in the community. And it is an argument frequently urged in England, that the taxes drawn from the people to pay the interest of the national debt, and supply the prodigality of the government, are no loss to the nation, because it all goes back again into the pockets of the people. Among ourselves there are errors not less glaring and absurd. Such is the notion that money alone is wealth, and that the wealth of a nation depends upon the amount of specie it contains. Hence also the notion that Congress can prevent the efflux, and encourage the influx of specie, merely by protective or prohibitory duties. We often hear it said, that if protective duties raise the prices of articles upon the consumer, those whose products are, not so protected must raise their prices in proportion to the increased expense of living, and that then they gain in one way what they lose in another. Thus, if the farmer must pay more for his dry goods, groceries, and utensils, that he must sell his produce at a price proportionate; just as if the relative intensity of supply and demand had nothing to do with the fixing of the price; that is, as if it were a matter altogether at his own option. It is perfectly obvious, that by forcing industry and capital into channels to which we are not adapted, we can produce less of those things to whose production we are adapted. Of course, as the amount produced is lessened, the price will rise. Now, whenever the price rises beyond a certain mark, other nations will begin to supply us cheaper than we can produce. This has been the case the past year with bread-stuffs. So we have been paying an exorbitant price for our cloths and calicoes, just for the privilege of paying an exorbitant price for our bread! But we do not wish to anticipate what properly belongs to another part of this review: we only wished to point out some of the errors into which the nation is betrayed by an ignorance of the science in question, and to demonstrate the necessity of a more general attention to its doctrines.

From what has been said, it is no wonder that Political Economy should become a subject of investigation and inquiry in this country. Our attention has been drawn to it by the prominence it has gained in Europe; by the imposing and illustrious names arrayed in its cause; by its introduction into the most distinguished of their colleges and universities; and by the changes of theory it has produced among many, if not most of her leading statesmen. It has been forced upon

our attention by the peculiar situation in which we have found our own country placed. We have recently had, and still have, some singular contradictions among us; an abundant supply of circulating medium, and yet all things raised to the highest prices; a country of immense territory and thin population, admirably adapted to the production of all kinds of agricultural produce, importing grain from the little island of England; the fuel of our own country requiring protective duties, to prevent competition from abroad; and now the whole country in a state of bankruptcy; while it is boastingly said, there never was as much money in the country before! "These are," indeed, “the days for the study of Political Economy." For such contradictions could never have taken place, had there not been some where, and in some way, a palpable violation of the laws of this science. Political Economy can hardly be considered as past its infancy in the United States. Our most distinguished writers have only within

a few years begun to turn their attention to it. The first paper on the subject in the North American Review, appeared, I believe, in 1821; and is a review of a work on Political Economy published the previous year by David Raymond, Esq., counsellor at law, Baltimore. The author tells us it was written because he had nothing else to do, a fact which we might have gathered from some parts of the work without being told it; though in other parts, particularly on the balance of trade, we find some remarks worthy of attention. In 1826, Dr. Cooper, of Columbia College, Georgia, published a work on this science; and this was followed by another in Boston, in 1828, by Willard Phillips. In 1835, Professor Newman, of Bowdoin College, gave to the public the lectures which he had delivered on this subject to his classes. These works all possess their respective merits, but none of them seemed so far to come up to the views and wants of the American public as to be adopted as the basis of the science in our several collegiate institutions who have introduced this into their list of studies. For the want of a suitable American work we have been dependant on foreigners, and the works of Smith and Say have generally been in use. The inconvenience that would arise from this any one may perceive. Their works are adapted to foreign and older countries; their illustrations are not always familiar, and, therefore, want palpability ; they treat upon many subjects in which we have little or no interest; and they omit others of primary importance to our country. Hence, an American text-book on Political Economy has always been a desideratum. This want, we think, has been well supplied by the work now before us, from the justly celebrated Dr. Wayland, President of Brown University.

In

Dr. Wayland's work, we think, will be found decidedly preferable, as a class-book in our country, to any other now extant. his doctrines he is substantially the same as Smith, the father of the science; adopting, however, the improvements of Say. But he has the advantage over them both, to an American student, in the superior adaptation of his work to the condition and wants of our nation, and in the greater simplicity and clearness of his arrangement, and familiarity of his illustrations. His reasoning is lucid and forcible, and his style perspicuous and compact, well adapted to the purpose of a class-book; though, to the general reader, it may seem rather e dry and uninteresting. We do not, however, consider the work without its defects; and of these, in the proper places, we may take a passing notice.

Our author divides his subject into four parts, viz.: Production, Exchange, Distribution, and Consumption. In making Exchange the subject of a distinct division, instead of including it, as is generally done, under Production, we think he has shown his wisdom; for exchange, although it increases the value of products, does not actually produce any thing, and therefore cannot, with propriety, be included under the head of Production. Besides, it is so important a process in economic affairs, and embraces such a variety of topics and principles, as justly to entitle it to a place by itself. The announcement of this division is preceded by some introductory remarks, explanatory of certain terms employed in the work.

On the subject of Production, Dr. Wayland treats, in the first

chapter, on capital:-its nature and forms; its changes and increase; productive and unproductive capital, fixed and circulating; and of money as an item of capital.

The second chapter treats on Industry :-the objects and forms of industry; the modes by which its productiveness is increased, viz., by the use of natural agents and by the division of labor; and the effects of the increased productiveness of industry.

On the different forms of human industry, we submit to the consideration of the reader the following extract from the work:

"From what has been said, it is evident that the industry of which man is susceptible is capable of assuming three different forms, namely: Industry of discovery or investigation; Industry of application or invention; and Industry of operation.

"1. Industry of Discovery or Investigation. Under this class of laborers are to be comprehended those who discover the laws of nature, and those who make them known to mankind after they have been discovered. Newton labored in this department when he discovered the laws of gravitation, optics, and of the motions of the heavenly bodies; Franklin when he discovered the laws of electricity; and Sir Humphrey Davy when he discovered the alkaline bases, and the laws of their combination. The labor of each of these men is also of the same kind, when they made known these laws to the public. The labor of those who are called philosophers belongs to this class.

"2. Industry of Invention or Application. It is very rarely that a simple law can be of any use, without some adjustment by which we may avail ourselves of its advantages. Hence, a very impor tant department of human industry is that which teaches us how to make the application of the principle so as to accomplish a particular purpose. Newton performed this labor when he invented the telescope; Hadley when, by means of the quadrant, he applied the laws of light to the measurement of angles; Franklin when he invented the conductor, or lightning-rod; Sir Humphrey Davy when he invented the safety-lamp; and Fulton when he invented that modification of the steam engine by which vessels may be propelled through the water.

"Under this class, I think, may also be comprehended professional labor, generally. The business of the clergyman is to teach us in what manner we may avail ourselves of the moral laws of the Creator. The lawyer teaches us how to avail ourselves of the laws of that civil society of which we are the members. The physician teaches us how to obey the physiological laws under which we are created, so that we may be relieved from sickness or preserved in health.

"

"3. To the third class of human industry belong all those who put forth the physical effort necessary, in order to create the values desired. They are the laborers who produce those changes, either in elementary form, in aggregate form, or in place, of which we have already spoken, and they compose by far the most numerous class of society.

"It may here be remarked, that two of these forms of labor are frequently performed by the same person. For instance, he who discovers a law sometimes also teaches us how to apply it Thus,

as we have already shown, Sir Isaac Newton, Franklin, and Sir Humphrey Davy, were all of them both discoverers and inventors; that is, they performed both the first and the second kinds of industry. Thus, the second and third are also frequently united; that is, the individual who labors at a particular operation also invents some machine by which a particular process in that operation is improved. Thus, Sir Richard Arkwright, a mechanic, invented the spinning machinery now in common use; and, in general, many of our most important inventions have been made by operative laborers. And there can be no doubt that, if a knowledge of the laws of nature were more generally diffused throughout this class of society, the progress of invention would be inconceivably more rapid. I know of nothing which would promise more for the general improvement of the useful arts, than a wider diffusion of the knowledge of principles among those whose business it is to employ those principles in their daily practice."

The above extract will serve to show the pertinacity and familiarity of our author's illustrations. It may also convey an impression of the beautiful harmony which exists in the social fabric, and the dependance of the several departments of human industry on each other. The farmer cannot say to the philosopher, "I have no need of thee," nor the philosopher to the farmer, "I have no need of thee." Without the labors of the one the farmer could not plough; and without the labors of the other the philosopher could not eat. True, the labor of the philosopher is not directly productive; but its productiveness is not less important because it is indirect. In fact, if all mankind were direct producers, i. e., operatives, we should be no better off than if all were philosophers; i. e., indirect producers. For, from the want of science to give direction to human industry, it would not be half as productive, and, consequently, the earth would not maintain more than half its present number of inhabitants, and that half would be miserably provided for. Or, to speak more accurately, without science men would be mere savages; having for tools and machinery nothing but our teeth and finger nails, and for our provision the spontaneous gifts of nature. All beyond these are the results of science. To what extent, therefore, the sciences ought to be cultivated, depends precisely on how far it is desirable to elevate society above the savage state. We admit that some branches of science are not as obviously tributary to production as others, as, for instance, the languages and belles lettres; but the proper office of these is to expand and discipline the mind, and thus to assist, first in acquiring, and then in imparting the others. If these, therefore, were abandoned, the others would fall into decay, and all would deteriorate together. Thus, polite literature adds 'not only to the refined enjoyments of society, but deserves to hold a place among the useful branches, as the more directly productive are sometimes called.

Hence, we conclude that every member of the community is adapted to some particular purpose; and he is most useful to society who diligently applies himself to that purpose to which he is best adapted, and most successfully pursues it.

We should be glad to transfer to our pages the remarks on the effects on industry of natural agents, the employment of machinery,

and the division of labor; not, however, because there is any thing new on these points, for they have all been exhausted by previous writers; but because they present the subjects in a clear and distinct form, and would be entertaining to our readers. We must, however, refer them to the work itself. Meantime we cannot deny ourselves the pleasure of quoting a paragraph from the chapter on the effects of the increased productiveness of human labor :

"The result of industry applied to capital is product, value, or the means of gratifying human desire. The result of increased productiveness of human industry is, with the same labor, increased product, value, or means of gratifying human desire. That is, in general, increased productiveness is equivalent to increased means of human happiness. This simple statement would seem sufficient to explain the whole subject. In order, however, to obviate any objections that may arise, we will proceed to show its practical operation by several illustrations.

"Take the case of a single individual. Suppose a man, by the same amount of labor that he spent last year, to be able this year to create twice as much value. Suppose that a farmer has twice as large a harvest; that is, that his instrument is twice as good this year as it was last year. The result is, he will be able to satisfy the desire which that product gratifies twice as abundantly as he did last year. He will have more to exchange with other producers, and hence he will be able to gratify other desires more abundantly. He will be able to make exchanges which were before out of his power; hence, he will be able to add to his mode of living new means of happiness. And, on the other hand, as he is able to make exchanges with others with whom it was before impossible, others, in return, are able to avail themselves of his product, or means of happiness, who were before unable to do so. Hence, he is not only happier himself, but the very means by which he becomes so renders him the instrument of greater happiness to others. Hence, it is a benefit to a whole neighborhood for a single member of it to become rich. In other words, increased productiveness in one branch of labor increases productiveness in every branch of labor."

Chapter the third treats on the laws which govern the application of labor to capital. The following principles are here laid down :1. Industry will be applied to capital as every man enjoys the advantages of his labor and capital; ie., as every man may gain all he can, and as every man may use his own as he will. 2. Labor will be applied to capital as every man suffers the inconveniences of idleness. 3. The greater the ratio of capital to labor, the greater the stimulus to labor. 4. Industry will be applied to capital in proportion to the intellectual condition of a people.

On the second of these heads our author shows the effects of poor laws, in which his conclusions are in accordance with the most enlightened policy of the present day. He proves that they are inconsistent with the economy of the Creator, with the interests of the beneficiary, and the wealth of society; and that the, only correct principles are, that "if a man be reduced, by indolence or prodigality, to such extreme penury that he is in danger of perishing, he be relieved through the medium of labor; that is, that he be furnished with work and be remunerated with the proceeds ;" and "that those