FOUR ESSAYS. 
 
 THE SCIENCE OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 
 
 IJolitical €ronomn oiili liibiistrg auJi lljciv velatioiis. 
 
 IMPOLICY OF PROTECTIVE DUTIES. 
 
 A POSITION OF THE FRIENDS OF THE HIGH TARIFF EXAMINED. 
 
 REPRINTED. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA; 
 
 PRINTED BY KING;& BAIRD, No. 9 GEORGE STREET. 
 1847. 
 
FOUll ESSAYS. 
 
 THE SCIENCE 01' POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 Politiral (Pranomp aiib ^iiiincti-n aiii) tl)cir cclatioi 
 
 IMPOLICY OF PROTECTIVL DUTIES. 
 
 A POSITION OF THE FRIENDS OF THE HIGH TARIFF EXAMINED, 
 
 REPRINTED. 
 
 P II11, A D E L P H I A : 
 
 PRINTED BY KING A IJAIRD, No. 0 GEORGE STREET. 
 1S47. 
 

 
 
 
 
 /^ro 
 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 
THE SCIENCE OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 
 
 The pure mathematics is the only science, of which the subject matter 
 seems susceptible of exact and rigorous definition. By whatever terra we 
 think proper to distinguish the knowledge of the properties of space and 
 number, these properties, as well as the subject matter of them, must ever 
 remain unchanged. It is true that properties, before unknown, may in the 
 progress of the science be made known, and the sphere of science be thus 
 enlarged; but the subject matter must ever be the same. In mathematics, 
 we contemplate the properties of that being, (if I may so express myself,) 
 which not only can undergo no change, but in which no change is conceiva¬ 
 ble, and which therefore is susceptible of the utmost exactness of definition. 
 Nothing that we can form any idea of is like'it, and as we cannot by any 
 means conceive the idea of its being annihilated, it follows, that its exist¬ 
 ence is the necessary accompaniment, and, as it were, condition of all that 
 we can think, or feel, or know. 
 
 In all other sciences, the subject matter of examination, however durable 
 (in the common acceptation) in its nature, is neither, so far as we know, 
 immutable nor eternal; and can easily be conceived to be annihilated. We 
 shall not enter into the question, whether matter itself can be conceived 
 annihilated, still less into that, whether it exists at all, and is not a mere 
 quality of mind: all that we affirm is, that the particular forms under which 
 matter exhibits itself to us, may be conceived changed; and this suffices 
 to enable us to perceive a broad line of distinction between the sciences 
 which are concerned about matter, or rather about the forms and appear¬ 
 ances of matter, (we confine ourselves here to the physical sciences,) and 
 that one which has for its object the properties of space and number. The 
 same distinction may be drawn between the mathematics and those sciences 
 which explain to us mental or moral phenomena. 
 
 Mind, like matter, exhibits itself to us under a great variety of forms, i 
 appearances and connections; and mental philosophy, or the science of the 
 mind, consists in treasuring up and recording these forms, appearances and 
 connections, and in arranging them under different, or under the same 
 heads and classes, according to their nearer or more remote resemblances 
 to one another. It follows as a necessary consequence, that as the sciences 
 which compose either of these two great departments of human know¬ 
 ledge, mind and matter, are only separated from one another by the differ¬ 
 ences, or united by the resemblances of their subjects, and as these differ¬ 
 ences and resemblances mutually run into one another, (a resemblance 
 always implying a difference,) they cannot admit of any greater exactness 
 of definition, than the objects or classes of objects, about which they are 
 concerned. We may observe further, that the same cause which in the 
 definition of the physical and mental sciences renders mathematical pre¬ 
 cision impossible, renders it equally so, in all our reasonings in them^ 
 Nothing, however, could be more childish than to make this want of exact 
 ness an objection to these sciences; for it should be recollected that the 
 mathematics itself, in its application to practice, is not less liable to the 
 
4 TUB SCrENCE OP POLITICAL ECONOMY. 
 
 objection than they are; and, that it is only in its application to practice, 
 that it possesses any great utility, or, c.^ercises any important influence upon 
 the destinies of mankind. Although ^ - rjght angle is a right angle to all 
 eternity, and must possess forfevefall’the properties ascribed to it, yet in 
 reality, there never perhaps existed, in'a' material form, such a thing as an 
 exact right angle. In applying, therefore, to material objects, mathemati¬ 
 cal theorems, all that we can reasonably expect to accomplish, must (after 
 all) be, but an approximation to the truth. The imperfection of our senses, 
 even when assisted by the most elaborate intruments of art, must ever pre¬ 
 sent an obstacle to the attainment of mathematical exactness: and we may 
 add, that, were it even attainable, it could scarcely be thought desirable, 
 since it is difficult to understand, what can be the utility of a degree of 
 exactness which, it is acknowledged, is inappreciable by our senses. 
 
 We have thought proper to suggest these reflections in entering upon 
 the examination of the true scope and nature of a science, which by many 
 persons is thought to he peculiarly liable to the objection of a want of cer¬ 
 tainty and exactness. In conducting this examination, and with a view to 
 the object of our inquiry, viz. the illustration of the true scope and nature 
 of the science of Political Economy, we shall probably avail ourselves, as 
 well of what we regard the errors of economists, as of those truths or fun¬ 
 damental principles, which we look upon as perfectly settled and placed 
 out of the reach of doubt or controversy. 
 
 With respect to the objection above alluded to, of a want of certainty and 
 exactness in political economy, we shall show, that so far as it applies to 
 the natU7-e of the science, and the evidence upon which it rests, there is no 
 better ground for it, than if it were brought against any other science 
 founded only on experience and observation. 
 
 It will be admitted, we imagine, that all the objects, material or other¬ 
 wise, which contribute the necessities, the convenience, the comfort, or the 
 gratification of mankind, are divisible into two great classes, of those which 
 could not have existed without industry, and those which arc the spontaneous 
 growth of unassisted nature. 
 
 In the first case man and nature co-operate, since, even in the simplest 
 act, man is aided by the co-operation of something external to himself— 
 as the air, the light, heat, &c. Where he not merely does an act, but by 
 means of this act produces a change in a material body external to him¬ 
 self, it is clear that the change produced, is the result partly of his act and 
 partly of the nature of the object operated upon. It is in this sense only 
 that in the productions of industry, nature can be said to co-operate with 
 the labour of man. 
 
 In the second case, nature does every thing, as in the production of wild 
 fruits, or grain, or of the fish of the ocean, or rivers, or in short of any 
 thing towards the production of which the industry of man does nothing. 
 But with respect to these things it is to be observed, that very few, if any 
 of them can ever be of any use to man, without the previous intervention 
 of some degree of human industry. The fish must be caught, the fruits 
 must be gathered, the grain must be harvested. Before the intervention 
 of human labour, they are but materials upon which that labour must first 
 be employed, in order to render them useful or agreeable to man. Although, 
 therefore, many things, both animate and inanimate, exist independently of 
 the industry of man, very few (if any) can be of any use to him, either for 
 his support or pleasure, except through the intervention of some degree of 
 
THE SCIENCE OP POEITICAL ECONOSIT. 5 
 
 voluntary labour, more or less, according to the nature of the object upon 
 which it is exerted. Although nature, in one country, may be more boun¬ 
 tiful than in another—may co-operate more powerfully in the production 
 of what is necessary for the support, or the comfort and pleasure of man; 
 yet there is no part of the earth, however mild the climate, fertile the soil, 
 or abundant the spontaneous growth of the animal, the vegetable or the 
 mineral world, where some degree of labour is not necessary to the suste¬ 
 nance of life. We may say then most truly, that industri/ is the nurse of 
 nature—but, that her cares and attention are the more or the less neces¬ 
 sary, according as nature has a less or a greater portion of native and in¬ 
 herent vigour and activity. This then is all that the political economist 
 desires to establish, that industry is a most important agent in the produc¬ 
 tion of that great aggregate of objects, which contribute to the support, 
 the convenience, or the accommodation of man. He will easily admit 
 that air, light, and even water, are independent of human industry, although 
 of the highest necessity to the well-being and existence of man: but these 
 alone would be insufficient to his existence even. Industry then is called 
 in to finish, what nature only began. 
 
 It appears, then, that human industry is concerned, more or less, in the 
 production of almost every thing, that we consume, or that is of any utility 
 for the support, the comfort, or the convenience of life; it follows, that 
 whatever cause may affect that industry in such a manner as to influence the 
 quantity, the quality, or the nature ofitsproduetions, must necessarily par¬ 
 take of the importance of that industry itself. It is necessary here to point 
 out a distinction which has been wholly overlooked by political economists, 
 but which nevertheless is essential to a knowledge of the true nature of 
 the science of political economy. We mean the distinction between the 
 causes which influence industry, and those which influence production. 
 The former are to the latter as apart to the whole. Whatever influences 
 industry, influences production; hut it does not follow, that, whatever in¬ 
 fluences production, influences industry. 
 
 Two nations may be equally industrious, yet one of them may produce 
 much more of the necessaries, conveniences and luxuries of life, than the 
 other—the one is poor, the other is rich—the one is barren, the other is 
 fertile—in the one, nature does little, in the other, much—in the one, her 
 co-operation with the efforts of man is weak, in the other, powerful. 
 Again, though equal in industry, the one may possess more skill and sci¬ 
 ence than the other, and may consequently have adopted more effective 
 processes in production—these processes are the cause perhaps of a more 
 abundant production, but not a greater industry—they are not the cause of 
 any change in the application of industry—they constitute the change itself.® 
 
 One manner of applying industry is admitted to be better than another, 
 because it produces more: whether it does, however, or does not, is not the 
 question with the political economist; he inquires not which of two or 
 more methods of applying industry is the most productive: he leaves t/n’s 
 to be determined by the experience of the tradesman, the manufacturer, 
 the merchant, or the agriculturist; what he inquires after is the cause which 
 produces this change in the application of industry. He may find, for ex¬ 
 ample, that the cause of it is the discovery, that the new mode is easier 
 than the old, that it produces more to the same degree of labour, that it 
 
 * They oflen operate as causes of a change^ as will appear hercafler. 
 
SCIENCE OP POLITICAL ECONOMV. 
 
 consumes less of the previous productions of labour: in other words, that 
 it is the progress of science or knowledge, or a more thorough acquaint¬ 
 ance with the objects or materials upon which the labour is employed. His 
 object is to ascertain some extensively operative cause to which the change 
 may be referred, and which will enable him to account for other similar 
 
 Having ascertained the knowledge of a cause, which, wherever it exists, 
 must affect the application of industry, he is enabled, from tbe presence of 
 the cause, to foresee the effect produced. Having settled it with himself 
 that Tcnowkdge and science are the basis of industry, under ail its various 
 and varying forms and appearances; having observed the important conse¬ 
 quences resulting in some instances, even from a single discovery, (made 
 perhaps apparently through accident,) he can no longer entertain any doubt, 
 that the progress of knowledge is one of the most important and exten¬ 
 sively operating causes, influencing the application, and as a consequence 
 of this, the productiveness of industry. Bearing in mind this truth, so in¬ 
 teresting to the philanthropist and so simple in itself, but which has, in 
 practice and affairs, been so entirely neglected by all governments and 
 legislators since the beginning of the world, he is at leisure then to examine 
 into the circumstances which have a tendency to obstruct and retard, or to 
 accelerate the progress of knowledge, and readily perceives the link which 
 connects them through the medium of knowledge, with the increased pro¬ 
 ductiveness of industry, and consequently the improvement and civilization 
 of mankind. 
 
 The branch of political economy which relates to the important influ¬ 
 ence of knowledge, and to the circumstances which contribute to its pro¬ 
 gress and diffusion, or which have a contrary tendency, has received less 
 attention than almost any other; and until lately, indeed, had been almost 
 wholly overlooked. It is not to be expected, therefore, that we should 
 attempt any thing more, than to point out some of the more prominent and 
 obvious of the circumstances which have an influence upon the progress 
 and diffusion of knowledge. We may mention among these, (nor is it the 
 least important of them,) that of the juxtaposition or neighbourhood. The 
 seeds of knowledge and observation are found in all men. All men have 
 implanted'in them, not only the desire to know, but also the capacity: they 
 are all placed in a situation in which some degree of knowledge is abso¬ 
 lutely necessary to existence. They are all urged by passions and desires, 
 whose gratification cannot, without the previous acquirement of knowledge, 
 be obtained. We see, therefore, that even solitary man could not be wholly 
 destitute of an acquaintance with the nature and properties of the objects 
 that surround him. Place him in society, and the sphere of his knowledge 
 is immediately enlarged; but passing over the important moral relations 
 which are suggested by tbe social state, because these are not so directly 
 to our purpose, we would direct the attention of the reader to the advan¬ 
 tages afforded by the social stale for the advancement of the knowledge of 
 external nature—of the relations of external objects to one another, atid 
 to himself; because it is. to this part of knowledge that he is indebted, for 
 not only the improvements of the arts which minister to the comfort and 
 support of life, but for their very existence. 
 
 As these objects are very numerous, and require many of them a sepa¬ 
 rate and almost exclusive attention, to be thoroughly understood in their 
 various relations, it would be impossible for a single individual, in the short 
 
THE SCIENCE OP POLITICAL ECONOMF. 
 
 life that is allotted to him, even under the most favourable circumstances, 
 to extend his knowledge, if left wholly to his own unassisted efforts of ob¬ 
 servation, beyond a very few of them. It is then to the separate and com¬ 
 bined observations of many that we are indebted for the progress of know¬ 
 ledge; in other words, it is to juxtaposition—to facility of communication 
 —to intercourse; without which, no separation could take place, either 
 among the employments of men, or among the objects of their attention. 
 To professed treatises on political economy it belongs to illustrate the im¬ 
 portance of a circumstance, which for us it suffices to have pointed out. 
 
 That the denseness of poptdation has a tendency to accelerate the pro¬ 
 gress of knowledge, is only a corollary from the preceding proposition; 
 and might be easily demonstrated by an appeal to history and experience. 
 To these causes of the progress of knowledge we may add another, by 
 reminding the reader of the well known proverb, that “ necessity is the 
 mother of invention.” 
 
 Necessity not only leads mankind to apply their industry with ardour 
 and perseverance in the ordinary methods: it stimulates them also to the 
 discovery of new and better methods of applying it. Its influence there¬ 
 fore upon industry is two-fold; direct by giving an impulse to its efforts; 
 and indirect or mediate through its previous effect, in contributing to the 
 progress of knowledge. It may be observed, however, that where any 
 branch of knowledge is pursued with a view to the improvement of indus¬ 
 try, it becomes itself a distinct portion of the general amount of the na¬ 
 tional industry, and is liable, of course, to be influenced by similar causes. 
 The influence of the natural circumstance of necessity in contributing to 
 the progress of knowledge, and consequently to the improvements of the 
 arts of industry, is perhaps nowhere more conspicuous, than in such a 
 country as Great Britain at the present day, and during the last half cen¬ 
 tury. The increase of people by creating a greater demand for agricul¬ 
 tural produce, has led to an extended cultivation. Commons have been 
 enclosed, heaths have been broken up, and improved methods of cultiva¬ 
 tion have been resorted to. The earth, indeed, has been made to yield 
 far more than it ever did before; but the expense has been in proportion. 
 
 Where the labour necessary to the prodution of bread stuffs is great, as 
 these must necessarily enter into the composition of every other commo¬ 
 dity, every other commodity must also be produced with great labour, (i. e. 
 expense.) It is sufficient for bur purpose to stale, that the labour necessary 
 to the production of bread stuffs being greater than ever, it would necessa¬ 
 rily follow, (unless, at the same lime, less labour is necessary to the pro¬ 
 duction of a given quantity of other commodities,) that the whole aggregate 
 amount of labour employed, for the production of the aggregate amount of 
 commodities, must also be greater. Hence great labour and moderate pro¬ 
 duction ; and consequently, low wages and low profits. But in order to 
 counteract this effect, of an increased amount of labour in the production 
 of bread stuffs, which, as we have just observed, causes a reduction of 
 wages and profits, the ingenuity of the industrious classes has been exerted 
 to the utriiost, for the invention of machinery for saving labour, or increas¬ 
 ing its productiveness. 
 
 Many and great improvements consequently have been made, both in 
 agriculture and manufactures. These have had a tendency to correct, in 
 some measure, the evil arising from the necessity of cultivating lands of 
 inferior fertility. It is estimated, by writers of good authority, that within 
 
POLITICAL ECONOMY. 
 
 a few years, in consequence of the invention of machinery for facilitating 
 labour in manufacturing industry, the productive power has been increased 
 an hundred fold. Nothing can be more childish than to object to this mode 
 of reasoning, that inventions are the result of accident. It was an acci¬ 
 dent, it has often been observed, that suggested to Sir Isaac Newton the 
 law of gravitation; bnt how much previous knowledge and reflection were 
 necessary to enable him to take advantage of this accident? Necessity, it 
 is clear, has put men upon examining with attention every object and every 
 operation, with a view to the discovery of some property or relation, by the 
 application of which industry may be rendered more productive. But an 
 extended and detailed illustration of its effects, both in stimulating the 
 activity of industry, and in introducing improved modes of applying it, 
 would be inconsistent with our prescribed limits. It is sufficient for our 
 purpose to have pointed out one of the circumstances which, by influencing 
 the progress of knowledge, affects also the productiveness of industry. 
 
 The foregoing observations suggest, 1st, the importance of industry in 
 production, (in the sense in which we have hitherto employed it, viz. of 
 effecting useful changes;) 2d, that there exist causes which affect the pro¬ 
 gress of industry, either by stimulating or repressing its activity, or by 
 changing the manner of its application; 3d, that these causes are distin¬ 
 guishable from those which affect production only, and consist either in 
 whatever increases the activity of industry, or changes the manner of its 
 application. The science which points out the causes loliich affect the pro¬ 
 gress of industry, cither hy stimulating or repressing its activity, or hy 
 changing the manner of its application, is a science by itself. It is the 
 science, which by some has been called “political economy,” by others, 
 “ the science of values,” and by almost all, “ the science which explains 
 the production, distribution and consumption, of wealth.” The objection 
 to the frst is, that it is too indefinite. Economy in private matters is con¬ 
 nected only with the idea of saving and frugality, and does not suggest the 
 idea of industry, or the causes which affect its activity and application. 
 The least industrious persons are frequently the most saving and economi¬ 
 cal. The word economy is much too narrow in its meaning, to express at 
 all the nature of a science which, of all others, is the most comprehensive. 
 The great work which has been said most truly to have laid the founda¬ 
 tions of this science, and to have pointed out the proper methods of inves¬ 
 tigating its laws, was not called by its .author “ a system of political econo¬ 
 my,” but “ an inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations.” 
 The sagacious mind of its author perceived too clearly the true nature of 
 his subject, to apply to it a term so ill-adapted to express it. Political 
 economy may very well denote, the proper and prudent administration of 
 the public finances—the judicious application of these to the payment of 
 the necessary expenses of government. It would imply a knowledge of 
 the objects necessary and jiroper to be effected by government, and of the 
 best and cheapest means of effecting them. In this sense certainly it is 
 very little different in its nature from individual economy: but, in its more 
 enlarged and extended signification, it bears to it no affinity or relationship 
 at all. it differs as much from it as the knowledge of a philosopher.does 
 from that of an upper servant, one whose business is, to hold his master’s 
 purse, pay his current expenses, take his receipts, keep his accounts, and 
 see that no unnecessary waste is made in the provisions entrusted to his 
 management. Even where we extend the meaning of the term economy. 
 
SCIENCE 
 
 rOLITICAL ECONOMY. 
 
 as applied to the affairs of individuals, to signify the management of a large 
 estate, its resemblance to the science we have endeavoured to describe, is 
 not much nearer than before. The steward of a landlord is generally little 
 else than a tax-gatherer. His business is to see that the rent agreed upon 
 is paid. What the amount of the rent is, or the rate of it, depends upon 
 causes altogether out of the sphere of his control. It is the interest of the 
 farmer to make the land produce as much as possible: out of this produce 
 he must pay the ordinary wages of labour; what remains must pay him the 
 ordinary profit upon the capital he employs; and if any thing is left, after 
 the ordinary profit has been paid, it constitutes rent, and is due to the owner 
 of the soil. Even, therefore, where the rate of rent varies, the business of 
 the landlord (or his steward) is very simple, and consists in very little more 
 than in ascertaining amounts expended and received—in preventing frauds, 
 insisting upon the performance of obligations, and making all necessary 
 calculations from fixed and certain data. This, too, is the commonly re¬ 
 ceived idea of economy in private matters, taken in the sense the most libe¬ 
 ral and extended. Nothing therefore could be so likely to mislead the 
 student, when entering upon the study of the science, whieh teaches the 
 causes of^ national prosperity or decline, in so far as these are dependent 
 upon national industry, as the confounding in his mind the scope and nature 
 of a science so comprehensive as this, with the miserable details and petty 
 calculations of a book of debts and credits. 
 
 The objection to its designation as “ a science of values” is, that it leads 
 to a false conception of the real nature of the science, which it presumes 
 to describe. This science, it is true, takes notice of the quality of value. 
 None but objects of vedne are the objects of industry: all the circum¬ 
 stances, therefore, which influence or affect industry, are, in the nature of 
 things, connected more or less, with the production of those objects of value 
 which result from the exertion of industry. It is the value of such objects 
 that has made them to be sought by industry. But, to be satisfied of the 
 important truth, that value is the basis of industry—that had objects no 
 value, (whatever might be their utility,) they could never be the objects of 
 industry, and that consequently in such a case, the existence of industry 
 would be impossible, is to make but a single step in the science. It is, in 
 fact, only to generalize, and give expression to a truth, that in his prac¬ 
 tice and conduct in particular cases, the most ignorant savage shows him¬ 
 self as well acquainted with, as the most enlightened philosopher. 
 
 The Indian who goes forth into the forest in search of deer, and who 
 endures.all the fatigue and privations incident to hunting, although it has 
 never occurred to him to ask tohy any object has value, nevertheless, acts 
 from the same view of the object that be desires to possess, that the phi¬ 
 losopher takes of it, when he affirms it to have a value. The former acts 
 from a perception of a relation connected with a particular object which 
 the latter affirms to be the essential characteristic of value, in all objects 
 whatever. The former is sensible of two things, 1st, that the object he 
 seeks to possess has utility, and 2d, that it cannot be obtained without a 
 sacrifice. The latter considers that none but an idiot will give any thing 
 (i. c. will make a sacrifice) to obtain that which may be obtained without 
 making a sacrifice. Hence he learns the true nature of value, and that all 
 human industry has for its object the production or creation of it. In other 
 words, that though the design of human industry is the production of 
 utility, it is of some description of utility which coidd not exist without the 
 
SCIENCE 
 
 exerlinn of industry; and as industry always implies sacrifice, utility 
 which it creates must always have a value. 
 
 But to have learned this truth, which in fact comprehends the whole 
 doctrine of value, is to have made only one step (an important one cer¬ 
 tainly, but still only o/ic,) in the great science, which treats of the “ causes 
 of the progress, or decline, of national industry.” The importance of the 
 doctrine of value is seen in this, that it enables us to apprehend the causes 
 which give rise to those Jluchiafions in the relative value of objects, ichich 
 themselves act as causes in altering the channels, and changing the direction 
 and application of industry. The doctrine of value, then, though an essen¬ 
 tial part of the science, is still only apart of it. The naming this science, 
 therefore, “ a science of values,” was necessarily abridging it of its legiti¬ 
 mate' limits, and could only have arisen from a misconception of its true 
 nature and object. We have quite as great an objection to its being called 
 “ the science which teaches the production, distribution and consumption, 
 of wealth.” We have already observed, that the distinction between in¬ 
 dustry end production had not been sufficiently attended to. We contend, 
 that the science which we are endeavouring to explain the nature of, seeks 
 to devdope the causes which affect industry. Now, industry is the result of 
 will, and consists of voluntary acts done with a view to the attainment of 
 some object. The industry of freemen is influenced by the hope of reward 
 —that of slaves by the fear of punishment; but in either case it is effected 
 through the medium of the will. The energy and intenseness of industry 
 depends upon the energy and intenseness of the will, which latter depends 
 (where the mind is not weakened by disease) upon the strength of the 
 motives which actuate the will! Hence, as what is called the prosperity or 
 decay of industry, is owing in a very great measure to its energy or relax¬ 
 ation, we must look for the primary causes of it, to the motives which 
 actuate the will; in other words to the position or circumstances in which 
 men are placed. Industry is the agency which man voluntarily gives, in 
 the process of production. Production is the efiect of this voluntary agency 
 on the part of man, co-operating with natural agencies, which are indepen¬ 
 dent of his volition. It follows, that in order to understand the means by 
 which industry is to be affected—to be strengthened—to be relaxed—to be 
 destroyed—or to be produced; it is only necessary to study the motives 
 which actuate the will—in other words, to consider the various ways in 
 which the will is influenced by the different positions in which men are 
 placed, or the circumstances that surround them. 
 
 We have already adverted to the importance, or rather the necessity of 
 intelligence and experience, in applying industry to the work of produc¬ 
 tion, and have reminded the reader that, as the advance of knowledge is 
 one of the chief causes of the improved efficiency of industry, all circum¬ 
 stances which contribute to the progress of the former, must be- more or 
 less favourable to the improvement of the latter. How wide a field of spe¬ 
 culation is opened by this suggestion, for looking into the less obvious 
 causes which exercise an influence over the development of the industrial 
 energies of a people, has been already hinted at in what we have said above. 
 It can scarcely be thought necessary, after taking this view of the subject, 
 to insist upon the distinction between industry and production—the one 
 being a mere agency, that of man cn-operaling with other agencies, those 
 of other parts of nature; the other the end, the object, and the effect of 
 this mutual co-operation. It is evident, that as there are two distinct ageii- 
 
THE SCIENCE OP POLITICAL ECONOMY. 11 
 
 cies in the work of production, it is necessary to understand the laws of 
 both, before the effect of their mutual co-operation can be judged of. The 
 farmer, for example, who is acquainted with the nature of different soils, 
 and of grain, with the laws of the seasonsrand the effect of heat, rain, 
 moisture, &c., will tell you that if you plant a certain extent of a certain 
 description of soil, with a certain quantity of grain of a given sort, the 
 result ot production will be of a certain amount and kind. . It is clear that 
 his position is wholly hypothetical. He can only tell what will be the result 
 under the supposition that a certain act is done, which can be done only 
 through the agency of man, in other words, through his industry. His 
 knowledge, therefore, is useful in helping us to the result, only in cases in 
 which certain conditions are assumed as fixed or established; where the 
 question is about the production of a particular field, therefore, or a cer¬ 
 tain number of acres, his knowledge may be very useful; the question in 
 that case is, not whether the acres will be cultivated, or how they will be cul¬ 
 tivated ; but how much or in what kind they will produce, if cultivated, or yiro- 
 vided they are cultivated in a certain manner. When, therefore, the question 
 is extended to the production of a large territory, his knowledge becomes 
 wholly insufficient for the solution of the difficulty. It becomes necessary 
 then to know alsp the laws which regulate the application of industry, or the 
 circumstances which affect it, either in respect to its intensity or its direction, 
 and to observe farther in the case under consideration, what circumstances 
 actually exist which may influence either its intensity or direction. The 
 knowledgeof the farmer consists, in an acquaintance with the agency of a cer¬ 
 tain class of objects in the work of production, but, as it docs not comprehend 
 also, an acquaintance with the agency of another equally important class, 
 it cannot enable him to judge of production, which is the result of the 
 mutual co-operation of the agencies of both. A treatise on agriculture 
 could not, it is evident, with any propriety, be entitled a treatise “ on pro¬ 
 duction,” and for a like reason the title would be equally inapplicable, to a 
 treatise upon the “ causes which influence the application of industry.” 
 The science of “production” can comprise no less than the knowledge of 
 all the agencies which are necessary to production; it is therefore, a far 
 more comprehensive science than that, which undertakes only to indicate 
 the circumstances which, influencing first the toill, affect through that me¬ 
 dium the direction and application of industry. 
 
 We come now to consider that part of the definition, which is comprised 
 in the term “ distribution.” We must observe, in the first place, that if by 
 the term distribution we are to understand exchange, and of course volun¬ 
 tary exchange, distribution implies no act, by which particular classes, or 
 individuals, as the government, the judges, the clergy, the land owners, 
 &o., draw and appropriate to themselves a larger portion of the value pro¬ 
 duced by the industry of society, than is due to them according to the equi¬ 
 table laws of a mutual and voluntary exchange. Distribution, in this sense, ■ 
 is merely that dealing out and exchanging the productions of industry, 
 which, while it does not affect the relative wealth of the different members 
 of the community, is, wherever there is a division of occupations, highly 
 convenient (if not necessary) to all. Distribution, according to this inter¬ 
 pretation, is the result of buying and selling. It takes place, wherever 
 there is a division of labour and occupations, either among the members 
 of the same community, or among different communities, who happen 
 respectively to possess peculiar facilities for the production of different 
 
B SCIENCE 
 
 POLITICAL ECONOMY. 
 
 descriptions of commodities. It is therefore of the greatest utility to the 
 convenience and well-being of society, by enabling it to derive from the 
 division of labour and employments, the advantage of a far more abundant 
 production. In so far as it contributes to give increased activity to indus¬ 
 try, it is properly among the causes which it is the aim of our science to 
 develope. In other words, the voluntary interchange of different commo¬ 
 dities for one another, according to the rules of natural equity, which is 
 so highly useful, or even necessary, is only so far considered in the science 
 called (improperly) political economy, as it may be supposed to influence 
 the application of industry. Distribution, considered as the effect of this 
 interchange, is itself the result of industry, and consequently comes pro¬ 
 perly under the head of production. If, therefore, the term “production” 
 be rejected from the definition of the science, “ distribution,” as under¬ 
 stood above, is of necessity excluded also.* But the term distribution has 
 another meaning. It is made to denote that modojication of the natural 
 partition of value, resulting (as we have shown above) from mutual and 
 voluntary exchanges, which is the effect of the positive and arbitrary insti¬ 
 tutions of society. Property in objects of value is acquired by inheritance, 
 by will, by deed of gift, by long possession, by marriage, and in many other 
 ways, according to the varying codes of different countries of the world. 
 In some, land-properly upon the death of the owner, goes to the eldest son; 
 in others, to all the sons equally. In some, the personal property of the 
 wife becomes, upon her marriage, absolutely vested in the husband—in 
 others, upon a divorce between the parties, the husband is compelled to 
 refund the whole of his wife’s fortune, and this, whether he has had chil¬ 
 dren by her or not. In some, if gold, silver, plate, bullion or coin, is found 
 hidden in the earth, and the owner is unknown, the treasure so found be¬ 
 longs, under the name of treasure-trove, to a corporation called a Icing —in,_^ 
 others, it belongs (as it ought to do) to the finder. In some happy coun^ 
 tries, (I should rather say one happy country,) whatever a man earns by his 
 labour, and the sweat of his brow, is his own, and cannot by any means be 
 taken from him; a very small and moderate deduction being made, as a 
 simple equivalent for protection. In almost all others, hot only does the 
 rule of appropriation bear very unequally upon different classes and per¬ 
 sons, giving very absurd and unfounded preferences to one above the other; 
 it even violates, for the advantage, real or supposed, of those in power, the 
 plainest and most obvious dictates of natural equity. Distribution thus 
 understood, is the restdt of force. It is not that which would take place in 
 the ordinary course of voluntary exchange. It forces and it keeps together, 
 masses of wealth, on particular spots, which, if permitted to circulate ac¬ 
 cording to those natural laws whose operation is disturbed by its arbitrary 
 ■ interference, would generally be productive of a far greater benefit to 
 society. It is not in itself a matter about which the science which indicates 
 the causes which influence industry, is at all concerned; but, as the arbi¬ 
 trary regulations by which it is effected, interfere more or less immediately 
 with the direction and application of industry, they are, in the strictest 
 sense, the subjects of scientific investigation. This view of the nature of 
 distribution, and of the relation that it bears to industry, enables us to 
 judge of the propriety of admitting it into the definition of our science. 
 
E SCIENCE 
 
 POLITICAL Ec'oNOMr. 
 
 wilh which, it appears, it is only in so far connected, as it has an influence 
 upon the direction and application of industry. J 
 
 Consumption in this science, is consumption of value. With any other 
 consumption we have nothing to do. Whenever a-man makes any sacrifice, 
 as of labour for example, or, which is the same thing, of the product of 
 labour, Jtc consumes a portion of value. All voluntary consumption of value 
 must be accompanied with production of some kind or other. A man of 
 sound mind will not consume any portion of value, any object that has 
 value, nor in short make any sacrifice of value,,unless he expects in return 
 to gain a greater advantage than he loses: and this advantage, of whatever 
 nature it may he, whether it be pleasure, or the means of pleasure, or safety, 
 or relief from pain, it is to all intents and purposes a production; and being 
 the result of a sacrifice or consumption of value, it is of necessity a pro¬ 
 duction of value. To begin with the simplest case of consumption, let us 
 take that of man, who applies his labour to the production of any article 
 or commodity, that he expects to derive any pleasure or advantage from. 
 Here we have consumption in the first place, and production in the second. 
 His labour is a sacrifice, or consumption of his ease, comfort, pleasure— 
 an exertion he would not make, except with a view to the production of 
 some desired effect; and the effect produced, that is, the commodity, is 
 the reward of his labour, and stands in the place of what he has consumed. 
 If he worked for wages, his labour would be his consumption —his wages 
 h\sproduction. Let us take another case; that of a man ivho gives up to 
 another the possession of some object, the possession of which is an ad¬ 
 vantage, or which in other words has the quality of utility, and at the same 
 time is of a kind that cannot be obtained or had, without some sort of 
 sacrifice (for this last condition is essential to its being an object of value). 
 It is clear, that in parting with such an object he makes a sacrifice of the 
 advantage of its possession; in other words, its value as regards him is con¬ 
 sumed: here, then, is the consumption; if, in return for the object thus 
 given up, he receives some other object, the possession of which is in his 
 estimation a greater advantage, and which could not be obtained at a less 
 sacrifice than he has made for it, the exchange to him is a profitable one: 
 in other words, his production exceeds his consumption; the advantage he 
 gains, is greater than the disadvantage he incurs; the balance is in his 
 favour, as it may also be reciprocally with the other party to the exchange 
 —a proposition which loses its paradoxical air the moment it is recollected 
 that the terms sacrifice and consumption, are more or less relative in their 
 nature, and that what is a great sacrifice or consumption to one person, 
 may be a comparatively small one to another. It is clear, that in this case 
 as in the former, there is both consumption and production—consumption 
 of the value of the object given, and production of that of the object 
 received in exchange: and it must be recollected, that where the effecting 
 the exchange is accompanied with any adfft/onn? sacrifice of whatever kind, 
 this also must be balanced by the value of the object received in exchange 
 —otherwise the exchange could never take place. It is perfectly manifest 
 that the principle of this case is quite the same with that of the former 
 one; in the one there is sacrifice, or consumption of ease, comfort, plea¬ 
 sure—in the other of the means or instrument, the possession of which 
 was supposed to bestow ease, comfort, pleasure. In short, in either case 
 there is a sacrifice: the particular nature of the sacrifice is a matter of no 
 consequence. Whether a man, therefore, gives his labour, or that which 
 
14 THE SCIENCE OF POLITICAL ECONOSIY. 
 
 cost him labour, or that whicli, though it did not coat him individually any 
 labour, yet has a value —he performs the act of consumption, no less than 
 if he kept the valuable object in his possession, until its value had ceased 
 through time or use ; (the value of an object depending, as we know, as 
 much upon its utility, as upon ihe necessity of making some sacrifice in 
 order to obtain it). The use of an object which has no value, is not, as 
 we have already said, consumption, in the sense in which we employ it in 
 science. The use of air, or water, for example, is no consumption; be¬ 
 cause, however useful they may be, they cost nothing, and can be had 
 without any sacrifice. Consumption, therefore, is not to be understood in 
 the popular sense, as signifying the use and destruction of an object; but 
 in the more exact sense of the destruction of, or parting with, a value. 
 Viewing the subject in this light, it is very certain, that there is no produc¬ 
 tion which is the result of human industry, which does not involve the 
 idea of consumption. The slightest exertion of industry is a consumption 
 of value. If it results mediately or immediately in the gratification of 
 some natural apjietite, sense or passion, the value consumed is not lost: if 
 the gratification is more than a mere compensation for the exertion, the value 
 is advantageously consumed. As objects which have no value may be 
 destroyed or consumed, either with advantage or without, according to the 
 manner of the consumption; so may objects that have a value, or (to use 
 a more general expression) so may values. The water that we drink, and 
 which contributes to sustain life, or that which we use for cleanliness and 
 health, is consumed with advantage; as well as that which, for a variety of 
 purposes, is converted into steam, or which is employed in the processes of 
 the culinary art. But the water of a spring, which is wantonly or acci¬ 
 dentally poisoned, or otherwise rendered unfit for use, though equally 
 destroyed or consumed, is destroyed or consumed without advantage. In 
 this case, however, the consumption is attended at least with no loss, since the 
 object consumed is not supposed to have had any value. But the consump¬ 
 tion of a value, or of an olyect of value, (the only sort of consumption that 
 we have any thing to do with,) if it does not result in some advantage, im¬ 
 mediate or remote, is a positive loss. If a man labours and gets nothing 
 for his labour, his labour is lost: a value is consumed without any advan¬ 
 tage. If he has a bushel of wheat, which he has purchased at the expense 
 of a week’s labour, and through some mischance it is destroyed or wasted, 
 or in some other way he is prevented having the fruition of it; here, too, 
 at least so far as he is concerned, a value is destroyed without any profit or 
 advantage; in other words, we have a case of consumption without pro¬ 
 duction: or if a barn full of corn is permitted to, rot, or a ship constructed 
 at great expense and labour to decay upon the stocks, or a man suddenly 
 dies or is killed who had been at great trouble in preparing himself to he 
 useful, both to himself and others—from these cases, and a thousand others 
 that cannot be enumerated, we may form a correct idea of what is meant 
 by an unproductive consumption of value. This way of considering the 
 subject of consumption, enables us to perceive the importance of the man¬ 
 ner of it, since upon the manner of consumption depends the question how 
 far it is advantageous or productive. A man may labour and produce no¬ 
 thing, either useful or valuable—a different manner of labour, that is, of 
 consumption, would have produced both a useful object, and a valuable. 
 He may part with an object that has value, (another mode of consumption,) 
 and receive nothing of value in return, or he may receive a full and equi- 
 
POLITICAL ECONOMY. 
 
 THE SCIENCE 
 
 15 
 
 valent value in return. He may permit an object of value to remain until 
 it no longer retains its useful quality, in a situation in which it yields none 
 of that advantage or benefit with a view to which it was produced: or on 
 the other hand, he may keep it from the moment of' its being produced, in 
 the situation the most favourable for the thorough development of its 
 useful capacities. 
 
 We have said, that our science has no concern about the particular pro¬ 
 cesses that may be adopted in production—that the selection of these must 
 be left to the ingenuity, knowledge, and acuteness of individuals, directed 
 by experience, and stimulated by necessity and the natural desire of gain— 
 that the sole object of the science whose scope and nature we are endeavour¬ 
 ing to ascertain, is to point out and record all the circumstances, whether 
 natural, or springing out of the artificial regulations of society, which exer¬ 
 cise any influence upon the application and direction of industry, upon the 
 activity and intensity of it, or upon the particular form and character that 
 it assumes. Order, justice, the security of property, for example, by hold¬ 
 ing out to men the hope of enjoying the fruits of their industry, serve 
 to animate its efforts and to enliven and invigorate its spirit; while the 
 political or physical condition of a nation, by suggesting particular wants 
 or presenting particular facilities, or difficulties, communicates to industry 
 that particular form and character, by which it is found to be distinguished. 
 To take a very important branch of industry, that of education, for example, 
 it will be found, that in all nations it has accommodated itself to what the 
 exigencies of their situation demanded. In those, whose position with re¬ 
 spect to their neighbours, exposed them , to invasion or aggression, educa¬ 
 tion assumed a military character,. A narrow, a rocky, or a barren territory, 
 (as in the instance of the Phoenicians) has directed industry into the chan¬ 
 nels of commerce and the arts of manufacture, while the materials of these 
 have been supplied from territories of greater fertility and extent. Fertility 
 and extent of territory, on the other hand, have given rise to that form of 
 industry which we call pastoral, and which, in the progress of society, and 
 in consequence of the increase of population in proportion to the extent, 
 and of course the productiveness of pastures, has given place to agricul¬ 
 ture. But in every description of industry, whether agricultural, manu¬ 
 facturing or commercial, there must necessarily be consumption, in the 
 sense in which we have explained it. Every change in the activity, or 
 form of industry, supposes a change in the degree or the manner of con¬ 
 sumption: and a labour-saving machine saves consumption, no less than an 
 invention for making objects of value more durable, without rendering 
 them less useful, in a given time. Although there can be no industry 
 without consumption, there may be consumption without industry. We 
 have already made it clear that there may be consumption without produc¬ 
 tion, (i. e.) the destruction of a value, without the production of one: but 
 such consumption can seldom occur, inasmuch as it is generally the pro¬ 
 duction of a value, that offers a motive to the consumption of one: on the 
 other hand, nothing is more common than consumption without industry, 
 since without industry, a value previously produced may be destroyed, and 
 another value created in its stead. This occurs in the enjoyment or frui¬ 
 tion of those objects whose use is accompanied with immediate pleasure 
 or satisfaction; as when we eat, drink, listen to agreeable music,* lie on a 
 
 • Music, that is, ordinary music, is like gardening labour, very badly paid, and for a 
 similar reason, that it is one of the least disagreeable descriptions of industry : it aimott 
 
16 • THE SCIENCE OP POLITICAL ECONOMY. 
 
 soft bed, or in any other way, enjoy an object for which, or for the use of 
 which, we part with any value. In all these and in all like cases, the en¬ 
 joyment or pleasure we receive, is the value y«-orfac«/ not by the use, but by 
 the previous labour. The value consumed consists, either in the destruc¬ 
 tion of the object used, or in the parting with the value which we pay for 
 the use, or enjoyment of it. If the use of the object consumed is not 
 accompanied with any immediate advantages, but on the contrary with 
 pain and labour; then, the result of this double consumption, first of the 
 object consumed, and secondly of industry, should be clearly of a value 
 greater than either of the values consumed. If, for example, a man uses 
 a knife having a certain value, and with it, and with considerable pain and 
 labour, (i. c.) the additional consumption of his ease and comfort, makes a 
 boat, (the material of which we will suppose to have cost him nothing,) 
 and when the boat is finished, the knife is thoroughly worn out and good 
 for nothing, it is quite clear that the value of the boat ought at least to 
 equal both the other values consumed put together; if it does not, produc¬ 
 tion falls short of consumption, and a loss is sustained. If a man purchases 
 a dinner of beefsteak for twenty-five cents; the value of the gratification or 
 enjoyment that he has procured for himself must be estimated, not by the 
 sacrifice both of the twenty-five cents and of the beefsteak that he has con¬ 
 sumed, into the bargain; but by the sacrifice of one of them only: for both 
 of them did not belong to him, or he would not have given one of them to 
 purchase the other. So, if a man gives his labour to procure any thing, 
 and afterwards parts with the latter, or (which is the same thing) destroys 
 the utility which it has derived from his labour, in order'to obtain some 
 enjoyment, or the means of some enjoyment; the value of the latter is to 
 be estimated, not by the value of the labour, and the value also of the ob¬ 
 ject produced by it, but by that of one only of them; for, as we observed 
 before, they did not both belong to him at the same time. This case does 
 not differ in the least from that of a piece of money representing a certain 
 value, which is paid away in the purchase of some commodity, which 
 again is exchanged for some other, and this for a third, and so on through 
 an hundred different exchanges; in which case it is very certain that, (ex¬ 
 cept where any additional industry or consumption of value is supposed on 
 the part of the owner of the piece of money) the last commodity received 
 in exchange, has no greater value than any of the intermediate ones, or than 
 the piece of money with which the first purchase was made. 
 
 From the foregoing analysis of consumption, we derive this most im¬ 
 portant conclusion, viz. that industry itself is merely one mode or form of 
 consumption, and that the subsequent enjoyment or fruition of an object 
 which has resulted from industry, cannot with propriety he added to the 
 previous consumption of industry necessary to its production, to denote the 
 general amount of value consumed; and (as a corollary of this) that the 
 latter description of consumption, which tahes place in the enjoyment and 
 fruition of an object of value, forming no part of that consumption which 
 falls under the head of industry, is not properly an object of attention in the 
 science, “xohich investigates the causes which affect industry.” On the 
 other hand, when the consumption, or destruction of an object, the pro¬ 
 duct of previous industry, is accompanied by additional industry, (as in the 
 
 fays itself: the sacrifice made by the musician in the exertion of liis talents is in part paid 
 for by the pleasure of listening to himself—the consumption, therefore, of iratue is not 
 great, and consequently should not bring a great value in return. 
 
THE SCIENCE OP POLITICAL ECONOMT. 17 
 
 case above mentioned of the knife, &c.) the last mentioned amount of in¬ 
 dustry must be added to that expended upon the production of the object 
 destroyed, to denote the whole amount of industry or consumption neces¬ 
 sarily entering into the value of any other object, sought to be produced, 
 by the destruction of the first. The ultimate production, upon which the 
 importance of all intermediate production depends, is that of pleasure, or 
 enjoyment, of the gratification of some desire, the satisfaction of some want 
 or appetite. The intermediate production of the means, or objects by 
 which this end is attained, is without value, except with reference to it. 
 This end attained by any other means would be the same. - So with re¬ 
 spect to. consumption: consumption, that is, primary consumption, consists 
 of pain, labour, trouble, risk; the encountering disagreeable, or painful, or 
 perilous situations; the performance of difficult and laborious undertakings; 
 the making efforts of mind or body, the sacrifice of advantages, situation or 
 enjoyment: it is by the measure of this consumption that we estimate the 
 real value of the objects produced by industry. The intermediate con¬ 
 sumption or destruction of the objects produced, unless it be accompanied 
 by additional industry, must be left wholly out of the account in reckoning 
 the general amount of value consumed. But it is true that the consump¬ 
 tion of most objects (or at least of a great many) is accompanied with 
 additional industry. This applies universally to all tools, instruments, and 
 machinery for facilitating labour, and is more or less applicable, though in 
 a very slight and almost imperceptible degree, even to those objects whose 
 use and consumption are accompanied with immediate pleasure and gratifi¬ 
 cation. 
 
 After what has been said, it must be very obvious, that, although every 
 act of industry is ah act of consumption, yet the converse of this is not 
 true, viz. that every act of consumption is necessarily an act of industry; 
 for, as we before observed, the consumption or destruction of any thing of 
 value, the product of previous' industry, must be left wholly out of the 
 account in reckoning the amount of consumption by which doe. ultimate 
 value is produced, viz. that of the pleasure, gratification, or enjoyment 
 which the object is fitted to afford. The only description of consumption 
 that our science is concerned about, is that which accompanies, or forms 
 a part of, every act of industry. Consumption thus understood and limited, 
 is the proper object of scientific investigation. The circumstances that 
 influence consumption in this acceptation, influence industry exactly in 
 the same manner, and the laws of the one are equally the laws of the 
 other. With respect to consumption in the other acceptation, that of enjoy¬ 
 ment, we must observe, that in the natural course of things it has a neces¬ 
 sary correspondence with the first or primary consumption. Our enjoyments, 
 it is true, may be greater or less, while our industry, or primary consump¬ 
 tion, may continue the same: but while the latter continues the same, the 
 value of the former can neither be increased nor diminished. Skill, and 
 a knowledge of the best processes of production, may increase indefinitely 
 our actual enjoyments, but nothing can increase their value, except an 
 augmentation of the industry or primary consumption by which they were 
 produced. As the utility of objects of value is not necessarily proportioned 
 to the consumption of value necessary to their production, so, the degree 
 o{ enjoyment, which a nation or community may derive from the produc¬ 
 tions of its industry, is not regulated by the degree of its industry. The 
 continual effort of mankind is to augment their enjoyments as much as 
 3 
 
18 
 
 POLITICAL ECONOMY. 
 
 possible, in proportion to the sacrifices they make to obtain them, or in 
 other words in proportion to the consumption of value. The same degree 
 of industry which, applied to one object, may yield a very large sum of 
 enjoyment, applied to another, may yield a small one. Industry misap¬ 
 plied, as when it is applied to the production of a siiperpiUy of any com¬ 
 modity, or of a commodity or object that no one wants, produces no utility. 
 It is then value thrown away, no less, than if an useful and valuable object 
 were thrown into the sea. With equal industry, a man is better fed, 
 clothed, and lodged at the present day than he was one hundred or two 
 hundred years ago—his enjoyments are greater, in proportion to the con¬ 
 sumption of value necessary to procure them; but, the value of those enjoy- 
 raents, or, which is the same thing, that of his fare, clothing, and lodging, 
 will be found still proportioned, not to the superior utility and convenience 
 of the improved articles, but to the consumption of value necessary to the 
 procuring them. 
 
 We have ofiered these suggestions upon the subject of the consumption 
 of value, in order to show how far the consideration of it is to be regarded, 
 as forming a part of tbe science which points out the causes which affect, 
 or influence, the direction and application of industry. It is clear that 
 every act of industry involves a consumption of value: preceding therefore 
 every act of industry should be an estimate, or comparison of wbat is to 
 be lost or gained. Without such an estimate or comparison, the produc¬ 
 tiveness of industry must necessarily be a ,matter of uncertainty, or rather, 
 of mere chance." It may therefore be taken for granted, as a general rule, 
 that every man who has the option of exerting his industry in the way that 
 he likes best, will be very much (if not wholly) influenced in his selection, 
 by the consideration of the consumption of value and production of value, 
 which he reckons will attend the exertion of his industry in any particular 
 direction, or in any particular manner. It is through the certain, though 
 silent, and almost imperceptible operation of this principle,.that industry 
 is directed into the innumerable channels of production which we observe 
 in all civilized countries. It is because the consumption of value, or the 
 production of it, in any particular channel, is, from some cause or other, 
 greater or less than it was before, that the stream of industry that flowed 
 into it, becomes more or less copious, or is entirely dried up. If, (to take 
 an example from the operation of what may perhaps be termed with pro¬ 
 priety a natural cause,) in consequence of the greater difficulty of working 
 coal mines, an increased portion of labour should be required for"producing 
 any given quantity of coal; the real value of coal, if produced at all, must 
 necessarily be greater: a still further increase of this necessary labour, or, 
 in other words, of consumption of value, might lead to the abandonment 
 ,of the mines; the production of value in the shape of coal being found not 
 equal to its consumption in the shape of labour. The same effect would 
 result from a tax levied upon the working of the mines, provided it were 
 ■ sufficiently heavy to make the consumption of value, including the tax, 
 greater than the production; or, even greater than would be necessary to 
 the production of an equal value in some other channel of industry. Thus 
 either of these causes of a change in the direction of industry, is resolvable 
 into a change in'-the relation between the amount of value consumed, and 
 that of value produced in any particular employment. But, as the amount 
 of value consumed is estimated by the primary consumption, (the nature 
 of , which we have'explained above,) and that of value produced, by the 
 
THE SCIENCE OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 19 
 
 vllimate production, (the nature of which has also been explained,) it fol¬ 
 lows that this change in the relation between the amount of value consumed 
 and that of value produced, includes almost every circumstance (if not 
 every one) which can affect, or influence, or produce a change in the 
 direction of industry. It will be found upon examination, that a bad season, 
 which destroys the crops of grain; that an increase of population, which 
 obliges men to plough up heaths, to cultivate moors, and to convert, by 
 great labour, a rocky and barren soil into a productive one; that a law, 
 forbidding tbe. importation of grain from countries, where the land is more 
 fertile, where the seasons may have been more favourable, or where corn 
 from any cause is not so dear—it will be found that these causes of a 
 change in the direction of industry, resolve themselves into the more 
 general one just stated, viz. a change in the relation between the amount 
 of value consumed and that of value produced; in other words, that it is by 
 effecting a change in this relation, that they operate a change also in the 
 direction of industry. All instruments, tools, labour-saving machines, all 
 inventions of whatever nature for facilitating labour, or lightening its bur¬ 
 then, are clearly reducible to the same head; being useful only as they 
 lessen the amount of value consumed, and thus change its relation to that 
 of value produced- The same thing may be said of the division of labour, 
 the incalculable advantages of which in almost all processes of industry, 
 have been so often stated, and so ably illustrated, as to make any thing 
 farther upon the subject unnecessary. Roads, canals, bridges, have the 
 same object in view: they are constructed, when it appears that the com 
 sumption of value necessary to their construction, is repaid by the produc¬ 
 tion of it resulting from their use. Rivers, bays, arms of the sea, facilitate 
 intercourse; render the transportation of commodities easier and more ex¬ 
 peditious; in other words, lessen the consumption of value, necessary to 
 the attainment of the objects in view. Where the consumption of value 
 necessary to the production of a commodity is given, the demand for it, 
 though not the value, will rise, in proportion as you increase its utility. 
 So also, if the primary consumption, or cost of production, be diminished, 
 while the utility remains the same, the demand will infallibly be increased. 
 It is clearly upon this simple principle that those things are in most general 
 demand, which cost the least, and are at the same time, the most useful. 
 A community derives an advantage from its industry, not in proportion to 
 the absolute utility, of the object produced by it, but to the difference be¬ 
 tween the utility and post of them; or, in other words, according to the 
 relation which exists between the primary consumption, and the ultimate 
 production of it, constituting enjoyment or fruition. It is this diff'erence 
 that creates what, jn the language of science, is called demand. The 
 greater this difference, the more extensive is the demand; and the greater 
 the demand, the greater-invariably is ,the supply, or the industry directed 
 to the object of furnishing the supply; except, indeed, where, through the 
 impertinent interference of knavish or ignorant legislators, natural causes 
 are not permitted to have.free scope; and enjoyments, and innocent gratifi¬ 
 cations must be purchased, not at the moderate cost at which a bountiful 
 nature has set them; but at that exorbitant and unreasonable one, at which 
 rulers, in the plenitude of their wisdom and humanity, have thought pro¬ 
 per to estimate their value. -.The increased demand for any object arising 
 from its greater utility, or, which is the same thing, the greater desire to 
 possess it, is always accompanied by some rise in what is called its market 
 
20 THE SCIENCE OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 
 
 price, or value for the time being. This increase of value for the time, is 
 easily explained upon the principles which have been stated above. The 
 purchaser in such a case makes a direct comparison between the sacrifice 
 of waiting until the object can be produced in sufficient quantities to an¬ 
 swer the increased demand, (when he will be enabled to procure it at its 
 ordinary and real price;) and that of giving for its present possession and 
 use, what has been procured at a greater cost, or consumption of value, 
 than would be necessary for the production of the object itself in the time 
 that its production may I'equij'e, 
 
 The difficulty of obtaining any object of desire can alone bestow upon 
 it any value. This difficulty ordinarily can be surmounted by human in¬ 
 dustry, and the object be produced in quantities proportioned to the demand, 
 or to the difference between its cost and utility to the purchaser; in which 
 case, no more value in industry or the product of it will be given for it 
 than was necessary to its production: but where the difficulty cannot be 
 removed by human industry, there of necessity no comparison can be 
 made between the amount of industry necessary to its production, and 
 that contained in any object proposed to be given in exchange for it. 
 Take, for example, some individual object which we value for itself only, 
 and not because it belongs to any species or genus; as the autograph of a 
 favourite author, the only painting or statue extant of a particular hand, 
 the relic of a distinguished personage, or the memorial of a friend. Some¬ 
 thing very similar perhaps may be produced by industry, but the object 
 itself cannot. No comparison can be made between the value of what we 
 propose to give in exchange for it, and the industry necessary to its produc¬ 
 tion ; since no industry it is supposed can produce it: its price, therefore, 
 is not as in other cases limited by the industry, the labour, the primitive 
 consumption of vahte necessary to its production. From these observa¬ 
 tions we are enabled to understand the true nature of scarcity, and the 
 relation in which it stands, both to value and demand. Demand, we have 
 already observed, depends upon a comparison between the utility of an 
 object, and the cost'necessary to its attainment; consequently, it varies 
 with every change, either in the utility of the object or in the cost of its 
 production. Demand, therefore, must be regarded as the true expression 
 of the wants and desires of a community, considered in connection with 
 the sacrifice or consumption of value necessary to the supply of those 
 wants, or gratification of those desires. It is the offer of a value under one 
 shape dr denomination, with a view to obtain a value under another shape 
 or denomination. When a man offers his labour and receives a remunera¬ 
 tion for it, either in money or any other valuable commodity, the value that 
 he offers lies in the sacrifice of labour which he is ready to make. This 
 offer is not less a demand than if he had tendered some commodity having 
 a value. So if a man gives his labour to fabricate some object which he 
 cannot perhaps so cheaply procure in any other way, he does nothing in 
 fact but sacrifice one value to obtain another; he creates both demand and 
 supply: and so would every one, and of course a whole community, were 
 it not found that the division of labour and employments contributed to 
 augment (as it does incalculably) the utility of the productions of industry 
 compared with their cost, or the necessary consumption of value. As we 
 may desire to possess an object, and yet be unwilling to take the trouble 
 or give the labour necessary to obtain it; so we may desire to possess it, 
 and yet be unwilling to pay the necessary cost or value in the shape of 
 
21 
 
 THE SCIENCE OP POLITICAL ECONOMY. 
 
 some Other object. In either case, we have an instance of inefficient de¬ 
 mand. The necessary sacrifice is greater in our estimation than the object 
 sought can compensate for. 
 
 It is dear, that demand thus understood, is the very basis of all industry. 
 If demand for a particular object be greater, loliile its necessary cost is the 
 same, it will be produced in greater abundance corresponding to the in¬ 
 creased demand-^if the demand for it be less, the supply will be less also. 
 So if the demand for commodities generally be greater; that is, if the offer 
 of value on the one side be greater, and the objects sought for are not yet 
 in sufficient abundance to answer the increased demand, the deficiency will 
 be made up by the production of an additional quantity of the objects in 
 demand; or in other words, by the application and consumption of indus¬ 
 try, for the purpose of producing an additional value in the shape of the 
 commodities in demand. 
 
 Desire may exist without industry, but demand cannot, except where we 
 admit the idea of force, violence, or injustice; which, by presenting a new 
 obstacle, prevents the sacrifice or consumption of one value, and the pro¬ 
 duction of another. Suppose, for example, that the price, that is, value in 
 the shape of money, offered for a certain description of commodities, is 
 sufficient to cover the natural cost of them—that the values proposed to be 
 exchanged are equal, but that an exchange is prohibited by law, or that an 
 artificial addition is made to the natural value of either, by means of a tax ? 
 In such a case no exchange can take place, unless either the law is vio¬ 
 lated, or the parties to the exchange are inclined to make the additional 
 sacrifice required by law. If the party upon whom the tax falls, that is the 
 consumer,* chooses to pay it, rather than forego the object of his desire, 
 the demand still exists. The value of the object is really increased, though 
 by artificial means; but the consumer is willing to sacrifice the additional 
 value required, and the demand of course still exists. 
 
 Demand, therefore, properly understood, is, as we have before observed, 
 the basis of all industry; they are linked together as cause and effect, and 
 whatever affects the one, affects the other also. Industry is the sacrifice or 
 consumption of value made, whether in the shape of labour, or of com¬ 
 modities the result of previous labour, to answer or supply the demand; 
 that is, to be exchanged for an equivalent that is offered; the offer of which 
 equivalent constitutes the demand. It follows of course, that the greater 
 the demand is, the greater also is the industry destined to supply it; the 
 less the demand, the less the industry. It can hardly be necessary, after 
 what we have already said, to remark that the value offered in demand, 
 may for a short period exceed the-value, that is, the ordinary value of the 
 object in demand; upon the very same principle upon which a man desir¬ 
 ing to have any article or commodity upon a sudden emergency, willingly 
 sacrifices to obtain it something of much greater value. If he could obtain 
 it at the moment at its ordinary value, he would not give for it a greater 
 one. It is this continual tendency of the value offered in demand to rise 
 above or to fall below the real or ordinary value of objects, that directs in¬ 
 dustry in the channels the most useful for supplying the wants and desires 
 
22 
 
 SCIENCE 
 
 LITICAt ECONOMY. 
 
 of mankind; the excess above the real vake'being always followed by ad¬ 
 ditional production corresponding in real value to the increased demand. 
 It is this continual fluctuation of industry among different employments, 
 according to the greater or less urgency of demand, that accommodates its 
 efforts to the purposes or objects the most useful at the time, and prevents 
 an unnecessary expenditure or consumption of value in the production of 
 what does not afford any adequate return. 
 
 It cannot be necessary, after what has been said, to observe, that the 
 course of demand governs the employments of copiteZ; since, according 
 to the analysis which we have made of the subject, this proposition is ne¬ 
 cessarily included in the/ormcr. Industry, we have said, is the consump¬ 
 tion of value with a view to sorhe useful end ;* capital consists of the result 
 of previous industry, and owes all its value to that industry. Its consump¬ 
 tion, therefore, is no additional consumption of value, but must be referred 
 to that primitive consumption which took place in the industry which pro¬ 
 duced it. Where its consumption is accompanied (as it always is) with 
 additional industry, there an additional consumption of value takes place, 
 and the result of production effected, should correspond in utility to this 
 accumulated sacrifice of value. And we may observe in passing, that the 
 objects constituting capital do not necessarily differ from others in their 
 nature (though it be true that some can be used only as capital), hut only 
 in the use or manner of consumption. The real distinction consists in this, 
 that the consumption of capital is always accompanied with some additional 
 sacrifice—some additional consumption of value, by which means the value 
 of the capital is augmented: whereas the consumption of objects not con¬ 
 stituting capital, being unaccompanied by any such additional consumption 
 of value, the objects consumed receive no addition to their original value. 
 The illustration of this proposition would lead us too far from our present 
 object, which is to show, that the application and direction of industry, 
 including capital, are governed by demand —that demand, guided always 
 by a consideration of the difference between the necessary cost of an ob¬ 
 ject and its utility, determines not only the relative abundance of that class 
 of objects which do not fall under the head of capital, but of that class also 
 which do; and upon the same principle directs likewise to the selection of 
 one mode, manner, or process of production, rather than another. The 
 circumstance of any object or portion of value forming or not forming a 
 part of capital, can make no difference with respect to the question of its 
 Veing in demand, since this depends simply, as we have already stated, 
 Spon a comparison between its utility and the necessary cost of its produc¬ 
 tion ; and with respect to the particular manner of applying industry, con¬ 
 sidered apart from the value of capital, a direct comparison may always be 
 made between one manner and another in reference to their expensiveness 
 -—their cost in labour, trouble, or in other words, the necessary consump¬ 
 tion of value attending them. The larger description of diamonds are not 
 in great demand at any time, because their-utility is extremely small com¬ 
 pared to their necessary cost. If their utility from any cause should be¬ 
 come greater, or their cost less, or if both these events should take place, 
 and the demand for them in consequence should be increased, more indus¬ 
 try doubtless would be applied to their production, and a larger number of 
 
THE SCIENCE OF POLITICAL^ECONOMy. 23 
 
 them be produced. The demand for the smaller description of them is 
 somewhat more extensive, because the cost of their production is not so 
 great in proportion to their utility. Diamonds, like all other commodities 
 and objects of value, may constitute a part of capital or not, according to 
 the use that is made of them.' If they pass through the hands of the jew¬ 
 eller, watchmaker, or trader, and upon the principle before stated, are a 
 source of profit to him, they are in his hands a portion of capital, but cease 
 to be so the moment they come into those of the consumer or person who 
 uses them for his pleasure. The demand made for them by the jeweller, 
 watchmaker, or trader, is, like that of the consumer, regulated by a com¬ 
 parison between the utility of them to himself, and their necessary cost— 
 their utility to him is in a different hind from that to the consumer, (as he 
 is called,) but this circumstance makes no diflference as respects his de¬ 
 mand, nor as respects the supply of his demand. Upon the same principle 
 upon which any class of objects are' in demand as capital; that is, because 
 their utility as a means of profit is great in comparison with their necessary 
 cost—upon the same principle, one mode or manner of applying industry 
 may with propriety be said to be in greater demand than another. It is 
 adopted because it is in demand; and it is demand because it is found the 
 cheapest means of accomplishing the object proposed, or in other words, 
 because it is found the least disagreeable, the least laborious, the least trou¬ 
 blesome means, of attaining the desired end. Thus we find, that demand 
 founded on a comparison of utility and necessary cost or consumption of 
 value, is, as we have already said, the very basis—the fundamental law— 
 the universal principle of all industry; and consequently, that to be enabled 
 to poiiit out the circumstances, natural or artificial, which influence the 
 direction and application of industry, it is only necessary to understand 
 the manner in which they affect' the demand, taken in the comprehensive 
 sense in which we have explained it above. 
 
POLITICAL ECONOMY AKD INDUSTEY, 
 AND THEIE EELATIONS.* 
 
 It is not surprising to those who know any'tiling of the progress of the 
 other sciences, that that of Political Economy should have met with opposi¬ 
 tion from the intolerance of ignorance. It is, perhaps, wisely ordered, that 
 truths, far removed from the ordinary appearances of things, and from com¬ 
 mon apprehension, should not be too readily admitted into popular belief. 
 The reluctance with which they are received among the dogmas of com¬ 
 mon opinion, serves in the end, only to establish them the rnore firmly. 
 It prevents, too, that unceasing fluctuation of theories, that interminable 
 succession of doctrines and opinions, which must have resulted in the total 
 destruction of all manner of solid and useful science. Political Economy', 
 and more especially its early doctrines, seemed peculiarly obnoxious to 
 opposition. To the ordinary motives to opposition in the case of the other 
 sciences, must be added, in that of Political Economy, the very strong one 
 of intei-ek, very frequently immediate arid personal. Political Economy 
 has an immediate reference,to what is to be done, or to be undone. It is 
 true that it is purely a science, and, properly understood, jw-cscn’ics nothing. 
 Its object is to ascertain laws, and not io prescribe them. But in the early 
 infancy of the science, even those who were the best informed upon the 
 subject were not very exact with respect either to its object or its limits. 
 Their views were narrow, and generally confined to the consideration of 
 some question of expediency arising out of existing regulations; and, as 
 they were generally themselves interested in the discussion of it, it was 
 not surprising that their opinions should have undergone a hearty and 
 zealous opposition from persons who imagined themselves equally interested 
 in the dissemination of contrary opinions. The laws of trade, taxes, restric¬ 
 tions, bounties, monopolies, and other municipal regulations, were the 
 earliest objects of attention to political economists. In the discussion of 
 such questions, important facts must be stated, and general principles ap¬ 
 pealed to. To prove, for example, the injurious effect of monopolies, the 
 principle of competition would be referred to, and many facts, connected 
 with the history of monopolies, adduced, in confirmation of that principle. 
 Or, to prove the absurdity of prohibiting the exportation of specie, in the 
 ordinary course of trade, from the fear of diminishing the wealth of the 
 country, it would be objected, that the wealth of.a country does not consist 
 in specie any more than in any, other useful and valuable commodity. The 
 step from discussions like these to an examination of the true nature and 
 sources of national wealth, was very easily made. The inquiry then, how¬ 
 ever, became of a more general and comprehensive character, and required, 
 for its successful prosecutipn, much more leisure and knowledge, and a 
 much more systematic turn of thinking, than was generally to be found 
 among mere men of business. 
 
 * Published originally in the Banner of the Constitution, under a different tide. 
 
POLITICAL ECONOMV AND INDUSTKY. 
 
 25 
 
 From the hands of merchants, and manufacturers, and stock jobbers, it 
 fell into the hands of philosophers. From this time it assumed somewhat 
 more of a scientific form than it had done before. The meaning of the 
 terms employed was more accurately examined—the connecting principle 
 of its different parts began to be more clearly perceived—definitions were 
 given of value, and of production, distribution, and consumption —juster 
 notions of the true nature of national wealth began to be entertained—and 
 those who engaged in the discussion of questions connected with the sub¬ 
 ject, had the advantage, at least, of speaking to each other in a language 
 not quite so liable, as formerly, to misinterpretation or mistake. This did 
 not prevent, nevertheless, a great difference of opinion from prevailing, 
 concerning some of the most important points in dispute. According to 
 the particular notions taken np in relation to the nature and origin of 
 national wealth, different doctrines were embraced; and, as these specula¬ 
 tive dogmas sometimes found advocates among men in power, they assumed 
 the, form of systems, and exercised not a little influence over the industry 
 and wealth of the countries in which they happenedjo prevail. Mr. Adam 
 Smith tells us, that the famous Minister of Louis XIV., (Mr. Colbert,) 
 having unfortunately embraced the prejudices of the mercantile system, 
 and believing that the true source of wealth was to be found in the industry 
 of tjie towns, was willing, in order to encourage it, to depress and keep 
 down that of the country. In order to render provisions cheap to the 
 inhabitants of the towns, and thereby to encourage manufactures and for¬ 
 eign commerce, he prohibited altogether the exportation of corn. The ill 
 effect of this system was felt, more or less, in every part of the country, and 
 many different inquiries set on foot coneerning the causes of it. “ One of 
 these causes appeared to be the preference given, by the institutions of 
 Mr. Colbert, to the industry of the towns, above that of the country.” 
 
 As the system of Mr. Colbert gave an undue preference to manufactures 
 and commerce, above agriculture, so that of the economists sought to en¬ 
 courage agriculture, at the expense of commerce and manufactures. Mr. 
 Ouesnai, the author of this system, taught that agriculture is the true and 
 only sonrce of all national wealth, and that the only productive class of 
 labourers is that of the farmers and cultivators of the soil. Artificers, 
 manufacturers, and.merchants, were considered, by him and his followers, 
 as wholly barren and unproductive. 
 
 ' These two systems, under the names of the, commercial and agricultural 
 systems, have been examined, at great length, by the author of the Wealth 
 of Nations. He concludes his able account of them, by recommending 
 the system of a perfectly free and unrestrained employment of capital and 
 labour. Every other system, he observes, instead of accelerating the pro¬ 
 gress of a nation towards wealth and greatness, retards it; and, instead of 
 increasing the annual value of its land and labour, lessens it. 
 
 Since the publication of the Wealth of Nations, no, work of any reputa¬ 
 tion has appeared, upon the subject of national wealth, which has ventured 
 to call in question the soundness of the doctrine of a free and unrestricted 
 industry. The consequences of the establishment of the doctrine would 
 have been highly important had it been understood and acted upon by 
 those in whose hands are placed the direction and regulation of national 
 industry and labour. It formed an era in the science of political economy: 
 for, although many sensible and able writers had, long before the publica¬ 
 tion of the Wealth of Nations, :tauglit the same, doctrine, they had sup- 
 
26 POLITICAL ECONOMr AND INDUSTRY, 
 
 ported it upon such narrow grounds, and had mixed up so much error 
 with truth in their speculations, that they can hardly be thought to have 
 afforded any important lights to their successors in the same field of inquiry. 
 
 The grand defect of all these writers, was, that they formed no clear 
 ideas with respect to the true nature and sources of national wealth. Their 
 views upon this subject were partial, and often varying and uncertain; 
 and hence the errors and inconsistencies into which they were so frequently 
 betrayed. To point out these errors and inconsistencies, and the false 
 doctrines and false systems to which they led, is not without its use, since 
 it enables us to perceive the danger of too ready and incautious an admis¬ 
 sion of first principles in a science, in which, the adoption of an erroneous 
 hypothesis may lead, often, to the most serious practical inconveniences. 
 
 We shall endeavour to place in a striking point of view the important 
 agency of industry in procuring whatever contributes to the support, com¬ 
 fort and pleasure, of human life. When we look at the immeasurable 
 distance that separates the savage from the civilized man—the comfortable 
 mansion, the rich furniture, the costly apparel, of the one, and the misera¬ 
 ble hut and poor garment of the other—we see the difference between 
 what is done by industry and what is done without it; or, more properly, 
 we see, on the one hand, the work of well directed, enlightened, and co¬ 
 operative industry—and, on the other, the miserable poverty, wretchedness, 
 and misery, that result from ignorance, sloth, and a want of co-operation. 
 In truth, we shall find that unassisted nature does very little either for 
 comforts or subsistence. Our own country affords one of the most striking 
 examples of the prodigious effects of the productive powers of industry. 
 It is scarcely two centuries ago since this great country, now containing, 
 and supporting, in comfort or affluence, thirteen millions of inhabitants, 
 'with difficulty afforded a miserable and precarious subsistence to a few 
 tribes of wandering savages. The country was not less extensive or less 
 fertile then, than it is at present; the only difference is in the industry and 
 intelligence of its inhabitants.—What were the ancient empires of the earth, 
 their wealth, their grandeur, their monuments of art, their temples, cities, 
 acqueducts, and pyramids? Were not all these the work of industry? 
 Were they not deserts before that industry was exerted ?—and, now that 
 that industry has ceased, are they not deserts again? Look at the situation 
 of England in the time of Henry VIII. and her situation at the present 
 day. Every one, who has made himself in the least acquainted with the 
 situation of that country at these two periods, must be struck with the vast 
 progress that has been made, in the interval, in whatever relates to the 
 comforts, convenience, and accommodations of life. The population has 
 been more than quadrupled since the earlier period, and yet they are better 
 clothed, better lodged, and purchase almost all the products of the mechanic 
 and manufacturing arts, at a rate incomparably cheaper than they did at 
 that day.. According to the account of Cicero, Spain, in his day, was a 
 more populous country than Gaul; for he mentions this circumstance as 
 the reason why the former country was more formidable than the latter. 
 We know how greatly the case is reversed in the present day; yet the 
 climate and soil, and other mere physical circumstances of the two coun¬ 
 tries, are the same now that they were two thousand years ago. The only 
 change that has taken place is in the comparative industry and intelligence 
 of the people. 
 
 The vast augmentation that has taken place in the public revenue of the 
 
THEIR RELATIONS. 
 
 27 
 
 modern nations of Europe, and particularly of England and France, enables, 
 us to form some idea of the effects produced by a well directed and en¬ 
 lightened industry. These countries are not a whit more fertile now than 
 they were in the time of their darkness, ignorance, and poverty, except in 
 so far as they have been made so by human labour; yet how incalculably 
 greater are their resources at the present day, than they were then! Tlie 
 change in their surface is still more striking. Instead of the interminable 
 and gloomy forests that once covered them—the barren heaths, and still 
 more barren mountains, and the desolate rivers that wasted their waters 
 upon an ungrateful people—we see, in every direction, smiling vineyards 
 —cultivated fields, embracing whole regions with their verdant wealth— 
 cities, with their busy population, their gay navies bearing to foreign marts 
 the various costly products of their industry, or returning with rich freights 
 from abroad. This is but a faint picture of what is every day seen in the 
 thriving and industrious countries of the European world. It is the effect 
 of industry, the triumph of toil and labour. When we turn our eyes to¬ 
 wards the two Americas of Ihe North and the South, we have new evidence 
 of the paramount importance of industry in the production of wealth. 
 South America, according to. the account of Humboldt, is, beyond all 
 comparison', a more fertile country, and richer in its natural and sponta¬ 
 neous productions, than North. It is capable of supporting a far greater 
 population; yet, at the time at which Humboldt wrote his work upon 
 Anierica, the United States contained above eight millions of white inhabi¬ 
 tants, while the whole number of whites in all Spanish America was very 
 little more than three millions. The enlightened industry of the North 
 Americans enabled them to multiply much faster than the Spaniards, not¬ 
 withstanding the natural inferiority of their country in point of fertility. 
 
 Having shown the importance of the agency of industry in the produc¬ 
 tion of whatever contributes to the support, the comfort, the convenience, 
 or the luxury and splendour of human life, we shall now inquire a little 
 more particularly into its nature and qualities, the laws which regulate its 
 application and direction, and the relation which it bears to production, in 
 the sense in which the latter word is employed by political economists. 
 
 Industry implies a voluntary act of mind or body, performed, not on its 
 own account, but with a view to the attainment of some desirable object. 
 It includes, of course, all descriptions of labour, toil, diligence, assiduity, 
 pains, and care, voluntarily encountered, or undertaken, in order to attain 
 some object of desire, or to avoid some evil or object of dislike. “ The 
 industry of freemen,” says a writer in the twenty-fourth number of the first 
 volume of the Free Trade Advocate, “ is influenced by the hope of reward 
 —that of slaves, by the fear of punishment; but, in either case, it is effected 
 through the medium of the'will. The energy and intenseness of industry 
 depends upon the energy and intenseness of the will, which latter depends 
 (where the mind is not weakened by disease) upon the strength of the 
 motives which actuate the will. Hence as what is called the prosperity or 
 decay of industry, is owing, in a very great measure, to its energy or re¬ 
 laxation, we must look, for the primary causes of it, to the motives which 
 actuate the will; in other words, to the position or circumstances in which 
 men are placed. Industry is the agency which man voluntarily gives, in 
 the process of production. Production is the effect of this voluntary agency 
 on the part of man, co-operating with natural agencies, which are indepen¬ 
 dent of his volition. It follows, that, in order to understand the means 
 
28 POLlTipAL ECONOMY AND INDDSTRY, 
 
 .by which industry is to be affected, to he strengthened, to.be relaxed, to 
 be destroyed, or to be produced, it is only necessary to study the motives 
 which actuate the will; in other words, to consider the various ways in 
 which the will is influenced by the different positions in which men are 
 placed, or the circumstances that surround them.” We have thought 
 proper to quote this extract, because it places, we think, in a proper point 
 of view, the distinction between industry and production—a distinction 
 very necessary to be kept in view in all our reasonings in political economy. 
 We shall add, that industry and production, so far from being of the same 
 nature, are, in fact, of a nature quite opposite. All industry is of some 
 description of consumption. The latter term, in the vocabulary of political 
 economists, signifies, simply, the destruction of a value. Industry, then, 
 which is one description of consumption, and signifies, consequently, the 
 destruction of a value, must necessarily be the very opposite of production 
 —which, according to the same vocabulary, signifies the creation of a value. 
 
 As the proposition, that “ Industry is one description of consumption, 
 and is the destruction of a value,” may seem to be somewhat novel, and 
 not warranted by the ordinary use of the terms in relation to one another, 
 we shall endeavour, in a very few words, to show that it is substantially 
 true. In all the sciences, and certainly not less in political economy than 
 in others, nothing is useless which has a tendency to simplify. We shall 
 observe, in the first place, that every thing which we possess, and which we 
 arc unwilling to part with, must necessarily have a value. If a man have 
 any thing which he is unwilling to part with, to him, at least, it has a value. 
 If he do part with it, he parts with a value. If he receive an equivalent in 
 return for it, he is compensated, by the possession of the value he receives, 
 for. the loss of that which he has parted with. With respect to him, the 
 value parted with is destroyed: If a man toils and labours, he parts with 
 ease and comfort—he parts with them unwillingly, arid only in considera¬ 
 tion of an equivalent. If he encounters the danger of a loss of life, or 
 limb, or liberty—exposes himself to hardships, or undertakes any thing 
 which must be attended with anxiety or trouble,—he parts with his feeling 
 of security in the one case; or, in the other, with his tranquillity and re¬ 
 pose. No man willingly parts with these, except with a view to the ob¬ 
 taining of. some equivalent. The man who labours and toils, then, who 
 encounters hardships and dangers, who exposes himself to anxiety, trouble, 
 and vexation, parts, it is manifest, with what, according to our notion of 
 the word value, possesses the quality denoted by it. It is sufficiently cor¬ 
 rect to say, in general, with political economists, that labour is the measure 
 of value. Undoubtedly it is so with respect to all objects,to which this 
 measure can be applied. The relative amount of labour necessary for the 
 production of two commodities, respectively, determines their relative 
 value; but, if one of them cannot be produced by labour, it is clear that, 
 with respect to this one, labour ceases to be a measure of value. We shall 
 here refer again to the Free Trade Advocate—(the twenty-fifth number of 
 the first volume.) The writer says—“The difficulty of obtaining any ob-/ 
 ject of desire can alone bestow upon it any value. This difficulty, orclina- 
 rily, can be surmounted by human industry, arid the object be produced 
 in quantities proportioned to the demand. ***** But, where 
 the difficulty cannot be removed by human industry, there, of necessity, no 
 comparison can be made between the amount of industry necessary to its 
 production, and that contained in any object proposed to be given in ex- 
 
change for it. Take, for e.'cample, some individual object which we value 
 for itself only, and not because it belongs to any species or genus,—as the 
 autograph of a favorite author, the only painting or statue extant of a par¬ 
 ticular hand, the relic of a distinguished personage, or the memorial of a 
 friend—something very siinr'Zar, perhaps, may be produced by industry; 
 but the object itself cannot. No comparison can be made between the 
 value of what we propose to give in exchange for it, and the industry 
 necessary for its production, since no industry, it is supposed, can produce 
 it.” Now, as the “autograph of a favourite author, the only painting or 
 statue ofa particular hand, the relic of a distinguished personage, or the 
 memorial of a friend,” have an unquestionable value to the person who is 
 unwilling to part with them, and as it is to this circumstance of his un¬ 
 willingness to part with them that they owe their value, so the security, 
 ease, comfort, tranquillity, and exemption from anxiety, which a man parts 
 with when he labours—or, to speak more generally, when he exerts his 
 industry—derive their value from the unwillingness he has to part with 
 them. The value of such things, to the man who has them, arises from 
 the sacrifice he must necessaj^ily make if he were to part with them. As 
 men are similarly constitutecT, this sacrifice, in itself, must be pretty much 
 the same at all times and places, making some allowance for a difference 
 of habits, education, and even of disposition and temperament. It is on 
 this account that those things which may be produced by labour—or, in 
 other words, by this sacrifice just mentioned—seldom vary very much in 
 their value, in relation to one another. If, from any cause, the desire to 
 possess any one of them increase; and, in consequence, the demand for it 
 become greater—or, in other words, if the value offered in exchange be¬ 
 come greater—the application of additional labour to its production would 
 prevent its price from rising very high. Were the object desired of that 
 class which cannot be increased by labour, its price would rise with the 
 intensity of the desire to possess it, indefinitely. 
 
 We think it sufficiently clear, then, that labour, or industry, though a 
 measure and regulator of value, is not the foundation of it. We think it 
 sufficiently clear, also, that properly considered, it is what we defined it— 
 the consumption of a value. It is, however, only one description of con¬ 
 sumption : for, though an act of industry always implies consumption, the 
 latter does not necessarily imply.the former. ■ Consumption often intends 
 enjoyment. When an object of value is destroyed in the act of enjoyment 
 or fruition of it, we have an instance of consumption which forms no part 
 of industry. Almost all objects which are the product of human industry, 
 in a longer or shorter time, are destroyed and consumed by use and frui¬ 
 tion. Their destruction, as they are objects of value, is strictly a consump¬ 
 tion of value, but it is no part of industry. ^ 
 
 We ought, perhaps, to beg pardon of our readers, for detaining them so •; 
 long in elucidating a point which they may possibly think required no 
 explanation. We know, however, by experience, that in matters so refined 
 and shadowy as questions of political economy often are, very little is ever 
 gained by precipitation and dogmatism. The subject can scarcely be 
 viewed in too many or various lights, and it is better, perhaps, to subject 
 ourselves to the charge of tediousness, than to the more serious one of; 
 error or want of perspicuity. 
 
 A clear perception of the difference between industry and production, 
 is important in this respect, that it enables us to form a distinct idea of the 
 
30 
 
 ECONOMV A 
 
 true scope and nature of the science of political economy. Industry, we 
 perceive, is a mere agent in the process of production. The subject-mat¬ 
 ter upon which that industry is employed, constitutes the other agent. 
 The effect resulting from the co-operation of these two agents, falls pro¬ 
 perly under the head of production. The scope of political economy is to 
 ascertain the natural laws of industry. By the laws of industry, is meant 
 the rules according to which it acts or exerts itself, in the various circum¬ 
 stances in which men are placed. Laws imply always uniformity. We 
 find, accordingly, that the phenomena of industry are no less uniform than 
 those of other parts of nature. Under similar circumstances, they are the 
 same at all times and places. Under despotic governments, where life 
 and property are insecure, industry languishes and decays. The same 
 cause in turbulent democracies, the insecurity , of life and property, pro¬ 
 duces the very same eftect. Under governments of.just and equal laws, 
 where life and property are respected and secure, industry is always found 
 most active, enterprising, and vigorous. Where wars are frequent, the 
 prosperity of industry is seldom very great, especially if the nations engaged 
 in them are liable to their inroads. This circumstance, too, must influence, 
 more or less, the direction and application of the national industry, by 
 diverting it from peaceful arts, which administer to comfort or pleasure, to 
 those which furnish the material of war. To a nation exposed to attacks 
 from foreign enemies, the means of defence must constitute no mean por¬ 
 tion of the national wealth. It must generally be the result of much in¬ 
 dustry. The peaceful arts—those which administer to the comfort and 
 enjoyment of life, which increase its pleasures and relieve its pains, which 
 diffuse abundance and happiness wherever they are sought and cultivated 
 —these flourish best where they are the least exposed to the accidents of 
 foreign war, or domestic violence, or to any of those interruptions which 
 are comprehended in the insecurity of person or property. The particular 
 shape which the national industry will probably assume, must depend upon 
 a variety of circumstances—of soil, climate, productions, population, rela¬ 
 tions (moral, political, and physical,) to neighbouring and foreign states. 
 The extent in which ahy.particular branch of it would be cultivated, would 
 depend upon the demand that existed^for the productions of that particular 
 branch of it. Agriculture would probably flourish in a country possessing 
 a fertile'soil—manufactures in one that depended upon its neighbours for 
 the food and sustenance of its population—commerce in states differing 
 much in soil, climate, and productions, and so situated as to he able to 
 hold an easy and expeditious communication and intercourse with one 
 another; The history of industry in different countries and at different 
 times, and an attention to the circumstances under which it has existed, 
 and to its particular state and character, afford undoubted proof of the 
 uniformity of its phenomena, and how capable if is of being made the 
 subject of scientific investigation. The history of its progress in the same 
 country, from its rude and imperfect state to one of great refinement—its 
 first feeble efforts, unaided by judicious co-operation and division of labour 
 —itsclumsy tools—its ill contrived machinery—its immature, and defective, 
 and scanty results—its gradual improvement in skill and dexterity—its 
 invention of better tools, and more effective ^machinery—its extending 
 division of labour, and judicious co-operation—its improving processes— 
 its enlarging scope, in the number and variety of its productions—the 
 history of these progressive steps, from the, first rude essays of untaught 
 
RELATIONS.' 
 
 and unpractised industry, to its regular and systematic operations in civil¬ 
 ized and refined communities, combining and uniting, in its co-operative 
 processes, the separate agencies of a whole population in one grand and 
 magnificent result, affords a most striking and instructive lesson, and should 
 teach humility to those who, with a short-sighted policy, and with the 
 swathing bands of restriction and monopoly, would restrain and dwarf the 
 generous growth, and check and disorder the natural circulation and 
 healthful action of national industry. 
 
 , The coarser and more useful arts, as well as those of luxury, and the 
 more refined and liberal, are but the different shapes and modes which 
 unrestricted industry naturally and instinctively assumes. So of trade and 
 commerce, which, in all. their higher, as well as in their subordinate and 
 subsidiary classes and departments, are but parts, more or less important, 
 in the great and multifarious aggregate of human industry. The numerous 
 inventions which have been devised for facilitating the transactiqn of mer¬ 
 cantile business—the institution of banks and bank paper, bills of exchange, 
 promissory notes, money itself,—the division, subdivision, and subordina¬ 
 tion, of its different departments, exchange offices, interest, securities, 
 mortgages—these, and many other facilities, so important in the transac¬ 
 tions of civilized and commercial communities, are not the result of legis¬ 
 lative foresight and wisdom, but of the ingenuity and sharpsightedness of 
 people engaged in the business. They are the result of industry, animated 
 by tbe love of gain, pursuing its ends habitually by the easiest and cheapest 
 means, sharpened and rendered keener by that very pursuit. The only 
 duty, and the only use of government in such matters, is, to give the sanc¬ 
 tion of its authority to institutions devised for the advantage of society, by 
 the ingenuity of individuals, but whklt, as they imply the creation of obliga¬ 
 tions, can be prodvetive of a very partial benefit only, nnless sustained by 
 the poioer of the sovereign atUhority. Were we disposed to push our 
 generalization to its full extent, we might contend that government itself 
 —which, where it is well-contrived and wisely administered, sustains, de¬ 
 fends, and preserves, all other descriptions of industry, by securing property 
 and life, and dispensing justice—is, in fact, but part and parcel of that 
 industry. Government, considered as a means of carrying into effect the 
 sovereign authority, is so, undoubtedly. That its functionaries, or rather 
 those of the higher Order, receive honour as a portion of the compensation 
 of their services, does not diminish the value of those services, or take 
 from them the distinctive character of industry. Many other classes of 
 industry do the same. The clergy, the military, professors, and teachers 
 of learning and science, and even lawyers and physicians, are paid, in part, 
 for their services and industry, in the superior respect and consideration 
 in which they are held in society. The compensation of the industry of 
 these several classes, in money, commodities, the products of industry— 
 or, in other words, in values produeed by industry —would be wholly inade¬ 
 quate, generally, to the value of their services, or to that of the labour and 
 sacrifices by which they are enabled and qualified to perform them. As 
 the respect and consideration which we pay to others, are not conimodities 
 for which we have made any sacrifice of labour or industry—as they cost 
 us nothing to part with them, or, rather to bestow them—and as, in fact, 
 it is not a matter of choice with us, whether we do so or not—they can 
 only be looked upon, in political economy, as an agreeable circumstance 
 attending on particular descriptions of labour and industry—lightening the 
 
INDUSTRY. 
 
 32 POLITICAL ECONOMY AND 
 
 burden of them in a greater or less degree, and, consequently, diminishing, 
 more or less, the exchangeable value of their products. 
 
 VVe have endeavoured, in the foregoing view, to show;—1st, That in¬ 
 dustry forms the most striking and important dilierence between barbarous 
 and civilized nations, and that the incalculable advantages enjoyed by the 
 latter, over the former, are to be referred to its effects: 2dly, Tliat industry, 
 properly considered, is the voluntary agency of man, given with a view to 
 the attainment of some desirable object—that it includes, of course, all 
 descriptions of labour, toil, diligence, assiduity, pains, and care, voluntarily 
 encountered, in order to attain such object—that, consequently, it is, 3dly, 
 one description of the consumption of value; 4thly, That although the 
 measure and regulator of value, it is not the foundation of it: 5thly, That, 
 although it always implies, necessarily, a consumption of value, consump¬ 
 tion of value does not necessarily imply it; and, Cthly, That it stands in 
 respect to production, in the relation of the cause to its effect. 
 
 We have further endeavoured to exhibit the uniformity of its phenomena 
 under like circumstances—its different character and appearance under 
 different circumstances—the different shapes it assumes, according to the 
 different exigencies of society; and hence have inferred the steadiness of 
 Its laws. and. consequently, its capability of being made the subject of 
 scientific investigation. 
 
IMPOLICY OP PROTECTIVE DUTIES * 
 
 From llie tone of tlie leading journals at the north—the language held 
 at public meetings in the same quarter, and other indications which cannot 
 be mistaken, it has become evident that the old question in relation to the 
 protection of manufactures, is again to be revived. I had entertained some 
 hope for a time that the light which had been thrown upon this subject 
 during the long discussion it underwent previous and subsequent to the 
 3 'ear ’;2S, liad produced some ellect on public opinion favourable to the 
 doctrine of free trade, even in those states of the Union which had always 
 had the strongest bias towards the opposite policy of protection—that the 
 people—the masses—who wore not directly interested in the matter as 
 manufacturers, had become sullioiently enlightened to detect the unsoiind- 
 ncss of the arguments by which the friends and advocates of this latter sys¬ 
 tem of policy endeavoured to defend it—that, in shoit, the progress of 
 public opinion in relation to this subject had, been such as to render a re¬ 
 vival of it as matter of discussion unnece.ssary. It appears, however, that 
 in this T have been mistaken. The northern and northeastern journals 
 during the last six months, have teemed with articles strongly advocating 
 the doctrines of the restrictive system, and insisting upon the “ protection” 
 of manufactures as the only true policy of the country. The friends of 
 this system pretend that it is only by carrying out their ideas—by laying 
 heavy imposts upon all imported articles' which muy bo, or which arc 
 manufactured at home, that American industry can be made to prosper ; 
 for, it is by this means, they contend, that additional employment is given 
 to that industry. 'I'hey contend, in other words, that where all the com¬ 
 modities cmimmd by a community are produced at home, their industry 
 is more fully employed than if a portion of their consumption had been 
 derived from abroad. Now in the first place I must remark, that 1 con¬ 
 ceive this proposition to be wholly gratuitous; and further, that wore it 
 true, it would not follow as a necessary conse(|uence, that the amount of 
 liroduclioti of an exclusive home industiy, would bear any proportion to the 
 extension and employment of that industry. 
 
 A community may he very industrious and produce very little. Its in¬ 
 dustry may be great, and yet from that industry having been misdirected, 
 its product may be comparatively very small. If the same amount of human 
 exertion and sacrifice, or in other words labour, had been expended in 
 some other way, the amount of useful and necessary commodities might 
 have been greater. If for example. England prohibit the importation of 
 tea, and determine to produce it at home, she might no doubt by means of 
 bounties ellect this object: but it must be done at the expense of a vast 
 waste of labour; and although the industry of the country might bo as 
 great, nr greater, than before such absurd freak of legislation, it would not, 
 it is very evident, be as cffectivcb/ einployed as it had been. 
 
 It has been estimated by political economists that, in order to produce 
 by British labour within.the kingdom of Great Britain, the amount of tea 
 
 • Pablislied originally intlio Charleston Mercury. 
 
34 IMPOLICY OP PROTECTIVE DUTIES. 
 
 now annually consumed by the inhabitants of that country, as many liands 
 would he required as are now employed in her entire agriculture. The 
 government of Great Britain, by laying a sufficiently heavy tax upon the 
 people, and by expending the proceeds of this tax in bounties to the pro¬ 
 ducers of tea, would be enabled to divert the labour of the country to the 
 production of this article, and to insure ihe production at home of as much 
 of it as is now imported from China. 
 
 But would such a tax be just or wise? The justice, or injustice of levy¬ 
 ing a tax upon the people must depend upon the object with a view to 
 which the tax is levied. If the object be, for example, the national defence 
 —the administration of justice—the preservation of order, or even the 
 maintenance of the national honour, (which is closely connected and 
 bound up with the others,) all will admit that a tax levied with a view to 
 any of these important national interests, and not heavier than is necessary 
 for their maintenance, would be in the highest degree just and wise; and 
 that the neglect to impose a tax necessary for the accomplishment of these 
 objects, would be a virtual abandonment of all the duties of government. 
 In the case of taxes imposed for such objects as these, the government is 
 in fact the mere agent of the tax payers for disbursing a portion of their 
 means in return for services, performed for their benefit and advantage. 
 The planter, the lawyer, the physician, the merchant, the shop-keeper, &o. 
 pay a tax to the government, and the government disburses it into the 
 hands of the military, the judiciary and the police. A portion of the pro¬ 
 perty of the former classes is taken by the authority of the government and 
 transferred to the possession of the latter; but the tax payers are compen¬ 
 sated for this reduction in their means of ordinary expenditure, in the ser¬ 
 vices rendered by the servants of the public to whom the proceeds of the 
 tax are paid. If the army, the navy, the judiciary, or the police should be 
 more numerous than might be found necessary for the due performance of 
 the services they owe their constituents—the tax payers, the effect would 
 be that a greater portion of the community than necessary, would be with¬ 
 drawn from those occupations and employments which contribute in their 
 results to the increase of the national wealth and prosperity. In other 
 words the entire amount of services performed by all the working classes 
 of the community (taking the word working in its most comprehensive 
 sense) will be less, and the wealth of the community be so far diminished. 
 
 The same mode of reasoning may be applied with equal force to other 
 objects of general concern. When the members of a community purchase 
 imported tea, they may be said to tax themselves to the amount necessary 
 for the procuring that article. They are willing to give in exchange for 
 the quantity of it they desire to consume, the labour, or the value of the 
 labour of fifty thousand British labourers, (for example;) for this is the 
 number of British labourers supposed to be employed in England in the 
 production of those commodities which, directly, or indirectly, constitute 
 the means of purchasing the tea imported into Britain from China. If the 
 parliament saw proper to do so, they might (as I have already remarked,) 
 by means of taxation and bounties sufficiently high, draw a portion of 
 British labour from other employments to the home culture and production 
 of tea. The number of hands employed in the production of tea, instead 
 of being fifty thousand, (the number now engaged in the production of 
 articles with which directly, or indirectly tea is purchased,) would be up¬ 
 wards of one million. Thus would the labour of nine hundred and fifty 
 
IMPOLICY OF PROTECTIVE DUTIES. 35 
 
 thousand hands be thrown away. It clearly makes no difference in the 
 result, whether the tea, imported from Cliina (supposing no prohibition) is 
 purchased dirccthj or imlincthj —whether the commodities produced by 
 fifty thousand hands are directly exported to China and exchanged for tea, 
 or whether they are exported to South America, and exchanged for gold 
 and silver, which gold and silver are thence sent to China for the purchase 
 of tea. A few hands more may be employed in the latter case than in the 
 former; and supposing in the former case (that of a direct exchange of 
 commodities for tea,) that fifty thousand hands are employed in the fabric 
 of the article, and five thousand in the exportation of it, and the importa¬ 
 tion of the tea, we have an aggregate of fifty-five thousand men employed 
 in furnishing the country with a luxury, which, if produced at home by 
 British labour, would require no less than one million of men to raise it: 
 while in the case of an indirect exchange of commodities for tea, where 
 the commodities are first exchanged for gold and silver, and these then 
 exchanged for tea, the whole number of men employed might on a liberal 
 calculation be estimated at live thousand more, which would make an 
 aggregate of sixty thousand. Thus at the very lowest calculation, a saving 
 to the state would be made of the labour of nine hundred and forty thou¬ 
 sand hands. Sixty thousand hands would produce the means of purchasing 
 the tea and make the necessary exportation and exchanges; and actually 
 furnish the tea in the British market as well, as if under the non-importa- 
 'tion system one million of men had been employed in its production at 
 
 But (say the advocates of the protective policy) nine hundred and forty 
 thousand hands are thus employed. “The very object of our system is, to 
 give employment to labour, and the more hands that are employed in order 
 to produce a given result the better ?” It can scarcely be necessary to re¬ 
 mark, that if this reasoning is carried out to its legitimate consequences, it 
 must lead us to the most preposterous conclusions. It would follow for 
 example that those nations would be most prosperous and wealthy, which, 
 from the barrenness of their land, or their want of .skill in agriculture, 
 were compelled to employ the greatest proportion of their population in 
 raising a bare sufficiency of bread stuffs for the subsistence of the people! 
 And, if the labour of the entire population should become necessary for that 
 purpose, then, according-to these profound reasoners, the national pros¬ 
 perity and wealth must attain its climax! It would follow also, by parity 
 of reason, that all those tools, machines, and instruments which have been 
 devised by human ingenuity for saving labour, and enabling one man to 
 do the work of ten, a hundred, or even a thousand men, so far from con¬ 
 tributing to the wealth and prosperity of a nation, must have a tendency 
 the very reverse of this, and produce poverty, want, and wretchedness! 
 
 But let us examine this matter a little more narrowly. Of the one million 
 of men employed under the non-importation system, nine hundred and forty 
 thousand are an actual burthen upon the community. They actually con¬ 
 tribute in no degree whatever to augment the annual amount of national 
 production. They produce nothing; but, do they not consume? Must 
 they not have a subsistence? And whence is this subsistence to be drawn, 
 but from the amount or sum of production, resulting from the industry of 
 the remaining portion of the community? They must divide with the 
 other working classes of the community that portion of the food, clothing, 
 and the necessaries which has been set apart as capital, and for the purpose 
 
IMPOLICY 
 
 PROTECTIVE DOTIES. 
 
 of reproduction; or, they must encroach upon that portion which has been 
 reserved as a means only of immediate enjoyment. They must either 
 share the wages of the other labourers; in which case, the rate of wages 
 must fall; or, they must be a tax upon the income of the capitalist, or land 
 owner; in which case, though the evil may be less sensibly felt, that sound 
 principle is violated which should secure the property of the citizen against 
 all taxation which is wholly without an object, and which does not in any 
 degree, or in any way, contribute to his benefit, or advantage. 
 
 We willingly admit that if, from the operation of natural causes, the 
 denseness of population in proportion to the extent and productiveness of 
 the soil, or the occurrence of some wide spread calamity, a portion of the 
 population of a country should be thrown out of employment, humanitj', 
 and even a wise policy would dictate, that they should have a fair claim 
 upon the more fortunate residue of the community for support and sub¬ 
 sistence. But the question that we have to settle with the advocates of the 
 protective policy, is, not whether, when this unfortunate state of things 
 occurs from unavoidable causes it becomes the duty of a community to 
 extend its charitij to those of its members, who, through the act of God, or 
 from some inevitable and hard neoBssit)q have been rendered incapable of 
 replacing what they consume by a corresponding production; (or perhaps, 
 of producing at all,) but whether it he wise or just in the rulers of a country 
 voluntarily to hrin^ about this state of things, and by legislative enactments 
 to make one portion of the population a burthen and tax upon the rest? 
 
 The present condition of Great. Britain, burthened as she is with poor- 
 rates, levied for the support of a pauper population who add nothing to the 
 stock of national production, offers a striking illustration of the evils which 
 result from over population, and from causes over which the legislature 
 have no control; evils, (it may be remarked however) which, even in this 
 instance are not a little aggravated by an unwise and narrow legislation. 
 The United States, if the protective policy should be carried out to its re¬ 
 sults, will afford a no less striking example of a country, which has volun¬ 
 tarily anticipated by legislative enactments, those evils, which, in the natural 
 course of things, belong only to nations far advanced in population, and 
 which have begun already to experience the inevitable effects of that con¬ 
 dition; in the dearness of food, and of all those articles of human con¬ 
 sumption, which, being produced from the soil, necessarily rise in price, 
 when from a given or limited extent of land it has become necessary by 
 additional labour to raise a greater and increasing amount of them. It re¬ 
 sults from this dearness of food and necessaries, that ail that portion of the 
 population who from age or natural defects, or accidental misfortune, are 
 incapable of contributing to the amount of national production, or who 
 contribute but a very small proportion, are thrown upon the charity of the 
 rest of the community. In this case, the evil is the effect of the dearness 
 of human subsistence—of the necessity of giving a high average amount 
 of labour for a given quantity of food and necessaries: in tbe case of a 
 protective system, it is the effect of a legislative enactment which inten¬ 
 tionally raises the price of an article of manufacture to the consumer, in 
 order by this means to draw to the home production of this article more 
 labourers or more capital than would be necessary to produce it by com¬ 
 merce and importation from abroad. 
 
 It would appear then sufficiently obvious, that where from some circum¬ 
 stances of soil or climate, or other permanent cause, an article can be pro- 
 
IMPOLICY ( 
 
 PBOTECTIVB DUTIES. 
 
 37 
 
 cured from abroad at a less cost of labour, than would be necessary to its 
 production at home, any system of impost which shall lead to the exclusion 
 of vha foreign cheap article and the production of the dear home one, must 
 in a greater or less degree diminish the amount and sources of national 
 wealth. 
 
 But it will be objected perhaps that this reasoning does not apply to the 
 question which has been raised as to the expediency or inexpediency of 
 levying a protective impost upon lho.se articles of British manufacture 
 which may be equally well, and with as little cost of labour, manufactured 
 in the United Stales. It may be readily admitted that with the aid of 
 equally good'tools and machinery, and with equal skill and knowledge 
 (and the latter if not possessed may soon be acquired) the American will 
 be found capable of producing as much work and as good; in the business 
 of manufacture, as the Briton. But this is not at present the question; 
 The question is, whether, with a given amount of capital in the United 
 States, (let this capital be estimated either in money, or in the necessary 
 subsistence and comforts of the labourer) as large a return in manufactures 
 can be produced, as would be produced in England. The answer is that 
 it could not. It is well known that both money wages and real wages are 
 lower in England than in this country, and it follows, that a given amount 
 of capital will command, in the former country, the services of a greater 
 number of workmen than it would in the latter; and that it would conse¬ 
 quently bring a larger return in the shape of manufactures. This simple 
 fact then that wages, both real and money wages—are lower in England 
 than in the United States, enables the manufacturer in the former country 
 with a given capital to produce a larger amount of manufactures than 
 could be produced in the latter with a similar capital. This alone would 
 enable the English manufacturer to sell his goods at a cheaper rate-than 
 the American could, and yet make an equal profit. But this is not all. 
 The situation of Britain differs from that of the United States in another 
 very important particular. The amount of her capital is very large com¬ 
 pared to the means she has of employing it profitably in reproduction. 
 Profits consequently are low. Even supposing therefore that the American 
 manufacturer could produce as much work from a given capital as his 
 English rival, he would not be satisfied to sell it at the same low price; 
 beciiuse in America, from the comparatively small amount of capital in 
 proportion to the means and opportunities of employing it profitably, pro¬ 
 fits upon capital have always been high. 
 
 It may be remarked in conclusion, that this difference between the 
 situation of the United States and that of Great Britain is in its nature per¬ 
 manent. The advantages which it gives the latter country in enabling her 
 to sell her manufactures at a low price are not of a nature to make us envy 
 her; since they result from the superiority of our position in being able to 
 obtain greater profits upon capital, and higher wages for labour. Those 
 advantages, however, such as they are, Britain is likely to retain; and it is 
 to be hoped, for the sake of America, </ia< she may long retain them. When 
 she shall cease to possess them, America too ivill have ceased to possess 
 those advantages which she now enjoys in having high profits upon capital, 
 and high wages for labour. America enjoys these advantages in virtue of 
 her position—possessed as she is of an unbounded extent of fertile territory 
 —the greatest variety of soil and climate, and all the elements of wealth 
 and prosperity in an endless profusion. If England, by a miracle should 
 
38 IMPOLICY OF PROTECTIVE DOTIES. 
 
 become possessed of similar advantages of position, will any man in his 
 senses believe that English manufacturers would be contented with the 
 low profits which they now receive upon their capital? They must either 
 exclude, by means of a high tariff, the French, German, and other Euro¬ 
 pean, and perhaps even Asiatic manufactures from their market; or, they 
 must change the employment of their capital from manufactures to agri¬ 
 culture—from the mere working up raw materials, to the production of the 
 raw materials themselves. If the first of these measures should be adopted, 
 and the statesmen of England should concur in the adoption of a tariff of 
 protection, they would do that, which to a certain extent has been done in 
 this country: they would prevent the capital employed in manufactures 
 from being diverted into those more projitable channels which had just, been 
 opened; and prevent consequently that rise both in profits and wages which, 
 but for this legislative interference, must have taken place, and have led 
 the country forwards in a train of constant progression and prosperity. 
 
 Much more might be said in illustration of this view of the question of 
 the protective policy, as well as upon other points not touched; but I have 
 already too far exceeded the limits to which, in a communication of this 
 sort, I should have confined myself, and must conclude. Should the fore¬ 
 going suggestions upon this important subject be deemed worthy of a 
 place in your able journal, I may be templed in some interval of leisure to 
 trouble you once more. 
 
 In the communication I made to your journal a few days ago, I endea¬ 
 voured to show, that what is called the “protective system” is founded in 
 error—that to lay a duty upon the importation of commodities of foreign 
 production, with a view of encouraging (as it is termed) the production of 
 the same classes of commodities at home, is inconsistent with any clear 
 view of sound public economy—that it leads, in its necessary effect, to the 
 adoption of the dearer and more expensive, instead of the cheaper and less 
 costly methods of production—that it proceeds upon the principle of in¬ 
 creasing instead of diminishing the labour or the capital necessary to the 
 production of a given amount of work—that in consequence of this, it 
 renders a portion of the labour, or a portion of the capital of the country 
 unproductive—and that it diminishes therefore the amount of national pro¬ 
 duction, and operates as a tax upon the community, for the payment of 
 which they receive no return in services, and which consists, not in a mere 
 transfer of property from one hand to another, but in its absolute annihila¬ 
 tion. 
 
 With respect to those articles, whether of manufacture or of raw pro¬ 
 duce, which it requires more labour to produce at home than it does to 
 produce the means, directly or indirecthj, of obtaining them from abroad 
 by commerce and exchange, the views which I have presented of the ques¬ 
 tion as it relates to them can need, I imagine, no farther elucidation. 
 
 With respect to those articles, on the other hand, in the production of 
 which American is equally efficient with British or foreign labour, and 
 which do not . requite more hands immediately employed upon them to pro¬ 
 duce them; but which, from the high rate of wages in America, require 
 the employment of more, capital than in the foreign country, in order to 
 produce a given amount of them, I shall add a few farther observations in 
 addition to what I have already said. 
 
IMPOLICY 
 
 PROTECTIVE DUTIES. 
 
 I shall begin by observing that by the capital of a country is meant that 
 portion of its valuable effects, or property (exclusive of land) which is set 
 apart for the purposes of reproduction. It follows then that if, supposing 
 the entire wealth of the country to be a given quantity, the productive por¬ 
 tion of it, or capital, is increased, that portion of it which goes to unpro¬ 
 ductive consumption is necessarily diminished. This latter portion of the 
 wealth of the country is consumed, (as the terms unproductive consump¬ 
 tion imply,) without giving any return'ea;ccy)< in the enjoyments and grati¬ 
 fication afforded' by the consumption itself. It must be further remarked, 
 that productive capital may be divided into two distinct parts or classes— 
 that part which merely aids or saves labour, by enabling one man to do the 
 work of many; and that which feeds, clothes, warms and houses the labourer 
 —the former consisting of tools, implements and machinery, farm houses, 
 store houses, &c., and the latter of food, clothing, fire and dwelling houses, 
 commonly called wages, and represented by money. Now these things 
 constitute the real wages of labour; and the condition of the labouring 
 classes in different countries, compared with one another, is determined by 
 the relative abundance or scarcity with which they are provided with these 
 articles of necessity. Now to show how the condition of the productive 
 and labouring classes mtiy be affected by the imposition of a duty upon the 
 importation of foreign productions, I will suppose a case which, I think it 
 will be admitted, is not very different from what has actually occurred in 
 this country. VVe will suppose then, that in a country where cotton stuffs 
 enter largely into the consumption of the labouring class, a duty is laid 
 upon all articles of cotton clothing coming from abroad. The effect of 
 such duty must be, under ordinary circumstances, to raise the price of the 
 goods upon which it is levied; for the importer of the goods must add the 
 duty to the price'which he pays for them abroad, and must make an average 
 profit upon this aggregate cost. But a rise in the price of a commodity is 
 usually followed (always unless checked by some new cause) by a diminu¬ 
 tion in its consumption. 
 
 If the commodity should be one of the first necessity, as corn for exam¬ 
 ple, the diminution in the consumption of it would be comparatively small 
 perhaps, and be perceptible only in a more careful economy in the use of 
 it. Luxuries, and even comforts must be sacrificed, before necessaries can 
 be given up. In the case of imported cotton clothing, if the duty should 
 be high and the consequent rise of price be considerable, the diminution 
 of consumption might be great. Now, if we suppose, what may easily 
 happen, that the aggregate price should be the same, while the aggregate 
 amount of the commodity consumed is considerably diminished, it would 
 appear that in this case, one of the effects of the duty would be, to oblige 
 the community to stint themselves in the use of the commodity, and the 
 other, that the amount of duty would be placed at the disposal of the gov¬ 
 ernment; which, by a wise employment of the sum thus drawn from the 
 expenditure of the people, might indemnify them for the sacrifice they had 
 been compelled to make in the enhanced price of their clothing. This is 
 the simple case of a duly laid with a view to revenue. But let us suppose 
 one laid, with a view of “ encouraging” the employment of capital in the 
 production at home of the same descriptions of goods which had been 
 hitherto imported from abroad. And for this purpose let the price of the 
 imported goods be raised so high by means of a heavy duty as to enable 
 the (let us say) American capitalist to employ his capital with a remune- 
 
40 
 
 IMrOLICY OF PROTECTIVE DUTIES. 
 
 rating profit in the production of similar goods at home. The eflect of this 
 would he, that the goods would be furnished to the consumer partly hy 
 American manufacturmg capital, and partly by commercial capital: but 
 whether by the one or the other, the consumer is compelled to pay an addi¬ 
 tion to the former price; for the commercial capital necessary to import a 
 given amount of such goods is increased bij the duty, and the manufacturing 
 capital is increased hy the necessity o f paying higher wages. Supposing, 
 then, loth the commercial and manulacturing capitals to he American, it 
 would appear, that in eonsequence of the duty, it had hecome necessary to 
 employ a larger portion of American capital, in order to furnish the con¬ 
 sumer with a given amount of goods. I would ask the champions of a high 
 protective tariff, whether they consider that a country is benefited hy being 
 obliged to increase the amount of capital necessary for the accomplishment 
 of a given object—the production of a given amount of commodities? If 
 so, it would follow, that if the whole of the capital now employed in the 
 United States in agriculture, commerce and manufactures, were concen¬ 
 trated upon agriculture alone, and produced no more of the fruits of the 
 earth than are now raised by a portion of that aggregated capital, the coun¬ 
 try would he a gainer by it 1 The example of England may serve to throw 
 some light upon this point. Her policy, the opposite in some respects of 
 that of Mr. Clay and his admirers, is the encouragement of agriculture. 
 Her corn laws, by taxing foreign corn, raise the price of corn grown in 
 England, and this leads to the employment of a larger capital in the culti¬ 
 vation of corn than would otherwise have been so employed. But as the 
 lands taken into cullivation in consequence of this artificial stimulus are 
 comparatively sterile and unproductive, the yield is small in proportion to 
 the outlay. The entire capital of the country is hy this means rendered less 
 productive. A portion of it is (as it were) paralyzed, by being employed 
 upon land which scarcely yields more than is required for its cultivation. 
 If, instead of being thus unproductively employed, it had been converted 
 into manufacturing capital, its product would have been far more valuable, 
 in the shape of manufactures, and would have furnished the means of pur¬ 
 chasing from abroad an amount of corn far greater than the same capital 
 would yield when laid out upon a poor and unproductive soil. The error 
 of this policy is of the same nature with that of the “ American protective 
 system,” as it has been improperly and absurdly called. The principle is 
 the same. The only difierence is, that the British protective system, or in 
 other words, the corn laws, tax the community for the purpose of drawing 
 as much capital as possible to the cullivation of land, and by that means of 
 raising rents and the value of land, for the benefit of the land owners— 
 while the American system seeks by the same process of taxation to draw 
 the capital of the country to the business of manufacture, in which, for 
 reasons already stated, it appears it is comparatively unproductive. These 
 are, as we have said, the high wages and high profits which prevail in the 
 United States. It is for these reasons that a capitalist in America cannot 
 be induced to employ his capital in manufactures, (or, at least, in certain 
 manufactures where much labour is required,) unless the price of the man¬ 
 ufactured commodity is artificially raised by taxation, or the imposition of 
 duties. The high wages oblige him to increase the amount of his capital 
 with a view to a given result—the production of a given quantity of manu¬ 
 factures; and the high profits which may be made in other einployiiients 
 of capital naturally attract his capital to thm, undfrom those in which the 
 
IMPOLICY 
 
 PROTECTIVE DUTIES. 
 
 41 
 
 product in the shape of manufactures is small in proportion to the neces¬ 
 sary outlay or capital, and would not afford a remunerating profit, but for 
 the tax laid upon the consumer in the shape of an enhanced price, which, 
 if he pays it, prevents his buying some other commodity which he had 
 been in the habit of consuming; and thus discourages one hranch of in¬ 
 dustry as much as it encourages another; it being kejit in mind, that had 
 no such tax been imposed, the community would have been heller furnished 
 with that description of commodities of which the home manufacture is en¬ 
 couraged, and have continued to consume other commodities, which, in conse¬ 
 quence of the tat, they have been comjielled to give up, and which, conse¬ 
 quently, are no longer produced. 
 
 In the foregoing observations, I have made little or no allusion to the 
 proceeds of the impost, or to the disposition that may he made of them; 
 and the way in which that disposition may affect the public weal, in an eco¬ 
 nomical point of view. It is almost too obvious to need remark, that 
 tyhere a duty is laid with a view to diminish or to prevent foreign importa¬ 
 tion, the proceeds of the duty could never have been contemplated as an 
 essential or important part of the act imposing it. A heavy duty laid upon 
 an imported article, may often have the effect of a prohibition. Some 
 similar article may be substituted in its place, upon which no duty, or a 
 light one, may happen to have been laid. So, where heavy duties, with a 
 view to discourage importation, and “ protect” (as it is called) home manu¬ 
 facturers, are laid upon a few favoured articles, their effect could add but 
 little to the amount of the public revenue. A revenue law, in order to be 
 effective, must lay moderate imposts upon a great number of imported arti¬ 
 cles; while a protective law must lay heavy imposts upon a few only. The 
 former proceeds upon the principle of checking importation in the smallest 
 degree possible, compatible with the raising a revenue—the latter, on the 
 contrary, seeh to check and discourage it as an essential part of the pro¬ 
 tective system. 
 
 I could have wished, had it been possible within the limits to which, in 
 a communication of this sort, I feel obliged to confine myself, to touch 
 upon some other points connected with the present subject. One of these 
 is the necessarily unequal operation of a protective tariff, in relation to the 
 different sections of the Union; not to speak of the injustice of protecting 
 one branch of industry, while others, not less entitled to favour, are ne¬ 
 glected—the discontent and jealousies which must naturally arise out of this 
 state of things; and the political intrigues, and political dishonesty, which 
 are its sure and inevitable results. I could have wished too, to say a word 
 upon the subject of the causes to which must be attributed the high wages 
 and high profits which prevail in this country, compared with most other 
 communities of the world; and to show that the advantage gained by the 
 manufacturing capitalists, as the result of a protective tarifi; is in its nature 
 temporary. That they cannot permanently make higher profits than other 
 capitalists in their own sections of the country, or in other parts of the 
 country equally well situated for the purpose of carrying on the business 
 of manufacturing—that the high profits made by the protected manufac¬ 
 turers at frst, (and always at the expense of the consumer,) must soon be 
 reduced by competition to the level of the ordinary rate of profits; and 
 th,Tt this ordinary rate—taking the country at large—must, as a consequence 
 of what we have already (we hope) proved, viz. the diminution in the 
 amount of the annual production of national capital—be reduced below the 
 
JMFOLIClf OF PROTECTIVE DUTIES. 
 
 level at which it had stood, previous to the enactment of a protective law, 
 and to the interference on the part of the legislature to prevent the free de¬ 
 velopment of the national resources, and to direct the industry of the coun¬ 
 try into channels in which, from the circumstances in which we are placed, 
 and our relations to foreign countries, it is found to be comparatively un¬ 
 productive. 
 
A POSITION OP THE FRIENDS OF THE 
 HIGH TARIFF EXAMINED* 
 
 I propose in tlie following paper to examine a position in relation to the 
 question of free trade; which, as it has been frequently employed by the 
 advocates of the restrictive system as an argument in favour of their views 
 of commercial pohcv, and has even on many occasions been brought for¬ 
 ward on the floor of Congress by men of the highest reputation for talents, 
 may naturally be deemed more entitled to attention tlian upon a nearer 
 view of the matter it will be found I think to merit. The position I allude 
 to is, “ that were all nations (that is, all nations with whom we have com¬ 
 mercial intercourse,) to adopt the system of free trade, the advantages of 
 that policy would be unquestionable; but that so long as foreign States 
 adhere to the opposite system of commercial restrictions, we. have no 
 choice left but to meet and counteract their restrictions upon our trade, 
 by the imposition of similar restrictions upon theirs.” Now, to the first 
 branch of this proposition I give my most cordial assent. The advantages 
 of the free trade system upon the supposition of its being adopted by 
 foreign States art unquesiionahlt, and are admitted (as it appears) even by 
 the advocates of the opposite policy. The question then that we are to 
 examine, is, whether, when foreign States have adopted a different policy, 
 and have loaded our commerce with them, with imposts and restrictions, 
 it is still advantageous for ourselves to adhere to the free trade system, lay¬ 
 ing only such moderate duties as are necessary for the purposes of revenue? 
 Wliether the injury done to our commerce by the impositions laid upon 
 it in foreign ports is in any degree alleviated, or counteracted, by our laying 
 similar impositions upon their commerce in our ports? The answer is 
 that as a general rule, it is not. That so far from the injury being alle¬ 
 viated, or counteracted by such retaliatory measures, it is only in fact 
 aggravated. It must be considered that when a foreign state, (England 
 for example) lays an impost upon American produce, the effect of such a 
 measure is not (as some would seem to suppose) confined to the injury 
 which America sustains. England too sustains an injury, though inflicted 
 by herself. She cripples American commerce it is true, by contracting 
 the market for the sale of American products; but, by the same act, she 
 obliges her own subjects to purchase American products at a price, en¬ 
 hanced, in proportion or nearly so to the amount of the duty. Let us sup¬ 
 pose the American product on which the duty is laid in British ports, to 
 be cotton (for example.) The effect of the duty will be to raise the price 
 of that article in England, though at the same time perhaps to depress it 
 (at least for a time) in America. If the price is depressed in America, it 
 is because the exporter of the article to the British market is compelled to 
 demand in England, the price which he has paid in America, added to the 
 duty which he pays in England, together with an ordinary profit upon the 
 * Published originally in the Charleston Mercury. 
 
44 
 
 FRIENDS 
 
 aggregate. The rise of price in England leads to a diminution of con¬ 
 sumption, which thus acts upon tlie price in America in depressing it. 
 
 If this depression were permanent, and to the amount of the duty, 
 America alone would be the sufferer; but as it is ibe effect of the dimin¬ 
 ished demand for the article (occasioned by the diminished consumption 
 of it in England) and the consequent change which has taken place in the 
 proportion between supply and demand, it will continue only until the 
 natural equilibrium shall have been restored, and the supply diminished to 
 correspond with the lessened demand. The price of the article in America 
 however, though not so much depressed as at first, might still continue less 
 than it was before the diminution in the demand for the article took place. 
 This would be, not merely probable, but, in the case of so important an 
 article of e.vport as cotton, quite certain, from the difficulty that would 
 arise of finding an equally profitable employment for capital in oilier de¬ 
 partments of industry, and also from the diminished e.’itent of cultivation 
 affording a better choice of lands, and tending therefore to lessen the cost 
 of production. This conclusion, it must be remarked however, proceeds 
 upon the supposition of the foreign duty being sufliciently high, to cause a 
 great and sensible diminution in the consumption of the article, and con¬ 
 sequently in the demand for it; and upon the further supposition of the 
 capital and labour employed in the exporting country in the production of 
 cotton, bearing a very large proportion to that engaged in other pursuits 
 of industry. To what extent the price of it would be depressed, cannot 
 of course, except in a comparative sense, be predicated, even in any par¬ 
 ticular case, and with a knowledge of all the circumstances connected with 
 it. Our aim however is, not to follow out all the various results which must 
 take place under every variety of circumstances; but to point out the lead¬ 
 ing principles which govern the question; and to show, that under ordinary 
 circumstances, the imposition of a duty upon an article of our produce in 
 a foreign country, though it may in some degree depress the price of the 
 article in the exporting country, must have the effect of raising it, and 
 consequently making the article dearer in the country which imports it. 
 The permanent depression of the price in the exporting country, may, in 
 some cases be scarcely perceptible, because the article may have been, be¬ 
 fore the imposition of the duty sold at the lowest price consistent with an 
 ordinary profit to its producers; and, considered as one of the branches of 
 industry, may not be of sufficient importance when compared with the 
 rest, to render its prosperity or decline a subject of national concern. In 
 such a case the country imposing the duty must be the chief, if not the 
 only sufferer, and must pay for its consumption of the imported commodity 
 the whole of the tax levied, in the shape of an enhancement of price; for, as 
 the importing merchant pays the same price to the producer (say in America) 
 and must pay the duty in addition upon its importation into England (to 
 take the former example), he cannot but be a loser unless he obtain the 
 original price thus augmented by the duty, together with the ordinary pro¬ 
 fit upon his outlay. If the enhanced price should under these circumstances 
 ' affect the amount of the article consumed, the only effect which this would 
 produce in the exporting country would be, an adaptation of the supply of 
 the commodity to the diminished consumption, and the consequent transfer 
 of a portion of the capital and .labour engaged in its production, to some 
 other employment. This last result, though not necessarily followed by 
 any perceptible, or sensible diminution in the general rates of wages and 
 
TARIFF EXAMINED. 
 
 45 
 
 profits, must always be attended with some actual loss it is true, to the sum 
 of the national wealth; as it implies a forcible change in the natural dis¬ 
 tribution of the capital and labour among employments. If, on the other 
 hand, the enhanced price is followed by no diminution of consumption, 
 which may sometimes, though it does not often happen, England wito im¬ 
 poses the duty, will alone suffer from the consequences of her own act. The 
 commodity cannot be produced in America at a less price—the duty must 
 be paid by the importer and added to the, price in England ; and the English 
 consumer is willing, rather than diminish his consumption, to pay this 
 accumulated price. Here then is a case in tvhich a duty, designed in the 
 wisdom of legislation, {perchance) to alleviate, or counteract the restrictive 
 measures of a foreign country, has no other cjfect, than to burthen with a 
 tax, those who were intended as the special objects of its protection. But 
 what is true in this regard of England, is, under like circumstances, true 
 of any other country. A duty therefore may be laid in the United States, 
 upon a commodity imported fi-om a foreign country, which shall have no 
 other effect than that of raising the price of it in their own market, and 
 that to the whole amount of the duty, and consequently of taxing their own 
 citizens who consume it to just that amount. In order to illustrate still 
 further the principles which belong to the question, we will suppose a case 
 not varying much from the actual relation in which the United States stand 
 towards England. The value of a certain raw material (cotton for exam 
 pie) supplied by the former, falls short of being a fifth part of that of the 
 manufactured goods which are wrought from it, by the skill of the latter. 
 Of the amount of the manufactured goods, more than a third is consumed 
 in England, and the remainder exported. Of the latter portion, the Uni¬ 
 ted States may take one half, that is, less than a third of the whole value 
 of the goods manufactured. Now let us suppose the United Stales gov¬ 
 ernment to lay a duty upon the importation of these manufactured goods, 
 what will be the effect of such a measure? If the duty is so high as to 
 be prohibitory, the first effect must be to reduce the price of the manufac¬ 
 tured goods in England, and in the foreign countries to which she still can 
 send them; the supply being for the time greater than the demand. The 
 second effect must be to reduce the amount of capital employed in manu¬ 
 facturing in England, and to lessen the demand for the American raw mate¬ 
 rial. At the same time the American consumer of the manufactured goods 
 in question, that is, eight-tenths of the population, is compelled to forego 
 the use of commodities, many of which, from habit or other causes, may 
 have become necessaries of life; or, after the lapse of a longer or shorter 
 period, to purchase them of the home producer at a great advance of price; 
 and I have* elsewhere shown that this enhancement of price is not in its 
 nature temporary, but arises out of the circumstances connected with our 
 situation, and the relation in which we stand to older nations, where profits 
 and wages are comparatively low. It appears from this, and the previous 
 examples, that the consequences of laying a duty upon foreign imports are 
 far more complex in their nature and bearings, than they are generally sup¬ 
 posed to be; that they vary with circumstances, and with the varying rela¬ 
 tions in which nations stand towards one another in their commercial in¬ 
 tercourse ; and that it is taking a very narrow view of the subject to suppose 
 that the whole burthen of the duty must, as a matter of necessity, fall upon 
 
 » Two arliclea in the Charleston Mercurj. 
 
46 
 
 A POSITION 
 
 THE FRIENDS 
 
 the country on the importation of whose produce the duty is imposed; when, 
 as it appears from some of the examples, the very reverse of this is just as 
 likely to be true. Commerce between any country and the rest of the 
 world consists simply in an exchange of coiimwdities; and the more of 
 foreign commodities that the former can obtain in exchange for those of 
 its own production from the latter, the greater must be its commercial 
 prosperity. Now, whatever the amount of goods which may he exported to 
 foreigiicountries,that amount constitutes the fund outof whiehmust hepaid 
 the cost and expenses of the entire amount of importation; it follows then, 
 that if that cost and those expenses be increased, whether artijickdly by a 
 duty, or by any other cause, either the importation must be diminished, or to 
 prevent this, the exportation must be increased; in cither case the result must 
 he, as a matter of necessity, a loss to the amount of the national wealth .— 
 This is the broad rule which we should keep in view in examining the pre¬ 
 sent question. It admits of no exception or qualification, unless in those 
 cases ill which the imposition of the duty has the elfeot (as we have seen 
 it sometimes has) of influencing, by depressing the price of imported com¬ 
 modities in the producing and exporting countries. The cases, however, in 
 which any such effect can take place permanently, are rare. If in conse¬ 
 quence of the duty the foreign commodity is less in demand for exportation 
 in the producing country, the only effect, beyond a temporary depression 
 of its home price, is the transfer of capital and labour from the busi¬ 
 ness of producing it, to some other employment; when its home price 
 would again rise, and its price in the importing country be permanently 
 higher, by the amount of the duty, than it was previous to its imposition. 
 Would not a colony, dependent upon the mother country for a market, 
 form an exception to the general rule? might not the mother country by 
 means of high duties imposed upon the importation of colonial produce 
 compel the colony to bear the burthen of the duties? Would not .the 
 colony, having no other market but that of the mother country, and few 
 other employments for labour and capital (it may be) than those which 
 minister to her wants, and are dependent for their continuance upon the 
 supply of her demands, be compelled by the imposition of duties in the ports 
 of the mother country upon the importation of colonial productions, to 
 abate somewhat of the colonial prices? in other words, to take less of the 
 products of the mother country in return for those of the colony? Thus 
 enabling the mother country to lessen the amount of her e.xportation, while 
 that of her importation should continue unimpaired, and thus enriching her 
 at the expense of her colony? The dependence of the colony upon the 
 mother country would enable the latter to obtain temporary advantages, 
 without doubt; but it may be very much questioned whether in a general 
 scheme of policy, it would be wise or prudent (and certainly it would not 
 be just) to burthen the restricted and monopolized commerce of the colo¬ 
 nists with onerous imposts; admitting even that the mother country would 
 by so doing, for a time, and to a limited extent, be a gainer. The pros¬ 
 perity of the mother country, it cannot be denied, may often be greatly de¬ 
 pendent upon the rapid growth and improvement of the colony; and these 
 latter conditions can scarcely be conceived compatible with the supposition 
 of oppressive and enormous taxation. The case of a dependent colony, 
 therefore, it would appear, can scarcely be regarded as forming an excep¬ 
 tion to the general principle which we have endeavoured to establish; to 
 wit, that heavy imposts upon foreign importations are, except where abso- 
 
47 
 
 lutely necessary for the purposes of revenue, contrary to all sound and just 
 ideas of public economy; that they do not counteract the injurious effect 
 of similar restrictions imposed in foreign ports—that so far from it, they 
 only aggravate the evil; and, in their tendency and principle, arc destruc¬ 
 tive of all the bencjits arising out of the commercial intercourse of nations. 
 
 It is assumed, it must be. kept in mind, in the foregoing remarks, that a 
 duty is laid, not for the purpose of necessary revenue, (which all are ready 
 to admit a sufficient reason for its imposition,) but to counteract, as it is 
 expressed, the injurious effect of foreign restrictions, and under the idea 
 that the burthen of the tax thus levied must, as a matter of necessity, be 
 borne by the foreigner whose commodity is subjected to the impost. The 
 inevitable inference from such a doctrine would be, that imposts upon 
 foreign commodities always, and apart from the necessary purposes of 
 revenue, must in themselves, and without looking beyond them, be re¬ 
 garded as a national benefit. 
 
 I trust that, in what I have said above, I have sufficiently exposed the 
 fallacy of such opinions, and shown that all imposts are in themsehes an 
 evil, and that, as a general rule, there is and can be no good or sufficient 
 reason for imposing them, except the necessity of raising revenue.