sent out and returned twelve times, before a capital employed in the foreign trade of consumption has made one. If the capitals are equal, therefore, the one will give fourand-twenty times more encouragement and support to the industry of the country than the other."*

I could adduce much more evidence of a similar character and tendency, but sufficient has been cited to show that the author himself has destroyed in one place the principle which he has set up in another.

It is desirable to direct, in the most particular manner, that attention be paid to the passage upon which I have just commented. Its matter is of a character of the very highest importance; for it contains the germ, or first principle, of that which is advanced as a great universal system. It would be well to have it set aside as a distinct substantive proposition, upon the examination of which the most profound meditation and the strongest powers of the mind should be brought to bear. Moreover, it should be subjected to the test of moral as well as to that of physical truth. I will requote it here:

"Every individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command. It is his own advantage, indeed, and not that of the society, that he has in view—but the study of his own advantage, naturally, or rather necessarily, leads him to prefer that employment which is most advantageous to the society."

With regard to the matter contained in the passage now under notice, Locke has argued very differently in his treatise, entitled, "Considerations of Lowering the Interest and Raising the Value of Money." He therein asserts, that "the

* The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith, book 4, ch. ii. p. 177.

merchant may get by a trade that makes the kingdom poor." And, in another part of the same work, as bearing on the subject generally, there is as follows: "If the vertue and provident way of living of our ancestors (content with our native conveniences of life, without the costly itch after the materials of pride and luxury from abroad) were brought in fashion and countenance again amongst us, this alone would do more to keep and increase our wealth, and enrich our land, than all our paper helps about interest, money, bullion, &c., which, however eagerly we may catch at, will not, I fear, without better husbandry, keep us from sinking, whatever contrivances we may have recourse to. "Tis with a kingdom, as with a family. Spending less than our own commodities will pay for, is the sure and only way for the nation to grow rich. And when that begins once seriously to be considered, and our faces and steps are in earnest turned that way, we may hope to have our rents rise, and the public stock thrive again. Till then we in vain, I fear, endeavour with noise and weapons of law to drive the wolf from our own to one another's doors: the breed ought to be extirpated out of the island. For want, brought in by ill-management, and nursed up by expensive vanity, will make the nation poor and spare nobody."*

Thus it is shown, that the mind of Locke and the mind of Adam Smith, took opposite views, and adopted opposite conclusions, on this great subject. By Locke, the social principle, or that principle of self-sacrifice which induces an abstinence of self-indulgence for the purpose of insuring a diffusing maintenance and enjoyment, was advanced and upheld as the foundation principle of human action and comBy Adam Smith, the selfish principle was advanced

merce.

* Considerations of Lowering the Interest and Raising the Value of Money, by John Locke.

and upheld as the right and most beneficial principle of action. An immense issue is here involved, an issue to which the fullest consideration must hereafter be directed; for here the essence, or what is often called "the heart and soul" of the subject, is brought under view and consideration.

Upon extending my examination into that part of "The Wealth of Nations," wherein its author has entered upon a consideration of the important branch of the science-the wages of labour and where he has attempted to discuss the efficiency of the free as compared with the regulating principle, I find that his course of argument presents a similar infirmity, both of premises and conclusions, as that which inheres in his treatment of the question of the effects of regulations on capital. In the 1st book, and the 10th chapter, he dilates on the law of apprenticeship, and on the institution of corporations, and there occur the following passages:

"Long apprenticeships are altogether unnecessary. The arts, which are much superior to common trades, such as those of making clocks and watches, contain no such mystery as to require a long course of instruction. The first invention of such beautiful machines, indeed, and even that of some of the instruments employed in making them, must, no doubt, have been the work of deep thought, and long time, and may justly be considered as among the happiest efforts of human ingenuity. But when both have been fairly invented, and are well understood, to explain to any young man, in the completest manner, how to apply the instruments and how to construct the machines, cannot well require more than the lessons of a few weeks-perhaps those of a few days might be sufficient. In the common mechanic trades, those of a few days might certainly be sufficient. The dexterity of hand, indeed, even in common trades, cannot be acquired without much practice and experience. But a young man would

practise with much more diligence and attention, if, from the beginning, he wrought as a journeyman; being paid in proportion to the little work which he could execute, and paying, in his turn, for the materials which he might sometimes spoil through awkwardness or inexperience. His education would generally, in this way, be more effectual, and always less tedious and expensive. The master, indeed, would be a loser. He would lose all the wages of the apprentice, which he now saves for seven years together. In the end, PERHAPS, the apprentice himself would be a loser. In a trade so easily learnt he would have more competitors, and his wages when he came to be a complete workman, would be much less than at present. The same increase of competition would reduce the profits of the masters, as well as the wages of the workThe trades, the crafts, the mysteries, would all be losers. But the public would be a gainer, the work of all artificers coming, in this way, much cheaper to market.

man.

"It is to prevent this reduction of price, and, consequently, of wages and profits, by restraining the free competition which would most certainly occasion it, that all corporations, and the greater part of corporation laws, have been established.

"The government of towns corporate were altogether in the hands of traders and artificers; and it was the manifest interest of every particular class of them to prevent the market from being overstocked, as they commonly express it, with their own particular species of industry; which is, in reality, to keep it always understocked. Each class was eager to establish regulations proper for this purpose, and, provided it was allowed to do so, was willing to consent that every other class should do the same. In consequence of such regulations, indeed, each class was obliged to buy the goods they had occasion for from every other within the town, somewhat dearer than they otherwise might have done. But, in

recompense, they were enabled to sell their own just as much dearer; so that, so far, it was as broad as long, as they say; and in the dealings of the different classes within the town, with one another, none of them were losers by these regulations. But, in their dealings with the country, they were all great gainers; and in these latter dealings consists the whole trade which supports and enriches every town." I do not conceive it to be necessary that I should pause for the purpose of analysing the matter thus extracted. The errors it contains are so great, and so conspicuous, that even a superficial examiner will not fail to perceive them.

I will now adduce another passage having reference to the Navigation Act and the Colonial policy of the country; and, if the matter advanced therein could be substantiated, the policy would be placed in a most beneficial and important point of view. The passage is as follows:

66

Secondly, this monopoly has necessarily contributed to keep up the rate of profit, in ALL the different branches of British trade, higher than it naturally would have been had all nations been allowed a free trade to the British colonies. The monopoly of the colony trade, as it necessarily drew towards that trade a greater proportion of the capital of Great Britain than what would have gone to it of its own accord; so, by the expulsion of all foreign capitals, it necessarily reduced the whole quantity of capital employed in that trade below what it naturally would have been in the case of a free trade. But, by lessening the competition of capital in that branch of trade, it necessarily raised the rate of profit in that branch. By lessening, too, the competition of British capitals in ALL other branches of trade, it necessarily raised the rate of British profit in ALL those other branches.

* The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith, book 1, ch. x.