its practical application and utility: the process we allude to is that of taking a comprehensive and full view of all the circumstances which precede any event, and of separating those that are operative from those that are inefficient, and to ascertain, -if there is more than one operative cause, whether they all act towards the same end, or whether any one, or more, counteracts, in some degree, the effects of the remainder.

But as our object is not to give a complete enumeration of the practical points in which Political Economists are obscure and unsatisfactory, or where they contradict one another, we shall, with reference to the circulating medium, merely refer to the questions regarding seigniorage of coin, interest of money, paper currency, the depreciation of the Bank of England paper, the foundation of the par of exchange, the causes of its derangements from trade, or alterations in the real value of the currency-questions which, within the memory of our readers, have inundated the country with treatises innumerable, and most of which are still undecided-in support of our position, that Political Economy is very far removed from perfection, and that, in its present state, it can throw little light on any obscurity which may hang over any part of the circulating medium of a country, or its commerce, as affected by_that circulating medium.

Let us next inquire, whether, on other great and serious practical questions, a nation will be conducted to those measures which will be most for its real and permanent advantage, by pursuing the path marked out by Political Economists, or whether it will not rather be puzzled and distracted amidst the various paths which each party, with equal confidence, recommends as leading directly and certainly to the public weal.

Which trade, foreign or domestic, is most conducive to national wealth? This question has often been put, and though, if duly considered, and the terms employed accurately defined, it ought not to have remained long without a satisfactory answer, it is still one of the most difficult and most controverted points of Political Economy, as it is assuredly one of the most important.

Some of the earliest writers on this science expressed themselves, without

hesitation, in favour of foreign trade, particularly D'Avenant, Sir James Steuart, Montesquieu, and Beccaria. The Economists were the first to lay it down as a maxim in Political Economy, that, in foreign trade, there is but an exchange of equal value for equal value, without loss or gain on either side, and that a nation cannot have a more advantageous trade than its home trade. Smith considers the home trade as most beneficial to national wealth. It is worthy of notice, however, as an illustration of the vagueness of reasoning on topics of Political Economy, that his opinion proceeds on reasons and facts directly opposed to those by which the Economists support the same doctrine. It is also worthy of notice, that though Smith thinks it more advantageous for a country to consume the produce of its labour than to sell it abroad, yet he upholds the directly contrary doctrine when the question is of purchasing abroad. How can purchases from foreign nations be made, if all the home produce is consumed at home? and, as Ganihl pertinently asks, "If it be the interest of a nation to purchase from a foreign country when that country sells cheaper, how can its interest be insured by selling to the foreign country, when it purchases dearer ?" What difference is there between purchasing cheap from a foreign country, and selling dear to that country?

Smith assigns the last place to the carrying trade, the capital of which, he says, is merely employed in replacing the capitals which support the labour of foreign countries. D'Avenant, on the contrary, is of opinion, that freight is not only the most politic, but the most national and most certain profit a country can possibly make by trade.

The mercantile system of the Balance of Trade, as it is called, has little hold now even on many practical men, and has been long exploded by all enlightened Political Economists; yet, very inconsistently, the sum total of exports and imports is appealed to, as a proof of the state of the foreign trade of a country; and it is yet undecided whether that trade flourishes most when the exports exceed the imports, or when the reverse takes place.

These doubts and various opinions regarding the comparative national advantages of the foreign, the home, and the carrying trade, and of the means of

judging of the state of the foreign trade, could not have existed, if the investigation of the topics had been entered on with the proper previous establishment of principles, and exact definition of terms, and with a thorough sifting and application of facts.

Ought Government to interfere with trade, domestic or foreign? This question, which, half a century ago, would have been generally answered in the affirmative, would, at present, with some modifications and exceptions, be answered in the negative. The system of prohibitions and bounties is nearly at an end; it proceeded on a narrow and false estimate of social wealth, and of the sources from which it springs, and of the causes which give it vigour and expansion. The objects which Governments had in view, when they established this system, went to employ, and thereby to enrich, subjects preferable to strangers; to prevent the export of the precious metals; to make foreign articles bear the principal weight of taxation; to keep trade at home, because, whether subjects obtain for their money, good or bad, many or few articles, is a matter of indifference, the loss of one subject constituting the gain of another; to confine at home useful articles for the benefit of subjects ; to render a nation invulnerable and independent of its neighbours; to depress rival nations, and prevent them depressing us; and to foster commerce in its infancy.

Although it is now generally seen that many of these objects, if they could be obtained by the system pursued, would be hurtful instead of beneficial to a nation, and that such of them as are actually beneficial, must be sought for by directly opposite methods, yet the influence of the system itself still lingers not only among Governments, influencing their conduct, but also among many writers of note on Political Economy.

It is still deemed by many necessary to depress rival nations, or at least to cut them off from a competition with us in our own market, and to support the monopoly by them, so far as it may render a nation invulnerable and independent of its neighbours, by creating supplies and markets for it within its own bosom.

The grand object of Political Economy is social wealth-the indispensable VOL. XVI.

requisite for the acquisition and enjoyment of social wealth is food-Are Political Economists agreed on this question? Ought a nation to derive its food exclusively from its own soil and labour, or to procure it from the soil and labour of other countries? By no means. It is only necessary to appeal to the discussions respecting the Corn Laws, to point out the uncertainty in which this question still remains-not only the general question, but the question as it respects Britain under the circumstances in which she is placed.

If foreign corn is freely and at all times admitted into a country, it must depress the agriculture of that country, and thus not only derange the application of its labour and capital, and make its soil of little value, but also render it dependent on other and probably hostile countries for the first necessary of life. Such is the substance of the arguments brought forward by those who object to the free and unlimited importation of foreign corn. They admit, at least most of them do, the general principle, that it is for the genuine and permanent interest of a nation to purchase wherever it can at the cheapest rate; but the principle, they contend, must, so far as relates to corn, bend to the more imperative and essential principle of self-preser

vation.

To this it is replied, that interest has operated, and always will operate, even in the midst of home scarcity or hostility; that those who can give the highest price for corn, will draw it to themselves, as assuredly as water will flow into a lower level; that that nation will be able to give the highest price, which, in all its commercial transactions, acts uniformly on the principle of selling at the highest market, and buying at the cheapest, because, by so doing, it will increase its wealth, and thus be enabled, when necessary, to give the highest price for corn, which, of course, will always render it the interest of foreign nations to send it whatever it needs.

Such are the arguments on each side; but in this, as in all disputed cases, there must be some fundamental and indisputed truths, by the test of which these arguments may be tried, and their soundness or unsoundness ascertained. Political Economy, it

F

must be acknowledged, has not been examined and discussed with sufficient attention and reference to these truths; nor have they been unfolded and laid down in the manner they ought to have been. They must indeed be drawn from a comprehensive and careful examination of facts; but after being thus established, they are indispensably necessary as the first steps that can lead us, by a plain and regular path, to the object in view.

On this subject of the free importation of foreign corn, as on most other disputed practical points of Political Economy, not only are the arguments at variance, but the facts appealed to are regarded by each party as decisive ly and exclusively establishing their own peculiar doctrine. But the course and tendency of nature and her laws are uniform and constant. In physics, no philosopher would admit for a moment, much less assert, that facts are so much at variance with one an other as to establish two opposite laws. And we may be assured, that man-equally the creature and the subject of nature, with inanimate matter-cannot possibly exhibit, in any thing he does or suffers, either in his individual or social character, such a stumbling-block, not only to all reasoning, but to all action, as facts really at variance with one another, and tending to establish directly opposite principles.

We have already remarked, that the question respecting the free importation of corn has given rise to much inconclusive and unsatisfactory discussion; not only on the general principle, but also on that principle, modified as it is supposed to be by the peculiar circumstances of Britain.

The advocates for the restriction of importation maintain that their cause is much strengthened, as it relates to Britain. This country is highly taxed; these taxes cannot be paid unless by the consumers; but the consumer will be enabled to avoid payment of those which the grower of corn has hitherto made him pay, in the shape of the increased price of that article, if foreign corn is freely imported; because foreign corn being grown in countries not taxed so highly as Britain, can be sold much cheaper.

This is the strong case of the opponents of a free trade in corn. Does the student in Political Economy wish

to see how it is met by those who are advocates for unrestricted commercewho contend, that in all instances and circumstances, it is for the general good; and that Britain, even as regards corn, and under the pressure of her unprecedented taxation, does not form an exception to their favourite doctrine?

Here is a question of the highest practical consequences. No person who is a real and enlightened friend to his country-who even proposes a clear and comprehensive view of his own individual interest-would wish to see foreign corn freely imported into Britain, if by this measure the landowners, farmers, and peasantry, would be ruined or thrown out of employ ment, and the land left uncultivated. And yet we are afraid if he peruses the statements and arguments of both parties, he will rise from the investigation as little satisfied on this as on too many other points of Political Economy. He will perceive that the opponents of a free trade in corn, under the circumstances of Britain, make out their case by statements and arguments which rather puzzle than convince him, in which he cannot help suspecting, though he cannot clearly perceive, that there is some flaw. If he then turn to the perusal of the writings of those who advocate a free trade in corn, even under the circumstances of Britain, he will find much that is sound and strong in support of the general principle of a free trade; perhaps not a little that tends to per suade him that this principle ought to be extended to corn as well as other articles; but very little that applies to the question as it respects the peculiar circumstances of Britain, highly taxed, and now long accustomed to a regulated importation of corn.

Here we perceive another cause and source of the unsatisfactory nature of investigations on Political Economy, as they are generally conducted. In a subsequent essay we shall enter fully and minutely into the nature and consequences of these; but in this place we may briefly state, that, for a long time, general principles were almost entirely overlooked or objected to as inapplicable and mischievous in Political Economy; and that at present they are laid down in too peremptory a manner, and with too sweeping and exclusive power. Cases certainly oc

cur which at least seem to be exceptions to them; and those who bring forward these cases, who are probably advocates for the general principle, will not be driven from their point simply by the establishment of the general principle; they require a most precise and important review of the particular case, and a proof that it is, when viewed in all its bearings and consequences, not an exception to the general principle, but an illustration and confirmation of it. This is not done; and the student in Political Economy, after he has advanced, as he conceives, so far in the study as to have established to his satisfaction and conviction certain general principles, finds his faith in them shaken, when he wishes and endeavours to apply them to particular cases; whereas, did the writers on Political Economy examine these cases most strictly and fully, and draw their general principles from them, at least as much as from more simple and less refractory cases, the student in this science would not be so much puzzled, disturbed, and retarded, and the science itself would advance with more regular and steady progress.

The navigation laws present another stumbling-block to the student in Political Economy, which he in vain will expect to be removed from his course by perusing what has been written on the subject. Indeed, in defence of them he encounters an appeal to an alleged fact, which cannot well be appealed to in the case of the Corn Trade. It can hardly be said that Britain has flourished in consequence of her corn laws, when we reflect, on the one part, on the extreme high prices which corn has borne within these few years, and the effect thus produced on the condition of all but the growers of corn; and, on the other part, on the very low prices following so soon after the high prices, and the ruinous effects thus produced on the owners and cultivators of land. Whereas the supporters of the navigation laws appeal to the flourishing state of the commerce and navy of Britain, since they were passed, and regard this as a sufficient proof that, however these laws may contravene the principle of buying at the cheapest market-this principle, in this particular case, is deviated from, solely in order to follow a principle to which

everything is subordinate-that of preserving national independence ;they even go farther, and contend that our commerce and wealth are greater now than they would have been without these laws, and that they are greater by the operation of these laws.

On the opposite side of the question, it is argued, that the navigation laws impose the following burdens :— "First, the extra expense of a native navigation in those cases where a foreign navigation could be had cheaper. Next, the frequent delay of waiting for native opportunity; the extra delay, risk, damage of goods, and loss of interest of money upon the investment at stake, whenever the laws render the vogage unnecessarily circuitous. Lastly, the check to the increase of trade, (either in the way of sale, purchase, or agency,) which often oc curs from one or other of these obstacles."

Still the question is undecided: but is it so, because it admits of no positive and unequivocal decision, or because it is not argued in a proper manner? It is difficult to believe that the former is the case. Considering these laws simply and exclusively as they affect our wealth, and contravene or coincide with the general principle of buying at the cheapest market, it might be supposed that this tendency could be satisfactorily determined and appreciated: yet it is not so, for the advocates for these laws maintain, as we have already remarked, that they have benefited commerce, not merely in an indirect manner, by preserving our superiority at sea, and rendering our sailors more expert and numerous than they otherwise would have been, but also by their direct operation. The adversaries of these laws deny this; so that we perceive, that, setting aside the consideration of the question as one of political security or expediency, and viewing it only as a question of Political Economy-it is one in which there are opposite opinions, neither of which are yet either founded on a solid basis, or proved to be utterly without foundation; and yet the question, in its simplest form, as one of Political Economy, cannot contain within itself insurmountable difficulties: a science that has for its object to determine what social wealth is-what nature supplies towards it, and what man

ought certainly to be able to solve this question. But if the subject be viewed in a more comprehensive manner, it will be found that even the political security and expediency of these laws resolves itself into a question of Political Economy, since this science, embracing all that relates to social wealth, must embrace the consideration of all those ineasures which, affecting natural strength and independence, must necessarily affect social wealth. The question of the Navigation Laws, therefore, taken in its largest sense, is merely a question of Political Economy; but it is one, for the full discussion and satisfactory solution of which, we shall in vain look to the writings of Political Economists, whether these confine themselves to general principles or appeal to facts.

The discussions on the subject of the Navigation and Corn Laws have been numerous: the difficulties which beset these questions are universally acknowledged to be great. Much difference of opinion regarding them still exists. Looseness of reasoning, and facts of equivocal tendency, obtrude themselves on all those who, having formed no opinion, are desirous to make up their minds on the subject. These things create prejudices against Political Economy; but how much are these prejudices strengthened by the discussions on the Poor Laws-a subject which seems not more effectually to puzzle Political Economists, than it resists all the practical attempts of Government!

As the question of the Navigation Laws is regarded as made up of considerations of political expediency, as well as of those that affect social wealth-so the question respecting the Poor Laws, and the support of the poor, is generally represented as made up of moral considerations as well as of those that are peculiar to Political Economy; and thus the difficulty and obscurity which surround the question have been greatly increased and strengthened. He who, by reading a discussion respecting it, in which it is treated simply as a dry point of Political Economy, is thereby convinced that the Poor Laws act in the most hostile manner against social wealth, and even against the pecuniary interest of those whom it is their object to relieve is most probably shaken in his conviction, when he afterwards reads

a treatise in which the support of the Poor is treated as a moral duty.

An objection which speaks more powerfully against Political Economy, in the hearts of those whose feelings have the mastery of their judgment, and even with those who are not able and accustomed to perceive that as all truth is connected, directly or indirectly, so all that really benefits mankind, is connected-is this-that Political Economy treats of the wealth of nations as a paramount and exclusive object. This objection is most strongly argued, and brought most prominently forward, when the question regarding the support of the Poor and the Poor Laws is discussed; and we think, that after all that has been written on the subject, there is still wanting the clear and full evidence, that Political Economy is not a cold, unfeeling, and worldly science, and that the conclusions to which the science leads on the subject of the poor, are the conclusions of comprehensive and enlightened benevolence.

The question respecting population, as it is treated by Mr Malthus and his opponents, is another which we think is still open to discussion; it certainly is not treated by Mr Malthus in either a logical or philosophical method, and his fundamental principle of counteracting proportions in the rate of increase of the means of subsistence, and in the rate of increase of population, cannot be maintained; if this principle had been given as a conjectural one, or as one not forming the basis of his reasonings, it might have been abandoned by the author, without impeaching his powers as a logician, and philosopher; and his theory may be maintained after its abandonment; but it is then not the theory of Mr Malthus.

On the other hand, his theory has been attacked in a loose and declamatory manner; or, where facts and reasoning have been employed, the facts have been irrelevant and indecisive, and the reasoning, if founded upon them, necessarily unsatisfactory, and if proceeding on applicable facts, for the most part loose and unsound.. All except strong partizans, agree that the question, whether regarded as merely speculative, or such as ought to regulate the practice, not only of individuals, but also of governments, accord