« PreviousContinue »
cides with that of the Bishop of Cloyne *, and the learned Author f of the Essay on Money and Coins, is most generally adhered to by Dr Smith.
. 4. In another part of the work, however, we find it ailerted, that "land "and capital stock are the two original "sources of all revenue, both private and "public: capital stock pays the wages "of productive labour, whether employ"ed in agriculture, manufactures or com"mercy." Land and capital are therefore here deemed the sole sources of wealth; and labour is considered as deriving from
them its wages, without adding to the opulence of the community.
5. Lastly, We are taught to consider land, labour and capital, as being, all three, sources of wealth; for we are told, that " who"ever derives his revenue from a fund that "is his own, must draw it either from his "labour, his stock, or his land. The revenue "derived from labour is called Wages; that "from stock Profit ; and from land Rent *j" an opinion which seems to have been hinted at by Sir William Petty f, when he stated it as an impediment to the wealth of England, that taxes were not levied upon lands, stock and labour, but chiefly upon land alone; though land and labour are generally considered by that ingenious writer as the sole sources of wealth %.
In treating of Political Oeconomy, the science which professes to display and to teach the means of increasing the wealth of a state, it would seem that the first and most anxious object of inquiry ought to have been, What wealth is, and from what sources mankind derive it? for it appears impossible to discuss with precision the means of increasing any thing, without an accurate notion of its nature and of its origin. Yet, if we reject the doctrine of the Oeconomists, it is in vain we look for a decided and precise opinion upon the origin of wealth, in any modern work on public oeconomy; and it is impossible not to think, that the anxiety of the oeconomists to overthrow that system, which regards commerce as the sole source of opulence, has led them, in rejecting labour and capital as original sources of wealth, beyond the bounds that reason authorises.
The liberal doctrines to which this theory led, by inculcating the impropriety of
all legislative restraints, or interference in commercial transaction, must command approbation j but they are nowise inconsistent with the opinion we shall endeavour to establish, that land, labour and capital are, all three, original. sources of wealth j that each has its distinct and separate share, (which it is most necessary should be defined and understood), in the formation of those objects which are desirable to man, and which have been shown to constitute his wealth.
Though these three original sources of wealth, in the various states of existence in which history displays man, contribute to his wealth in very different proportions, yet in every state of society in which he is known to exist, each, more or less, affords its share.
Consumption, most undoubtedly, must always precede production j but, long before man cultivated the earth as a means of
procuring his subsistence, he must have derived his wealth from all of these sources. To appropriate the fruit of a tree or an animal for food, he must have, in a certain degree, laboured; and it will be shewn, that the first stick or stone he took into his hand to aid and assist him in procuring those objects, by performing a portion of his labour, fulfilled the same duty in which every branch of the capital of a mercantile nation is now engaged.
I. Of Land, including Mines and Fiperies, as a Source of National Wealth.
In the earliest stages of society, men acquire that portion of wealth they derive from the surface of the earth, in the same manner as, in every stage of society, they attain that part of their wealth which proceeds from the ocean. Their exertions are not made to increase the quantity, but to appropriate and adapt for use