he receives as the wages of productive labour, his consumption must be denominated productive. A part of a labourer's wages may, however, not be consumed by himself, but be appropriated to the consumption of other productive labourers, or, in other words, be employed by him as capital. He may forego, as well as his more wealthy employer, present gratification for a greater command at a future day over the comforts and conveniences of life. What is thus appropriated must of course be deemed productively consumed. Does it then follow, that if not so appropriated it will be unproductively consumed? So it would seem. But, on the other hand, it has already been allowed to constitute a part of the productive consumption. of the community. How are we then to escape from the inconsistency to which we have been led? This will at once disappear, if we remark, that, in reference to the progress of national wealth, the consumption of his wages by a productive labourer, as revenue, must be considered productive. But that relatively to the productiveness of the consumption of such part of his wages as he may employ as capital, his revenue is sometimes said to be unproductively consumed. In this latter case, productive and unproductive consumption is to be viewed, consistently with the former application of the terms, as wealth more or less productively consumed.

The ambiguity of which we speak, might seem at first view to imply also the inconsistency of a double consumption of the same object; and indeed, as the same object may be supposed to be transferred an indefinite number of times from labourer to labourer, before it be finally consumed, it is clear that it may thus appear to constitute alternately the productive and unproductive consumption of an indefinite number of persons. M. Say avoids the use of an ambiguous term, by taking entirely a different view of the nature of productive consumption. He maintains* the singular doctrine, that the consumption of all labourers, whatever the nature of their occupations may be, is alike unproductive, and that the only productive consumption, which takes place in the community, is that of the labour of the productive labourers by their employers the capitalists. Thus, for example, when a merchant pays a clerk a certain amount of wages in exchange for his labour, this labour, according to M. Say, and not the wages consumed by the clerk, is productively consumed, and it is so consumed, not by the clerk, but by the merchant. The asserting, even in appearance, of a double consumption of the same object, is thus supposed to be avoided; but if carefully examined, this doctrine will be found to lead precisely to such a consumption. Why has labour any value whatever? Certainly only on account of the value of its products. When what is pro

Treatise of Political Economy. Book III. chap. 3.

duced by the labour of any individual is purchased by the payment of his wages, who would be idiot enough to give him any thing besides for his labour? And how can this be consumed otherwise than by consuming its products? Any other consumption of labour is to us quite unintelligible. It will follow, then, that to maintain that when a productive labourer consumes his wages unproductively, his labour is consumed by his employer productively, is to maintain that his employer consumes the products of his labour productively; which is contradictory to the position first assumed, that all products are necessarily the subjects of an unproductive consumption. We thus arrive at the absurdity of a twofold consumption of the same products, which M. Say supposed himself to have evaded.

As we have explained the term productive consumption, the circumstance of a portion of wealth being consumed by any individual as revenue, is no evidence of its not being a part of the capital of the country. It certainly cannot be a part of his own capital; but it may belong to the capital of another. So the menial services rendered to a farmer or mechanic, or more properly speaking, the material products of these services consumed by them, are of course consumed as revenue; yet they are consumed productively, in a national point of view, since the farmer and the mechanic are both productive labourers, and the products we speak of are a portion of their real wages. In short, whether or not what is consumed as revenue be a part of capital, must depend entirely on the productive or unproductive character of the labourer. If it be said that no capitalist, in the enumeration of the objects constituting his capital, would ever think of comprehending among them the products of menial service, consumed by any of the persons employed by him; neither would he ever think of doing so, with any of the luxuries consumed only by the higher classes of productive labourers, which, it will not be denied, constitute a part of their real wages, and of his capital. Menial services rank, in this respect, with the carriages and horses kept for pleasure, or the watches worn by these classes of the community.

The passage from the reviewer, which has given occasion to the foregoing remarks, when properly understood, implies, that menial servants, when they do add a value to material products, are still to be considered as unproductive labourers, if what they produce be unproductively consumed, which is supposed to be always the case. This is superadding to the direct productiveness of wealth, a condition as necessary to constitute a labourer productive, which affects essentially the nature of the application of the distinction to the different kinds of labour. Many labourers now become unproductive, who, without this condition, would be denominated productive; and the distinction will, in fact, no

longer relate to wealth, but to capital. It will fail of the object proposed by its advocates, first, in not comprising the labour of all menial servants under the denomination of unproductive; such labour as adds a value to matter, which value is consumed by the producers of wealth, being still to be regarded as productive labour; and, secondly, by marking as unproductive, much of the labour designated universally by the advocates of the distinction as productive; viz., such as is employed in the production of all material objects, which are destined to constitute any portion of the consumption of the non-producers of wealth. If menial services be frequently, or even generally unproductive, so will most of the labour employed in producing gunpowder, lace, Brussels carpets, &c.

A choice is then presented to us, between two modes of applying the distinction. It may either be understood in reference to the production of wealth, menial servants being considered, as a class, to be unproductive, only because the material products consumed by them, very much exceed in amount the value added by them to matter; or we may apply it to distinguish between the producers of capital, and such labourers, as minister to the consumption of those who are not engaged in producing wealth. On the proportion which these two classes bear to each other, the increase of wealth in any nation essentially depends. However productive of wealth any labourer may be, if no part of what is produced by him be employed as capital, but be consumed by those who do not reproduce wealth, it is obvious that he makes no permanent addition to the wealth of the country. He is equally inefficient in this respect, as if he had been entirely unproductive of wealth. We think there can be little difficulty in deciding which is the most useful application of the distinction. We do not hesitate to prefer applying it to capital, rather than to wealth, contrary to the universal usage of its advocates. A productive labourer will then denote a labourer productive of capital, and an unproductive labourer, one who is not productive of it.

Consistency will now require us to give a corresponding extension to the meaning of the terms productive and unproductive consumption. To be consumed productively, will no longer denote being consumed by the producers of wealth, but by the producers of capital, whom we have denominated productive labourers. So with respect to unproductive consumption. What then shall we say is capital? It cannot comprehend that portion of wealth which is "employed in maintaining productive industry," for the definition of this latter term will involve that of capital. By, however, defining it to be that portion of the produce of labour which is consumed or employed in the production of wealth, our definition will be consistent with those

of productive industry and consumption. And in order to avoid all ambiguity, when the term productive is applied to wealth generally, in contradistinction to capital, it would be proper always to specify the application, by saying productive of wealth, in the same manner as those political economists, who make use of the word value, as synonymous with utility, say value in use, to distinguish it from exchangeable value. The habit of using the terms productive and unproductive in reference to wealth, and not to capital, may make the application of them to the latter seem somewhat singular, and not entirely in accordance with the sense in which capital must continue to be understood. But this seeming want of perfect symmetry in our definitions, we think to be more than compensated, by the distinct bearing which productive labour will have on the increase of national wealth. Some will, perhaps, more readily admit the application of the terms to capital instead of wealth, by the consideration that there are very few of the producers of wealth, who are not in some degree likewise productive of capital. The producers of wealth, as a class, are certainly productive labourers. The exceptions are very few in an advanced stage of civilization, and almost exclusively confined to the very few cases in which a government produces with a view to the consumption of its own servants, as, for example, when it constructs barracks or ships for its army or navy.

The degree in which a labourer is productive, will become of as much importance, as whether he be at all productive or not. This will depend on two circumstances; first, the comparative amount of the wages of that part of his labour, which is applied to the production of wealth; and, secondly, on the proportion which what is produced, and is consumed by the producers of wealth, bears to the remaining portion consumed by those who are not productive of it. If the latter circumstance be the same in any two cases, it is clear that the value of what is added to capital, and of course the productiveness of the labourer, will be in proportion to the amount of his wages. The superior productiveness, accordingly, of a master manufacturer, to any of the common workmen who co-operate with him, is measured by the superiority of his wages. This circumstance can always be estimated with much exactness; but it is frequently very difficult to trace the portion of wealth produced, which is appropriated to capital. But, nevertheless, it may often be important to determine the degree of the productiveness of labour, as far as the nature of things will permit. As we speak of labour being more or less productive, so we would denominate capital more or less so, according to the degree in which the labourers employed by it, or who consume it, were productive.

Having now deduced what appears to us the only very useful

classification of labour as productive and unproductive, together with a consistent definition of capital, on the supposition that wealth is composed of material objects possessed of exchangeable value, we will try the experiment of adopting its more extended acceptation, which embraces every thing having such value, whether material or immaterial. And, first, retaining the definition already given of capital, viz. that it consists of that portion of the produce of labour which is consumed or employed by the producers of wealth, it is obvious that it will experience an extension of its signification corresponding with that of wealth. It will comprehend not only the food, clothing, and habitation of the labourer, but likewise the gratifications of taste and of intellect, which he obtains in exchange for a portion of his wages. The advice of the physician, and the declamation of the actor, will or will not be a part of capital, according as they are made use of or enjoyed by the receivers of wages, no matter what the nature of their occupations may be, or by those who live on rent or profits. To receive wages will become the very simple test of being employed by capital.

Secondly, productive labour, denoting as before the labour which is productive of capital, must have its signification also extended in accordance with those of wealth and capital. The distinction between direct and indirect production will at once disappear entirely, and with it all the puzzling difficulties which render the distinction, as commonly applied, so frequently wanting in precision. Every labourer will be productive of wealth; and every producer of wealth will be directly productive of it. Now, more than ever, every one who produces wealth will also in different degrees be productive of capital, or, in other words, be a productive labourer. The magistrate, the clergyman, the physician, the menial servant, the actor, and in short all the unproductive labourers of Adam Smith, equally with the producers of material commodities, will become productive; and in a degree proportional to the amount of their wages, and according as their services are rendered to the receivers of wages, or to those who live on rent or profits. Our language on the production of wealth, will no longer have the frequent appearance of a paradox. The man of science and the successful statesman, will no longer be degraded below the rank of the meanest individual who handles a pickaxe or a shovel, by being denominated an unproductive labourer; and an Arkwright and a Whitney will stand out clearly acknowledged as the benefactors of mankind. It is no doubt true, that in applying the epithet unproductive to such labourers as these, Adam Smith and his followers had no intention of stigmatizing their services as less important to the community, even in relation to the production of wealth, than those of the productive labourers. But words are sometimes more important