when not made at another's expence, can be effected without the very fame gain to the community. We hold the propofition to be identical, and conceive that the explanation formerly given of value and wealth muft render it' quite evident,-that the riches of a nation, and the fum of the riches of all its inhabitants, are expreffions completely fynonymous.

It is not a little fingular that the fundamental error of valuing every thing in cafh, which gave rife to the mercantile fyftem, fhould be at the bottom of all Lord Lauderdale's speculations about the distinction of public wealth and individual riches. He has evidently fallen into his mistakes, by confidering commodities. as worth only their money price, and by entirely forgetting, that when goods are estimated in fpecie, a comparison or exchange is inftituted, which is not at all neceffary in order to confer value on the commodities. We call a certain proprietor of grain worth ten thousand pounds, because it is poffible that he might want the money, and his grain would enable him to command it. Were commerce at an end, i. e. were every one poffeffed of as much grain as he wanted, and of every other ufeful or defireable commodity, the proprietor certainly would not be called a man worth ten thousand pounds. Even in the present circumstances, it would be as correct to fay he was worth fo many quarters of wheat, as fo many thousand pounds. The comparison between grain and money is only made with a view to exchange; and in this view, the statement of relation is affected, no doubt, by the quantity of each article; while in the other point of view, fuch a circumstance has no place. Our author, attending to the view of exchange only, and then confining his attention exclufively to the fituation of the feller, has drawn the abfurd inference, that the wealth of all the individuals in a state is different from the wealth of the ftate, merely because the wealth of fome individuals may be affected differently from that of the community. We are inclined to think the prejudice of valuing all things in money one of the most rooted in the minds of men, and of the moft extenfive influence in political fpeculations. After all the expofitions which it has received, and from no author more diftinctly than from Lord Lauderdale, we find him actually founding a theory upon it. He has been led away by the form of expreffion which fubftitutes the money price for the value-the money for the money's worth. has not fufficiently confidered that all fuch modes of speech fuppofe the comparifon implied in commercial tranfactions; he has entirely forgotten, that in eftimating the actual amount of national wealth, when we say the scarcity of an article increases its price or its value in money, we include in this propofition, an affertion that the money, or, what is the fame thing, fome other commodities,

VOL. IV. NO. 8.

He

commodities, have loft fo much of their value eftimated in the article which has become scarce. We are the more difpofed to point out the apparent fource of Lord Lauderdale's mistakes, from obferving that the abufe of ordinary terms have attracted his par-ticular attention. It is fomewhat unfortunate, that a theory, founded upon an error in common phrafeology, fhould be pre faced by a formal difcourfe on the vulgar errors of language.

II. The two leading opinions which divide political inquirers upon the fources of national wealth, are those of the Economists and of Dr Smith. We purpofe here to exhibit a concife view of the objections to which both of thefe doctrines are eminently liable. Such a statement, fo far as we know, has never yet been offered to the public; for though Lord Lauderdale has introduced fome remarks upon the fubject, we are very far from thinking them fatisfactory; and are perfuaded that none of the adherents of either fect will hold his refutation as fufficient. As the general principle of a diftinction between productive and unproductive labour is recognized by Dr Smith, as we conceive his theory to be extremely inconfiftent with itfelf, and confider it to be an imperfect approximation to that of the Economists, we fhall begin with a fhort examination of the principle on which it depends. That eminent writer divides labourers into two claffes; thofe who, by adding to the value of fome raw material, or by affifting in the increate of their quantity, realize or fix in a vendible commodity the effects of their exertions; and those whose labour leaves nothing in exiftence after the moment of exertion, but perishes in the act of performance. The former he denominates productive, the latter unproductive labourers; not meaning thereby to undervalue the exertions of many useful kinds of work performed by the unproductive order, but merely afferting that they do not augment the wealth of the community. Thus, the work of the farm fervant, or manufacturing labourer, is fixed in a ufeful commodity; the work of a menial fervant perishes with the motion of his hands, and adds to the value of nothing. A man grows rich by employing a number of the former; he ruins himfelf by keeping a multitude of the latter.

To begin with this illuftration.-The cafe of the menial fervant must not be compared with that of the labourer employed in farming or manufactures. The menial is employed by the confumer, and for his own ufe exclufively; the farm-fervant and journeyman are employed by another party, by whom the confumer is fupplied. The former is, properly fpeaking, in the predicament of a commodity bought or hired for confumption or use; the latter rather refembles a tool bought or hired for working withal. But, at any rate, there is no fuch difference as Dr Smith

fuppofes

fuppofes between the effects of maintaining a multitude of thefe feveral kinds of workmen. It is the extravagant quantity, not the peculiar quality of the labour thus paid for, that brings on ruin. A man is ruined if he keeps more fervants than he can afford or employ, and does not let them out for hire,-exactly as he is ruined by purchafing more food than he can confume, or by employing more workinen in any branch of manufactures than his bufinefs requires, or his profits will pay.

But it may be obferved, in general, that there is no folid diftinction between the effective powers of the two claffes whom Dr Smith denominates productive and unproductive labourers. The end of all labour is to augment the wealth of the community; that is to fay, the fund from which the members of that community derive their fubfiftence, their comforts and enjoyments. To confine the definition of wealth to mere fubfiftence, is abfurd. Thofe who argue thus, admit butcher's meat and manufactured liquors to be fubfiftence; yet neither of them are neceffary; for if all comfort and enjoyment be kept out of view, vegetables and water would futfice for the fupport of life; and by this mode of reafoning, the epithet of productive would be limited to the fort of employment that raifes the fpecies of food which each climate and foil is fitted to yield in greatest abundance, with the leaft labour,-to the culture of maize in fome countries; of rice in others; of potatoes, or yams, or the bread-fruit tree in others: and in no country would any variation of employment whatever' be confiftent with the definition. According to this view of the queftion, therefore, the menial fervant, the judge, the foldier and the buffoon, are to be ranked in the fame clafs with the husbandmen and manufacturers of every civilized community. The produce of the labour is, in all thefe cafes, calculated to apply either the neceffities, the comforts, or the luxuries of fociety; and that nation has more real wealth than another, which poffeffes more of all thofe commodities. If this is not admitted, then we can compare the two countries only in refpect of their relative fhares of articles indifpenfably requifite, and produced in greatest abundance, confidering the foil and climate of each: and, as nothing which is not neceffary is to be reckoned valuable, a nation wallowing in all manner of comforts and enjoyments, is to be deemed no richer than a horde fed upon the malleft portion of the cheapest grain, or roots and water, which is fufficient to fupport human life.

But it is maintained, that admitting the wealth of a community to be augmented by the labours of thofe whom Dr Smith denominates unproductive, ftill they are in a different predicament from the productive clafs, inafmuch as they do not augant the exchangeable

Z 2

exchangeable value of any feparate portions of the fociety's stockneither increafing the quantity of that flock, nor adding to the value of what formerly exifted. To this, however, it may be replied, that it appears of very little confequence whether the wants of the community are fupplied directly by men, or mediately by men with the intervention of matter-whether we receive certain benefits and conveniences from thofe men at once, or only in the form of inanimate and difpofeable fubftances. Dr Smith would admit that labour to be productive which realized itself in a ftock, though that flock were deftined to perifh the next inftant. If a player or musician, inftead of charming our ears, were to produce fomething which, when applied to our fenfes, would give us pleasure for a fingle moment of time, their labour would be called productive, although the produce were to perish in the very act of employment. Wherein, then, lies the difference? Merely in this-that we must confume the one produce at a certain time and place, and may use the other in a latitude fomewhat, though but a little, more extenfive. This difference, however, disappears altogether, when we reflect that the labour would ftill be reckoned productive which fhould give us a tangible equivalent, though it could not be carried from the spot of its production, and could laft only a fecond in our hands upon that spot. The musician, in reality, affects our fenfes by modulating the air, i. e. he works upon the air, and renders a certain portion of it worth more than it was before he manufactured it. He communicates this value to it only for a moment, and in one place; there and then we are obliged to confume it. A glafsblower, again, prepares fome metal for our amufement or inftruction, and blows it up to a great volume. He has now fixed his labour in a tangible commodity. He then exchanges it, or gives it to us, that we may immediately use it, i. e, blow it until it flies to fhivers. He has fixed his labour, however, we fay, in a vendible commodity. But we may defire his farther affiftance-we may require him to use it for our benefit; and, without any paufe in his procefs of blowing, he burfis it. This cafe approaches as nearly as poffible to that of the mufician; yet Dr Smith maintains that the latter is a different kind of labour from the former. Nay, according to him, the labour of the glafs-blower is productive, if he spoils the procefs, and defeats the end of the experiment, by paufing, and giving into unfkilful hands the bubble before it burfts. But if he performs the whole of that inftructive operation, by contemplating which Sir Ifaac Newton was taught the nature of colour, his labour must be denominated unproductive!

But

But it is not fair to deny that the clafs called unproductive fixes its labour in fome exifting commodity. First, we may observe that no labour, not even that of the farmer, can lay claim to the quality of actually adding to the ftock already in existence: Man never creates; he only modifies the mass of matter previoufly in his poffeflion. But, next, the clafs alluded to does actually, like the class termed productive, realize its labour in an additional value conferred upon the ftock formerly exifting. The only difference is, that inftead of working upon detached portions, this clafs operates upon the stock of the community in general, Thus, the foldier renders every portion of that stock more valuable by fecuring the whole from plunder; and the judge, by fecuring the whole from injury. Dr Smith would allow that man to be a productive labourer who fhould manufacture bolts and bars for the defence of property. Is not he alfo, then, a productive labourer, who protects property in the mafs, and adds to every portion of it the quality of being fecure? In like manner, thofe who increafe the enjoyments of fociety, add a value to the stock previously exifting; they furnifh new equivalents for which it may be exchanged; they render the ftock worth more, i. e. exchangeable for more-capable of commanding more enjoyments than it formerly could command. The flock of the community is either that part which is confumed by the producer, or that part which he exchanges for fome object of defire. Were there nothing for which to exchange the latter portion, it would foon ceafe to be produced. Hence, the labour that augments the fum of the enjoyments and objects of defire for which this portion may be exchanged, is indirectly beneficial to production. But if this portion deftined to be exchanged, is already in exiftence, the labour which is fupported by it, and which returns an equivalent to the former owner, by the new enjoyments that it yields him, must be allowed to add a value directly to the exchangeable part of the ftock.

In every point of view, therefore, it appears that the opinion. of Dr Smith is untenable. He has drawn his line of distinction between productive and unproductive labour in too low a part of the feale. The labour which he denominates 'unproductive, has the very fame qualities with a great part of the labour which he allows to be productive. According to his own principles, the line fhould have been drawn, fo as to cut off, on the one hand, the labour which apparently increafes the quantity of stock, and to leave, on the other hand, all that labour which only modifies, or in fome manner induces a beneficial change upon ftock already in exiftence. In a word, his principles clearly carry him to the theory of the Economifts; and, in order to be

73

confiftent,