work wants order and method in its distribution, all the important questions are discussed in it; and as M. Say fully proves, a man of a methodical mind easily finds in it an entire series of facts and ideas, of which he is not at the trouble of resuming the thread at intervals. Smith is then undoubtedly the person to whom we owe the discovery of the general facts which serve as the basis of chrysology, and the clear and complete deduction of their results.

If Xenophon, more than two thousand years ago, intimated the effects of a division of labour, Smith first demonstrated those effects, and pointed out, in the labour of freemen, the principal and peculiar agent, which creates, augments, and distributes the treasures of the world, and measures their value. Add to these two elementary facts, the subject of exchange, the facilities for which constitute the commercial and productive value of exchangeable subjects; the extent of demand, or the competition of a greater or less number of purchasers, considered as regulating the price of vendible subjects; wages, profits, and rent, into which the price of products is naturally distributed; savings, the accumulation of which forms and augments capitals; money or the precious metals, regarded in different characters, as having an exchangeable value, and also representing the value of all other things; the distinction between the real and nominal price of commodities, that is to say, the quantity of labour which a commodity actually costs, and its accidental value; the distributive and moveable capitals of industry; and, finally, the measure of wages or of labour by the mean price of wheat, and the estimation of all exchangeable values according to this mean price, adopted as representing that of a day's labour,—and you will have brought together all the leading facts of which Smith has made use to explain clearly the mechanism and wonders of industry.

The doctrine of this celebrated man, founded on observations no less judicious than exact, and upon facts, of which the truth and the mutual connexion were evident, became in a short time that of all enlightened men of every country. It has been taught in England, France, Germany, and Italy. While men of merely good sense can find in it only numbers and dry calculations, men of true genius or of superior talent, such as the historian of the Swiss, John de Muller, and the author of the Sketches of the Revolutions of Europe since the Fifteenth Century, M. Frederick Ancillon, derive from it new light upon the history of the great families of the human race. The science of the physical prosperity of society, is,

indeed, all to be found in Smith's work. But can one 'discover in it the means of their moral prosperity? Can he find there the principles of order, harmony, and vitality, upon which depend their preservation and power? We do not believe that he can. The author, absorbed in an inquiry into the principles of wealth, has touched lightly, and in a very imperfect manner, upon some considerations of a more elevated kind; and these excursions beyond his limits, have not always been fortunate. His views on the moral part of political economy are obscure, and not very wide. He seems to give one to understand that, provided the national faculties for industry are freely developed, all the rest will follow of course, and proceed well enough; as if the activity of these faculties did not at all depend upon the concurrence of all the circumstances and all the institutions which impress a character upon a people, and give it a direction. Much depends, no doubt, upon the development of the powers of industry. But this development does not of itself do every thing, nor is it every thing. Carthage had greater powers of industry than Rome; it was more wealthy than Rome; and it yielded. The case was the same of Athens struggling against Lacedæmon, and of Tyre contending against Alexander. Without the energy and genius of the Prince of Orange, Holland, so rich, would have yielded under the ascendancy of Louis XIV., and become a province of France. Can it be supposed that industry would have spread so many miracles over the soil of Albion, and under the canvass of her shipping, had not the genius of liberty inspired her sons with devotion to the institutions and laws which have founded, and which preserve, the order and prosperity of their country? Cercs and Minerva are legislators, without doubt; but these divinities do not dispense their bounties, except to those who know how to honour the gods, and comply with their oracles.

In limiting ourselves to the study of chrysology or the science of wealth; in obliging ourselves to make the whole social order depend upon it; have we not, of late, in England and France, given a false direction to political economy? Is it not more just and true to consider it a moral science? Unquestionably the trunk and roots of the tree consist in the existing institutions, morals, and laws. Chrysology, the prodigies of industry and commerce, supply sap to the tree, and it is by means of these that it spreads the luxuriance of its branches. Without a knowledge of the natural relations between the elements of which the political enconomy of a state is composed, the public prosperity, oftener apparent than real, is

precarious and delusive. This has been felt by superior understandings. One may see in the writings of M. Say, that this truth has presented itself more than once to his thoughts. It has dictated to an author, whom we have already cited, M. F. Ancillon, reflections full of wisdom, which occur in his last philosophical essays. In Germany, it has suggested to the Count of Soden, extended views on the subject of national economy; to M. Lueder, a celebrated economist, ingenious doubts concerning the truth of the systems which preside over modern economy; it has suggested to the historian of the Italian republics, M. Sismondi, grave objections to the application of the chrysological maxims to government and its administration, and attempts, more or less successful, to reestablish the legitimate empire of the moral economy of communities, over their economy in respect to material objects. One may say, indeed, that it is the natural harmony between these two sciences, which, in truth, constitutes political economy. Smith concerns himself very little about these relations. In this respect his ideas were very imperfect. But to attempt to consider those sciences as insulated, the one from the other; to study each one apart, not regarding the relations that naturally and necessarily belong to questions of this sort; or to make one of them wholly subordinate to the other; is to fall into the error of the materialists and the idealists, who think they are able to understand man by studying his physical organization only, or only psychology, taking into view but one of the two conditions of our existence; and above all, in considering the spiritual element as an abject slave. Hence the paradoxes and errors of some of the English economists, whose knowledge and talents have, in other respects, illustrated many important questions. Malthus, Buchanan, and Ricardo, especially this last calculator, have often erred in departing from Smith's doctrine, which has been defended with so much ability by his translator. And what has caused their errors, is, their carrying the disregard to moral principles and considerations much farther, in their writings, than the celebrated professor of Edinburgh has done. They have thus carried to an extreme his economical materialism.

But, though Smith has not extended his speculations to all the ideas of a more elevated kind, that are connected with his subject, one great and noble thought hovers about every part of his work, and gives a dignity and elevation to his thinking. His whole work seems to be conceived for the purpose of inviting human industry to freedom, sounding in

the ears of the people and those who administer their governments, the maxím, "that their prosperity depends upon giving the greatest latitude to freedom and competition of industry;" a maxim, of which accidental circumstances, national rivalships, and, still more, blind passions, often make the application very difficult; but it is not the less the part of genius to proclaim it; and the interests of the moment ought never to make men overlook its importance, even when they depart from it. To dispute that the full development of the faculties for production, depends upon freedom of industry, and to attack Smith in this point, is to deny the light and heat of the sun. Those who insist upon exceptions, limitations, and prohibitions, must place themselves upon some other ground, and call in the aid of some more pressing interests.

Thus, notwithstanding the importance of labour and its efforts, and although the unrestrained enterprises of industry are among the most effectual means of good order and prosperity, it must be admitted that the interests of men united in society, are too complicated to require but one so simple a principle, to serve as a compass and director. It is necessary then, after the example of M. de Soden, to remind nations that their motive to activity, ought to be, not a passion for indulgence and riches, but a devotion to the good order and happiness of their country, of which zeal for the laws and national honour, inseparable from all moral habits and sentiments, is the first and surest guaranty. This devotion and this zeal are, in respect to societies as in respect to individuals, the best inspiration and noblest guides. In respect to one as well as the other, a persevering and enlightened industry is the pledge of success, as a blind cupidity is a cause of dissolution and ruin. The vir tue of a people, indeed, like that of individuals, often demands privations and sacrifices; but it is to an enlightened feeling of the general interest, and to this feeling alone, that it appertains to dictate and impose them. In great_struggles, this rapid light directs an energetic people. It was this light which in former times, guided the Athenians, when, on board their vessels, they sought the liberty of ancient Greece: it was this light which since illumined Venice, when she lavished her wealth and her troops, to resist the league of princes armed against her; Holland and North America, when they hazarded the blood and treasure of their people, to free themselves, the one from the tyranny of Philip II, the other from the English yoke.

These struggles, in which the honor and independence of a nation are in question, are not the only occasions that demand sacrifices. They may be also required in time of peace and in the bosom of an apparent prosperity, by the first requisites among a people, the maintainance of the order, harmony, and welfare of the greatest number. The speculations and enterprises of industry of every sort, are not indeed always favorable. The accumulation of wealth; the concentration of capital and property in the hands of a number of possessors, tending to be more and more circumscribed every day; the efforts of inventive powers, whose ingenious combinations are continually usurping upon labour, that patrimony of the workman, by substituting mechanical force for his strength and skill; the disastrous wars too frequently brought on by commercial interests and rivalships; the enormous mass of debts which they accumulate, the weight of which always falls, in imposts, upon the multitude whom it oppresses; all these effects of industry carried to too high a degree, and serving as its only objects, are not, whatever Mr Ricardo and his school may say, any more the causes of prosperity, than a tumour and inflammation are the signs of health. The idea that a nation may be disinherited of its soil and the labour of its ancestors, and end in being reduced to a single individual, this idea, the final consequence of economical materialism, proves how far men may be led astray by a predilection for a system. Those who utter this impiety in political economy, do not perceive that they arrive, by a different route, to the point from whence the apologists of slavery set out, when, in the name of the Deity, they make the people slaves to privileged orders, or to one man. When men yield to the empire of these vicious influences, a country finishes by dispeopling itself; the people plundered, and no longer having any interest in the community, abandon themselves, and are struck off from the list of nations. Thus has the south of Italy been depopulated, under the sceptre of the Romans both ancient and modern; when the military industry of ancient Rome had concentrated the lands of the country and the capital in the hands of a few, this so fertile country, converted into vast gardens and pleasure houses, soon became the prey of barbarians. Thus, under the pontificial reign, the Roman territory, divided into villas and pastures, is almost destitute of inhabitants, and open to the first occupant. A similar decline would draw opulent England to its ruin, did not the strength of its religious, moral, and political in