On Political Economy. 
255 
1831 .] 
so clearly, that I cannot suppose any, but one, who had never read it, or had 
utterly forgotten it, or had determined to quibble on it, could doubt its truth. 
We next come to his remarks upon wealth and periodical increase. He begins by 
quoting 12 verses from the book of Genesis, to prove, “ ihe depcndance of man 
on food ! The nature and properties of that which constitutes his tood ! The 
original gift of a parent stock, whence future supplies were to spring ; that man 
was to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow,” &c. If I were inclined to be guilty 
of the bad taste of quoting that sacred book upon every trilling occasion, I could 
also prove that clothing was as essential to man, in a fallen state, as tood ; we mi s ht 
have believed all this without the authority of Holy Writ, but what then ? Next 
he calls seed “ the procreative, reproductive, and incremental principle, and tills 
us that wealth is not produced by labour alone, but by “ well-directed industry 
co-operating with the vital principle inherent in the reserved stock of seed , as if 
one were to say, “ A steam boat is not impelled by its steam engine alone, but 
by its steam engine co-operating with boiling water.” These are truths ccita.nly, 
but it may be worth the writer’s while to consider, whether they aie not among 
that class of truths, which people usually denominate ‘truisms, and lit meditation 
for that kind of ‘ incremental’ man, called a child. However, he tells us they are 
“ important considerations,” and that from not having attended to them, the 
Political Economists have fallen into error : now this is exactly what w e want him 
to shew us. Again, in the next page we have, “ The fallacy is, ot supposing men to 
have only occasion to labour, whenever they may happen to be in want of wealth. 
Although we might have supposed that the good men, who undertook to instruct the 
world, were perfectly aware that a man could not make his corn grow by standing 
on his head, or any such antic, it does not follow that they thought it necessary 
to inform their disciples of the same. However, let them speak for themselv es. 
Labour may be defined to be any sort of action, or operation, whether perfoimed 
b\ men, the lower animals, machinery, ov natural agents , that tends to bring about 
any desirable results and, “ But when it is said that the value of the commodity, 
or product, is determined by the quantity of labour expended in its production, 
r rference is only made to that species of labour which is possessed oj value , that is t 
lo ^ IC labour of man , or of capital expended upon the commodity , or product. Iu 
Srj far as non-monopolized natural agents concur in production, they do what is 
done gratis. Their labours are often of vastly more consequence than those of 
•''an, or the capital produced by man ; but as they are performed spontaneously , 
*' l( - are neither valuable themselves, nor can communicate that quality to any 
th *ng else.” (McCulloch’s Def. of Labour.) Next we have a long distinction 
hreen capital and labour, with an allowance that capital is only a better dispo- 
ition of labour, yet it is not “ accumulated labour.” Thus a man makes a 
and works with it : now he will, by this, get a much greater return than he 
w ° uld b y labouring, from day to day, with his fingers alone ; therefore the two 
must be different. 
Enough has been said to shew that the writer’s views on Political Economy are 
* Variance with those generally received at present: but there is one other point 
“ "hick he differs from most men. It has been usual with those who have cn- 
tliff C Wor ^ d with great discoveries, to broach their peculiar views, at fiist with 
dcnce > knowing that their single opinion was opposed to that ot numbers, who 
t( l ua l> and perhaps, better means of investigating and judging than they had. 
°nld not the writer have done well to have agreed with them in this paiticular ? 
writer have done well to have agreed with them in this particular 
not have stated his own views fairly, but modestly ; compared them with 
Lis opponents j and left the world to judge to whom “ the outiugeous 
