entirely prepared, and passes over to its use. This comprehends all the industrial pursuits and occupations of mankind; and the whole is designated by the term production. The other stage begins when the object is applied to its use; and this stage is called by the general term consumption. The latter of these terms represents the wants, whether real or artificial, of society; the former designates the supply of these wants. Population is also classed under two corresponding divisions; namely, producers and consumers.

But in general, the science has, so far, been conducted rather in conformity to the special interests of particular nations, than according to any principles of universal origin or application. The countries which have paid most attention to this subject, in a scientific point of view, are France and England; and the works emanating from these countries, represent very distinctly, the national type, according to which the study has been prosecuted. Hence, although there are found in their treatises, principles supposed to be of universal application, still the actual condition of society, the nature of industrial pursuits, the bearing of commercial laws, peculiar to those countries, have come in so powerfully in modifying the views of their political economists, that their best principles cannot be appreciated, except by a just discrimination of all the circumstances, in which one nation differs from another.

Thus, for instance, confining our remarks to England, with which we are better acquainted, we are met with a distribution of the population into classes, which are not formed in our own country. These are, landlords, capitalists, and labourers. Generally in this country, the same individual represents all three. He is the owner of the soil, which he cultivates; and his means of carrying on agriculture, constitute his capital. The three classes are indeed, found; but that which constitutes the rule in England, is only the exception here. It is not, perhaps, the fault of Political Economy, as a science, that it seems to regard wealth as the end, and human beings as only the means, in order for its attainment. We would not venture to make this a reproach; and yet we cannot help making it a subject of regret. Its writers did not create the science; they only embodied a copy of its workings in practical life, as they found it in the relations of men. The prominence which is given to wealth, in tracing out the most certain rules for the acquisition of it, cannot but have had an injurious moral effect, in so far as it enhanced the ideal value of riches in the estimation of the human mind. There perhaps never was a period, when men entered on the pursuit of wealth, with so much of what might be called almost desperate determination to succeed, as the period in which we live. And we may entertain a reasonable doubt, whether it be not owing to this, that individuals in high and honourable stations, have so frequently (and of late as never before,) jeoparded and sacrificed an unblemished character, rather than miss the opportunity of rapidly acquiring wealth; the means of which, circumstances and confidence had placed within their reach. Cupidity is a natural propensity of man; and it is to be feared that the theoretic, and practical, political economy of our age,

has

36

encouraged and whetted the passion instead of moderating and regulating its
violence. It is certain, that self-interest is the great motive principle of human
exertion; but it is equally certain, that Political Economy, as a science, omits
what would be essential in a true definition of man's interest. Of this we
shall be convinced, if we examine the moral principle on which, whether in
the practice of modern nations, or in the theory of writers, Political Economy
is founded. If we follow it up to the mysterious link which connects it with
the spiritual or moral world, in the breast of men, we shall find that it acts
exclusively on that of personal interest. So much so indeed, that if England
and France, and the nations of modern times, in general, instead of being
Christians, or at least professing Christianity, were Heathens, it would still be
almost unnecessary to change a single word in the actual Philosophy or ethics
of Political Economy. Here, then, it is, that the importance of a Christian
basis demands our attention. The advantages and disadvantage of position
between Landlord and Tenant-between the Capitalist and the Labourer, are
such, that if mere material self-interest alone be left to regulate their relations,
it is easy to foresee that the weaker are liable to fall victims to the interests
and power of the stronger. The truth of this proposition is manifest now, in
the condition of England, where these relations are, and have been in existence
for a long time. Now, if Christianity were admitted as an element in Politi-
cal Economy, man-human nature-in consideration of the value which it has
acquired by the Redemption, would be the first and principal object of solici-
tude, and all things else would be estimated by reference to this. Man's in-
terest would be graduated on a scale proportioned to the whole of his nature,
combining the spiritual with the corporeal; and the whole of his destiny, ex-
tending to eternity, as well as time. Then, indeed, self-interest thus undersood,
would constitute a principle sufficiently high and sufficiently ample to com-
bine the acquisition of wealth, with sacred regard for the rights and privileges
of human beings. But this is not the case. The landlords, capitalists, and
labourers of England, are supposed to represent three great departments of
capital; the one in territory-the other in money-and the third in muscular
strength, or mechanical skill. Each is supposed to be free, and the only mo-
tive which is furnished in the present system, is that of individual advantage.
But it happens necessarily, that what would be the advantage of one class, is
directly opposed to the interests of another; and then each adhering to the
common principle, it is clear that he or they who have most power to hold out,
will be able to damage or destroy the antagonist interests of the other. The in-
fluences to be derived from a high and enlightened appreciation of human worth,
according to the standard of revelation, seem to have been shut out from the
practical and theoretic economy of modern nations. The interest of the body,
in its relation with material wealth, limited, of course, to this present life, is
the narrow and ignoble sphere within which political economy affects to

move.

I must not proceed, however, with views of this kind, until I shall have anticipated an objection which has already, perhaps, arisen in your minds, in seeming refutation of what is here advanced. And this is, that the immense wealth, the wonderful power, and unequalled prosperity of England, as a nation, is a practical proof of the soundness of her Political Economy. Or, it may be that an assumption, which has often been proclaimed, has presented itself to your mind as a yet stronger refutation, namely: that the wealth of England, her power and prosperity are owing to her profession of the Protestant religion, and the play of those energies which that religion is supposed to foster and develope. Now, with the qualifications which will occur during the course of these remarks, I admit the truth of both these observations. That England is the wealthiest nation on the globe, is indisputable. But it is to be remarked, that this wealth is in the hands of a small portion of her inhabitants; and we can form some idea of its amount from the fact, that we read of private individuals, whose annual income is not less than half a million of pounds sterling. That must, indeed, be a wealthy country, in which the income of a private gentleman, for a period of twelve months, would be sufficient to pay the salary of our President for nearly a hundred years! But perhaps no stronger instance could be adduced, to show how unequally the wealth of England is distributed among its inhabitants, than such a case as this, contrasted with the hundreds of thousands and millions of the people, who are sunk and sinking under the combined evils of moral and physical destitution. Taking the population of the three kingdoms together, as constituting one political family, it will be found that there is no nation of the world, and above all no Christian nation, in which there is such an amount of poverty and wretchedness as in England.

She has, indeed, fought the great battle for wealth with other countries, and has, by universal consent, gained the victory. But how comes it that, while a few of her sons are rioting in the spoils of the vanquished, the cries of the wounded and dying of her own battalions, are heard on every side? How comes it that, in Ireland, out of a population of between eight and nine millions, there are over two millions absolutely dependent on the charity of others, scarcely a degree above their own condition? How comes it that, in Scotland, misery and destitution are hardly less general, and, from other causes, perhaps even more excruciating still? How comes it that, in England itself, distress among the labouring classes presses, at intervals, to such an extreme point, as to threaten, from time to time, insurrection and revolution? How comes it, in fine, to happen that, while the dogs of landlords and capitalists are well fed and well housed-while their horses are daintily provided for, the sons and daughters of Britons around them go forth with gaunt looks and sunken features, through want of food? These are results which puzzle political economists, but which never could have happened, if Political Economy had not been transferred from the Christian basis on which it was originally reared in that country, to the inadequate foundations of mere individual inter

est. I am willing, then, to ascribe to the Protestant religion, the credit of England's wealth; but her poverty, and the destitution of her millions, must, I insist upon it, be charged to the same account. This, however, only in so far as these results have been brought about by the Political Economy of that country. Other causes may have contributed to both-such as the system of colonization and military conquest, in which England has been no less distinguished. Neither would I have it to be understood, that I regard the national character of the people of that country as differing essentially from that of other nations. If it be true, as some say it is, that, as a nation or as individuals, they are proverbially selfish, I do not ascribe it so much to any inherent deficiency of moral excellence or feeling, as I do to their system of Public Economy, which has so long prevailed, that it has gradually become, as it were, ingrained into the habits, principles, sentiments and associations of the people. Unfortunately, the same feelings, with the prevalence of the same system, are extending to other nations; and if they should continue, as appears quite likely, it may be difficult, at no distant day, to determine which will be entitled to preeminence on this score. There is, it is but just to add, perhaps no other nation in which there is a greater readiness to come to the relief of public distress, when it can be remedied, than in England. But the root of the disease is deep in the social condition of the country; and the highest effort of modern statesmen, political economists, and philanthrophists, is to apply palliatives to the evils which it must produce, without daring to eradicate or disturb the principle from which they flow.

Let us, then, go back to the origin of this system, and trace its workings in connection with Political Economy, and we shall, perhaps, be able to discover the sources from which both the wealth and the poverty of England have been derived. At the beginning of the sixteenth century, England, as a manufacturing country, had no pre-eminence, and was, scarcely equal to France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands. Up till that period, the profession of the same religion had established, throughout all these nations, a certain type of uniformity, in reference to moral as well as religious questions, constituting a standard common to them all. This, however, did not interfere with the peculiar genius and national characteristics of each people. But, in reference more especially to certain social questions, such as the exercise of charity, making provision for the poor, seasons of religious observances, days of rest, and the like, the usages of the different nations approached sufficiently near to uniformity. England, as is known, broke away from this religious connection. The Christianity which she embraced in its stead was based upon an entirely different principle, as regards the social relations. The merit of good works was rejected, as an erroneous doctrine, and it was ascertained that salvation is by faith alone. This is not the time nor the place to inquire which of these two systems is true, in a theological point of view. But they are mentioned in contrast, as having been calculated to affect most seriously the social relations, especially

in reference to the condition of the poor. Up to that period, the influence of the Christian religion on the hearts of the people was sufficient to provide, by voluntary contribution, for the necessities of the destitute; and it was a great safeguard for that unfortunate class, that the wealthy were under the conviction, right or wrong, of the importance and advantage to themselves, of doing good to their neighbour. When the universal belief that was, even a cup of cold water given in the name of a disciple, should not be without its reward," the efforts and sacrifices made spontaneously, to remedy or provide against distress, could not have been regarded either as vain or unproductive expenditure of capital.

But another and more obvious result of the change was, in the increased production which England was enabled to bring forth, in consequence of having abolished the religious holidays of the ancient church. These, at that time, were little short in number of one day in each week. The original motive for their institution was not exclusively religious. Those days furnished seasons of rest for the serfs or slaves of the middle ages; and thus, by diminishing the profits of their lords, and furnishing themselves with such opportunities of education and moral elevation as the times afforded, prepared them gradually for the free condition. By abolishing them, England was enabled to present a production of nearly two months' labour, in each year, more than the other States, that still adhered to the ancient system. The consequence of this was, that, by increasing the amount, she diminished the value, of her productions. Through this diminution in their value, she was enabled to undersell her rivals, first in all neutral foreign markets; and then, following up, with energy and perseverance, the advantages thus gained, she was enabled to undersell them in their own countries, and take possession of their own markets. Thus she began to drain other countries of their circulating medium, which became again a new instrument in developing still further the advantages of her position.

At first sight, it may appear to some that a circumstance, apparently so inadequate, is insufficient to have brought about such results. But we may illustrate its operation by an analogous case, on a small scale. All over this country there is a class of mechanics occupied in the manufacture of shoes. But there is in particular one village or town, in New England, that is celebrated for the number of its inhabitants, and the amount of capital, engaged in that branch of industry. Now, let us suppose that the people of that town find it consistent with their religious sense of duty, to add the labour of Sunday to that of the other days in each week. What will be the consequence, in regard to the other shoemakers throughout the country, who will still feel the obligation of sanctifying the Sabbath day? The consequence will be, that Lynn will be able to furnish shoes cheaper than they, and yet receive an equal amount of wages, though for a larger amount of labour. Her mechanics, therefore, can undersell their rivals elsewhere, on the principle well under