NOTES ON ECONOMICAL SCIENCE. 101 



which are to satisfy the wants not only of those who work the soil, but 

 of all who render them services or render each other services — each of 

 them obtaining a share of the whole produce of industry, and using a 

 portion of that share in obtaining what the country does not yield. 

 So long as nobody buys what he has not by his industry, present or 

 past, the means of paying for, it is a matter of indifference in respect 

 of public prosperity, whether the portion of the results of industry 

 which is exchanged for foreign produce, all go out in the form of 

 produce or a part in the form of a medium of exchange obtained by 

 some of the dealers in the imported article to represent what has been 

 consumed by those around them. In such a country there may be an 

 unfavorable balance of trade without any thing really to be complained 

 of, or unfavourable to the prosperity of the community. In some 

 way or other the industry of the inhabitants purchases whatever is 

 consumed by them ; but in the case last mentioned, exchanges within 

 the country put a certain share of what goes to pay for imports in the 

 form of circulating medium, and this without the least real injury to 

 the country. It may even be connected with the greater diffusion of 

 the rewards of industry, and the higher rates of wages and profits 

 which prevail in a country yet yielding more produce of the soil than 

 its inhabitants need, and depending more on agriculture, mining, and 

 lumber, than on manufactures. 



It is useless to proceed further with argument. The danger of an 

 unfavourable balance of trade is a mere delusion depending on a false 

 analogy between a nation and an individual, and wrong views respect- 

 ing the nature of commerce, and it ought not to meet with the least 

 attention in an enlightened age and country. The doctrine is so much 

 opposed both to the opinions of all recent writers of any importance 

 on political economy, and to that general good sense which would 

 leave to every man the unrestricted disposal of the fruits of his own 

 industry, and which believes nations not to thrive at each other's ex- 

 pense, but to have all one common interest, and each to prosper more 

 in proportion to the prosperity of all the others, that it seems to me 

 something like an imputation to say that it meets with any favour 

 amongst us. I feel obliged, therefore, whilst appealing to your own 

 knowledge of sentiments which are widely extended, to make a short 

 extract from an influential and popular source of information, the 

 general utility of which I myself estimate very highly, in order to 

 convince you that I am not combating shadows. The Montreal 



