Definition.

were to embrace a discussion of the production and distribution of all that is useful and agreeable, it would include within itself every other science; and the best Encyclopædia would really be the best treatise on Political Economy. Good health is useful and delightful, and, therefore, on this hypothesis, the science of wealth ought to comprehend the science of medicine; civil and religious liberty are highly useful, and, therefore, the science of wealth must comprehend the science of politics; good acting is agreeable, and, therefore, to be complete, the science of wealth must embrace a discussion of the principles of the histrionic art, and so on. Such definitions are obviously worse than useless. They can have no effect but to generate confused and perplexed notions respecting the objects and limits of the science, and to prevent the student ever acquiring a clear and distinct idea of the nature of the inquiries in which he is engaged.

Mr. Malthus has defined wealth to consist of "those material objects which are necessary, useful, and agreeable to man." (Principles of Political Economy, p. 28.) But this definition, though infinitely less objectionable than the preceding, is much too comprehensive to be used in Political Economy. Atmospheric air, and the heat of the sun, are both material products, and are highly useful and agreeable.* But their independent existence, and their incapacity of appropriation, excludes them, as we have already shown, from the investigations of this science.

Dr. Smith has not explicitly stated what was the precise meaning attached by him to the term wealth; but he most commonly describes it to be "the annual produce of land and labour." Mr. Malthus, however, has justly objected to this definition, that it refers to the sources of wealth, before we know what wealth is, and that it includes all the useless products of the earth, as well as those which are appropriated and enjoyed by man.

The definition we have given is not liable to any of these objections. By confining the science to a discussion of the laws regulating the production, distribution, and consumption of those material products which have exchangeable value, and which are either necessary, useful, or agreeable," we give to it a distinct and definite object. When thus properly restricted, the researches of the economist occupy a field which is exclusively his own. He runs no risk of wasting his time in inquiries which belong to other sciences, or in unprofitable investigations respecting the production and consumption of articles which cannot be appropriated, and which exist independently of human industry.

Capacity of appropriation is indispensably necessary to constitute wealth. And we shall invariably employ this term to distinguish those products only which are obtained by the inter

are poor, of the latter comparatively rich.-Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of Public Wealth, ch. ii.-For an able criticism upon it, see Edinburgh Review, Vol. iv.-E.

*The author here carelessly uses the term product as synonymous with object, whereas product in the language of this science, is properly confined to the results of human labour, something produced by voluntary not by natural agency. Had Malthus used the term product instead of object, the criticism passed upon him by our author would have been inapplicable.-E.

1

vention of human labour, and which, consequently, can be ap- Definition. propriated by one individual, and consumed exclusively by him. A man is not said to be wealthy, because he has an indefinite command over atmospheric air, for this is a privilege which he enjoys in common with every other man, and which can form no ground of distinction; but he is said to be wealthy, according to the degree in which he can afford to command those necessaries, conveniences, and luxuries which are not the gifts of nature, but the products of human industry. It must, however, be carefully observed, that, although the possession of value be thus necessary to the existence of wealth, they cannot be confounded together without leading to the most erroneous conclusions. Wealth and value are as widely different as utility and value. It is plain that every man will be able to command a much greater quantity of these necessaries and gratifications, of which wealth consists when their value declines, or when they become more easily obtainable, than when their value increases. Wealth and value vary in an inverse ratio. The one increases as the other diminishes, and diminishes as the other increases. -Wealth is greatest where the facility of production is greatest, and value is greatest where the difficulty of production is greatest.*

of the

The science of Political Economy is exclusively conversant Importance with that class of phenomena, which the exertion of human in- Science. dustry exhibits. Its object is to ascertain the means by which this industry may be rendered most productive of necessaries, comforts, luxuries, and enjoyments, or of wealth in the proper sense of the word; by which this wealth may be most advantageously distributed among the different classes of the society; and by which it may be most profitably consumed. To enter into a lengthened argument to prove the importance of a science having such objects in view, would be worse than useless. The consumption of wealth is indispensable to existence; but the eternal law of Providence has decreed that wealth can only be procured by the intervention of industry-that man must earn his bread by the sweat of his brow. This twofold necessity renders the production of wealth a constant and principal object of the exertions of the vast majority of the human race. It has subdued the natural aversion of man to labour, given acti

*In this passage there may appear to be some obscurity; its principles, however, are just :-Wealth and value are both relative termswealth relates to persons, value to things; wealth refers to the power individuals possess of commanding the comforts and luxuries of life; value to the rate of exchange existing among the products of industry:wealth is based upon plenty of commodities; value upon their scarceness. We may suppose a state of society, in which nature producing gratuitously all that can be desired, wealth would abound, but value would have no place: as labour was required for their production, wealth would decrease and value increase, until we arrived at the opposite extreme, where constant labour would suffice for the support of the labourer only; in which case, wealth would cease, but value would be at its height.

The actual state of society, may be taken as a variable medium between these two extremes, and partaking of the character of both. Commodities having value in proportion to their scarceness, and adding to wealth in proportion to their plenty and cheapness.-See Malthus' Principles of Political Economy, ch. 6.-E.

Objects and
Importance

of the
Science.

Causes of

of this Sci

Ancient and

vity to indolence, and armed the patient hand of industry with zeal to undertake, and perseverance to overcome, the most dif ficult and disagreeable tasks. But when wealth is thus necessary, when the desire to acquire it is sufficient to induce us to submit to the greatest privations, it is plainly impossible to doubt the utility and paramount importance of the science which teaches the modes by which its acquisition may be facilitated, and by which we may be enabled to obtain the greatest amount of wealth with the least possible difficulty. There is no class of people to whom a knowledge of this science can be considered as either extrinsic or superfluous. There are some, doubtless, to whom it may be of more advantage than to others ; but it is of the utmost consequence to all. The prosperity of individuals, and consequently of nations, does not depend nearly so much on salubrity of climate, or on the fertility and convenient situation of the soils they inhabit, as on the power possessed by them, of applying their labour with perseverance, skill, and judgment. Industry can balance almost every other deficiency. It can render regions naturally inhospitable, barren, and unproductive, the comfortable abodes of an intelligent and refined, a crowded and wealthy population; but where it is wanting, the most precious gifts of nature are of no value, and countries possessed of the greatest capabilities of improvement, with difficulty furnish a miserable subsistence to the scanty population of hordes distinguished only by their ignorance, barbarism, and wretchedness.

But when the possession of wealth is thus necessary to indithe Neglect vidual existence and comfort, and to the advancement of nations ence in the in the career of civilization, it may justly excite our astonishMiddle Ages. ment that so few efforts should have been made to discover its sources, and facilitate its acquisition, and that the study of Political Economy, should not have been early considered as forming a principal part in a comprehensive system of education. Two circumstances, to which we shall now briefly advert, seem to us to have been the principal causes of the neglect of this science. The first is the institution of domestic slavery in the ancient world; and the second the darkness of the period when the plan of education in the universities of modern Europe was first organized.

The citizens of Greece and Rome considered it degrading to employ themselves in those occupations which form the princi

*The applicability of the principles of this science to the advancement of individual wealth, is but hinted at by our author; it deserves to have been more strongly enforced. It is the great merit of Say's system, that it not only identifies individual wealth with that of the nation, but also the means by which they are respectively to be advanced. Wealth cannot be produced from nothing, but then every man derives from nature, in some proportion or other, its primitive elements,-mental ability and physical strength; to direct them to its production, is the only object of this science. So that to use the illustration of Say, "As men may be taught to make a clock, they may be taught to make what is called riches." Nor is it without a capital that any healthy young man sets out in life. The expenses of his education and support from his infancy, are to him an accumulated capital-his mental acquirements and bodily strength are their result; and by means of them he is enabled to derive an interest from the money that has been thus appropriated in his favour, and laid out in what, while health continues, is its most permanent and profitable investment.-E.

pal business of the inhabitants of modern Europe. In some of Causes of the neglect the Grecian states the citizens were prohibited from engaging in of Political any species of manufacturing or commercial industry; and in Economy. Athens and Rome, where such a prohibition did not exist, these employments were universally regarded as mean, mercenary, and unworthy of freemen, and were in consequence carried on exclusively by slaves, or the very dregs of the people.* Agriculture 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, in the flourishing period of the Republic, and under the Imperial Regime, the cultivation of the soil 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 landlords 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 the philosophy of 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

*The force of the prejudices on this head may be learned from the following quotations: "Illiberales autem et sordidi," Cicero says, "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 ingénuum 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.) "The gains of merchants, as well as of all who live by labour, and not skill, are mean and illiberal. Their very merchandize is the badge of their slavery. Those persons also are to be esteemed sordid who buy from merchants that they may immediately sell again, for their profits can be made only by falsehood. All workmen are servilely engaged, nor can the workshop have any thing worthy of a freeman. The business of a merchant, if contracted, is base, yet if great and extensive, bringing many things from far, and without vanity distributing them to many, is not to be altogether despised."-(Cicero on Morals.) "Vulgaris opificum, quæ manu constant, et ad instruendam vitam occupatæ sunt; in quibus nulla decoris, nulla honesti simulatio est." (Seneca Epistolæ, Ep. 89.) "The business of workmen, which is manual, and relates merely to the conveniencies of life, without any connexion with taste or sentiment, is to be reputed base.”—(Seneca's Letters.)

A hundred similar quotations might be produced; but the one we have given from Cicero is sufficient to establish the accuracy of what we have advanced. The strength of the prejudice against commerce and the arts is proved by its exerting so powerful an influence over so cultivated a mind. For a further discussion of the opinions of the Romans on this subject, we refer our readers to the Dissertazione del Commercio de Romani of Mengotti, which received a prize from the Academy of Paris in 1787, and to the Memoria Apologetica del Commercio de Romani of Torres, published at Venice in 1788.

66

† "Rei militaris virtus præstat cæteris omnibus; hæc populo Romano, hæc huic urbi æternam gloriam peperit."—(Cicero pro Murena.) "Military science excels all other, it is this which has gained eternal glory för this city, and for the Roman people."-(Cicero for Murena.)

Causes of by the ancient moralists as an evil of the first magnitude. They the neglect considered it as subversive of those warlike virtues, which were Economy. the principal objects of their admiration, and, in consequence,

of Political

they 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 men imbued with such prejudices; or that it could be studied by those who held the objects about which it is conversant in contempt, and who spurned that 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 degrading to the dignity of science. The prejudices against commerce, manufactures, and luxury, generated in antiquity, had a powerful influence in the middle ages. None were possessed of any clear ideas concerning the true sources of wealth, happiness, and prosperity. The intercourse between the different countries was extremely limited, and was rather confined to marauding excursions, and a piratical scramble for the precious metals, than to a commerce founded on the gratification of real or reciprocal wants.

These circumstances sufficiently account for the slow progress of, and the little attention paid to, this science up to a very recent period. And since it became an object of more general attention and liberal inquiry, the opposition between the theories and opinions that have been espoused by the most eminent of its professors, a necessary and inevitable result, as we shall immediately show, of its recent cultivation-has proved exceedingly unfavourable to its progress, and has generated a disposition to distrust its best established conclusions. This prejudice is, however, extremely ill-founded; and notwithstanding the diversity of the theories that have been formed to explain its va

* From the ancients although we have but little written on this science, yet of that little much is wrong. Their philosophers taught them contempt of wealth, not the means of attaining it. Gold and virtue, according to Plato, were weights in opposite scales; of which, as one rose the other necessarily declined. In commerce, he taught that fundamental and prevalent error, which lies at the basis of the restrictive policy of nations, viz. That in an exchange both parties cannot be gainers: consequently, that the gain of the one but counterbalances the loss of the other :-hence, in his fiction of a perfect commonwealth, the capital was to be seated inland, and commerce prohibited. Xenophon, Aristotle, &c. hold a similar language; degrading, if not utterly rejecting, commerce: and by imposing forced limitations upon population, showing an utter ignorance of the productive powers of industry to increase, or rather to create, that wealth by which it is supported.

Rome, which had grown great by plunder, naturally despised the slow earnings of industry; and the sentiments of her writers, as well as the policy of her government, show the erroneous views then entertained of national wealth. They regarded it as existing in a certain definite quantity in the world at large, fluctuating, but not progressive, and of it every nation possessed itself of a share in proportion to its strength in war.-E.