produce perform, among various individuals, each of whom has his own work to do in effecting the production in question.

The number of persons who contribute towards producing any common article—and as a rule the commoner it is the more numerous are the persons who contributeis found on examination to be very great. A yard of calico represents the labour of very many persons. The cotton from which it is manufactured was obtained by the joint labours of one set of persons; the carriage of it from a foreign country required another set; the transmission of it to the manufacturer a third organisation; the process of manufacturing the cloth a fourth; its distribution by sale a fifth. The fourth in this series is subdivided, for the business of spinning is generally different from that of weaving. To these may be added the different persons who manufacture the machinery by which the process is effected. It will be plain, if all the kinds of labour which aid directly and indirectly in the production of a yard of calico were discussed, and its part assigned to each kind, that the series is almost geometrical, in the same way as the ancestors of any man amount in a few generations to many hundreds. And it is plain also that this division of labour is the result of certain social causes; for in a country like India the same person grows, gathers, cleanses and spins the cotton-wool, and afterwards weaves it into cloth.

The same tendency to the division of labour exists in other manufactures. Adam Smith illustrated the principle by commenting on the number of persons engaged in so trifling a manufacture as that of pin-making. The same rule holds good with watch-making, the manufacture of

playing-cards, of paper, and of an infinite amount of other articles.

The cause which has brought about this appropriation of labour to special functions is that to which allusion has already been made, viz. the desire to produce the largest possible amount at the least possible cost. This desire is itself powerfully stimulated by competition; for producers find that their rivals will carry off business unless they accommodate themselves to the state of the market. Hence everything which checks competition, checks the division of labour; everything which enlarges the market, induces and aids it.

We have yet to see how it is that the division of labour lowers the cost of production, cheapens goods, and therefore enlarges the market.

First, it makes the workman more dexterous. A man who continually does one thing acquires great readiness in doing it, or, as we commonly say, 'gets a knack of it.' Any person who watches a practised hand, can see how rapidly he executes the work he has to do. The number of nails which a nailer can make in a day is far in excess of that which could be fabricated by any general smith, however skilful and intelligent he may be. In playing music, no excellence of ear, no taste or feeling, will avail, unless the player has diligently practised on his instrument. According to some persons, genius itself is 'a great capacity for taking trouble.' It is very difficult to distinguish between natural and acquired capacity. Sydney Smith used to say, that any person could be witty or brilliant in conversation, if he took pains to make himself competent. Great orators have generally acquired their command over language, their skill in debate

and retort, by long and diligent study. It is not rare for an accountant to run up three columns of figures simultaneously, and thus reckon a product almost at a glance. When, however, the mind attentively watches, and the hand performs one act only, the ease and quickness with which the result is achieved are even more remarkable. But any economy of time and labour diminishes the cost of production, makes the article cheaper, and enables a larger number of persons to use or enjoy the product.

Next, it becomes possible to vary the wages of the different contributors to the product in proportion to their skill and capacity. If one person began and completed the manufacture, he must be paid for the easiest and simplest work at as high a rate as he is paid for the most difficult. For example, the various workmen in a glasshouse receive wages ranging from 57. to 5s. a week. If one person mixed the materials and smelted them, blew the glass, annealed it, squared it, and packed it, and besides performed the multitude of minor and easy operations which are subsidiary to the manufacture, the whole service must be paid for at one, and that the highest rate. In the infancy of manufactures such an accumulation of functions is necessary, and the cost of the article is therefore high. But competition for the sale of manufactured articles soon leads to the discovery that different rates of wages may be paid to different agents in the joint labour of production, and that an economy of a very important kind can be effected by these means.

The division of labour tends continually to the multiplication of intermediaries to the process by which the material is fashioned into a saleable commodity, and the commodity is put within reach of the consumer. If these

agents are not interposed arbitrarily, but are present because they facilitate operations, they each and all perform a service with which society could not dispense to its advantage. The case of course is different, if by any law or compact more persons are engaged in any occupation than necessity and convenience demand. Thus for example, at different periods in economical history, police regulations have been laid on the manufacture and trade in cloth, and payments have been made for the service which the police is supposed to have rendered. But as the purchasers of cloth are as a rule perfectly competent to judge of its texture, quality, and measure, the interposition of such an official service is needless and wasteful. So again the etiquette of certain professional functions prescribes that a service should be divided. It is a rule in the practice of English law, that clients should not consult a barrister directly, but must employ the intermediary service of an attorney. If the custom were an economy (and in such a case the rule is needless and superfluous), no objection could be taken to it, since it would be an illustration of the division of labour, and a gain. If it be a mere arrangement, which is intended to secure wages to two persons where the service of one is sufficient, it is a loss. So again, if it be the custom in building that there should be an unnecessary number of overlookers or foremen, the apparent division of labour is only an arbitrary increase of cost. In short, the rule by which the multiplication of intermediaries in any transaction can be tested, and its limit determined, is contained in the answer to a question, Does the increase diminish the charges put upon the consumer, or purchaser of the commodity? If it does, it fulfils the economical conditions

which attend the natural division of labour. If it does not, the service is apparent, not real, and the natural course of production and exchange is obstructed.

The division of labour again tends to the development of machinery. Animal is used instead of human labour, because it is cheaper; machinery instead of both, because it is cheaper still. But though these results are in the end obtained by machinery, the outlay necessary for its adoption is large. A machine is a very costly affair. Some, which aid in the manufacture of the cheapest articles, are exceedingly expensive: they cannot therefore be obtained except the manufacture is extensive, the demand large, and the market wide. But these circumstances are the conditions under which labour is most fully subdivided. And thus as the division of labour is the stimulant to the adoption of machinery, so the use of machinery tends still further to subdivide labour.

Again, the conditions which bring about the division of labour tend towards equalizing the price of commodities. The producer and consumer are equally interested in effecting as nearly as possible a uniformity of price. But when the process of production is interrupted or discontinuous, prices fluctuate greatly. It is clear, however, that such processes of production as are effected by divided labour must be continuous, i. e. the demand and supply of the articles in question must be steady and anticipated. No one would organise a body of workmen, and assign each his proper place in any manufacture, except he understood that there was a market, and a sure market, for his goods. He may indeed, in the competition of manufacture, temporarily overstock the market, i. e. produce in excess of the demand. But on an average, all