ADAM SMITH. 273 



we showed above, that there is no possibility of drawing a 

 line between the cases, consistently with principles admitted 

 even by the Economists themselves. The foundation of all 

 these misapprehensions is evidently laid in a neglect of the 

 great principle of the division of labour. In whatever part 

 of a community the labour connected with agriculture, 

 immediately or remotely, is performed, the subdivision of 

 the task renders it more productive than if it were carried 

 on upon the farm itself; and, to deny the same properties 

 to this labour, on account of its subdivision and accumula- 

 tion in different quarters, is little less than a contradiction 

 in terms. 



There is only one view of the Economical theory which 

 remains to be taken : it is that most ingenious argument by 

 which the followers of Quesnai attempt to prove, that manu- 

 facturing labour only adds a value equal to its own mainten- 

 ance. The above remarks may indeed suffice for the refuta- 

 tion of this doctrine, but its peculiar demonstration merits 

 separate attention.* The works of the artizaii, the Econo- 

 mists maintain, are in a very different predicament from the 

 produce of the agricultural labourer. Multiply the former 

 beyond a certain extent, and either a part will remain unsold, 

 or the whole will sell at a reduced price. Multiply the latter 

 to any extent, and still the same demand will exist, from the 

 increased number of consumers, whom it will maintain. The 

 labour of the artisan is therefore limited to a particular 

 quantity; this quantity it will always nearly equal, but 

 never exceed ; and the amount is determined by the com- 

 petition of different artists on the one hand, and the fixed 

 extent of the demand on the other. The labour of the 

 husbandman has no such limits. The extension of his pro- 

 ductions necessarily widens his market. The price of manu- 

 factures will therefore be reduced to the value of the raw 

 material, of the workman's maintenance, and of his master's 

 maintenance ; while that of agricultural produce, having no 

 such limit, leaves always a net profit over and above the 

 farmer's maintenance. 



In answer to this very subtle argument, we may remark, 

 that it proceeds on a total misconception of the principle of 



* See this reasoning stated repeatedly in Dialogue 2de, Physiocratie, 

 p. 571. 



T 



