system of the Economists, (a leaning perceptible in every part of his work,) made him so far swerve from the sounder principles of his own system, as to admit that the preference shown by individuals in favour of particular employments, is not always a true test of their public utility. He considered that agriculture, though not the only productive employment, is the most productive of any; that the home trade is more productive than a direct foreign trade; and the latter than the carrying trade. It is clear, however, that these distinctions are fundamentally erroneous. A state being formed of the individuals inhabiting a particular country, it follows, that whatever is most for their separate advantage, must also be most for the advantage of the state or of themselves collectively considered; and it is obvious, that the interest of the parties will prevent their engaging in manufacturing and commercial undertakings, unless they yield as large profits, and are, consequently, as publicly beneficial, as agriculture. Dr. Smith's opinion with respect to the unproductiveness of labour not realized in a fixed and vendible commodity, appears, at first sight, to rest on no better foundation than the opinion of the Economists with respect to the unproductiveness of commerce and manufactures; and its fallacy will be fully established in the sequel of this work. Perhaps, however, the principal defect of the "Wealth of Nations" consists in the erroneous doctrines laid down with respect to the invariable value of corn, and the influence of fluctuations of wages and profits over prices. These

prevented Dr. Smith from acquiring clear and accurate notions respecting the nature and causes of rent, and the laws which govern the rate of profit; and have, in consequence, vitiated the theoretical conclusions in those parts of his work which treat of the distribution of wealth and the principles of taxation.

But, after every reasonable allowance has been made for these and other defects, enough still remains to justify us in considering Smith as the real founder of the modern theory of Political Economy. If he have? not left a perfect work, he has, at all events, left one which contains a greater number of useful truths than has ever been given to the world by any other individual; and he has pointed out and smoothed the route, by following which, subsequent philosophers have been able to perfect much that he had left incomplete, to rectify the mistakes into which he fell, and to make many new and important discoveries. Whether, indeed, we regard the soundness of its leading doctrines, the liberality and universal applicability of its practical conclusions, or its powerful and beneficial influence over the progress of the science, and, above all, over the policy and conduct of nations, the "Wealth of Nations" must be placed in the foremost rank of those works that have helped to liberalize, enlighten, and enrich mankind.

Political Economy was long confounded with politics; and it is undoubtedly true that they are very intimately connected, and that it is frequently impossible to treat questions which belong to the

one, without referring more or less to the principles and conclusions of the other. But in their leading features they are, notwithstanding, sufficiently distinct. The laws which regulate the production and distribution of wealth are the same in every country and stage of society. Those circumstances which are favourable or unfavourable to the increase of riches and population in a republic, may equally exist, and will have exactly the same influence, in a monarchy. That security of property, without which there can be no steady and continued exertion; that freedom of engaging in every different branch of industry, so necessary to call the various powers and resources of human talent and ingenuity into action; and that economy in the public expenditure, so conducive to the accumulation of national wealth, are not attributes which belong exclusively to any particular species of government. If free states have usually made the most rapid advances in wealth and population, it is an indirect, more than a direct consequence of their political constitution: it results rather from the right of property being in general more respected, the exercise of industry less fettered, and the public income more judiciously levied and expended, under popular governments, than from the circumstance merely of a greater proportion of the people being permitted to exercise political rights and privileges: give the same securities to the subjects. of an absolute monarch, and they will make the same advances. Industry does not require to be stimulated by extrinsic advantages: the additional comforts and

enjoyments which it procures have always been found sufficient to ensure the most persevering exertions; and whatever may have been the form of government, those countries have always advanced in the career of improvement, in which the public burdens have been moderate, the freedom of industry maintained, and every individual allowed peaceably to enjoy the fruits of his labour, to cultivate his mind, and to communicate his ideas to others. The wealth of a country does not, therefore, depend so much on its political organization, as on the talents and spirit of its rulers. Economy, moderation, and intelligence, on the part of those in power, have frequently elevated absolute monarchies to a very high degree of opulence and prosperity; while, on the other hand, the various advantages derived from a more liberal system of government have not always been able to preserve free states from being impoverished and exhausted by the extravagance, intolerance, and short-sighted policy of their rulers.

This science is, therefore, sufficiently distinct from Politics. The politician examines the principles on which government is founded; he endeavours to determine in whose hands the supreme authority may be most advantageously placed; and unfolds the reciprocal duties and obligations of the governing and governed portions of society. The political economist does not take so high a flight. It is not of the constitution of the government, but of its ACTS only, that he presumes to judge. Whatever measures affect the production and distribution of

wealth, necessarily come within the scope of his observation, and are freely canvassed by him. He examines whether they are in unison with the principles of the science, and fitted to promote the public interests: if they are, he shows the nature and extent of the benefits of which they will be productive; while, if they are not, he shows in what respect they are defective, and to what extent they will most probably be injurious. But he does this without inquiring into the constitution of the government which has enacted these measures. The circumstance of their having emanated from the privy council of an arbitrary monarch, or the representative assembly of a free state, though in other respects of supreme importance, cannot affect the immutable principles by which he is to form his opinion upon them.

Besides being confounded with Politics, Political Economy has sometimes been confounded with Statistics; but they are still more easily separated and distinguished. The object of the statist is to describe the condition of a country at some given period; while the object of the economist is to discover the causes which have brought it into that condition, and the means by which its wealth and population may be indefinitely increased. He is to the statist what the physical astronomer is to the mere observer. He takes the facts furnished by the researches of statists; and after comparing them with each other, and with those deduced from other sources, he applies himself to discover their relation and dependence. By a patient induction, by carefully observing