122 
I believe, Sir, that these two opposite 
qeeds may be considered as including 
the principal points on either side. 
The three stumbling-blocks in the way 
toa clear understanding of the questiun 
are three words—wealth, transmute, cré- 
ate. : 
As the former is an abstract term, 
compounded of several. simple ideas, it 
may not be easy to give a definition of it 
that shall be faultless: but one would 
have expected that those who used it 
would, by a proper application of It, 
have determined its meaning. ‘This, 
however, has not been done, and a defi- 
nition of it remains still a desideratum. 
With the second of the trio (trans- 
mute), the chief quality L perceive m it 
is that of being pedantic, and therefore 
improperly chosen by an author who pro- 
fesses to write for the public. Indeed, 
philosophers themselves may be at a loss 
to understand with what propriety it can 
be said that corn is transmuted into a 
house. Of these two words, however, 
TI only speak en passant, and shall reserve 
the force of my arguments for the latter 
word create, a misconception of which [ 
take to be the cause of much ink and 
paper being wasted. ‘e 
“Mr. Spence, indeed, seems sufficiently 
aware of this; but unlackily bas not been 
aware that the charge lies at his own 
door. He accuses the Edinburgh Re- 
viewers of confounding its meaning with 
accumulation (see p. 36), and (p. 49) he 
gays, “ The controversy in this, as ina 
thousand other cases, is chiefly to be at- 
tributed to the ambiguities of language. 
We use the words create and source in 
different senses.” 
To clear the way to a decision of this 
question, it may be useful, before we con- 
sider on what these points appear to dif 
fer, to ascertain in what points they must 
azree. The following propositions may 
be laid down as demonstrable :— 
That food is necessary to man’s sub- 
sistence. 
That it may be considered as a species 
of wealth. 
That houses, cloathing, manufactures, 
machinery, tools, &c. together with food, 
constitute the whole of wealth. 
That in the early ages of society, man- 
kind were without many of these advan- 
tages. 
That at present an abundance of them 
properly constitutes wealth. 
That without labour none of these 
eould be procured. And 
Remarks on Mr. Spence’s and Mr. Mill's 
[Sept.- 1, 
That those who labour, can procure 
but a small portion of them. ~ 3 
I have, Sir, stated these propositions 
very. looscly, as the strength of my argu- 
ments would not be weakened should 
they not be found literally correct. Tru- 
isms may serve as landmarks, and if, in 
future discussions this imperfect plan 
should be improved, it might lead to a 
quicker decision. 
One would suppose that political eco- 
nomists, having so many data, or (meta- 
phorically speaking) so many points of 
departure, would soon reach the object 
of which they are in search: but Mons, 
De Quesnai, and. his coadjutors in 
France, first quitted the plain simple 
road of truth, and,-as men of talents will 
be fullowed even when they go astray, 
Messrs. Spence and Cobbet hobbled af- 
ter them. h 
Let us, if you please, Sir, try to reco- 
ver this misguided pair, or at least pres 
vent the public from following their ex 
ample. 
Let us suppose any country, England 
for exainple, to have contained in its 
earliest ages a certain number of inhabi- 
tants, who subsisted wholly on the pro- 
duce of the earth, which was cultivated ~ 
solely by the labour of their hands, and 
that at this period they had neither 
houses nor cloathing, nor manufactures, 
nor any of the conveniencies of life: in 
short, [ suppose them to have had no 
other property than the land they culti- 
vated, and its produce. This produce, 
as I shall take for granted, is a species of 
wealth. Thence letus transfer our views 
to England as it now is, and to its inha- 
bitants, as we at present find them, en- 
joying all the advantages before men- 
tioned. 
I then ask, are net all these advantages 
derived from the labour of men who have 
improved the benefits bestowed on them; 
and would they, without the exértion of 
that labour, have possessed them? 
On these points, would Mr, Spence . 
say (if I had the honour of conversing 
with him), but one opinion can be eater- 
tained: but all the materials of these 
manufactures are derived from the land. 
With food to maintain a certain number 
of labourers, and materials on which to 
work, I can command all these advan- 
tages; but you, with all your manufac- 
turing apparatus, cannot produce that 
food, which is necessary for the subsise 
tence of those labourers, and without 
which they cannot work. ; 
True, 
