What　all　the　rest　of　the　world　perceived
  they　would　not　believe；　and　when　they　began　to　find　out　the
  injurious　results　of　the　altered　state　of　things；　they　strove　to
  maintain　the　old　commercial　route　instead　of　seeking　to　participate
  in　the　benefits　of　the　new　one；　they　endeavoured　to　maintain　by
  petty　intrigues　what　could　only　be　won　by　making　wise　use　of　the
  altered　circumstances　by　the　spirit　of　enterprise　and　by　hardihood。
  And　when　they　at　length　had　lost　what　they　had　possessed；　and　the
  wealth　of　the　East　and　West　indies　was　pouted　into　Cadiz　and　Lisbon
  instead　of　into　their　own　ports；　like　simpletons　or　spendthrifts
  they　turned　their　attention　to　alchemy。（7*）
  In　the　times　when　the　Republic　grew　and　flourished；　to　be
  inscribed　in　the　Golden　Book　was　regarded　as　a　reward　for
  distinguished　exertions　in　commerce；　in　industry；　or　in　the　civil
  or　military　service　of　the　State。　On　that　condition　this　honour　was
  open　to　foreigners；　for　example；　to　the　most　distinguished　of　the
  silk　manufacturers　who　had　immigrated　from　Florence。（8*）　But　that
  book　was　closed　when　men　began　to　regard　places　of　honour　and　State
  salaries　as　the　family　inheritance　of　the　patrician　class。　At　a
  later　period；　when　men　recognised　the　necessity　of　giving　new　life
  to　the　impoverished　and　enfeebled　aristocracy；　the　book　was
  reopened。　But　the　chief　title　to　inscription　in　it　was　no　longer；
  as　in　former　times；　to　have　rendered　services　to　the　State；　but　the
  possession　of　wealth　and　noble　birth。　At　length　the　honour　of　being
  inscribed　in　the　Golden　Book　was　so　little　esteemed；　that　it
  remained　open　for　a　century　with　scarcely　any　additional　names。
  If　we　inquire　of　History　what　were　the　causes　of　the　downfall
  of　this　Republic　and　of　its　commerce；　she　replies　that　they
  principally　consisted　in　the　folly；　neglect；　and　cowardice　of　a
  worn…out　aristocracy；　and　in　the　apathy　of　a　people　who　had　sunk
  into　slavery。　The　commerce　and　manufactures　of　Venice　must　have
  declined；　even　if　the　new　route　round　the　Cape　of　Good　Hope　had
  never　been　discovered。
  The　cause　of　it；　as　of　the　fall　of　all　the　other　Italian
  republics；　is　to　be　found　in　the　absence　of　national　unity；　in　the
  domination　of　foreign　powers；　in　priestly　rule　at　home；　and　in　the
  rise　of　other　greater；　more　powerful；　and　more　united　nationalities
  in　Europe。
  If　we　carefully　consider　the　commercial　policy　of　Venice；　we
  see　at　a　glance　that　that　of　modern　commercial　and　manufacturing
  nations　is　but　a　copy　of　that　of　Venice；　only　on　an　enlarged　（i。e。
  a　national）　scale。　By　navigation　laws　and　customs　duties　in　each
  case　native　vessels　and　native　manufactures　were　protected　against
  those　of　foreigners；　and　the　maxim　thus　early　held　good　that　it　was
  sound　policy　to　import　raw　materials　from　other　states　and　to
  export　to　them　manufactured　goods。（9*）
  It　has　been　recently　asserted　in　defence　of　the　principle　of
  absolute　and　unconditional　free　trade；　that　her　protective　policy
  was　the　cause　of　the　downfall　of　Venice。　That　assertion　comprises
  a　little　truth　with　a　great　deal　of　error　if　we　investigate　the
  history　of　Venice　with　an　unprejudiced　eye；　we　find　that　in　her
  case；　as　in　that　of　the　great　kingdoms　at　a　later　period；　freedom
  of　international　trade　as　well　as　restrictions　on　it　have　been
  beneficial　or　prejudicial　to　the　power　and　prosperity　of　the　State
  at　different　epochs。　Unrestricted　freedom　of　trade　was　beneficial
  to　the　Republic　in　the　first　years　of　her　existence；　for　how
  otherwise　could　she　have　raised　herself　from　a　mere　fishing　village
  to　a　commercial　power？　But　a　protective　policy　was　also　beneficial
  to　her　when　she　had　arrived　at　a　certain　stage　of　power　and　wealth；
  for　by　means　of　it　she　attained　to　manufacturing　and　commercial
  supremacy。　Protection　first　became　injurious　to　her　when　her
  manufacturing　and　commercial　power　had　reached　that　supremacy；
  because　by　it　all　competition　with　other　nations　became　absolutely
  excluded；　and　thus　indolence　was　encouraged。　Therefore；　not　the
  introduction　of　a　protective　policy；　but　perseverance　in
  maintaining　it　after　the　reasons　for　its　introduction　had　passed
  away；　was　really　injurious　to　Venice。
  Hence　the　argument　to　which　we　have　adverted　has　this　great
  fault；　that　it　takes　no　account　of　the　rise　of　great　nations　under
  hereditary　monarchy。　Venice；　although　mistress　of　some　provinces
  and　islands；　yet　being　all　the　time　merely　one　Italian　city；　stood
  in　competition；　at　the　period　of　her　rise　to　a　manufacturing　and
  commercial　power；　merely　with　other　Italian　cities；　and　her
  prohibitory　commercial　policy　could　benefit　her　so　long　only　as
  whole　nations　with　united　power　did　not　enter　into　competition　with
  her。　But　as　soon　as　that　took　place；　she　could　only　have　maintained
  her　supremacy　by　placing　herself　at　the　head　of　a　united　Italy　and
  by　embracing　in　her　commercial　system　the　whole　Italian　nation。　No
  commercial　policy　was　ever　clever　enough　to　maintain　continuously
  the　commercial　supremacy　of　a　single　city　over　united　nations。
  From　the　example　of　Venice　（so　far　as　it　may　be　adduced　against
  a　protective　commercial　policy　at　the　present　time）　neither　more
  nor　less　can　be　inferred　than　this　　that　a　single　city　or　a　small
  state　cannot　establish　and　maintain　such　a　policy　successfully　in
  competition　with　great　states　and　kingdoms；　also　that　any　power
  which　by　means　of　a　protective　policy　has　attained　a　position　of
  manufacturing　and　commercial　supremacy；　can　（after　she　has　attained
  it）　revert　with　advantage　to　the　policy　of　free　trade。
  In　the　argument　before　adverted　to；　as　in　every　other　when
  international　freedom　of　trade　is　the　subject　of　discussion；　we
  meet　with　a　misconception　which　has　been　the　parent　of　much　error；
  occasioned　by　the　misuse　of　the　term　'freedom。'　Freedom　of　trade　is
  spoken　of　in　the　same　terms　as　religious　freedom　and　municipal
  freedom。　Hence　the　friends　and　advocates　of　freedom　feel　themselves
  especially　bound　to　defend　freedom　in　all　its　forms。　And　thus　the
  term　'free　trade'　has　become　popular　without　drawing　the　necessary
  distinction　between　freedom　of　internal　trade　within　the　State　and
  freedom　of　trade　between　separate　nations；　notwithstanding　that
  these　two　in　their　nature　and　operation　are　as　distinct　as　the
  heaven　is　from　the　earth。　For　while　restrictions　on　the　internal
  trade　of　a　state　are　compatible　in　only　very　few　cases　with　the
  liberty　of　individual　citizens；　in　the　case　of　international　trade