NATIONAL SYSTEM sf. OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. FREDERICK LIST.

 PREFACIO A LA EDICIÓN AMERICANA. (por el traductor.)

Frederick List* was born, the 6th August, 1789, at Reutlingen, a free city of Suabia. His early education was incomplete. At the Classical School he exhibited so little taste for its studies, that his father withdrew him ; but as he showed equal indisposition to learn his father's business, he was subsequently left to shape his own education. This he did, however, to such purpose, that we find him, in 1816, hold- ing an appointment in the Central Administration of Wurtemberg, in which he justified the confidence placed in him by a distinguished statesman, the Minister Wangenheim, who offered his young assistant, in the following year, the chair of Political Economy, in the University of Tübingen. List accepted this position.

He tells us in the Preface to his National System, that the principle of free trade was one of the first encountered in his new career. " It seemed to me at first reasonable ; but gradually I satisfied myself that the whole doctrine was applicable and sound only when adopted by all nations. Thus I was led to the idea of nationality; I found that the theorists kept always in view mankind and man, never separate nations. It became then obvious to me, that between two advanced countries, a free competition must necessarily be advantageous to both, if they were upon the same level of industrial progress ; and that a nation, unhappily far behind as to industry, commerce and navigation, and which possessed all the material and moral resources for its development, must above every thing put forth all its strength to sustain a struggle with nations already in advance." 

In his chair, as well, as in the periodicals, he advocated political re- forms design-ad to promote the welfare of his country ; but in his earnest advocacy, he failed to preserve a desirable caution and prudence ; hence, he was soon exposed to persecutions, the result of which rendered himrestless and unhappy. This condition accompanied him almost all his life ; he had in many respects outstripped his age, and conscious of his genius, he could not easily bear to be trammelled in the range of his ideas. The reader of his book must be struck with his rapidity of thought, and the sagacity of his views. 

Whilst in Tübingen, he conceived the idea of establishing an associa- tion of merchants and manufacturers, the aim of which was to obtain the suppression of customs on the interior boundaries of the GermanStates ; then, by the aid of a common system of customs on the exterior frontiers of Germany, to attain the same industrial and commercial de- velopment which other nations had succeeded in obtaining by their commercial policy. 

A change in the ministry, by which his friends ceased to be in power, induced him to tender his resignation as a professor. He withdrewto private life, and devoted his leisure to various literary works, especially to an annotated translation of J. B. Say's Political Economy.Important events induced him to hasten from these labors to Paris. There, in 1823, he became acquainted with Lafayette, who offered to take him to America and to befriend him. The love of List for his country prevented him at that time from accepting a proposition so nattering; but when he found that he could no longer be of any service to it, he determined, in 1825, to join Lafayette in America. List foundthe General in Philadelphia, and received from him a most kind reception. At Lafayette's special request, List accompanied him on his triumphal tour among the American people, and on that occasion he became acquainted with many of the most distinguished statesmen in the United States.

After much inquiry and examination, List became an inhabitant of Pennsylvania, purchased a farm near Harrisburg, and lived there with his family ; but fever and other circumstances prevented success in his* agricultural labors. He went thence to Reading, where he published a G-erman paper. At the request of Charles J. Ingersoll, President of the Pennsylvanian Society for the Advancement of Manufactures and Arts, List published, in the National Zeitung, a series of letters, on the subject of free trade, which were republished in very many journals, and to the number of several thousand copies, in the form of pamphlets, by the above named Society, with the title : Outlines of a New System of Political Economy. These letters were favorably received by the most eminent men of the country, such as James Madison, Henry Clay, Edward Livingston, etc. That Society expressed its thanks to List for the publication of his Outlines of a System of American Political Economy, by which he had rendered a real service to the United States. The Society invited List to prepare two other works ; the one, elaborate and profound, in which his theory was to be fully developed ; the other, popular, and fitted to become a school-book. The Society undertook on its part to use every effort to give a wide circulation to these works, and invited the Legislatures of the States interested in the American system to follow its example.

 From that time List gave himself up with ardor to the preparation of a work on Political Economy, of which he had completed the Introduction, when his labors were arrested by a fortunate occurrence.

 This happy event was the discovery by List of the rich coal-measures since known as the Tamaqua mines. t A company with a capital of $700,000 was formed; the mines were opened; and to bring them into communication with the Schuylkill Canal, a railroad from Tamaqua to Port Clinton was projected by List. The business soon promised to be highly successful, and our Author's cares seemed to be at an end. 

With more prosperous circumstances, List experienced the desire of revisiting his native country. Germany was at the bottom of all his plans. In the solitude of the Blue Mountains he dreamed of a network of railroads in a German Union. He left America in 1830, before the completion of the Tamaqua Ptailroad, undertaken at his suggestion. 

Upon leaving, President Jackson gave him a mission in reference to  the commercial relations of the United States with France, and appointed him also American Consul for Hamburg.

  Soon after his arrival at Paris, List opened a communication with several journals, and became actively engaged in discussing economical and commercial reforms in France. He resigned his Consulship, returned to America in 1831 to give an account of his mission, and re-embarked for Europe in 1832 with a fortune, regarded by him as an in- dependence, and with the honorary title of United States Consul for Leipzig. He began at once to disseminate his favorite idea of a network of railroads in G-ermany. But a little time, however, had elapsed when, upon his return from one of his frequent excursions, he received the intelligence that he was almost wholly ruined by a financial revulsion in the United States. He again left Germany for Paris, and betook himself anew to the composition of his National System : but his restlessness soon carried him back to Germany. "I left France," he somewhere remarks," because the French take no pleasure in anything but war and theatres." 

His National System appeared in 1841, and its success was immense. He afterwards edited the Zoll-vereins Blatt, a periodical established at his instance in 1843 by Baron Cotta, in which he exhibited remarkable talent as a journalist. Without any official situation, without title or fortune, though his doctrines were attacked upon every side, he became a prominent m<m by the single prestige of his talent and character.

 The dispatches of the English ministers on the continent signalized him to the London Cabinet as a dangerous enemy, on account of his endeavoring to rescue his country completely from the manufacturing monopoly of England. List denied positively that he harbored anyhatred against England ; for he acknowledged that by attempting to reach manufacturing and commercial supremacy she had mightily contributed to increase the productive power of mankind ; but what he detested with all his heart, was that grasping temper of England which induces her to covet all the world for a market, which scarce allows any other nation to rise above dependence, and asks Germany to swallow the potion manufactured by her cupidity as a product of science and philanthropy.

He had reached the climax of his influence, when, at the age of nearly sixty, he wrote to a friend that, afflicted with infirmities, he looked to the future with anxiety, and, that if he was strong enough, he would for the third time visit America, whither his friends strongly invited him.

In 1846, the league and free trade triumphed in England. List could not resist the desire of then visiting London ; he went there and soon found himself in communication with his three chief adversaries, Bowring, MacGregor, and Cobden. The coolness with which the statesmen of England received a paper which List prepared at the instance of the Prussian Minister, on the subject of an union between England and Germany, made his stay in England far from agreeable. 

He returned to Germany in failing health, and soon after died at Kufstein, in the Tyrol, on the 30th November, 1846, on a journey undertaken for his health, and to find some relief from his sufferings. The alternations of fortune and misfortune had wholly absorbed the springs of that energetic and vigorous, but restless and feverish nature. 

List enjoys high repute upon various grounds—as a politician, a pro- moter of rail-roads, and of the Zoll-verein ; but chiefly as an economist.

 As a politician, he was ever a partisan of liberal ideas, local liberties, and a persevering antagonist of centralization. 

As a promoter of rail-roads, few have done more. The dis- covery of the coal-mines of Tamaqua, and the construction of the rail- roads connected with it, gave a vigorous impulse to his studies on public economy : he says : —" I had not hitherto comprehended the importance of ways of communication, except according to the theory of values; I had not noticed their results except in their details, and with regard to the extension of markets, as well as to the diminution of the prices of material products. Then I commenced to consider them in view of the theory of productive power, and in their collective action as a National System of communications, consequently in relation to their influence upon the moral and political existence, upon the social connexions, the productive forces, and the power of nations." 

To whomsoever may belong the first idea of the German CustomsUnion, (the Zoll-verein) and many attribute it to List himself; it may be safely said that no unofficial man contributed more to further its pro- gress and secure its final establishment than List. For these labors Germany owes him a debt of gratitude, which the extraordinary success of his writings shows a willingness to acknowledge. 

As an economist, he has distinguished himself by many works, but more especially by his National System of Political Economy, published with his other writings in Stuttgart and Tübingen, in 1850, by Louis Hausser, Professor of History in the University of Heidelberg", a friend of List's family. The National System has been annotated and ably translated into French, and published in Paris, 1851, by Henry Richelot, a distinguished economist, author of several works, among which is one upon the " German Customs-Union." * The translation now made from the German, reproduces rather the spirit than the letter of List ; but it is faithful. List's notes have been retained, as well as Richelot's, as far at least as they were considered appropriate to an American Edition.

 The grand characteristic of List's system is nationality. His edifice is built upon the idea of nations as they are. Contrary to the usual course of economists, who study how mankind can attain to a condition of well-being, List shows how a nation in given circumstances, can by means of agriculture, manufacturing industry, and commerce, reach a state of prosperity, civilization and power. He protests against the empty theory which overlooks nationality and national interests; or which, if it considers, defaces them by cosmopolitical views. He con- tends that the School, by which term he designates the disciples of Adam Smith and Say, erroneously assumes a state of things as realized which is yet to come ; for, admitting the existence of an universal as- sociation and the certainty of perpetual peace, we cannot extract from such a false hypothesis the doctrine of free trade, as a principle or an economical theory. List insists upon the necessity of acknowledging that the nation intervenes between man and mankind, with its particular language, its literature, its history, its habits, its laws, its insti- tutions, its right to existence, to independence, to progress, and to a distinct territory; in a word, its personality, and all the rights and duties it involves. 

Thus nationality is the ruling idea of the book ; but with his vigo- rous mind and clear intelligence, he enlarges it until it comprehends every topic of human welfare. Upon that idea is based his National System of Political Economy. In Political Economy he includes that part of science which treats of international commerce. It is this very idea of nationality which leads him, who has done so much for commercial liberty, to the restrictive system. With him, liberty is the end to which man must tend, but which cannot be reached at a bound, and should not be reached without carrying human welfare with it. Restrictions, he acknowledges, impose at times an inconvenience in the increased price of commodities ; but that evil soon finds ample compensation in the durable increase of productive power; a power much more valuable than the values it creates.

 As to the application of restrictive measures, it will be noted with what caution he proposes and would enforce them. They must be employed, he says, with discretion, and be reserved for important industries, the success of which is necessary to the national welfare; protection must be accorded only so far as it is useful for the industrial education of a nation ; that end obtained, protection must cease. Protection is the means, liberty, _the end. 

List's idea has not its source in a theory, but in observation, in history; and this point of view is the right one. He was so little in- clined to make a theory, that he was perplexed about the title National System. He would have preferred one indicating that the conclusions to which he had arrived were the result of his researches in the domain of history. List does not pretend, like the School, to have furnished the world with a social panacea, or a new science.

 We close by a quotation from the Author's Preface, in which, after having spoken of his studies and travels in the most important European States, he adds: 

" My destiny having afterwards again conducted me to the United States, I left behind all my books ; they would but lead me astray there. The best book on Political Economy in that new country is the volume of life. There we see solitudes rapidly converted into rich and powerful States. There only have I obtained a clear idea of the gradual development of the economy of a people. A progress, which in Europe required the lapse of centuries, is accomplished there under the eyes of a single observer ; there, society is seen passing from the savage state to pastoral life ; from this condition to agriculture ; and from agriculture to manufactures and commerce. There, one may easily observe how the rent of land rises gradually from nothing to its highest range. There, the plainest farmer knows better than the most sagacious of the learned men of the Old World the means of making agriculture prosperous, and augmenting rents; he endeavors to attract manufactures to his neighborliood. There the contrasts between agricultural and manufacturing countries are exemplified in the most decided manner, and cause the most disastrous revulsions. Nowhere are modes of communication for trade and travel, and their influence on the moral and material life of the people, better appreciated. That book I have read earnestly and assiduously, and lessons drawn from it I have tried to compare and arrange with the results of my previous studies, experience, and reflections." He has given us a system which, however defective it may still appear, is at least not founded upon a vague cosmopolitism, but on the nature of things, upon the lessons of history and the wants of nations. This system offers a mode of reconciling theory with practice, and ren- ders Political Economy accessible to every cultivated mind; a science which has hitherto, by its pompous, scientific phraseology, its contradictions, and its vicious terminology, defied comprehension and resisted common sense. 

GK A. Matile.

The Translator's Preface 

Preliminary Essay j^ji 

National System of Political Economy. —Introduction 61 

CHAPTER I. Italy 83 

CHAPTER II. Hanse Towns 90 

CHAPTER III. Flanders and Holland 103 

CHAPTER IV. England 130

 CHAPTER V. Spain and Portugal ftt 

CHAPTER VI. France J4d 

CHAPTER VII. Germany %fff (xiii) XIV CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER VIII. Page Russia 160 

CHAPTER IX. United States of North America -. 166 

CHAPTER X. Lessons from History 178 

BOOK II. —THEORY. 

CHAPTER I. Political Economy and Cosmopolite Economy 189  

CHAPTER II. The Theory of Productive Forces and the Theory of Values 208 

CHAPTER III. National Division of Labor and the Association of the Productive Forces of a Country 228 

CHAPTER IV. Private Economy and National Economy 243 

CHAPTER V. Nationality and the Economy of a Nation 262 

CHAPTER VI. The Economy of the People and the Economy of the State. —Political Economy and National Economy 281 

CHAPTER VII. Of Manufacturing Industry, and of the Personal, Social, and Political ^Productive Forces or Powers of a Country 282 

CHAPTER VIII. Page Manufacturing Industry and the Natural Productive Forces of a Country 294 

CHAPTER IX. Manufacturing Industry and Instrumental Forces, or the Material Capital of a Country 306 

CHAPTER X. Manufacturing Industry and Agricultural Interests 316 

CHAPTER XI. Manufacturing Industry and Commerce -. . .-^- 338 

CHAPTER XII. Manufacturing Industry, Naval and Mercantile Marine, and Colonization 350 

CHAPTER XIII. Manufacturing Industry and the Instruments of Circulation 353 

CHAPTER XIV. Manufacturing Industry and the Principle of Permanency and Progress. 373 

CHAPTER XV. Manufacturing Industry and Stimulants to Production and Consumption 380 

CHAPTER XVI. Duties upon Imports and Exports, considered as a powerful means of creating and strengthening the Manufacturing Industry of the Country 385 

CHAPTER XVII. Import Duties and the Reigning School 394  

BOOK III. — SYSTEMS. 

CHAPTER I. Page The Italian Economists 408 

CHAPTER II. The Industrial System, improperly called the Mercantile System 411 

CHAPTER III. The School of the Physiocrats, or the Agricultural System 417 

CHAPTER IV. The System of Exchangeable Value, improperly called by the School the Industrial System. —Adam Smith 420 

CHAPTER V. Continuation of the foregoing —J. B. Say and his School 426 

BOOK IV. —PUBLIC POLICY. 

CHAPTER I. Insular Supremacy. —The Continental Powers. —North America and France 437 

CHAPTER II. Insular Supremacy and the German Customs-Union 458 

CHAPTER III. Continental Policy 476 

CHAPTER IV. Commercial Policy of Germany 488

PEELIMINAET ESSAY, (BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.) 

It is known to those conversant with the literature of Political Economy, that very great differences of opinion have existed not only in reference to the definitions, but to the terminology of this science. Its masters have not been in harmony as to the ground covered, nor as to the special terms in which its truths or laws were to be expressed. Certain Authors have attained higher repute than others, and the science has been taught, so far as it has been made a subject of special instruction, chiefly from them, or abridgments of them. In the United States it has been taught either directly from Smith's Wealth of Nations or Say's Political Economy, or from books deriving their doctrines mainly from these two writers. The works now extant expressly de- voted to this subject are counted by hundreds, and the Authors are not only many of them of equal ability to the two named, but in not a few instances they are men of larger capacity, better preparation, and superior advantages. Some of them are of high authority, and so regarded by the special disciples of that School of Political Economy, of which Adam Smith is the acknowledged head, and Say an authoritative exponent. A very little attention to the current of these writings will satisfy any intelligent and candid inquirer that it is necessary to go far beyond the works of Smith and Say to ascertain what are at present the pre- vailing opinions of professed political economists; and a pretty extensive survey will be necessary to show what is the present condition of the science. The discordant views of writers, and the want of agreement in the use of terms, early attracted the attention of the leading writers, and scarcely a volume or a tract appeared upon this topic in which some effort was not made to harmonize repugnant positions, and settle the meaning of terms. In regard to the latter difficulty, an elaborate effort was made in 1827, by Archbishop Whateley,* in the Appendix to his work on Logic. He remarks that " the terms of this science are drawn from common discourse, and seldom carefully defined by the writers who employ them ; hardly one of them has any settled or invariable meanirjg, and their ambiguities are perpetually overlooked." The words to which he refers are Value, Wealth, Labor, Capital, Rent, Wages, Profits. Under each of these words he places the definitions of various writers, differing so widely that it seems strange a science could hold together cemented by such phraseology. The authors to whom he refers are Adam Smith, J. B. Say, Ricardo, Malthus, Storch, Sismondi, Mill, Torrens, McCulloch; and among these veterans in the science he finds occasion for this special effort to settle the meaning of the important terms above mentioned. Archbishop Whateley was dissatisfied even with the name Political Economy, and proposed Catallactics as better designating the nature of the science. One work upon the subject, published in 1842, with the pseudoniin of Patrick Plough, has that title. In the same year, 1827, T. R. Malthus, author of the work on Population, published " Definitions of Political Economy, preceded by the rules which ought to guide political economists in the definition and use of their terms, with remarks on the deviation from these rules in their writings." •' The differences of opinion among political economists have of late been a frequent subject of complaint," is the remark with which he commences his Preface ; and the work to which he addresses himself in the volume, is an examination of the definitions of the French economists, of Adam Smith, J. B. Say, Ricardo, James Mill, McCulloch, and Bailey. That the criticism bestowed by Malthus on these eminent writers is not yet out of season, and that the occasion for it has not passed away in twenty-five years, is shown by the appearance of a new edition in London, in 1853, with notes by John Cazenove. " The Logic of Political Economy, by Thomas De Quincy," published in London, 1844, was written expressly to correct some errors in the logic and terminology of the science.^ In his estimation : — " Political Economy does not advance. Since the revolution effected in that science by Ricardo, (1817), upon the whole it has been stationary.

But why ? It has always been my own conviction that the reason lies in the laxity of some, amongst the distinctions which are elementary to the science. For example, that one desperate enormity of vicious logic which takes place in the ordinary application to price of the relation between supply and demand, has ruined more arguments dispersed through speeches» books, journals, than a long life could fully expose. Let us judge by analogy drawn from Mathematics. If it were possible that but three ele- mentary definitions, or axioms, or postulates, should be liable to contro- versy and to a precarious use, (a use dependent upon petition, momentary consent), what would follow? Simply this, that the whole vast aerial synthesis of that science at present towering upwards towards infinity, would exhibit an edifice eternally, perhaps, renewing itself by parts, but eternally tottering in some parts, and in other parts mouldering eternally into ruins." After another illustration from the science of Astronomy, the author pro- ceeds : —" Such, even to this moment, as to its practical applications, is the science of Political Economy. Nothing can be postulated ; nothing can be demonstrated." The whole work consists of an acute examination of the errors of Political Economy so far as they come within the range of his object. He devoted himself specially to the vindication of Ricardo. Another effort to define this science, worthy of special mention, ia that of John Stuart Mill, whose "Essays on some unsettled questions of Political Economy" appeared in 1844.* They are the more worthy of attention, as Mr. Mill was not only an eminent Political Economist, but skilled in logic and precise in language. He excuses the want of good definitions by saying that many of the acknowledged sciences are deficient in this respect, and that good defini- tions are among the last things to be looked for in the march of a science, "first principles being, in fact, last principles." He gives the rationale of the distinction between physical and moral science : " Everything," he says, " which can possibly happen in which man and external things are jointly concerned, results from the joint operation of a law or laws of matter and a law or laws of the human mind. Thus the production of corn by human labor is the result of a law of mind and many laws of matter." " The laws of the production of the objects which consti- tute wealth are the subject matter both of Political Economy and of almost all the physical sciences : such as are purely laws of matter belong to physical science exclusively. Such of them as are laws of the human mind, and no others, belong to Political Economy, which finally sums up the result of both combined." "Political Economy presupposes all the physical sciences ; it takes for granted all such of the truths of those sciences as are concerned in production. It then inquires what are the phenomena of mind concerned in production and distribution ; it borrows from the pure science of mind the laws of those phenomena, and inquires what effects follow from these mental laws acting in concurrence with those physical ones." Upon these considerations he furnishes the following definition of Political Economy : " The science which treats of the production and distribution of wealth so far as they depend upon the laws of human nature.''' " Or thus : The science relating to the moral or psychological laws of the production and distribution of wealth." The Essay continues to illus- trate the relations of mental science with Political Economy, and then proceeds : " Pure mental philosophy, therefore, is an essential part or preliminary of political philosophy. The science of social economy embraces every part of man's nature in so far as influencing the conduct or condition of man in society." " It does not treat of the whole of man's nature as modified by the social state, nor of the whole conduct of man in society. It is concerned with him solely as a being who desires to possess wealth, and who is capable of judging of the comparative efficacy of means for obtain- ing that end." After remarking at some length on the mixed motives which govern men in the affairs of life, he says : " But there are also cer- tain departments of human affairs in which the acquisition of wealth is the main and acknowledged end. It is only of these that Political Economy takes notice. The manner in which it necessarily proceeds is that of treating the main and acknowledged end as if it were the sole end." The author then arrives at another definition, which, in his view, " seems to be complete :" " The science which traces the laws of such of the phenomena of society as arise from the combined operations of mankind for the pro- duction of wealth in so far as those phenomena are not modified by the pursuit of any other object." — (pp. 130 to 140.) This highly elaborated definition of J. S. Mill, drawn up after having freely admitted the pressure and full relation to the subject of its moral aspects, is under the cloud of seeming, if not to reject, at least to pense with all moral considerations. One of his preliminary definitions was, "The science relating to the moral or psychological laws of the production and distribution of wealth." It cannot but be noted that the final definition is of a very different tenor, and especially when taken with the principle, that for the purposes of the science the " acknowledged end" is to be regarded "as the sole end." We cannot but think that the author of these two definitions realized in the progress of his Essay, that the science of Political Economy, as received by himself and by many of the School of Adam Smith and J. B. Say, could not logically or consistently include any considerations of morality, humanity, or religion. He remarks that it may be thought by some that his attempt to frame a stricter definition of Political Economy than those commonly received, can be of little use. " We think otherwise, and for this reason, that with the consideration of the definition of a science is inseparably connected that of the philosophic method of the science." " Where differences of principle exist as distinguished from differences of matter of fact or detail, the cause will be found to be a difference in the conception of the philosophic method of the science." After explaining, at length, how such differences lead men astray, and how they involve the old feud between men of theory and men of practice, he says : " In the definition which we have attempted to frame of the science of Political Economy, we have characterized it as essentially an abstract science, and its method as the à priori." "It reasons, and as we contend, must necessarily reason from assumptions, not from facts." " The conclusions of Political Economy, consequently, like those of geometry, are only true as the common phrase is in the abstract, that is, they are only true under certain suppositions, in which none but general causes —causes common to the whole class of cases under consideration —are taken into the account." "That which is true in the abstract is always true in the concrete, with proper allowances." (145.) " It is in vain to hope that truth can be arrived at either in Political Economy or in any other department of the social science, while we look at the facts in the concrete clothed in all the complexity with which nature has surrounded them, and endeavor to elicit a general law by a process of induction from a comparison of details ; there remains no other method than the à priori one, or that of abstract speculation." He then proceeds to point out how this science is applied : " When the principles of Political Economy are to be applied to a particular case, then it is necessary to take into account all the circumstances of that case," and ascertain by examination what are the "disturbing causes." The difficulty of appreciating these disturbing causes, and of ascertain- ing whether the inquirer possesses full knowledge of them, " constitutes the only uncertainty of Political Economy." He concludes that portion of his Essay by saying, that " the mere Political Economist, he who has studied no other science but Political Economy, if he attempt to apply his science to practice will fail." Political Economy is not, then, according to Mill, a mere collection of laws by which men are to be governed in the affairs of life, but a collection of the truths or laws of abstract science intended for the information of practical men. The scientific political economist " stands in the same relation to the legislator as the mere geographer stands to the navigator, telling him the latitude and longitude of all sorts of places, but not how to find whereabout he himself is sailing," and we may add, not pointing out where he is to sail nor the rocks and dangers in his track. He recommends to the mere economist " extreme modesty" in his opinions on practical politics, and in the practical applications of his doctrines to existing circumstances. —(pp. 140 to 155.) We are indebted to another great authority for a special effort to state the progress of Political Economy, and to furnish a definition —N. W.Senior, Professor of the Science in the University of Oxford. One of his lectures is specially devoted to " the causes that have retarded the progress of Political Economy." * After some preliminary remarks, he puts the question : — " Has the the progress of Political Economy been in proportion to the ardor with which it has been urged V He answers, " No : After so much and so long continued discussion, we might have hoped that its limits would have been accurately laid down, its terms defined, and its general principles admitted. It is unnecessary to prove formally that this is not the case. Every one is aware that Political Economy is in a state of imperfect development, — I will not say characteristic of infancy, but cer- tainly very far from maturity. "We seldom hear its principles made the subject of conversation, without perceiving that each interlocutor has his own theory as to the object to which the inquiries of a political economist ought to be directed, and the mode in which they ought to be pursued. When we read the most eminent of the recent writers on the subject, we find them chiefly engaged in controversy. Instead of being able to use the works of his fellow-laborers, every economist begins by demolition, and erects an edifice, resting perhaps, in a great measure, on the same foundations, but differing from all that has preceded it in form and arrange- ment."*— (p. 11.) After discussing the subject at length, Senior decides that Political Economy is a mental, not a physical study —that it is concerned with the laws of mind, not with the laws of matter. What the political economist "reserves to himself," according to him, "is to explain the laws of mind which decide in what proportions the produce, or the value of the produce, is divided between the three classes by whose concurrence it has been obtained." (p. 34.) Having thus stated that Political Economy, as a subject, belonged to the department of mind, he proceeds to the question whether it is a science or an art. " If Political Economy is to be treated as a science, it may be defined as " the science which states the laws regulatiug the production and distribution of wealth, so far as they depend on the action of the human mind." " If it be treated as an art, it may be defined as ' the art which points out the institutions and habits most conducive to the production and accumulation of wealth.' Or, if the teacher venture to take a wider view, as the art which points out the institutions and habits most con- ducive to that production, accumulation, and distribution of wealth, which is most favorable to the happiness of mankind." — (p. 36.) There is a degree of frankness implied in these definitions which does honor to Senior as a professed political economist : in such hands, the subject, whether a science or an art, is more likely to make progress than in those who regard it as already nearly, if not altogether, perfect. The reader will bear in mind, that our chief object in these remarks is to ascertain how far Political Economy, in its present state, is entitled, whether as a science or an art, to state truths to enlighten, or rules to govern statesmen. It is quite certain, that so long as it is undecided whether it is a science or an art, its teachings must be regarded with much distrust in what regards public administration or the actual busi- ness of life. After noticing the Mercantile System and its errors, the works of Sir James Stewart, who blends art and science together to the confusion of both ; the " Formation and Distribution of Riches," by Turgot, which is a purely scientific treatise; the writings of Quesnay and the Physiocratic School, which treat it as an art, Senior proceeds to a critical examination of the Wealth of Nations. This he regards as a work upon the art, for " the scientific portion of his work is merely an introduction to that which is practical." "The English writers whohave succeeded Adam Smith, have generally set out by defining Political Economy as a science, and proceeded to treat it as an art." (45.) But this, by Senior's own showing, is precisely what their master had done before them, for the " scientific portion" of the " Wealth of Nations" bears a very small proportion to the remainder. An instance of this kind of definition is cited by Senior from J. E,. McCullocb, whodefines it as a science, but in stating its object, converts it into an art. James Mill confuses his treatise in the same manner. Ricardo treats the subject as a science. "The modern Economists," continues Senior, " of France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and America, so far as I am ac- quainted with their works, all treat Political Economy as an art." (pp. 45-46.) Their opinion seems to be that Political Economy is a branch of the art of government, and that its business is to influence the conduct of a statesman, rather than to extend the knowledge of a philosopher." —(p. 46.) It must be obvious, upon very little reflection, that speculations upon Political Economy can be of no great value until it is known whether they state abstractions of science, or give rules of conduct. Thewriter who has not understood or observed the distinction cannot, with safety, be trusted in either aspect of the subject, though be may be read with advantage by any one well versed in the two departments and able to keep the distinction in view. " It appears, from this hasty sketch, that the term Political Economy has not yet acquired a definite meaning, and that whichever of the three definitions I adopt, I shall be free from the accusation of having unduly extended or narrowed the field of inquiry." (p. 46.) It is remarkable, that in this " hasty sketch," no notice is taken of J. B. Say, to whose Treatise it is no doubt chiefly owing that this important question between the science and the art of Political Economy has arisen. We shall refer to Say in this aspect hereafter. " The time I trust will come, perhaps within the lives of some of us, when the outline of the Science of Political Economy, as distin- guished from the art, will be clearly made out and generally recognized ; when its nomenclature will be fixed, and its principles form a part of elementary instruction. A teacher of the art of Political Economy will then be able to refer to the principles of the science as familiar and admitted truths. I scarcely need repeat how far this is from being the case at present." (p. 52.) This opinion of Senior is cited for the benefit of many in the United States who have been taught to regard the science as fully treated by Say and the numerous compends of his work. Senior pursues the discussion through another lecture, as to the question between science or art, referring specially to the work of John Stuart Mill (from which we have quoted so extensively above), and highly approving his views. This distinction between science and art, as applied to Political Economy, has but recently been made prominent. Its application has revealed a fruitful source of error. The confusion consequent upon the blending of theory and practice, science and art, is complete and universal throughout nearly the whole literature of Political Economy. Men of logical minds or scientific training speculated and observed with a view to ascertain abstract truths or the laws of science ; men of active life and a practical turn of mind, directed their attention chiefly to the actual processes of production and distribution, and many of them regarded these processes chiefly from the side of humanity and religion. Some writers have mingled all these views together, and there has been no limit to criticism and recrimination, argument, contradiction, and ridicule, between those who misunderstood each other, because their aims were different, their modes of thinking different, and because they had two distinct objects in their minds whilst they professed to be writing of one. This confusion of terms and ideas will be very apparent as we proceed. G-EORGE K. RiCKARDS, a successor of Senior in the Professorship of Political Economy at Oxford, delivered three lectures before the University in 1852, which were published the same year. To these we _resort for later opinions upon this much-vexed subject. He cuts the !;^Gordian Knot of the distinction between science and art with a single blow of his, weapon, and says that " Political Economy forms at all times and in all conditions of human advancement, a most important branch of the science of Government." — "All political rulers, indeed, whether they recognise the fact or not, are ex necessitate Political Economists. On some principles of Economy, true or false, they must needs act." He admits that Political Economy labors under a degree of discredit, and that the prejudices and misconceptions with respect to its nature and office which beset it from the first, still keep their hold upon some otherwise well-informed and cultivated minds." In regard to the principles and oracles of Political Economy, " a considerable misconcep-tion exists, one which repels many from entering on the study, and in- duces many more to regard it with aversion or contempt." " It is well known," he admits, "that Napoleon Bonaparte, who possessed one of the most powerful understandings of modern times, entertained a rooted antipathy against Political Economy. It was a saying of his that 'if an empire were made of adamant, the Economists could grind it to powder.' But it is pretty evident in what light Napoleon really re- garded the science which he denounced, and it is the same in which it is still regarded by a large portion of the world. He looked upon the lucubrations of economical writers, as he looked on one of the readymade political constitutions of the Abbé Sieyes, as an artificial creation of speculative brains. He regarded them as a collection of technical rules and dogmas, devised by ingenious theorists and men of the closet, setting up to instruct the rulers of mankind how to conduct the commercial and financial affairs of their governments. Confident in his ovtq political skill and genius, be put aside what he conceived the arbitrary prescriptions of philosophers, and branded the whole class with the imputation of presumptuous folly/' " I will not venture to assert on behalf of the whole catalogue of eco- nomical writers, at least in this country, that they have given no color or countenance to the misapprehension now referred to. An undue at- tachment to systems, an attempt to attain a scientific precision beyond what the nature of the subject-matter admits of, a proneness to generalize too hastily, and to lay down as infallible and universal, laws which are subject to perpetual disturbance from causes beyond the sphere of Political Economy ; a reluctance to submit abstract reasonings to the correction of facts, and a tendency to controversies about terms, and the mere outward garb and nomenclature of science,—such infirmities, of a kind not unfrequently to be recognised in other departments of human knowledge, may have given color to the impression that political economists care more for system than for facts, and are conversant with vague abstractions rather than with the realities of life. Still more might this prejudice be countenanced by a defect which appears to me even more frequently characteristic of economical writers. I mean the omission to refer constantly for appeal and for correction to that primary source of all the conclusions of true Political Economy, the fixed laws of Providence exemplified in the constitution of man's nature and in the fundamental arrangements of society." —(Richards's Lectures, p. 12, 13.) Our object in this preliminary essay being two-fold —to justify the bringing forward a new work on Political Economy, and to create some distrust of the teachings upon that subject which have been most in vogue in this country, we might pause here in the belief that we had attained our object. But as the future study of Political Economy cannot be pursued ad- vantageously without a still more extended knowledge of the confusion and want of harmony which reign among its leading authorities, we propose now to refer to these and to their appreciation of each other's labors. In this brief notice we confine ourselves chiefly to writers of that School which regards Adam Smith as its head. List has throughout the following work called it simply the School, for the reason that no other class of writers upon Political Economy makes pretensions to be the only safe expositors of the subject. Most others who regard Political Economy rather as an art, in some of its principal as- pects coming within the scope of public administration, look upon themselves as contributing their views, facts, experience, and speculations, to elucidate the true policy of nations in the matter of industry and trade, and the well-being of people. Regarded from this point of view, all the principal works upon Political Economy are valuable a3 materials for study and discussion, and it is only when some of them are put forth as teachers of a science, as the propounders of indisputable truths, to pass unquestioned at all times and places, that it becomes ne- cessary to look carefully into their pretensions. The space at our dis- posal will not permit an extended appreciation of the doctrines or merits of the authors to whom we shall refer; but as they belong mainly to one School, they may be safely treated as good authority against each other. Adam Smith is the distinguished man, by common consent, referred to as the Father of that School which has long claimed pre-eminence in Political Economy. Whatever ground there may be for ascribing to him this paternity, it is very safe to say, that were he to revisit the world, he would find it difficult to recognise his offspring. We prefer giving all the honor of this fatherhood to J. B. Say, who, though he may have taken his inspiration from Adam Smith, was certainly the first to give the doctrines of Political Economy a shape and degree of consistency sufficient to form the rallying point of a School. Regarded as a treatise upon industry, wealth, and trade, and the other subjects to which it refers, and considering the time at which it appeared, the Wealth of Nations must be admitted to be one of the most successful works of modern times. It has, beyond question, been the chief stim-ulus to the extraordinary discussions which have since ensued upon the subjects of which it treats. Its leading ideas made a great impression, and have since been the subjects of interminable discussion; but the Wealth of Nations, though often referred to, is seldom studied. Some have attributed this to the subject itself, and others to its want of method. It has many editors and commentators; it has been analysed and abridged, and many other modes have been adopted of facilitating its study. It is, however, only a text-book for Economists, and not a work to be read. We have quite a circumstantial account of the dif- ficulty of reading it in the experience of Francis Horner, who rose in the early part of this century to very high repute as a Political Economist, by his Parliamentary career and his contributions to the Edinburgh Review.* He informs us that he and Lord Seymour " were under the necessity of suspending progress in the perusal of the Wealth of Nations, on account of the insurmountable difficulties, obscurities, and embarrassments in which the reasonings of Chapter V. are involved." (Memoirs, Vol. I., p. 163.) He and his friend had engaged in a regular and deliberate study of the work thus given up. He asks (Ibid., p. 126) if " Smith did not judge amiss in his premature attempt to form a sort of system upon the Wealth of Nations, instead of pre- senting his valuable speculations to the world under the form of separate dissertations ? As a system, his work is evidently imperfect, and yet it has so much the air of a system, that we are apt to adopt his erro- neous opinions, because they figure in the same fabric with approved and important truths." In another place he says, in reply to a request to edit the Wealth of Nations, "I should be reluctant to expose Smith's errors before his work has operated its full effect. We owe much at present to the superstitious worship of Smith's name ; and we must not impair that feeling until the victory is more complete. There are few practical errors in the Wealth of Nations, at least of any great conse- quence ; and until we can give a correct and precise theory of the nature and origin of wealth, his popular, plausible, and loose hypothesis is as good for the vulgar as any other." —(Ibid., 229.) Mr. Horner's delicacy about exposing Smith's errors, has had few imitators since his day, for seldom has any book been more eulogized in general, and more found fault with in detail, than the Wealth of Nations. The great reputation of Smith has made the Economists, in general, anxious to range themselves under his wing, and from that position they have not hesitated to cut, and carve, and apply the caustic, until there is scarcely an important passage in the whole work which some one of his friends has not detached from his system as wrong, or branded as absurd. It would require volumes to specify the harsh treatment which this work has received from those who still appealed to it as the fountain of their own systems. The English edition of the WeaJth__o/_JSfations, edited by J. K. McCulloch, and published in 1828 and in 1838, has been pronounced by Blanqui, UL'edition classique par excellence." It is accompanied by a life of the author, an elaborate introductory discourse, notes, and supplemental dissertations. The eulogy of Smith in the introductory discourse is generous and full, warm, and positive ; his criticisms modest and few. It is such an appreciation as leaves on the reader a strong impression of the value and merits of the work. It is when he comes to details in the body of the work that the editor is impelled to expose the errors of his author. As it is far beyond our power to follow him in this severe process, we refer the reader to the edition of 1888, page 643, in the index under the name Smith, where he will find specifically stated and referred to, nearly one hundred important errors, all of which are treated fully in the notes. This might go far to deter the boldest student from entering upon the study of Political Economy by reading the Wealth of Nations. We do not hesitate to- ascribe to J. B. Say the whole honor of taking the first important step towards developing the science of Political Economy, if, in its present position, it has good title to be regarded as a science. Struck by the reputation of Adam Smith, and the success of his work, he saw at once that the subject had a great hold on the public mind, and believing that if such an imperfect production could secure him so great a name, there was an opportunity of attaining a still higher reputation by producing a more perfect work upon the subject. His ambition rose to the point of founding a new science —the Science of Wealth. Upon this idea he labored with such success as to produce a work, which, if it has not placed its author as high on the roll of fame as Smith, it has at least been immeasurably more read, and its contents have exercised far more influence upon the public mind. It was intel- ligible and methodical. The subject was popular, and something of the kind was required, not only to satisfy the craving for knowledge upon the subject by statesmen and men of business, but also to serve as a text-book for Professors. It was received with immense favor, and soon appeared in nearly all the languages of Europe. Since the advent of Say's Treatise, the science of Political Economy is referred to familiarly and commonly as Regularly admitted into the family of sciences. But whilst no one can dispute the ability of his contribution to the subject, tbere has subsequently been strong opinions that he has not founded a science. The distinction is very important; if a contribution only, then what Say writes rests upon his single authority ; if a science is set forth in his work, we are bound to receive what he says as the truths or laws of science. It becomes indispensable, then, to know when we take up Say's Treatise, whether his work is the teaching of a science, or the speculations of a Political Economist. That it is a work of great ability, all should admit; that its success and influence have far transcended its merits, is now plainly seen. Its claims to be a work of science have been successfully questioned. We have seen that the able Economist and logician, J. S. Mill (ante, p. 22), pronounces Political Economy to be an abstract science, constructed upon reasonings à priori. When he said this, he had all the advantage of an elaborate opinion by Say that it is an experimental science founded upon induction and obser- vation of facts, and upon reasoning à posteriori. Say appeals to the Baconian philosophy as applicable to his inquiries, and that upon which his work is founded. Mill rejects that method of reasoning as inappli- cable to the moral and mental sciences, and he does it upon grounds which cannot be shaken. For these grounds we refer to the work above cited. But we think it can require little reflection upon broader grounds than those taken by him to reach the same conclusion. Wethink that the events of human life, subject to the control of human. reason, influenced by human passions and feelings, and complicated by the very varying chances and changes of life, are not in their nature the subject of inductive philosophy. The mind which is capable of in- ductive reasoning is not itself the subject of such a process. Men are not like bees or ants, whose habits and laws are proper objects of this philosophy. It might as well be attempted to ascertain the laws or legislation of a people by their actions, as to determine the problems of their Political Economy by observation of their modes of business. Bacon himself foresaw this difficulty in the application of his system, and remarks, that in the sciences which relate to mind and morals, " it must be bounded by religion, else it will be subject to deceit and delu- sion." What makes the inapplicability very plain in the present case is, that in regard to wealth, which is stated to be the object of the sup- posed science, it is impossible to separate it from moral or religious considerations in any circumstance of its production or distribution. It is only of any possible importance as it concerns men • and men, in their relations with wealth and its production and distribution, cannot lay aside moral and religious considerations. The argument of Say to prove that Political Economy is founded on a generalization of facts, will be found, at large, in the preliminary dis- course to his Treatise. It will be seen that he rests his system upon it. Now the least that can be said when such men as J. B. Say and J. S. Mill* differ widely as to the very basis of Political Economy, as to the processes of reasoning by which it is constructed, as to the fact of its being an abstract or an experimental science, is, that students and readers must wait with patience until the professors and other capable persons decide a question so vital to its authority. And this is the more necessary because there is, as we shall see, as much disagreement about matter as about form. " When Smith is read as he merits to be," remarks Say,f " it is seen that before him there was no Political Economy." And Smith cannot have produced a science, for, according to Say, his work " can only be considered as an immethodical assemblage of the soundest principles of Political Economy, supported by luminous illustrations of highly inge- nious researches in statistics, blended with instructive reflections ; it is not, however, a complete treatise of either science, but an irregular mass of curious and original speculations, and of known demonstrated truths." Say, in the introduction to the later editions of his Treatise, makes an elaborate effort to show that his system is founded upon the inductive processes of the Baconian philosophy. The reader who examines his process will see with what justice. As he was founding a science, he wished to avail himself of the sanction of a name like Bacon's : not dreaming that, according to the leading Economists of no distant day, this choice of Bacon as his guide would be regarded as a blunder. He did not discover that Bacon's system was inapplicable ; but that he met difficulties in the outset, is quite visible. He manipulates the term facts, which represent the things to be observed in the Baconian method, until he obtains an aspect which may answer his purpose. He first makes two classes of facts : objects that exist, and events that take place. " The manner in which things exist and take place is what is called the nature of things, and a careful observation of the nature of things is the sole foundation of all truth." Hence, a two-fold classi- fication of science, the descriptive and experimental. Political Economybelongs to the latter; in showing the manner in which events take place in relation to wealth, it forms a part of experimental science. But facts that take place are subdivided into general or constant, or particular and variable. General facts are the results of the nature of things in all analogous cases : particular facts are the results of several operations modified by each other in a particular case. Objects that exist and events that take place, embrace two distinct sciences, Political Economy and Statistics. Political Economy, from facts always carefully observed, makes known to us the nature of wealth ; from the knowledge of its nature deduces the means of its creation, unfolds the order of its distribution and the phenomena of its destruction. It is, in other words, an exposition of the general facts observed in relation to this subject. — " General facts, or if you please, general laws, which facts follow, are styled principles when we speak of their application." — " Political Economy, in the same manner as the exact sciences, is composed of a few fundamental principles and a great number of corollaries or conclusions drawn from those principles. It is essential that those principles be strictly deduced from observation." —"A treatise on Political Economy will then be confined to the enunciation of a few general principles not requiring even the support of proofs or illustrations, because these will be but the expression of what every one will know." The substance of Say's application of the Baconian system of induction, seems, then, to be this : —The science of Political Economy must be formed by an induction or observation of facts ; by facts is intended general facts, or the nature of things ; but by general facts is meant general laws, which facts follow ; and by these are intended principles which must be strictly deduced from observation; and Political Economy, like the exact sciences, is composed of a few fundamental or general principles not requiring the support of pi'oofs or illustrations, being the expression of what every one knows. It must be difficult to find any warrant for such philosophizing in the pages of Bacon. Say makes this long incursion into the field of inductive philosophy, and upon his return, instead of exhibiting an array of facts with his process of in- duction, he tenders us a few general principles requiring no proofs, being the expression of what every one knows. Could there be any need of invoking the aid of Bacon, if such were the premises upon which his system was to be built? 

We have already adverted to the fact that the work of Say was re- ceived with signal favor : this favor, however, was far from being universal. Its method and general clearness of statement recommended it as a text-book, for which it was designed, upon a subject felt to be of importance, but upon which no book suitable for that purpose had ap- peared. It did not long escape severe criticism and even denunciation. Its hard materialism was soon detected; its attempt to construct a science of wealth apart from man, its sole possessor, and whom alone it concerns, and without any consideration of humanity, morals or reli- gion, was unsparingly denounced. A great discussion followed, which we cannot even refer to now. We select two opinions of Say, very deliberately expressed ; one by an eminent Economist of his own School, and the other by one who denied his whole system. The first is Adolphe Blanqui, who, in his history of Political Economy, after an appreciation of the merits of Say, in which he bestows the highest en- comiums, proceeds to offer some of the objections to which his work is exposed : — " The subjects which affect us so nearly at present, such as Wages and Population, seem scarcely to affect him : He proceeds to their examination with a degree of coldness ; he adopts, without abatement, the opinions of Malthus, and it is here that his writings will be for ever vulnerable, and cannot fail of being surpassed by the School of Sismondi. He has considered production far too independently of the producers. He was seduced by the prodigies of English production, and did not think of the human suffering which followed in their train. He looked upon wages as suffi- cient, not because they enabled the laborer to live, but because they kept him from dying. The utility of his works consists much more in the errors he has dissipated, than in the truths he has discovered. He failed in not regarding from a point of view more social and more elevated, the questions of pauperism and wages : we find, in reading, something hard and repulsive, which recalls the abstract formulas of Malthus and fii- cardo. His logic, when on the subject of succor to the unfortunate, is pitiless, and his severe rebukes of benevolence look as if he had more encouragements for misconduct than consolations for misfortune." * The other opinion in regard to Say, is from Viscount Alban de Ville- neuve Bargemont's History of Political Economy. He belongs to what is sometimes called the Humanitarian School, which takes the well-being of men, and not wealth, as the starting point of its system: 

" This work (Say's Treatise), which placed its author in the first rank of the disciples of Smith, has greatly contributed to propagate in France and Europe the new English doctrines of Political Economy." — "He ad- vanced on these subjects propositions so bold and paradoxical that they endangered governments, religion, and the law of property itself; for, solely preoccupied with the increase of production, he seemed frequently to point at these institutions as more injurious than useful to public wealth." —" Imbued with the philosophy of the eighteenth century, habituated by the nature of his studies to seek for nothing beyond material utility, J. B. Say was the organ of a science which was developed at an epoch when there was no belief in any thing beyond the material interests of life." —" The first edition of his work was published in 1803 : it rapidly disappeared. But theories so clearly repelling the intervention of government and the influence of civil and religious institutions, could not readily be tolerated by an overshadowing authority (Bonaparte) jealous of its power, and which was striving to place society upon a more solid basis. The author was not permitted to publish the second edition until ten years after, when it was dedicated to the Emperor Alexander." — "Whatever may be the talents of the author, there is the more reason to regret that abuse of science and that spirit of system which have drawn him, by a series of conclusions logically deduced from false and erroneous principles, to look upon man only as an instrument or a means of production, and to shed doubt, contempt, or sarcasm upon institutions which men feel it their duty to defend or respect." * Two important works upon Political Economy appeared in 1815, in which this disposition to bow to the authority of Say is manifested, whilst the writers differ from him, not only widely, but radically ; we refer to Le Comte Desttjtt de Tracy, and Henry Storch. The work of the former, to which we refer, is the fourth volume of his " Treatise upon Ideology" of which Mr. Jefferson, who revised a trans- lation made in this country from the manuscript of the author,f before the publication in France, speaking of the original, said, " in which no word is unnecessary, no word can be changed for the better ; and severity of logic results in that brevity to which we wish all science reduced." As a logician, Destutt De Tracy would rank as far above Say as the latter is above Adam Smith. Say's error consisted in assuming wealth as the object of a science : Tracy, after a logical process of great length, being, in fact, a supplement to his system of logic, finds the basis of Political Economy in Ideology, or the science of the mind. He wished, " to place the moral and political sciences on their true basis, a knowledge of our moral and intellectual faculties." It is impossible to give the reader any idea of such a work as that of Destutt Tracy by short, or even long extracts. It can only be said that, as he finds the basis of the moral and political sciences in a knowledge of the intellectual faculties, he finds the basis of Political Economy in man, the owner of those faculties. In all his reasonings and observations upon the subject, he keeps his eye on man as found in society; on men, rich and poor, strong and weak. He does not treat wealth as the chief topic : in his view, individual strength, or the power to labor, is the primitive riches ; the inequalities which arise, and inevitably exist in society, are motives for protecting those, who, from the accidents of life, or natural inability, fall behind, and become less able to make sure of a subsistence, — " the laws should always endeavor to protect weakness." — " I think that all must agree, that when a considerable portion of society is in a state of too great suffering, and consequently, too much brutalized, there is neither repose, nor safety, nor liberty possible, even for the powerful and rich ; and that, on the contrary, the first citi- zens of a State are really much greater or happier when they are at the head of a people, enjoying that honest ease which developed in them all their intellectual and moral faculties." ^Henry Storch was one of the tutors of the Grand Dukes Alexander and Nicholas, and it was to them he delivered a " Course of Political Economy," which we are about to notice.* Storch has attained, and deserves, a high rank, as a man of ability and a Political Economist. McCulloch places his writings " at the head of all the works on Political Economy ever imported from the Continent into England." This opinion, deliberately expressed in 1825, and as deliberately repeated in 1845, places him above Say, exceedingly to the disparagement of the latter, who had published his work as the exposition of a complete sci- ence, to which all men should bow as to the truth. There is, however, a very wide and radical difference in their conception of the subject. The explanatory title of Storch is the exposition of the principles which determine the prosperity of nations, which gives a very different point of departure from that of Say. " Until now," he says in his preface, " Political Economy has been regarded as the science of the wealth of nations ; I have attempted to show that it embraces their prosperity, and that the theory of civilization is included, and is equally essential to the objects of the science." — "I have tried to sketch the outline of this new doctrine, for which the materials were in wide profusion." From the Reflections in the introductory portion of his work, we take the following passage : — " The facts from which Political Economy is deduced, belong to the moral order; they are the result of the action of human nature. Man himself is the artisan of wealth and of civilization. It is he who subjects these to his wants and his enjoyments ; thus, all the phenomena which these objects present are founded upon human nature, and can only be explained by it. This leads us to an important remark, which weakens the analogy we have discovered between Natural Science and Political Economy. The former being based on physical facts which are susceptible of a rigorous appreciation, belong to the domain of the exact sciences; Political Economy, on the contrary, being based upon moral facts, that is to say, upon facts produced by the faculties, wants, and will of man, is not susceptible of calculation, and takes its place in the circle of the moral sciences."— (Vol. L, p. 22.) In another portion of his introduction he says : —"At first glance it is seen how much this theory of Adam Smith is superior to that of the Economists (Physiocrats) ; these philosophers had made Political Economy a purely natural science ; Smith raised it to the rank of a moral science." These two passages excited the ire of Say, who, to the very great displeasure of Storch, had edited an edition of his work in Paris, with notes, in which he makes no small effort to lessen the reputation and authority of Storch's labors. In reference to the passage last cited, Say exclaims : —" He has done a great deal more, he has raised it to the rank of the experimental sciences!" The exhibitions of spleen or impatience which characterize these notes of Say, show how deeply his jealousy was roused by the power and truth of Storch's positions. His conduct is the less pardonable, as Storch had transcended even the demands of literary courtesy in concessions to Say's high position as a Political Economist. We have the authority of McCulloch that the " Principles of the Science of Wealth," by Joseph Droz, is " one of the best elementary works on the science in the French language."* Droz is a writer of high moral tone and humane feelings. His work is either a strong specimen of the necessity of bowing to Say's supremacy in that day, even by those who differed from him, or it is conceived in a spirit of the deepest irony in reference to Say's system. He treats Say throughout with the most unbounded deference, as the head of the great School of Political Economy. Whilst his eyes are thus, however, deferentially fixed upon him, like a stout waterman, he is rowing the other way. Say's science is of wealth, that of Droz relates to men as they are con- cerned with wealth. " Political Economy is a science, the object of which is to render comfort as general as possible. All good men, even those who do not rise to the consideration of wise theories, endeavor to promote this good end." — "The activity or inactivity of labor, the good or bad apportionment of riches, depends, in many respects, upon the ideas, right or wrong, which governments form upon the subject of Political Economy. The science is essential to the work of ameliorating human condition." — "The study of Political Economy may dry up narrow minds and reduce their vision on earth to goods and sales and profits ; but this study must ever be for minds nobly endowed, a source of exalted meditation upon the means of ameliorating the lot of the human family, and upon the blessings vouchsafed by the Eternal Author of all good." (Chap. V., Booh I.) — "In studying the science of riches, it is essential never to lose sight of the relation between wealth and the amelioration of human condition, between wealth and human happiness. To consider riches in themselves and for themselves, is to denaturalize the science. By the habit of regarding only the production and distribution of riches, men come finally to see nothing in the world but commercial interests : many writers employ expressions which seem to materialize all our interests." —"Political Economy, well conceived must ever be the auxiliary of morals. We must not take riches for an end, they are a means ; their importance results from their power of relieving human necessities and soothing human suffering, and the most precious riches are those which are devoted to the well-being of multi- tudes." — " Some Economists speak as if they believed men were made for products, not products for men." The difference between this doctrine and that of Say is, that the latter, so far as it notices human welfare at all, regards it as a means to increase production ; the wealth produced being the end.*

J. C. L. Simonde de Sismondi is well known and distinguished, both as a historian and as a Political Economist ; he was a prolific writer in the latter character. His first publication on the subject was made as early as that of Say. He was then a follower of Smith, but being an ardent friend of humanity, his views underwent a complete change in the progress of his investigations. No more pleasing task could be offered us than turning through the voluminous works of Sismondi for the evidences of his pare love of human welfare, and his detestation of the science of wealth apart from human well-being. In the discourse pronounced before the French Academy upon the occasion of the death of Sismondi, who was one of the five foreign Associates, M. Mignet, the perpetual Secretary, speaking of Sismondi's survey of the masses of the laboring population in Europe, represents him as * " Surprised and troubled, and as asking himself if a science which sacrifices the happiness of man to the production of wealth, which oppresses millions of human beings with labor without providing them with bread, was the true science of Political Economy. He answered, no : and he ut- tered a cry of alarm to warn governments and nations of the danger which threatened them." Mignet closes an eloquent notice of the life and works of Sismondi, with the following words : — " M. De Sismondi is one of those men who have done most honor to lite- rature by the greatness of their labors, and the dignity of their lives. No one has more earnestly considered the duties of intellect. Amiable in his private relations, devoted in friendships, indulgent towards others, severe to himself, endowed with an activity which never at any time re- laxed, with a sincerity which never on any occasion belied itself, he pos- sessed in the highest degree the love of justice, and a passion for good. With these noble sentiments he has imbued politics, history, social economy ; to make these contribute to the cautious progress of the institutions of States, to the instruction and well-being of nations. For half a century he has thought nothing that was not honorable, written nothing that was not moral, wished nothing that was not useful ; thus has he left a glorious memory, which will be ever respected. In him the Academy has lost one of its most eminent associates, Geneva one of her most illustrious citizens, humanity one of its most devoted defenders. (" Political Economy, and Philosophy of Government," Essays from Sismondi ; London, 1847, pp. 15-24.) 

"My life," says Sismondi, "has been divided between the study of Political Economy and that of history ; —I have endeavored not to let those lessons be lost which are given by experience as to what contributes to create and maintain the prosperity of nations. But above all, I bave always con-sidered wealth as a means, and not as an end. I hope it will be seen by my constant solicitude for the cultivator, for the artizan, for the poor, who gain theiT bread by the sweat of their brow, that all my sympathies are with the laboring classes."—" I experienced the deepest emotion in contemplating the commercial crisis which has just swept over Europe ; in beholding the cruel sufferings of the manufacturers and workmen, of which I was witness in Italy, in Switzerland, in France, and which authentic accounts testified not to have been less severe in England, in Germany, and in Belgium. I felt convinced that governments, that nations, were upon a false path, and that they were aggravating the distress they were endeavoring to remedy." * — " The physical well-being of men, in so far as it can be the work of govern- ment or society, is the object of Political Economy. All the physical wants of men, for which they are dependent upon their fellow-men, can be satisfied by means of wealth." — " Wealth is only a benefit when its blessings are diffused among all classes ; population is an advantage only when men are sure of finding in labor the resources of an honest existence." — "A single thought directs us in every portion of this work ; the inquiry for the greatest good of the human family, — that chief good which includes moral perfectibility with material happiness. A single rule suffices to classify the rights and claims of men. Society is intended for the greatest good of all." — " It may be seen at once, that more than any of my predecessors, I regard Political Economy, in its relations with the soul and intelli- gence. But to subsistence pertains life, and to life pertains all the moral and intellectual development of which the human race is susceptible." — " Social science ought always to have for its object men united in society —for in society everything proceeds from men, and everything relates to men, united by a common bond. But wealth — shall we call it an at- tribute of men or of things ? —wealth is a term of comparison which has no sense, unless we determine to what it refers." — "A science of wealth, apart from the interests of men, is a mere abstraction — an edifice without any real foundation." —"Wealth is the product of that human labor which procures for men all the material enjoyments they can attain : — it is the representation of these physical enjoyments, and of all the moral and in- tellectual gratifications which can flow from them. Certainly : but for whom ? This question should never be overlooked, and yet how seldom it occurs to or influences the mere theorists in Political Economy. For whom ? According to the response they make to that question, man himself pertains to wealth, when the truth is, that riches are only riches be- cause they belong to man."f In another place, he exclaims, in reference to Ricardo: — "What, is wealth then everything, —is man absolutely nothing !"

We regret being obliged to confine our extracts from Sismondi to the above, the originals of which are merely introductory paragraphs ; his works on Political Economy abound in lessons of wisdom, and in protests of great force and eloquence against the materialism of the School of Smith and Say, which are regarded by him as equally dangerous and unphilosophical. We return to J. B. Say to notice a work long subsequent to his Treatise. Whilst the latter was enjoying its high popularity in Europe and America, the author, as Professor of Political Economy, was en- gaged in delivering a course of lectures on the application of his science, which he afterwards published under the title, " A Complete Course of Practical Political Economy." * In the course of his further studies, he had the advantage of reading the innumerable criticisms and attacks made upon his system, and we now examine the work just mentioned, to ascertain if his views have undergone any change. It was difficult for Say to acknowledge that he had erred, when half the world was proclaiming that he was right. Yet we find evidence enough in the work now before us that he felt the pressure both of the logic and the eloquence which had been brought to bear against him. There is a strong and ingenious effort made by him to stretch his narrow system to the new basis, upon which alone he must have seen that the future growth of the science would take place. He gradually lengthened his cords as he felt this pressure coming upon him ; but he could not do this without weakening his staJtes, as will be apparent to those who have read the previous pages of this Essay. We almost fear that the concessions in the following extract are less strong than the impressions which the truth had made upon the author's mind. "The object of Political Economy," says Mr. Say in the " General Considerations" preliminary to his " Complete Course," " seems heretofore to have been restricted to the knowledge of the laws which govern the production, distribution, and consumption of riches. And it is so that I have considered it in my Treatise upon Political Economy, published first in 1803. Yet in that same work it can be seen that the science pertains to everything in society." Doubtless it can be seen by the reader who is sufficiently prepared by previous studies, but how very large a proportion of his readers have understood the work according to the intent of the author when it was written ! How few out of France have had the benefit of the explanations of the Complete Course, which has appeared only in French. How many have a right to complain that no editor of Say has made known these important modifications of his opinions ! In this country, Political Economy has been very generally taught according to the Treatise of Say, in which the science was restricted to the mere consideration of riches. But again, in close proximity with the foregoing, —"Political Economy, which seemed to have for its object merely material wealth, is found to embrace the entire social system." If this is not a virtual and definite surrender of all that is peculiar in the system of Say, it would be diffi- cult to find words to make it more strong. We do not mean that Say intended to surrender his system : the harvest of golden opinions which it was gathering for him, made an actual surrender almost impossible. His concessions to truth and humanity were designed to disarm opposition and conciliate support. No one understood better than J. B. Say that his science of wealth could not be developed, from considerations involving the entire interests of the social system. He had felt himself obliged, by his own logic, in the construction of his system? to exclude politics and morals ; how could he then pretend to change the basis of that system without changing the superstructure —that is, change his premises without changing his conclusions ! We cannot but think that unprejudiced and discrimi- nating minds who rightly estimate vjhat is peculiar to Say in his Treatise, and what has been said against his system in general, and his doctrines in particular, and what has been done to recast the whole subject, must conclude that Say has been substantially superseded. His work was never in such repute in Great Britain as in the United States, and it was complained there that he refused to avail himself of the teachings of the British Political Economists, Ricardo, Malthus, Torrens, and McCulloch. It was said that the last edition of his Treatise was little better than the first. But these neglected Economists might have solaced themselves with the observation that Say's Treatise never even received the benefit of the additional light on the subject which is to be found in Say's " Complete Course ;" Say refused to admit into his Treatise even his own discoveries and emendations. He perceived, doubtless, that his system would not bear emendations, many of which struck at his fundamental principles. His was a logical system, which could not endure the process of addition or subtraction without danger of crumbling to pieces. A man of very commanding talents succeeded to Say's chair of PoHtical Economy in the College of France, in the year 1833. Pellegrino Rossi,* an Italian by birth, but for some time resident in Switzerland, could have had no claims to such a position but the power of his mind and his well-known acquirements. During the period of his Professorship, he was raised to the Peerage by the title of CountRossi. His published lectures occupy four 8vo volumes. It is obvious to every reader that Rossi was embarrassed by the high repute of his predecessor. Whatever the points of difference between him and Say, he could not with propriety make those differences very prominent. It is quite visible, however, that if he has not made them offensively prominent, he has not been at much pains to conceal them. He did not teach the system of Say, but quite another system. Rossi, it is plain, appreciated more fully than Say the force of the objections urged against Say's doctrines; he knew that these objections not only endangered, if they did not destroy, the system of Say, but that they threat- ened even the position that Political Economy was, or could be, a science ; he addressed himself at once mainly to the task of vindicating the claims of the subject to be regarded as a science: — "Doubtless," he says, "there is a science of Political Economy; for there is an order of facts, an order of particular ideas, of which this sci- ence has for its object to exhibit the origin, the development, the connection, and the results. There is a Political Economy, because man, with his inclinations, his wants, his intelligence, and his power, is placed in presence of material nature, not only to know it, but to govern and appropriate it to his wants."! — "As long as it was possible, its enemies denied the existence of any such science : when that was no longer possible, every one endeavored to turn it to the promotion of his own interests." — " In this conflict of private interests, some forcing facts for one purpose, some using arguments or influence for another, the science, as Rossi urges, could not but suffer." —" Need there be wonder," he asks, " if amidst such conflicting claims, such opposing exigencies, such an inextricable mass of truths and ei'rors, the science has halted, if it has only felt its way, if its gait has been tottering and doubtful?" (p. 14.) In his discussion he promises his students that he will " endeavor not to add darkness to darkness." We perceive that this is by no means the language of a man whohad merely before him the task of teaching a settled science. Andalthough Say's system had made the tour of Europe, and was domesticated in the United States as a full-blown, if not a full-ripe, science. By a large number of educated men it was regarded as an established department of human knowledge, and the Treatise of Say was deemed its authoritative interpreter : — "Need we blush for the science if we are obliged to avow in the outset that the first question which meets us is, What is Political Economy?* — And then, what are its objects, its extent, its limits ? We cannot select for our consideration the more important topics of Political Economy if we are not at first agreed as to the nature and extent of the science itself, and yet it must be admitted this agreement does not exist among Economists. Its definition is to this day, one of the most controverted questions of the science. Some, modest in appearance at least, assign it limits sufficiently restricted to be well defined ; the production and distribution of riches is with them the whole field of the science, —a field which it could not leave without ceasing to be itself.f Others proudly attempt to enlarge the boundaries and enrich the domain, by making Political Economy embrace the whole interests of society, —its organization, its tendencies, and its progress." — (p. 17.) 

"The place it (Political Economy) ought to occupy in the domain of social science, is still (1834) a subject of doubt and dispute among Economists, and nothing yet promises an early and satisfactory decision." (p. 18.) — " The limits fixed by the chief of the School were soon transcended ; they were not even respected by his most zealous disciples. I shall refer now but to three names justly celebrated, of whom one, although belonging to a living author, has, by the splendor which attaches to it, a right to be deemed an historical name. J And first, my illustrious predecessor J. B. Say. Although in his Treatise he takes the position that Political Economy is propeidy but the science of Riches; what does he say in his " Complete Course of Political Economy ?" I give you his own words : — ' The object of Political Economy seems hitherto to have been confined to a knowledge of the laws which regulate the formation, distribution, and consumption of riches.' He acknowledges that he so regarded it in his Treatise ; he goes on to say : — 'It may be seen, however, in this work, that this science This is a virtual return to the idea of the Physiocrats. ' It embraces the entire social system.'" — (p. 23.) This phrase, comprehensive enough to destroy the whole of Say's system, could not but strike the quick and discriminating mind of Rossi, who, if prevented by his position from plainly saying so, could not have thought less. After citing passages from Sismondi and Storch, Rossi remarks that Storch's including " civilization" within the domain of the science, instead of fixing its limits, has the effect of " effacing all limits." Speaking of the principal Economists, he says further : "In a general purvey of their writings, it would be difficult to find any two men eminent in the science, who agree as to its nature or its limits. There is then a real preliminary question to solve, and that is, to ascertain upon what principles the problems of Political Economy ought to be solved." —(p. 25.) After a series of reasonings and siftings, Rossi ventures upon more definite ground : — "Political Economy springs essentially from the following data: —Our power over things by means of labor ; our inclination to saving, if a suffi- cient interest stimulates us ; our inclination to unite our exertions for a common purpose ; our instincts of property and of exchange or trade." (p. 31.) — "These are facts of every time and of every place; these are the general facts of Political Economy. From these data result the science of riches, a science rational, general, invariable ; on the one hand, things and their properties ; on the other, man, his intelligence, his physical powers ; these elements, blended together by the inclinations and the wants of our nature, inclinations and wants of which the force may vary, but which, in some degree, are common to the whole human family. This sci- ence, thus considered, has for its theatre the whole world." —(p. 32-.) We find that Rossi is driven, by the severe process of his rigid analysis, to the four main facts he has stated. The science becomes henceforth, in his view, one of reasoning, one of abstraction, and not of induction, and of course he is found side by'side with Tracy, Senior, and J. S. Mill. This is the very reverse of the position of J. B. Say : —" Such," he says, " is the science in its generality." — "I boldly affirm that the science of Political Economy, regarded thus in that which is its general and invariable aspect, is rather a science of reasoning than one of observation. The contrary has been asserted by those who, as we shall see directly, have blended rational Political Economy with Political Eco- nomy applied —the science with the art. The science, properly so called, is constructed upon a small number of general facts ; it is only by deduction that it arrives at any conclusions." (p. 33.) — "Again; we have more ends than one to gain in this world; Political Economy can ferve as a guide in attaining only one of these, and it has no mission to constrain any one to do this or to do that, for, I repeat it, science has no other direct end but to seek the truth. It is in the application of this truth that we are to keep our eyes upon all the principles which concur in the solution of social questions. The error arises from the supposition that every social question may be solved by the application of a single principle. It results from this, that whenever a principle of Political Economy is found to be involved in a question, an attempt is made to put the practical solution of that question to the account of Political Economy. That is wrong. Political Economy only furnishes economical conclusions — the consequences of an economical principle. It is for legislators, for men of business, to take account of all the other principles which should concur to make the solution of a question conformable to the highest interests, whether of nations or individuals." — "I say the highest interests: when, on any question the highest interest of the nation is wealth, then Political Economy should have the control ; when the contrary is the case, when higher or stronger interests are involved, as the national dignity, economical considerations are but a secondary order of motives, and such as must yield to political considerations." — "I believe, then, that it is proper to distinguish at the outset, between rational Political Economy and applied Political Economy, and that afterwards, in every question which arises, it is not proper to blend even considerations of applied Political Economy with other considerations, moral and political, which control the solution which is required." — (pp. 39, 40, 41.)

" Finally," summing up his previous remarks on this head, he observes " that it was not proper to confound the results of the science of riches with the requirements of morals, for the just and the good cannot coincide with the useful nor with the exigencies of politics, which represent an order of utilities superior in degree to the utilities of Political Economy." —(p. 44.) We refrain from the remarks suggested by these passages, trusting that their importance will not fail to strike the attentive reader. We have extended these quotations in preference to occupying the space with anything of our own. If Rossi's careful scrutiny of the state of the science, and if his logical acumen are at all reliable, a great task is yet to be accomplished by Political Economists before their sci- ence assumes a position of authority. The overthrow of Say's system has produced a confusion which time and patience only can remedy. We say the overthrow of his system, or the main doctrine of his Treatise, for we regard that as having been effected by the united labors of Count Tracy, Sismondi, Rossi, Senior, and J. S. Mill. Blanqui had foreseen that the School of Sismondi was destined to supersede that of Say. But the coup de grace was given to Say's system by the demonstration of the four great Economists just named, that Political Economy is an abstract science, or a science of reasoning, and not a science of observation or experiment. In this strong position Say had planted himself, in- voking the shade' of Bacon to favor his inductive system of Political Economy. If Say has been thrust from this position by these great adversaries, his Treatise can no longer be regarded as an expositor of science, but must, as we have already remarked, take its place among numberless other treatises upon this topic, to be regarded as a portion of the materials from which future Political Economists may draw in the progress of the science. One more passage from Rossi before we part with him. After furnishing many illustrations of the difficulties and perils of the science, he proceeds : — " These instances inform us amply that the gravest questions meet us on the very threshold of the science. They are met in the domain of the pure science when we attempt to ascertain the general facts on which it is founded ; they are met in still greater force, as might be expected, whenwe descend from these general facts to the deductions and corollaries which are to be derived from them. They are met in still greater number in the domain of Political Economy applied, for there they are augmented by all the contrarieties in the statement and observation of particular facts which so constantly occur in addition to what we have already indicated, — those legitimate moral and political influences, which, although strangers to the science of Political Economy, yet mingle in its decisions." (p. 51.) —"Inseeking to discover the true principles of the science, and to obtain them pure from all alloy, we shall have more than one error to reject, more than one theory to rectify or complete, and that we may not reject the authority of reason, we must be ready to decline, with respectful firmness, the authority of our masters." — (p. 52.) Rossi observes too well the decencies of his position to attack more openly the authority of his predecessor, whose son-in-law, Charles Comte, had been his antagonist for the professorship ; but he is ever too frank and independent to leave his hearers in doubt of the antagonism to Say indicated in the closing words of the foregoing citation. The rise of Rossi in France, was not only rapid, but high, and well sustained by his whole career. His abilities were regarded as of the highest order in a city where there is at all times a congregation of the first men in the world. He was looked upon in France as one of the most eminent Political Economists of his day. " By the clearness of his mind," remarks J. Gamier, one of the most distinguished Economists of France, "the sagacity of his reason, the transparency and elegance of his style, he has elucidated every question he has touched, and specially contributed to restore economical studies to their proper dignity." " He was one of the finest intelligences of our time. France has lost in him a savant of the first order." Mignet closes the eulogy of Rossi as a member of the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences, with these words : — " He will be known in history by the elevation of his ideas, the splendor of his talents, the usefulness of his works, the moderation of his conduct, and the grandeur of his end." *

We are compelled, for want of space, to return again to the Political Economists of Great Britain, although it would be both instructive and interesting to have pursued our studies among those of France.* The writings of David Ricardo gave a great impulse to economical studies. His publication of "The Principles of Political Economy Taxation" in 1817, gave him at once a high rank among the thinkers and writers of that day. His range of inquiry was not comprehensive, his efforts being confined more to correcting the errors of others than to the construction of any systematic work. He demonstrated to the satisfaction of the leading Economists that Adam Smith's theory of value was defective. He had a controversy with Say, which did not terminate to the full satisfaction of either party. He adopted the theory of Kent, attri- buted to West, Malthus and Anderson, made it a hinge on which many of his special views turned, and employed it so constantly in his reasonings, that it is often called Ricardo' s theory. It is the same which has been attacked with such power and success by our eminent Economist, H. C. Carey. It is doubtful where Ricardo will be placed in the final adjustment of this vexed and unsettled subject, but his writings must be always valuable to those who may continue the effort to construct a pure science of Political Economy. They do not come within the range of our present inquiries, because they do not profess to embrace the whole science. In the preface to his Principles, however, Ricardo gives us, if not a definition, at least an indication of his view of the scope of Political Economy. " The produce of the earth,—all that is derived from its surface- by the united application of labor, machinery and capital, —is divided among three classes of the community ; —the proprietor of the land ; the owner of the stock or capital necessary for its cultivation; and the laborers by whose industry it is cultivated." "To determine the laws which regulate this distribution is the principal problem in Political Economy ; much as the science has been improved by the writings of Turgot, Stuart, Smith, Say, and Sismondi, they afford very little satisfactory information respecting the natural course of rent, profit and wages." Ricardo informs his readers in many other places, that he was far from being satisfied with Political Economy as it stood in his day. The whole tenor of his works shows a fondness for close and severe abstraction, confining and narrowing his views to the mere subject of wealth, which he does not consider in its connection with human welfare. His perfect coolness in the discussion of the subject, may be seen in his definition of the natural price of labor, as " that price which is necessary to enable the laborers, one with another, to subsist and perpetuate their race without either increase or diminution." One with another, that is, a kind of average chance of living or not starving is regarded as all that the natural price of labor gives to the working- man ! This is one of the laws of that science of wealth which regards man as merely a producer. In 1820, the Rev. T. R. Malthus, previously distinguished as the author of the celebrated work on Population, published his Principles of Political Economy, considered with a view to their practical Application. He was, at that time, Professor of that Science in the East India College. The introduction reveals, modestly but distinctly, the fact that he is far from content with the actual state of Political Economy. He represents nearly all its important positions as controverted. " There are, indeed, great principles to which exceptions are rare,"—"but even these, when examined, will be found to resemble in most particulars, the great general rules in morals and politics, founded on the known passions and propensities of human nature/' — " and we shall be compelled to acknowledge that the science of Political Economy bears a nearer resemblance to the science of morals and politics, than to that of mathematics."—" Among those writers who have treated the subject scientifically, there is not, perhaps, at the present moment, so general an agreement as would be desirable to give effect to their conclusions." He re- garded the subject as too unsettled then, to admit of a "new syste- matic treatise." He thought the various subjects of Political Economy had better be treated singly, until the discussion and "collision of opinions, and the appeal to experience separates the true from the false, and then the different parts may be combined into a consistent whole, which may carry with it such weight and authority, as to produce the more useful practical results." " The treatise which we already possess, is still of the very highest value, and till a more general agreement shall be found to take place, both with respect to the controverted points of Adam Smith's work, and the valuable extent of the additions to it," he recommends that the " different subjects which admit of doubt should be treated separately."* This is certainly disposing of the great pretensions of J. B. Say very summarily ; the first edition of his treatise had appeared in 1803, and the second in 1815. It may not have been in- tended as a slight thus to pass over the work of Say, but if not so in- tended, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that it was not regarded as occupying the position claimed for it by Say and his school. Say subsequently addressed five letters to Malthus, in which, though he could not complain of this slight, he very decidedly, but in very courteous terms, dissented from his doctrines. It is plain that Malthus did not regard the science as by any means so complete as claimed by Say then, and his disciples since. He speaks of it as " manifestly incomplete." He says, " It is impossible to observe the great events of the last twentyfive years in their relation to Political Economy, and sit down satisfied with what has been already done in the science." The whole work of Malthus is, in a considerable degree, a development of the opinions just cited, but no small part is devoted to the differences between him and Mr. Ricardo. James Mill, the author of a history of British India, published his " Elements of Political Economy" in 1821. He treated the science as being more advanced than was admitted by Malthus, and the object of his small volume was to furnish such a summary as would be suitable for schools. McCulloch says of this work, that it is " a resume of the doctrines of Smith and Eicardo with respect to the production and dis- tribution of wealth, and of those of Malthus with respect to population." u But it is of too abstract a character to be either popular or of much utility." — " The science is very far from having arrived at the perfection which. Mr. Mill supposed."* It is observable that Say is again overlooked in a general survey and summary of the science. Mr. Mill confines his view to the works of Adam Smith, Ricardo and Malthus. Perhaps no two works have been more found fault with than the former, and upon no book extant are the opinions of intelligent men more divided than on that of Malthus on Population. In 1821, appeared an " Essay on the Production of Wealth" by E. Torrens, who has, since that time, continued to be a writer upon subjects of Political Economy. His works have always commanded attention and respect. This too was an attempt to produce a systematic treatise upon a subject which he regarded as far more advanced towards the certainties of science, than its subsequent history has justified. Col. Torrens ventures the prediction, that twenty years will leave " scarcely a doubt of its fundamental principles." This shows that he had no idea of the obstacles which were obstructing the progress of Political Economy. He must be a hopeful student who will now say that the science will be reduced to certainty within half a century from the date of Col. Torrens's prediction. And many are now confident it never can be settled upon the basis upon which he treated it. After some criticisms upon Smith, Eicardo and Malthus in his preface, he infers that a " general treatise upon Political Economy, combining with the principles of Adam Smith so much of the more recent doctrines as may be conformable to truth," — "is a desideratum in our literature." His work is not founded upon that of Say, to whom, however, he refers, and from whom he takes some of the positions included in his work. He distinctly points out and rejects, some of Say's doctrines. His face specifies many errors of previous economists, as, in part, a reason for the production of his systematic treatise. After all this effort, pro- bably there are few of the many pamphlets published by Col. Torrens, which have not been more read and appreciated than this treatise. It has never been acknowledged as a satisfactory work upon Political Economy, and has long since been placed on the list of the unsuccessful efforts to settle this subject. We cannot but say in passing, that an undertaking in which men of such undoubted talent as Ricardo, Malthus, James Mill and Col. Torrens, fail signally, must be difficult indeed. True, their failure is only partial—they have failed in settling the science of Political Economy, but their works are of value as contributions to the subject. Their failure is calculated to awaken doubts whether the elements of a science can be well chosen when such men cannot suc- ceed in a satisfactory development. We cannot but think their labors would now be more valuable, if each one had set out in his speculations unembarrassed by those of any previous writer No Political Economist, for the last thirty years, has been more pro- minent than J. K. McCulloch, the author of the article on Political Economy in the Supplement to the Encyclopedia Brittanica, which was published separately, with additions, in 1825.* Since that time he has published a Dictionary of Commerce and Navigation; A Statistical Account of the British Empire ; A new Edition of Smith's Wealth of Nations, with an Introduction, Notes and Supplementary Dissertations ; A Treatise on Taxation ; The Literature of Political Economy ; A History of Commerce; Treatises on Economical Policy; Essays on Interest, Exchange and Money ; and many other important works. Besides these, McCulloch has been a large contributor to the Edinburgh Review on the topic of Political Economy, and is the author of many pamphlets on that subject. These voluminous works, some of which are standard authorities, and found in the hands of multitudes who give no attention to Political Economy as such, have made McCulloch more known than any economist of his time. It cannot but be admitted, that the course of his studies has made him better acquainted with the facts and events connected with labor, commerce, money and wealth, than any other writer upon the subject of Political Economy. His Geographical Dictionary ; his Commercial Dictionary ; his Statistical Account of the British Empire, brought distinctly and fully before him the great facts of industrial and commercial progress; his Literature of Political Economy, and his numerous Reviews, brought before him very fully the whole authorship of Political Economy ; so far, therefore, as preparation goes, it must be conceded that McCulloch was well fitted to speak on the subject, and fairly entitled to be heard. It be- comes a matter of interest to know where a man of such advantages has taken his stand, and on what side he has declared himself upon topics so controverted. It is quite impossible here to furnish the reader with any adequate view of McCulloch's opinions upon the more important points of Political Economy. We find no difficulty in ascertaining that he walks not in the footsteps of Smith or Say, and that he is under few obligations to them. Say's treatise being an attempt to construct a pure science of Political Economy, was never regarded with favor by McCulloch, nor indeed, as we have seen by other British Economists, who, whatever praise they accorded to Say, did not acknowledge the claim of his system to be what it purported to be. McCulloch belongs neither to the School of Say nor to the still more refined and strict School of Tracy, Rossi, and Senior. He persists in considering all the topics of Political Economy from a practical point of view. He speaks of the science, it is true, but only in that popular sense in which men speak of the science of politics, which is a very different sense from that in which it is employed by Eossi, Senior, and J. S. Mill. " The Economist," says McCulloch, in the Preface to the third edition of his "Principles" "who confines himself to the mere enunciation of general principles or abstract truths, may as well address himself to the pump in Aldgate, as to the British public. If he wish to be anything better than a declaimer, or to confer any real advantage upon any class of his countrymen, he must leave general reasoning, and show the extent of the injury entailed upon the community by the neglect of his principles." In the same preface, he says that Mr. Senior is in error in affirming "that the facts on which its general principle s rest may be stated in a very few sentences, or rather, in a very few words, and that the difficulty is merely in reasoning from them." — "We greatly doubt whether the general principles can be so easily established as Mr. Senior supposes." —" Mr. Senior, the ablest and most distinguished defender of what may be called the restricted system of Political Economy, says ' that wealth, not happiness/ is the subject with which the Economist has to deal." McCulloch contends that in speaking of wealth ascertain latitude must be allowed, or if not, the Economist will have "done little more than announce a few barren generalities of no real utility." It is quite evident that McCulloch does not appreciate the distinction upon which his compeers insist, between science and art, and that for want of this appreciation there is great confusion of ideas in the introduction to his "Principles." And indeed, the same confusion follows him wherever he indulges in remarks about the science. He loves to regard Political Economy as a science, but not such a science as Say develops, nor such as that of Rossi or Senior. It is apparent, in fact, that McCulloch produced his first work more under the influence of this idea of science than is exhibited in later productions. It would be easy to point out inconsistencies arising from this change ; but they are to be found throughout his works wherever he endeavors to give his speculations on the subject of Political Eco- nomy a scientific form, or connect them with the science. His real merit consists in his acquaintance with the subject on which he writes, his faults and inconsistencies arise from his concessions to a science which did not exist, and could not upon the elements which were in his mind. The change of McCulloch's views between his earlier and later career, may be estimated by the following extracts : — " But the errors with which this science was formerly infected," (Introduction to "Principles" published in 1828), "are now fast disappearing; and a few observations will suffice to show that it really admits of as much certainty in its conclusions as any science founded on fact and experiment can possibly do." From the preface to the third edition of the same work, published in 1842, we take the following: — " Notwithstanding the pretensions so frequently put forward by Politicians and Economists, some of the more interesting portions of the sciences which they profess, are still very imperfectly understood ; and the important art of applyiûg them to the affairs of mankind, so as to produce the greatest amount of permanent good, has made but little progress, and is hardly, indeed, advanced beyond infancy. Initiates nos credimus dum in vestibido hœremus." — " However humiliating the confession, it is certainly true, that owing to the want of information, not a few of the most interesting problems in economical legislation are at present all but insoluble, and it must be left to the Economists of future ages, who will no doubt be able to appeal to principles which have not yet developed themselves, to perfect the theoretical, and to complete, or reconstruct the practical part of the science." These two passages keep their place in the fourth edition, 1849. To show that he does not accept the celebrated maxim of the Physiocrats, and which afterwards became the central doctrine of Say's School, Laissez faire, laissez passer, McCulloch inserts in the third edition of his " Principles" a whole chapter, in which he elaborately argues the right of government to intervene in matters of private concern, for individual, as well as for public good. As he has treated Political Economy it is inseparable from Politics, although he makes the attempt to distinguish them. So far as the science of Political Economy is concerned, it has suffered greatly in the hands of McCulloch ; but so far as Economical knowledge is concerned, his contributions are of more value than those of any other Economist, and even of many of them combined. His writings will be consulted with advantage when very many of the treatises upon Political Economy will only keep their places on the shelves of libraries as events in its history.* We have already spoken in high terms of N. W. Senior, the author of many publications upon Political Economy. That which we shall now notice is the one in which he summed up his views with much clearness. It was first published as the article on Political Economy, in the "Encyclopedia 31etropolitani," in 1835, and subsequently in a separate form. In the scientific distribution of that great work it was placed among the "pure sciences." It was no doubt the intention of the writer of the article to keep within the bounds of pure science : if he has not succeeded, he has at least shown the great error of those who called Political Economy a science, and treated it without any re- gard to the primary idea of a science. In the form of this work, considering his aim, Senior has shown himself superior in distinctness and power of generalization, to the author of any other system of Political Economy. In special points he may have been surpassed by Eossi. After having in his Introduction restricted his subject to Wealth, he adds, " The questions, To what extent, and under what circumstances, is the possession of wealth, on the whole, beneficial or injurious to its possessor, or to the society of which he is a member ? What distribution of wealth is most desirable in each different state of society ? And what are the means by which any given country can facilitate such a distribution ? all these are questions of great interest and difficulty, but no more form a part of the science of Political Economy, in the sense in which we use that term, than Navigation forms a part of Astronomy." The science in his hands is not of " Happiness, but wealth ; his premises consist of a very few general propositions, the result of observation or consciousness, and scarcely re- quiring proof, which almost every man, as soon as he hears them, admits as familiar to his thoughts ; and his inferences are nearly as general, and if he has reasoned correctly, as certain, as his premises. Those which re- late to the nature and the production of wealth, are universally true ; and though those which relate to the distribution of wealth are liable to be affected by the peculiar institutions of particular countries ; in the cases, for instance, of slavery, legal monopolies, or poor-laws, the natural state of things can be laid down as the general rule, and the anomalies produced by particular disturbing causes, can be afterwards accounted for. But his conclusions, whatever be their generality and their truth, do not authorize him to add a single word of advice. That privilege belongs to the writer or statesman who has considered what may promote or impede the general welfare of those whom he addresses, not to the theorist who has considered only one, though among the most important, of those causes. The business of a Political Economist is neither to recommend, nor to dissuade, but to state general principles, which it is fatal to neglect, but neither advisable, nor perhaps practicable, to use as the sole, or even the principal guides in the actual conduct of affairs." Mr. Senior is well aware, however, of the " imperfect state of the science, although, long and intensely studied." One of his prominent objects in the work before us was to improve the nomenclature of the science, which he admits to be in a very bad condition. " The English work which has attracted the most attention during the present century, Mr. Eicardo's "Principles, &c," is de- formed by a use of words so unexplained, and yet so remote from ordi- nary usage and from that of other writers on the same subject, and frequently so inconsistent, as to perplex every reader, and not unfre- quently to have misled the eminent writer himself." * These passages suggest an obvious, but important remark, applicable to all the writings upon Political Economy : very great confusion of ideas, premises, and conclusions, exists not only in works upon that subject, owing to the very general disregard of the distinction between science and art, but also to the disregard of the corresponding distinction between men who are qualified to instruct us in science and those who are qualified to teach us art ; between the men who may be qualified, by their powers of reasoning, observation, and logical discrimination, to perceive and state those few main propositions or generalizations, which are the alleged elements of the science of Political Economy, and those who, while they can readily comprehend the import and teaching of these general propositions, can, from their experience of the world, employ them in connection with all the facts and considerations touching public and individual welfare, which go to influence the minds of states- men and legislators. Now, according to an illustration of Senior, a writer may be master of the science of Political Economy, but be as unfit to be a Statesman as a mere Astronomer would be to navigate a ship. It will scarcely be denied, we presume, that whatever knowledge of the science of Political Economy was possessed by a large majority of the writers upon that subject, very few could lay any pretensions to being statesmen. Adam Smith was a College Professor, and so have been most of these writers since his day. The life of a professor may be favorable to intellectual studies, but it certainly is not an adequate preparation for statesmanship. We think then that the conclusions of Political Economy have been pressed upon the attention of nations and public men, with a zeal and an importunity in the inverse ratio of their importance. The men who have attempted to elaborate the science of Politi- cal Economy, have been more or less successful, as may be variously judged by those who review their labors; but clearly, the men who have attempted to apply these unsettled principles to the actual affairs of nations have been unsuccessful, both because the principles to be applied were uncertain, and because, if these principles had been ever so clear, the parties making the attempt had not the requisite practical knowledge to enable them to make the application. If these principles were not only well defined, but admitted, they would form but a very small part of the knowledge needful for wise and successful statesmanship. Notwithstanding these reasons for modesty in the application of the principles of Political Economy, there has been no quarter from which the ear of public men has been more assailed than from recluse fledglings of this science. How many, ignorant of Senior's advice, but having got hold of some of those general propositions which he announced, have regarded themselves as not only qualified to advise all men in high sta- tion, but to undertake the government of any nation or all nations ! The truth is, not a few of this School announce the doctrine of free trade as sufficient to cover the whole ground of human welfare. The question of free trade belongs not to the science of Political Economy, according to the theory of Senior, Rossi and Tracy, but to the consideration of the statesman, or the domain of government and politics ; and all that Political Economists have urged on that subject has been ex cathedra. The most important work published in England recently upon the subject of Political Economy, is that of J. Stuart Mill, entitled, "Principles of Political Economy, with some of their applications to Social Philosophy," which appeared in two large volumes, 8vo., in 1848. We have already made the name and some of the labors of J. S. Mill, familiar to our readers. We regard him as eminently qualified to pursue the subject of Political Economy, with a view to ascertain its actual condition as a science, and the claims of the various writers to authority. Byreferring to the citations already made from a former work, the precision of his language and the closeness of his thinking, will be seen. His work on rationative and inductive logic,* a treatise of high repute, is a further warrant for his capacity to pursue the science of Political Economy as he understood it ; the doubt which meets us in taking upthis voluminous effort is, whether J. S. Mill was a practical statesman. We see that he has undertaken to deal with the application of the science ; but it is true, his application is not said to be to the actual affairs of life and of nations, but to Social Philosoph?/. If this phi-ase meansor includes the art of government, then he has undertaken the regular application of the science. Now the confidence which we might accord to Mr. Mill in logic, in mental science, in criticism, abandons us whenhe enters upon a career demanding such large experience of public life and national affairs, as this application of Political Economy. Weknow that this kind of experience and knowledge is not found, nor is it attainable in the chambers of philosophers. Mr. Mill had a position in the Home Office of the East India Company, which, if it afforded himleisure for study, gave him little opportunity of becoming versed in the affairs of the world outside of the concerns of the Company, in whose office he held a place. It strikes us that J. S. Mill, after his very searching Essay on the " Definitions of Political Economy, and on the method of Investigation proper to it," owed it to the public to furnish us a treatise on the pure science for which he was more particularly qualified, before he undertook to enlighten the world upon its applications, for which he could not be so well prepared. He seems to have feared that such a work would be re- garded by the British public in no more favorable light than that suggested by MeCulloch, of an Address to the pump in Aldgate, and therefore he preferred to mingle the science and the application together in the same volume, leaving the majority of his readers to that hopeless confusion of ideas which has hitherto reigned on this ill-fated topic. As a reason for his publication, he says, " that no existing treatise on Political Economy contains the latest improvements which have been made on the theory of the subject."—"The design of the book is dif- ferent from that of any treatise of Political Economy which has been produced in England, since the work of Adam Smith." The characteristics of the work of Smith which he wished to imitate, are " the in- variable association of principles with their applications." —" This, of itself, implies a much wider range of ideas and topics than are included in Political Economy, considered as a branch of abstract speculation. For practical purposes, Political Economy is inseparably intertwined with many other branches of social philosophy. Except in matters of mere detail, there are, perhaps, no practical questions, even among those which approach nearest to the character of purely economical questions, .which admit of being decided on economical premises alone." J. S. Mill thinks it is because Adam Smith never loses sight of this truth, but always blended his applications with his theory, that he has impressed his ideas so strongly upon men of the world and legislators. We think his success in this respect is owing to the direct manner in which he treats his various topics ; he does not assume to be developing a science, he proceeds neither by induction nor by abstraction, he merely addresses himself to his readers, public and private, with his best thoughts on the subject before him, allowing his opinions and speculations to go for what they are worth. But since the Treatise of Say, we are taught to look for something more. We have now a science of Political Economy, or we have not. If we have a science, we wish to have it distinctly set forth by capable men, and then we desire to have our treatises upon politics and government ; upon public and private welfare ; upon industry and commerce ; make such use of this science, and draw from it such light as it affords for the conduct of public affairs, and the amelioration of human condition. We do not expect our men of science to become all at once our men of business or of art; but we expect our public men and men of art to overlook no progress made in the sciences which can furnish them aid. We think, therefore, that if J. S. Mill, instead of aiming at the popularity of Adam Smith, had bent his whole mind to the elucidation of the science, he would have rendered more essential service to the world. This was the consistent course of Senior, who now stands in England, foremost in the pure science of Political Economy, so far as it is entitled to take rank among the pure sciences. J. S. Mill says, that " The Wealth of Nations, is, in many parts, obsolete, and in all imperfect;" and he is, therefore, of opinion, that a work on that plan is timely and desirable. He proposed to supply it, and we think has by this exposed himself to a similar fate with that to which he consigns Adam Smith, that of being at no distant day pro- nounced obsolete and imperfect. When we say this, we are far from insensible to the merits of the work before us. In method, it sur- passes any previous work of equal dimensions, and it contains a great variety of clear and distinct reasonings upon the several divisions of his subject. But its authority as a work must ever suffer from its double character, and from the fact which cannot be gainsayed, that J. S. Mill was not a practical statesman, however profound a logician and philosopher. Although Germany may have been less prolific in writings upon Politi- cal Economy than France and England, and less fruitful than its general literature would have warranted us in expecting, yet German Professors and public men have, by no means, withheld their views upon this subject from the world. Their works upon the various kindred topics of Political Economy, would make a library of themselves. According to the tendency of the German mind, the most of these are Eclectic. There are, however, some supporters of all the leading schools, and Smith and Say have their full share. At the present moment, List's School is believed to be the most influential and respectable in every point of view, although the whole weight of English influence is opposed to it, as well as the remaining strength of the School of Smith and Say. The work of List, herewith given to the American public, although imperfect and inartificial in many respects, is yet one of the most original and valuable which Germany has produced, and in not a few respects superior to any previous work. The German Eclectic works furnish a vast amount of well arranged information, and they may always be consulted with advantage. We would refer especially to the works of Schmalz, Jacob Vollgraff, Krauze, K. H. Rau, Lotz, Herman, and Schfen ; but there are others of equal merit to some of these. Political Economy has long been a favorite subject in Ttaly. No series of writings upon the subject can justly be placed before those of the Italian peninsula. These were much less known, until within the present century, than they deserved. They were sources from which the writers of other countries could draw without much danger of detection. The subject has been generally treated in Italy as within the domain of politics. A selection of the Italian Economists was, at the instance of Napoleon, made and republished in fifty volumes, 8vo., at Milan, under the direc- tion of Baron Custodi. This publication was commenced in 1803, and completed in 1816. It did not, by any means, embrace all the meritorious writers upon that subject in the Italian language. Since that publication, a great number of important and able works have appeared in Italy, very few of which belong to the School of Smith and Say. Another collection of Italian Economists, and of foreign works upon Political Economy, translated, is now in process of publication at Turin» which will probably contain as much as the collection of Custodi.* There is one Italian author to whom we are pleased to draw the attention of the reader. Melchior Gioja is not only well known as an Economist in Italy, but is distinguished by many works upon other kindred topics, one of which is the Philosophy of Statistics. The work now before us, was published in Milan, in 1815-19, in six quarto volumes, with the title ; " A new Prospectus of the Economical Sciences, containing a summary of the ideas, historical and practical, in every branch of administration, public and private." This great work has been called an Encyclopedia of Public Economy, and has been com. pared to those great lakes into which all the streams and rivers of a country empty themselves. Large as this work is, it may be consulted as a model of condensation. Its synoptical tables are the wonder of all who examine them. The method throughout is so rigid, that tbo whole work would be forbidding, if the style were not as lively as the method is vigorous. His analysis of writers upon Political Economy is searching, and his criticisms merciless. He spares none who have ex- posed themselves to the lash, be they renowned or obscure. He ranges over the whole subject from the laws which refer to animals of labor, to those which regulate the affairs of the most civilized nations. One of the most remarkable of his Tables is that at the close of the fifth volume, in which he arranges the contradictions of the principal Economists parallel columns, quoting each passage, and indicating its page with full marginal notes of his own. This Table occupies 122 pages, 4to. The names of Smith and Say figure conspicuously in this extraordinary docu- ment—far more space being allowed them in this exposition than any other two writers. In accordance with the general opinion of the Italian School, Gioja favored the intervention of a government in the affairs of its people, whenever their interests could be promoted by such intervention. At the close of the sixth volume he appends an instructive table, which sets forth 54 cases or occasions, in which a government may beneficially interpose to assist the progress of industry, or specially promote human welfare, placing in a parallel column 52 instances in which intervention is injurious. The manly courage of the author is very conspicuous in this Table, in which he distinctly specifies the injury inflicted by governments in encouraging that policy of the Papal Church which has been so fatal to the progress and industry of Italy. A few specimens from this Table may be interesting : " The influence of government is useful :—

1. In the construction of good roads and canals, which by diminishing the expense of transportation, leaves to individuals a greater disposable capital."

2. "In the concession of public aid by money or credit, to enter- prising and capable men introducing new branches of industry, either with or without interest, or upon long terms of payment, a policy which may be very beneficial, as the history of England shows." 

3. " In the exempting from taxes for a certain number of years, lands recently reclaimed or newly brought into cultivation." 

4. " In the construction of public works, the income of which may not only facilitate the progress of industry, but assist in keeping taxation at the lowest possible point." 

5. " In the location and number of tribunals of justice, so as to save the time of suitors and witnesses." 

6. " In the establishment of libraries containing rare and expensive works of science and taste; museums of natural history, formed of the productions of every portion of a country; cabinets of machinery, ancient and modern, with privileges to workmen and artists to examine them daily ; and similar liberty to students in the libraries." 

7. " In the establishment of botanic gardens for the purpose of accli- mating exotic plants, and testing their value; inobservations to ascertain the influence of the seasons upon agriculture ; in Medical Institutions so situated, and in such mutual correspondence, that they can observe and record the general movement of mortality and disease."

8. " In free schools for the ordinary branches of common education, and for instruction in agriculture, and in the common arts and trades."

 9. "In academical institutions for the promotion of every kind of knowledge, for the removal of prejudices, and for stimulating emulation." 

10. " In the free publication of books, only so controlled as that the reputation of the people, good morals and the public peace, may have nothing to fear." 

11. "In the liberty of the press, to the credit of which Independence is necessary."

 12. " In sending men of skill and science to every part of the world where information useful to commerce and industry may be obtained, that all the discoveries, inventions and useful processes, may be immediately introduced at home." 

These twelve propositions stand first in the Table under the heads of Power and Knowledge. There are twelve more heads, under which are 42 propositions. Among which it may be noted is one proposing a repeal of all restrictions upon rates of interest ; one to allow the pre- cious metals to fluctuate according to their market value, without fixing that value by a law of legal tender; one providing for restrictions in the commerce of gold and silver, and of drugs and medicines; one for se- curing patent-rights and also copy-rights ; one for uniform weights and measures ; one regulating the post-office ; one for a special mining code ; one upon the subject of the locality of factories, the operation of which may be prejudicial to the health or comfort of those residing in the vicinity ; one limiting the quantity of ground which may be held for the mere purposes of game ; and the surface of water which may be appropriated as a fishery."*

The vast work of Gioja is wholly unlike any of the great works upon Political Economy in French, English, or German. It discusses the same topics, but always with a practical view, and the only pretensions to -science is a scientific arrangement of the subject. He speaks at all times of an art, the art of administering a government, and in his hands the subject in no place assumes the form of an abstract or experi- mental science. His leaning is undoubtedly to the system of industry in England at the period of his writing, from 1814 to 1819.*

It has not been our intention to notice specially American writers upon Political Economy. For the most part, they have assumed that the science was settled, and to be found in the works of Adam Smith, J. B. Say, and a few other writers ; these productions are chiefly pre- pared by Professors, and intended for the use of Colleges. The object of the writers was not so much original research, as the making the best use they could of the materials on hand. To examine and appreciate those American Political Economists who have left the beaten path, would require both time and space, which, as the task does not come within our plan, we cannot now spare. Without prejudice to others, we may refer specially to Carey, Raymond, Rae, Colton, and E. Peshine Smith."}" Of these, one has made himself so widely known, both in Europe and America, that we cannot, even in this brief reference to our Economists, omit a special notice. Henry C. Carey inherited from his father, Mathew Carey, a tendency to Economical studies. The son, however, departed, in his early career, from his father's views, and published several works decidedly in the traces of the Say School. Severe thinking, however, and close observation of the progress and condition of nations, carried him clear of the fallacies of the science of wealth. Mr. Carey became an original writer of such power, that his merit was soon acknowledged, even by those who disputed his doctrines. To show how completely he was emancipated from the narrow views of those who confine the subject to wealth, we need only point to the table of contents of his " Past, Present and Future," where we find that two chapters of fifteen are on the subject of wealth. We see there, "Man and Land;" "Man and Food;" "Man and his Standard of Value;" "Man and his Fellow-man;" "Man;" "Man and his Helpmate;" "Man and his Family." It would be difficult to present a stronger contrast than is offered by this mode of considering the subject of Political Economy, and that pursued by J. B. Say. Mr. Carey's more recent works have been translated into several languages, and are employed as text-books in several of the European Universities. He has, in fact, placed himself at the head of a School of Political Eco- nomy highly respectable for intelligence and numbers. His writings upon the subject of Banks, Credit, and Money, have been especially appreciated. Differing widely upon many points from Mr. Carey, we yet feel bound to say, that among those who are now engaged in the work of perfecting this science, he must be placed in the first rank. To the future belongs the task of awarding the prize of complete success to him who shall surmount difficulties which have hitherto baffled the efforts of men of as great and varied powers of mind as have ever been brought to bear upon any subject. Carey and McCulloch, both with great knowledge of details, unite in regarding the subject from a practical point of view; but, while McCulloch gives himself little concern about the formula or strictness of sci- ence, Carey persists in the belief that Political Economy is susceptible of being reduced to the form of a pure science. In this respect Carey partakes of the faith of Rossi and Senior, without, however, using the same elements. His science, when completed, from present indications, will not correspond in form or statement with the system of either. We cannot doubt that if a pure science shall ever be developed and universally received, Carey will be found to have contributed his full share to the work. It is a fact of special notoriety in the history of Political Economy, that whilst its great authorities differed both upon the elements and the nature of the science, upon its laws and upon its applications, and whilst taken as a whole, no subject could be more unsettled, and no instruction more unsatisfactory, it was thrust upon the attention of legislators and statesmen, with a zeal and perseverance which only the clearest demonstrations could have warranted. Whether the disciples of Say, who were most conspicuous in this pressure upon public men, were merely inspired by confidence in their doctrines, or were actuated by the desire of promoting the science by a course of national experiments, may never be known. As Say had proclaimed the science to be one of experiment, it is most probable that the experimental career was the dictate of that School. Yet how little was there to justify the supercilious tone which has been adopted towards those who are inclined to doubt both the soundness of their doctrine, and the wisdom of its teachers. These pre- tensions have had more sway than was due to them. There has been an increasing effort of these theorists to influence governments, and control society, for the last half century. France, Germany, and the United States, have been the chief theatre of their efforts. Russia broke away from them in 1821, and applied her whole attention to building up her infant industry and civilization, and with a success which all the world has seen and acknowledged. It is true, neither France nor Germany, nor the United States, have given their entire sanction to this divorce of wealth from politics, morals and religion, because men in power and with the responsibilities of government upon their shoulders, however strongly urged in this false direction, could see mischiefs in the path ; and however misled by theory, could not but hesitate to adopt a policy of which the first step portended ruin to multitudes. In this state of mind, the governments of these countries have merely inflicted upon their several populations, the very great evil of an uncertain and fluctuating industrial policy. They have appeared to falter undecided between the authoritative demands of the so-called science of Political Economy, and what appeared to be the plain dictates of common sense, in regard to the interests of the people. The mischiefs of this halting between two opinions it is impossible to weigh, but they have been an obstacle to the progress of human welfare, fearful to contemplate. Unhappily for the cause of truth and sound statesmanship, Malthus' theory of population intervened in the same half century as a prop to the theorists in Political Economy. As the latter desired to build up a system of wealth, industry and trade, distinct from political, moral and religious considerations, that is apart from the highest human interests, this theory of population appeared to justify the attempt, by proving that men were coming into the world too fast for its capacity to feed them, and propounding as a remedy for this undue obedience to the command, to "multiply and replenish the earth/ 7 starvation for those who had already " come unbidden to the banquet of life ," and some sufficient check to such multiplication of human beings hereafter. The effect of these two theories in a vast number of minds, was to accomplish an entire severance between the industrial interests of men and Christianity. In other words, neither kindness nor charity, nor high moral interests, nor religion, had any voice in the view of such men in adjusting the industrial position of that immense class of men who not only work for their own living, but actually produce the articles by which other men live. Whatever of truth may have been mingled in their views, there could be no safety in their conclusions. Their starting point of wealth could not, by any possibility, be a logical, any more than a humane guide to sound conclusions.

The absurdity of divorcing wealth from its indispensable union with human interests, and from its dependence upon considerations and motives higher than wealth, is, in no aspect, more striking than in the attempt to separate it from national policy and politics. Whether this serious mistake arose from the exigencies of logic, or from neglecting the distinction between science and art, it was equally fatal to clear perceptions. The assumption that the whole range of interests and subjects usually embraced in Political Economy, that is, all that relates to in- dustry, to trade and social amelioration, should be withdrawn from the domain of politics, and from the discretion of statesmen and legislators, and be committed to Political Economists, was so bold, if not so pre- sumptuous, that it could never have been made, except by men laboring under some great delusion. And when we reflect upon the extremely unsettled state of the science, by the light of which, Political Econo. mists in their closets were to decide upon the well-being of millions upon millions of people, and upon the fate of nations, we cannot but wonder that such an idea was ever entertained for a moment by men of intelligence. Yet this doctrine has had its day, and even now prevails to some extent. There is a certain order of minds, which, abhorring details, and feeling unable to grapple with them, gladly takes refuge in rules and generalities; and to this must belong those who imagine that the science of Political Economy is entitled to take precedence of politi- cal wisdom and experience. Nations are associations designed to obtain and realize all the advantages which united power and wisdom can secure for a people. However this object may be modified or limited by forms of government, or ancient customs and legislation, the same great motive remains. The legislation of civilized countries, the skill, knowledge and experience of statesmen, are, or should be, chiefly directed to this point. No govern- ment is so restricted in its powers, as to be a mere negation in regard to the social interests of the country, and none should be so blind as not to see that it must be vain to attempt securing any higher interests of a people, while their material or industrial interests are neglected or suf- fered to languish. The extent to which governments have already gone, and must necessarily go, in protecting and promoting industry, clearly contradicts the idea, that men can be let alone to manage their private busi- ness entirely in their own way. Such is the legislation in regard to cor- porations, partnerships, banks, brokers, railways, canals, roads, mechanics' liens, apprenticeships, inspections, patent-rights, copy-rights, hours of labor, licences, auctions, conveyances of real estate, coinage, weights and measures, promissory notes, and insolvency ; all such enactments, of which there is a vast mass, are designed to regulate the course of business, and control men in their private affairs. The extent to which this intervention may be advantageously carried, is not, and cannot be deter- mined in advance, but must be left with the institutions of a country, to the sound discretion of those in whom its power is vested. Every nation must have a system, mainly, its own. It is literally impossible, that a population occupying an extensive territory, can be de- pendent upon other countries for any considerable portion of its con- sumption, without great sacrifice. However one country may be disposed to look to others for its supplies, it can only obtain them to the extent that other countries need its products. Its consumption will then be, not in proportion to the power of domestic production and the peoples' wants, but to the desire of other conntries to have their commodities. In point of fact, it is found that every nation mainly supplies its own wants. This country is the most profuse consumer of goods manufactured and grown in other countries, of any in the world. We import nearly ten per cent, of our consumption; the imports of Great Britain are equal to ten per cent, of her consumption, but a very large proportion of these imports consists of cotton, wool, silk, and other raw materials of those manufactures, which form the bulk of the exports; the imports of Belgium, including raw material, are also ten per cent. ; those of France, raw materials included, scarcely exceed five per cent. ; but Russia, Austria, Germany and Italy, do not import one per cent, of their consumption. In looking then at the system of domestic industry, by which the wants of a people are mainly supplied, the portion brought from other countries may be left out of view, whilst the attention is specially fixed upon the mode in which from ninety to ninety-nine per cent, of the commodities consumed are produced. The foreign trade, its object, scope and interest, can be better understood after what concerns the home industry is fully apprehended. And it cannot be doubted, that the industry on which a people are dependent for ninety to ninety-nine per cent, of their consumption, must be a more important interest than that which furnishes only from one to ten per cent. Four-fifths of every population are engaged in the actual work of production. Food, raiment, habitations, and the furniture within them, are the chief objects of their labor. The other fifth is made up of classes not actually engaged in this work of production, but necessary for the proper constitution of civilized society ; this class furnishes the officers of government, men of the professions, of science, and of every intellectual calling, all who minister to mental gratifications, merchants of every grade, and those engaged in the business of transportation by land or sea; to these, we must add the men of capital, who live upon invested wealth, contributing in no way actively to the general welfare; and the paupers and criminals, who are a dead weight upon society. It is apparent, at the first glance, that there is a state of mutual de- pendence among the millions thus classified. Every individual receives for his own consumption some of the labors of all the others. The agriculturists, manufacturers, and mechanics, are the sole producers, but they cannot carry on their work without the aid of the others. These producers are also dependent upon each other. This whole scene of industry, production, and mutual dependence, resolves itself in its largest aspects, as well as in its minutest details, into an exchange of labor. Knowledge, experience, and civilization, have brought about such a division of labor, that scarcely a man produces any special commodity. Men contribute their labor, and skilful combinations convert the results of this divided labor into the commodities which men need. To avoid complication, we may overlook money and other devices by which men exchange their individual labor for the products of the labor of hundreds of others. The system of domestic industry and internal trade is that by which men produce and exchange commodities and services with each other to the extent of from ninety to ninety-nine per cent, of their consumption. They accomplish this by a price fixed upon every commodity and every service, which price is expressed in money of account. It is obvious that the peculiar circumstances of every country must combine to fix an average price of labor in each country, through all the various ramifications of employment and industry. It is, in fact, known that every country has a different price of labor, and every different scale may be found, from one dollar per day in the United States, to five cents per day in India. The rates of labor in any country must mainly regulate the price of all its commodities and all the services which men render to each other, and also the expenditure of government. If this great internal exchange is favored by public authority, and facilitated by the removal of all obstacles and friction, it may move with that regularity which is indispeneable to the general well-being; the comfort, and welfare, nay, the lives of multitudes, are dependent upon it. The special scale of prices following upon the price of labor, is one which tends towards justice for all, for all have a voice in fixing the price of their own labor or services. If undisturbed, this scale of prices will bring a fair remuneration to all ; the agriculturists, manufacturers, and mechanics, will estimate their respective commodities, or the labor which produced them, by the same money of account, and at the same average price of labor; their exchanges then, as among themselves, will be just. In proportion to the price of the articles of consumption will be the taxes of government, the profits of merchants, and the charges of professional men and others for their services. So far as such a complicated adjustment can be so, it tends to become fair and complete. The prices may be high or low compared with those of other countries, but as among the parties chiefly interested, they are neither high nor low, but right, and cannot be suddenly changed without immense confusion and injustice. The most important consideration then in reference to this scene of domestic labor and production, is not the nominal prices or rates at which their mutual exchanges are made, but the efficiency and skill of the labor, the obtaining the largest quantity of commodities, and of the best quality. But even this result is subordinate to the consideration of the distribution. The great aim then, is a large quantity of commodities of the best quality, produced under such conditions that the laborers or producers receive their full share of these commodities as a compensation for their labor. There need be no limit to that consumption which depends upon mutual industry, but the productive power of the labor. It is the interest of governments, of capitalists, of employers, and of all the useful, though not directly producing classes of society, that the work of production should be carried to such a point of success, as will ensure a high degree of comfort to the producing classes. Active industry sharpens the intellects, and quickens the energies of the pro- ducers, that is, of four-fifths of the whole population, and thus carries vigor and intelligence into every branch of production. The degree of skill and knowledge necessary to produce any article, is a productive power, which may be increased indefinitely by keeping it in action, and by improving the physical and mental energies of those who wield that power. The whole industry of a nation constitutes a system of these productive powers in a state of mutual dependence ; for they feed upon each other; each prospers as the others prosper, and all suffer when one languishes. The individuals of every class, or which make up any particular productive power, are consumers more or less of the products of every other class. The efficiency of their power depends greatly on their vicinity to each other, and the facility with which they communicate. Agriculture flourishes in proportion to the vicinity of its con- sumers ; a district which can feed a million of men, diffused over its own surface, besides its agriculturists, could not sustain 250,000 men at the distance of 100 miles. That agriculture, which is provided with a market close at hand for its entire product, the heavy and perishable, as well as that which would bear transportation, is many times more pro- ductive than that which has only a distant market. Land in the vicinity of large cities, or upon which there is a numerous population of manufacturers, is five or sis times more valuable than that where the population is sparse, and agriculture confined to the cereal or light crops. But whether the population of a country is heavy or sparse, its industry, if active and profitable, is a system bound together by common interests, and its prosperity and progress depend upon the strength and efficiency of that system as a whole. A prosperous agriculture induces a large consumption of clothing and furniture, and a large demand for buildings and for agricultural implements; activity in manufacturing and in the mechanical arts, enables those engaged to consume freely the products of agriculture; the activity of the whole of the producing classes is reflected upon every other class and interest, with like benefit to all. Now this whole system of home industry, existing under the same laws, under control of the same government, and under the watchful eye of every true friend of the country, can be promoted and aided as a whole, only by a public policy which extends to the whole, or by measures strengthening and promoting particular branches of industry, important to the system as a whole. In such a system, if the rates of labor are high, the prices paid for commodities may appear high compared with those paid for corresponding articles in other countries ; but the criterion of the benefits enjoyed by the inhabitants of two countries, is not the price of the articles they consume, but the quantity of articles they consume ; the price of labor and the price of goods, must be taken together. That system of industry is the best which affords the largest consumption to the masses, and the best opportunities of moral, mental and physical improvement. Such a system can only be secured by wise legislation, by a true regard for the rights of humanity, and a true conception of the utility and necessity of employing national power and unity for this greatest national object. It is not, however, enough that the producing classes should be industrious : it is indispensable that there should exist a distributing or commercial agency. This is a task so complex, involving so much labor, skill and intelligence, that it gives employment in various ways to the tenth of a population. The commodities which are the product of home industry, and designed for consumption, are purchased by merchants, assorted, carried to their various destinations, or distributed over the whole country, as the demand for them indicates. This necessary agency is a heavy expense, and a severe tax upon producing industry, but it is unavoidable, because the goods cannot be consumed unless they are distributed. It is cheaper for consumers to pay others for distribution, than to attempt it themselves. It is, nevertheless, an agency, and however needful, it should do its work at the least expense to those for whom it acts, which is practicable, consistent with ample compensation to those who are engaged in it. It differs from producing industry in this important respect, that while the one may and should be developed to the highest point, the other should not be developed nor increased beyond the point of performing adequately a limited task. It is desirable to keep the agency effective, but it should not in expense or numbers engaged, transcend the limits of economy or necessity. There are strong tendencies connected with the business which beget many abuses and much hardship; facts which are not to be overlooked nor underrated in every consideration of the commercial agencies. It being the interest of the merchant to purchase at the lowest rate he can, whatever may have been the labor bestowed upon a commodity, and whether the producers are remunerated or not, and to sell his commodities at the highest rate he can obtain, whether the consumers can afford to pay or not; so far as this temptation influences the action of merchants, it deranges the regular exchanges of society, and is highly mischievous. It weakens productive power by taking from the pro- ducing classes, not merely some portion of that wealth which belongs to them, but often withholds from them the comforts, and even the necessaries of life. And a further evil is, that the greater the accumulation of wealth in the hands of merchants, the more able are they to avail themselves of their position, to exact great profits or impose heavy bur- dens upon industry. Rich merchants do not indicate a rich population, for the annual gains of merchants are taken from the annual labor of the people. They can refuse to purchase from those who are under the necessity of selling, until they make their own terms of purchase ; they can retain goods which are in great demand, until they make their own terms of sale. Where there are such temptations, many will yield to them. The whole subject is worthy of attention, and should, at the least, be the object of a right public sentiment. But industry encounters, in the progress of this exchange of commodities, and in the operations of the commercial agency by which it is effected, other checks and obstacles still more important. And whilst it is true that production owes no little of its success to the aid of merchants and the great capital which they accumulate, it is very evident that commercial fluctuations, speculations, and revulsions, inflict moreserious injuries upon labor than all other causes together. Fluctuations in price may, and sometimes do, proceed from other causes, but they ate generally due to irregular commercial movements. These fluctua- tions and irregularities are calamities to labor, disturbing its progress, and checking the regular process of consumption. The whole credit and money system, the whole banking and paper currency system, in- tervene in the operation of this commercial agency. A vast amount of legislation has been expended upon these branches of trade, and yet it is conceded that all efforts have hitherto failed in reacbing the true policy. We venture to suggest, in passing, that the main imperfection of banking and money systems, and of the regulations which have beenapplied to them, is, that they have been regarded too much as indepen-dent systems and subjects, and not merely and strictly in the light of agencies of the industrial system. They have no independent aspects; they are expensive agencies, to be reduced or got rid of whenever possible. The work which they are called to assist in performing is simplyto enable men to make their exchanges of labor, commodities, andservices with each other in the shortest time, at the least expense, andwith the least trouble or friction. The credit system, in its largest sense, is that by which payment for commodities sold is deferred for the time expressed on the face of bills of exchange and promissorynotes, until, by the operation of bank credits, checks, and book ac- counts, the debts are set off one against another. The whole transac-tions between two countries are settled by set-off on the books of thedrawers of bills, except the balance, which may fall either way, whichremains to be paid. It is the same between different parts of the samecountry, and it is the same between individuals. A man may, withoutmoney or bank-notes, have all the debts he owes paid by the debtswhich others owe him : the balance only remaining to be paid. It is this set-off which our present banking system and exchange operationsaccomplish, but with an amount of friction and fluctuation which be-long not to the thing done, but are inherent in the mode of doing it. That this vast system of credit, founded on the actual sale of commodities, the consumption of which must proceed year after year withinevitable certainty, and the payments for which are as certain as thatcommodity and labor will pay for commodity and labor; that in thiscountry all these thousands of millions of credit should, like an inverted pyramid, be made to stand upon less than a hundred millions of specie, is an absurdity too often felt and too little comprehended. It is not well understood that the banking system of this country is not tha credit system, it is only one of its. chief instruments. However, legislation may be needful to restrain the banks or prevent abuses, it should not affect the credit system at large. The banks of this country have seventy millions in gold, and if a quarter of it be taken from them the mere removal of this gold will inflict a positive loss upon thousands of millions of legitimate credit operations, in no way con- nected with the movement of the gold. Although banks have in past times been of eminent advantage here, it may admit of question whether, constituted as they now are, their usefulness is not more than neutralized. We refer not to their management, nor even to their abuses, but to their constitution. The legitimate credit operations of the country are mainly, and, in some respects, with great advantage, performed on their books; yet, by this means -so brought into contact with bank notes and bank circulation, as to be subjected to the sama legislative restraints. There is no reason why bank credits should be payable in gold or silver, however necessary it may be that bank notes should be so payable. The Clearing House in London pays off millions of sterling daily by set-off, the banks in New York and Philadelphia do the same thing; individuals in all these cities are constantly doing the same thing on the books of the banks. The efficiency of this set-off is in no way dependent upon gold or silver. The whole movement of specie in Great Britain or in the United States, does not amount to one mill per cent, of the whole payments. The credit system of the country should not be saddled with the whole burden of the banking system. No doubt the latter has been, and is at times, a very efficient implement of the credit system ; but banking is a corporate or private business, subject to very great abuses, and necessarily placed under strict supervision and rigid restraints. The credit system is the spontaneous action of individual confidence between men over the whole country. It is a great public concern, aa interest which extends, until by minute ramifications, it reaches the whole population. It is not only not dependent on the present banking system for its successful operation, but it can have no worse injury inflicted upon it, than being subjected to the inflations and contractions to which the banks are obliged to resort for profit and for safety. Let the credit system rest simply on the industry of the country, and on the mutual confidence of the people, and let such modes of adjusting its accounts be devised, as will not fall under the influence of bankfluctuations. We have seen that, apart from foreign trade, the population of everycountry supply their own wants to the extent of from ninety to ninety-nine per cent, of their whole consumption ; that the business of furnish-ing this supply is by extreme division of labor, apportioned among fourfifths of a people ; that their internal trade consists in distributing theseproducts of industry ; that this distribution is substantially an exchangeamong the whole individuals of a population, of products for products,or products for services, or, in the last analysis, of labor for labor; thatthis exchange is made by the agency of merchants, and takes the shapeof sales and purchases, that is, leaving out of view the medium of ex-change, men pay with their own labor for what they need of the laborof others ; that all the agency of merchants, brokers, banks and credit is merely a means of effecting this exchange ; that the commodities orlabor thus exchanged, are estimated at prices expressed in money of ac-count, which prices are mainly governed by the price of labor ; that uponthe regular movement of this exchange, mainly depends the well-beingand comfort, the energy and productiveness of labor; that if this move-ment proceeds rapidly and undisturbed, production and consumptionwill go hand in hand, until individuals reach the full power of both, anda greater degree of general comfort and competency be enjoyed than hasyet been known. We have seen, that one of the great disturbing causesof this system of domestic distribution, of the comforts and necessariesof life, was found in the occasional derangement of the commercialagencies by which it is effected ; and we have remarked upon the necessity of reforming that agency with a view to the interests of humanity.We now proceed to consider another disturbing cause. We remarkfirst, however, that neither the labor nor the products of labor, nor thedistribution nor the means by which it is effected, are the primary objectsof consideration. The first consideration is the people, then, in theirorder, their labor, their products, and the distribution of them. Thewhole object of their industry is their well-being. As they can onlypurchase by their own labor what they need of the labor of others, it isabsolutely necessary for all to work ; whatever deprives men of the op-portunity of labor, deprives them of bread, and of every other comfortand necessary of life. Men consume freely and largely when they arefully paid for their labor; that is, when they can purchase for theirlabor an equal quantity of the labor of others ; in this case, the nominalrate is of little account, because it is labor for labor. If the 25 millions of people in the United States, are consuming ten dollars worth each of domestic woollen goods annually, upon the manufacture of which, 250,000 of the people are dependent for their entire living and if it be found that these same goods, which cost at home three dollars, can be purchased at two dollars per yard in Europe, then at first sight it would seem but reasonable, that the cheaper article should be imported from Europe. To import 250 millions of dollars worth is impossible, because we cannot pay for them, as we are constantly importing more than we can pay for, and that sum is the figure of our whole imports. "We import then, say ten per cent., or 25 millions of dollars worth of woollen goods, and sell them in our great commercial marts, where prices are chiefly made, thirty-three per cent, cheaper than the domestic article. Consumers fly to the cheaper article, and the domestic goods must come down to the same price. The annual domestic product must fall in price thirty-three per cent., and instead of bringing its manufacturers 250 millions, it will only bring them 166 millions; their consumption of the products of others must be reduced one-third. The effects of this reduction will extend until they are felt throughout a whole nation. The importation of 25 millions of cheaper woollens, would thus inflict a direct loss by reduction of price upon the woollen manufacturers of 83 millions of dollars, and this loss is multiplied many times by indirect results in the reduction of consumption. The average consumption of cotton goods is about the same as that of woollens, and the same illustration is applicable. The introduction of cheaper goods, of a kind which our country must, after all, chiefly manufacture for itself, is introducing against our own labor, the price of which is one dollar per day, the labor of other countries, the price of which is less than half a dollar per day. This cannot but inflict a serious blow upon the whole system of our internal industry, and if continued, must lead to the utter prostration of the domestic manufacture thus attacked, and the utter poverty and ruin of the hundreds of thousands depending on it for a living. The effect of this in the case of woollen goods, would be a re- duction in the average consumption of woollens, of from ten to five dollars, for the whole population, and a rise in the prices above the original domestic rates. Whilst, therefore, it may at first sight appear to be very plainly better to import certain goods which can be offered to con- sumers at lower prices than the corresponding domestic article, several questions must be asked before such a policy is adopted. As ; —will the importation seriously injure any home manufacture ? Will it throw many people out of employment ? It is a great mistake to suppose that such measures affect only employers : in woollen and cotton manufactories, there are hundreds of men, women and children, depending uponevery employer. If we lessen our domestic production, will not our in-creased demand produce speculation, and a higher foreign price for thearticle imported? If we resolve upon importing our whole supply of anecessary article, are we sure that we can increase our exports to a suffi- cient extent to pay for the additional importation ? Are we sure thatwe shall not, hy this policy, deprive the poor of their supply of a needfuldomestic product, and convert it into a foreign product, chiefly suppliedfor the consumption of the rich ? What mode can be adopted to secure asupply of these needful articles in time of war, or interrupted commercial intercourse ? All these, and many more inquiries, should be madeand faithfully studied, before any branch of domestic industry is brokenup, under the temptation of buying cheaper goods abroad. On the contrary, it should be well understood in every country, that many sacrificesmay, with advantage, be endured, to introduce the manufacture of anyarticle of general consumption, even though it cannot be made as cheapas elsewhere. A manufacture can only grow and flourish in a countrywhere the people are willing to consume its products, and they can onlyconsume them when their labor will purchase them. A people can con-sume largely of a domestic product even at a high price, but may notbe able to consume even a small proportion of a corresponding foreignarticle at a low price. Let any one think of the innumerable articleswhich figure in our internal trade, and which go to pay for, as well as tomake up our consumption of home commodities, and he will see thedifference between purchasing abroad and at home. The Indian corn, hay, oats, butter, and potatoes of our agriculture,are worth at home more than double the value of our whole foreignimports. If our farmers can exchange these and such articles for themanufactured products they need, their consumption will be limitedonly by their industry. If they derive their manufactured commoditiesfrom foreign countries, they can consume only to the extent to whichtheir products can be exported in payment. Pennsylvania can consumegoods manufactured in New England freely, even at much higher pricesthan the foreign article, because she pays for them in coal, iron, Indiancorn, oats, and flour. The prices on both sides being adjusted at thedollar a day average, the exchange is equitable, and proceeds to the fulllimit of the wants of the parties. An interior county in Pennsylvaniawhilst a purely agricultural county, has but little that can find its wayto foreign countries to pay for manufactured goods. But when furnaces are built, and hundreds or thousands of men are employed in mining and making iron, the agricultural commodities which before were pro- duced in small quantities, or not sent abroad on account of their bulk or perishable nature, are now sold and consumed on the spot. These agricultural articles being converted into iron, can be carried to any of our cities, or to New England, and the value brought back in any desired article of consumption. The people of that county, before confined to the products of household industry, now appear in the very best products of American manufacture. The price of this exchange is not important ; it is only necessary that it should be fixed upon the same elements, and that it should be satisfactory to both parties. Goods are cheaper in England, but the hay, oats, butter, or turnips of an interior district cannot be sent there to pay for them ; neither can they send iron : iron is cheaper in Scotland, but the people of New England can- not purchase iron in Glasgow or Liverpool with the product of their looms or factories. The worst element which can be introduced into our system of do- mestic industry is the element of foreign prices. It deranges and diminishes domestic production to such extent, that in many cases it would be very bad policy, nay, great injustice, to the industrial classes, to accept and distribute the goods to every consumer free of charge. The entire foreign trade of the United States, or of any other country, is of small consequence, compared with the regular movement of the labor of the country; 100,000 persons thrown out of employment for a year is a loss to the wealth of the country equal to the value of the whole foreign trade. Yet, so little has this aspect of the subject been regarded, so little has the importance of our domestic industry been understood, that it will be safe to say, that there are more than 500,000 laborers idle, or but partially employed, every year in the United States, because they cannot work in competition with the cheaper labor which is let in from other countries. Our' domestic production, now estimated by some at 2500 millions of dollars, might, whether the above be the true amount or not, be increased one-half under a firmly sustained domestic system, and our population, instead of consuming one hundred dollars worth for each head, might consume a hundred and fifty dollars each. It would be the result of a domestic exchange of commodities, the prices of which would range according to the domestic price of labor; and the benefits, instead of being confined mainly to the rich, would extend to every grade of laborers. The effect of foreign importations upon this great system is to check, derange, and diminish the domestic production to many times the amount imported. "We re- ceive from abroad 250 millions worth of foreign goods, and the people probably make and consume 500 millions worth less than they would if they imported none at all. We believe that a domestic system of industry, thoroughly built up and defended, would in the end sustain a larger foreign trade than can ever be reached by the path of national competition. Foreign trade should be the overflowing of domestic industry, and not a machine to cramp its powers and paralyze its efficiency. We are not unfriendly to foreign trade or international commerce. We advocate not the prohibition of foreign commodities, nor high duties upon foreign goods. We merely avoid beginning at the wrong end of our subject. Knowing that the people of every nation must provide mainly for their own wants, that they must live mainly upon the pro- ducts of their own industry, that the labor which supplies a civilized people with food, raiment, shelter, and furniture, suitable for civilized men, must be subdivided to be efficient and productive; that a whole population can only be abundantly supplied by a mutual exchange of labor or its products, by which each man has an opportunity of exchanging his own labor for the articles he needs; that production can only be large and consumption great where the consumers are near to their food, that is, where agriculturists, manufacturers, mechanics, and laborers, are not too widely separated, and where the other classes are near enough to the agriculturists to consume every product of the soil which skilful farming produces : we believe the first question in regard to any nation is not whether its foreign trade is free, whether duties upon foreign goods are high or low, but whether its people are well supplied with the necessaries and comforts of life ; whether domestic industry is so ar- ranged that no considerable number of persons willing to labor are without employment ; whether all are able, whilst earning a comfortable subsistence for themselves, to contribute by their labor to that abundance which is enjoyed by all; these are more important considerations than any belonging to foreign trade, or duties, or tariffs. If we have failed in making our views of the importance and efficacy of a system of domestic production plain and acceptable to the commonsense of our readers, we shall resort to an illustration, for which we need not leave our own country. The great planting States of our confederacy have not cherished, and do not possess, what we call a system of domestic industry. They rely upon trade to carry off their surplus products to the North or to Europe, and bring back to them an equivalent in such articles as they require. Theirs is not a domestic system. That we may see the effects of the two systems thus in operation side by side, we shall place some of the results face to face. We compare the Eastern and Middle States with the Northern and Southern ; that is, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, with Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, and Tennessee. We take the facts relied upon from the census of 1850

Eastern and Middle States / Southern and SouthWestern States. 

Population: 9,353,104 / 7,273,954 

Territory in square miles: 179,662 / 733,144 

Land under culture, acres: 37,350,000 / 42,000,000 

Valuation of cultivated lands: $959,000,000 / $243,000,000 

Average value of cultivated land per acre: $24.17 / $5.80 

Annual product of manufactures, mining and mechanic arts: $746,715,000 / $79,958,000  

Average crop per acre of Indian corn: 27 / 17 

Average crop of Irish potatoes; bushels: 119 / 116

Let this comparison be extended to the whole range of agricultural products, including cotton, sugar and tobacco, the staples of the South; it will be found that, though the labor of the South is mainly applied to agriculture, and though there is in the South nearly five millions of acres more of land under culture, yet the product of the two regions is widely different in value, a great advantage in point of quantity and variety being on the side of the North ; a variety not only conducive to comfort, but a great stimulus to exchange and increased production. The South, with the advantage of a superior climate, more fertile lands, a larger breadth in cultivation, and more labor applied to it, is only able for the supply of all its wants to equal the agricultural products of the North ; and is, therefore, only able to import from the North and from Europe, to the extent she can spare of that agricultural product. The Eastern and Middle States have, however, in addition to their agricultural product equal to that of the South in value, and far superior in its fitness to promote human comfort, been able by their own labor, to produce a quantity of manufactures valued at $746,715,000. This is clear gain to the people of the North over those of the South. By mingling manufacturing with agricultural industry, Northern labor has been so stimulated, and so aided by steam and water-power with in- creasing skill and intelligence, that the product of Northern industry is now more than double that of the South. Imperfect as the figures of the last census are admitted to be, and es- pecially unfavorable to the North, from the increased difficulty of reach- ing all the variety and ramifications of Northern industry, enough is shown to satisfy the most cautious inquirer, that the agricultural pro- ducts of the two regions, now the subject of comparison, are about equal for each head of the population. This will not be thought strange, when we note that the crops of hay, wheat, wool, and the products of the dairy in the North, together exceed in value the great staples of the South, cotton, sugar, rice and tobacco. If we take the agricultural pro- duction in these two great sections at $60 per head, which was about the average of the United States in 1850, we find the whole agricul- tural product of the South and South-western States, to be worth $435,180,000. To this, add $79,958,000, the value of Southern manufactures, and we have the sum of Southern industry, $515,138,000 ; which, divided by the population of 1850, gives an annual consumption for each individual of $73.59. This includes, of course, the value of all articles imported from the North, or from any other part of the world, for they were obtained by the export of a portion of the agricul- tural commodities valued at the above sum of $435,180,000. At the same rate of $60 per head of the population, the agricultural production of the Eastern and Middle States, amounts to $561,180,000. Add to this, the product of their manufacturing industry, stated above at $746,715,000, and we obtain the sum of Northern industry for the same year, $1,307,895,000 ; which, divided by the population of those States, gives a consumption for each individual of $145.32, or nearly double the consumption of individuals in the South. This is a result due chiefly to a domestic system of industry, by which the articles con- sumed are mainly supplied at the place of consumption ; it is due to the difference on the one hand, between sending the raw materials of agriculture to a market hundreds or thousands of miles from the soil on which they are grown, between paying for needful articles with the proceeds of such sale ; and on the other hand, manufacturing the raw materials where they are grown, and paying for other articles of con- sumption by an exchange of products of labor between agriculturists and manufacturers. But the people of the North enjoy another striking advantage derived from their system. The value of their cultivated lands is $959,000,000; which, divided by the population, gives for each individual of the Northern population, the value of $106. The Southern lands are valued at $243,000,000, which gives for each individual $34. Without running the parallel farther, which might be done with in- structive results through the whole field of Northern and Southern in- dustry, we may sum it all up in a few words. The North is thrice as rich in land as the South, ten-fold as rich in manufacturing power, and possesses an immense capital, capable of being applied with facility to any branch of industry; a capital for which there is no equivalent in the South. The North is independent, self- sustaining, and powerful ; the South is the opposite of this. The North has great maritime wealth and power; the South, nothing of the kind. The North is yearly growing richer ; the South, as a whole, is yearly becoming poorer. Northern industry flourishes on the same spot, and its poor lands become richer and more valuable; Southern industry only flourishes on new lands, and its poor lands become poorer. This comparison is not counteracted by placing the value of slaves to the account of the Southern States. Northern laborers are worth more in the view we are taking, than Southern slaves. The difference is that Northern men are owners of their own labor, which is, in part, the capital we are estimating; and in the South, the labor of most of the laborers belongs to capitalists. Whatever disadvantages are connected with the labor of African slaves, as compared with that of civilized men of the white race, we are far from believing that the great contrast in the wealth and annual con- sumption of the people of the North and South, is due to the fact of slave labor. We place it, without hesitation, to the infatuation which possesses the people of the South for foreign commerce,—an infatuation which induces men to act as if exchanging half a million in goods, for half a million in goods, the export and import amounting to a million, were equally as advantageous as the actual production of a million of goods. One Lowell would be worth to the South three times the in- vestment of a similar amount in shipping for the foreign trade, whether clippers or steamers. The great want of the South is not so much the means of sending products to market, as an increase of production and a home maaket. So long as the South relies upon an European market for cotton, cultivated land there will average not over $6 per acre. When the South manufactures one-half the crop of cotton and the North manufactures the other half, Southern lands will average thirty dollars per acre. If the South will but increase the annual product of her manufactures to $500,000,000, the increased price of Southern lands will pay for the whole investment involved in this increased production. The South has almost every assistance the world can give, to become a people of great wealth and power. These States have it in their power to double the value of their agricultural production, and increase their manufacturing power ten-fold. This could be done in twenty-five years. The result of this policy would be a white population far superior to the present, and a blessing to the African race in the South, beyond any speck of hope now in their horizon. The next generation of slaves would grow up civilized, and being civilized, their masters would emancipate them as rapidly as their best friends could desire. Their owners would find it cheaper to hire them than to keep them, and they would find in them, safe purchasers of their estates. This would be the solu- tion of the slave question. The masters would have been paid for their slaves by civilizing them. S. C. Philadelphia, February 14, 1856.