LESSONS IN POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



217 



piece of gold or silver. A community, therefore, never keep* 



liny more money than it tiinU nooeasary ; or, in other word*, it 



always finds it expedient to get ri<l of nil the money which it 



--.-". hut which is in excess of its wants. It sells it, 



jnst as it sells cotton and woollen manufactures, hardware, or 



.-r l.ni'l of |.n> lin-i- ; ami it always has sold it, however 



iiiix-h it has been hin<li-n><l from doing so by government. 



< >ur I'l.n-fiitlitT.-, h'.uvviT, wore possessed of the idea that no 

 : ,i!:,.n could be rich which suffered money to go out of its 

 custody. Hence the English monarchs appointed a great officer, 

 railed the King's Exchanger, who superintended, either in person 

 or by deputy, all foreign commerce, in order to prevent money 

 from leaving the kingdom, or to assist the entrance of money 

 into it. In course of time, when it was found that certain kinds 

 of trade could not be carried on unless permission to export 

 money was given, precautions wore taken that the goods which 

 were bought with this money should bo sold for more money, 

 and that the country should thus be indirectly enriched. With 

 the same object of underselling other countries, and thus of 

 obtaining more of this coveted wealth, laws were enacted in 

 order to keep down wages. To prevent any portion of the money 

 which was held at homo from leaving the country, Englishmen 

 were not allowed to buy foreign goods, however cheap they 

 niipht be. Laws were passed, giving, under the name of a 

 bounty, premiums on those who could succeed in underselling 

 their neighbours abroad ; and other laws forbad the importation 

 of food, lest a portion of the precious store of gold and silver 

 should fall into the hands of foreigners. Trade was restricted, 

 curtailed, hampered ; a thousand jealousies were engendered, and 

 made bitter, in order to effect that which could never be done, 

 even if it were ever so much wished, and never should have been 

 done, even if it had been possible. The worst parts of the 

 commercial system which fifty years ago prevailed in this 

 country, sprang entirely from the notion that money was wealth ; 

 and though we have slowly and with difficulty got rid of the 

 delusion, with its consequences, other nations have so familiarised 

 themselves with the restrictions which such a policy imposed, 

 that they think their prosperity is held together by the chains 

 in which they have fettered their trade. 



Apart, however, from the difficulty which there is in com- 

 bating and demolishing a prejudice, there are two causes which 

 render the true solutions of social questions a hard task. In 

 the first place, these questions are very complicated. Any 

 common object of use and value contains collected in it a 

 myriad of different agencies, each of which contributes some- 

 thing to the result. For example, a yard of calico represents 

 an infinite number of industries, on each of which some influence 

 may operate temporarily or permanently, but the force of which 

 is very liable to miscalculation or misconception. The cir- 

 cumstances which set in motion, control, limit these several 

 industries, relate to what economists call the production of 

 wealth. The product, when it comes into the market, is worth 

 something. This is called its value, or, interpreted in money, its 

 price. Another set of causes or circumstances determines what 

 share each of those agents who have contributed to its produc- 

 tion shall have in the value of the article. A third set of facts, 

 bearing on the means by which the market is opened to the sale 

 of the article, have to be investigated. The second and third 

 are concerned with the distribution of wealth and its exchange ; 

 and there are parts in the theory of all these operations which 

 are still debated, and which never will be solved except by a care- 

 ful induction from facts. In the course of these lessons I shall 

 try to throw some light on the several subjects. 



Another circumstance which makes the solution of these j 

 social questions difficult, is the power of compensation which | 

 industry exhibits. Labour may be hindered and weakened by 

 bad laws, by a sterile soil, by an unfavourable climate, by a 

 number of artificial and natural obstacles, and yet surmount 

 the hindrances which are put in its way. Two things only it 

 cannot overcome want of freedom, by which I mean the power 

 of making its own contract for its service, reaping its own 

 reward for its toil, and want of security in that which it has 

 gained. To take these away is to destroy every motive for the 

 exertion by which labour gains its ends, and every motive for 

 the accumulation of that by which labour is rendered continuous 

 and effective. But if these two conditions of industry are 

 granted, it has marvellous powers of overcoming other impedi- 

 ments. There can bo no verdure where there is perpetual 



drought or perpetual f rwt ; bat if water can reach the coil, 

 xnfflcient warmth if imparted to it, few natural obstacles 

 will be powerful enough to hinder vegetation and growth. And 

 m tlii* way the labour of man has often tamed sandy waste* 

 into fruitful cornfield* ; has conquered an ungenial climate, an 

 ungrateful soil ; and has even changed those advert* exranm- 

 stances, which seemed to form a barrier to it* activity, into 

 means by which that activity may be developed. Nor is indnitry 

 always checked by avarice or arbitrary legislation. It is, no 

 doubt, crippled by injudicious laws, but it constantly evades 

 their worst effects, and finds, as I said above, some com- 

 pensation for them. Taxation, for example, may be excessive, 

 or oppressive, or unfair ; but if industry is only stont-bearted 

 it will continually exert itself, and with success, to greater toil 

 and new economies, wherewith to make up the loss which has 

 been imposed on it. 



Now this power of overcoming obstacles induces an obscurity 

 over many social questions. Labour which thrives in spite of 

 hindrances is frequently thought to thrive in consequence of 

 such hindrances. Thus, for instance, no worse or more vicious 

 system of finance could have been devised for any country than 

 that which was imposed on this country up to the close of 

 the great Continental war. During this epoch, however, of 

 unwise taxation, the country made great progress ; and one of 

 the greatest difficulties which they had, who argued in favour 

 of a more generous and freer system, was the fact that the 

 progress of the people was notable. How, persons argued, can 

 the mischief which you denounce and condemn be so great, if 

 the phenomena of increasing prosperity are visible about ns ? 

 We do well; why imperil our well-doing at the bidding of 

 theorists, who cannot know that we shall do better ? 



If, however, the conclusions of Political Economy are arrived 

 at with difficulty, and accepted generally only after a vigorous 

 resistance, they are uniformly beneficent. There is, it may be 

 confidently said, no science which has ever bestowed such great 

 benefits on mankind. The reason is not far to seek. There is 

 not a single economical law, which is capable of distinct 

 demonstration, which is not fully in accordance with the laws 

 of morality, which is at variance for the clearest and moet 

 intelligible justice. Men live together in order to confer mutual 

 benefits, to prevent or redress wrongs, to further each other's 

 happiness. Now it is true that Political Economy takes note of 

 those services or labours only which are capable of being valued 

 and paid for, and does not profess to discuss right and wrong, 

 but only gain and loss. But these two notions differ only in 

 form ; they agree in fact. What the moralist denounce! as a 

 sin or a crime, the economist proves to be a weakness to society, 

 a hindrance or a waste ; and it is all the better for those who 

 seek to inculcate what is jnst and right, that their conclusions 

 should be strengthened by independent but corroborative 

 evidence. Besides, though there are certain qualities and acts 

 which are of so exalted and noble a nature, that they cannot be 

 rewarded by any material recompense, just as they cannot be 

 sufficiently praised and honoured, it is no loss, but rather a 

 gain to those who bid men look beyond mere human judgments 

 and human motives, when they find the economist allowing that 

 certain services which man renders to man are of infinite benefit 

 to society, are so important that society could hardly exist 

 without them, but yet cannot be appraised by any material 

 standard, and must be left to conscience, to benevolence, to 

 charity, to an anxious love of well-doing, to some reward which 

 man cannot give. 



One of the best services which Political Economy tenders, is 

 that of its teaching the inevitable consequence of breaking a 

 natural law. The physician tells us that if people live in dirt, on 

 unwholesome food, on impure water, if they lead intemperate or 

 vicious lives, they must expect sickness, or at least an ill habit 

 of body. Similarly, the economist teaches that if labour allows 

 itself, by its own recklessness, to be perpetually without any 

 resources except those which it gets from hand to mouth, it 

 must accept the terms which hard employers can exact from 

 the needy. Men who must sell in order to live, who cannot 

 wait a day for the market to better itself, must acquiesce in the 

 price which the market offers. So, again, a community which 

 lives on the cheapest possible food, however thrifty and pains- 

 taking it is, is always within danger of famine, since, if its 

 ordinary supply fails, it has no other resource to fall back on. 

 The Belgian peasant is the thriftiest labourer in the world; 



