is only an imaginary distinction. In our state of society, two of the three great and fundamental elements of public economy in Great Britain and Europe, or which Adam Smith and his school have installed in this position, to wit, rent and profit, disappear, can not be found, as a general rule, clothed with the attributes with which they have invested them; and even the third, wages, is a very different thing here. The whole three, indeed, are here confounded, and merged in one; and where any things are found to answer to the theory of those economists, they are the exceptions, not the rule. Why, then, render confusion worse confounded, by attempting to force on us a nomenclature of public economy, when we can find nothing to answer to these names, bating only exceptions to general rules? For the most part, ours is a different world from theirs. Things here started different, have grown up different, and are different. Even the things among us, which they tried to make like unto theirs, while they governed us, we have greatly modified since we became independent. It is impossible for an American even to understand European economists, while writing and expounding their theory of "rent, profit, and wages," unless he puts himself to the trouble of becoming familiar with their social and political history, running back for centuries. Their nomenclature is unintelligible here, simply because it does not apply to things with which Americans are acquainted. How absurd, then, to force it on things which do not exist in any forms to be recognised under such names? We have, indeed, things called rent, profit, and wages; but we have no such system, as European economists apply these terms to; and it is impossible they should be applied here, in the same sense in which they apply there, without leading to error.

M. Say has, also, very naturally recognised the absence, in America, of one of the three great elements of public economy in Europe, in the following passage: "Families, transplanted from a civilized, to an entirely new country, carry with them theoretical and practical knowledge, which is one of the chief elements of productive industry. They carry, likewise, habits of industry, calculated to set these elements in activity, as well as the habit of subordination, so essential to the preservation of social order. They commonly take with them some little capital, also, not in money, but in tools and stock of different kinds. Moreover," he says, "they have no landlord to share the produce of a virgin soil, far exceeding in extent what they are able to bring into cultivation

for years to come." Along with this absence of land-lordism, or rent, comes also, and necessarily, the absence of another of the three great elements of the European system, which they call profit, and which refers exclusively to the position and interest of the capitalist, or farmer, who stands between the landlord and the laborers. It must be seen, therefore, that the second of these elements supposes the first, and that, without the first, the second can not exist. Consequently, two of the three great elements of public economy in Europe, particularly as laid down by British FreeTrade writers, are wanting here. It would, therefore, be absurd to suppose, that a system founded upon and growing out of these three elements, could be adapted to a state of society, where two of the three are wanting, and where the three are merged in one. The result is simply this: That a superstructure built on three supports, can not stand, if two be taken away. In the United States, these three, as a general rule, are merged in one, and the plan of the architect must be formed anew, and adapted to his foundation.

Though the ancient system of European society is commonly supposed to have been broken up, it is only a change of form. It may, indeed, have been alleviated. But the image of it remains distinctly traced in the theory of society presented by British and other European economists, as composed, fundamentally, of landlords, farmers, and laborers, or "rent, profit, and wages." They suppose that the land is owned by one class, who receive "rent" for it; that it is cultivated by another class, called farmers under their system, who have capital enough to stock it, provide implements, and hire laborers, and whose business is that of superintendence; and that it is worked by a third class, formerly called "villains," now designated by the name of laborers, but whose wages are only enough for bare subsistence, such as is provided for the ox or the horse. Such are their fundamental elements for system of public economy. They provide nothing for labor but subsistence, and the least possible that will answer that end. They do not consider that labor is entitled to anything more. It never entered their heads, that labor might aspire to independence, to proprietorship, even to affluence. They consider that God, or society, has given the land to one class; that an intermediate class are to take care of it, and support the first class; and that a third and abject class, born to toil, and nothing else, are to do all the work, and support the other two classes, receiving just enough to

a

give them strength to do the greatest service, in the same manner as a man feeds his ox or his horse, and for the same object. Such was the old system of Europe; such, virtually, is its system at this day, particularly in Great Britain. Such is the system of Adam Smith, Ricardo, Say, M'Culloch, and others.

Hear Adam Smith on this point: "A man must always live by his work, and his wages must, at least, be sufficient to maintain him. They must even, upon some occasions, be somewhat more; otherwise, it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen would not last beyond the first generation. Mr. Cantillon [one of the British economists] seems, upon this account, to suppose that the lowest species of common laborers must everywhere earn at least double their own maintenance, in order that, one with another, they may be enabled to bring up two children; the labor of the wife, on account of her necessary attendance on the children, being supposed no more than sufficient to provide for herself. But one half the children born, it is computed, die before the age of manhood. The poorest laborers, therefore, according to this account, must, one with another, attempt to raise at least four children, in order that two may have an equal chance of living to that age. But the necessary maintenance of four children, it is supposed, may be nearly equal to that of one man. The labor of an able-bodied slave, the same author [Cantillon] adds, is computed to be worth double his maintenance; and that of the meanest laborer, he thinks, can not be worth less than that of an able-bodied slave. Thus far, at least, seems certain, that, in order to bring up a family, the labor of the husband and wife together must, even in the lowest species of common labor, be able to earn something more than what is precisely necessary for their own maintenance; but in what proportion, whether in that above mentioned, or in any other, I shall not take upon me to determine." Thus Adam Smith.

It can not be denied, that this is a very nice, close calculation; and it will be observed, that the case of the slave is brought in as the measure of economy in the case! All that is proposed, thought of, is, that the race of laborers shall have enough to perpetuate themselves, "lest they should not last beyond the first generation." Is it possible, that these givers-out of law for the social state could enter into such a conspiracy against the rights of mankind? Such, undoubtedly, is the fact.

Hear, also, M. Say on this point: "Simple or rough labor may

be executed by any man possessed of life and health. Wherefore, bare existence is all that is requisite to insure a supply of that class of industry. Consequently, its wages seldom rise, in any country, much above what is absolutely necessary to subsistence; and the quantum of supply always remains on a level with the demand; nay, often goes beyond it. goes beyond it. Wherever the mere circumstance of existence is sufficient for the execution of any kind of work, and that work affords the means of supporting existence, the vacuum is speedily filled up. . . In this class of life, the wages are somewhat more than is necessary for bare personal existence; they must be sufficient to maintain the children of the laborer also. If the wages of the lowest class of labor were insufficient to maintain a family, and bring up children, its supply would never be kept up to the complement... A full-grown man [a rough laborer] is an accumulated capital; the sum spent in rearing him, is indeed consumed; but consumed in a reproductive way, calculated to yield the product man. . . To those whose whole income is a bare subsistence, a fall of wages is an absolute death-warrant, if not to the laborer himself, to a part of his family at least."

It is, then, confessedly, an element of their system, that "a fall of wages is an absolute death-warrant, either to the laborer, or a part of his family!"

Hear, also, M'Culloch: "There does not seem to be any good reason why man himself should not, and very many why he should, be considered as forming a part of the national capital." That is, the bones and sinews of the laboring classes, in the same manner as slaves, are always classed with chattel property. It is obvious, that M'Culloch could not mean anything else. For they who do not work, who are not producers, are consumers, and could not be viewed in the light of capital, in the eyes of an economist.

We have, then, in the above-cited passages from Smith, Say, and M'Culloch, an explanation of what Ricardo means by the following part of the citation already made from him: "The proportions of the whole produce of the earth, which will be allotted to each of these classes, under the names of rent, profit, and wages, will be essentially different." How and for what reason different? Which of these classes is to be the favored one? Or which two of them? Which is to be the most, and which the least, favored? An "essential difference" is announced. This is a strong, an emphatic expression, composing a part, an element, of a plan of society, of a system of public economy, unblushingly proposed to

the world, not only as a real state of things, existing from time immemorial, and then existing, but to exist for ever, without remedy, or the hope of it! The landlord is to get the principal part; his farmer, or the capitalist who hires the farm, and pays the rent, is to come next for his share, in the shape of profit; and what is the portion of the laborer, under this system? The same as that of the ox or horse that drags the plough or the harrow—just enough to keep him in the most fit state to work. That is all this system has ever yet done; it is all it ever intended to do; it is all it ever will do, till Europe is revolutionized; it is all that these economists have ever thought of—all they have provided for in their systems.

Mr. Malthus's theory of population, which is generally respected in Europe, particularly in Great Britain, explains all this. He thinks men multiply faster than there is room, work, and food, for them; that the masses will fight against each other for employment to support life; that landlords, and all capitalists, may rely on this natural strife, among laborers, in bidding for the lowest wages that will support existence; and as a consequence, resulting from this theory, it may be assumed, that the natural increase of the human family is not a blessing, but a curse, to the majority of the race; and that the masses are doomed by Providence, to degradation, to a state of serfdom or slavery, to want and wretchedness, without hope or possibility of relief.

Rather than be guilty of this libel on Providence—it is indeed a very grave and impious one it would have been much more consistent with Christian piety, and with the Christian doctrine of morals, it may be said more philosophical, to assume a defect in society. It is shocking to ascribe such a want of wisdom and goodness to the Creator! Mr. Malthus supplies in theory what was wanted to sustain the practice of the European world, to wit, the hopeless degradation and misery of the masses; and the European economists of the Free-Trade school assume the fact as a postulate, putting it in the place of one of the foundation-stones of their edifice! They are not ashamed to do this openly-to make it visible, prominent, staring out in the face of man and of heaven. This theory, recognised and reduced to practice in society, is an insuperable bar, a yoke that can not be broken, an iron despotism over the masses of mankind.

This extreme necessity of man, resulting from Malthus's theory, which dooms the masses to work for bare subsistence, the Hon. Mr. Appleton (Nathan) says, is taken by the modern school of