If wealth alone, or the accumulation of wealth, is not the sole object of political economy, much less does it form the proper subject of its discussions. Whatever dispute may exist as to its being the object, none can as to its not forming the subject. No possible arrangement or application of articles of wealth could, by these means alone, create a single additional article. As an instrument in the creation of new wealth, wealth alone is wholly inoperative. It is indispensable that labour and land, with the creative agency of nature, be conjoined in co-operation with articles of wealth in the creation of further articles.

As an objection to the use of the term wealth to describe the subject of economical science, it may be remarked that it has many significations, and is therefore in itself indefinite. If we say that such and such measures are calculated to advance the wealth of a country, the term conveys the idea of quantity, and implies the abundance and excellence of the necessaries and superfluities of life. When we speak of a man of wealth, the idea of quantity is also conveyed. But when we say that such an article is an article of wealth, the accessory idea of abundance is not implied; and all that is meant is, that it is an article of that kind which, if it existed in abundance, in conjunction with an abundance of other things, would constitute a state of wealth. The same kind of article, however, if scantily supplied, in conjunction with a scanty supply of other things, would co-exist with a state of poverty, though itself an article of wealth. Again, when we say that agriculture is a source of wealth, abundance is not implied, and the term conveys the idea of the products of agriculture, whether they exist in large or small quantity, or be raised from one acre of land or from many. Wealth, and the sources of wealth, are, likewise, usually confounded. In common discourse it is said, that the wealth of a country consists in its land, its capital, and industry. But land, capital, and industry are rather sources of wealth than wealth itself; since they afford nothing for the supply of our wants unless they are employed. Industry, which is a sort of fictitious entity, is, clearly, not wealth, though a most important source of wealth. Thus the various significations and indeterminateness of the term wealth render its use objectionable, as being

liable to mislead. A term which has in common use a great many significations, is peculiarly liable in a process of reasoning to lead to erroneous conclusions, from the difficulty of always recollecting, and strictly adhering to, the precise and restricted sense in which it is used in the outset. This is a source of error to which even powerful minds are exposed, but still more minds of inferior power, or men who are little conversant with the subject, while the vulgar generally have adopted the term in its common and popular sense, without regard to the definitions and limitations of economists; and thus the term has proved a fruitful source of popular misconceptions and

errors.

But a stronger objection to this term lies in its not including the chief sources of our supply. These are land, capital, and labour. Yet of these three instruments in the creation of wealth, capital is the only one which comes within the definition, according to which economical science has reference only to "material articles acquired by labour." Land is "material," but was not "acquired by labour;" while industry is neither "material" nor" acquired by labour." "The workman comes out of the manufactory at night with the ten fingers which he took into it in the morning. He has left nothing material there. It is then an immaterial service which he has furnished towards the productive operation." Consequently, industry, without the exertion of which no single want to which humanity is exposed can be supplied, must be excluded from the subjects of economical science; since it is immaterial in its nature; while land, without the co-operation of which the exertions of industry would be fruitless, must likewise be left out. But much more important objects of attention and solicitude, both in an individual and in a national point of view, are the sources of wealth, than wealth itself. Unless the sources of our subsistence are regarded, we might, while rolling in abundance today, be in danger of want to-morrow. Objects of wealth are perishable in their nature. However great may be the amount of these objects which the industry of a community may at any time have acquired, they must soon be consumed. When they

* M. Say's Letters, p. 17.

are procured, little further care or labour is necessary as regards them, beyond that of preserving them from injury until their consumption take place. But the sources whence a continued supply of our wants may be obtained from day to day, and during the remainder of life, are the objects of men's most careful thoughts and anxieties. Hence our inquiries must have reference, not only to wealth, but to the sources whence it is drawn. To render prolific the sources of wealth is the grand object. It is then the sources, more than wealth itself, which form the proper subject of economical science. Its inquiries relate not so much to the actual products which past industry has created, and which may remain in existence unconsumed at any one time, as to the means by which a renewed supply to fill their places may be procured, when they themselves shall be consumed.

Yet in opposition to these views, Mr. M'Culloch says, "The results of the industry of man form the only objects with which the economist is conversant." And again, "Political economy might be defined to be the science of values; for, nothing which is not possessed of exchangeable value, or which will not be received as an equivalent for something else which it has taken some labour to produce or obtain, can ever properly be brought within the scope of its inquiries.' But if we must exclude from our subject every thing which is incapable of exchange, and destitute of exchangeable value, we must then exclude the powers of labour-the indispensable accompaniment to the supply of every object of human wants. Industry, skill, and science, are not capable of being exchanged; and, consequently, possess no value in exchange. Slave labour may, indeed, be bought and sold; but where the personal freedom of the subject is respected, the faculty of exerting labour, the source of wealth, cannot come into the market; and it is only the products of industry, not industry itself, which admit of exchange, and may possess exchangeable value. How then is it possible to admit the very limited and imperfect view of the science, which would shut out of its inquiries the sources of wealth, and confine its view to the "results of the industry of man," to things

Polit. Econ.

capable of being exchanged, and possessing value in exchange, without regarding the instruments by which those results are obtained?

Materiality is a property which economists insist on in every thing which can form the subject of their inquiries. Now the wants of mankind, which are both corporeal and intellectual, extend to immaterial objects, as well as to such as are material, and cannot be supplied by one kind alone. Among objects of an immaterial character, which form a part of the wants of mankind, may be enumerated the services performed by the statesman, the soldier, the lawyer, the judge, the physician, besides many others. The domestic services which are rendered to us contribute greatly to the comfort of life. In time of sickness especially, the attendance of nurses and servants is indispensable. Every useful talent and every useful service yields something to the wants or wishes of man, which it is the object of the exertion of industry to acquire. The talents of the author, the actor, the musician gratify the desires, and afford pleasure or instruction. Again, immaterial objects have a powerful effect on the supply of such as are material. Not only is the service which the workman contributes to productive operations immaterial, but so likewise is instruction of every kind, and all those studies by which skill and science are acquired and communicated, and which so eminently conduce to render human labours successful in the acquisition of material wealth. We ought not to confine our view to that instruction alone which immediately bears on the arts of life, we must comprise such as is of an indirect operation, but which nevertheless is scarcely less essential. Of this kind are the products of the labours of the metaphysician, the moralist, the divine. All human talents are immaterial, but the talents and labours of these men are not only immaterial themselves, the immediate products which they yield are likewise immaterial. Yet, in disciplining our passions, and rendering us submissive to all the laws of God and man," do they conduce both to the public interests of the state, and the private interests of individuals. They contribute to our good, not only as respects a future state of existence, but, in the present, to maintain or bring about an

66

order of things conducive to an abundance, secure possession, and enjoyment of material wealth; and are, consequently, indirectly, agents in the production of material wealth. But human industry and talents cannot properly be comprised in the term wealth, though they yield wealth when employed, both to their possessors and to the community. Land and capital do no more; for they yield nothing unless they are employed. If the sense of the term wealth were extended to comprehend industry, talents, and such like immaterial objects or immaterial sources of wealth, it would be so wide an extension and departure from common language as to appear absurd.

If the sources of wealth cannot be overlooked in our inquiries, one of which sources is immaterial in its nature, it follows, that susceptibility of accumulation, which necessarily implies materiality, is not a necessary property either of the subjects or objects of political economy. The wants and wishes of mankind extend to things which cannot be preserved and accumulated, as well as to things which can; and the labours both of individuals and of communities are undertaken for the acquisition of such things. The gratifications afforded by the services of a domestic, by the exertion of the talents of the actor or musician, are transitory; the results of their labours cannot be accumulated or preserved, as objects of wealth, to yield a future gratification. But every end of labour is here accomplished; they yield the present gratification sought for, which previously acquired wealth may have given the means of procuring, and a repetition of which gratification at some future time must, in part, be the object of a present acquisition or accumulation of material wealth. The circumstance of the impossibility of objects being accumulated or preserved to yield a future supply, cannot be a reason why they should be overlooked, when the present supply is equally essential, or, perhaps, more conducive to the happiness of the individual.

If then sound conclusions are expected from economical investigations, they must have reference both to our present and to our future supply; their premises must comprise the indirect as well as the direct agents of production, and the immaterial as well as the material sources of wealth. Their object,