citizens may aspire to the character of legislators and statesmen, of a more general study of this science, a thorough knowledge of which is so essential a requisite, among the qualifications for those important stations.

To remove all doubt on this point, we shall adduce, in the course of these essays, instances in which single errors of negotiators and legislators have entailed full as much, and in many cases more misery on nations, than the wild and destructive ambition of conquerors. Unless in some extraordinary instances, a sound policy, on the restoration of peace, heals the wounds inflicted by war, and restores a nation to its pristine state of ease and comfort. But numerous cases are on record, wherein an article of a treaty, of ten or a dozen lines, or an impolitic or an unjust law, has germinated into the most ruinous consequences for a century.

It is our intention,

1. To review the policy of some of those nations which have enjoyed a high degree of prosperity, with or without any extraordinary advantages from nature; and likewise of those whose prosperity had been blasted by fatuitous counsels, notwithstanding great natural blessings:

2. To examine the actual situation of our country, in order to ascertain whether we enjoy the advantages to which our happy form of government and local situation entitle us; and, if we do not, to investigate the causes to which the failure is owing:

3. To develop the true principles of political economy, suited to our situation and circumstances, and calculated to produce the greatest sum of happiness throughout the wide expanse of our territory.

In this arduous undertaking, we request a patient and candid hearing from our fellow-citizens. We fondly hope for success; but if disappointed, we shall have the consolation of having endeavoured to discharge a duty every good citizen owes to the country which protects him; the duty of contributing his efforts to advance its interest and happiness.

As a preliminary step, we propose to establish the utter fallacy of some maxims, supported by the authority of the name of Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations, but pregnant with certain ruin to any nation by which they may be carried into operation. This course is prescribed to us by the circumstance, that the influence

of these maxims has been sensibly felt in our councils and has deeply affected our prosperity.

This writer stands so pre-eminent in the estimation of a large portion of Christendom, as the delphic Oracle of political economy, and there is such a magic in his name, that it requires great hardihood to encounter him, and a high degree of good fortune to obtain a fair and patient hearing for the discussion.

But at this enlightened period we trust our citizens will scorn to surrender their reason into the guidance of any authority whatever. When a position is presented to the mind, the question ought to be, not who delivered it, but what is its nature? and, how is it supported by reason and common sense, and especially by fact? A theory, how plausible soever, and however propped up by a bead-roll of great names, ought to be regarded with suspicion, if unsupported by fact-but if contrary to established fact, it ought to be unhesitatingly rejected. This course of procedure is strongly recommended by the decisive fact, that, in the long catalogue of wild, ridiculous and absurd theories on morals, religion, politics or science, which have had their reign among mankind, there is hardly one that has not reckoned among its partisans, men of the highest celebrity.* And in the present instance, the most cogent and conclusive facts bear testimony against the political economist, great as is his reputation.

We hope, therefore, that our readers will bring to this discussion, minds wholly liberated from the fascination of the name of the writer whose opinions we undertake to combat, and a determination to weigh the evidence in the scales of reason, not those of prejudice.

In order to render Dr. Smith full justice, and to re

* Montesquieu, whose reputation was as great as that of Dr. Smith, and whose Spirit of Laws has had as extensive a currency as the Wealth of Nations, held the absurd idea, which remained uncontroverted for half a century, that the habits, manners and customs, and even the virtues and vices of nations, were in a great measure governed by climate, whence it would result that a tolerable idea might be formed of those important features of national character, by consulting maps, and ascertaining latitudes and longitudes! Bacon studied judicial astrology! All the great men of his day believed in magic and witchcraft! Johnson had full faith in the story of the Cocklane-Ghost! So much for great

names.

move all ground for cavil, we state his propositions at length, and in his own language.

To give the monopoly of the home market to the produce of domestic industry, in any particular art or manufacture, is in some measure to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals; and must, in almost all cases, be either a useless or a hurtful regulation. If the domestic produce can be brought there as cheap as that of foreign industry, the regulation is evidently useless. If it cannot, it must generally be hurtful. "It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to niake than to buy. The tailor does not attempt to make his own shoes, but buys them of the shoemaker. The shoemaker does not attempt to make his own clothes, but employs a taylor. The farmer neither attempts to make one nor the other, but employs those different artificers. All of them find it for their interest to employ their whole industry in a way in which they have some advantage over their neighbours; and to purchase, with a part of its produce, or, what is the same thing, with the price of a part of it, whatever else they have occasion for.

"That which is prudence in the conduct of every private family, can scarcely be folly in that of a great kingdom. If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it from them, with some part of the produce of our country, employed in a way in which we have some advantage.

"The general industry of the country being in proportion to the capital which employs it, will not thereby be diminished, any more than that of the above-mentioned artificers; but only left to find out the way in which it can be employed with the greatest advantage. It is not so employed, when directed to an object which it can buy cheaper than it can make. The value of its annual produce is certainly more or less diminished, when it is thus turned away from producing commodities evidently of more value than the commodity which it is directed to produce. According to the supposition, that commodity could be purchased from foreign countries cheaper than it can be made at home. It could, therefore have been purchased with part only of the commodities, or, what is the same thing, with a part only of the price of the commodities, which the industry employed by an equal capi

tal would have produced at home, had it been left to pursue its natural course."*

There is in the subordinate parts of this passage much sophistry and unsound reasoning, which we may examine on a future occasion; and there is likewise, as in all the rest of the doctor's work, a large proportion of verbiage, which is admirably calculated to embarrass and confound common understandings, and prevent their forming a correct decision. But, stripped of this verbiage, and brought naked and unsophisticated to the eye of reason, the main proposition which we at present combat, and to which we here confine ourselves, is, that,

"If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy of them, with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage."

The only rational mode of testing the correctness of any maxim or principle is, to examine what have been its effects where it has been carried into operation, and what would be its effects in any given case where it might be applied. This is the plan we shall pursue in this investigation.

Great Britain affords a felicitous instance for our pur pose. Let us examine what effect the adoption of this maxim would produce on her happiness and prosperity.

There are above a million of people, of both sexes and of all ages, employed in that country, in the woollen and cotton manufactures. † By their industry in these branches, they make for themselves and families a comfortable subsistence. They afford a large and steady market for the productions of the earth, giving support to, probably, at least a million of persons engaged in agriculture; and moreover, enrich the nation by bringing into it wealth from nearly all parts of the earth. The immense sums of money they thus introduce into their native country afford means of employment, and ensure happiness to millions of other subjects-and thus, like the circles made

* Wealth of Nations, vol. i. p. 319.

Dr. Seybert states, that in 1809, there were 800,000 persons in Great Britain engaged in the cotton manufacture alone. It has since increased considerably. It is, therefore, probable that the two branches employ at least 1,300,000 persons.-Statistics, p. 92.

on the surface of the stream by the central pebble thrown in, the range of happiness is extended so wide as to embrace the whole community.

From this cheering propect, let us turn the startled eye to the masses of misery, which Dr. Smith's system would produce; and we shall then behold a hideous contrast, which, we trust, escaped the doctor's attention; for the acknowledged goodness and benevolence of his character, will not allow us to believe that he would have been the apostle of such a pernicious doctrine, had he attended to its results. We fondly hope, that, like many other visionary men, he was so deeply engaged in the fabrication of a refined theory, that he did not arrest his progress to weigh its awful consequences.

The East Indies could at all times, until the recent improvements in machinery, have furnished cotton goods at a lower rate than they could be manufactured in England, which had no other means of protecting her domestic industry, but by a total prohibition of the rival fabrics. Let us suppose that France, where labour and expenses are much lower than in England, has possessed herself of machinery, and is thus enabled to sell woollen goods at half, or three-fourths, or seven-eighths of the price of the English rival commodities. Suppose, further, that articles manufactured of leather are procurable in South America, and iron wares in Sweden, below the rates in England. Then, if the statesmen of the last nation were disciples of Adam Smith, as "foreign countries can supply them with those commodities cheaper than they themselves can make them," they must, according to the doctor, buy from them with some part of the produce of their own country," and accordingly open their ports freely to those various articles, from these four particular nations. Who can contemplate the result without horror? What a wide spread scene of ruin and desolation would take place? The wealth of the country would be swept away, to enrich foreign, and probably hostile nations, which might, at no distant period, make use of the riches and strength thus fatuitously placed in their hands, to enslave the people who had destroyed themselves by following such baneful counsels. The labouring and industrious classes would be at once bereft of employment; reduced to a degrading state of dependence and mendicity; and, through the force of misery and distress driven to prey

66