creased, and the laborers will accordingly be reduced to a lower and lower compensation, until, perhaps, at length, the wages paid will not more than supply them with the poorest fare and the meanest clothing and accommodations. But the degree to which they may be reduced by the operation of these causes, will evidently depend upon the situation of the country, the demand at successive times for labor, in comparison with the supply of laborers, and, most of all, upon the character of the laborers themselves. To say that there is some point at which these circumstances are naturally balanced, in all countries and all stages of economical improvement at which the "natural rate" of wages is graduated, seems to be a proposition too fanciful and vague to deserve the name of a theory. But such is the doctrine of the economists.

Another leading doctrine of Adam Smith and his followers grows out of the state of the English poor-laws. It is, that all provision by law for the support of the poor is useless and injurious. This doctrine is fortified by Mr. Malthus's theory of the fatal necessity of starvation. He maintains that human fecundity tends to get the start of the means of subsistence, since the former moves with a geometrically increasing rapidity, and soon leaves behind the latter, which can only proceed at a uniform arithmetical pace. The inference which he makes from this is, that the human race has been and will be kept down to its actual numbers by starvation. The consequence drawn from this proposition, which is stated with all the air of a demonstration, is, that poor-laws, or any efforts of charity, are only a childish and useless indulgence of feeling; for, since there will be superfluous numbers, who must at all events be starved, if the life of one is saved by charity, whether public or private, it is only that another may be starved in his stead. A more heart-hardening doctrine could not be broached. It is a conclusion at which humanity revolts, and to which no one will consent without compulsion. How, then, is the fact? The theorem requires that some millions should perish of want annually. It does not, however, appear that they do so perish. And yet this doctrine is reiterated, and very complacently inculcated, as a part of the science of political economy. (See Pauperism.)

A proposition, dwelt upon, at some length, by Mr. Say, and carefully inculcated in many other writers on the science of economy, is, that production is

not creation; that a farmer cannot make corn, nor a weaver cloth, out of nothing. Mr. M'Culloch says labor is "the only source of wealth." This is one of the doctrines the economists, from which consequences of some weight are deduced. Now all will, without doubt, agree that, without any materials, or, in other words, without the earth, men would not produce wealth; and it may be conceded also, for the purpose of the argument, that the earth, without inhabitants, would have no wealth. But men, being placed upon earth, may produce wealth by working upon the materials supplied by it; and the earth is itself sold in portions as a part of the common stock of wealth, and the men are also sometimes themselves bought and sold, as being a part of the same stock. In general, two things must concur in order to the production of value, namely, the thing to be wrought or used, and a person to work or use it. To insist that one or the other is the exclusive source of value, seems to savor more of the obsolete metaphysics of the schools, than of practical speculation. The utmost that can be made out of it, is a merely verbal distinction. And one would hardly expect so trivial a subtilty to occupy much space in a branch of knowledge holding the rank of a science.

All writers agree in the doctrine that security of property is essential to the accumulation of the products of labor, that is, wealth, for no one will save what he has no reasonable assurance that he shall enjoy; and it is also agreed by all, that accumulation, that is, a stock on hand, is necessary to the productiveness of labor.

Adam Smith lays great stress upon the division of labor as one of the causes of the great productiveness of industry. His remarks upon this subject are just, with the qualification, perhaps, that he over estimates the importance of the principle, since he attributes to it the improvements made in various processes of industry, whereas many of the improvements are themselves the causes, or, rather, afford the means of a separation of employments. Any machine is an illustration of this remark.

It is asserted by some of the writers on this science, that there are no limits to the beneficial effects of the accumulation of capital upon the productiveness of the industry of a nation; or, in other words, that a given number of people, however small, can advantageously employ any amount of capital, however great. But if we assume a certain number of employ

ments and professions, there is certainly a limit beyond which no additional stock and materials could be employed. The proposition may mean that the ingenuity of men can, or will, find out modes of employing advantageously any amount of capital that can be accumulated by them. The proposition thus stated is, at least, a theoretical one, but the inquiries and investigations to which it leads, are certainly not sterile of useful results.

All the products of industry are divided among the persons by whom the taxes are received and consumed, the holders of sinecures, the capitalists, and the laborers, including in this latter class all the industrious in all professions and pursuits. A great problem in political economy is to determine the mode of distribution most advantageous to the nation; and this problem, which is very general and very complicated in its details, has not yet been fully solved. It is generally agreed, that all absolute sinecures, whether under the government or otherwise constituted, are prejudicial. What distribution among the usefully employed, or what comparative remuneration for the labor or services of the respective classes and professions, is the most advantageous, is a subject very little discussed by the writers on economy. But the question as to the distribution between the capitalists, who are entitled to profits, and those who labor upon or with the capital, who are entitled to wages, is a subject of considerable speculation in the books. One doctrine is, that, where profits are highest, accumulation will be most rapid; that is, the greater the mass of the annual products that go to those whose capital supplies the materials and instruments of labor, the more rapid will be the growth in wealth. This is assuming that nothing will be saved by the laborers, or not so much in proportion as will be saved out of the profits. The first assumption cannot be made, and the second is questionable; for example, a great proportion of the agricultural laborers by the month, in the U. States, are young men who save their wages in order to purchase a farm for themselves. There is no mode of saving that could be devised which would so rapidly promote the increase of the national stock, and a change whereby the farmers, by paying less wages, should themselves make greater profits, instead of augmenting the national accumulation, would very materially check it. Other instances might be given to the same effect. The doctrine, therefore, seems to be unsound. Taking the two

divisions in the above distribution, it is evident that one cannot be increased but at the expense of the other. But there is one species of capital distinguished from all others, namely, that in land. The lower the rents are that are paid for the mere use of land, in exclusion of buildings and fixtures, the greater amount of annual products will be left to divide between those who supply the stock and those who perform the labor. It may, we think, be laid down as a sound maxim, that low rents, which leave a proportionally large amount of the annual income to be divided, as wages and profits, will very materially promote the national growth, by giving greater stimulus to labor and the employment of stock. This mode of distribution explains, in part, the fact that both the wages and profits are higher in the U. States than in Europe. By higher wages, we mean not merely the money price, but the greater quantity of similar articles that can be purchased for the wages of the same labor. So far, high profits and high wages are compatible; but, when the question is between wages and profits, as it is put by the economical writers, the preference of high profits at the expense of wages, seems not to be well founded as a general doctrine, though it may be true of Great Britain.

After disposing of the question, whether agricultural, manufacturing or commercial industry is most advantageous to a nation, and concluding, as all now agree, that they are equally conducive to national wealth, contrary to the opinion of Adam Smith, who gave the preference to agriculture, the writers on economy then go into the inquiry how far any one of these branches is objectionable on account of its effect on the character of the population. In this respect, foreign commerce is undoubtedly the most injurious of the three. As to manufacturing, its varieties are almost infinite, and no general remark is applicable to the effects of all upon the persons employed. It seems, indeed, to be now pretty well agreed, in the U. States, that the mode of conducting any branch of manufacture, and the system of educating and employing the operatives, determine the effects of the employment upon the character and habits of the population; and that it is not the necessary effect of this or that branch of manufacturing, to degrade and corrupt the persons employed in it. In this opinion the writers on economy generally agree.

The same writers agree generally in the definition of value, as being determined by

the amount of marketable things, for which an article can be exchanged. It is also well settled that demand determines the market value; but they assert, again, or at least seem to imply, that value and cost are synonymous. They also generally imply, by the mode of using the term cost, that it is some definite, fixed quantity. This use of language throws great obscurity on their speculations on this subject, since the cost of producing an article varies from week to week, by the variation of the price of the materials, and the wages; and the same kind and quality of articles will, at the same time, cost one producer more than another. The proposition that cost regulates value, is laid down by the writers with great solemnity, and inculcated at great length. It is a subject on which there certainly is a great deal of unprofitable prolixity in the books; for what argument or illustration is necessary to establish the proposition, that men will not continue long to produce an article by which they lose money? The proposition seems to stand in quite as great need of an apology for stating it, as of a disquisition to explain or support it.

Mr. Ricardo's theory of rent is an ingredient in recent treatises on political economy. The result of his theory is, that, if there was no difference in the productive qualities of all the parts of the whole territory of a nation, there would be no such thing as rent. The conclusion of his theory is, that every additional bushel of corn raised in a country costs more than the preceding. Very few persons will probably assent to the first of these two propositions, and the last is absurd as applied to the U. States and many other countries. He doubtless had England in his view in framing his theory; but Mr. Lowe denies its accuracy in respect to England, as a matter of fact, upon the statement of cultivators themselves. Mr. M'Culloch goes into a consideration of the effect of the fluctuations of wages upon the cost of commodities, in order to establish the proposition that if the cost of the production of two articles depends upon the use of machinery, and the machinery for one is of short duration, and that for the other of long, then a rise in wages will affect the cost of the products of the transient machinery, more than that of the other. He discusses this proposition quite elaborately, for the purpose, apparently, of showing that an increase of wages will, in effect, result in a comparative enhancement of the profits of the producer who

uses the durable machinery; for he has only to pay the advanced wages for working his machine, whereas the other must pay both for replacing and for working his. This is rather an obscure and nice distinction, and, to be just, requires that the price of the durable machine shall not have risen in value, in consequence of the increase of the expense of building a new one, by reason of the rise of wages; whereas it is according to common experience to suppose that it would rise in value, in which case Mr. M'Culloch's theory vanishes.

Passing over what relates to consumption (q. v.), the above are some of the leading doctrines and theories of what is called the science of political economy, as taught by recent writers in France and England; a science of which Adam Smith is said, by its professors, to be the founder. Perhaps no study of the day, which bears the name of science, presents more vague theory, grave, mysterious empiricism, dull prolixity, inconsequential arguments, gratuitous assumptions, jejune discussions, and elaborate triviality. There are many useful truths, which pass under the name of political economy; but a large proportion of the treatises, from that of Adam Smith downwards, by the disciples of his school, seem to hear the same relation to an intelligible practical developement of the causes and phenomena of national growth, wealth and decline, that alchemy does to modern chemistry.-For other branches of political economy, see the articles Banks, Bounties, Circulating Medium, Commerce, Consumption, Corn Laws, Credit, Debtor and Creditor, Direct Tax, Laborers, Labor-saving Machines, Lotteries, Mercantile System, Money, Monopoly, Literary Property, Patent, Physiocratical System. The following are some of the principal writers on political economy: 1. On the mercantile system: Stuart's Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy (3 vols., London, 1767); Genovesi, Lezioni di Commercio ossia d'Economia civile (2 vols., Bassano, 1769); Büsch, Abhandlung von dem Geldumlauf (2 vols.; new edition, Hamburg, 1800). the physiocratic or agricultural system: Quesnay, Tableau économique avec son Explication (Versailles, 1758); this work was printed, with several others on the same system, in a collection edited by Dupont de Nemours, entitled La Physiocratie (6 vols., Yverdun, 1768); Turgot, Recherches sur la Richesse et l'Origine des Richesses nationales (Paris, 1774); Le Trosne, De l'Ordre social (Paris, 1777); Theodore Schmalz, Staatswirthschaftslehre

2. On

(2 vols., Berlin, 1818). 3. Adam Smith's system, as set forth by himself, and developed by his followers: Adam Smith's Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (2 vols., London, 1776; 4 vols., Edinburgh, 1814); Sartorius, Von den Elementen des Nationalreichthums und von der Staatswirthschaft (Göttingen, 1806); Lüder, Ueber Nationalindustrie und Staatswirthschaft (3 vols., Berlin, 1800); Say's Traité d'Economie politique; Ganilh's Des Systèmes d'Economie politique (2 vols., Paris, 1809 and 1822); Storch, Cours d'Économie politique (6 vols., Petersburg, 1815); and his Betrachtungen über die Natur des Nationaleinkommens (Halle, 1825); Sismondi's Nouveaux Principes d'Economie politique (2 vols., Paris, 1818); Ricardo, On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (new edition, London, 1819); Malthus's Principles of Political Economy (London, 1820); Jakob, Grundsätze der Nationalökonomie (Halle, 1805 and 1825); Soden, Nationalökonomie (9 vols., Leipsic, Arau and Nuremberg, 1805-24); Whately's Introd. Lect. on Polit. Econ. (1831); Senior's Lectures on Population (1831); Sadler, Law of Population (anti-Malthusian) (vols. i and ii, 1830); Cooper's Lectures on the Elements of Polit. Econ. (Columbia, 1826); Cardozo's Notes on Polit. Econ.(Charleston, 1826); Thoughts on Polit. Econ. by D. Raymond (Baltimore, 1820).

POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS. The origin of political societies and institutions has been a frequent subject of disquisition. Like many other things, they are supported from an instinctive feeling of their necessity, though their origin and true principles may not be correctly understood. The universal feeling of their necessity has induced some persons to compare political institutions to languages; both, they say, are essential to the existence of mankind; both exist from time immemorial, and neither can be changed at will; a comparison which tends, like other partial analogies, to lead the inquirer into error. The theories of the origin of the state may be comprised under two heads those which make authority the starting point, and those which seek it in equality. Those who support the former principle are again divided; some recur at once to God, and say, that he united all power in the hands of the father of the family, who, therefore, at first, had the priestly and princely, as well as the paternal authority; and it was only in later times that these functions became separated; but it is idle, in scientific speculation, to refer positive institutions to God. He

implanted the principles of every thing good, but we are not to take for granted a direct interference, on his part, in their application. Other advocates of authority place the origin of political institutions in force. Mr. von Haller started this idea anew. (See the article Haller, Charles Louis von.) We have already spoken of the mistake of laying much stress upon the supposed origin of bodies politic, in the article Estates (vol. iv, note on p. 585). What did Mozart, in composing his Requiem, care for the origin of music ? or Ariosto, or Milton, for the origin of languages? Political institutions may have originated in a variety of ways, from force, compact, reverence, &c.; and they actually have, as history shows us. But their accidental origin does not show the principle which lies at their foundation, holds them together, and is understood more clearly with the improvement of the social order. The accidental origin of the hut of the savage does not teach us the principles of architecture. These are gradually unfolded, in proportion as the art advances. The principle which lies at the basis of all political union we hold to be the idea of the just, as that of the good is the foundation of morals, and that of the beautiful of the fine arts. The idea of the just, again, in politics is but a modification of the idea of equality. This is the animating principle of all political societies, whatever may have been their origin, and is invariably developed in the progress of society, as the flower is the product of the perfect plant. The idea of force declines as this principle is unfolded. We might add, that the idea of the just is at least as ancient as that of paternal authority; because, as soon as two individuals are placed together, the idea of equal rights arises, the idea of “doing as one would be done by." Still more is this the case in a family, because as soon as there are several children, parents as well as children feel that it is not right to prohibit to one of the children what, in the same case, would be allowed to another. That children obey their parents originally from a mere feeling of inferiority, may be allowed; but states consist of men, and little would the remembrance of former inferiority avail for the maintenance of social order. The idea of the state and of law (for both go hand in hand, and the essence of law is equality, even where it establishes differences and privileges) has a much surer foundation in the idea of the just, which is as primitive an idea as that of the good. Whether, therefore, all bodies politic were

originally founded upon the social compact or not, this social compact is the fundamental idea of all, and that to which all strive in the progress of their developement. (See our article Estates for the various stages of political government; see, also, Constitution, and Sovereignty.)

that the various views of the origin of governments, whether they are to be considered as founded essentially on compact or force, or as having a divine origin, &c., fall under natural law. The subject of natural law is treated at considerable length in the article on that subject, in our ninth volume, to which we refer the reader; also to the article Haller, as he gives a peculiar turn to the old notion of divine right.-For the various theories of natural law, see the works of Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli et Pacis (Paris, 1625), which belongs, however, more properly to the practical law of nations; Puffendorf, Elementa Jurispru dentiæ universalis; Wolf, Jus Naturæ, Methodo scientifica pertractatum (8 vols., Halle, 1740-49, 4to.); Montesquieu's Esprit des Lois; Rutherforth's Institutes of Natural Law; Ferguson on Civil Society; also the works on government by Filmer, Locke, Mackenzie, Algernon Sidney, Hume, Milton, and a host of modern writers.-2. Though the theory of government falls, in some degree, under natural law, yet the full treatment of so extended a subject gives rise to a separate branch of science, which we might call abstract or theoretical politics. This department treats of the object of the state, and the relation between the state and the individual; of the right to prescribe laws, and to punish; of fundamental laws and compacts; of the various forms of governments-monarchies and republics, aristocracies, democracies, representative sys-. tems, &c.; of the division of powers, legislative, judiciary, executive; of the means of obtaining the true ends of the state; of the relations between different political societies, &c.; and of the whole subject of criminal law (q. v.), philosophically considered. Among the most important authors on these subjects are Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, among the ancients; Macchiavelli, Il Principe, with Frederic the Great's Antimacchiavelli (1741), and that by Jakob (1794); Hubert Languet (under the assumed name of Stephanus Junius Brutus), Vindicia contra Tyrannos (Soleure, 1577); Mariana, De Rege et Regis Institutione (see Mariana); Hobbes, De Cive, and Leviathan, seu de Materia, Forma et Potestate Civitatis (see Hobbes); Locke, Two Treatises of Government (see Locke); Rousseau, Contrat Social; Chr. von Wolf, De Jure Civitalis (Halle, 1748); Aug. Schlözer, Allgemeines Staatstrecht und Staatsverfassungslehre (Göttingen, 1793); Von Haller (q. v.); Zacharia, Vierzig Bücher vom Staate (Tubingen, 1820, et seq.); Salinasius, Defensio pro Carolo I

POLITICS, in its widest extent, is both the science and the art of government, or the science whose subject is the regulation of man, in all his relations as the member of a state, and the application of this science. In other words, it is the theory and the practice of obtaining the ends of civil society as perfectly as possible. In coinmon parlance, we understand by the politics of a country the course of its government, more particularly as respects its relations with foreign nations; and the more important these relations are (as, for instance, in European states, which exert so powerful an influence on each other), the more prominent is the place which they hold in the ideas conveyed by the word; whilst in a country like the U. States, whose relations to foreign countries are comparatively unimportant, the word, in cominon usage, is naturally more confined to the principles and operation of the internal government. Politics, therefore, extends to every thing which is the subject of positive laws; for it is by means of these that the purposes of a state or civil union are effected. The political relations of men have therefore always been 'the en grossing subject of history. (See the definition of history, at the beginning of the article on it.) As the idea of politics depends upon that of state, a definition of the latter will easily mark out the whole province of the political sciences. By state we understand a society formed by men, with the view of better obtaining the ends of life by a union of powers and mutual assistance. This idea of state is the basis of a class of sciences, and gives them as distinct a character as belongs to the various classes of historical, philosophical, theological, medical, &c., sciences. The political sciences are divisible into the abstract, or purely philosophical, and the historical and practical. This, however, is not the best order for studying them. The following order may, perhaps, be adapted to the wants of the scientific student:-1. Natural law, which treats of the rights and duties of men in the absence of all positive regulations. As the idea of law and the mutual obligations of men is closely connected with that of the state or government, the philosophy of government enters, in some degree, into this science, so