period has not arrived for a comprehensive examination of the phenomena, in consequence of the imperfect manner they have been observed, recorded and arranged; or, whether there is an inherent uncertainty in all such investigations, remains to be determined by results, more positive, than any yet furnished by the labours of economists. We have reasons for doubt, were the elements of a comprehensive and complete system and theory at hand, whether the fulness and force of evidence, by which they must be accompanied, to command general assent, are attainable. And such must be the state of every recent science, whose leading truths do not admit of the tests of direct experiment or precise calculation. The satisfactory demonstration of fundamental principles, must, under such circumstances, await the slow accumulation of materials proper for the construction of a system generally applicable, and a theory fully explanatory.

It is but very recently that statistical inquiries have been made available in those more limited investigations which profess to explain particular phenomena. The materials of national comparison must be supplied, in at least equal copiousness, for advantage in all general reasonings which profess to develope the real foundations of wealth, and the invariable causes of its increase. We know that the riches of countries augment from circumstances widely contrasted. For example, experience assures us, that on that division of the globe on which our lot is cast, a high degree of wealth results from involuntary services, accompanied by a greater share of enjoyment to the labourer, than on many of those sections of the earth where the relation between the employer and the employed is totally different. How does this state of things agree with the explanation of economists, that the relation which anciently subsisted between the master and the slave, was an impediment to the increase of riches? How can it be shown that the payment of wages is an essential ingredient in a modern system of wealth? We might multiply illustrations of this kind, if necessary. They are calculated to rebuke the presumption that would construct systems of general application from only one point of observation.

It has been deemed not a little remarkable, in economical science, that discussions should have arisen as to the causes of certain phenomena before the real character of the phenomena themselves had been ascertained; that theory should succeed to theory, and system supplant system, in an examination into the sources of wealth, before the problem had been satisfactorily solved what wealth is? It would appear as if the first proper step was to agree in the sense we should affix to certain essenVOL. I.—No. 1

25

tial terms. We believe, however, the influence of this circumstance on the progress of economical discovery, has been stated in terms much too broad. We do not know, that the determination of the fundamental question, what are the sources of wealth? has been at all assisted by those controversies (that even, at this late day, so frequently cross the path of investigation) which profess to resolve the points, what is wealth, and what productive labour? We all have a sufficiently distinct perception of the character and constituents of riches, and of the instruments by which they are increased, without the aid of any shadowy and metaphysical distinctions between wealth composed of products that perish in the instant of production, and products of a durable character-between quantities evanescent and quantities permanent and palpable. We all know what objects contribute to our comfort, accommodation and luxury, and are, at the same time, susceptible of valuation. What more is requisite to conduct us in the true path of inquiry? It is the real foundation of those products of labour which constitute the sources of our enjoyments, both mental and bodily, that we feel desirous to develope, and not whether, in a system of wealth, the artist is to be classed with the artizan, and the magistrate with the merchant, under a common denomination.

The complete accuracy of our classifications may be a subject of speculative curiosity; but the detection of some anomalies in the arrangement of the phenomena, or a few examples that may not exactly square with the rule laid down, is far from helping forward the investigation of leading principles. We consider many of the recent discussions in regard to definitions, as embracing questions of arrangement too refined to be useful, and as involving the propriety of classifications, meant merely as aids to investigation, and never urged as differences founded in the nature of things. We, of course, do not mean to deny the utility of some brief description at the outset of an inquiry of the sense we affix to certain words of leading signification and frequent employment, but there can be no difficulty in collecting the sense from the reasonings in the context, whilst, in many instances, the definition is far from corresponding with the doctrine laid down. How frequently do we see definitions which are either too circumscribed or too comprehensive, as compared with the theory to which they are introductory. Whilst, therefore, pages are filled with ingenious refinements, to show the incompleteness of the definition, the theory to which it is the mere formal appendage, receives much the smallest share of

attention.

It is, also, not unworthy of remark, that the order of investigation never having been properly defined, the results of economical investigation have reached us in disjointed parts, and insulated by long intervals of time. This sufficiently explains why its discoveries have multiplied so slowly. In scientific investigation, in general, the development of one principle or general fact promotes the elucidation of another. Each point gained is a farther step in the ascending series of discoveries. There is, in such cases, a certain continuity in the succession of principles. In political economy, however, the different branches having been investigated in a detached and desultory order, there has not been that concatenation and dependence of parts which so greatly promotes investigation, and its discoveries have consequently been effected, not only more slowly, but more laboriously.

It is also to be observed, that in many instances men must be made to feel before they can be brought to investigate. This applies, generally, in the science of politics, and with peculiar force in the science of political economy. Truth, in these cases, follows, and rarely precedes individual and national suffering. It is after countries, classes and persons have been greatly oppressed by some external or internal cause, that the attempt is made to establish general rules of conduct, founded on the immutable distinctions of right and wrong, truth and error. It has been in this order that the principles of economical science have been elucidated and developed.

The extreme abuses which accompanied that tampering with the currency which characterized the public authorities of the Italian States, between the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth centuries, gave the first impulse to political economy, and led their distinguished writers in this branch of science, at that period, to an investigation, in several admirable treatises, of the true doctrine of money. In this manner, we may trace almost every truth of the science to its source in some public disorder or abuse of the times. The ruin of thousands of individuals, connected with the South-Sea and Mississippi schemes, was followed by the discussion and clearer comprehension of the laws and limits of paper currency: and down to a very recent period, the principles applicable to paper issues, in connection with payments in gold and silver, had not attained that certainty and general assent in England, which the state of the science, in the nineteenth century, might have led us to expect, until the utmost violence had been offered to the relations between debtor and creditor, and landlord and tenant, in the native country, as it has been called, of political economy.

If we pursue this train of investigation, we shall find that the comprehensive examinations, instituted within the last thirty years, into the policy of the British system of poor laws, and restrictions on the import of corn, were intimately connected with the extreme pressure of the former on the payers of the rates, and the latter, on all classes, except landlords: and, it is even not improbable that the reaction of extreme suffering, immediately succeeding inordinate excitement, has had as much to do with the recent modifications of the British commercial system as any conviction that its principles are erroneous. The history of the discoveries of political economy is, it would appear, then, in a great degree, the history of certain public disorders and abuses, and, in some instances, we may add, of intense public suffering. Whilst this explains the desultory progress, or irregular march of the science, it sufficiently accounts for the late period at which its separate truths have been digested and arranged in the form of elementary propositions.

Dr. Cooper has performed a highly acceptable service to the students of the science, by combining these propositions in a luminous and instructive order. The plan of his work embraces, however, a much wider scope than falls properly within the lin its of an elementary treatise. He has blended with his exposition of established truths, a brief description of those points of the science which are still in controversy, accompanied by a judicious commentary of his own. By this plan, the student is led to a full knowledge of the present state of the science-its unquestioned truths and established doctrines, with the systems and theories yet in dispute, and the evidence and reasonings by which they are supported. The directness, simplicity and clearness of expression which characterize Dr. Cooper's manner of communicating instruction, is not more admirable than the facility with which he appears to digest and appropriate the discoveries of others-the acuteness with which he detects sophistry, and the impartiality with which he weighs the merits of opposite systems and theories. These are the real, and not less rare than real, qualifications of the teacher of science.

We differ with Dr. Cooper on two leading subjects of dispute, in the present state of the science; these are RENT and POPULATION. He adopts, on both these questions, the doctrines of the new school. As no investigation into the sources of wealth can be satisfactory while the real theory of rent and the true principle of population are unsettled, we purpose to bestow some attention on these two topics in the present article. A short preliminary view or outline of the points of difference which have essentially distinguished the two leading divisions of econo

mists, namely, those who have preferred the agricultural system, and those who have regarded the system of commerce and manufactures with most favour, may assist us in the investigation of these questions.

The characteristic difference between these two divisions, is, that one looks to LAND, and the other to LABOUR, as the principal source of wealth; a small number of each class, regard the one or the other as the exclusive origin of riches. The sect of the economists, presents an example of such as consider land, and the Ricardo school of those who regard labour as the sole source of reproduction. Dr. Smith and Mr. Malthus hold a middle place in these different divisions, although the latter inclines most to the school of Quesnay, in his views with regard to the land, and some of the doctrines of the former approach very nearly to the opinions of labour entertained by Mr. Ricardo.

The economists of the Continent of Europe, at the head of whom we would place M. Say, are not ranged under any of these classifications. Their views of the sources of wealth, are, generally considered, far more complete and comprehensive, than those which characterize the British writers. From the earliest period of investigation into economical science, in England, labour has been the predominant element or principle, in the explanations offered, from time to time, as to the sources of wealth, and the means of its increase. Passages from Berkeley, from Hobbes, and even from Hume, might be cited in confirmation of this opinion. Mr. Locke and Mr. Harris, whose views on economical subjects, are deserving of the greatest attention, are, it is well known, very explicit on this point ;they assign to labour, a disproportionate share of the effect in production. The same idea, in a more qualified sense, pervades the system of Dr. Smith. It is evident, he regarded the various divisions and subdivisions to which labour had been carried in Great-Britain, as among the primary sources of that general abundance which manufacturing and commercial countries so strikingly exhibit, although he considered the land as the source of higher relative profit to individuals.

The system which has been framed since his period, and which has obtained the most extensive popularity, has raised labour to a still higher importance, both as an agent of reproduction and an element of value. The Ricardo school, which has given so much weight to this agent, that it has, with metaphysical refinement, generalized it into the sole ingredient of price, numbers not only the eminent names of Mill and McCulloch in England, but several distinguished followers in the United States.