alternately acquired, by manufactures and commerce, riches which have enabled them to act an important part in the political world, and even placed some of them in the rank of preponderating powers.

These splendid testimonies of history did not escape the attention and profound sagacity of Adam Smith; and he has neither denied their importance nor disputed their consequences; on the contrary, he has betrayed in several parts of his work the impressions which they made upon his mind.

In one place he states that "it is the great multiplication of the productions of the different arts, " in consequence of the division of labour, which occa❝sions, in a well-governed society, that universal opu"lence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the " people.*"

Elsewhere he acknowledges, that "it is upon the sea-coast, and along the banks of navigable rivers, "that industry of every kind naturally begins to sub"divide and improve itself; and it is frequently

66

not till a long time after, that those improvements "extend themselves to the inland parts of a country."

duals and yet what a figure did she make in Europe in the seventeenth century! what wars she sustained! what forces she resisted, and what power she attained! She is subject to frequent invasions; her harbours are bad; she annually spends immense sums, not to be swallowed up by the waves of the sea; and all these difficulties have been overcome by her indefatigable industry. Davenant, vol. ii. page 193.

* Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Edition of 1805. vol. i. book i. chap. 1. page. 17.

+ Ibid. vol. i. book i. chap. 3. page 29.

66

In another place he admits, that "the revenue of a trading and manufacturing country must, other things being equal, always be much greater than "that of one without trade or manufactures.*”

66

And yet, notwithstanding this homage paid to the power of commerce and industry, he gives the preference to agriculture. I feel almost tempted to accuse him of having contradicted himself, and to refute him by his own statements. But although this kind of refutation gives great advantages, it would be ill-timed and unbecoming towards an author so illustrious, and to whom the science of political economy owes its progress and consideration. I shall rather endeavour to discover what were the motives of his predilection for the agricultural system, and appreciate their merits and strength.

He asserts, that if social institutions had never deranged the order of things, the wealth and increase of the country would have advanced with equal steps with the improvement and cultivation of cities; and that, if public wealth has been indebted for its progress to the industry of the towns rather than to agriculture, it ought to be attributed merely to the privileges and monopolies granted to towns, to the prejudice of the country.

Although his observations in this part of his work are extremely acute and ingenious, and although he must be acknowledged to have been right when he imputed the misery of the country to the monopoly

* Wealth of Nations, vol. iii. book iv. chap. 9, pages 25. 26. + Ibid, the whole of the third book.

of the towns; yet it may easily be proved, that, even if these particular calamities had not existed, commerce and manufactures would always have obtained the same superiority over agriculture; because this superiority arises from the nature of things, and cau be neither arrested nor impeded by the combinations of men.

Agricultural produce is common to all-countries, and has every where to struggle against a general competition; whilst commerce and manufactures are peculiar only to some countries and some governments, and have of course no general competition to encounter.

Agriculture does not require any great talents; "nature performs a great part of the work *;" its improvements are slow, and the discoveries by which they may be hastened are soon known to all agricultural nations. The case is different with manufactures and commerce; they require a certain intelligence, are continually improved, reach to a degree of superiority difficult to be attained, and rarely lose the superiority which they have once acquired.

Agriculture is subject to numerous accidents. Bad seasons often disappoint the hopes of the husbandman; wild beasts devour part of his harvest, another part is spoiled and damaged; he is constantly at the mercy of accidents, and his fortune is continually menaced. The risks of industry and commerce are less numerous, and, above all, less fatal. If there be no demand for their productions in one

*This is a thought of Adam Smith's.

country, they are carried to another. If, by some fortuitous or unforeseen cause, they be damaged or part of them lost, that which remains is sold dearer, and the loss is covered by the high price occasioned by their scarcity.

Agriculture cannot extend its produce beyond the extent of the territory and agricultural population; neither can it accumulate or or store up large quantities of its productions, because they would require immense and costly buildings, and, above all, because they rapidly perish. Manufactures and commerce may multiply their productions without increasing the number of hands employed, and frequently even by diminishing their number. These productions may be stored up, at comparatively small expences, in proper warehouses, without any fear of their decaying before they are sold. Their consumption finds no limits but in the numbers of mankind and in the progress of general wealth, that. is to say, it is unlimited.

Finally, agriculture cannot build great hopes on the improvement of its methods. Notwithstanding the rapid progress of general knowledge, and the encouragements which have been bestowed upon agriculture by governments, and the efforts of learned societies, it has not, among the most enlightened nations, advanced much beyond the point at which it remains among the most ignorant; while the improvements of manufactures and commerce have been uninterrupted within the last three centuries, and promise still greater success from the advanced state of sciences, the discoveries of the arts, and

I

L

the developement of all the productive powers of labour.

It therefore remains undisputed, that without either monopoly, privileges, or oppression, and by the mere force of things, manufactures and commerce contribute more efficaciously than agriculture to the progress of wealth, and give to manufacturing and trading nations an absolute preponderance over agricultural nations.

Adam Smith has paid a splendid homage to the principles which we have just now established. He expressly states, that "the revenue of a trading and

manufacturing country must, other things being equal, always be much greater than that of one "without trade or manufactures. By means of “trade and manufactures, a greater quantity of "subsistence can be annually imported into a par"ticular country than what its own lands, in the "actual state of their cultivation, could afford. The "inhabitants of a town, though they frequently possess

no lands of their own, yet draw to themselves, by "their industry, such a quantity of the rude produce "of the lands of other people, as supplies them not "only with the materials of their work, but with the "fund of their subsistence. What a town always is "with regard to the country in its neighbourhood,

66

onc independent state or country may frequently "be with regard to other independent states or coun"tries. A small quantity of manufactured produce "purchases a great quantity of rude produce. A trading and manufacturing country, therefore, naturally purchases, with a small part of its manufac"tured produce, a great part of the rude produce of

..