Agents, merchants, &c. produce nothing; not an iota of wealth. They acquire it by standing between the producer and consumer; but they, no more than the capitalist, give it birth. Imagine a nation of capitalists without working men! Would it be a rich country? On the contrary, it would be the poorest on earth; and must soon consume all its capital, which would be transferred to some poor but industrious people. Spain furnishes an illustration to the point as to capital, and Great Britain is an apt example, in regard to labour.

Suppose a rich man to have half a million invested in the funded debt of the United States. What support does his capital yield to labour? None. On the contrary, to pay the interest on that capital, government imposes a tax upon every pound of coffee and sugar that the working man consumes in his family; besides other necessaries and comforts, with which he cannot dispense. Place the same half million in a monopoly, and the wages of labour suffer proportion. ably an unjust diminution. Here are cases, and others might easily be adduced, where capital and labour are "opposite interests." The only cases to the contrary, are those which exhibit capital, in limited amounts, actively applied to the pursuits of industry, so as to stimulate to a fair competition of prices.

In this country, a monied aristocracy intercepts the just wages of labour to the industrious man, and snatches it from him. Chartered banks exhibit a combination of men of capital, to monopolize to themselves the means of commanding all the commodities of labour at their own prices! The working people are jealously kept out of the circle of bank accommodation; and, if they want to borrow, they must apply to a wealthy capitalist, who is, perhaps, a director, and who very

graciously discounts their paper at five per cent. per month, because they are not known in bank!!

If it can be shown how capital produces wealth without the action of labour, I will consent to abandon the proposition, that the working people are the sole authors of our riches. The onus of this rests upon those who dispute the fact.

The great error of society on this subject, consists in their ascribing to those who represent the interests, or proprietors, or producers of wealth-all the credit. due to the bona fide producer, or owner. Great credit of wealth attaches to a bank, because money is there deposited, yet, at the same time, the bank may be entirely insolvent. So it is with merchants. They pass large sums, and great quantities of merchandise through their hands; they pay immense duties to government on behalf of the consumers; and thus obtain all the credit due to labour and industry.

It must not be imagined, that I desire to disparage the merchant, because science compels me to maintain a principle, that throws him out of the productive and labouring class, which creates the wealth of the nation. As one who acquires the labour of others, by the performance of a useful agency, he is entitled to his full portion of merit in the scale of society; but he has heretofore received more than his portion, having usurped all that belongs of right to the agriculturist, the manufacturer, and the mechanic. According to the rule of assumption, which has thus invested him with borrowed robes of honour, the profession, of all others, which should soar highest in the scale of productive industry and national wealth, is that of lottery gamblers and brokers; they occupy the very apex of usefulness, and add most beautifully to "the sum of our

L

comforts and enjoyments." More industrious than the merchant, they are ever employed in the composition of puffs, tickets, shares, expresses; now putting into circulation million upon million; stimulating industry and rewarding enterprise; at one time, causing the temple of the true God to rear its imposing altars to the skies; at another, removing obstructions in the navigation of rivers; then excavating canals; now building rail roads, and finally erecting colleges, hospitals and grave yards! What more useful agent in the wide world, than a lottery broker! Yet, in what particular does he add to national wealth? Does he augment our stock of labour? No; but he is more laborious, and trades in more money than even the merchant! The chances of his acquiring wealth are at least equal. But so far is he from producing wealth, that the lottery agent is only busy in an idle waste of it; he lives upon and consumes the labour of others; and in the train of fatal consequences which attend his useful toils, are vices, passions, and crimes, that desolate society with wretchedness, while they levy a heavy contribution upon the honest, the industrious, and the wise.

The champions of mercantile supremacy, in the scale of national wealth, have laid so much emphasis upon their corrective principle to social misery resulting from the unequal distribution of wealth, that I am constrained to give it some consideration. They say, "there is a principle in human nature which would tend to restore the natural equilibrium of society, how often soever that equilibrium might be deranged by circumstances. The principle we allude to, is the desire of enjoyment, which prompts the rich to spend, and the poor to save.”

Here is certainly abundant consolation for the poor!

Here is ample justification for the extortions, frauds and monopolies of the rich! It is thus gravely declared, that a principle of injustice in the distribution of wealth, shall be compensated by the rich enjoying the fruits of that injustice, and the poor suffering its privations. We recollect this remedy of the patricians of old. They said, enjoy your poverty, we will enjoy our riches! This is certainly a most benevolent project for the alleviation of social misery! But I must take the liberty to suggest, that wisdom would rather seek to avert the evil, than to reconcile the afflicted to its endurance: that justice would rather make a restitution of right, than enter a plea of possible retaliation, through the wasteful passions of enjoyment, prodigality and pleasure,

Some of the advocates of the mercantile interest, losing sight of the philosophical truth in the glare of magnificent affluence, have contended that without merchants, national wealth could not exist. A nation of working men, without merchants, would not be so deplorable, however, as some have imagined. They would possess all the mechanic arts, manufactures, sciences, roads, canals, agriculture, and all the modes of labour that produce wealth! For what does the merchant fabricate of all this? Not an iota. He can export flour to Europe, and import broadcloth in return; but if he did not this, we should manufacture our own cloth, in place of raising the redundant stock of grain. Mr. Hume has imagined a country in this enviable condition. He says: "The republic of Sparta was certainly more powerful than any state now in the world,, consisting of an equal number of people; and this was owing entirely to the want of commerce and luxury." In fine, commerce has no more to do with the production of wealth,

than it has to do with the production of population; it exchanges commodities of different nations; it is the medium of human comfort and enjoyment, and resembles in this respect the nature of money, which is not wealth, but the medium of exchange, and the representative of labour. Yet it may excite, and stimulate to labour and industry, in the labouring classes.

A celebrated writer on our American anomalies of policy, principle, and constitution, has these excellent remarks:

"All separate factitious interests pretend that they benefit nations in some mode, too intricate to be investigated by the mass of mankind. Thus hierarchies and noble orders yet retain a specious existence. Of all such pretences, banking resorts to the least intricate. It gravely tells nations that it enriches them by taking their money; that by emptying a quart bottle of half its contents, the residue will become three pints. If a nation possessed a certain quantity of bread, would it be increased by depositing it in the hands of a corporation, and paying ten per cent. for receiving the residue on the credit of the corporation bread notes ?"*

By the same principle, we arrive at the fact, that the merchant, like the incorporated bank, absorbs from the fund of labour, instead of producing it. If the nation possessed a certain mass of agricultural and mechanical labour, would it be increased by placing it in the hands of the merchant, and after paying them ten per cent. commission, take their notes for the balance? How much would our stock of labour augment by this operation? It would be diminished precisely ten per cent. to the producers; which sum the merchant would acquire. Neither banks nor mer

*Taylor's Enquiry.