necessary, not only that the law should bear equally and impar tially on the whole community, but also,

1. That a power should never interfere in the disposal of it, but according to some general law, cautiously enacted and previously known.

2. That no law should be enacted restraining or controuling the progress of acquisition or the liberty of disposal, but what the good of society plainly and imperiously calls for.*

3. That the principles of the law enacted should be equitable, impartial, plain and intelligible to every citizen of reasonable information, and should contain nothing mysterious either in principle or process.

4. That lawsuits should be rendered as free from expence, and of short duration as possible. They are taxes on the poor in favor of the rich, in proportion as they are expensive.

It is manifest that on these points, much remains to be done even in the most enlightened nations upon earth. The medium between the mystery and protraction of laws and lawsuits in free governments, and the careless dispatch of despotic tribunals has not yet been hit upon. Nor has any attempt yet been made, to render the emoluments of a judge dependant on the compound ratio of dispatch and correctness of decision; a problem in my opinion somewhat difficult, but not impossible to be resolved. In the present state of the law, and of the administration of the Jaws in Great Britain and this country, it can hardly be said that property is well secured. The decision of a cause too often depends on forms of proceeding, rather than on the merits of the question. Perhaps it would be right to subject all laws enacted, to a decennial revision, correction and condensation, under a

* Perhaps I might well add, what the manifest principles of morality require. For instance, can a tax upon gambling houses be defended? Look at those of Paris, and reflect on the misery, poverty, despera tion, and suicide which they occasion. Can lotteries be defended? Espe cially in this country, where our financiers are not driven to their wits end to find out the ways and means for the year. Even the clergy, alive to all the sources of emolument, seem not averse to build churches by lotteries! This is calling in the good offices of the Devil, to aid in building the house of God.

Would not morality justify much more strictness in licensing distilleries, and especially tipling houses? But our maxim seems to be guerenda pecunia primum: virtųs post nummos,

committee periodically to be appointed for this express purpose. If upon every law and clause of a law, such a committee of revision were to put the previous questions "Is this law necessa ry?" and act accordingly-the beneficial effect in any given country upon the face of the earth, would be incalculable.

I say nothing at present of the institutions of society calculated for protection without, and the maintainance of order within, as these form the subjects not of political economy but politics. Nor does my present enquiry lead me to go into any detail on the other subject just touched upon. It is sufficient here to notice the indispensible importance of security of property: 1st, By equal, impartial, and intelligible laws for its protection; and 2ly, the absence of all laws that interfere with its acquisition or expenditure, unless in cases too plain to admit of discussion.

This feeling of the security of property should pervade the whole community: for who will be at the pains of saving and accumulating for posterity, in countries like the East, where the laws do not obviate the feeling of insecurity? In such a country,

let us eat and drink for to-morrow we die," would be the dic tate of wisdom. In such a country it would be absurd to talk of the production, the distribution, and the useful accumulation of national wealth. In such a country, political economy, are words without meaning.

In the disposal of landed property, two opposite evils seem to be dreaded, arising from the opposite characters of the laws that protect or discourage the right of primogeniture. In the monarchical countries of Europe, estates are apt to accumulate far beyond what the expedience of society requires: as the estates in England of from 10,000 to 120,000l. sterling per annum. In countries, as in France, where estates (by the laws for distributing the estates of intestates) are subdivided till they do not yield a maintenancs for a family, they become too small. In such countries, there can be no spirited agriculture; no great expense incurred with a reasonable view to an encrease of produce that will amply repay it: there can be no experiment without surplus capital: no improvement without experiment: nothing good results from peuury approaching to want, among the agriculturists of any country. The greater the produce, the more people it will support; and produce depends on capital expended in lahour, in manure, in labour saving machines, in cattle, in fences,

tools and farm buildings. The produce of England in agricul ture has doubled within a century. The average crop of wheat of England is at least twenty-five bushels an acre: the average crop of Mr. Coke's estate in Norfolk, is thirty-five bushels an acre. I believe it is as much in the Isle of Wight. The annual value of the produce of garden ground within three miles of London, is from £250 sterling to £400 per acre, as appears by Mr. Middleton's agricultural survey of Middlesex. All this is the effect of capital, judiciously expended; and without capital these improvements could hardly have been contemplated.

Perhaps no country ought to permit an estate of ere farming land, to be divided lower than one hundred acres. In other respects it would be safer to leave the proprietor to the influenceof those feelings which nature has not implanted in vain; and which will for the most part be modified by the habits of society, generated by circumstances of expedience. If the state of society be favourable to a preference of the oldest son, that preference will take place without any law to compel it. If not, the laws are needless and unjust. In our own country we use the writ of partition; and call a jury of Inquiry to value the land which cannot conveniently be divided, and assess the money to be paid over by the person who takes it, to the co-claimants.

Where the right of primogeniture is established, the accumulation of capital affords the means of effecting many useful objects that could not or would not be effected without it. The country is more embellished, art and science more effectually encouraged and promoted, and knowledge and literature more generally diffused: but the amount of talent, of energy, and productive exertion, and all the substantial comforts of life are assuredly in greater abundance, where primogeniture is not established by law: nor are we offended so frequently in a country of this last description, by the disgusting vicinity of enormous wealth and squalid poverty: and if luxuries are more scarce, the comforts of human existence are more abundant, and the moral habits of society less likely to be exceptionable.

CHAP. 4.-WEALTH-RICHES.

I have in my definition confined Wealth to material objects, to things, obvious, and tangible. I do not mean to say that the

tavern.

trade in a man's fingers (as the expression is) the trade he has learned by five or seven years exclusive application—the knowledge of a lawyer, a physician, a manufacturer, an engineer, is not wealth. The art of a music, a drawing, a dancing, a fencing, master is wealth too. So by legal decision is the good-will of a But value of this kind, is too fugitive and irregular, to class with permanent, material, appreciable objects: objects that can be estimated by every one, and that remain when immaterial wealth is no more. Nor is the distinction easy to be drawn. The affections of our wives, our children, our relations and friends, are necessary to our comfort; they gratify a natural and indispensible want. Yet it would be metaphor only to call them wealth. A man is said to be rich in his family and friends; this is always considered as a figurative expression. Nor could we enter into an investigation how and why it is that a knowledge of law, or physic, or music, or dancing should be considered as wealth, without diverging into too much collateral investigation. Hence I coincide with Dr. Malthus, we must narrow the bounds of our enquiry and be content with the more popular acceptation of the term, including objects about which there can be no con. troversy and no mistake.

If however we are determined to include the skill of a professional man, of an artist, a man of science, or of literature, the fair value of it, is the prime cost; that is the capital consumed, and the labour absorbed in acquiring it. Thus, a lawyer re quires besides a common school education, at least four years residence at a college, and three years study afterwards with a practicing lawyer, before he is properly qualified to have the care of other men's property confided to him. He ought to be at least twenty-four years of age before he is permitted to practice: upon these data is to be valued, the skill which he sets out with, to earn his living in the world. The expence of educating. a physician ought not to be less. I should consider in this country a well educated young lawyer or physican, as having cost four thousand dollars before he begins his practice; including one thousand dollars for professional books. It is true, lawyers and physicians among us, are manufactured at cheaper rate; so much the worse for the public; who in the end pay very dearly for the deficiency of these half informed, half educated practitioners.

According to the French economists, wealth is the useful product of the soil. This would exclude all manufacting and all commercial products.

According to Adam Smith, wealth is the result of land and labour. Be it so. But this does not tell us what wealth is. The cause is one thing; the effect is another.

According to Lord Lauderdale, wealth is every thing use ful and delightful to man. This is too vague. A mere com pliment, if well timed, may be both the one and the other: it may serve our interest and gratify our vanity: but surely the term wealth, thus applied, would be misapplied. It may by accident be productive of wealth to us, but this is an accidental result only; the compliment itself is not wealth.

I have therefore confined the definition to material objects calculated to admininister to our necessities, our comforts, or our enjoyments; that is, to our wants. I have added, that they must possess exchangeable value-value conferred on them by skill, capital, and labour; so as to make them in demand among other people.

Air, water, light, are natural material objects, well adapted to satisfy our most immediate and pressing wants. But they cannot be appropriated: they cannot (unless under certain circumstances) be exchanged for any other commodity; for they are open and common to every human creature; who can obtain as much of them in their natural state, as his wants require. When air is confined by art, as in the blast of an iron furnace

when water is confined by a dam, or can only be procured from a deep well-when light is produced by a gas-apparatus, they become objects of art, and may have artificial value conferred on them in addition to their natural utility: but it is ob vious that they are valuable under these circumstances in consequance of the application of skill, capital, and labour to them. it is in virtue of this utility artificially created, and by this alone they become items of wealth. Value therefore, artificially con ferred,* is a necessary part of the definition of wealth: for no ar

* There are a few exceptions to this statement that may be noted without being dwelt on. A man may find a lump of gold or a diamond, without previous seeking or expectation.

In conferring value; the skilful direction of the productive agency of nature, is always implied. As of climate, soil, air, water, &c. Our greater skill in directing these, is one of the great benefits conferred by science on modern times,