ADAM SMITH. 209 



whatever part of a community the labour connected with 

 agriculture, immediately or remotely, is performed, the sub- 

 division 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 

 accumulation in different quarters, is little less than a con- 

 tradiction 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 mainte- 

 nance. The above remarks may^indeed suffice for the refuta- 

 tion of this doctrine, but its peculiar demonstration merits 

 separate attention.* The works of the artisan, 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 main- 

 tain. 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, aud 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 

 population. It is absurd to suppose that the mere augmen- 

 tation of agricultural produce extends the demand for it, by 

 increasing the population of the community. If the lowest 



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

 p. 571. p 



