equally fertile country, occupied by hunters or shepherds, the powers of agricultural industry in increasing useful productions appear so striking and extraordinary, that we cease to feel surprise at the preference which has been so early and generally given to agriculture over manufactures and commerce; and are disposed to subscribe without hesitation to the panegyric of Cicero when he says, "Omnium autem rerum ex quibus aliquid aquiritur, nihil est agricultura melius, nihil uberius, nihil dulciùs, nihil homine, nihil libero dignius.”

But are there really any just grounds for this preference ? Are not manufactures and commerce equally advantageous as agriculture ? It is plain, that without agriculture we could never possess any considerable supply of the materials out of which food and clothes are made; but is it not equally plain, that without a knowledge of the arts by which these materials are converted into food and clothes, the largest supply of them could be of little or no service? The labour of the miller who grinds the corn, and of the baker who bakes it, is equally necessary to the production of bread, as the labour of the husbandman who tills the ground. It is the business of the agriculturist to raise flax and wool; but if the labour of the spinner and weaver had not given them utility, and fitted them for being made a comfortable dress, they would have been nearly, if not entirely worthless. Without the labour of the miner who digs the mineral from the bowels of the earth, we could not have obtained the matter out of

which many of our most useful implements and splendid articles of furniture have been made; but if we compare the ore when dug from the mine with the finished articles, we shall certainly be convinced that the labour of the purifiers and refiners of the ore, and of the artists who have afterwards converted it to useful purposes, has been quite as advantageous as the industry of the miner.

But not only is it certain that manufacturing industry, or that species of industry which fits and adapts the raw produce of nature to our use, is requisite to render its acquisition of any considerable value; but it is also certain, that without manufacturing industry this very raw produce could never have been obtained in any considerable quantity. The labour of the mechanic who fabricates the plough is as efficacious in the production of corn as the labour of the husbandman who guides it. But the plough-wright, the mill-wright, the smith, and all those artizans who prepare tools and machines for the husbandmen, are really manufacturers, and differ in no respect whatever from those who are employed to give utility to wool and cotton, except that they work on harder materials. The fixed capital vested in tools and machines is the product of the labour of the tool and engine manufacturer; and without the aid of this fixed capital, it is impossible that agricultural labour, or that any other sort of labour, could ever have become considerably productive.

Distinguer," says the Marquis Garnier, "le travail des ouvriers de l'agriculture d'avec celui des

autres ouvriers, est une abstraction presque toujours oiseuse. Toute richesse, dans le sens dans lequel nous la concevons, est nécessairement le résultat de ces deux genres de travail, et la consommation ne peut pas plus se passer de l'un que de l'autre. Sans leur concours simultané il ne peut y avoir de chose consommable, et par conséquent point de richesse. Comment pourrait-on donc comparer leurs produits respectifs, puisque, en séparant ces deux espèces de travail, on ne peut plus concevoir de véritable produit, de produit consommable et ayant une valeur réelle ? La valeur du blé sur pied résulte de l'industrie du moissonneur qui recueillera, du batteur qui le séparera de la paille, du meunier et du boulanger qui le convertiront successivement en farine et en pain, tout comme elle résulte du travail du laboureur et du semeur. Sans le travail du tisserand, le lin n'aurait pas plus le droit d'être compté au nombre des richesses, que l'ortie ou tout autre végétal inutile. A quoi pourrait-il donc servir de rechercher lequel de ces deux genres de travail contribue le plus à l'avancement de la richesse nationale? N'estce pas comme si l'on disputait pour savoir lequel, du pied droit ou du pied gauche, est plus utile dans l'action de marcher ?”*

In fact, there is not at bottom any real distinction

* See page 58 of the Discours Preliminare to the second edition of the translation of the Wealth of Nations, by the Marquis Garnier. The same passage is in the first edition, published in 1802,

between agricultural and manufacturing industry. It is, as has already been shown, a vulgar error to suppose that the operations of husbandry add any thing to the stock of matter already in existence. All that man can do, and all that he ever does, is merely to give to matter that particular form or shape which fits it for his use. But it was contended by M. Quesnay and the French economists, and their opinions have in this instance been espoused by Dr Smith, that the labour of the husbandman in adapting matter to our use is powerfully facilitated by the aid derived from the vegetative powers of nature, while the labour of the manufacturer has to perform every thing itself without any such co-operation."No equal quantity of productive labour, or capital employed in manufactures," says Dr Smith, " can ever occasion so great a reproduction as if it were employed in agriculture. In manufactures nature does NOTHING, man does ALL; and the reproduction must always be proportioned to the strength of the agents that occasion it. The capital employed in agriculture, therefore, not only puts into motion a greater quantity of productive labour than any equal capital employed in manufactures, but in proportion, too, to the quantity of productive labour which it employs, it adds a much greater value to the annual produce of the land and labour of the country, to the real wealth and revenue of its inhabitants. Of all the ways in which a capital can be employed, it is by far the most advantageous to the society."*

* Wealth of Nations, II. p. 53.

This is perhaps the most objectionable passage in the Wealth of Nations; and it is really astonishing how so acute and sagacious a reasoner as Dr Smith could have maintained a doctrine so manifestly erroneous. It is indeed true, that nature powerfully assists the labour of man in agriculture. The husbandman prepares the ground for the seed, and deposits it there; but it is nature that unfolds the germ, that feeds and ripens the growing plant, and brings it to a state of maturity. But does not nature do as much for us in every other department of industry? The powers of water and of wind, which move our machinery, support our ships, and impel them over the deep,-the pressure of the atmosphere, and the elasticity of steam, which enable us to work the most stupendous engines, are they not the spontaneous gifts of nature? In fact, the single and exclusive advantage of machinery consists in its having enabled us to press the powers of nature into our service, and to make them perform the principal part of what would otherwise have been wholly the work of man. In navigation, for example, is it possible to doubt, that the powers of nature-the buoyancy of the water, the impulse of the wind, and the polarity of the magnet, contribute fully as much as the labour of the sailor to waft our ships from one hemisphere to another? In bleaching and fermentation the whole processes are carried on by natural agents. And it is to the effects of heat in softening and melting metals, in preparing our food, and in warming our houses, that we owe many of our most