conclusions as any science founded on fact and experiment can by any possibility 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. But it is not required of the economist, that his theories should quadrate with the peculiar bias of the mind of a particular person. His conclusions are drawn from observing the principles which are found to determine the condition of mankind, as presented on the large scale of nations and empires. He has to deal with man in the aggregate— with states, and not with families—with the passions and propensities which actuate the great bulk of the human race, and not with those which are occasionally found to influence the conduct of a solitary member of society.

It should always be kept in view, that it is never any part of the business of the economist to inquire into the means by which the fortunes of individuals may have been increased or diminished, except to ascertain their general operation and effect. The public interests ought always to form the exclusive objects of his attention. He is not

to frame systems, and devise schemes, for increasing the wealth and enjoyments of particular classes; but to apply himself to discover the sources of national wealth, and universal prosperity, and the means by which they may be rendered most productive.

Nothing, indeed, is more common than to hear it objected to some of the best established truths in political and economical science, that they are at variance with such and such facts, and that, therefore, they must be rejected. It is certain, however, that these objections most frequently originate in an entire misapprehension of the nature of the science. It would be easy to produce a thousand instances of individuals who have been enriched by monopolies, as they are sometimes by robbery and plunder; but it would be not a little rash to conclude from thence, without farther inquiry, that the community in general can be enriched by such means! This, however, is the single consideration to which the political economist has to attend. The question never is, whether a greater or smaller number of individuals can be enriched by the adoption of a particular measure, or by a particular institution, but whether its tendency is to enrich the public. Admitting that monopolies and restrictive regulations frequently enable individuals to accumulate ample fortunes, this is so far from being, as is often contended, any proof of their real advantageousness, that it is distinctly and completely the reverse. It is demonstrably certain, that if monopolies and exclusive privileges enrich the few, they must, to the same extent, impoverish the many; and are, therefore, as destructive of that NATIONAL WEALTH, to promote which ought to be the principal object of every institution, as they are of natural freedom of industry.

To arrive at a well-founded conclusion in economical science, it is not, therefore, enough to observe results in particular cases, or as they affect particular individuals; we must further inquire whether these results are constant and universally applicable-whether the same circumstances which have given rise to them in one instance, would in every instance, and in every state of society, be productive of the same or similar results.-A theory which is inconsistent with an uniform and constant fact must be erroneous; but the observation of a parti cular result at variance with our customary experience, and when we may not have had the means of discriminating the circumstances attending it, ought not to induce us hastily to modify or to reject a principle which will account satisfactorily for the greater number of appearances.

The example of the few arbitrary princes who have been equitable, humane, and generous, is not enough to overthrow the principle which teaches that it is the nature of irresponsible power to debauch and vitiate its possessors to render them haughty, cruel, and suspicious: nor is the example of those who, attentive only to present enjoyment, and careless of the future, lavish their fortunes in boisterous dissipation

or vain expence, sufficient to invalidate the general conclusion, that the passion for accumulation is infinitely stronger and more universal than the passion for expence. Had this not been the case, mankind could never have emerged from the condition of savages. The multiplied and stupendous improvements which have been made in different ages and nations-the forests that have been cut down-the marshes and lakes that have been drained and subjected to cultivation—the harbours, roads, and bridges that have been constructed—the cities and edifices that have been raised--are all the fruits of a saving of income, and establish, in despite of a thousand instances of prodigality, the vast ascendency and superior force of the accumulating principle.

It is from the want of attention to these considerations that much of the error and misapprehension with which the science of Political Economy has been, and still is infected, has arisen. Almost all the absurd theories and opinions that have successively appeared have been supported by an appeal to facts. But a knowledge of facts, without a knowledge of their mutual relation—without being able to show why the one is a cause and the other an effect-is, to use the illustration of M. Say, really no better than the indigested erudition of an almanack-maker, and can afford no means of judging of the truth or falsehood of a general principle.

Neither should it be forgotten, that the alleged facts so frequently brought forward to show the fallacy of general principles, are, in most cases, so carelessly observed, and the circumstances under which they have taken place so indistinctly defined, as to render them altogether unworthy of attention. To observe accurately, requires a degree of intelligence and acuteness, a freedom from prejudice, and a patience of investigation belonging to a few only. There is,' to use the words of the celebrated Dr. Cullen, 'a variety of circumstances tending to vitiate the statements dignified with the name of experience. The simplest narrative of a case almost always involves some theories. It has been supposed that a statement is more likely to consist of unsophisticated facts, when reported by a person of no education; but it will be found an invariable rule, that the lower you descend in the medical profession, the more hypothetical are the prevailing notions. Again, how seldom is it possible for any case, however minutely related, to include all the circumstances with which the event was connected. Hence in what is commonly called experience, we have only a rule transferred from a case imperfectly known, to one of which we are equally ignorant. Hence that most fertile source of error, the applying deductions drawn from the result of one case to another case, the circumstances of which are not precisely similar. Without principles deduced from analytical reasoning, experience is an useless and a blind guide. (Cullen's MS. Lectures.)

Every one who has had occasion to compare the discordant state

ments of the mass of common observers, with respect to the practical bearing and real operation of any measure affecting the public interests, must be convinced that Dr. Cullen's reasoning is still more applicable to political and economical science than to medicine. Circumstances which altogether escape the notice of ordinary observers, often exercise the most powerful influence over national prosperity; and those again which strike them as being most important, are often comparatively insignificant. The condition of nations, too, is affected by so many circumstances, that without the greatest skill and caution, joined to a searching and refined analysis, and a familiar command of scientific principles, it is in most cases quite impossible to discriminate between causes and effect, and to avoid ascribing results to one set of causes that have been occasioned by another set. No wonder, therefore, when such is the difficulty of observing, that 'the number of false facts, afloat in the world, should infinitely exceed that of the false theories.' (Dr. Cullen.) And after all, however carefully an isolateä fact may be observed, still for the reasons already stated, it can never form any foundation for a general theorem either in the moral or political sciences. Those, indeed, who bring forward theories resting on so narrow a basis, are almost invariably empirics, whose vanity or interest prompts them to set up conclusions drawn from their own limited and imperfect range of observation, in opposition to those that are sanctioned by the general experience of mankind.

But although we are not to reject a received principle because of the apparent opposition of a few results, with the particular circumstances of which we are unacquainted, we can have no confidence in its solidity unless it be deduced from a very comprehensive and careful induction. To arrive at a true knowledge of the laws regulating the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth, the economist must draw his materials from a very wide surface. He should study man in every different situation-he should have recourse to the history, of society, arts, commerce, and civilization-to the works of philosophers_and travellers to every thing, in short, that can throw light on the causes which accelerate or retard the progress of civilization he should mark the changes which have taken place in the fortunes and conditions of the human race in different regions and ages of the world: he should trace the rise, progress, and decline of industry: and, above all, he should carefully analyze and compare the effects of different institutions and regulations, and discriminate the various circumstances wherein an advancing and declining society differ from each other. These investigations, by disclosing the real causes of national opulence and refinement, and of poverty and degradation, furnish the economist with the means of giving a satisfactory solution of almost all the important problems in the science of wealth; and of devising a scheme

of public administration calculated to ensure the continued advancement of the society in the career of improvement.

Such inquiries cannot fail to excite the deepest interest in every ingenuous mind. The laws by which the motions of the celestial bodies are regulated, and over which man cannot exercise the smallest influence or control, are yet universally allowed to be noble and rational objects of study. But the laws which regulate the movements of human society—which cause one people to advance in opulence and refinement, at the same time that another is sinking into the abyss of poverty and barbarism—have an infinitely stronger claim on our attention; both because they relate to objects which exercise a direct influence over human happiness, and because their effects may be, and in fact are, continually modified by human interference. National prosperity does not depend nearly so much on advantageous situation, salubrity of climate, or fertility of soil, as on the adoption of measures fitted to excite the inventive powers of genius, and to give perseverance and activity to industry. The establishment of a wise system of public economy can compensate for every other deficiency: it can render regions naturally inhospitable, barren, and unproductive, the comfortable abodes of an elegant and refined, a crowded and wealthy population; but where it is wanting, the best gifts of nature are of no value; and countries possessed of the greatest capacities of improvement, and abounding in all the materials, necessary for the production of wealth, with difficulty furnish a miserable subsistence to hordes distinguished only by their ignorance, barbarism, and wretchedness.

When we reflect on the variety and extent of the previous knowledge required for the construction of a sound theory of Political Economy, we cease to feel any surprise at the errors into which economists have been betrayed, or at the discrepancy of the opinions that are still entertained on some important points. Political Economy is of very recent origin. Though various treatises of considerable merit had previously appeared on some of its detached parts, it was not treated as a whole, or in a scientific manner, until about the middle of last century. This circumstance is of itself enough to account for the number of erroneous systems that have since appeared. Instead of deducing their general conclusions from a comparison of particular facts, and a careful examination of the phenomena attending the operation of different principles, and of the same principles in different circumstances, the first cultivators of almost every branch of science have begun by framing their theories on a very narrow and insecure basis. Nor is it really in their power to go to work differently. Observations are scarcely ever made or particulars noted for their own sake. It is not until they begin to be sought after, as furnishing the only test by which to ascertain the truth or falsehood of some popular theory, that they are made in sufficient numbers, and with sufficient accuracy. It