6. Adam Smith assigns the origin of a fishing-nor between two others who both division of employments to the "trucking lived by hunting: for under such circumdisposition" of mankind-to their "pro- stances neither party would have anything pensity to truck, barter, and exchange to offer but that of which the other one thing for another" (book i. ch. ii.). | already had enough. It is perfectly true This love of barter, however, is only a that without barter no extensive division secondary cause: men have no natural of employments can exist but it is clear taste for it; but use it as a means of ob- that barter is the immediate effect rather taining the various objects which they than the cause of such division. Of the desire. If they could obtain them with- influence of commerce upon the division out the trouble of barter, they would un- of employments we shall have to speak questionably not follow barter as an presently; but, in this place, it is sufficiamusement, any more than they would ent to show that the production of differwork if they could get what they wanted ent commodities beyond the immediate without labour. So far, then, from the wants of those who produce them enables trucking disposition of men being the men to barter, by giving them something cause of a division of employments, it to offer in exchange: and, that afterwould appear that a division of employ- wards, the advantages derived from barments is rather the proximate cause of ter are an encouragement to further procommerce. For if all men worked induction of the same kind. the same manner and produced the same things, there would be nothing to exchange: but as soon as men learn to devote themselves to the production of one commodity, the whole of which they cannot consume, they must exchange the produce of their labour with others, who have been producing objects which they desire to possess. This is an intelligible origin of barter and commerce-consistent with the natural propensities of mankind, and not requiring for its support the strained hypothesis that men have an innate disposition to truck. But a division of employ ments, like barter, is itself but a secondary cause; and both alike must ultimately be referred to the one original cause of all forms of industry-the desire of mankind to possess various enjoyments which are only to be gained by labour. This would appear to be the natural course of social progress. First, a man applies himself to a particular business because he has facilities for following it. One man lives by the sea and is a fisherman: another lives near the forest and hunts game. Each could obtain more of this particular food than he requires for his own use, and may desire some little variety. Under these circumstances it is very natural that they should effect exchanges with each other-not for the mere love of barter-but for the love of food. But such an exchange could not be made between two men who both lived by When this state of things has been once established, men avail themselves of all the natural advantages of their several positions, and apply themselves to the production of those commodities for which they have peculiar facilities. In one country minerals can be drawn from the bowels of the earth in unlimited abundance: in another the fruits of the earth teem upon its surface-fostered by a genial climate and a fertile soil. The inhabitants of these countries naturally seek to develop the resources of the earth which are within their reach. They labour effectively and produce abundance of their particular commodities, which they give in exchange for other things which they cannot produce themselves, but which they desire to enjoy. And thus a division of employments, by the aid of an extended commerce, distributes over the whole world, the advantages of soil, climate, situation, and mineral productions, obtained by the experience and skill of men who have adapted their talents to the circumstances of each country. Having thus hastily enumerated the several ways in which a division of employments adds to the efficacy of human labour, and increases the enjoyments of men, let us inquire in what manner it is restrained and limited. It may be collected from several of the preceding remarks, that the power of distributing men into particular employments must be limited by the extent of the market in which the produce of their labour may be exchanged. When there are no means of exchanging, men must provide everything for themselves that they require; and there is no further division of employments than that which necessarily takes place in families, and in the most simple forms of industry. So in every degree in which the situation and circumstances of men give facilities of exchange, do particular employments become assigned to individuals. A village draper sells all kinds of drapery, together with hats, shoes, coats, smock-frocks: nay, in some villages there is but one shop, in which nearly every kind of trade is carried on. In a populous city, on the other hand, trades are almost indefinitely subdivided. And why is this? Solely because of the extent of the market. In the one case, if a man sold nothing but hats, he could not gain a livelihood, and therefore he sells coats, smock-frocks, shoes, and all kinds of drapery-everything, in fact, which the people round about him are likely to buy. In the other case, there is so large a demand for hats, that a man can gain a better livelihood by the exclusive sale of them, than by a heterogeneous trade like that of the village shopkeeper. But while, by means of exchange, employments are thus subdivided, the labour of many men is most efficiently combined in producing particular results. The combinations of industry for one object are often truly wonderful, while the employments of those who are really cooperating with one another are so distinct, that they are wholly unconscious of any combination at all; nor is their combination at once perceptible to others. If you ask a man who made his coat ?"-he will naturally answer "his tailor." But ask him to enumerate the persons who had contributed to its production, and he will pause long before he attempts any answer, however incomplete. He will be reminded of the grazier, the shepherd, the wool-salesman, the various workmen in the cloth factory-the button-makers, the manufacturers of silk, and thread, and needles: but still the catalogue will be imperfect. In producing the raw materials, and in conveying, selling, and manufacturing them, the diversity of occupations is extraordinarily great. Each man attends to his own business, and scarcely thinks of its relations to the business of other people; and yet all are co-operating in the most effectual manner, for the most perfect and economical manufacture of this finished work of varied art. The general operation of the principles of a combination of labour and division of employments has now been sufficiently explained, so far as it relates to the efficiency of human industry. Of its effects upon the distribution of wealth (another important branch of political economy) no more need be said, than that by multiplying the modes in which industry is made productive, it is the main cause of the various grades of society which exist in all civilized countries. The different employments of men determine their social position as labourers or employers of labour; and the wealth arising from the effective employment of labour is distributed, through the several classes, as rent, profits, and wages. It has been urged as an objection to an extended division of employments, that it unfits men for any change of business which altered circumstances may require; and that, on that account, great misery is caused when the demand for any particular kind of labour is reduced. Of this position the hand-loom weavers of England and Scotland are a familiar example, who are said to have been thrown out of employment by the extension of machinery. That they have been reduced to great distress is certain; but in their employment there was nothing to unfit them from engaging in power-loom weaving. On the contrary, the transition from one employment to the other would have been perfectly natural; but they preferred their independent life to the discipline of a factory, and for that and other reasons persisted in continuing in their old trade. In the mean time thousands of agricultural labourers and their families, whose occupations had been totally dissimilar, flocked into the manufacturing districts, and readily learned their new business. This example, therefore, instead of sustaining | already explained, is carried very far. In the objection, proves that a division of the one case the intercourse of persons employments does not disable men, so with each other is very confined, and is much as might be expected, from trans- enlivened with scarcely any variety: in ferring their labour to other departments the other case persons are crowded togeof industry, whenever a sufficient induce- ther, and brought into continual interment attracts them. But any interruption course. These opposite circumstances or change in the ordinary course of in- produce different results for good and for dustry is necessarily productive of tempo- evil. The intelligence of mankind is nnrary suffering to the working classes, from questionably increased by extended interwhatever cause it may arise; and an al- course with one another: their morals, at teration in the forms of applying labour the same time, are more liable to corrupis but one out of many such causes. Yet tion. In large cities they are exposed to much as this evil must be deplored, it is more temptations-they are under less a satisfaction to know that it is only occa- restraint; and, above all, they have, sional, temporary, and partial in its ope- almost universally, higher wages, which ration, while the permanent welfare of enable them to indulge their propensities mankind is promoted by all those means more freely. Much of the intellectual which render industry most productive disparity of rural and town populations and multiply the sources of human enjoy- might be removed by an efficient system of education, by which men would be. better qualified to observe and reflect upon the objects by which they may be surrounded. And great would be the moral influence of education in rendering high wages innocuous, by offering liberal sources of recreation to the operative, more attractive than the temptations of vice. ment. Another objection to a minute subdivision of employments is, that it reduces vast masses of men to the condition of organized machines, uses them like tools, and uses them as such merely because machines have not yet been invented to do their work. From these facts, which are, to a certain extent, undeniable, it is inferred that the moral and intellectual character of men is degraded. This inference, however, is not supported by experience. Agricultural employments are less subdivided than trades and manufactures; but no one will contend that the farm labourer is ordinarily more intelligent than the operative, nor that his morals are decidedly superior. In comparing their relative condition, we shall be led into error if we confine our attention to the influence of a division of em ployments. In the lower departments of labour the work is rarely of a kind to enlarge the understanding, whether it consist of a combination of several occupations or of one only; and in either case the greater part of a man's time is engaged in his daily work. It is, therefore, to the circumstances by which he is surrounded, rather than to the nature of his work itself, that we must generally refer his condition. In thinly peopled countries there can be comparatively little division of employments, and in populous cities the principle of division. for reasons But to all objections it may be answered, that a division of employments is an imperative law of civilization. So overpowering is the necessity of a combination of labour with a distribution of distinct employments, for the production of wealth, that Mr. Wakefield has ingeniously ascribed to it the origin of slavery, in countries where labour has not been accessible by means of wages. (See Note to Adam Smith, book i. ch. 1.) Where land is abundant, families naturally seatter themselves over it, and provide for themselves nearly all that they want. More than they want they do not produce, as there is no market; and the growth of capital, under such circumstances, is impossible. One man has no inducement to offer to another for his labour; and thus the strongest men, with dominant wills, finding the necessity of combined industry for any extensive production, wage war upon their weaker neighbours and compel them to work by force. But where land becomes scarce and dear, men are forced into other employments distinct from agriculture; capital grows, wages are offered as an inducement to work, and the more wealthy and populous a country becomes, the more extensive must be the distribution of separate employments. To object to a division of employments, therefore, is no less than to object to civilization altogether; for the two conditions are inseparable. It is deeply to be lamented that many evils have hitherto clung to the progress of civilization, which are not its necessary accompaniments. Many of them may be referred to the slow growth of political science, and might be corrected by the application of sound principles of government; many may be attributed to the neglect of the religious and moral culture of an increasing population: but short indeed must be the sight of any man who would seek to correct them by applying to a civilized state the rude expedients of barbarism. (Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, book i. chapters 1, 2, 3, with Notes by M'Culloch and Wakefield; M'Culloch's Principles of Political Economy, &c.) DIVORCE (from the Latin word divórtium, a divertendo, from diverting or separating), the legal separation of husband and wife. In England, divorce is of two kinds: à mensâ et thoro, from bed and board; and à vinculo matrimonii, from the bond of the marriage. The divorce à mensâ et thoro is pronounced by the spiritual court for causes arising subsequent to the marriage, as for adultery, cruelty, &c. it does not dissolve the marriage, and the parties cannot contract another marriage. [BIGAMY.] In fact it is equivalent only to a separation. The divorce à vinculo matrimonii can be obtained in the spiritual courts for causes only existing before the marriage, as precontract, consanguinity, impotency, &c. This divorce declares the marriage to have been null and void, the issue begotten between the parties are bastardized, and the parties themselves are at liberty to contract marriage with others. From the curious document preserved by Selden (Uxor Ebraica,' c. xxx., vol. iii. 845, folio ed. of his Works), whereby John de Cameys, in the reign of Edward I., transferred his wife and her property to William Paynel; and also, from the reference to the laws of Howel the Good, at the end of this article, it would seem that in the early periods of English law a divorce might be had by mutual consent; but all trace of such a custom is lost. We know however (3 Salk. Rep. 138) that, until the 44 Eliz., a divorce à vinculo matrimonii might be had in the ecclesiastical courts for adultery; but in Foljambe's case, which occurred in that year in the Star Chamber, Archbishop Bancroft, upon the advice of divines, held that adultery was only a cause of divorce à mensâ et thoro. At The history of the law of divorce in England may perhaps be thus satisfactorily explained. Marriage, being a contract of a civil nature, might originally be dissolved by consent; and probably the ordinary courts of justice asserted their jurisdiction over this as well as every other description of contract. length, the rite of marriage having been elevated to the dignity of a sacrament by Pope Innocent III., A.D. 1215, the ecclesiastical courts asserted the sole jurisdiction over it. In the course of time the power of these courts was again controlled, and the sole jurisdiction for granting divorces for matter arising subsequently to the marriage was vested in the superior court of the kingdom, the House of Lords, where it was less likely to be abused than by the ecclesiastical authorities, who used to grant these and other dispensations for money. Marriage is now, by the law of England, indissoluble by the decree of any of the ordinary courts, on account of any cause that arises subsequently to the marriage; but divorce à vinculo matrimonii may still for adultery, &c. be obtained by act of parliament. For this purpose it is necessary that a civil action should have been brought by the husband in one of the courts of law against the adulterer [ADULTERY], and damages obtained therein, or some sufficient reason adduced why such action was not brought, or damages obtained, and that a definitive sentence of divorce à mensâ et thoro should have been pronounced between the parties in the ecclesiastical court. But this sentence cannot be obtained for the adultery of the wife, if she recriminates, and can prove that the husband has been unfaithful to the marriage vow; and further, to prevent any collusion between the parties, both houses of parliament may, if necessary, and generally do, require satisfactory evidence that it is proper to allow the bill of divorce to pass. The first proceeding of this nature was in the reign of Edward VI., and bills of divorce have since greatly increased. Where the injured husband can satisfy both houses of parliament, which are not bound in granting or withholding the indulgence by any of those fixed rules which control the proceedings of ordinary courts, a divorce is granted. The expenses of the proceeding are so considerable as to amount to an absolute denial of the relief to the mass of society; indeed from this circumstance divorce bills have not improperly been called the privilege of the rich. There is an order of the House of Lords that, in every divorce bill on account of adultery, a clause shall be inserted to prohibit the marriage of the offending parties with each other; but this clause is generally omitted; indeed it has been inserted only once, and that in alvery flagrant case. But it is not unusual for parliament to provide that the wife shall not be left entirely destitute, by directing a payment of a sum of money, in the nature of alimony, by the husband, out of the fortune which he had with the wife. By the divorce à vinculo matrimonii the wife forfeits her dower. [DOWER.] A Parliamentary return (354, Sess. 1844) gives the number of matrimonial suits instituted in each metropolitan and diocesan court in England, Wales, and Ireland, for the four years 1840-1-2-3; the number in the Court of Session, Scotland; the number of appeals before the Judicial Committee of Privy Council, or the House of Lords; and the number of divorce acts passed in the same four years. The following is an abstract of this re Judicial Committee. House of Lords 1840 1841 1842 1843 Appeals. 6 Divorce Acts. 8 5 9 5 In the Court of Arches the average expense of 32 suits was 1687.; in the Consistorial and Episcopal Court of London the average expense of 87 suits was 1201. In appeals before the Judicial Committee the average expense of 6 suits was 5861.; in appeals before the Lords (4 cases, all from the Court of Session, Scotland) the expenses varied from 231. to 531. The average expense (fees, House of Lords), of each act (27 acts) was 871. 16s. 10d. The causes admitted by various codes of law as grounds for the suspension or dissolution of marriage are various, and indicative of the state of society. According to the law of Moses (24 Deut. i.), "When a man hath taken a wife and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, be cause he hath found some uncleanness in her, then let him write her a bill of divorcement and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house." After 90 days, the wife might marry again. But after she had contracted a second marriage, though she should be again divorced, her former husband might not take her to be his wife. About the time of our Saviour, there was a great dispute between the schools of the great doctors Hillel and Shammai as to the meaning of this law. The former contended that a husband might not divorce his wife except for some gross misconduct, or for some serious bodily defect which was not known to him before marriage; but the latter were of opinion that simple dislike, the smallest offence, or merely the husband's will, was a sufficient ground for divorce. This is the opinion which the Jews generally adopted, and particularly the Pharisees, which explains their conduct when they came to Jesus "tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" (Matth. xix.) The answer was, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, |