138 ' Political Economy. 
A more singular, and I might almost say, a more imprope:r 
discussion, could hardly have arisen, than that concerning th& 
respective usefulness of agriculture, manufactures, and commercejK 
in a national point of view,— -We do not agree, whether it be better 
to be a joiner, or a blaek-smith ? a farmer, or a weaver ? and is it 
not the same with nations as with individuals? All depends on 
their respective situation and faculties. Nor can it be imagined 
that one branch of industry should be incompatible with tlie other.. 
The tradesman, who buys his grain, and his meat, does not on 
that account, preclude himself from cultivating a garden. The 
farmer, who- has his hnenmade at home, does not therefore scru- 
ple to buy his cloth, and his hardware. Few pursue solely what 
they find it convenient, and useful, to pursue principally. We 
are called an agricultural, and commercial nation, yet, we have 
been, for some time past, in the habit of manufacturing a consider- 
able proportion, perhaps nearly the half, of the several commodi^ 
ties we consume. 
Whenever a considerable number devote themselves to one 
branch of industry in preference, as their main occupation, we may 
take it for granted that they have found it to be the most expedi- 
tious means of procuring an honourable subsistence ; and that they 
cannot be disturbed without injury to the state. 
There should^ therefore, in my opinion, be no question of sys- 
tems. But, since they have been brought into discussion, let us 
see why you are so averse to that of foreign commerce. The en- 
quiry will throw a further, and important light on the subject. 
“ Capital^ you say, with Adam Smith, employed in the home 
trade^ is more beneficial to the country than that employed in 
the foreign trade^ or the carrying trade, 
The inference is — that therefore the home trade ought to be 
pursued, the foreign, and carrying trade relinquished.* 
The position is only conditionatly^ not absolutely true. If two- 
adventurers from Philadelphia, the one to Lisbon, the other fd 
Charleston, produce both the same aggregate profits-^ and put both 
the same quantum of industry in motion, no doubt the home ad-= 
venture will be the most beneficial to the country, because the 
favourable, pecuniary and mor^l results, are all our own. 
But, if the adventure to Lisbon were to put in motion as much 
Industry at Philadelphia alone, as the adventure to Charleston put^ 
* I have never drawn such inference. T. C - 
