rates of profit will be the same in the two countries. Mr. McCulloch maintains that cultivating lands of worse quality than those already in cultivation will reduce the rates of profit. Now if I reduce the quality of all the lands in England,-increase the barrenness of the soil, leaving those of France untouched,-I shall reduce the rate of profit in England: but if I lay a heavier taxation on England than on France, I shall do the same as increase the barrenness of the soil, and thus reduce the rate of profit, and banish capital to France. Hence it is very evident that as long as our taxation greatly exceeds that of France, we never can compete with her, all other things being equal.

Thus, as it is evident that we cannot compete with France if our taxes are greatly disproportionate to hers, so, in the same manner, we cannot compete with her if her soil or her climate be greatly superior, unless we have some other very great preponderating advantage as a counterpoise. To talk of what is REALLY A FREE TRADE, with a great disproportion of taxation, is absurd, and must be instantly ruinous to the high-taxed country, if adopted by it. But if a nation possess any great preponderating advantage over its neighbor-such as great superiority of climate, or soil, or government, or national habit of industry,- this will act, as far as it goes, as the exemption from taxation named above, and give it always an advantage in the race of prosperity with the less favored country; which the latter can only balance by acquiring some countervailing advantage, or by restrictions.

19. Mr. McCulloch has published a treatise on the rate of wages, which he has printed in a cheap form for dispersion amongst the laboring classes. I shall endeavor to show that his reasoning

is erroneous.

He begins his essay with a definition of what he calls capital. Of the word capital he says, "The capital of a country consists of all that portion of the produce of industry existing in it, which can be made directly available either to the support of human existence, or to the facilitating of production." He then adds, "But the portion of capital to which it is now necessary to advert, consists of the food, cloths, and other articles required for the use and consumption of the laborers. This portion forms the fund out of which their wages must be wholly paid."

20. Now I apprehend that here are two clear and distinct propositions, essentially different from one another. On the second of these it is that all his superstructure ought to be built; and it is by confounding them together, and by sometimes reasoning from one of them, sometimes from the other, that he has been induced to draw conclusions perfectly untrue and erroneous.

In the heading of his first section he states, "Rate of wages in any given country at any particular period, dependent on the mag

nitude of the fund or capital appropriated to the payment of wages, compared to the number of laborers."

Now this is perfectly true; but when stripped of its formal and, technical language, to what does it amount? simply to this; that if a larger sum of money be divided as wages amongst a given number of persons, they will have a larger sum each than if a smaller, sum be divided amongst them; that if two pounds be divided amongst four men, they will have each a larger sum than if only. one pound be so divided; that is, the rate of wages would be higher if two pounds be divided, than if only one were so divided. This is all true; but what then? What consequence can be deduced from this self-evident proposition? I think I have fairly, stated Mr. McCulloch's meaning-I shall be very sorry if I have made any error.

He has fallen into a mistake by confounding capital appropriated to the payment of wages, as stated in the heading of his firstsection, with national capital, as stated in several places afterward, and particularly in the fifth distich of the first section, as follows: "Whatever, therefore, may be the state of money wages in a country-whether they are one shilling or five shillings a day-it is still certain, that if the amount of the national capital and the population continue the same, or increase or diminish in the same proportion,-no variation will take place in the rate of wages."

Nothing can be more untrue, as a general proposition, than this. He then goes on to draw the conclusion, that " wages never really rise, except when the proportion of capital to population is: enlarged; and they never really fall, except when that proportion, is diminished."

21. This is a most marvellous non sequitur. He has confused himself by losing sight of the limitation in his first proposition, in which, in fact, lies all its truth: it is true with the limitation; it is untrue without it. He ought always to have qualified the expression capital, or national capital, with the words appropriated. to the payment of wages. This omission is of no trifling importance, because it is by the omission of this qualification that he is enabled to deduce consequences destructive to the very existence of society in this country,-destructive actually to the food of many millions of people.

His conclusion ought to have stood as follows:-"Wages never really rise, except when the proportion which capital appropriated to the payment of wages bears to the laboring population, is enlarged; and they never really fall, except when that proportion is diminished." If capital be increased, unless it be appropriated to the payment of wages, it can have no effect on the rate of wages. Again, the rate of wages will not be affected by the population

merely being increased. To affect the rate, it is necessary that the laboring population should be enlarged; for the population of the higher classes only may be increased, whilst the rate of wages is diminishing.

22. It cannot be denied, that there are always large quantities of capital in every country, which can or may be made available to the support of human existence, or the facilitating of production, which are not turned to such purpose, and therefore can have no influence on the rate of wages. All gold and silver in hoards are of this description.

Mr. McCulloch's argument, in fact, goes to prove that the rate of wages will increase with the increase of national wealth. I greatly fear that this is so far from being true, that, on the contrary, the rate of wages decreases as civilization and wealth increase. I much fear that the history of the world will establish this mortifying result. Look at the immense riches, that is, large national capital, of China and India, and consider the low rate of wages in these countries; and I think it must be allowed that it is to all appearance a proof directly against Mr. McCulloch's doctrine. I think he will not dispute the fact; and if he do not dispute it, I think no one will believe the theory until it be accounted for, and some cause shown for it by which his theory is not overthrown. The modern example of China and India is, I think, supported and confirmed generally by other histories both ancient and modern.

In America and newly-settled countries, where land is a drug, and its produce most abundant, the wages are generally the highest; and, according to the political economists, therefore the quantity of capital ought to be the largest: but they will hardly affirm that America has more capital than England, China, or India.

23. I know not how I can more clearly refute Mr. McCulloch's doctrine than I have done, by merely pointing out the error. It seems to me, that this once pointed out, the falsity of all the consequences follows as a matter of course, and that all the reasoning used by him respecting national capital in the second and third paragraphs is evidently untrue.

In his sixth paragraph, he begins by reasoning respecting the proportion of capital appropriated to the payment of wages; but before he gets to the end of the first sentence, he flies off to capital, without the limitation; and he begins an inquiry to discover whether capital and population have a tendency to increase or diminish in the same or different proportions; and here is laid the first stone of a stupendous edifice. He says, "This is obviously a very important inquiry. If capital has a natural tendency to advance faster than population, then it is plain that wages must have an equal tendency to increase, and that the condition of the la

boring classes must, generally speaking, become more and more prosperous," &c.

24. Whether capital has a tendency to increase faster than population or not, the rate of wages is not necessarily affected. The capital may increase, and the rate of wages may decrease or remain stationary. Suppose our new gold companies of Mexico should send us 1,000,000 ounces of gold; unless we appropriate thememploy them in commencing works which make a demand for labor, the rate of wages will not be affected. Suppose we hoard them against a future war, or send them off to buy luxuries, plate, pictures, wine, &c. to France, our capital is increased, but the rate of wages is not affected. This is what happened to Spain. She sent off her capital to exchange for other capital, or exchanged one kind of wealth for another kind of wealth; but her rate of wages did not increase with this increase or exchange of wealth, because she did not appropriate this wealth to the payment of wages. As she did not appropriate her wealth to the payment of wages, her population did not increase; and thus unless capital be so appropriated, population will not increase.

25. The first proposition in the essay,-that the rate of wages depends on the magnitude of the fund or capital appropriated to their payment, compared to the number of laborers,-is self-evident; but is of such a nature, that no consequence of any importance can be drawn from it. The second,-that the rate of wages depends on the capital of a country, or is regulated by the amount of the capital of a country,-is not true.

No doubt, if the capital or wealth of a country should be greatly increased, the increased wealth or capital would be in part appropriated to the payment for labor, and thus might, by increasing the demand for labor, increase the rate of wages; and, again, if the wealth or capital of a country should be greatly decreased, most likely less labor, fewer laborers would be required, and less capital would be appropriated to the payment of wages. But this is very different from the amount of national capital being the regulator of the rate of wages: for wages may be low where there is much capital, as in India; and high where there is little capital, as in America. It is from the proposition, without any limitation or qualification, that all the consequences are deduced. By reasoning on this untrue assertion as true, doctrines appear to me to be held directly contrary to common sense, and to the universal experience of all mankind.

26. Thus we have seen that the doctrine of A. Smith is denied by Mill, Ricardo, and McCulloch; the last of whom boasts, and no doubt flattered himself, that the doctrine of Ricardo, adopted by him, was capable of rigid demonstration: and we have seen that the doctrine rigidly demonstrated by Ricardo is denied by Mr.

Torrens, who actually is successful in proving his assertion, that it is erroneous.

Now give me leave to ask on which of the rigidly demonstrative principles of those learned and observing persons (vid. Par. Abs. Trade, p. 392.) it is intended to legislate, when, in compliance with popular clamor, the prosperity, and even the existence of many millions of persons is to be put to hazard. It is on the argument of Mr. Ricardo, overturned by Mr. Torrens, that all the arguments in favor of the abolition of the corn law depends. Thus it is with all the conclusions of this fleeting science; no system of metaphysics was ever more uncertain, or more incapable of real demonstration.

27. In reply to this, I shall be told, that though the economists disagree in some things, they agree in others, and that it may be proper to legislate in such cases as they agree. To this it may be observed, that though it may be admissible to depend on their agreement in such cases as are of little moment, yet too much care can never be taken where the existence of millions is at stake; that it has often been seen in natural philosophy and metaphysics, that doctrines which have been universally received for long periods of time, have at last turned out to be untrue, or have come to be disputed. It will be said that this argument will go so far as to stop all improvement. As it is sound in principle, it is to be hoped that it will not go so far; though, no doubt, it will nearly stop all change in very important cases, where the existing state of things is good, or where the change involves any principle which appears paradoxical, or which goes to a change of such matters or things, as to all outward appearance have been and continue to be the direct cause of great good to mankind, or under which mankind has risen to great prosperity.

28. It ought never to be forgotten, that the conclusions deduced by the economists, and on which they found their demand for changes, are the results of the most abstruse and difficult reasoning known in any science whatever; a science in which the propositions in general are totally incapable of any thing like the demonstrations of the exact sciences; though, like all philosophers of the day, each in his day, its professors boast that it is capable of the strictest demonstration; with how much truth, the reader must now be pretty well enabled to judge.

29. In a natural state of society, agriculture and manufactures constantly keep aiding one another. The procreative powers of man constantly keep increasing population, or tending to increase population beyond the means of subsistence this raises the price of provisions, and brings fresh and more poor lands into cultivation as more produce is raised, population is encouraged, which employs itself in manufactures which again increase popu