Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

the fictions of Miss Sedgwick and Mrs. Hale, not only require more talent, but to us, are a thousand times more touching and exciting, than the extravagant incidents of "York Town," or the ravings of a legion of Maude Mansels, on which our author has wasted talents of no ordinary excellence.

In conclusion, we beg to take this opportunity to express with unfeigned deference, our regrets at observing the vast space occupied by historical fictions in the literature of the day, and in the estimation of the gravest readers. They possess neither the authority of truth, nor the novelty of invention. The infusion of romance into history, cannot, we think, but have a bad effect on the reader, by rendering the dull matter of fact of the latter, tasteless and spiritless, in comparison with the piquant extravagance of the adulterated mass, and weakening at the same time that salutary distinction, which the mind should always preserve between truth and falsehood. The imagination ought not to be pampered thus, at the expense of the other faculties; nor, as it seems to us, can the mind be employed to less salutary purposes, than in constantly banqueting at this feast of Shacabac, where the guests only are real, and all the rest imaginary. There is, we think, some little reason to fear, that this increasing rage for the adulteration of truth, historical, biographical, and narrative, this superstructure of inflated sentiment and extravagant action, crected on the basis of fact, will, if much further indulged, at length lead step by step to another age of bombastic and fantastic fiction, which will require another Cervantes to put it to flight, if another such man can ever live again. Every history will then perchance become another chronicle of Archbishop Turpin or Francis de Guevara, and no hero will pass current unless he can perform impossibilities. History cannot be studied to advantage in romance, because this mixture of truth and falsehood confounds the mind, renders it at length incapable of distinguishing the facts from distortions or embellishments, and finally weakens that salutary reliance upon the reality of the past, on which no inconsiderable portion of our reverence for truth itself is founded. There is nothing in this world so beautiful as truth; and so universal is this proposition, that where the taste is mature and unadulterated, it will be found, that all works of imagination or invention, derive their most peculiar charm from their close adherence to Nature, which is but another name for Truth.

*Author of Northwood.

ART. III.—The Principles of Political Economy, with a Sketch of the Rise and Progress of the Science. By J. R. M'CULLOCH, Esq. Edinburgh. 1825.

IT is the remark of a distinguished writer of our day, fully competent to form a judgment on the subject, that if the science and records of astronomy were now to perish, fifty years would almost suffice to the accurate instruments and powerful analysis at our command, to restore it to its present nearly perfect state. And some of the eminent men have scarcely quitted the stage of life, who contributed, by the introduction and continued application of weights and measurements to experimental research, to the creation of our present science of chemistry. Political Economy affords another striking illustration of the intellectual energies of the age in which we live. Half a century only has elapsed, since the publication of the "Wealth of Nations" gave it a place among the sciences; and already its chief laws have been investigated, and founded on the firm basis of the acknowledged principles and feelings of human nature. Resisted during its progress by the existing prejudices of society, the established policy of governments, and the interests of privileged classes, and even regarded by the philanthropist, as inconsistent in many of its views with our nobler and kinder feelings,-as hardhearted and sordid,-all obstacles are at length disappearing, its practical utility is confessed, and its beneficent effects are widely felt. The statesmen of the day are gradually adopting its principles, and the period may be sanguinely anticipated, when the policy of nations, external and internal, shall be guided by its maxims.

Two discoveries have chiefly contributed to the present improved state of Political Economy,-the principle of population, and the true theory of rent. The former was first published to the world by Mr. Malthus, in 1798. In ascribing this discovery to Mr. Malthus, we are aware that several anticipations of it are to be met with in the works of preeeding writers, and, perhaps, by none of them has it been stated with more clearness than by our own Franklin. These anticipations, now that the principle is more generally understood to be of primary importance, are frequently brought forward to detract from the originality of Mr. Malthus's views. But without doubt, he was the first to perceive the full value of the principle in question, and to trace its practical effects, and its influence on the happiness of mankind. He has also the merit, contemporaneously with Mr. West of Oxford, to have been the first to perceive the true nature of rent. He did not, however, distinctly penetrate its relation to the various departments of the science, and he has failed to deduce the

important consequences that necessarily flow from it. This was reserved for Mr. Ricardo, who, on the principle of population and the theory of rent, has founded an explication of the phenomena of Political Economy, which has given it altogether a new aspect. His work on the "Principles of Political Economy and Taxation," published in 1817, is distinguished not only for the new truths elucidated, and errors exposed in it, but for the remarkable precision, approaching very frequently to mathematical accuracy, with which he treats his subject. It is, nevertheless, very far from being an elementary treatise; nor was it intended to be such. The author seems to have addressed it to readers already well acquainted with the existing state of the science. To the student it presents a very forbidding approach to a knowledge of its contents; and, making every allowance for what may have been the principal object of the writer, it wants method, and is too abstract, and too unadorned with interesting illustration. The subject, in the hands of Mr. Ricardo, has assumed a dry and metaphysical character not essential to it. This, we think, has chiefly arisen from the undue importance attached by him to his favourite theory, of the labour employed in the production of any commodity being the measure of its exchangeable value; a theory, if true, of no practical utility, and a constant reference to which, in all discussions involving the exchangeable value of things, has the effect of complicating and rendering difficult many branches of the subject, which may otherwise be exhibited in a form abundantly simple. But, notwithstanding these defects, with his more devoted followers, we consider Mr. Ricardo as the second father of Political Economy, and have no doubt that, while others shall be found to give more luminous account of its doctrines, and to add to its discoveries, his "Principles," like the Principia of Newton, will remain a durable monument of the superiority of his genius.

Of the works which have appeared since that of Mr. Ricardo, and were intended by their authors to supply his defects, by presenting an elementary and methodical outline of Political Economy, none has more merit than that of Mr. M'Culloch, the title of which is prefixed to the present article. It is remarkably neat. and perspicuous in its style, the illustrations are often very happily chosen, and much judgment has been displayed in the arrangement of the parts. The book in its present form, is an enlarged edition of the article on Political Economy, in the valuable supplement to the Encyclopædia Britannica, published some time since at Edinburgh. This article has been republished in this country, under the title of Outlines of Political Economy, with some judicious and useful notes by the American editor, the Rev. Dr. M'Vickar of New-York. In the new edition, some matter has been omitted, a few transpositions in the ar

rangement, of slight importance, have been made, and several topics, necessary to a general view of the science, have been discussed, which were passed over without notice in the article in the Encyclopædia, because treated of under separate heads.

It is now so long, however, since the appearance of that article, and even since the publication of the American edition of it, that we should not have noticed the work before us, whatever might have been its merits as a succinct and able exposition of the doctrines of the "school of Ricardo," if it had not differed from its predecessor on some very fundamental points, and did not the high reputation and authority of Mr. M'Culloch, give great weight to his peculiar opinions, and a sanction to the changes proposed by him. The points of difference to which we allude in the two editions, relate to the definitions of Wealth and Capital. In the "Outlines," by wealth is said to be meant "those material products which possess exchangeable value, and whichare necessary, useful, or agreeable to man:" and capital is defined to be "that portion of the produce of labour, which is saved from immediate consumption, and employed in maintaining productive industry, or in facilitating production." It is obvious, that the terms are here used in their most common acceptation at the present day, among political economists, whatever criticisms may be passed on the phraseology employed in defining them. In the "Principles," other definitions are given, which, if generally adopted, must affect much of the language, and even in a considerable degree alter the form of the science; and which should, therefore, be well examined before their claim of admission into it be allowed. The innovations proposed by Mr. M'Culloch, have been suggested by his views. with respect to Adam Smith's distinction between productive and unproductive labour; a distinction considered, by most writers, as essential to a clear understanding of the principles of the science, but rejected by our author as useless, and even calculated to lead to material and practical error.

We intend, in the present article, to inquire into the nature and propriety of such a distinction, to trace its relation to wealth and capital, and to offer our views of the most proper definitions of these terms. No one acquainted with the subject, will regard our purpose as unimportant, however uninteresting some may be disposed to deem a dissertation relating merely to the propriety of definitions. It is a commonplace observation, that the vagueness and ambiguity of language, have largely contributed to the errors and controversies, which have perplexed and retarded the progress of the moral and political sciences. But Political Economy surpasses all its kindred branches of knowledge, in a liability to errors of this description; a liability which constitutes the chief impediment to its progress; for it is, perhaps, not too much

VOL. II. No. 3.

7

to assert, that most of the differences which have prevailed among political economists, or now exist among them, have had merely a verbal origin. This is owing to the circumstance, that the technical terms, employed by them, are, at the same time, words in common and general use, and are consequently significant of ideas, familiar to the minds of almost every individual of the community. On this account, they are the more liable to be transferred to the expression of analogous ideas. Dr. Johnson enumerates no less than seventy different meanings to our common English verb to go, which occupies several columns in his dictionary, when mere terms of science or art are disposed of in as many lines.

Few words have had the lot of being defined more variously, and of being used with a greater latitude, than the word wealth. For some time, almost every writer on Political Economy gave the world a new definition of it, on which was based a corresponding modification of the science, merely verbal; and thus the credit of originality was very cheaply earned, while, instead of assisting to advance our knowledge, very frequently, by unsettling established classifications, and confusing the language employed, a contrary effect was produced. So with the term productive labour. This has generally varied, in its acceptation, with that of wealth; most writers having understood, by productive labour, the labour directly productive of wealth; and by unproductive labour, all labour not thus productive. The advocates of the mercantile system, for example, indentifying wealth with money, regarded no labour as productive, which is not instrumental in increasing the quantity of money in a country. Where there were no mines of the precious metals, foreign commerce, and this only when it was accompanied by a favourable balance of trade, together with the industry that contributes to it, was esteemed a national benefit. All private gain, however derived from the exertion of the most laborious industry, if not proceeding from this source, was only so much taken from the pockets of other citizens, and in no way a public gain. Quesney, and the French Economists, from the existence of rent, that is of a surplus after deducting the profits of the capital invested on the land, were led to infer the exclusive productiveness of agricultural industry. They asserted, that, whereas in manufactures and commerce, man laboured alone, nature co-operated with him in agriculture; and they further supposed the labour of man to produce a value only equal to what he consumed. From these premises, entirely hypothetical and demonstrably false, their conclusion was legitimate, that the labour employed in agriculture was alone productive; though, properly speaking, it could be considered such, only as it gave occasion to the gratuitous pro

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »