vation of this branch of knowledge be left by the advocates of religion, and of social order, in the hands of those who are hostile to both, the result may easily be foreseen. A professorship founded in the University of Oxford, affords, we think, the best security against these dangers. A study which has so far received the sanction of that learned and orthodox body, stands some chance of being rescued from uninquiring contempt; and no set of men, we presume, could more safely be intrusted to appoint such professors as shall at least be untainted with extravagant anarchical principles.

There are, however, we are aware, and probably will be for some time to come, not a few who regard the dreams of Poli'tical Economy,' as they call them, with a mixture of contempt and dread-as a set of arbitrary and fanciful theories, subversive of religion and morality, public prosperity and private happiness. It has always happened that, when public attention has been first directed to any new branch of knowledge, the result has been something like the exuberant fecundity which Lucretius attributes to the earth at its first formation; a confused assemblage of mis-shapen monsters, interspersed with a few more perfectly formed beings, whose superior organization enables them to survive the spontaneous destruction of the rest. And when this mixture of truth and falsehood, of sound and unsound theories, is presented to the world, it has ever been found that the timorous, the lazy, and the undistinguishing, (no inconsiderable portion of mankind,) have denied the whole indiscriminately, as a tissue of mischievous absurdities.

Prejudices of this kind will, no doubt, wear out of themselves; but the mode in which they frequently operate may lead to a more permanent evil in another quarter. Those who avow their dread of the pursuit of knowledge of any kind, as likely to be injurious to the cause of religion, forget that the acknowledgment of such a feeling, or even a bare suspicion of its existence, does more harm to that cause than all the assaults of its adversaries. However sincere their own belief may in fact be, the impression will inevitably be excited that it is not so; that they secretly distrust the goodness of their cause; and are desirous, for some sinister motive, of keeping up a system of delusion, by suppressing the free exercise of reason. For truth, it will be urged, can never be at variance with truth; discoveries in astronomy, for example, in chemistry, or in geology, may indeed be totally unconnected with religious truths, but can never contradict them. To this it is replied, that it is not truth, but specious falsehood, not real, but pretended discoveries, that are dreaded. Far be it from us to deprecate the exposure of fallacies

and refutation of errors; but we must protest against the mode in which some well-intentioned persons proceed in this work. We allude to those who are always ready on every alarm, to call in the Scriptures to their aid, and to refute whatever they consider erroneous, by endeavouring to show that it is at variance with religion. This practice, if rightly considered, savours more of profaneness than of pious reverence for things sacred. It looks like a determination to make the Bible serve every purpose it can be made to serve. And the consequence must be, to many minds, that when conclusions, which appear to them satisfactorily proved, are opposed, not by refuting the arguments in support of them, but by an appeal to Scripture, their confidence in the divine authority of Scripture itself will be shaken. The censure, for instance, of the Copernican theory, as adverse to Revelation, produced probably, in those who had studied the subject, more doubt of the truth of Revelation than of the earth's motion. And this danger would probably have been incurred, though in a less degree, even if the Copernican system had been false, and if it could have been proved that the reception of it really is inconsistent with Christianity. The Scriptures should be appealed to only in respect of matters beyond the reach of unassisted reason. In all others, truth should be elicited and error refuted from those sources; and when we have shown, from such data as our natural powers supply, the falsity of each theory that contradicts our religion, we shall then really confirm the truth of that religion; which, on the other plan, could not be attempted without falling into a vicious circle. The Bible, it should be remembered, was not designed to teach men Astronomy or Geology, or, it may be added, Political Economy, but Religion; nor was it intended to preclude inquiry, or to supersede the exercise of our natural faculties in its prosecution, on subjects within their reach.

But wealth, it is alleged by some, is likely to occupy too high a place in our esteem, and too large a share of our attention, if made the subject of scientific inquiry. Some of our readers may wonder that we should think it necessary to notice an objection, which implies so complete a misunderstanding of the nature of the science as this. It may suffice to answer, if such opponents be worth answering, that they are mistaken in supposing Political Economy to be a system by which an individual is merely to acquire wealth for himself: that while the endeavour to acquire such wealth is laudable when pursued with moderation, and blameable only when carried to excess, the endeavour to enrich the needy and deserving is at all times commendable; and to increase and preserve the wealth of the community, or the

world at large, which is the practical end of Political Economy, is in truth the perfection of patriotism and philanthropy.

१

It is still true, however, that it would be a mistaken philanthropy, if it could be made out, that national wealth and prosperity are adverse to national virtue, or are best promoted by individual depravity, and tend to its increase. Such, to be sure, was the doctrine of Mandeville, in his celebrated work, The Fable of the Bees, or Private Vices Public Benefits,―celebrated, inasmuch as there are few who have not heard of it; yet so little read, that though seldom mentioned without some indication of contempt and abhorrence, there is no inconsiderable number of these very abhorrers, and of other well-intentioned persons, who unconsciously advocate his doctrines. The general drift of his system is what we have stated, viz. that there is inconsistency and absurdity in the attempt to make a great 'an honest hive;' that to make national prosperity, meaning by this, a flourishing condition of agriculture, manufactures, and commerce, and a numerous, thriving, well-supplied population, the object of our endeavours, while at the same time we declaim against avarice, sensuality, pride, and every kind of vice, is either gross hypocrisy, or childish self-delusion-the two things which we thus seek to disjoin being naturally and necessarily united. And consequently, if national prosperity is to be considered a good, private vice, being both the indispensable promoter, and the inevitable result of it, must be admitted to be a public benefit. In a second volume, which was subsequently published, (comparatively little known, though very well worth reading,) the author displays his principles in a more systematic form, with the most solemn protestations that he never had any design to recommend or palliate vice, but only to expose the inconsistency of those who profess to pursue two incompatible objects; and to point out the necessity of giving up either the one or the other: either national wealth or national virtue, which is inconsistent with it. And whatever may be thought of his intentions, it must be admitted that his conclusions are demonstrable to those persons who regard the increase of national wealth as detrimental to public morals.

In opposition to this view of things, Mr Senior's argument, brief as it is, and far from exhausting the subject, appears perfectly satisfactory.

It is objected,' he says, that as the pursuit of wealth is one of the humblest of human occupations, far inferior to the pursuit of virtue, or of knowledge, or even of reputation; and as the possession of wealth is not necessarily joined-perhaps, it will be said, is not conducive

to happiness, a science of which the only subject is wealth, cannot claim to rank as the first, or nearly the first, of the moral sciences.

'My answer is, first, that the pursuit of wealth, that is, the endeavour to accumulate the means of future subsistence and enjoyment, is, to the mass of mankind, the great source of moral improvement. When does a labourer become sober and industrious, attentive to his health and to his character ?—as soon as he begins to save. No institution could be more beneficial to the morals of the lower orders, that is, to at least nine-tenths of the whole body of any people, than one which should increase their power and their wish to accumulate: none more mischievous than one which should diminish the motives and the means to save. If we have institutions eminently calculated to produce both the benefit and the mischief, how valuable must the science be that teaches us to discriminate between them, to extend the one, and to remove, or diminish, or at least not to extend, the other!

I answer, in the second place, that it is perhaps true, that the wealth which enables one man to command the labour of hundreds or of thousands, such wealth as raised Chatsworth, or Fonthill, may not be favourable to the happiness of its possessor; and, if this be so, Political Economy will best teach us to avoid creating or perpetuating institutions, which promote such inconvenient agglomerations. But that diffusion of wealth which alone entitles a people to be called rich; that state of society in which the productiveness of labour, and the mode in which it is applied, secure to the labouring classes all the necessaries and some of the conveniences of life, seems to be, not mere, ly conducive, but essential, both to their morals and their happiness. This appears to me so self-evident, that I am almost ashamed of taking up your time by proving it. But, if proof be wanted, we have only to consider what are the effects on the human character of the opposite state of society; a state in which the mass of the people is habitually confined to a bare subsistence, and, consequently, exposed from time to time, from the accidents of trade, or of the seasons, to absolute want. I will not dwell on the misery of those on whom actual want does fall: it is too painful to be steadfastly contemplated, and forms only a small part of the evil. The great evil is the general feeling of insecurity: the fear which must beset almost every man, whose labour produces him only a subsistence, and who has no resource against contingencies, that at some period, how near he cannot tell, the want under which he has seen others sink may reach himself.’

He goes on to observe, with much truth, that

Such a population must be grossly ignorant. The desire for knowledge is one of the last results of refinement; it requires, in general, to have been implanted in the mind during childhood; and it is absurd to suppose that persons thus situated would have the power or the will to devote much to the education of their children. A farther consequence is the absence of all real religion: for the religion of the grossly ignorant, if they have any, scarcely ever amounts to more than a debasing superstition.

It is impossible that, under such circumstances, there should be an

175 effectual administration of justice. The law has few terrors for a man who has nothing to lose. Its sufficiency, too, is almost altogether dependent on the support it receives from the general body of the people. Among a very poor, and consequently a very ignorant people, sympathy is almost always in favour of the offender: his flight is favoured, his lurking-places are concealed, the witnesses against him are intimidated, and he escapes even after he has become the subject of prosecution: but more frequently he escapes even prosecution. Outrages are committed in the presence of hundreds, and we are told that not one of the perpetrators can be identified; that is, though they are well known, the witnesses conceal their knowledge.

When such is the character of the bulk of the community, there can be no security for the persons or property of any of its members. The three great restraints from crime,-religion, good feeling, and law, have, as we have seen, little force; while the great source of crime, the passion for immediate enjoyment, acquires additional strength.'

To these considerations Mr Senior might have added, that the chief moral evils usually regarded as connected with wealth, viz. overweening pride in those who possess a large share of it, and avarice in all classes, so far from being confined to the richest communities, or even being in them peculiarly predominant, are found nowhere more than in the poorest states; at least the poorest of those who have advanced one step beyond the condition of downright savages, so as to have any thing among them that can be called property. The Moors, the Persians, the Abys sinians, and many other nations of about the same degree of civilization and wealth, in various parts of the world, afford, unless they are sorely belied by travellers, the most ample proof, that poor communities are by no means exempt from the general prevalence of avarice, and, among the wealthy, of pride and selfish sensuality. The hackneyed remark of moralists, that a predominant attention to gain is likely to leave no leisure for nobler objects, and to degrade the human mind, is true enough, but is in general applied exactly in the wrong way; for the state of things in which the love of gain is most likely to absorb the whole mind, is, that wherein all but a very few are compelled to think with anxiety of the means of gaining sustenance; and the few who are exceptions to the general poverty, are certainly much more likely, from the circumstance of their being few, to pride themselves on the distinction which their wealth confers.

But we will not dwell longer on opinions, of which the distinct statement is a sufficient refutation, even in the judgment of those who maintain them; for they would, if we mistake not, shrink with abhorrence from the fellowship of Mandeville, the ablest and most consistent supporter of their system.