POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



till 



fecundity tends to get the start of the means of 

 subsistence, since the former moves with a geomet- 

 rically increasing rapidity, and soon leaves behind 

 the latter, which can only proceed at a uniform 

 arithmetical pace. The inference which he makes 

 from this is, that the human race has been and will 

 be kept down to its actual numbers by starvation. 

 The consequence drawn from this proposition, which 

 is stated with all the air of a demonstration, is, that 

 poor-laws, or any efforts of charity, are only a child- 

 ish and useless indulgence of feeling ; for, since 

 there will be superfluous numbers, who must at all 

 events be starved, if the life of one is saved by cha- 

 rity, whether public or private, it is only that an- 

 other may be starved in his stead. A more heart- 

 hardening doctrine could not be broached. It is a 

 conclusion at which humanity revolts, and to which 

 no one will consent without compulsion. How, 

 then, is the fact? The theorem requires that some 

 millions should perish of want annually. It does 

 not, however, appear that they do so perish. And 

 yet this doctrine is reiterated, and very complacently 

 inculcated, as a part of the science of political eco- 

 nomy. See Pauperism. 



A proposition dwelt upon at some length by Mr 

 Say, and carefully inculcated in many other writers 

 on the science of economy, is, that production is not 

 creation ; that a farmer cannot make corn, nor a 

 weaver cloth, out of nothing. Mr M'Culloch says 

 labour is *' the only source of wealth.'' This is one 

 of the doctrines of the economists, from which con- 

 sequences of some weight are deduced. Now all 

 will, without doubt, agree, that without any mate- 

 rials, or, in other words, without the earth, men 

 would not produce wealth ; and it may be conceded 

 also, for the purpose of the argument, that the earth, 

 without inhabitants, would have no wealth. But 

 men, being placed upon earth, may produce wealth 

 by working upon the materials supplied by it ; and 

 the earth is itself sold in portions as a part of the 

 common stock of wealth, and the men are also 

 sometimes themselves bought and sold, as being a 

 part of the same stock. In general, two things 

 must concur in order to the production of value, 

 namely, the thing to be wrought or used, and a 

 person to work or use it. To insist that one or the 

 other is the exclusive source of value, seems to 

 savour more of the obsolete metaphysics of the 

 schools, than of practical speculation. The utmost 

 that can be made out of it, is a merely verbal dis- 

 tinction. And one would hardly expect so trivial a 

 subtilty to occupy much space in a branch of know- 

 ledge holding the rank of a science. 



All writers agree in the doctrine that security of 

 property is essential to the accumulation of the 

 products of labour, that is, wealth, for no one will 

 save what he has no reasonable assurance that he 

 shall enjoy; and it is also agreed by all, that accumu- 

 lation, that is, a stock on hand, is necessary to the 

 productiveness of labour. 



Adam Smith lays great stress upon the division of 

 labour, as one of the causes of the great produc- 

 tiveness of industry. His remarks upon this sub- 

 iect are just, with the qualification, perhaps, that he 

 over-estimates the importance of the principle, since 

 he attributes to it the improvements made in various 

 processes of industry, whereas many of the improve- 

 ments are themselves the causes, or rather afford 

 the means of a separation of employments. Any 

 machine is an illustration of this remark. 



It is asserted by some of the writers on this 

 science, that there are no limits to the beneficial 

 effects of the accumulation of capital upon the 

 productiveness of the industry of a nation ; or, in 

 other words, that a given number of people how- 



ever small, can advantageously employ any amount 

 of capital, however great. But if we assume a 

 certain number of employments and professions, 

 there is certainly a limit beyond which no additional 

 stock and materials could be employed. The pro- 

 position may mean that the ingenuity of men can, 

 or will, find out modes of employing advantage- 

 ously any amount of capital that can be accumu- 

 lated by them. The proposition thus stated, is at 

 least a theoretical one ; but the inquiries and inves- 

 tigations to which it leads, are certainly not sterile 

 ot useful results. 



All the products of industry are divided among 

 the persons by whom the taxes are received and 

 consumed, the holders of sinecures, the capitalists, 

 and the labourers, including in this latter class all 

 the industrious in all professions and pursuits. A 

 great problem in political economy is to determine 

 the mode of distribution most advantageous to the 

 nation; and this problem, which is very general and 

 very complicated in its details, has not yet been 

 fully solved. It is generally agreed, that all abso- 

 lute sinecures, whether under the government, or 

 otherwise constituted, are prejudicial. What dis- 

 tribution among the usefully employed, or what 

 comparative remuneration for the labour or services 

 of the respective classes and professions, is the most 

 advantageous, is a subject very little discussed by 

 the writers on economy. But the question as to the 

 distribution between the capitalists, who are entitled 

 to profits, and those who labour upon or with the 

 capital, who are entitled to wages, is a subject of 

 considerable speculation in the books. One doc- 

 trine is, that where profits are highest, accumula- 

 tion will be most rapid ; that is, the greater the 

 mass of the annual products that go to those whose 

 capital supplies the materials and instruments of 

 labour, the more rapid will be the growth in wealth. 

 This is assuming that nothing will be saved by the 

 labourers, or not so much in proportion as will be 

 saved out of the profits. The first assumption can- 

 not be made, and the second is questionable ; for 

 example, a great proportion of the agricultural 

 labourers by the month, in America, are young 

 men, who save their wages in order to purchase a 

 farm for themselves. There is no mode of saving 

 that could be devised which would so rapidly pro- 

 mote the increase of the national stock, and a 

 change whereby the farmers, by paying less wages, 

 should themselves make greater profits, instead of 

 augmenting the national accumulation, would very 

 materially check it. Other instances might be given 

 to the same effect. The doctrine, therefore, seems 

 to be unsound. Taking the two divisions in the 

 above distribution, it is evident that one cannot be 

 increased but at the expense of the other. But 

 there is one species of capital distinguished from 

 all others, namely, that in land. The lower the 

 rents are that are paid for the mere use of land, in 

 exclusion of buildings and fixtures, the greater 

 amount of annual products will be left to divide 

 between those who supply the stock, and those who 

 perform the labour. 1 1 may, we think, be laid down 

 as a sound maxim, that low rents, which leave a 

 proportionally large amount of the annual income 

 to be divided, as wages and profits, will very mate- 

 rially promote the national growth, by giving 

 greater stimulus to labour and the employment of 

 stock. This mode of distribution explains, in part, 

 the fact that both the wages and profits are higher 

 in the United States of America than in Europe. 

 By higher wages, we mean not merely the money 

 price, but the greater quantity of similar articles that 

 can be purchased for the wages of the same labour. 

 So far high profits and high wages are comprv- 

 2 (12 



