which govern the rate of profit; and have, in consequence, vitiated all that part of his work which treats of the distribution of wealth, and the principles of taxation.

But, after every allowance has been made for these defects, enough still remains to justify us in considering Dr Smith as the real founder of the modern system of Political Economy. If he has not left us a perfect work, he has, at all events, left us one which contains a greater number of useful truths than have ever been given to the world by any other individual; and he has pointed out and smoothed the route, by following which, subsequent philosophers have been enabled to perfect much that he had left incomplete, to rectify the mistakes into which he had fallen, and to make many new and important discoveries. Whether, indeed, we refer to the soundness of its leading doctrines, to the liberality and universal applicability of its practical conclusions, or to the powerful and beneficial influence it has had on the progress and perfection of economical science, and still more on the policy and conduct of nations, Dr Smith's work must be placed in the foremost rank of those that have helped to liberalize, enlighten, and enrich mankind. *

* The subsequent steps in the progress of the science will be pointed out in the course of this work. I have given a sketch of its history, up to the present time, in my Discourse on the Rise, Progress, Peculiar Objects, and Importance of Political Economy.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN POLITICS, &c. 57

The science of Political Economy was long confounded with that of Politics; and it is undoubtedly true that they are very intimately connected, and that it is frequently impossible to treat those questions which strictly belong to the one without referring more or less to the principles and conclusions of the other. But, in their leading features, they are sufficiently distinct. The laws which regulate the production and distribution of wealth are the same in every country and stage of society. Those circumstances which are favourable or unfavourable to the increase of riches and population in a republic may equally exist, and will have exactly the same effects, in a monarchy. That security of property, without which there can be no steady and continued exertion that freedom of engaging in every different branch of industry, so necessary to call the various powers and resources of human talent and ingenuity into action—and that economy in the public expenditure, so conducive to the accumulation of national wealth-are not the exclusive attributes of any particular species of government. If free states generally make the most rapid advances in wealth and population, it is an indirect rather than a direct consequence of their political constitution. It results more from the greater probability that the right of property will be held sacred—that the freedom of industry will be less fettered and restricted,—and that the public income will be more judiciously levied and expended under a popular government, than from the mere circumstance of a greater proportion of the

people being permitted to exercise political rights and privileges. Give the same securities to the subjects of an absolute monarch, and they will make the same advances. Industry does not require to be stimulated by extrinsic advantages. The additional comforts and enjoyments which it procures have always been found sufficient to ensure the most persevering and successful exertions. And whatever may have been the form of government, those countries have always advanced in the career of improvement, in which the public burdens have been moderate, the freedom of industry permitted, and every individual enabled peaceably to enjoy the fruits of his labour. It is not, therefore, so much on its political organization, as on the talents and spirit of its rulers, that the wealth of a country is principally dependent. Economy, moderation, and intelligence on the part of those in power, have frequently elevated absolute monarchies to a very high degree of opulence and of prosperity; while, on the other hand, all the advantages derived from a more liberal system of government have not been able to preserve free states from being impoverished and exhausted by the extravagance, intolerance, and short-sighted policy of their rulers.

The sciences of Polities and of Political Economy are, therefore, sufficiently distinct. The politician examines the principles on which government is founded; he endeavours to determine in whose hands the supreme authority may be most advantageously placed; and unfolds the reciprocal duties and obliga

tions of the governing and governed portions of society. The political economist does not take so high a flight. It is not of the constitution of the government, but of its ACTS only, that he is called upon to judge. Whatever measures affect the production or distribution of wealth, necessarily come within the scope of his observation, and are freely canvassed by him. He examines whether they are in unison with the just principles of economical science. If they are, he pronounces them to be advantageous, and shows the nature and extent of the benefits of which they will be productive; if they are not, he shows in what respect they are defective, and to what extent their operation will be injurious. But he does this without inquiring into the constitution of the government by which these measures have been adopted. The circumstance of their having emanated from the privy council of an arbitrary monarch, or the representative assembly of a free state, though in other respects of supreme importance, cannot affect the immutable principles by which the economist is to form his opinion upon them.

Besides being confounded with Politics, Political Economy has sometimes been confounded with Statistics; but they are still more easily separated and distinguished. The object of the statistician is to describe the condition of a particular country at a particular period; while the object of the political economist is to discover the causes which have brought it into that condition, and the means by which its wealth and riches may be indefinitely in

creased. He is to the statistician what the physical astronomer is to the mere observer. He takes the facts furnished by the researches of the statistician, and after comparing them with those furnished by historians and travellers, he applies himself to discover their relation. By a patient induction-by carefully observing the circumstances attending the operation of particular principles, he discovers the effects of which they are really productive, and how far they are liable to be modified by the operation of other principles. It is thus that the relation between rent and profit-between profit and wages, and the various general laws which regulate and connect the apparently conflicting, but really harmonious interests of every different order in society, have been discovered, and established with all the certainty of demonstrative evidence.