CHAPTER I.

"Most men, in all ages, have sat down to the Gospel with a set of prejudices, which, like so many inquisitors, have laid the Christian religion on a bed like that of Procrustes: and as it suited them, either mutilated it by violence, or extended it by force." So said the learned and excellent Alexander Knox, in a letter to Bishop Jebb, and so may be said of most writers on Political Economy. Almost all approach the subject with "a set of prejudices," and instead of patiently collecting facts, and constructing theories therefrom, the theory is first constructedthe bed of Procrustes is made-and then as many facts are taken as tend to support it, omitting all notice of those which have a contrary tendency. Had this not been the case, it would not, in our day, be in the power of a distinguished professor to characterize the doctrine of wages as "the most difficult, as well as the most important branch of political economy."*

Adam Smith asserted that the rate of wages was regulated by the proportion which the supply of labour bore to the demand; a theory which has been controverted by writers of our time, on the ground that in no case where an article can be freely produced can any permanent influence upon price be

* Lectures on Wages, p. 3,

produced by excess of demand, and that any rise must cause increased production that will sink the price again to the cost. That this argument is generally correct, there can be no doubt, but in order to make it fit man, it has been necessary to distort some facts, and overlook others, which are in direct opposition to it. Had subsequent writers followed the author of the Wealth of Nations, confining themselves to an examination of the various disturbing causes, the work of man, that operate among the several nations of the earth to produce the inequalities that exist in the proportion between the supply and demand, the "difficulty" would have been obviated.

There can be no difference of opinion as to the "importance” of this subject, and its peculiar importance at this time, when there is so strong a tendency to the transfer of the reins of government from the hands of the few to those of the many. With the single exception of the United States, the privilege of making laws has heretofore been confined to certain classes, who, blinded by false views of their own interest, have generally acted as if government had been established for their peculiar benefit, and hence have arisen corn laws and monopolies of all kinds; restrictions on importations and exportations; wars, and their attendant, heavy taxation. It is not to be doubted, that many of those who promoted this system, have honestly believed that it was for the benefit of the nation over which they were placed; and that, with better information, they would have adopted a widely different course. They might, and probably would, have discovered,

that "laissez nous faire," the reply of the French merchants to Colbert, was sound and judicious; and that all that could be desired by any people of their government, was to let them alone, and confine its attention to the security of person and property; not allowing any man to "kick the shins or pick the pocket" of his neighbour with impunity. Had they done so, the governments of Europe would be deemed blessings, instead of curses, as is now too frequently the case. It remains to be seen, whether in those in which the people have attained a higher degree of influence than they have heretofore possessed, they will do better than has been done for them in times past by their hereditary lawgivers; and whether or not it will be so, depends upon a correct understanding of their own interests. If they can be made to see, that the course heretofore pursued has had a tendency to depress the rate of wages, and to keep the mass of the people in a state of poverty, it may be hoped that there will be a disposition to make trial of a different one, and ascertain its effects. If it can be shown that restrictions and monopolies-wars, and heavy taxation-low wages, poverty, and wretchedness-go hand in hand;-while free trade-freedom of action-peace-moderate taxation-high wages, and abundance, are all associated, there can be little doubt which will be their choice.

Heretofore, a large portion of the people of Great Britain have believed that a state of war was that in which the nation was most prosperous; and they have been content to barter the advantages of peace for the glories of Blenheim or Ramilies, Vittoria or

Waterloo. Intoxicated with glory, and deafened by shouts of victory, and the roar of cannon celebrating their triumphs, they have squandered hundreds of millions seeking that prosperity which stood at their doors waiting the return of reason. Like the drunkard, feeling after every such debauch the injurious effects of excitement, they have been disposed to attribute those effects to the absence of stimulus, and not to the stimulus itself. Thus at each return of peace, the nation has found itself burthened with increased debt, requiring increased taxes, tending to lessen the enjoyments of the people; but those inconveniences have been attributed not to the war, but to the peace. The necessary consequence of this has been a proneness to embrace the first opportunity of recommencing hostilities, and causes the most insignificant the taking of Oczakow-the seizure of the Falkland Islands or the denial of the right to cut logwood in the Bay of Honduras-have been sufficient to set the nation in a flame. When, at length, the French Revolution occurred, it was gladly seized upon as affording an opportunity to interfere in the affairs of the continent, in accordance with the system that has prevailed since the accession of the House of Orange, and the war then commenced was persevered in, until its close found the nation in a state of prostration, and the people by whom it was most desired, reduced to the alms-house.

"Ships, colonies, and commerce," was the cry of Napoleon, echoed by the British ministry, and gladly re-echoed by the people, always accustomed to associate the idea of prosperity with that of extended do

minion. During the whole of the last century, this erroneous association led the nation to do that which each member of it would have deemed madness in an individual, because it was supposed that the rules which should govern the actions of individuals, could not be applied to those of nations. Had they seen a man wasting his means and incurring heavy debts in the prosecution of hazardous enterprises, the benefit of which was doubtful, even should they succeed to the full extent of his anticipations, while his farm was untilled, or his business neglected; they would have said that he must become bankrupt, and his credit would have been destroyed. Yet the people who would argue thus in regard to an individual, neglected the means of prosperity within their grasp, seeking to increase their store at the expense of their neighbours; and the addition of a new colony, although, like Gibraltar, Malta, or St. Helena, productive only of cost, was deemed sufficient to entitle the minister to the gratitude of the nation. Every acquisition was accompanied by an increase of debt and consequent increase of taxation, tending to prevent the proper cultivation of the farm at home, until at length it was found necessary to apply the same system to this country, the attempt at which lost her. these immense possessions, and added greatly to her embarrassments. Had she been content prior to the war of 1756 to cultivate her own resources, she would never have experienced the want which led to that attempt. It is true she might not have added Canada to her already extended dominion, but she might have retained these provinces, perhaps even