employed by their possessors for the attainment of certain ends for themselves; and the purpose of economical inquiry is to exhibit the causes of the degree of success or failure which under different circumstances attends such employment; and to show how such a disposition, arrangement, combination, regulation, and direction of them may be made, as shall most successfully insure to the community at large from that employment such good things as individuals seek by industry to acquire for themselves. That which men pursue as the object of their personal industry, is likewise the object of our studies: the one may be considered as the hand, the other the head; both directed to the same end. The design of the direction of national industry is to facilitate labour and augment its powers, that thus, not only wealth may be created, but the labour and toil of its acquisition may be lessened, and that measure of ease and leisure afforded which is indispensable to the enjoyment of acquired wealth; for following those pursuits which interest or amuse, and for presenting the pecuniary means and opportunity of drawing pleasures from every innocent source of human gratification. The subject of our investigations is, however, not so much the labour and property of single individuals or classes, as those of a whole community; and the aim of the regulation of social industry is the attainment of objects, not for the benefit of particular individuals or classes at the cost of other individuals or classes, but for their good without such cost, or what may be termed for the common good. Thus, our subject is, the phenomena which human industry in a state of society presents, the order in which facts occur, the chain which connects them; in short, the natural laws which govern the exercise of social industry. Every kind of industry is susceptible of legislative regulation or of individual guidance, from motives of private or of public interest; and therefore, in the management of every kind of industry, a knowledge of these laws is useful. Such are the views which we take of political economy.

Whence the criticism that has been now offered on the term wealth, is not of a mere verbal and barren kind, without results. It is one from which the whole aspect of the inquiry becomes changed, and for want of which, misapprehensions, ob

scurities, and errors have arisen, that have hitherto proved most mischievous impediments to the proper consideration of our subject.

If it be said that the field of investigation now presented is too wide for one department of science, which ought to be confined within more precise limits, let it be shown what part of it can safely be omitted. Be it recollected, however, that, if we err in this respect, it is a fault on the safe side. If a subject be too extensive, it may be the more difficult to handle, but it is not from its extent the more likely to lead us wrong. On the other hand, reasonings too circumscribed, or proceeding on too narrow data, cannot miss of being either imperfect or altogether fallacious guides.

Since the object of labour, of study, or contrivance, is to procure those things only which are held in some degree of estimation, and of these, such only as do not, without our labour or care, exist in sufficient abundance, or of sufficient excellence of quality, to satisfy our wants or wishes; so, in like manner, the investigations of the economist are subject to the same limitations. That which has no utility or desirableness, is below our notice. Those things, likewise, which, though they minister to human wants or desires, yet exist in sufficient abundance for the satisfaction of all, without our care or intervention; as the air, water, and the light and heat of the sun, it would evidently be needless to bring within the scope of our inquiries.

If this statement of the subject on which we are about to enter be sufficient to explain its nature, a formal definition is uncalled for. The terms which are used, are for the most part employed in their common and popular sense, so that there is no need to explain the meaning attached to them, or to restrict it in any way; neither is there a danger of misapprehension or misrepresentation from a confined or unusual signification being assigned to the words employed.

In characterizing our subject as the Industry of Nations, and avowing that our inquiries relate to those circumstances which affect the subsistence of the people, the supply of those wants, and the gratification of those wishes, which may be satisfied through the instrumentality of industry, we avoid the necessity

of entering into a laboured refutation of the great error into which the French economists have fallen, in concluding that agriculture is the only source of national wealth, and that manufacturing industry is unproductive of wealth, because the manufacturer does no more than add to the material the value of the subsistence he consumes while at work. If even these positions were true, and if wealth and value were not increased by manufacturing industry, this circumstance would by no means affect our reasoning; since it is neither wealth nor value that forms the subject of our discussion. It is plain, that our wants extend to clothing, to lodging, to fuel, and other things, as well as to food, and that the object of our labours is the gratification of mental as well as of corporeal desires. Not less essential to the supply of these wants and desires are appropriative, manufacturing, and commercial industry, than agricultural; nor, exertions which communicate pleasure or instruction to the mind, than those which procure food or clothing for the body. In our inquiries, accordingly, such labours hold in importance an equal rank with those of agriculture. Our end being the same as that of labour-subsistence for the present, and laying up in store provision for the future; whether this be acquired by devoting labour to agriculture or to manufactures is to us altogether immaterial; except, indeed, that there is usually a better chance of making a fortune in the latter than in the former. It is not to be wondered at that the conclusions of the French economists should be different from ours, since the subject and object of inquiry in the two cases are different. The intended object of their inquiries may indeed be the same as our own; but, notwithstanding this, since they reason from different data, the legitimate conclusions at which they arrive cannot but be different. It cannot, however, require to be proved, that appropriative and manufacturing industry, which collect and adapt raw materials to our use, are productive of wealth; and that though in their production wealth is consumed, yet it is less in quantity than the wealth produced; every end of labour, whether individual or national, being answered in this way, the same as in agricultural industry. But when we find that strict reasonings lead to conclusions opposed to fact, what else can it show than

that there is something wrong in the outset? And what other lesson can it teach than to avoid the source from which such errors flow?

Since the public welfare is the object of the economist, and not the private interest of any particular individual or class, the question arises, in what manner is the public welfare to be operated upon? In reply it may be observed, that the public welfare, as it is made up of that of individuals, can only be increased or diminished through the augmentation or diminution of the welfare of individuals. In endeavouring then to discover the sources of national wealth and universal prosperity, and the means by which the general interest may be best advanced, we can only hope to succeed by seeking after the means by which the interests of individuals may be best promoted. But as this cannot be effected by those means through which the interest of one individual or class may be advanced, at the expense in an equal measure of the interest of some other individual or class; because to enrich one class by the impoverishment to the same extent of some other class, cannot advance the welfare of the whole, it must be by the use of such means as do not interfere with the interests of others. The welfare of every class is of equal value in the estimation of the economist; no other distinction existing than that of the magnitude of the class. But whatever enriches an individual without trenching on the interests of other individuals, or by intrenching on them only in a less degree on one hand than the amount of benefit accruing on the other, increases the sum of public wealth. On the other hand, by whatever means a person suffers, without a corresponding gain to some one or more other persons, the public loses. Thus economical science has regard, not to what may be imagined an abstract public opulence, irrespective of individuals, but to the means of advancing the private interests of individuals limited always to such as consist with the good of others; because it is only by such that the public interest can be promoted; and limited always, again, by those rules of justice between man and man, the obligation of which is equally binding in public as in private matters.

Accordingly, political economy concerns not only statesmen,

but individuals, and applies in a measure to the direction of private as well as of public affairs.

Individual riches are to be acquired by two different methods; the one of which is wholly within the direction and control of individuals, and the other within those of the community alone. Of the first kind are, the application of intelligence, prudence, and diligence to business, the economic arrangement of the farm or factory, and the like; circumstances upon which municipal regulation has little or no effect. Of the other kind are, the effecting such an arrangement and application of the whole industry of the community as shall most conduce to the general interest, and affording to the public those services and facilities which can never be so well performed as through legislative enactments, and by the executive power.

We cannot subscribe to the doctrine that "The greatest happiness of the community, is the true and only end of all institutions." So neither can we admit, that it is the province of government to advance the wealth of the community over which it presides. The duties of the statesman are confined within other and narrower limits. The legitimate province of the government extends not beyond the protection of the public and private rights of individuals and of the community, and the performance of certain duties which afford facilities to the exertions of industry; leaving to the people to avail themselves of the favourable circumstances in which they are placed for the attainment of wealth and happiness. These must depend upon themselves; the course for their attainment being unobstructed. Without their exertions, the wisest laws, and the best administration of them, would be ineffectual. If it were otherwise, the poverty and misery of the people might be charged to the errors, the vices, or neglect of government, when perhaps they should really be laid to the account of their own indolence, ignorance, improvidence, or profligacy.

But though it is not the province of government directly to advance the wealth of the community, yet a knowledge of the circumstances under which the industry of the people may be most successfully exerted in acquiring wealth, is essential to the statesman; in order that, in the performance of the duties of