for the number of new and important facts which have occurred during the present century, it will appear that the Wealth of Nations would probably have been superseded by this time as a treatise on the principles of political economy, if any successor of Adam Smith, not below him in sagacity or reasoning powers, had adopted his popular mode of illustration. If so, the lasting popularity of his book may be attributed in some measure to want of skill, as writers, in the modern teachers of political economy. Their unskilfulness, however, may be owing to their impatience: the Wealth of Nations was the produce of inquiry and reflection during the better part of a life, and of ten years' secluded labour.

Lastly, even though Adam Smith had been succeeded by as skilful and patient a writer as himself, his book would not have been forgotten, like the great bulk of printed words. It might have been, and probably will be superseded, for the purpose of teaching the principles of the science which it may be said to have created; but as long as our language shall last, it must be esteemed for its admirable English and so vast a store-house of facts, and of profound reflections which belong to our unchangeable nature, will never, we may conclude, be wholly neglected, while there shall be human beings to in

quire about a subject which, more than any other, concerns the earthly happiness of all men.

Thus recommended by merits which time could not affect, and the only work which combines a history of political economy with a methodical exposition of its principles, the Wealth of Nations remains, in spite of its controversial character, and the total overthrow of the systems which it attacks, not only the most valuable book in the science, but one more valuable than all the others put together. If the followers even of Adam Smith had to choose between the loss of this book, and that of all their own volumes, they could hardly fail to decide in favour of their great master.

At the same time, no one will deny that the science which Adam Smith brought into existence, has been considerably improved by others. Without reflecting further, therefore, it would seem desirable that a new edition of the Wealth of Nations should be published, with a commentary, of which the object was, so to notice all improvements in the science, as to render the text and the commentary together a complete treatise on the subject. But to this course there appear to me to be two serious objections. This course, indeed, has been attempted by Professor Mc Culloch; though with

cation.

but little success, as is apparent when we observe that by far the greater part of his commentary consists of long dissertations, not appearing in the order of the text, or in any order, but printed at the end of the text, and so composed that all or each of them might as well have formed a separate publiThe failure of such an attempt was inevitable. The historical method adopted by Adam Smith has produced a certain disorder in his work, which, if followed in a commentary, would be extremely unfavourable to the purpose of conveying a knowledge of mere principles. For example, pursuing the disorder of the text, it would be necessary to treat, in the First Book, of Wages, Profits, and Rent, of the Distribution of Wealth,-before the subject of Production had been completed; nay, before the nature, accumulation, and employment of Capital, which form the subject of the Second Book, had been noticed at all. In the text again, Exchangeable Value, which is greatly affected by the productiveness of capital as well as labour, and not a little perhaps by the distribution of produce, comes before Capital, and before Wages, Profits, and Rent. These examples suffice to show, that the text of Adam Smith is a most improper foundation for a commentary of which the object should be wholly didactic. In the next place, I am humbly,

but very sincerely of opinion, that the science of political economy is yet in its infancy. Even the alphabet of the science,—the meaning of every common term, whether used by the vulgar or by the most learned professors, is still unsettled. There is scarcely a term of any weight which is not employed by different persons, and even by the same person, to express different meanings; while the known principles of the science leave unexplained some of its most important phenomena. Why, in the earlier stages of the world's progress, was there no other labour than that of slaves? Why did the colonies of the ancient Greeks flourish during their infancy, while those of modern Europe have almost universally suffered great disasters? What is the cause of the rapid progress of slavery in the United States? Why are wages and profits, both together, so high in America, and so low in England? Why are the agricultural capital and labour of France only half as productive as those of England? Why is the foreign trade of Van Diemen's Land six times greater, in proportion to numbers, than that of the two Canadas? Why, at the present time, is corn cheaper in England than in North America? The most learned economist of the day,-one who has got all the books by heart,-would be unable to answer any of these questions. A great many more

questions might be asked, to which those books afford no satisfactory answer*. If I may venture to call myself an economist, our alphabet is unformed, and our knowledge most imperfect; while this confession adds one more to the many wide differences of opinion amongst us, which almost prove that the confession is true. For one who thinks thus, to profess that he had corrected the errors and supplied the deficiencies of Adam Smith, so as to offer a complete exposition of the principles of national wealth, would be fraudulent, not to say impossible.

As the order of the Wealth of Nations renders that book unsuitable to a didactic commentary, we need not inquire whether such a commentary might be usefully appended to it by one who was qualified to perfect our knowledge of political economy. When there shall be a writer so qualified, he will employ his time more usefully than in adding to

* Quite recently, indeed, a sort of heresy in political economy has thrown light on many points which had been left in total darkness by those who imagine that the science was perfected by Ricardo. The most distinguished preachers of the new doctrine, which shows that great evils arise from superabundance of capital, are Colonel Torrens and Dr. Chalmers.

C