3821.] 
of industry; or that the increased 
cheapness pf commodities produced by 
machinery does not so far augment the 
consumption as to create new employ¬ 
ment equal to the old it has superseded. 
Fourthly , The advantage of an ex¬ 
treme division of labour, which tends 
to perfect each branch of industry, is 
partly compensated by the intellectual 
degradation produced by the human 
mind being confined to one simple oc¬ 
cupation. To have never done any thing, 
as M. Say remarks, but make the eigh¬ 
teenth part of a pin, is a sorry account 
for a fellow-creature to give of his ex¬ 
istence. 
Fifthly , The kind of employment is 
of importance with a view to the moral 
and physical character of a people. For 
example, no one would wish to see the 
entire population, though it were the 
most profitable, employed in the manu¬ 
facture of woollens, linens, and hard¬ 
ware, to the exclusion of rural pur¬ 
suits. 
Lastly , Every country is liable to 
have its relations of peace interrupt¬ 
ed, consequently it were extreme im¬ 
policy in a nation aspiring to indepen¬ 
dence, to depend on a neighbouring 
state, with whom it may be at war, for 
the means of subsistence. 
These are a summary of the most im¬ 
portant reasons which may be urged 
against the unqualified adoption of the 
theory of 44 The Wealth of Nations.' 1 ' 1 
But to illustrate more clearly the 
tendency of Smith's system, it is only 
necessary to advert to the circumstances 
in which a nation may be placed by 
following out his principles. Supposing 
then the employment of capital and 
industry were abandoned entirely to in¬ 
dividual cupidity, what would be the 
result?—how would society be consti¬ 
tuted ? It would evidently undergo great 
changes ; manual labour would proba¬ 
bly for the most part, be performed by 
machinery; a few rich capitalists would 
carry on the great business of agricul¬ 
ture and manufacture; the working 
classes and smaller tradesmen, would 
either disappear altogether, or their 
condition be entirely altered; the for¬ 
mer perhaps metamorphosed into pau¬ 
pers and menials—the latter into clerks, 
collectors, overseers, and superinten¬ 
dents. The middle ranks, which con¬ 
stitute the chief excellence of modern 
society, would be supplanted by an 
aristocracy of wealth. 
Or the change might be much more 
pernicious. Instead of capital being 
divided betwixt agriculture and manu¬ 
199 
facture, it might flow entirely to the 
latter, and the whole country become 
a congregation of workshops and count¬ 
ing-houses—its surface—its corn-fields 
and pastures turned into bleaching 
grounds, or striped out into canals and 
highways; while the people themselves 
depended for their daily bread on sup¬ 
plies from France, Poland or Odessa. 
On either supposition society would be 
any thing rather than improved; its 
moral no less than physical landscape 
would be impaired. Nevertheless it 
might have augmented its wealth— 
might possess a larger nett revenue— 
be able to pay a greater amount in taxes 
—to maintain a more numerous stand¬ 
ing army—a more powerful navy—or 
more expensive ecclesiastical establish¬ 
ment,—but these would be very inade¬ 
quate equivalents for the loss the com¬ 
munity had sustained by the extinction 
of the intermediate gradations of so¬ 
ciety ; dividing it into two great classes, 
the rich and the poor, and establishing 
a chain of monopoly and dependence 
more oppresssive than the feudal sys¬ 
tem. 
Such, however, might be the con¬ 
sequences of following the doctrines of 
Smith. The wealth which he seemed 
to consider as the exclusive object of 
national policy, is obviously only a 
mean of public no more than indivi¬ 
dual happiness: it may exist in great 
abundance, yet from a vicious applica¬ 
tion be an injury rather than a benefit. 
A nation is only advantageously rich, 
when its wealth is so distributed as not 
only to augment the number but the 
intensity of the enjoyments of the 
mass of the population. 
Hence appears the necessity of watch¬ 
ing over the employment of capital and 
industry, so as to render them most 
conducive to the general welfare. They 
will undoubtedly flow into the most 
profitable channels, as it is termed, but 
it is this tendency to accumulate in 
particular directions, so as to induce 
an unnatural state of society, that may 
sometimes render it expedient to regu¬ 
late their movements. 
The policy of thus occasionally inter¬ 
fering with public Industry, has given 
rise to a new class of economists, whose 
doctrines bear the relation to the prin¬ 
ciples of the Wealth of Nations, as 
that great work bore to the Agricultu¬ 
ral System of the French writers. In 
both cases the difference is rather 
about the applicability of certain prin¬ 
ciples than the truth of the principles 
themselves. Smith did not deny the 
abstract 
The Political Economist.—-No. 1. 
