ing and equally durable capitals, Nos. 7', 8', 9', 10', &c.; while the latter, or the commodities produced in England by the capitals Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, &c., will rise in value as compared with the commodities produced in France by the corresponding capitals, Nos, 1, 2, 3, 4', &c. The merchants of England and France will, therefore, no longer come into the American market on the same terms as formerly; for England will henceforth have a decided advantage over France in the production and sale of those commodities that are produced chiefly by machinery; while France will, on her part, have an equally decided advantage over England in the production and sale of those commodities that are chiefly the direct produce of the hand. And such, in point of fact, is the case. The bulk of our exports consists of cotton goods and other products of machinery; whereas the bulk of the exports of France consists of the productions of her soil, and of jewellery and fancy articles, principally the product of manual labour. It is, therefore, difficult to suppose that a rise of wages should be fatal to the foreign commerce of a country, except by reducing profits, and creating a temptation to employ capital abroad. It can hardly fail, however, to turn it, to some extent at least, into new channels for if, on the one hand, it raises the value of certain descriptions of commodities and checks their exportation, on the other, it proportionally lowers the value of other descriptions, and fits them the better for the foreign market.

The truth, therefore, is, that instead of our high wages laying our cotton manufacturers under any disadvantage in the sale of their goods, their effect is distinctly the reverse. The high wages paid to workmen in England, and the weight of the public burdens, occasion comparatively low profits; and as the principal part of the value of cottons and other commodities chiefly produced by the agency of machinery, consists of profits, it must necessarily be low where the latter are low. Suppose, for example, that two highly durable machines, of equal efficiency, and which may be used with but little manual labour, are erected, the one in France and the other in England: if the machines

cost £20,000 each, and if the rate of profit in France were six and in England five per cent, the work done by the French machine would be worth £1200, whereas that done by the English machine would only be worth £1000. It should also be observed, inasmuch as one description of machinery is for the most part largely employed in the production of another, that it is most probable, in the event of one of the machines being made in England and the other in France, that the English one would not cost so much as £20,000 and that its produce might on that account be sold under £1000. Independently, however, of this circumstance, the advantage that our manufacturers, who are large employers of machinery, must have over those of France, and still more over those of the United States, in consequence of their profits being lower, is obvious and decided. This principle shows that restrictions on the exportation of machinery, even if they could be enforced, and the emigration of the makers prevented, are of less consequence than the manufacturers suppose; for, though the United States possessed every facility for manufacturing cottons we now enjoy, though Massachusetts were a second Lancashire, and Lowell a fac-simile of Manchester, it is plain their manufacturers could not enter into a successful competition with those of England. The possession of better machinery would not lower profits in New England; and, till this be done, we must, supposing we continue to possess equal facilities of production, always have an ascendency over the Americans, the French, and every other people among whom profits are higher than in England, in the sale of such articles as are mainly produced by means of machinery. The statement now made is not, however, meant to convey the impression that low profits are really advantageous. On the contrary, the tendency of a low rate of profit is not only to make the countries in which it obtains advance slowly as compared with those in which it is higher, but it also, as previously stated, forms a strong temptation to convey capital from them. A reduction of taxation, or a reduction of wages, following a reduction in the price of corn,

or any of the principal necessaries which enter into the consumption of the labourer, would raise the rate of profit, and might, consequently, by raising their price, narrow the demand for cottons. But a diminution in our exports to foreign countries, arising from this cause, if it did take place, would be beneficial rather than otherwise. It would be a consequence of industry having become more productive; and any capital that had previously been employed in the production of goods for the foreign market, that could not, under the supposed change of circumstances, be advantageously sent abroad, would have little difficulty in meeting with more profitable employment in other branches. In so far, however, as the cotton manufacture is concerned, there can be little doubt that the depression. in the rate of profit has contributed to its extraordinary extension. And, how paradoxical soever it may seem, it is nevertheless true that, were wages to rise and profits to sustain a further decline, additional capital would be attracted to the manufacture, and the price of cottons would experience a further reduction; whereas, were wages to fall and profits to rise, capital would be diverted from the manufacture to those businesses that employ less machinery, and the price of cottons would rise.1

66

1 Sir William Petty seems to have been one of the earliest writers who has distinctly stated, that the value of commodities depends on the quantities of labour required for their production. If," says he, "a man bring to London an ounce of silver out of the earth in Peru, in the same time that he can produce a bushel of corn, the one is the natural price of the other now if, by reason of new and more easie mines, a man can get two ounces of silver as easily as formerly he did one, then corn will be as cheap at ten shillings the bushel as it was before at five shillings, cæteris paribus."-Treatise of Taxes and Contributions, ed. 1679, p. 31. At page 24 he says, "Let a hundred men work ten years upon corn, and the same number of men the same time upon silver; I say that the neat proceed of the silver is the price of the whole neat proceed of the corn, and like parts of the one the price of like parts of the other :" and at page 67 he says, "Corn will be twice as dear when there are two hundred husbandmen to do the same work which a hundred could perform." These passages are interesting, as exhibiting the first germs of the theory which Mr Ricardo did so much to perfect.

PRINCIPLES

OF

POLITICAL ECONOMY.

PART III.

DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.

THE inhabitants of such countries as have made any considerable progress in civilisation and the arts, may be divided into the three classes of labourers, landlords, and capitalists; and whatever be the condition of any society-whether rude or refined, rich or poor-every person belonging to it, who is not a pauper, or who does not subsist on the bounty of others, may be reckoned in one or other of these classes. They divide amongst them all the wealth of the community. Public functionaries of all sorts, and the various individuals engaged in what are called liberal or learned professions, exchange their services for valuable considerations. The whole subsistence of such persons, in so far as they depend upon their employments, is derived from wages; and they are as evidently labourers as if they handled a spade or a plough. Every man," says Dr Paley, "has his work. The kind of work varies, and that is all the difference there is. A great deal of labour exists besides that of the hands; many species of industry beside bodily

66