340 



ufury ; and there are, certainly, general theorems, and abftraft propo- 

 fitions, on the fubjecV of political economy, which may be employed, 

 to ferve the puryofes of fuch , theories. — If I may prefume to con- 

 trovert or criticife the opinions, of Doftor Smith, I fliould -fay, that 

 fome of his pofitions, refpedling bounties, and prohibitory regulations, 

 deferve particularly to be viewed, in the light I have mentioned. He 

 has dedicated his work exclufively, to the confideration of the wealth 

 of nations > and, in conformity with the plan, which his title indicates, 

 he feenis to have omitted the ftrength, and the morality, of nations, 

 as foreign from his purpofe. Thefe are, certainly, confiderations, dif- 

 tinft from the wealth of nations, as well as of individuals, and furely, 

 more deferving of the care of an enlightened legiflator. It may, per- 

 haps, appear fanciful, to fay it ; but, in my opinion, the very title of 

 a profound elaborate book on the Wealth of Nations, carries with it 

 fomething injurious — fomething that induces error — inafmuch as it 

 feems to denote, that the attainment of wealth is the greatefl: objedt 

 imaginable, and fliould be the great motive and principle of national policy, 

 the great fpring of legiflative interference. Doftor Smith feems to confine 

 himfelf, to the means of employing capital, in the moll profitable manner, 

 without entering into a variety of moral confiderations, which ought to have 

 great weight, when we come to revolve the fubjeft of national induftry, and 

 the mode and meafure of encouraging and extending it. It fliould alfo 

 be remembered, that the author, in his book, by treating of the wealth 

 of nations generally, and abftraftedly, makes his work a kind of Utopia, 

 in political economy. He fpeaks of a country, as if it were wholly 

 free, to aft, and regulate its commerce, according to the maxims of 

 philofophy, or principles of arithmetic, as underfl:ood in counting-houfes, 

 without taking into his account the foreign relations, the foreign en- 

 mities, the domeftic and federal caufes, and motives, which perpetually 

 fetter and impede, nay, in many cafes, wholly preclude the poflibility 

 of framing the regulations of home induftry, and external trade, on 

 the abftraft principles of political economy, by their producing a thoufand 



and 



