ADAM SMITH. 269 



doctrines which I have been explaining. Thus he more 

 than once, but particularly in the inquiry concerning taxa- 

 tion (Book vi. chap. 2), when mentioning the trouble or 

 annoyance which certain things occasion, says they may be 

 estimated at the sum any one would willingly give to be 

 rid of them, and he considers the impost which is levied by 

 means so vexatious as increased in its amount by that sum. 

 Why not consider the sum also which any one would give 

 to secure his property from the risk of an invasion, or of 

 pillage in a riot, as increasing the value of that property ? 

 Now the obtaining this security is the service which Go- 

 vernment renders to the owner of the property by defence 

 and police ; it is the service for which their wages are paid 

 to soldiers, and magistrates, and police officers. Can we 

 then, on Dr. Smith's own view, deny the additions made to 

 the stock of the community by these labourers, or refuse to 

 their labour the name of productive ? 



In every point of view, therefore, it appears that the 

 opinion of Dr. Smith is untenable. He has drawn his line 

 of distinction between productive and unproductive labour 

 in too low a part of the scale. The labour which he deno- 

 minates unproductive has the very same qualities with a 

 great part of the labour which he allows to be productive. 

 According to his own principles, the line should have been 

 drawn so as to cut off, on the one hand, the labour which 

 apparently increases the quantity of stock, and to leave, on 

 the other hand, all that labour which only modifies, or in 

 some manner induces a beneficial change upon stock already 

 in existence. In a word, his principles clearly carry him to 

 the theory of the Economists ; and, in order to be consistent, 

 he ought unquestionably to have reckoned agriculture the 

 only productive employment of capital or labour. That 

 there is only this one doctrine tenable, in consistency with 

 itself, has been, we conceive, sufficiently proved. We shall 

 now consider whether there is in reality any foundation 

 even for this distinction, which forms the basis of the theory 

 supported by the Economists. 



Whoever has honoured the foregoing observations with 

 his attention, will speedily be satisfied that the reasonings 

 applied to Dr. Smith's classification of labour are applicable 

 also to the more precise and constituent doctrine of the 



