much above this sum, unusual profits would accrue to all those engaged in that department of industry. Other capitalists would not look on with indifference, but would attempt to share the riches which had taken that particular direction; and thus competition would soon reduce the profits so that only the average rate would be received, probably, even below this point; but such a state of things could not last, as capital would be withdrawn to some more profitable business. Thus the competition of individual interests will prevent any capitalist or labourer from obtaining more than the average rate of profits; and by this means the exchangeable value of commodities will be reduced to the charges of production, and can never be far removed for any length of time from the amount of these.

It may illustrate our reasoning to examine briefly the objection of Mr. R. to the view of the subject which we have endeavoured to present; and, indeed, had there not been before us instances of such gross error in relation to a standard of value, we would gladly have excused ourselves from going so much into detail. "If the quantity of labour which the production of an article required, was the measure of its value, then would a bushel of corn raised on a poor soil, be more valuable than one raised on a good one; and a piece of cloth manufactured without the aid, more valuable than one of like quality manufactured with the aid of machinery; and goods transported to foreign countries on men's shoulders, more valuable than when transported in ships; and a thousand other equally absurd consequences would follow."* If Mr. R. means that a bushel of corn grown on a poor soil, costs more labour in its production than one raised on fertile land, he is unquestionably correct; and the reason why the latter is not sold for less than the former, is that the price of corn is regulated by the cost of production on the worst quality of land, which the wants of society have required to be taken into cultivation. The soil which may be cultivated, is limited in extent; and hence as there cannot be two prices of the same article, the exchangeable value of corn must be such as will yield the ordinary profits of capital and industry to the cultivators of the poorest land that it has been found necessary to improve, for supplying the demand for corn. That this is the true statement of the case, will be at

* Vol. i. p. 62.

"The value of corn is regulated by the quantity of labour bestowed on its production on that quality of land which pays no rent. Corn is not high because a rent is paid; but a rent is paid because corn is high; and it has been justly observed, that no reduction would take place in the price of corn, although landlords should forego the whole of their rent."-Ricardo's Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. p. 44.

once evident to all who reflect that fertile land pays not only the profits of capital and industry to the former, but also rent to the proprietor; and this rent is considerable in amount in proportion as the difference between the best and worst soils cultivated is great. If Mr. R. had formed correct notions on the nature of rent,* he, probably, would not have hazarded the objection we have been considering.

The exchangeable value of manufactured articles does not partake of the peculiarity which regulates the price of corn; and Mr. R's observation with respect to these is so superficial that it is strange he himself did not perceive its fallacy. If all the machinery employed in the manufacture of cloth could not supply the wants of the community, and it were necessary to manufacture some without this aid, assuredly the exchangeable value of this last would regulate that of the whole, since none would attempt to manufacture without machinery, till the deficiency of the supply, compared with the demand, had raised the price to such a rate as would compensate them for their toil. So soon as the price had fallen below this rate, all who had previously manufactured without machinery, would be compelled, if unable to obtain this assistance, to turn their attention to some other employment.

In the same manner, if there were not a sufficient number of ships to accomplish the transportations of commerce, and caravans of men and beasts were still employed, the costs of transportation would be governed by the charges of this latter mode of conveyance; and for the very plain reason, that there cannot be at the same time two prices for one operation of industry; and that the traders travelling by land, would not exhaust their strength in this way when it could be exerted with more profit in other departments of industry. The productions of the manufactory and of commerce, can usually be supplied in unlimited quantities, according as the demand increases, by the application of additional capital and industry. Hence then, exchangeable value will be regulated by the cheapest mode of production. If, according to the suggestion of an English writer, we consider the land of different degrees of productiveness, as machines employed in producing corn, we may see that in the progress of society, we will be compelled to have recourse to machines of inferior power, as the best will be appropriated first; and,

* Mr. R. refers writers on Political Economy, to the farmer's boy for instruction as to the nature of rent, (vol. i. p. 182) and to the counting-house clerk for definitions of their terms. We would advise him to omit these passages in a future edition, lest some censorious person should insinuate that he had betrayed the sources of his own information.

consequently, the price of corn will be regulated by the most expensive mode of production; exactly the reverse of the fact relative to manufactures.

We may conclude, therefore, that the costs of production will regulate the exchangeable value of all commodities, of which the supply depends on the amount of capital and industry engaged in producing. Variations of exchangeable value there may be; but, to use the forcible illustration of the Marquis Garnier, "Tenter d'expliquer ces variations, sans reconnoitre l'existence d'un prix naturel, ce serait vouloir expliquer les oscillations du pendule sans convenir de sa tendence vers un centre de gravitation; ce serait supposer un effort sans but, et sans mobile; ce serait admettre le mouvement et nier le repos."

But it is time that we turn to what are deemed by Mr. R. himself, the more important features of his work. The great discovery of our author, and that over which he seems disposed to shout Evgnxa, svgnxa, is the distinction between national and individual wealth. We are afraid that on this point, Mr. R. however unintentionally, has neglected to make a proper acknowledgement of his obligations to one of his predecessors in the science of political economy. If there be such an essential difference between national and individual wealth; and if a knowledge of this is to exercise such unbounded influence in dispelling the darkness in which writers on political economy, before Mr. R. were involved, we can imagine no reason why the Earl of Lauderdale should be excluded from all participation in the honour of the discovery. Even admitting that his lordship had not the clearest views on this subject,* still as his work was prior to Mr. R's by many years, and as the "first hints" are found in it, he is entitled to precedence in the claim of originality. Of former writers on this science, the noble lord is the one, perhaps, the only one, between whose opinions and those of our countryman, there is any marked resemblance. His lordship also introduces himself to our notice by descanting on the evils which have arisen in political economy from a loose and inaccurate use of terms. Both authors agree in the use of the word "value." Both lay very great stress upon the distinction supposed to exist between national and individual wealth; or public wealth and private riches. Both seem to entertain an inveterate abhorrence of frugality and accumulation as injurious to society. Both are kind enough to inform the world that their opinions are radically new, and directly opposed to the erroneous theories which had so long bewildered mankind.

* See Mr. R. on this point, vol. i. pp. 175, 176, 177, 180.

Let us proceed then in the examination of the rì ro-the resting place of this modern Archimedes, while moving the world. "Wealth is the possession of property, for the use of which the owner can obtain a quantity of the necessaries and comforts of life."* We must make a remark on this definition. "Property and wealth are sometimes synonymous,"+ by Mr. R's own admission; and he has given us no means of distinguishing them even in his own publication. That the words are used indifferently by society at large, it would be folly to deny; and our author's proof that they are distinct in their meaning, is without foundation. "No man, learned or unlearned, would say that the individual who had but one dollar was a man of wealth, although the dollar would be property."‡ Compare this argument with the definition of wealth. "Wealth is the

possession of property," &c.-that is, "the possession of one dollar, for the use of which the owner can obtain a quantity of the necessaries and comforts of life." This one dollar proves to be wealth; and Mr. Raymond's definition, since property is wealth, becomes "Wealth is the possession of wealth," &c. Wealth may be defined more briefly and more accurately, to consist of products, possessing exchangeable value. How much wealth should entitle an individual to be called a wealthy man, does not, in our opinion, belong to political economy to determine.

We must be careful, however, not to confound wealth and value." It is plain that every man will be able to command a much greater quantity of those necessaries and gratifications, of which wealth consists, when their value declines, or when they have become more easily attainable, than when their value increases. Wealth and value vary in an inverse ratio." In proportion then as the value of an article diminishes, wealth increases. To explain this, suppose that in consequence of improvements, the cost of manufacturing cottons is reduced to one-third of what it had been previously. Those capitalists who introduced the improvements, might, for a short time, make exorbitant profits by selling at the old prices; but other capitalists observing this, would make investments in the same employment, and thus very soon the flow of capital and industry in this direction, would, by the competition of the producers, reduce the exchangeable value of the manufacture to one-third of its previous price-that is, to the rate which we have supposed to yield the ordinary profits of capital and industry. A yard of cotton, therefore, which, before the improvement in the

* Vol. i. p. 36. VOL. V.-NO. 1.

+ Ibid. p. 38.

6

Ibid. P. 38.

art of manufacturing, had exchanged for one day's toil of a common labourer, may now be purchased for the labour of one third of a day; or three yards may be obtained after the discovery of the more expeditious mode of production, for what one had cost previously. Here we have supposed the exchangeable value of the product to be very much reduced; but the wealth of the community is increased, and the necessaries and comforts of life have been made attainable in the same proportion that their value has diminished. Carry out rigourously the same rule, that wealth increases as value diminishes. Suppose a particular commodity to be produced with infinite ease, so that the supply would be indefinitely great, and the price nothing, as every individual could obtain it without any exertion. This product, according to Mr. Raymond, would not form a part of wealth, because it is without exchangeable value. Suppose all objects of consumption to be produced to the same extent, and with the same ease, there would be no exchangeable value, and, therefore, no wealth, agreeably to our author's system. And we grant that the word "wealth," in such a state of things, could not be used in the received acceptation of writers in our day. Yet the community would possess in the greatest possible abundance, the necessaries and comforts of life; and, consequently, would be immensely wealthy by another part of Mr. R's definition of wealth, which makes it to consist in the possession of the necessaries and comforts of life, or at least in the power of obtaining these, which we think not to be greatly different. Whence then this contradiction? From the simple eircumstance that Mr. R. believes wealth to increase as the exchangeable value of the commodities increases-a position directly the reverse of the truth. The wealth of an individual is estimated by the exchangeable value of all that he possesses: but it is evident that if the exchangeable value of the articles of property, which make up the whole mass, be diminished, a larger number of these articles will be required to constitute a definite amount of value. The nature then of private wealth appears sufficiently obvious.

The opinion has been common among the best informed writers on political economy, that national wealth is the same in kind and regulated by the same laws. A nation, they reason, consists of individuals; and, consequently, the aggregate of individual wealth will be national wealth. This has very strikingly the appearance of an identical proposition; yet self-evident as it may appear, it is objected to by Mr. R.; and we purpose examining the grounds of the distinction, which he esteems all important, between national and individual wealth. "The pre