ALMOST all the errors in the practice of political economy may be traced back to three errors in the theory, first, the opinion that the interests of the employer are opposite to those of the labourer; secondly, the opinion that the interests of the producer are opposite to those of the consumer; and, lastly, the opinion that the commercial interests of one country are opposite to those of another. In two former essays *, I endeavoured to prove that the interests of the employer and of the labourer, and those of the producer and consumer, were the same, and that what

1823.

ever is injurious to the labourer or to the consumer, must also injure the employer or the producer. I will now endeavour to prove that the commercial interests of one country are the same with those of every other, and that whatever is either profitable or injurious to any, must be equally profitable or inju rious to all. The argument which I will employ is well known to political economists, but it does not seem to be sufficiently understood by the public t. I am not sure that it has yet been stated with sufficient brevity and clearness.

1. The whole value of goods and money exported from a country must be exactly equal to the value of goods and money imported. If the goods exported exceed in value the goods imported, the money imported must, in the same degree, exceed the money exported.

2. If the goods exported exceed in value the goods imported, and the money imported exceeds in value the money exported, the relative supply of money must increase, and its relative value must fall. This will gradually raise the price, and lessen the exportation of com modities.

3. Whatever lessens the value of the imports, therefore, must eventually lessen the value of the exports,

4. The value of the commodities imported into a country must be proportioned to the productive industry and capital of the countries with which it is commercially connected. Whatever promotes or impedes the improvement of the latter. countries, must lessen the importation trade of the former country; and I have already shown that

whatever lessens importation, must ultimately lessen foreign trade in general. The interest of the parties, therefore, who trade with each other is the same; whatever increases or diminishes the powers of production in one, will increase or diminish the foreign trade, and consequently the productive powers of the other.

5. An excess of exports above imports increases the supply of money, lowers the value of money, and consequently raises the price of commodities. An excess of imports above exports lowers the price of commodities. In the former case, the producer loses by the rise of prices while he gains by the rise of profits. In the latter, he gains by the fall of prices and loses by the fall of profits. In both cases, the wealth obtained by foreign trade is proportioned to the extent of the trade, whether the exports exceed the imports, or the imports exceed the exports.

6. If a country exports manufactured produce, and imports agricultural produce, it becomes dependent on other countries for the means of subsistence and the materials of manufacture. This dependence is not an evil to be dreaded or guarded against; nor is it possible, were it even desirable, to prevent it. It is the necessary consequence of foreign trade, and it is beneficial to both parties, because it checks

the violence of those political animosities which are as injurious to the nation that is able, and consequently tempted, to indulge them, as to the nation that is compelled to endure them. But it is evident that there is just as little danger, and as much advantage, in the dis semination of manufacturing industry and capital; and that our jealousy of the growth of foreign ma nufactures is as absurd as a jealousy of the growth of foreign agriculture. Whatever power or wealth a nation may acquire by the production and exportation of manufactures, may be acquired by producing and ex. porting an equal value of agricultural produce, and the power or wealth acquired in the first way is as little the proper object of jealousy as the power or wealth acquired in the second way.

It is more difficult to export a given value of agricultural produce than of manufactures, because the bulk is greater. It is on this account that the whole value of agricultural exports is seldom equal to the whole value of manufactured exports, and that the wealth ac quired by agriculture is seldom equal to the wealth acquired by manufactures t.

7. It follows from this argument, that it is as much the interest of Great Britain to promote the importation of foreign or colonial manufac tures as to promote the exportation of her own manufactures. The

importation of foreign manufactures would either increase the exportation of domestic manufactures, or lessen the supply, and thereby raise the value of the precious metals. The first would benefit our manufacturers by raising their profits; and the second would benefit them by lowering prices, and consequently lessening all the expenses of production as well as the expenses of living. If we cannot, therefore, increase the value of our exports, we must endeavour to increase the va lue of our imports. It is only a less direct way of enriching the country by foreign trade, a lefthanded policy which our rivals have neither the desire nor the power to counteract. We may say to them what Abraham said to Lot, "Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen; for we be brethren. Is not the whole land before thee? If thou wilt go to the left hand, then I will go to the right; and if thou wilt go to the right hand, then I will go to the left." There can be no reply to a proposal of this kind.

8. The abolition of commercial restrictions is connected with the abolition of war. Whatever circulates wealth, circulates knowledgescientific, political, and military knowledge. Whatever circulates knowledge tends both to increase its quantity and to equalize its distribution; the equal distribution of knowledge would equalize the power of nations; and the equality of power would restrain their mutual injustice. "The best condition for a moral being is not to will what is evil; the next best not to can." (Bacon.) There must be a moral, a religious, and even a su

pernatural influence to rectify the will; but the balance of power consequent on the equalization of wealth and knowledge would be sufficient to restrain the conduct. Opposite powers, when equal, must destroy, and, when nearly equal, must weaken one another. If Satan be divided against Satan, his kingdom must fall.

It appears to me that the progress of political economy is impeded by the circuitous mode of reasoning that is often adopted; and that, by simplifying and shortening the trains of argument, we might accelerate the progress of this science, as much as the progress of natural philosophy has been accelerated by the algebraic notation. It is not yet known how much simplicity and brevity contribute both to perspicuity of expression and to originality of thought. The faculty of invention depends greatly on the faculty of abstraction, or that power of the mind by which the ideas that naturally belong to the subject of discussion are abstracted, drawn out, or separated, as by a sort of intellectual chemistry, from those that are irrelative, cumbersome, or barren. Newton's experiments on light were performed on a few rays admitted through a hole in the window-shutter into a darkened apartment. And it is by darkening the chamber of the mind, by separating a very few general truths from the accessory ideas that usually accompany and conceal them, by combining these truths skilfully, and applying them cautiously to a great variety of cases and problems, that the most important truths may be established, and the most destructive prejudices easily overthrown, first, in the science of political eco

nomy, and afterwards in the still more important science of political government.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN INSTRUCTOR.

Oldwifeiana.

MR. EDITOR,

I Do think we are considerably obliged to a Presbyterian" for the pains he has taken to solve the mystery about the " privileged seat." His paper is written, generally speaking, with much discrimination both of facts and of charac

ter.

There is, besides, a mild and gentlemanly spirit pervading the whole article; and it is distinguished, not more by its courtesy to the living, than by its charity towards the departed.

hand, and the violin in the other. Moreover, he was frequently in the habit of playing at the Judges' routes. These distinguished persons, too, were known to patronize that class of performers to which he belonged; and these things put together, appear to me to account more satisfactorily for his officiousness in the matter of the seat, than even the ingenious but mistaken supposition of your correspondent.

"A Presbyterian" has said, too, that Oldwifen was "a bit of a pluralist;" and certainly he has said nothing more than the truth. But I apprehend there has been some mistake as to the nature of the pluralities in question; and had he been better informed upon this matter, it would have gone a good deal farther to establish the odd sort of connexion which subsists or did subsist between Thomas and the bench. The Judges, it is well known, have to do with a great variety of courts. There is the Court of Session, and the Court of Justiciary, and the Court of Teinds

correct.

For instance, your correspondent says, that the person who took up on himself to appropriate a "privileged seat for the judges, was one Thomas Oldwifen, a barber." Now, in so far as respects that person's proper calling and designation, your correspondent is under a mistake. Thomas, poor body, was not a barher, but one of the fraternity of musicians; not a torturer of hair, but a torturer of cat-gut. And many a time has the writer of this letter seen him enter a drawing room, at a private concert, in all the pride of bright yellow gloves, with the music books in the one

James's, and a good many other courts of inferior quality and narrower dimensions. Now, in all these courts, there is considerable patronage in the appointment of keepers of registers, clerks of process, door-keepers, macers, and the whole tribe of inferior retainers which are allowed to repose upon such establishments, and to give them dignity; as the cathedral dust is permitted to settle upon a statue for the sake of the fine satin shade, and sombre relief which it imparts. The benefit of this patronage Thomas Oldwifen had already experienced. He had some time before been appointed, if not by the direct instrumentality of the Judges, at least by their passive sanction, to the honorary office of Moderator of the High Constables of Edinburgh, and had, of course, partaken

of all the good dinners and good breakfasts consequent thereupon. He had for some years, too, occupied the respectable place of a macer, and had long bawled out" off hats," and "shut the door," to the great furtherance of good order and decorum, as well as to the great annoyance of students and other young quizzers who usually frequent the back seats and galleries. It is obvious, therefore, that as Oldwifen's time could not be entirely occupied, either with his law. ful calling, or with his attendance at court for a brief session, the further patronage of the Judges, in the way of preferment, was to him an object of considerable importance. To provide them with a distinct and honourable seat in the Assembly, then, was, on his part, perfectly natural. Considering all things-favours already received, and favours yet to be bestowed-it was, in truth, as little as he could do, and certainly nothing more than a prudent adjustment of means to ends.

To finish my addenda to the article of your correspondent, I shall just relate a simple little anecdote. Thomas, you must know, had once the reputation of being a man of very various attainments in his profession. In some respects, he was thought even to equal his celebrated father, who was long well known to the musical world for his "Sacred Harmony ;" and being possessed of these acquirements, he had always looked for ward to fill some one of the professorships, which were formerly supposed to be in the gift of the Edinburgh Society of Musicians. No matter what was to be taught, fiddle or flute, double bass, or bagpipe, it was all one to Thomas; and to do him justice, though he was really "a good bow," yet it may safely be said, he was a far better" drone." On one memor.

The

able occasion, he actually became a candidate. When the competition took place, however, it went decidedly against him. Whether he played out of time, or drew too long a bow, I have not particularly heard; it is, at all events certain, that he lost his darling professorship. But Thomas, who was a great dealer in puns and proverbs, did not forget that "a faint heart never wins a fair lady." From that day forward, he kept his little keen pawky-looking eye steadily fixed upon professorship or preferment of some kind; and as he had been ousted chiefly by the high party of musicians, he determined to conciliate the favour, not merely of the more moderate and inferior performers, but of every possible person who could forward his favourite schemes. For this purpose, he inwardly resolved upon a great many wise and powerful measures to gain the patronage and support of wise and powerful men. Magistrates and High Constables were, no doubt, not forgotten; and then, again, came his old friends the Judges, those all powerful dispensers of augmentations, and macerships, and halters. If, therefore, the learned bench could by any possible chance or means, aid or abet the moderate performers in supporting Thomas for a professorship of music, or any other good thing that might be going, (and who will venture to say that they could not?) what marvel is it, that he, grateful creature, should have done all that in him lay, (when he had it in his power,) to provide them with becoming accommodation in the Assembly? What marvel is it, that he who had been fed so well for soothing their learned ears in times past, should now put forth his kindness, in cushioning their learned hips for time to come? How did he know, but they might one day or other