The Political Economist. — No. I. 
* 198 
I hare lately seen a half-pay cavalry 
officer, from India, who knew a gentle¬ 
man of the name of Dalton , who mar¬ 
ried a daughter of this H. Lightfoot, 
by the king, but who is dead, leaving 
several accomplished daughters, who 
with the father are coming to England; 
these daughters are secluded from so¬ 
ciety like nuns, but no pains spared in 
their education; probably on the ar¬ 
rival of this gentleman more light 
will be thrown upon the subject than 
now exists. The person who wrote the 
above letter is distantly related to me, 
and my mother (deceased some years) 
was related to H. Lightfoot, and well 
knew her. I never heard her say more 
than I have described already, except 
that she was short of stature, and very 
pretty . An Inquirer. 
Herts. 
For the Monthly Magazine. 
THE POLITICAL ECONOMIST, 
No. I. 
Consisting of Observations and Stric¬ 
tures on Modern Systems of Political 
Economy. 
ADAM SMITH. 
^HE late Dr. Colquhoun, of statis- 
JL tical memory, was a particular 
instance of that class of economists 
who attach an almost exclusive impor¬ 
tance to the mere augmentation of na¬ 
tional wealth. The Doctor never ap¬ 
peared in such high glee, as when turn¬ 
ing into pounds, shillings and pence, 
the value of our steam-engines, high¬ 
ways, public buildings, docks, canals, 
agricultural implements and other items 
which make up the aggregate stock and 
capital of the community. But though 
these unquestionably are very impor¬ 
tant, especially as sources of public 
revenue and external power, we know, 
from experience, that the possession of 
them is compatible with a very high 
degree of internal misery, and "that a 
nation may abound in ships, commerce 
and manufactures, while the mass of 
the population is in a very lamentable 
state of indigence and degradation. So 
far then, at least, the science of political 
economy is defective, when its inquiries 
are directed solely to the acquisition 
of wealth, and not to the more impor¬ 
tant object of rendering that wealth 
conducive to public happiness. 
In this way unfortunately,has the sub¬ 
ject been usually treated by the most 
eminent economists from Adam Smith 
downwards. They taught how nations 
might become rich rather than happy. 
[Oct. 1, 
They sacrificed the end to the means, 
and seemed to consider it the same 
thing, provided the volume of wealth 
were augmented, whether it rolled 
down one magnificent river, or were 
the product of a thousand streams, cir¬ 
culating through different channels of 
society. Hence their precepts were 
directed solely to obtain the largest pro¬ 
duce with the least expence of produc¬ 
tive agency. For this purpose labour 
was not only to be subdivided to the ut¬ 
most limit, but to be economized by 
every possible contrivance—capital to 
take whatever direction was the most 
profitable—and industry to be left with¬ 
out the least controul or interference 
from authority. Man was considered a 
being purely selfish, who, by being suf¬ 
fered to pursue his own interest, would 
best promote the interest of the com¬ 
munity. 
What changes such a system might 
induce—how far it was compatible with 
the interest of morality, individual li¬ 
berty, or national independence—was 
never contemplated by its authors. 
They viewed their subject only on one 
side ; it was a mere theory, professing 
indeed to be simple and practical, but 
in reality founded on false views of 
human nature and the ends of society. 
First , Man is more a creature of his 
passions than of his reason ; and instead 
of pursuing calculations of interest, he 
is frequently guided by habit, pride, or 
a love of ease, 
Secondly , Capital and industiy, 
though they may sometimes be more 
advantageously employed in other chan¬ 
nels, they cannot be moved about with 
the facility of a fluid. A loss is always 
sustained, in the first instance, by a 
change of employment, and such is the 
fluctuation in the demand for particu¬ 
lar products, from variations in public 
taste and other causes, that it is not 
impossible a second transfer may be¬ 
come necessary before the gain derived 
from the first has compensated for the 
loss it occasioned. In this case society 
would be impoverished rather than en¬ 
riched by the original change of occu¬ 
pation. 
Thirdly , Though labour may be 
economized, seeing there is a certain 
number of people to maintain in every 
state, it may happen that what is gain¬ 
ed by the substitution of machinery, 
may be counterbalanced by having to 
maintain an unemployed population. 
This is on the supposition, that the 
workmen thrown out of employment 
cannot find a resource in other branches 
of 
