and raised himself above many of the prejudices of

his age and country, does not scruple to affirm, that there can be nothing ingenuous in a workshop; that commerce, when conducted on a small scale, is mean and despicable; and when most extended, barely tolerable-Non admodum vituperanda !* Agriculture, indeed, was treated with more respect. Some of the most distinguished characters in the earlier ages of Roman history had been actively engaged in rural affairs; but, notwithstanding their example, the cultivation of the soil, in the flourishing period of the Republic, and under the Emperors, was almost entirely carried on by slaves, belonging to the landlord, and employed on his account. The mass of Roman citizens were either engaged in the military service, † or derived a precarious and dependant subsistence from the supplies of corn furnished by the conquered provinces. In such a state of society the relations subsisting in modern Europe between land

* "Illiberales autem et sordidi questus mercenariorum, omniumque quorum operæ, non quorum artes emuntur. Est enim illis ipsa merces auctoramentum servitutis. Sordidi etiam putandi, qui mercantur a mercatoribus quod statim vendant, nihil enim proficiunt, nisi admodum mentiantur! Opificesque omnes in sordida arte versantur, nec enim quidquam ingenuum potest habere officina *** Mercatura autem, si tenuis est, sordida putanda est; sin autem magna et copiosa, multa undique apportans, multisque sine vanitate impertiens, non est admodum vituperanda." (De Officiis, Lib. I. sect. 42.)

+ "Rei militaris virtus præstat cæteris omnibus; hæc populo Romano, hæc huic urbi æternam gloriam peperit.”—(Cicero pro Murena.)

lords and tenants, and masters and servants, were unknown; and the ancients were, in consequence, entire strangers to all those interesting and important questions arising out of the rise and fall of rents and wages, which form so important a branch of economical science. The spirit of philosophy in the ancient world was also extremely unfavourable to the cultivation of Political Economy. The luxurious or more refined mode of living, of the rich, was regarded by the ancient moralists as an evil of the first magnitude. They considered it as subversive of those warlike virtues, which were the principal objects of their admiration; and they, therefore, denounced the passion for accumulating wealth as fraught with the most injurious and destructive consequences. It was impossible that Political Economy could become an object of attention to minds imbued with such prejudices; or that it could be studied by those who contemned the objects about which it is conversant, and vilified the labour by which wealth is produced.

At the establishment of our universities, the clergy were almost the exclusive possessors of the little knowledge then in existence. It was natural, therefore, that their peculiar feelings and pursuits should have a marked influence on the plans of education they were employed to frame. Grammar, rhetoric, logic, school divinity, and civil law, comprised the whole course of study. To have appointed professors to explain the principles of commerce, and the means by which labour might be rendered most effective, would have been considered as equally superfluous and de

grading to the dignity of science. The ancient prejudices against commerce, manufactures, and luxury, retained a powerful influence in the middle ages. None were then possessed of any clear ideas concerning the true sources of national wealth, happiness, and prosperity. The intercourse among states was extremely limited, and was maintained rather by marauding incursions, and piratical expeditions in search of plunder, than by a commerce founded on the gratification of real and reciprocal wants.

These circumstances sufficiently account for the late rise of this science, and the little attention paid to it up to a very recent period. And since it has become an object of more general attention and inquiry, the differences which have subsisted among the most eminent of its professors, have proved exceedingly unfavourable to its progress, and have generated a disposition to distrust its best established conclusions.

It is clear, however, that those who distrust the conclusions of Political Economy, because of the variety of systems that have been advanced to explain the phenomena about which it is conversant, might on the same ground distrust the conclusions of almost every other science. The discrepancy between the various systems that have successively been sanctioned by the ablest physicians, chemists, natural philosophers, and moralists, is quite as great as the discrepancy between those advanced by the ablest political economists. But who would therefore conclude, that medicine, chemistry, natural philosophy, and morals, rest on no solid foundation, or that they

are incapable of presenting us with a system of wellestablished and consentaneous truths? We do not refuse our assent to the demonstrations of Newton and Laplace, because they are subversive of the hypotheses of Ptolemy, Tycho Brahe, and Descartes; and why should we refuse our assent to the demonstrations of Smith and Ricardo, because they have subverted the false theories that were previously advanced respecting the sources and the distribution of wealth? Political Economy has not been exempted from the common fate of the other sciences. None of them has been instantaneously carried to perfection; more or less of error has always insinuated itself into the speculations of their earliest cultivators. But the errors with which Political Economy was formerly infected have now nearly disappeared; and a very few observations will suffice to show, that it really admits of as much certainty in its conclusions as any science founded on fact and experiment can possibly do.

The principles on which the production and accumulation of wealth and the progress of civilization depend, are not the offspring of legislative enactments. Man must exert himself to produce wealth, because he cannot exist without it; and the desire implanted in the breast of every individual of rising in the world and improving his condition, impels him to save and accumulate. The principles which form the basis of this science make, therefore, a part

of the original constitution of man, and of the physical world; and their operation, like that of the mechanical principles, is to be traced by the aid of observation and analysis. There is, however, a material distinction between the physical and the moral and political sciences. The conclusions of the former apply in every case, while those of the latter apply only in the majority of cases. The principles on which the production and accumulation of wealth depend are inherent in our nature, and exert a powerful, but not always the same degree ✰ of influence over the conduct of every individual; and the theorist must, therefore, satisfy himself with framing his general rules so as to explain their operation in the majority of instances, leaving it to the sagacity of the observer to modify them so as to suit individual cases. Thus, it is an admitted principle in the science of Morals, as well as of Political Economy, that by far the largest proportion of the human race have a much clearer view of what is conducive to their own interests, than it is possible for any other man or select number of men to have; and, consequently, that it is sound policy to allow each individual to follow the bent of his inclination, and to engage in any branch of industry he thinks proper. This is the general theorem ; and it is one which is established on the most comprehensive experience. It is not, however, like the laws which regulate the motions of the planetary system, it will hold good in nineteen out of twenty instances, but the twentieth may be an exception.