confiftent, he ought unquestionably to have reckoned agriculture the only productive employment of capital or labour. That there is only this one doctrine tenable, in confiftency with itfelf, has been, we conceive, fufficiently proved. We shall now confider whether there is in reality any foundation even for this diftinction, which forms the bafis of the theory fupported by the Economists.

Whoever has honoured the foregoing obfervations with his attention, will speedily be fatisfied that the reafonings applied to Dr Smith's claffification of labour are applicable alfo to the more precife and confiftent doctrine of the followers of Quefnai. It is the opinion of thefe ingenious metaphyficians, that the labour bestowed upon the earth can alone be confidered as really productive; that all other labour only varies the pofition or the form of capital, but that agriculture increafes its net amount. That the merchant who tranfports goods from the spot of their abundance to the quarter where they are wanted, adds nothing to the whole ftock, or to the value of the portions which he circulates, thefe reafoners deem almoft a felf-evident propofition. That the manufacturer who fafhions raw materials into ufeful commodities increases their value, the Economists indeed admit; but they deny that any farther addition is thus made to the value of the materials than the value of the workman's maintenance while employed in the manufacture.

It feems obvious, at firft fight, to remark, that, according to their own principles, these theorists have committed one error. They have ranged all labour, except that of the husbandman, in the fame clafs; while they have virtually acknowledged that as great a difference fubfifts between the two members of that divifion, as between either of them and the other divifion. For furely, the merchant, who adds, according to them, no value to any material, is as much to be diftinguished from the manu facturer who does add the value of his maintenance to the raw produce, as the manufacturer is to be diftinguished from the husbandman, whofe labour returns a net profit over and above the price of his maintenance. This criticifm is almost decifive, in a difcuffion, which, it must be admitted on all hands, refolves into a question of claffification. But the error of the Economists is ftill more fundamental.

There is no effential difference between the powers of man over matter, in agriculture, and in other employments. It is a vulgar error, to fuppofe that, in the operations of husbandry, any portion is added to the stock of matter formerly in .xistence. The farmer works up the raw material, i. e. the manure, foil and feed, into grain, by means of heat, moisture, and the vege

tative powers of nature, in whatever these may confift. The. manufacturer works up his raw material by means of certain other powers of nature. Dr Smith, however, who ftares the doctrine of the Economists in its greatest latitude, (Chap. V. Book II. Vol. II. p. 52. 8vo edition), afferts, that in agriculture nature works with man, and that the rent is the wages of her labour; but that, in manufactures, man does every thing. But does not nature work with man, in manufacture as well as in agriculture? If fhe works with him in forming a handful of feed into a fheaf of flax, does the not alfo work with him in fashioning this ufelefs theaf into a garment? Why draw a line between the two effects, when a perfon can no more clothe himself with an unwrought fheaf of the produce than with an unfown handful of the feed? Why draw a line between the two operations, when the workman can no more change the fheaf into a garment without the aid of thofe powers which we denominate nature, cohesion, divifibility, heat and mixture, than the farmer can convert the feed into a fheaf without the vegetative powers of heat, mixture and cohefion? If, inftead of flax, we fuppofe the fheaf to be of barley, the analogy still will be more apparent. The brewer or diftiller is certainly a productive labourer; yet the changes which he effects are as little the direct work of his hands, as the multiplication of the feed in the field. The converfion of that fubftance into an intoxicating beverage isthe work of nature, as well as its growth in the harveft; and fermentation is as great a mystery as vegetation. If the rent of land, again, may be called the wages of nature, in agricultural operations, the net profits of manufacturing ftock may be term ed her wages in our operations upon raw produce; meaning by net profits that part of the grofs profit which remans after paying the labourer who works, and him who fuperintends; thatis, after deducting wages, and the profit received by a man trading on borrowed capital: for we must always keep in view a confideration, the omiffion of which, we will venture to affert, has milled almost all political inquirers, that the rent of land is, properly fpeaking, the net profit of stock advanced by the landlord, and that every thing which the farmer receives over and above the wages of his labour, is the profit of another ftock, which may be borrowed as well as the land; and in this cafe his whole profit refolves into wages-the cafe of a trader having no capital whatever. In both cafes, there is a clear gain; in both it is obtained in the fame way; in both diftributed among the fame claffes.

Let us, however, take an example or two, for the purpofe of

Z 4

comparing

comparing more clofely the productive with the unproductive kinds of labour. The perfon who makes a plough is, according to the Economifts, an unproductive labourer; but he who drives. it is a productive labourer. In what predicament, then, is the labourer who makes a hedge round a field for its protection, or a ditch for draining it? This operation, because it is called farm-work, is admitted by the Economists to be productive. But wherein does it differ from the plough manufacture? Both are alike fubfervient and neceffary to the operations of ploughing and reaping; both are alike performed by perfons who do not raife the produce that feeds them; and both are alike performed upon fome materials produced from the earth by other labour. If the plough were made in a bungling manner by farm-fervants in the out-houfes of the farm, we imagine the manufacture would of neceffity fall under the head of productive labour, as well as the work of hedging and ditching. AgainCapital employed by the corn-merchant in collecting and circulating grain, is most unproductively employed according to the Economists. But the capital employed in collecting feed in a barn, carrying it from thence to the field, and returning the crop at harvest, is employed in the most productive manner poflible. Can it be maintained that there is any difference whatever between these two cafes, neceffarily placed by the theory of the Economists at the oppofite extremes of their fcale? If the corn-merchant lived on the ground of the farmer, and if the farmer, from this convenient circumftance, were enabled to fell all his grain without having any barns or granaries, certain of fupplying himself at his own door next feed-time, the Economifts would be forced to allow that the capital of the corn-merchant, in fo far as it affifted the farmer, was productively employed.-Wherein lies the difference?-And thefe obfervations are applicable to every cafe of every manufacture, and every fpecies of commerce whatever. They apply to thofe kinds of employment which are fubfervient to the purposes of comfort and enjoyment, as well as to thofe which adminifter to our neceffary wants; for we showed, above, that there is no poffibility of drawing a line between the cafes, confiftently with principles admitted even by the Economists themselves. The foundation of all thefe mifapprehenfions is evidently laid in a neglect of the great principle of the divifion of labour. In whatever part of a community the labour connected with agriculture, immediately or remotely, is performed, the fubdivifion of the task renders it more productive than if it were carried on upon the farm itself and, to deny the fame properties to this labour, on ac

Count

count of its fubdivifion and accumulation in different quarters, is little less than a contradiction in terms.

There is only one view of the economical theory which remains to be taken; it is that most ingenious argument by which the followers of Quefnai attempt to prove that manufacturing labour only adds a value equal to its own maintenance. The above remarks may indeed fuffice for the refutation of this doctrine; but its peculiar demonftration merits feparate attention *. The works of the artizan, the Economifts maintain, are in a very different predicament from the produce of the agricultural labourer. Multiply the former beyond a certain extent, and either a part will remain unfold, or the whole will fell at a reduced price. Multiply the latter to any extent, and still the fame demand will exift, from the increafed number of confumers whom it will maintain. The labour of the artizan is therefore limited to a particular quantity; this quantity it will always nearly equal, but never exceed ; and the amount is determined by the competition of different artifts on the one hand, and the fixed extent of the demand on the other. The labour of the husbandman has no fuch limits. The extenfion of his productions neceffarily widens his market. The price of manufactures will therefore be reduced to the value of the raw material, of the workman's maintenance, and of his mafter's maintenance; while that of agricultural produce, having no fuch li mit, leaves always a net profit over and above the farmer's main

tenance.

In answer to this very fubtle argument, we may remark, that it proceeds on a total mifconception of the principle of popu lation. It is abfurd to fuppofe that the mere augmentation of agricultural produce extends the demand for it, by increasing the population of the community. If the loweft means only of fubfiftence are confidered, and if men will be contented to poffefs only the fimpleft food, without any raiment, then, no doubt, an increase of grain and roots may increase the numbers of the confumers. But is it not evident that men require more than the mere neceffaries of life, and that even those neceflaries are in part the production of manufacturing labour? Does not a perfon, in forming his estimate of a competency, take into the ac count articles of manufacture as well as hufbandry and furniture, clothes and luxuries, gratifications as well as meat and drink? The mere augmentation of thofe fimple neceffaries will never fenfibly increase the number of the confumers, any more than

the

* See this reafoning Aated repeatedly in Dialogue 2de, Phyfiocratie, P. 57.

the mere augmentation of articles of comfort and luxury. An increase in the production of the one clafs of commodities will operate exactly as powerfully on population, as an increafe in the production of the other clafs. In fact, an increase of either. may fomewhat affect the numbers of the confumers; but in or der to produce any confiderable augmentation of thofe numbers, the increase of both fpecies of produce must go on together. This argument, then, only leads us by a new, and certainly an unexpected road, to a novel conclufion in favour of the theory that utterly denies any diftinction between any of the applications of capital and industry, which are fubfervient to the wants and enjoyments of man.

III. The reasonings in which we have been engaged, will probably be deemed fufficient to authorise several positive inferences with refpect to the nature and fources of national wealth. We trust that enough has been faid to expofe the inaccuracy of drawing any line between the different channels in which capital and labour may be employed-of feparating, with Dr Smith and his followers, the operations of agriculture, manufactures and commerce, from thofe arts where nothing tangible is produced or exchanged-or of placing, with the Economists, the divifion fomewhat higher, and limiting the denomination of productive to agricultural employment alone. It may fafely be concluded, that all thofe occupations which tend to fupply the neceffary wants, or to multiply the comforts and pleafures of human life, are' equally productive in the ftrict fenfe of the word, and tend to augment the mafs of human riches, meaning by riches all thofe things which are neceffary or convenient or delightful to man. The progrefs of fociety has been attended with a complete feparation of employments originally u nited. At first, every man provided for his neceffities as well as his pleasures, and for all his wants as well as all his enjoyments. By degrees, a divifion of thefe cares was introduced; the fubfiftence of the community became the province of one clafs, its comforts of another, and its gratifications of a third. The different operations fubfervient to the attainment of each of thefe objects, were then entrusted to different hands; and the univerfal establishment of barter, connected the whole of the fe divifions and fubdivifions together; enabled one man to manufacture for all, without danger of ftarving by not ploughing or hunting and another to plough or hunt for all, without the risk of wanting tools and clothes by not manufacturing. It has thus become as impoffible to fay exactly who feeds, clothes and entertains the community, as it would be impoffible to fay which of the many workmen employed in the manufacture of pins is

the