3 1800.) 
tion, relatively to the nation receiving 
them ; though only a transfer, confidexing 
the world as one large fociety. Bite 
What then entitles a clafs of men to 
the character of produStive labourers > if 
the preceding definition be allowed, it 
follows that all are fuch, whole labour 
gives exiftence to commodities witch in 
ule or exchange are wealth. It is obvious 
that, political economy having refpeét to 
fociety as it is, we ought not, in fearch of 
principles, to go back to an imaginary 
ftate of barbarity ; or confider articles ot 
food fuited to uncivilized man, . as the 
only wealth; artificial wants, through 
habit, are not lefs imperious than original 
neceflities. The time is indeed pafled » 
fince the wealth ofan individual was 
found in his wardrobe, buffet, and {trong 
box ; but thofe produéts of manufacture 
which add to the convenience and decora- 
tion of life, may fairly be confidered, even 
independently ef their capacity of being 
bartered in’ foreign countries, as valuable 
polleffions. At leaft in this climate; 
~eloathing and fhelter are abfolute necefla- 
ries :—-furely then, nothing but the per- 
_ verfe obftinacy of the fyftem-maker can re- 
- quire us to ciafs the cultivator of flax, 
hemp, cotton, the breeder of cattle, the 
miner, &c. with productive labourers, 
and. yet term thofe labours barren and 
unproduétive, which work thefe raw com- 
modities into ufeful articles, transforin the 
fkin into leather, and produce metal from 
the ore. Yet the cultivator is raifed to 
an unnatural and unfympathetic indepen- 
dence above the other claffes of fociety; and 
it is evenafferted, that,‘ fuppofing a little 
thrift, he may exift and thrive and multi- 
ply without felling anything.’? But, at 
feaft, befides this thrift, he fhould be verf- 
ed in every art and employment effential to 
human exiftence; an idea-which at ance 
deftroys the divifion of labour. On the 
contrary, of manufacturers and merchants 
‘itis laid, that ‘* their labour only replaces 
there venue which they confume,”” being no 
more than ‘¢ an equiyalent fer their feed- 
ing,and no increafe of revenue.’’ But if 
the articles of confumption furnifhed by 
the fmith, mafon, carpenter, tanner, clo- 
thier, be, in the prefent. ftate of fociety, 
equally neceffaries ; it may with jufiice be 
-retorted, that the cultivator’s labour is 
only equivalent with his cloathing, lodg- 
ing, &c. Iam not poffefled of a balance 
to weigh the value of iron againit beer, 
cloth againft corn. 
I hope I have faid enough to lead fome 
| wane toenquire, what then are th 
ery 
Decwllas 
t} 
On Netional Wealth. 
‘and yet greatly enrich the ftate.” 
daily fubfiftence.”’ 
232 
- rities attending cultivation, which canevem 
afford a pretence for- the high honour 
which Dr. Gray afcribes toit. It feems 
that farmers, -befides making a profit upon 
their annual labour and expenditure, have 
allo a furplus profit, which goes to the 
landiord under the name of rent; and there 
being fuch a furplus prodiice, ‘* cultivators 
may live up to the whole of their income, 
Bat 
that, on the contrary,‘* artificers can aug- 
ment the wealth of fociety only by accu- 
mulating part of what is intended for their 
Here are apparently 
two gro{s errors : firit, the: argument 
confounds the diftribution of profit among 
the various clafles of fociety, with the be- 
nefit which fociety, as one body, derives 
from the produce. And, fecond, it does 
not draw a fair parallel between the per- 
fons conneéted with cultivation ance manv- 
faéture. The labouring cultivator fhould 
be oppofed to the labouring artifan; and 
the landlord to the mafter-manufaéturer, 
the rich capitalif#.. It is abfurd to fay 
that the cultivator enriches. his country 
becaufe thereis a furplus produce, called 
rent, as if the  diftribution of profit, and 
names, were in themfelves things: vhe 
enriches the landlord by giving him rens, 
and his country by producing a ufefal 
commodity. In like manner, the artifan 
enriches his mafter by the price he is 
enabled to put upon the wrought goads; 
and he enriches’ his country by the pro~ 
duction of wfeful commodities of anozher 
kind. Befides, the author allows, that by 
accumulation the manufacturer may aus~ 
ment the wealth of the country. Again, 
E afk, where are the fcales to afcertain the 
portion of the cultivator’s produce, which 
‘¢ is, intended*’ for the artifan?. How 
fhall we determine his quaztum me- 
«© Clofe and freguent meditation has 
given me the clearett conviction, that ho 
augmentation of the revenue of fociety 
arifes from the labour of the manufactu- 
rer, except in the cafe of its beino fold 
abroad.”’ If,revenuein money be meant, 
this is indifputably true both of mana- 
faéturers and cultivators. If a capital in 
commodities be meant, it is-as palpably 
falfe. Every turn that the wheel makes 
upon its axis, though it {pins but a fingle 
thread, and every time that the fhuttle 
crofies th¢ loom, there is a pofitive increae 
of national wealth ; for value is given to 
what had little or none before. 
But this value, itis faid, may be ¢ re- 
folved into three other values,—the value 
5 of 
