propofed to difcufs the juftnefs and importance of Lord Lauderdale's difcoveries in political economy-his theory with refpect to the increafe of national wealth. He referves for the laft place, the confideration of the means by which wealth is augmented, and the circumftances that regulate its increafe,-beginning with an inquiry into the poffibility of increafing wealth by any way different from the mode of its production. We shall briefly confider the former of these topics, before we come to the latter, which is by much the moft paradoxical. The only means of increafing wealth are, according to Lord Lauderdale, agricultural and manufacturing induftry; and the latter produces this effect in a degree altogether inferior to the former. It is evident that our author here omits the effectual augmentation of wealth, caufed by that divifion of induftry and capital which is fubfervient to the collection and diftribution of the commodities produced by the labour of the agricultural and manufacturing claffes. That this alfo deferves a place in his enumeration, must be apparent to every one who reflects on the reafons urged above, to prove the impo.libility of apportioning to each occupation its peculiar fhare in the produc tion of wealth, and the abfurdity of drawing a line between operations precifely fimilar in their nature, as well as in their effects. The fame thing feems alfo demonftrated by thofe parts of Lord Lauderdale's own fpeculations, in which he defcribes the use of mercantile and circulating capital, and refolves it into a faving of labour. But our objections to the remaining part of this difcuffion are more fundamental. We find him arguing against Dr Smith and all other economical inquirers, that it is not the divifion of labour, but the power of fupplanting labour by machinery and capital, to which man owes his fuperiority over the lower animals, and which forms the mainspring of his increafing wealth. The divifion of labour he views as ufeful rather in refining and improving the more exquifite fpecies of commodities, than in augmenting our wealth. The ufe of machinery and capital alone is, according to him, the real, folid means of enriching the world. Now, with refpect to the use of capital in fupplanting labour, we have already fhown that capital only faves labour, by enabling man to fubdivide it, unlefs where it is directly vefted in machinery. The queftion is therefore reduced to a comparifon between the effects of fubdivifion of labour and machinery; and in this point of view the difcuffion is evidently, as our author would ftate it, extremely abfurd. For no one ever was thoughtless enough to argue, that any labour, or any divifion of occupa tions, could enable man to make a confiderable progrefs in im A a 2 proving proving his condition, without the affiftance of thofe material inftruments which conftitute machinery. The idea of defining man a tool-making animal, is at leaft as old as the earlier days of Dr Franklin. And that the perfection of tools is entirely owing to the manufacture of fuch implements becoming the peculiar care of a clafs different from that which ufes them, and to the till greater refinement of confining different fubordinate claffes to the manufacture of the various parts of each tool, is a truth, of which no man ever fhowed himfelf ignorant or carelefs, except the author of the work now before us. It deferves farther to be confidered, that the utmost perfection of the tool-making art, the contrivance of new combinations of tools whereby the power of labour is augmented, can only be afcribed to that uttermoft refinement in the divifion of labour, which forms a peculiar clafs of fuch men as Smeaton, and Bolton, and Watt, and Arkwright. The ufe and invention of machinery prefent, in fact, the most remarkable examples of the advantages derived from a divifion of labour. To contraft the benefits received from this divifion with thofe produced by the ufe of machinery, is as abfurd as to compare the effects of two circumftances intimately and neceffarily connected; the one, in fact, the immediate refult of the other, and both infeparably joined together in all their operations. It is like quibbling and difputing whether fire or gunpowder produce the greatest augmentation in the aggregate of killed and wounded. But the most remarkable branch of Lord Lauderdale's fpeculations on the increafe of wealth, is that in which he denies the poffibility of augmenting national opulence by any other than the means of its production. He modifies this pofition, however, in a very material degree, when he comes to his demonstration. At first, we are led to fuppofe that he means roundly to deny the reality of the difference which accumulation makes upon the fum-total of wealth; and indeed all his general affertions, efpe'cially his invectives against those who prefer the conduct of the thrifty to that of the prodigal, warrant the idea of accumulation being, in our author's opinion, injurious to fociety. Afterwards, however, when he comes to argue the matter more methodically, we find that his reafons apply merely to the excefs of accumulation; and the only inference to which they lead is, that capital may be heaped up, by parfimony, fo as to exceed the amount which can be profitably employed. This he proves by a variety of illuftrations, in our opinion quite fuperfluous. He quotes, for example, the common faying of farmers, as much has been done for that field as poffible;' (p. 223.) He shows, at great length length, that the production of any valuable commodity fuits itfelf to the effectual demand for it; and accufes Dr Smith of 'unaccountable inconfiftency' (p. 221.) for admitting this pofition, and at the fame time defending the plan of accumulation. But, what is rather more than fuperfluous in our author, and what favours ftrongly of this very inconfiftency in one who denies the general benefits of accumulation, he accufes Mr Hume of inattention to the powers of human invention in contriving means of fupplanting labour, because that excellent writer ftates a part of the argument againft unlimited accumulation, viz. the neceffary checks which wealth provides to its farther increase," (p. 298.) It is abundantly clear, that the very power here brought up in answer to Mr Hume, is one of the reafons for believing in the effects of accumulated wealth. It is because new capital, i. e. ftock not confumed but faved, gives employment to new men, and fuftenance to increafed numbers of inhabitants, and because it exercises the inventive powers of its poffeffors, that its accumulation may fairly be faid to have no defineable bounds. That all expenditure is to be condemned as ruinous beyond what is abfolutely neceffary for fuftaining life, is a doctrine never maintained by any reafoner worth refuting; it is a doctrine uniformly difcountenanced by the tenor of the preceding pages. Neither did any one ever think that capital could in no fituation be heaped up to excefs; on the contrary, the hiftory of feveral countries has diftinctly proved the poffibility of fuch an event. If the state is thoroughly peopled and cultivated; if its extent is fo fmall, as to leave no room for great agricultural or manufacturing improvements; if its foreign commerce has attained the greatest height which the parfimony of its inhabitants enables it to attain by a diminution of profits; if nothing but the acquifition of new territories, a recourfe to the colonial fyftem, or an emigration of its capital and people, can fave the wealth of the country from being at a ftand; any farther accumulation of ftock by parfimony must then be unneceffary, as no new channels of employment can be opened. Holland has long nearly reached this point; and England feems tending towards it, if the does not, as will be the neceflary effect of her farther progress in accumulation of capital, attend more to her domeftic agriculture, and the improvement of her noble colonies. If, then, by accumulation, our author means only too great accumulation of ttock, (that is, a greater aggregation of capital by parfimony, than can be employed), we have only to deny the novelty or importance, not certainly to difpute the truth of his doctrine. But we muit add, that the fame doctrine must be extended to all accumulation of capital whatever; for, whether the stock of a community is made greater by a retrenchment of expenditure, Aa3 expenditure, or by an augmentation of production, the impofi bility of finding profitable employment for the fuperfluous wealth must be equally apparent. The only difference is, that this impoflibility will, in the one cafe, force the parfimonious to enjoy what they formerly accumulated; and, in the other cafe, it will force them to enjoy more than ever they could afford to confume. If, however, our author means to deny, in general, the powers of parfimony to increafe wealth, we muft remind him that it is only by faving out of the revenue of the community that it ever can be augmented at all; for furely it requires no form of reafoning to prove, that if all the return, i. e the confumeable ca pital with its profits, were confumed in one year, nothing but the land and water would remain for the next; and that if this year's addition, i. e. the net profits of the capital for one year, were wholly confumed, the fociety would be no richer this year than the laft. An author whofe main doctrine is, that capital acts as a machine, in fupplanting labour and increafing the natural powers of man, cannot certainly maintain, as a corollary from his propofition, that the confumption, in other words the deftruction, of this machine, makes no difference upon the aggregate of valuable poffeffions. Lord Lauderdale applies, at very great length, his doctrine of accumulation to the plan of paying off public debts by finking funds. He is peculiarly fevere upon Mr Pitt's celebrated scheme for this purpofe; and, indeed, feems difpofed to treat all fuch projects with confiderable levity and contempt. The obfervations offered above feem to furnish a fufficient anfwer to his reafoning on this topic. We request the noble author's attention, however, to the following particulars, which his leaning towards a paradox, and his apparent prejudice againtt the fcheme we have mentioned, appear to have kept entirely out of his view. 1. When Lord Lauderdale ridicules the idea of money increafing ad infinitum by compound intereft, and treats as abfurd the calculations that have been inftituted with respect to the fum which a penny laid out in this way eighteen hundred years ago would now have produced, he utterly forgets the neceffary conditions of the queftion, viz. that a revenue thould always exift at least ) proportional to the augmentation of the original fum. For, who ever maintained that, in point of fact, a penny would now produce five hundred millions of fold globes of gold, when a millionth part of fo much gold never exifted in the world? If, however, the penny had been laid out at compound intereft, and if the process of its accumulation did not alter (as it must have done) done) the rate of its profits, no one can deny that the holder who fo employed it, would long ere now have been poffeffed of all the gold in the world, and even of all that new gold which the demand would have tended to produce. It never was imagined that the operation of compound intereft actually created metal, or made the penny a globe of gold; but only that it transferred a conftantly increasing amount of gold into the accumulator's hands. 2. When Lord Lauderdale recommends us to leave the parfimonious plan of accumulating by finking funds, he fhould remember that this parfimony is only intended to correct the evil effects of former prodigality. No one can deny that the immenfe fums formerly withdrawn from private revenue, and wastefully spent by the public, would have accumulated, in the interval, by the thourfand proceffes of private ingenuity and parfmony. The finking fund only reftores fuch fums to their former proprietors, who receive them gradually, and place them in the channels left empty by the loans originally contracted. 3. If any fudden payment of a large capital of debt were made, no doubt it would be inconvenient to the public creditor, who might not find it easy to difcover means of employing it; but if paid piecemeal, it will eafily find means of investment, even though it is fuppofed to be conftantly created and not shifted; unless we imagine that all the channels of trade, manufactures, and agriculture, whether domeftic or colonial, are abfolutely full of as much ftock as they can receive. 4. Let it, however, be remembered, that the capital paid off by any operation of a finking fund, must have previously exifted in the form of revenue. The ftate muft have received it in taxes upon individuals who had produced it as profit from time to time. The capital, therefore, is only transferred, nay more, would actually have exifted, had it not paffed through the hands of the government; for part of it has been neceffarily expended as revenue, by the managers of the funds, which would have remained in the hands of the proaucers, had there been no impoft levied. We have fhown, in another place, that the proper annual fund of taxation is the overplus of the net profits of the community in each year, which remains after defraying the capitalifts' expences. The effect of the impofts muft no doubt be, in fome cafes, to diminifh expenditure; but, in the great proportion of inftances, it must neceffarily fall upon that portion of the clear annual gains which, if left untouched, would have gone to increafe the capital, and be employed in gaining new profits. As much of this portion, then, as is raised by impoft, and convert A a 4 ed, |