have already endeavoured to establish. The inextinguishable passion for gain -the auri sacra fames-will always induce capitalists to employ their stocks in those branches of industry which yield, all things considered, the highest rate of profit. And it is clear to demonstration, that those employments which yield the highest profits are always those in which it is most for the public interest that capital should be invested. The profits of a particular branch of industry are rarely raised except by an increased demand for its produce. Should the demand for cottons increase, there would be an increased competition for them; and as their price would, in consequence, be augmented, the manufacturers would obtain comparatively high profits. But the rate of profit in different employments has a natural tendency to equality; and it can never, when monopolies do not interpose, continue either permanently higher or lower in one than in the rest. As soon, therefore, as the rise in the price of cottons had taken place, additional capital would begin to be employed in their production. The manufacturers engaged in the cotton trade would endeavour to borrow additional capital, and the capitalists who were engaged in less lucrative employments would gradually contract their businesses, and transfer a portion of their stock to where it would yield them a larger return. The equilibrium of profit would thus be again restored. For the additional capital employed in the production of cottons, by proportioning their supply to the increased demand, would infallibly reduce their price to its proper level. Such is the mode in which the interests of individuals are, in every case, rendered subservient to those of the public. High profits attract capital; but high profits in particular businesses are the effect of high prices; and these are always reduced, and the commodities brought within the command of a greater number of purchasers, as soon as additional capital has been employed in their production. It is clear, therefore, that that employment of capital is the best which yields the greatest profit; and hence if two capitals yield equal profits, it is a plain proof that the departments of industry in which they are respectively invested, however much they may differ in many respects, are equally beneficial to the country. Nothing can be more nugatory than to apprehend that the utmost freedom of industry can ever be a means of attracting capital to a comparatively disadvantageous employment. If capital flows to manufactures or commerce rather than to agriculture, it can only be because it has been found to yield larger profits to the individual, and consequently to the state.

Having thus endeavoured to unfold the circumstances most favourable for the production of wealth, the natural order of our subject would lead us, in the next place, to investigate the circumstances which determine the increase of population. But, before entering on this inquiry, I shall endeavour to vindicate the doctrines already laid down

from some objections that have been stated against them, by showing, that the extension and improvement of machinery is always advantageous to the labourer, and that it is not the cause of gluts.

SECTION IV.-Improvements in Machinery similar in their Effects to Improvements in the Skill and Dexterity of the Labourer-Do not occasion a Glut of Commodities—Sometimes force Workmen to change their Employments, but have no tendency to lessen the effective demand for Labour-Case supposed by Mr. Ricardo, with respect to Machinery, possible, but exceedingly unlikely ever to occur-The True Cause of Gluts.

BEFORE proceeding to examine the various bad consequences that have been supposed to result from the indefinite extension and improvement of machinery, it may be observed, that the same consequences would equally result from the continued improvement of the skill and industry of the labourer. If the construction of a machine that would manufacture two pairs of stockings for the same expense that had previously been required to manufacture one pair, be under any circumstances injurious to the labourer, the injury would be equal were the same thing accomplished by increased dexterity and skill on the part of the knitters ;-if, for example, the females who have been in the habit of knitting two or three pairs of stockings in the week, should in future be able to knit four or six pairs. There is obviously no difference in these cases. And if the demand for stockings was already sufficiently supplied, M. Sismondi could not, consistently with the principles he has advanced, (Nouveaux Principes, II. p. 318,) hesitate about condemning such an improvement as a very great evil—as a means of throwing half the people engaged in the stocking manufacture out of employment. The question respecting the improvement of machinery is, therefore, at bottom, the same with the question respecting the improvement of the science, skill, and industry of the labourer. The principles which regulate our decision in the one case, must also regulate it in the other. If it be advantageous that the skill of the labourer should be indefinitely extended-that he should be enabled to produce a vastly greater quantity of commodities with the same, or a less, quantity of labour, it must also be advantageous that he should avail himself of the assistance of such machines as may most effectually assist him in bringing about that result.

In order the better to appreciate the effects resulting either from the increased manual skill and dexterity of the labourer, or from an improvement in the tools or machines used by him, let us suppose that the productive powers of industry are universally augmented,

and that the workmen engaged in every different employment can, with the same exertion, produce ten times the quantity of commodities as at present: Is it not evident that this increased facility of production would increase the wealth and enjoyments of every individual in a tenfold proportion? The shoemaker who had formerly only manufactured one pair of shoes a day, would now be able to manufacture ten pairs. But as an equal improvement would have taken place in every other department of industry, he would be able to obtain ten times the quantity of every other product in exchange for his shoes. In a country thus circumstanced, every workman would have a great quantity of his own work to dispose of, beyond what he had occasion for; and as every other workman would be in the same situation, each would be enabled to exchange his own goods for a great quantity, or, what comes to the same thing, for the price of a great quantity of those of others. The condition of such a society would be happy in the extreme. All the necessaries, luxuries, and conveniences of life, would be universally diffused.

It may, however, be asked, would the demand be sufficient to take off this increased quantity of commodities?-Would their excessive multiplication not cause such a glut of the market, as to force their sale at a lower price than would be required to repay even the diminished cost of their production? But it is not necessary, in order to render an increase in the productive powers of labour advantageous to society, that these powers should always be fully exerted. If the labourer's command over the necessaries and comforts of life were suddenly raised to ten times its present amount, his consumption as well as his savings would doubtless be very greatly increased; but it is not at all likely that he would continue to exert his full powers. In such a state of society workmen would not be engaged twelve or fourteen hours a day in hard labour, nor would children be immured from their tenderest years in a cotton-mill. The labourer would then be able, without endangering his means of subsistence, to devote a greater portion of his time to amusement, and to the cultivation of his mind. It is only where the productive powers of industry are comparatively feeble-where supplies of food have to be drawn from soils of the fourth or fifth degree of fertility-and where the population is in excess, that workmen are compelled to make these excessive exertions. High wages are only advantageous because of the increased comforts they bring along with them; and of these, an addition to the time which may be devoted to purposes of amusement, is certainly not one of the least. Wherever wages are high, and little subject to fluctuation, the labourers are found to be active, intelligent, and industrious. But they do not prosecute their employments with the same intensity as those who are obliged, by the pressure of the severest necessity, to strain every nerve to the utmost. They are

enabled to enjoy their intervals of ease and relaxation; and they would be censurable if they did not enjoy them.

Suppose, however, that the productive powers of industry are increased ten times; nay, suppose they are increased ten thousand times, and that they are exerted to the utmost, still it is easy to see they could not occasion any lasting glut of the market. It is true, that those individuals who are most industrious may produce commodities which those who are less industrious-who prefer indolence to exertion-may not have the means of purchasing, or for which they may not be able to furnish an equivalent. But the glut arising from such a contingency must speedily disappear. Every man's object, in exerting his productive powers, must be either directly to consume the produce of his labour himself, or to exchange it for such commodities as he wishes to obtain from others. If he does the last-if he produces commodities, and offers them in exchange to others who are unable to furnish him with those he is desirous of obtaining, he is guilty of a miscalculation-he should either have offered them in exchange to others, or he should have applied himself directly to produce the commodities he wanted: And if government do not interfere to relieve him from the consequences of his error, he will, if he cannot attain his object by the intervention of an exchange, immediately set about changing his employment, and will produce such commodities only as he means to consume. It is clear, therefore, that an universally increased facility of production, can never be the cause of a permanent overloading of the market. Suppose that the amount of capital and industry, engaged in every different employment in this country, is adjusted according to the effectual demand, and that they are all yielding the same net profit; if the productive powers of labour were universally increased, the commodities produced would all preserve the same relation to each other. Double or triple the quantity of one commodity would be given for double or triple the quantity of every other commodity. There would be a general augmentation of the wealth of the society; but there would be no excess of commodities in the market; the increased equivalents on the one side being precisely balanced by the increased equivalents on the other. But if, while one class of producers were industrious, another class chose to be idle, there would undoubtedly be a temporary excess. It is clear, however, that this excess arises entirely from the deficient production of the idle class. It is not a consequence of production being too much increased, but of its being too little increased. Increase it more-make the idle class equally productive with the others, and then they will be able to furnish them with equivalents for their commodities, and the surplus will immediately disappear. It is in vain that Mr. Malthus attempts to meet this reasoning by supposing the existence of an indisposition to consume. There is no

such indisposition in any country in the world;—not even in Mexico, to which Mr. Malthus has specially referred (Princ. of Polit. Econ. p. 382.) The indisposition is not to consume, but to produce. In Mexico, as elsewhere, no one is entitled to consume the products of the industry of others, unless he furnishes them with an equivalent; but the Mexican prefers indolence to the gratification which the commodities he might procure by means of his labour would afford him. Mr. Malthus has mistaken this indisposition to produce, for an indisposition to consume; and has, in consequence, been led to deny the proposition, that effective demand depends upon production.

Mr. Malthus has justly stated, that the demand for a commodity depends on the will combined with the power to purchase it; that is, on the power to furnish an equivalent for it. But when did anyone hear of a want of will to purchase commodities? If the will alone could procure the necessaries and luxuries of life, every beggar would become as rich as Croesus, and the market would constantly be understocked with commodities. The power to purchase is the real and the only desideratum.-It is the incapacity of furnishing equivalents for the products they wish to obtain, that involves so many in want and wretchedness. The more, then, that this capacity is increased, that is, the more industrious every individual becomes, and the more the facility of production is increased, the more will the condition of society be improved.

It is quite visionary to suppose that a deficiency of foreign demand for the products of industry can ever be occasioned by an increase of productive power. Such want of demand, when it does occur, must proceed from one or other of the following causes :-It must either be a consequence of the comparatively high price of our commodities, or of the restrictions which have been imposed on the importation of British goods into foreign countries, and on the importation of foreign goods into Britain. Now, it is obvious that, if the falling off in the foreign demand proceeds from the first of these causes, it must have been infinitely increased had the cost of production continued undiminished. If, notwithstanding all the contrivances of our Arkwrights and Watts, to save labour and expense in the production of commodities, we are still in danger of being undersold by foreigners, it is certain that, without these contrivances, we should not have been able to withstand their competition for a single year. It would be not a little inconsequential, first to complain that our goods were too high priced for the foreign market, and then to declaim against the only means by which their prices can be reduced, and the demand increased!

It is not to increased facilities of production, but to the restraints imposed on the freedom of trade, that those commercial revulsions, we have so frequently experienced, are really to be ascribed. The inhabitants of Poland, Sweden, France, China, Brazil, &c. are most desirous