THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF ILLINOIS 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 332 
 B875 
 
 V/8
 
 ®^JJSi^:->J?
 
 REMARKS \^ 
 
 ON THE 
 
 PRODUCTION OF WEALTH, 
 
 INFLUENCE, WHICH THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF SOCIETY 
 HAVE, IN CARRYING ON THAT PROCESS : 
 
 IN A LETTER 
 
 REV. T. R. MALTHUS, 
 
 OCCASIONED BY HIS ATTEMPT TO MAINTAIN THE DIVISION 
 
 OF CLASSES 
 
 INTO 
 
 PRODUCTIVE AND UNPRODUCTIVE. 
 
 BY S. GRAY, ESQ. 
 
 AVTHOR OF " THE HAPPINESS OF STATES.** 
 
 *<The more various the classes, the richer they are all; that is, the com- 
 munity in general." Third Leading Principle of Circulation. 
 
 ORIGINAL. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 1820. 
 VOL. XVIL Pam. NO. XXXIV, 2B
 
 REMARKS, 
 
 Reverend Sir, 
 
 On procuring your book upon ''The Principles of Political Eco- 
 nomy," I turned, with some impatience, to your " Observations on 
 Productive and Unproductive Labor ;" to ascertain whether you 
 maintained the doctrines of Smith, respecting unproductiveness, or 
 avowed yourself a convert to the productive system. I soon 
 perceived you did neither. And as a maintainer of the latter, in all 
 its extent, I feel myself called on to examine the reasons that you 
 have given for keeping up distinctions, which it utterly rejects as 
 unknown to Nature. 
 
 To this fundamental topic I mean, at present, to confine myself. 
 Indeed, until Statisticians come to a decision respecting it, founded 
 on the actual results in nature, the whole of the science must be more 
 or less doubtful ; for upon the answer to the question — ffhat is the 
 real source of the production of' wealth? — the science rests. 
 
 Differing as we do, entirely, on some fundamental points in sta- 
 tistics — or if you will, political economy, though I do not approve 
 of this title — we most cordially agree in one thir.g ; the importance 
 of the science. Indeed you have ably confirmed what 1 had before 
 stated. And the person who dissents here, must be either very 
 young, or very raw in the study. 
 
 What fanciful theorists may introduce is another matter; but the 
 science itself is the most important and practical of all the sciences, 
 as affecting the happiness of men more than, perhaps, any other. 
 And it is of the most vital consequence to a community, that the 
 questions naturally arising on it should be answered correctly ; for 
 on these answers depends the adoption of measures, in which are 
 involved the comfort and distress, the prosperity and decline, of 
 millions. Nor need we go out of our own country, enlightened as 
 it is, or yet travel back to another period, for decisive proofs of this
 
 3] Mr. S. Gray's Remarks, ^c. 587 
 
 both ways. The miseries inflicted by governments and legislatures, 
 in all ages, from their ignorance of its sound principles — indeed, 
 merely from misconception, without any evil intention — areinfinite, 
 and too notorious to need particularising. 
 
 The science, and particularly those vital portions of it respecting 
 the production of wealth, and tiie causi's and results ol ihe increase 
 of our race, though only brought into much publif notice wuhni the 
 last half century, are obtaining more and more attention every year ; 
 and will continue to do so as long as population increases and real 
 knowledge makes a more general progress. The artificial, crude, 
 abstruse, unintelligible systems and dogmas of tlieoretical visiona- 
 ries, may attain to notoriety, or sink to oblivion, according as fashion, 
 or the humour of the fige may take a turn. But 1 speak of the 
 real science : and 1 doubt not, but, from the vast practical im- 
 portance of its questions, discussions, and decisions, it will rise in 
 interest with posterity, when many topics of scientific inquiry, that 
 highly interested and agitated less populous and less enlightened 
 times, will be thrown to the lumber-hole of science, with the dis- 
 cussions about the philosopher's stone, and other less ridiculous 
 topics, which for their day roused an enthusiasm of inquiry among 
 learned triflers. 
 
 WHAT IS WEALTH ? - 
 
 In this discussion you shall deliver your sentiments for yourself. 
 To begin with the definition of Wealth. 
 
 " I should define wealth," you say, " to be those mfl/er^'a/objects, 
 which are necessary, useful, or agreeable, to mankind." p. 28. 
 
 \Vhy limit the description of the means of happiness by the term 
 material, except from an illegitimate ecotiomistical view ? Nature 
 knows no such limitation. According to her arrangements, whether 
 viewed with respect to value in use, or value in exchange, as the 
 source of actual enjoyment, or the means of procuring income, 
 are not science in all its branches, music, amusement of every le- 
 gitimate sort, mental improvement, &c., which the tern) excludes, or 
 seems to exclude, as real portions of wealth, as corn, lodging, 
 clothing, 8lc. ? 
 
 1 shall here add my own definition, vhich takes Nature as she is. 
 " Wealth, m its most extensive sense, signifies the materials oj well- 
 being, or happy living. This sense of value in use is rather a the- 
 oretical one, and seldom or never adopted by circulators. In sta- 
 tistics, except from special views ; and in common life, almost uni- 
 formly ; it is used with respect in value in exchange, and denotes 
 an abundance of the means vf procuring those materials.'^ — "Hap- 
 piness of Slates." p. 6l2.
 
 38S Mr. S. Gray's Remarks [4 
 
 In tlie following discussion I use the term wealth as synonimous 
 with profit, income, capital, property, as the case may require. 
 
 WHAT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD BY INDIVIDUALS OR CLASSES 
 BEING PUODUCTIVE OR UNPRODUCTIVE OF WEALTH? 
 
 We come now to the grand questions at issue between'our produc- 
 tives and unproductives ; as to what is the source of wealth, and 
 whether certain individuals or circulators, by their employments or 
 vocations, create wealth by drawing it from others, and others con- 
 sume it by returning it to others; or, whether all alike produce it 
 to the amount of their income. 
 
 Whatever explanations may be given to the terms productive and 
 unproductive of wealth, by theorists, to suit their peculiar views, the 
 plain practical meaning of them is obvious. Those individuals or 
 classes that produce wealth, create wealth to themselves and their 
 tieighbours, and of course enrich the comnmnity ; while those that 
 are unproductive, must consucne more or less of the wealth created 
 by the others, and, of course, impoverish them as well as the nation. 
 If all classes then be productive, they wi/l all combine to give 
 more emploi^neiit and belter prices ; that is, the means of a larger 
 income to one another, than would be attainable by fewer. And if 
 any class be unproductive, its influence must tend to lessen the em- 
 ployment and reduce the average prices of the others, and thus 
 diminish their mea)is of income. 
 
 In considering the great and important question, — Whether Nature 
 has in reality divided her classes into productive and unproductive? — 
 this practical notion, of productiveness and unproductiveness, is 
 never to be lost sight of, or we cannot come to a just decision. The 
 scientific statistician, the statesman and the plain man of business, 
 understand such a difference. It is, in fact, what they necessarily 
 assume to be intended. And without it the distinction has no in- 
 telligible meaning, as applied to what all the world considers to be 
 wealth. 
 
 ARE THE TERMS PRODUCTIVE AND UNPRODUCTIVE 
 NECESSARY FOR MERE CLASSIFICATION i* 
 
 I now proceed to examine in detail, the reasons which you have 
 given for the division of classes, or employments, into productive 
 and unproductive. 
 
 " In treating of capital," you say, " it seems quite necessary to 
 have some term for the kind of labor which it generally employs, in 
 contardistinction to the kind of labor generally employed by reve-
 
 6] on the Production of Wealth. S89 
 
 nue, in order to explain its nature and operation, and the causes of 
 its increase." p. 31. 
 
 If our economists meant merely to find a term for pointing out 
 the difterence between what procures for persons the means of sell- 
 ing in order to obtain profit, or an income, and that part of the 
 latter which they expend in the various articles of house- keeping, 
 the terms productive and unproductive would be incorrectly applied ; 
 but the distinction would of itself, if .so understood, be very harm- 
 less indeed : it would leave the actual fact in Nature as it really is. 
 On such a theory, both mediums of circulation, supplying and 
 demanding, or selling and buying, would be alike mediums of 
 wealth, according to ilieir respective amounts. But this is the 
 grand doctrine of the pn^ductive system, and entirely opposite 
 to the distinctions created by Quesuay, Smith, and other Econo- 
 mists. 
 
 Nature divides her children, in her process of circulation r.nd of 
 creating wealth, which is the result or production of it, into income 
 circulators and expenditure circulators; and every individual, on 
 her svstem, is both alternately. These terms, which are character- 
 istically descriptive, are perfectly sufficient for the proposer and iliC 
 student, for the purpose of classification. But the terms productive, 
 and unproductive, of wealth, imply something of a most serious 
 import, which these functions do not warrant. 
 
 ARE THE TERMS PROPER POR DISTINGUISHING THOSE 
 WHO SAVE IROM THOSE WHO DO NOT? 
 
 " Secondly," you argue, " if saving be allowed to be the imme- 
 diate cause of the increase of capital, it must be absolutely neces- 
 sary, in all discussions relating to the progress of wetillh, to dis- 
 tinguish by some particular title, a set of people who appear to act 
 so important a part in accelerating tfiis progress." p. 32. 
 
 Still this amounts only to a classification. It is unquestionably 
 true, that capital is produced by saving. This is as much the 
 doctrine of the productive as of the unproductive system. But if 
 no more be intended than to distinguish those who save, more or 
 less, from those who expend all, why use terms respecting 
 them, which, in the common acceptation, point out, that the one set 
 creates wealth and the other destroys it : that the one class enriches 
 and the other impoverishes a country ; while in Nature both are 
 alike necessary, to carry on the process of the creation and accumu- 
 lation of wealth. Were it not for the consumers or expenders, 
 the capitalists or savers could neither procure profit nor income. 
 
 As to the "importance of the part which capitalists, and those
 
 350 Mr.S. Grdy's Remarh [6 
 
 whom they employ, act in accelerating the progress of wealth," ren- 
 dering a distinctive title for them necessary, while it belongs as much 
 to others, 1 see no reason in it. I'hat they act an important part 
 in the production of wealth, is true : but so do all circulators, 
 whether in the character of buyers or sellers. On Nature's system 
 ihey all assist in accelerating her process in the creation of wealth 
 and employment. It is one of the errors of Smith's system, as it is 
 of the other systems of Economism, and shows that they are 
 ex parte systems, founded on a partial and imperfect view of facts, to 
 attribute nearly every thing to the supply and its modes. But what 
 is the use of supplying, unless there be a demand, and unless the 
 demanders have the means of paying ? To supply what there is no 
 demand for, whether corn, cloth, or houses, will produce no wealth 
 but the reverse. It will impoverish the suppliers. 
 
 Indeed, though both supply and demand be alike necessary and 
 important, on Nature's system, the demander, as the payer of the 
 supplier, and therefore the agent in rendering him productive, 
 appears, at first consideration, to act the more important part. 
 
 You proceed : " Almost all the lower classes of people, of every 
 society, are employed in some way or other ; and if there were no 
 grounds of distinction in their employments, with reference to their 
 effects on the national wealth, it is difficult to conceive what would 
 be the use of saving from revenue to add to capital ; as it would be 
 merely employing one set of people in preference to another, when, 
 according to the hypothesis, there is no essential difference be- 
 tween." p. 32. 
 
 I confess I see no force in this sort of reasoning at all, to prove 
 an essential distinction between one set of circulators and another ; 
 or to exhibit the one as enriching a country, and the other as living 
 upon the former and impoverishing the State. Where lies " the 
 ditficulty of conceiving," on the productive system, " the use of 
 saving from revenue," say, of a cotton manufacturer, to add to capi- 
 tal ? Is it not to enable him to supply more extensively; and, of 
 course, to draw more extensively from the purses of his demanders 
 in the other lines, whether they belong to the cultivating, the clerical, 
 legal, medical, or musical classes ? Or how is it in the least neces- 
 sary, that there should be an essential difference between them, as 
 to producing and not producing wealth, provided he gets the profit 
 or income from them which he wants ? 
 
 So far with reference to the wealth of the capitalist himself. And 
 next with reference to the national wealth. This consists of the 
 sum total of the wealth of individuals. Of course, it must be in- 
 creased and diminished with theirs ; and its amount, like theirs, 
 depends on the quantum of employment, combined with the actual 
 prices of it. Now employment, according to what 1 have called the
 
 7] on the Production of Wealth. 39 1 
 
 first leading principle of circulation,' is reproduced by income ; 
 whether this be entirely expended on the articles of good living, by 
 the circulator, or partly saved and partly so expended. Thus, both 
 ways it is alike really productive of wealth. 
 
 As to which way income will prove most productive, (but that is 
 a difterent question) it will depend on the state of the market at the 
 time, with respect to supply and demand, according to the fifth 
 principle. If the supply predominate, to expend the whole income 
 will have the more emiching effect : but, if the demand predomi- 
 nate, to turn part of it into capital will have the most beneficial 
 influence. 
 
 Nature here, by the way, displays her usual benevolence. By 
 the differing predispositions, and the unequal degrees of capacity 
 with which she endows meti, she has provided for keeping up an 
 equilibrium between the savers and expenders. The opposing influ- 
 ences of different periods of life ; of the extravagance of youth, the 
 prudence of middle, and the savingness of old age ; of narrow means 
 and of ample ; of a sinall and a large family, and of many other cir- 
 cumstances in which circulators are placed by her arrangenients, 
 co-operate along with her, in producing the same happy effect. 
 But unfortunately, she is too often fettered by the pragmatical folly of 
 legislatures^ corporations, &c., that check her by their unwise and 
 frequently absurd regulations and restrictions, in her endeavour to 
 maintain the due equilibrium between capitalists and expenders, or 
 the suppliers and demanders, so highly beneficial to all. 
 
 And, " with reference to the effects on national wealth," if all 
 circulators, whatever be their lines of employment, or whether they 
 be savers of part of their income, or expenders of the whole on 
 necessaries, comforts, and luxuries, be productive of wealth to the 
 amount of that income, as they are supposed on the productive 
 system, and as they certainly are in real life, it must be better for 
 the saver. The reason is obvious. They will all be more capable 
 
 ' To prevent repetition, I subjoin the fiveleading principles of circulation, 
 as found constantly operating in real life: 
 
 1. What is income to one, is, according to the arrangement of Nature, the source 
 of employment and income to others. 
 
 Tlie power of reproduction thus depends entirely on the power of production, and 
 is alwai/s equal to it. 
 
 2. The process of the production of wealth is carried on by charging and coun- 
 ter-charging. 
 
 3. The more various the classes, the richer vmst they all, or the community, he. 
 
 4. The demand regulates the supply, as fur as this is depou/ent on the will. It, 
 of course, also regulates the number of the various classes of suppliers. 
 
 5. The quantum of profitable chargeability dependsuniformly more or less upon 
 the relative state of the demand and the supply. " Happiness of States," pp. vi. 
 and 600.
 
 39^ Mr. S. Gray's Remarks [8r 
 
 of continuing to employ him, and more largely also, than if the one 
 half of them tended to render the other poorer. 
 
 THE CASE OF MENIAL SERVANTS, &C. 
 
 Smith, and the defenders of his fanciful distinctions about pro- 
 ductive and unproductive labor, lay great stress on the case of me- 
 nial servants in support of these. It has been shown, in the " Hap- 
 piness of States,"' that their circumstances, far from giving any real 
 support to any such distinctions, prove the contrary. 
 
 You do not seem to have examined v^hat has been there said on 
 the subject. I shall, therefore, here examine what you say. 
 
 " If the labor of menial servants be as productive of wealth as 
 the labor of manufacturers, why," you argue, " should not savings 
 be employed in their maintenance, not only without being dissipat- 
 ed, but with a constant increase of value ? " p. 32, 
 
 To be as productive of wealth, depends upon their respective 
 profits or incomes. But they are as reallif productive. T'or, by 
 supplying that portion of wealth or human comfort, which is called 
 service, they obtain an income; and either by expending the whole, 
 or by expending a part and saving a part, they become demanders 
 to the whole amount, or partly demanders and partly suppliers; — 
 the latter, either by employing their capital in certain lines them- 
 selves, or by lending it to others to employ it. Further, according 
 to the third principle of circulation, this portion of population, 
 which is a very numerous one, probably near, if not above, two 
 millions in Great Britain, from being drawn from the other por- 
 tions, enable the latter to obtain a greater average amount of em- 
 ployment, and more profitable prices, than had they remained 
 among them. Consider first, the vast influence, which withdrawing 
 about the one-sixth or seventh part of population into an additional 
 class, must have in favor of the other classes ; and, next, the depress- 
 ing and impoverishing influence, which throwing back such a mass 
 on these, to become suppliers in their own lines, would produce. 
 1 think you will then admit, that the great and profitable difference, 
 arising to a nation from the former arrangement of Nature, is much 
 more than sufficient to meet the charge made on the national fund 
 for them. For, by the second principle of circulation, as service 
 forms an item in the price of things, they are as fully charged for 
 by the manufacturer, or any other supplier who employs them, as 
 
 » B. ii. ch. 3. p. 52 — 56; See likewise *' All Classes productive of Na- 
 tional Wealth." p. 44— 4T, and 260—263,
 
 9] on the Production of Wealth. 393 
 
 those persons whom he employs to fabricate the articles^ by means 
 of which he draws his income from others. 
 
 I trust you can now " understand in what sense," and how truly 
 " it can be said that," in the theoretical dialect of Smith's school, 
 ** menial servants annually reproduce the capital that feeds them;" 
 (p. 33.) or, in plainer and more practical language, render the 
 nation richer than if no such employment as service existed. 
 
 And, did the nature of what these menials deal in, allow their 
 master *' to employ savings in their maintenance without being" 
 as you term it " dissipated," it would tend to impoverish, not to 
 enrich, the community. It is this very dissipation that renders this 
 circulator productive: it is one of the means, by which he returns to 
 others what he had drawn from them, as will be presently noticed 
 more particularly. 
 
 You here commit the error almost uniformly committed by the 
 members of the various unproductive schools, in discussing this 
 subject. You compare the manufaclurer, in one part of his charac- 
 ter, as a circulator, or as a seller, with himself in the other part of 
 it, or as a buyer. 
 
 In the case you have put, that description of circulators is consi- 
 dered, which draws its income by employing the exertions of others ; 
 such as farmers, master-manufacturers, conveyancers, &c. Now 
 these people draw income from the other classes, by producing, 
 through the agency of persons whom they employ, the articles 
 which those other classes want; and they return it into circulation 
 again, partly by means of employing other persons to assist them 
 in procuring the comforts of life. 
 
 There is here an evident distinction between the functions of the 
 two sets of the employed. The function of the one is to assist 
 their employer to procure income: of the other, to assist him to 
 expend it. Did the latter also aid him in obtaining income, like 
 the former, that is, by drawing from the incomes of others, he 
 would be a robber of these; for he would take from his neighbours, 
 but return nothing Nature's arrangement is wiser than is this. 
 She is no unproductive economist. It is just, because tlie latter, or 
 menial servants, do not directly draw from others, but from him, 
 that they are the agents of returning to society what he drew bv 
 means of the former; and are, in their line, productive of wealth to 
 society. 
 
 " But," you add, " menial servants, lawyers, or physicians, who 
 save from their salaries, are fully aware that their savings would 
 immediately be dissipated again, if they were advanced to them- 
 selves, instead of being employed on the maintenance of persons of 
 a different description."
 
 394 Mr. S. Gray's Remarks [JO 
 
 You here again, like our other unproductives, confine yourself 
 to only a half-view of the subject. 
 
 Let us put a simihir case with respect to income circulators, or 
 to those who produce commodities for the employer to sell. . Let 
 us suppose tliat these commodities are brougiit to him, and are 
 kept by him, " without being dissipated." Will he or they grow 
 rich by having these articles advanced to themselves in form of 
 savings, or by heaping up the wheat, turnips, woollen cloth, muslins, 
 chairs, &c. which they have produced ? Certainly not. Such an 
 employer, and such employed persons would find that, by produc- 
 ing, they obtained no income. He would at length be deprived 
 even of the power of producing. His means vvouid be dissi- 
 pated. 
 
 How then does this supplier become productive? Just like the 
 menial servant, the lawyer, the clergyman, or any other circulator, 
 by drawing what the articles he deals in cost, with a profit, from 
 these and others who want the commodities supplied by him and 
 his assistants. He is thus rendered productive, not merely by 
 making an article, but by drawing the price of it from others. 
 The latter part is as essentially necessary to productiveness as the 
 former. And thus, this class of producers stand as absolutely in 
 need of others to render it productive, as any other class. ^ 
 
 In a word; your productive employer, like all other persons, 
 must become a complete circulator, drawing with one hand, and 
 returning with another; that is, alternately employing as seller and 
 buyer, " difl'erent descriptions of persons," before he can be produc- 
 tive of wealth to the community. 
 
 Did [ not think I had shown, that your argument for the unpro- 
 ductiveness of menial servants, was completely set aside by the 
 very nature of productive circulation, I might urge, that the cir- 
 cumstance which you consider as rendering them unproductive, 
 would degrade others, whom you admit to be productive, to the rank 
 of unproductive also. For example, the master-builders, furnishers, 
 painters, &c., and their men, who are employed in erecting and fur- 
 nishing manufacturing houses, would be productive; while those 
 employed in building and furnishing houses for mere residence, 
 who form at least nine-tenths of this very numerous class, would 
 be unproductive. Even that portion of corn, of cattle, of clothing, 
 which was applied to the use of these menials and other unproduc- 
 tive classes, would also be fairly considered to have their produc- 
 tiveness neutralised, if not destroyed, by the same impoverishing 
 connection. Indeed, it is difficult to say where this infection of 
 unproductiveness among circulators would stop. 
 
 » " Happiness of States," p. 598.
 
 11] on the Production of Wealth. 395 
 
 But in real life, whetlier a reference be made to direct employ- 
 ment, or the means of income given to the other classes, or to capi- 
 tal, menials and the other improductive circulators of Smith are as 
 really productive as cuhivators and maiiufaclurers. The latter, as 
 we have seen, like the former, could produce neither income nor 
 capital but by having recourse to circulators of a different descrip- 
 tion; but, by means of these, they obtain both. 
 
 With respect to capital in particular, the menial and other un- 
 productive classes of Smith, are eminently useful to his productive 
 classes. These, or the dealers in the more necessary articles, 
 generally require much capital to carry on their supplies: the others 
 require little. Thus, what the latter accumulate is almost all 
 available to the former.' This is one of the reasons, why, in a 
 very populous society, though the average demand for capital 
 be greatly increased, yet the average supply of it is still greater. 
 For, in such a state of society, those classes which accumulate 
 much capital, but require little themselves, bear a much higher 
 proportion (and this constantly increasing also) to the others, than 
 in a thinly-peopled State. 
 
 Here I cannot omit noticing another beautiful instance of the 
 benevolent intention of Nature, in her arrangements, to render 
 the various classes subservient to the advantage of one another; 
 though oureconomistical systems would represent them as mutually 
 injurious. 
 
 DOES THE PRODUCTIVE SYSTEM CONFOUND THE FUNC- 
 TIONS OF WORKING MANUFACTURERS AND MENIALS? 
 
 " To consider the expenditure of the unproductive laborers of 
 Adam Smith," you proceed to observe " as advances made to 
 themselves, and of the same nature as the advances of the master- 
 manufacturer to his workmen, would be at once to confound the 
 very useful and just distinction between those who live upon wages, 
 and those who live upon profits, and would render it quite im- 
 possible to explain the frequent and important operations of saving 
 from revenue to add to capital, so absolutely necessary to the con- 
 tinued increase of wealth." p, 33. 
 
 But who confounds such a distinction ? Or how is it necessary 
 to assume what is contrary to fact; that the one class tends to im- 
 poverish, and the other to enrich, in order to distinguish these two 
 descriptions of circulators ? Their respective functions are not only 
 more correctly, but more clearly distinguished and characterised on 
 
 ' " Happiness of States," p. 610. " All Classes Productive," p. 96.
 
 396 Mr. S. Gray's Remarks [I2 
 
 the productive, than on the unproductive system. They are classed 
 in the fornier with respect to their master, just as they are found 
 in real life; or as income circulators and expenditure circulators. 
 By the former, as has been already observed, lie draws income from 
 others; and by the latter, he returns it again to others. 13olh per- 
 form essential parts in the creation of wealth; and are alike effec- 
 tive m carrying on the process of production and reproduction. 
 Yet they are as distinguishable as the oue part of every circulator's 
 character is from the other; or, as his selling function is from his 
 buying. 
 
 If by " saving from revenue to add to capital," it be intended 
 here to insinuate an essential distinction between the capital saved 
 from profits, and that saved from wages or from salaries, it is only 
 one of the usual ex parte misconceptions in Smith's school. In 
 proportion to the amount of income, probably, more capital is 
 saved from the latter than from the former; and it produces the 
 same results with respect to the creation of wealth. 
 
 It may, indeed, be impossible to explain certain theoretical ima- 
 ginations about the process of creating wealth on the unproductive 
 systems, without assuming an essential difference between classes 
 o/ circulators. But no such assumption is at all necessary to 
 explain Nature's process. 
 
 THE BALANCE OF THE ANNUAL PRODUCE 
 AND CONSUMPTION. 
 
 " Thirdly;" you say " it has been stated by Adam Smith, and 
 stated truly, that there is a balance very different from the balance 
 of trade, which, according as it happens to be favorable or unfavor- 
 able, occasions the prosperity or decay of every nation: this is the 
 balance of the annual produce and consumption." p. 34. 
 
 The balance of trade is not the present topic of discussion. It 
 will, therefore, be sufficient merely to observe, that a constant pro- 
 gressive balance of this kind, when applied to any State, in reference 
 to its connections with all others, is an unwarranted imagination.' 
 This misconception, though it seems to have been adnntted by 
 Adam Smith, is not peculiar to his system. 
 
 The balance of the annual produce and consumption,* as applied 
 to the internal employment or circulation of a country, is a miscon- 
 ception of a similar sort, and merely founded on his own erroneous 
 dogmas. Neither his reasoning, nor yours, seem at all warranted 
 
 ' " Happiness of States," p. 637. " All Classes Productive," p. 210. 
 ^ " Wealth of Nations," b. iv. ch. 3.
 
 13] on the Proditction of Wealth. 397 
 
 by really operating principles. If more be produced, either in par- 
 ticular lines, or in all, than the consumption or the demand can 
 take off, this circumstance, instead of enriching, will tend to impo- 
 verish the community ; and the impoverishing influence will be 
 according to the extent of the balance, but always in an increasing 
 ratio, the larger the over-produce, [n some cases, if the balance 
 be very great, it will prevent the suppliers from reproducing the 
 usual quantum, by so large an amount; or, in other words, it will 
 have so ruinous an effect on employment and prices, as to spread 
 distress throughout all our classes, except paid annuitants. 
 
 Of this we had a most impressive proof, in the highly productive 
 year 1818. This is allowed to have been one of the most produc- 
 tive years, both in natural and artificial produce, not only in this 
 country but all over the continents of Europe and North America, 
 known in the history of these countries. And have the results cor- 
 responded with Smith's reasonings or yours, or with those of the 
 productive system ? I leave the distress of all classes, during 1819, 
 (and which still continues) throughout all these countries, but par- 
 ticularly America and Great Britain, where the over-production 
 was greatest, to answer the question. 
 
 Population, though the circum!>t;inces have been unfavorable to 
 marriage, but from an influence opposite to that which you expect- 
 ed from this surplus produce, instead of going back, has been ra- 
 pidly increasing, even amid the distress. But with all the increase 
 in the den)and, which this necessarily brings, it has not been able 
 to restore the stimulus destroyed by the over-production. It has, 
 however, tended to render the distress less severe. It is, indeed, 
 what alone keeps us in a tolerable state. 
 
 " But," you add, " if this balance be so important; if upon it 
 depends the progressive, stationary, or declining state of a society, 
 suK.ly it must be of importance to distinguish those, who mainly 
 contribute to render this balance favorable, from those who chiefly 
 contribute to make the other scale preponderate." p. 34. 
 
 To suppose, that the progressive wealth of a country depended on 
 such a balance, is a proof among many, that Dr. Smith miscon- 
 ceived Nature's process in the production of wealth. That part of 
 the produce which is not consumed, or used, will reproduce 
 nothing. For it is only a demand from the consumers or users, for 
 the whole, which can render the whole really productive: that is, 
 reproductive of employment fully to its amount. The surplus 
 balance, as has been already noticed, will render even that part for 
 which there is a demand, much less reproductive, than it would 
 have been, had the supply been just equal to the consumption.
 
 398 Mr. S. Gray's Remarks [U 
 
 THE CAUSES OF A NATION S PROGRESS IN WEALTH. 
 
 '* Without some such distinction," you affirm, " we shall not be 
 able to trace the causes why one nation is thriving and another is 
 declining: and the superior riches of those countries, where mer- 
 chants and manufacturers abound, compared with those in which 
 the retainers of a court, and an overgrown aristocracy predominate, 
 will not admit of an intelligible explanation." p. 34. 
 
 The florishing or declining of a State depends on many circum- 
 stances, both natural and artificial, local and general. The great 
 pre-disposing as well as immediate cause of a nation's florishing — 
 of course, at present, we have the rapid production of wealth parti- 
 cularly in view, for the question at issue respects that — is the in- 
 crease of population; and the more powerful causes which operate 
 the same way, all tend to promote this increase. The reverse is 
 true of a declining State. 
 
 A spirit of industry, enterprise, and speculation, quickens circula- 
 tion, and augments emploT/ment, which, whatever be its form, is the 
 great medium of income, capital, and wealth. On the other hand, 
 a spirit of indolence, supineness, business-timidity, produces a con- 
 trary result. Where merchants and manufacturers, who are eminently 
 inspired with the commercial spirit, abound, enterprise and specu- 
 lation will be found to be going on with vigor; unless when check- 
 ed by occasional over-supplies or the pragmatical intermeddlings 
 of rulers. But where they do not, there will be found a deficiency 
 of exertion, and a proneness to remain satisfied with what has been 
 already attained. Still the various classes, in the latter communi- 
 ties, are as really productive of wealth as in the former, though 
 not so copiously: that is, they all contribute to produce more em- 
 ployment and better incomes to one another, than would exist were 
 any of them to be thrown into the other lines. 
 
 1 should like to know, where is the country in Europe, or out of 
 it, in which there is so much wealth as in England, and yet where, 
 in the dialect of a certain school, there is such a vast or over- 
 grown aristocracy, or where there are more retainers on the aristo- 
 cracy or on government. If we compare London with Edinburgh 
 or Dublin, we shall see what the retainers of a court and a rich 
 aristocracy create, and what an amount of additional employment 
 and income, to the various classes, they afford. 
 
 1 shall listen with great attention also, to any of our unproduc- 
 tives, who will point out a period in the history of Great Britain, 
 in which those persons whom they call productive, were principally
 
 IS] on the Production of Wealth. 399 
 
 the actors, while their unproductive folks had no particular 
 augmentation, and yet in which she made so rapid an advance in 
 wealth, as between 1792 and 1815, when those whom they are 
 pleased to call unproductive members increased in a ratio that 
 perhaps knows no precedent. Let them likewise, at the same time, 
 point out a period, in which their productive classes were delivered 
 from such a demand on their purse, by the dismissing of so many 
 hundred thousand persons from the unproductive lines, as in con- 
 sequence of the peace of 1815, and yet in which those productive 
 classes of theirs suffered such a reduction in the means of ob- 
 taining employment and income, or in their power of producing 
 wealth. 
 
 With regard to the progress in national wealth, whatever tends, 
 directly or indirectly, to give more employment and better prices to 
 a nation, must tend to enrich that nation, or to promote its progress 
 in the acquisition and accumulation of wealth. Thus, whatever 
 augments or diminishes the demand, will assist or check a nation 
 in this progress. As for the supply, that will always rise with fa- 
 cility to the amount of the demand ; except in cases where Nature 
 has set limits, universal or local, or meddling statesmen have inter- 
 posed their foolish restraints. 
 
 An increase of circulators in a nation, that is, of population,' is 
 the grand predisposing, as well as immediate cause, of the increase 
 of national wealth. The new members add to the demand by 
 means of their wants. And, as population becomes more dense, 
 the constant accumulation of capital and creation of new wants, 
 which result from the extension of the demand, both multiply the sub- 
 divisions of classes, and render all greater expanders and, of course, 
 reproducers, than according to the former average proportions. 
 The styles of living, among all classes, keep gradually growing more 
 expensive, by comprehending a greater variety of articles. These 
 are necessarily charged for : and, as this greater variety of articles 
 creates a greater demand for hands, by the third principle of circu- 
 lation, more employment and better prices must necessarily be the 
 result. 
 
 This is the uniform progress among all increasing national masses; 
 but the climate, the predominant natural wants and supplies, and 
 the influence of a liberal and energetic, or of a restrictive and indo- 
 lent government, &.C., will produce great differences in the amount 
 of the results, either as they operate favorably or unfavorably to- 
 wards augmenting the demand, or creating eniployment. 
 
 Unusual demands and stagnations will every now and then be 
 
 ' Both at home and among the nations that are its customers.
 
 400 Mr. S. Gray*s Remarks [15 
 
 taking place, and either quicken or retard the natural rate of pro- 
 gress. 
 
 Stagnation, the source of so much distress, and to which our 
 attention is so strongly called at present, is uniformly the result of 
 over-snpp/i/irig, and is but too powerful a mean of counteracting 
 the influence of the principles of circulation. It springs, either 
 from some falling off in the demand, from a change of circum- 
 stances, as from war to peace ; or from an over-produce, either in 
 the supplies of Nature or of men ; for the influence of both is the 
 same. And whatever be the rate of the increase of our population, 
 it is occasionally to be expected. 
 
 But, excepting these stagnations, if a nation increases in popula- 
 tion, and if it be strong enough to protect itself from its enemies, 
 its progress in wealth will be certain. There will be an annual 
 increase in the demand : and at the end of a given number of 
 years, say of five or ten, from the causes assigned it will be found 
 to be richer than in the preceding five or ten years ; that is, it will 
 have more employment and better prices. Consequently, the sum 
 total of the incomes of its circulators, or of their means of procur- 
 /ing the various articles which wealth can purchase, will be greater. 
 
 " If a taste for idle retainers, and a profusion of menial servants, 
 had continued among the great land-holders of Europe, from the 
 feudal times to the present, the wealth of its different kingdoms 
 would have been very different from what it now is." p. 34. 
 
 This taste still exists ; and most generally and strongly in the 
 richest countries. The great reason why our ancestors in the 
 feudal times were poorer, was, because they were less populous, and 
 because, from the destructive effects of civil war, and other causes, 
 population scarcely increased at all. 
 
 "Adam Smith" you say " has justly stated, that the growing taste 
 of our ancestors, for material conveniences and luxuries, instead of 
 personal services, was the main cause of the change." p. S5, 
 
 The increase of population, which at length, from a greater 
 degree of internal tranquillity and other causes, began to be steady 
 and to attain some degree of rapidity, and the increase of wealth 
 and civilization, which uniformly flow from the former, gradually 
 effected the beneficial change. 
 
 " Personal services " you assert ^* neither require nor generate 
 capital. " p. 35. 
 
 This will depend on circumstances : and it is not the fact in 
 real life generally. All capitalists who employ servants, pay them 
 by means of the profits derived from capital. Those servants, 
 again, who save, generate capital. * By purchasing commodities 
 
 » " Happiness of States. " p. 55.
 
 17] on the Production of Wealth, 401 
 
 froin the other classes, they also assist such members of these as 
 chouse to save, in the accumulation of capital, like any other cirr 
 culators. 
 
 Even the great feudal lords, though the division of employ- 
 ments in their thinly-peopled and turbulent times was very imper- 
 fect, could not have fed, clothed, lodged, and armed their retainers, 
 without landed-capital at least. And theso very retainers also 
 enabled those who supplied their warlike employers with what 
 they wanted, to accumulate capital. 
 
 As to the division of society " into two classes " chielly, that of 
 the lord and the vassal — the very rich and the very poor — it is the 
 natural result of a very thin and stationary condition of population. 
 The increase of numbers tends to destroy this inequality. And 
 ** in proportion as population accumulates, there are new ranks 
 and classes formed, till in a thick population there is no hiatus 
 left at all. "« 
 
 " i ani hardly aware, "you add, " how the causes of the increas- 
 ing riches and prosperity of Europe, since the feudal times, could 
 be traced, if we were to consider personal services as equally 
 productive of wealth with the labors of merchants and maimfac- 
 turers. " p. 3o. 
 
 Equally productive, I have to observe again, depends on the 
 quantum of income. The question at issue is — Are tliey as really 
 productive ? And they certainly are. The truth is, that so far 
 from the superior wealth of the present highly populous state of 
 Europe being derived from there being fewer persons retained as 
 servants, than in the thinly-peopled and feudal times, it is partly 
 derived from there being a greater number of menials employed, 
 according to the third principle of circulation. We have no lords 
 now, who have such a number of retainers as the few great feudal 
 barons ; but the proportion of servants to the whole population is 
 much greater. The class now is found in almost every house, 
 from the palace to the cottage. 
 
 In all popidous and rich countries, servants form at least the 
 fourth division, in point of number. And it may be queried, 
 whether, in England, this division is not more numerous than that 
 employed in building and furnishing houses, or that employed in 
 supplying clothing; and stands the second, or next to the division 
 of cultivators, in np country of blurope, I believe, is there so 
 high a propoprtion of servants. And why .? jiecause she is the 
 richest. And this proportion, far from impoverishing her, tends 
 to render her still more rich. It is alternately cause and effect, 
 in the production of additipnal wealili. 
 
 • "The Principles of Population and Production invcsligated. " p. 373. 
 " Happiness of States," b. ii. cb. 6. 
 
 VOL. XVU. i\m. KO. XXXJV. 2C
 
 402 ' Mr. S. Gray's Remarks [18 
 
 A considerable portion of the lowest ranks, it is true, does not 
 keep regular servants. But most families, even of these, detain 
 one of their children at least, to a certain age, to assist as a servant, 
 who would otherwise get employment by supplying the place of 
 some other person. And probably most families, even in the middle 
 classes, have two or more servants. The aggregate number of 
 menials, of different descriptions, male and female, kept by our 
 very numerous gentry and nobility, rich merchants, manufacturers, 
 bankers, lawyers, &,c., alone, far exceeds that of the retainers of the 
 great barons. Including even Wales and Scotland, our servants 
 cannot be taken much under one a family : certainly not less than 
 the one-seventh of our population, or about two millions. Now 
 is it at all probable, that the menials of Britain, in the feudal times, 
 bore any such proportion to the then population ? * 
 
 MORE PRODUCTIVE AND LESS PRODUCTIVE. 
 
 As to " the substitution of the terms more productive and less 
 productive, for those of productive and unproductive, " p. 38, 
 I have to observe, that this is, even in point of terms, to abandon 
 the unproductive system altogether. 
 
 More or less productive can only be applied to all individuals 
 and classes, or to all the peculiar modes of employment by which 
 they are enabled to draw on the general fund, or obtain income 
 upon the productive system : and such designations are perfectly 
 correct on Nature's plan. That all classes are really productive 
 of wealth, and that all species of employments, by which men 
 obtain income, are the medium of real production, is true. But 
 it is also as true, that individuals and classes, and their modes of 
 employment, are more or less productive, according to circumstan- 
 ces. 
 
 When we compare classes as to their quantum of productive- 
 ness, we must take " into consideration the numerousness of the 
 circulators in the classes, their average rates of charging, their 
 influence, direct or indirect, on the increase of population, 8cc." * 
 The employment M'hich cultivation yields, and that afforded by 
 music, are alike really productive of additional employment and 
 wealth. But no person would ever think of reckoning those 
 employed by music, whose income in this country, universally 
 fond of music as it now is, does not amount to a million a year, 
 
 * In addition to the subsistence and lodging which most of them 
 receive, and the clothing which is supplied to some of them, the money 
 part of their income amounts annually to many millions. And they save, 
 annually, a very considerable amount for capital. 
 
 ' See Mr. C's case of unproductiveness considered, "Happiness of States," 
 p. 665.
 
 19] on the Production of Wealth, 403 
 
 as productive as the cultivators, whose income, even in its present 
 reduced state, is between seventy and eighty millions. 
 
 Any other view of more or less productive, than as being more 
 or less directly productive of employment and income, or having 
 indirectly more or less influence on what produces both, is merely 
 fanciful : and it will be rejected at once by the practical Statisti- 
 cian. 
 
 THE CREATION OF WEALTH. 
 
 " It would be incorrect," you say," to assert that the iinproduc- 
 ^ire laborers of Adam Smith necessarily create the wealth which pays 
 them." p. 44. 
 
 I need only ask here, in what respect do the /?7'0(/Mt7 /re laborers 
 of Adam Smith create wealth, in which his unproductive laborers 
 do not ? How do the former obtain income and wealth but from 
 the pockets of others, like the latter? And how are they capable 
 of paying others, but by charging, like them, by means of what 
 they sell, on the common fund ? 
 
 1 would have you, and all other inquirers concerning productive- 
 ness in point of wealth, to put the questions which will very na- 
 turally arise in the mind of a reflecting person, and which it is 
 indispensably necessary to answer, before we can come to a satisfac- 
 tory conclusion on the very important subject. *' Bi/ whom 
 is any circulator , or class of circulators, paid? Aud how 
 are the payers enabled to pay him, or them ?" ' 
 
 1 shall be very happy to hear the plain practical answer to these 
 questions, which you give to yourself, without any theoretical 
 fancies or classifications. 
 
 CLEEKS IN PRIVATE AND PUBLIC ESTABLISHMENTS. 
 
 1 notice your answer to the observation of Monsieur Gamier 
 respecting the " inconsistency of denominating the clerk of a mer- 
 chant a productive laborer, and a clerk employed by the govern- 
 ment, who may in some cases have precisely the same kind of 
 business to do, an unproductive laborer," (p. 46.) because it 
 involves a principle. 
 
 Whether such a distinction be inconsistent with Adam Smith's 
 own notions, I do not consider to be worth the trouble of inquir- 
 ing; for what is of nmch more importance, it is inconsistent with 
 facts. 
 
 ' " All Classes Productive," p. 100.
 
 404* Mr. S. Gray's Remarks [20 
 
 Your answer is, that there is less economy in public establish- 
 ments, both with respect to the dumber of clerks and the amount of 
 their salaries. The correctness of this observation, as to the present 
 public establishments, will be questioned by those best acquainted 
 Avitb them. But let it be so assumed. The greater number of 
 the clerks of public offices, instead of impoverishing, will tend, by 
 the third principle of circulation, to give more employment and bet- 
 ter prices to the other classes; and their higher income, by the 
 first, will render them greater reproducers. 
 
 THE SOURCE OF WEALTH. 
 
 I have looked in vain for your pointing out the quality or circum- 
 stances of employment, or of the articles produced by it, which you 
 considered to be the source of wealth or productiveness. You have 
 not suifered the shining object in prospect — the fame that will ne- 
 cessarily accrue to the Statistician, who really discovers that grand 
 desideratum in statistics, to tempt you to name it. In this you have 
 been more prudent than either Quesnay, Adam Smith, or Say. By 
 fixing on this quality, they enabled the inquirer to ascertain how far 
 facts supported their nomination : and inquiry has proved fatal to 
 the dogmas of all the three on the subject ; andl believe, will con- 
 tinue to prove fatal to all who attempt to find this important proper- 
 ty on the unproductive side.' 
 
 Smith's nomination was long implicitly received ; but his disci- 
 ples are now beginning to be ashamed of openly defending his fun- 
 
 ' As to " the exertion which produces a pair of stockings, whether they 
 are knit by a lady for her amusement, or made by a regular stocking wea- 
 ver," p. 41, its productive influence does not depend on the circumstances of 
 an actual payment for the stockings taking place in the one case, and not 
 in the other. Both the lady and the stocking weaver are suppliers of an 
 article for wearing. The lady and the weaver must alike purchase the ma- 
 terials. Then a difference takes place. If the lady makes them for her own 
 use, or gives them to another, she diminishes the demand on the regular 
 suppliers of stockings, and so far has an injurious influence on them. But, 
 on the other hand, she saves the making; and herself, or the person to whom 
 they are given, having fewer stockings to buy, find the means left of purchas- 
 ing more of some other article. The stocking weaver, again, sells the stock- 
 ings to a customer for a price, and by this price procures the means of re- 
 producing for himself, while for the time he deprives his customer of the 
 means of purchasing some other commodity. 
 
 Both kinds of supplying have evidently similar effects on circulation, and 
 both are ■productive. But that will be most productive, which, including all 
 the influences, direct and indirect, tends most, in the circle, to increase employ^ 
 ment and improve prices.
 
 2l] on the Production of Wealth. 405 
 
 damental dogma. They are not willing to give it up ; yet they 
 dare not, in the face of the decisive reasonings on the side of the 
 productive system, boldly avow a belief of it. And I repeat here 
 what I have already said of this dogma ; on which he has built the 
 detestable system, which teaches tliat, by the arrangements of Na- 
 ture, nearly the half of the human race is degraded to pnupers: is 
 constrained to subsist by consuming the wealth which the other 
 creates ; that is, by plundering them : *' This notion, thuugh not so 
 grossly, is as really absurd, as if he had made the productiveness of 
 articles to be derived from their possessing a green color, while 
 those that were of the other colors zcere unproductive."^ 
 
 A RECAPITULATION. 
 
 1 have now, reverend Sir, to observe, that I conceive you have 
 not succeeded in establishing any distinction between the various 
 classes of circulators, which would at all justify us in using the 
 terms productive of wealth to some, and unproductive \.o others, as 
 implying a natural difference. They are all alike assistants to one 
 another in the production of wealth, and render one anotlier more 
 jtroductive than they would be, were any of them withdrawn from 
 society. 
 
 With respect to grounding any essential distinction on saving in 
 order to accumulate capital, were this made the criterion, all clas- 
 ses would be productive as well as nnproductive. There is no class, 
 in which a portion (and perhaps, speaking comparatively, a pretty 
 fair average portion) of its members does not save ; and there is 
 no class in which more than a portion saves. Indeed, in some of 
 those classes reckoned unproductive by Adam Smith and other 
 Economists, there is probably rather a greater proportion of mem- 
 bers who save, than in some of the productive. Besides, as we 
 have seen, their capital is more available to the other classes than 
 the capital saved in the latter. 
 
 Such a criterion, or that of saving, is even incompatible with the 
 distinctions of our unproductive systems. It would not come up to 
 the ideas of the productive system, but still it is not so irreconcilable 
 to it. All classes save; and therefore, all must be productive. 
 The distinction of saving, is thus utterly inconsistent with the theory 
 of the natural unproductiveness of certain kinds of employment. 
 
 But were we to waive this theoretical inconsistency, facts show, 
 that the principle implied does not exist in Nature. For how is sav- 
 ing rendered productive ? By confining its operation to the saver I 
 
 ' " Happiness of States," p. xx.
 
 406 Mr. S. Gray's Remarks [22 
 
 Certainly not. He who saves in order to become more productive, 
 or to employ his saving for profit, can only obtain the additional 
 profit by draz&irig more largely from others. 
 
 The other reasons urged by you, for keeping up the classification 
 of productive and unproductive, are founded on a comparison of 
 certain classes, in the character of sellers and suppliers, with others 
 in the character of buyers and denianders. A classification so 
 formed must necessarily be imperfect and incorrect. Far from 
 tending to assist the student, in attaining a knowledge of Nature's 
 processes in the production and accumulation of wealth, it is only 
 calculated to mislead him. 
 
 Smith, and all our other unproductives have fallen into a similar 
 error. Indeed, this fundamental mistake has probably been a chief 
 mean of bewildering them in so many other points. 
 
 If now, instead of comparing a seller, in any of the classes which 
 Smith calls unproductive, not with a buyer, but a seller in any of 
 those called by him productive, you will find there is no distinction 
 whatever, in the nature of the influence which they have on the 
 principles of circulation, or the actual process m creating and ac- 
 cunmlating wealth, or in the nature of the influence of those princi- 
 ples, or of that process, on them as circulators. All alike charge on 
 others for what they produce or sell, and are paid by these others, 
 and of course draw their income or profits from them ; while the 
 latter are enabled to pay them, and procure income or profit in 
 the circle, by counter-charging. 
 
 Our unproductives in general seem to conceive, that there is 
 something essentially different between a man who obtains an in- 
 come by employing others, and expends it by employing others, 
 and a man who procures his income by his own exertions, and ex- 
 pends it entirely himself. But there is no difference in reality. It 
 is only, as it were, an extension of the double character of every 
 circulator as a seller and buyer in one.' 
 
 The persons whom he employs in order to be able to sell, only 
 enable him to perform the first part of the character more efficiently 
 and extensively ; and those whom he employs in expending achieve 
 the same thing with respect to the second part. By both sorts he 
 only, as it were, repeats himself. And it is equally improper to 
 call the first set of persons productive, and the latter unproductive, 
 as it would be to call the employer productive by the act of selling, 
 and by that means drawing income from others, and unproductive 
 by the act of expending, or of returning income to others : that is, 
 a productive and unproductive circulator in one. 
 
 Nor is there the least necessity, in order to promote the progress 
 
 ' " Happiness of States." p. 54.
 
 23] on the Production of Wealth. 407 
 
 of science, to have recourse to this impropriety, to use no stronger 
 word. The terms adopted in developing the productive system, 
 and which are forced upon the candid observer by the things them- 
 selvej=, are perfectly suthcient. Every man in procuring nicome or 
 the means of living, or in carrying on the process of ^<ature in the 
 production of employment and wealth, or the universal business of 
 circulation, is a circulator — and a circulator in two ways — whether 
 he does, or he does not employ persons to aid him : 1. By supply- 
 ing or selling something to others; and 2. By procuring or buying 
 something from others. If he employs persons in both these func- 
 tions, on this theory, they are distinguished as in real life; the for- 
 mer as income circulators, the latter as expenditure circulators. 
 But both, with respect to themselves, are just what he is, in the 
 great business of circulators, sellers and buyers in one. 
 
 These terms merely point out actual functions, which nobody 
 disputes. They may be used as well by Economists of the diffe- 
 rent sects, as i3y Statisticians. But the terms productive and un- 
 productive, while they assume the very thing that is in question, 
 have such different meanings annexed to them by theorists, that 
 they are only calculated to bewilder and mislead. 
 
 DR. ADAM smith's IDEAS OF UNPRODUCTIVENESS, 
 
 Yon seem to take for granted, that in defending the doctrine of 
 productiveness in some classes and unproductiveness in others, you 
 are maintaining the theory of Dr. Smith. But the ideas which you 
 annex to these terms are quite different from his. Your distinc- 
 tion, as far as I understand it, is rather a nominal one, for the pur- 
 pose of classification, or explaining certain processes in the produc- 
 tion of wealth. But his is essential, and of the most vital impor- 
 tance. 
 
 That he has completely failed in his attempt to prove that some 
 classes in society naturally live upon others, and consume or de- 
 stroy the wealth which those others create, is my decided opi- 
 nion. His ideas respecting this creating, and wasting or consumin 
 of wealth, are also crude, fanciful, and even sometimes niconsistent. 
 But there can be no doubt that he does maintain, that certain classes 
 create wealth, and, of course, enrich a state : while others consume 
 wealth, and thus impoverish a nation : and that he distinguishes 
 the former by the title productive, and the latter by the title unpro- 
 ductive. Every person admits this. Indeed, the whole of his pe- 
 culiar theory is built upon this essential difference between classes 
 or between kinds of what he caWs labor. 
 
 This doctrine, universally received as it is, by those who consider 
 themselves supporters of Smith's unproductive theory, 1 expected 
 you would either have fully and distinctly maintained, particularly
 
 408 Mr. S. Gray's Remarks [24 
 
 after the discussions that have taken place in the endeavour to show 
 that llie productive system, which is directly opposed to itj is the 
 real system of Nature ; or else have fairly rejected. But far from 
 defending this fundamental doctrine of Smidi's school, you in re- 
 ality abandon it, as if untenable. And yet you would retain the 
 name, while you give up the thing signified. You have, in fact^ 
 left the productive system in full possession of the lit Id of truth. 
 
 The doctrine of Smith, however unintelligible by the modes in 
 which it has been supported, is in itself very intelligible. It is a 
 practical doctrine, constantly in the mouths, and attended to in 
 the measures of its abettors. And if it be really founded on Na* 
 ture's arrangements, no modification can soften it, or doit away. 
 
 THE PRODUCTIVE SYSTEM. 
 
 Neither is the distinction between his system and the pro-* 
 ductive the mere result of a different classification. The difference 
 is real, essential, and of the most vital importance, l^he peculiar 
 doctrines of the latter are also positive ; and, unless they can be 
 set aside, as unwarranted by facts, the systems of Smith, and all other 
 unproductives, are untrue ; and the terms productive and unproduc- 
 tive, as applied to classes or modes of employment, are utterly im- 
 proper. 
 
 According to the productive system, what Smith imagines has a 
 tendency to impoverish, tends uniformly, in real life, by the arrange- 
 ments of Nature, to enrich. The classes reckoned unproductive by 
 Economists, whatever be the sect, so far from living on the 
 other classes and consuming and wasting their wealth or means 
 of income, render these more wealthy than they could be with- 
 out them. According to it, all classes are productive of wealth 
 to themselves and the community, for precisely the same reasons. 
 By the first principle of circulation they all reproduce to one 
 another, by means of what they buy, the amount which each draws. 
 They countercharge on one another by what they sell, agreeably to 
 the second. Being withdrawn from one another's lines according 
 to the third principle, they leave for those in the various lines 
 more employment and better prices. And they are all alike under 
 control of the demand by the fourth principle. 
 
 According to it, the source of wealth is found, not in the form or 
 character of the articles by which classes derive income, nor in the 
 mode in which it is drawn, as the Economists suppose ; but in their 
 chargeabilily, or their being the medium of price. And the amount 
 of this chargeability is the measure of their productiveness.
 
 25] OJi the Production of Wealth. 409 
 
 And it deduces from tiiis the great practical corollary, that what- 
 ever tends to create employment and to raise average prices, tends 
 to enrich a yiation ; and whatever tends to diminish employment 
 or reduce average prices, tends to impoverish it. 
 
 All these doctrines have been confirmed by an appeal to the prin- 
 ciples perpetually operating in real life, and to their uniform results. 
 The various doctrines of the unproHuctives, on these fundamental 
 points, have also been distinctly examined in detail, and found to 
 be not merely unsupported by facts, but contrary to them. 
 
 Why then has not the same thing been attempted, in endeavouring 
 to support the unproductiveness of certain classes, and the doctrines 
 of the productive system distinctly set aside ? Why has it not been 
 shown, that there is something in the form or character of an ar- 
 ticle, or of employment, or in the mode of charging, essentially ne- 
 cessary to the process of creating wealth ; and without which the 
 actual chargeability, or price, will not of itself produce wealth. 
 
 The errors of our Economists, on this fundamental point, may be 
 traced to their seeking for the wealth-producing power m the form 
 or character of the article^ or the mode of exchanging it, instead of 
 its price.' 
 
 It seems self-evident, that the quantum of reproduction de- 
 pends on the quantum of chargeability or price : or, that the re- 
 production of employment, which will take place, will correspond 
 with the amount of the price only, whatever be the form or charac- 
 ter of the article, or the mode of exchanging. The quality of 
 actual chargeability or price, therefore, must be the wealth-produc- 
 ing quality ; that is, the source of wealth. 
 
 But if not, why is it not distinctly shown, that the first principle 
 of circulation is not real ; for reproduction will be equal to pro- 
 duction in some articles only ? Or,, why is it not shown to be un- 
 true, that wealth can only be derived or kept up, according to the 
 second principle, by charging and countercharging; for individuals, 
 classes, and nations, can continue to use certain articles without 
 making a charge for them in the average prices f Why also, is it 
 not shown that the third principle, or that from varying the classes, 
 or, which is the same thing, multiplying the articles used, there must 
 
 » In populous and civilised societies, even in cxclianging article against 
 article, monied price is almost universally had recourse to; but monied price 
 is not necessary to real chargeability. For whether a circulator obtains what 
 he wants, by giving so much of what he has to dispose of, for su much of 
 the former, without setting a monied value on each, or by means of that 
 readier mode of exchanging, chargeability equally takes place. In the former 
 case, he charges so much of what he wants from iiis customer, far so much 
 v( what bis customer wants from him.
 
 410 Mr. S. Gray's Remarks [26 
 
 necessarily be an increase of the demand; and that more employment 
 and better prices must be the result, is false : for, on the other hand, 
 by diminishing the number of employments, or the quantity of 
 articles used ; that is, by lessening the demand, and increasing the 
 supply, and so overstocking the classes, they will all obtain more 
 employment and better prices? Nothing short of this will shake the 
 productive system ; and till it is done by those who expressly treat 
 of these matters, we are warranted in supposing that it is not at- 
 tempted, because they perceive it cannot be done. 
 
 Of late, those who would prop the unproductive system (I am 
 certainly disposed to think, fron) feeling the force of the facts appealed 
 to, and of the reasonings from them, on the side of the productive) 
 have gradually retired farther and farther from the plain intelligible 
 doctrine of Smith : that certain classes live upon the others, and con- 
 sume more or less oj the wealth which others create. Every succeeding 
 attack on the doctrine of the productiveness of all classes, or of all 
 really additional employment, has become more and more feeble. 
 When expressly treating of the strange doctrine of Smith, the Econo- 
 mists of his school seem disposed to explain it away, by some mode 
 of classification or another, and yet they would retain its distinc- 
 tions. But though, in the act of establishing these distinctions, 
 they apparently abandon the thing signified, 1 observe also, they 
 afterwards take care to assume the doctrine, as if it had been fully 
 proved. 
 
 1 can have no objection to your endeavouring to establish a the- 
 oretic distinction of your own between classes, or modes of employ- 
 ment, in the process of the production of wealth, or to main- 
 tain Smith's. You have the same right to form a theory that 
 he had, or any other Statistician has. And it would ill be- 
 come me, in particular, who have made so ample an use of the 
 same right, to object to your doing what I have done myself. But 
 1 object to using the terms, which he applies to one doctrine, with 
 respect to another quite different, and yet arguing as if it was his. 
 If this be the doctrine of Nature, let it be openly and boldly de- 
 fended ; but if not, let it be as openly and boldly rejected.' 
 
 » With regard to your remarks on "estimating the value of Newton's 
 discoveries, or the delight communicated by Shakspeare and Milton, by the 
 price at which their works sold ; or the benefit which the country has derived 
 from the Revolution of 1688, by the pay of the soldiers and all other pay- 
 ments concerned in effecting it," (p. 49.) I have to observe, that to estimate 
 the productive value of these things by their effects on human happiness, is 
 to forget the meaning oi productivenes$, and to confound the clearest distinc- 
 tions. When we speak of tlie productiveness of an article, we mean the 
 income which it will yield, or its power of reproducing employment and in- 
 come. 
 
 To judge of the value of things by what is the tnie standard of value, both
 
 27] on the Production of Wealth. " 411 
 
 OBSERVATIONS ON SMITH's SYSTEM OF ECONOMISM. 
 
 You say, respecting the theory of this celebrated Economist, 
 *' Some such distinction" (of productive and iniproHuctive labor) 
 *' must be considered as so clearly the corner-stone of Adam Smith's 
 work, and the foundation on which the main body ot his reasonings 
 rests, that if it be denied, the superstructure, which he has raised 
 upon it, must fall to the ground. Of course, 1 do not menu to say 
 that his reasonings should not fall, if they are erroneous ; but it 
 appears to me in some degree inconsistent in those \\\\o allow of 
 no distinction in the different kinds of labor, to attribute any con- 
 siderable value to an inquiry into the nature and causes of the 
 wealth of nations, in which the increase of the quantity and skill, 
 of what is called productive labor, is the main hinge on which 
 the progress of national opulence and prosperity is made to turn." 
 p. 37. 
 
 This mode of arguing may have more influence, even in this en- 
 quiring age, than you intend. I am disposed to conjecture, that 
 nine-tenths of those who maintain the theory of Smith, which sup- 
 poses about one half of the human race to be constrained by Nature's 
 arrangements, to be plunderers of the other, have admitted it with- 
 out examination, merely because it is Smith's. What he has laid 
 down as a foundation then, must be sound and secure with them, 
 and the superstructure must be solid. 
 
 But leaving this view of the matter, I agree with you, that the 
 doctrine of the productiveness of certain sorts of labor and the un- 
 productiveness of others, is indeed " the corner stone," as well as the 
 " foundation" of his work on political economy. The merit ot 
 demerit of this work must, therefore, chiefly depend on the truth 
 or falsehood of this fundamental dogma. 
 
 I agree with you also, as to some degree of the " inconsistency" 
 you allude to ; but 1 beg leave to say, the charge does not apply 
 to me. I have frankly given my opinion of the theory of this cele- 
 brated Economist, and it is far from being favorable. 
 
 His \\ork, as containing the development of a system not war- 
 ranted by facts, is cert;iinly calculated to mislead students, in some 
 of the most tundamenlal points of statistics. Instead of setting the 
 
 io Nature and on the productive system (" Ilap. of States," p. vii. and 5) or the' 
 happiness in one form or anoUur, which they proditce, is a very ditferent matter. 
 The Bookseller^ without nicely philosophising on the suhject, knows well, 
 how (liflferent the rml or criliail, and \.\\c productive values of works arc, but 
 too often.
 
 412 Mr. S. Gray's JRemarks [28 
 
 system of Nature before us, as she presents it in real life, in the im- 
 portant business of the production of employment and w ealth, every 
 thing IS si'own through an artificial medium. Several things are 
 distorted, and the view given of many is incorrect. He has nnscou" 
 ceived lier processes ; and while he has overlooked some of her 
 most important principles, constantly and actively operating, he has 
 fancied some which do not exist. In particular, he has misunder- 
 stood the nature of price. 
 
 At the same time 1 willingly admit, there are many of his pafti- 
 cular observations just. His reasonings in favor of the freedom of 
 trade are, on the whole, excellent. The same may be affirmed of 
 those with respect to leaving matters to the direction of the self- 
 interest of individuals. But, to be perfect, both require to be cor- 
 rected by more accurate views respecting the production of wealth 
 and the increase of population. In his work they are injured by his 
 fundamental misconceptions. 
 
 In a very unphilosophical spirit, I have been asked, " Why attack 
 Smith ?" This may be answered by another question in a much 
 better spirit : ** Why not attack the doctrines of Smith, if they be 
 erroneous V I have been considered to have had specially in view, to 
 oppose Smith's theory concerning the production of wealth, and 
 yours concerning population. My express object has been no 
 partial one. It has been to ascertain the real principles of Nature, 
 in the production of employment and wealth (for both are essenti- 
 ally connected) and in the increase of population, with the results ; 
 and, of course, to reject those theoretical systems which appeared 
 inconsistent with hers. In this I have only made the same attack 
 on Smith's system, and yours, that the defenders of these have made 
 on mine. 
 
 The veneration which has been cherished for Smith, is injurious 
 to science ; for as he has quite misconceived the principles of 
 Nature, his reputation is calculated to keep up his errors. The in- 
 terests of science, therefore, require, that the undue authority which 
 he has attained, should be withdrawn. And I ask, on what is 
 founded his title to that peculiar veneration, which the supporters 
 of his theory claim for him, unless his principles correspond with 
 those of Nature ? He is the author of a particular system of Econo- 
 mism, it is true ; but he is by no means the father of economisticai 
 science, as he has been called, M. Quesnay, and Sir James 
 Steuart, have each a prior claim to that title, to say nothing of 
 some other predecessors. 
 
 His work had certainly the merit of assisting much in calling 
 the attention of politicians to the important science of statistics ; 
 but unfortunately, in teaching this science he has most dangerously
 
 29] on the Production of Wealth. 413 
 
 misled Europe. " His theory is the source of error among statisti- 
 cians, and of sedition among the populace." 
 
 I do not mean to impute any improper or selfish views to him. 
 Whether his notions respecting religion n)ight so'.iieuhat prompt 
 him to represent the clergy as paupers or drones, living on the 
 fruits of the labor of other classes; or, whether a wish for popula* 
 rity might induce him more easily to admit the visionary iriea, that 
 those portions of the people, whose employnients or capital were 
 paid or rendered productive by means of public imposts or taxes, 
 were also robbers of those portions employed in otlier times and paid 
 in other moHes, 1 know not; and therefore, I will not affirm, that 
 his opinions were formed under such influences. Probably enough, 
 he was not aware of (he dangerous results of a general belief of 
 those distinctions, which he considered to be really existing among 
 circulators. But, however well and honestly he might mean, his 
 system is as malignant and odious, as Nature's is benevolent and ami- 
 able. And it IS as dangerous and pernicious as it is false. 1 
 know no work that has, directly and indirectly, done more harm to 
 the public mind than his celebrated one. To its doctrines w^e owe 
 much of that detestable spirit of discontent and disalilection, which 
 poisons one of the great fountains of happiness, and which has long 
 8o dangerously agitated Europe, and still seems to be on the in- 
 crease. 
 
 Were the questions at issue merely speculative, there would be 
 no occasion for these observations. But they are practical, and they 
 are connected with matters on which all classes, especially the 
 lower, are feelingly alive, and on which they are so inflammable. The 
 safety of society, and genuine liberty, requires every honest man to 
 speak out. For while these doctrines are generally believed, the 
 very freedom of the press puts that powerful engine entirely 
 into the hands of ignorant and ill-designing demagogues, with re- 
 spect to the great mass of the most numerous classes. 
 
 The leading doctrine of Smith, on which his theory is built, far 
 from soothing the rancour and hatred, which are but too natural 
 in the lower ranks towards the higher, tends to increase both to the 
 most virulent pitch. It encourages insubordination among them, 
 by representing their labor as almost the sole source of wealth.^ 
 It sets up class against class, as if natural enemies to one another. 
 And it has been, is at this moment, and while generally believed, 
 
 * Unfortunately tlicy are, at this very moment, feeling experimentally the 
 falsehocui of sucli a ddcirine, in the poverty arising from a dcliciency in the 
 demanrl from the other classes. Thcif can bring as much labor to market as 
 usual; hut what then ? They can neither sell so much to those other classes, 
 nor at the usual prices. Tliey arc therefore, of themselves poor. Tliey re- 
 quire the aid of the others to produce wealth.
 
 414 Mr. S. Gray's Remarks [30 
 
 will be, the source of great evils and real danger to this country and 
 to all Europe.' 
 
 Still, however, if it be the doctrine of Nature, the perniciousness 
 will not make it untrue. As 1 have taken occasion to say to an 
 eminent Statesman, " if such were the fact in real life, as the 
 multitude was taught with indefatigable industry and malignity pre- 
 viously to the French Revolution, and of late years with us, — the 
 purpose, in boll) instances, is evident enough — the case would be de- 
 plorable. The friends of genuine freedom and public tranquillity 
 must sigh and submit. Government, the great and universal plun- 
 derer, nuist do that by force which reasoning could not do, and 
 keep the plundered and distressed wretches to their duties and suffer- 
 ings by the bayonet. But is so hateful a view of things a correct 
 view of them as actually found in real life ? Is such the system of 
 Nature .' No. The causes necessarily and universally operating in 
 real life, and the actual results, give the direct negation, in every 
 possible way, to these absurd dreams." 
 
 And, if the real system be utterly repugnant to facts, why en- 
 deavour to soften it, or yet to keep up the appearance of it? 
 These are not times to administer to the discontent of the multi- 
 tude, to add force to the harangues of demagogues, or to 
 strengthen the hands of the seditious press, by lending the aid of 
 science to the ravings of ill-designing men among a mass of people, 
 who are suffering deprivations from a very different cause. Why then 
 retain the mischievous terms, when the doctrine itself is abandoned ? 
 
 ^ Is it said, that even granting Dr. Smith's learned distinctions to be highly 
 dangerou?, it is not likely that they can do harm to the lower ranks, as these 
 ranks have not the means of knowing them. But what is the fact? The 
 most dangerous dogma of all, or the distinction of classes into productive and 
 unproductive, or those which produce wealth and those which consume it, is 
 perhaps the only part of this system which they do in general know. They 
 have not come to the knowledge of it by studying Smith's works, it is true; 
 but they have learnt it in a much worse way. They have been taught it by 
 factious writers and ill- designing demagogues, who find it of infinite conse- 
 quence to their seditious views, to have it generally believed, as it is so 
 strongly calculated to inflame : and it is now quite familiar among the 
 manufacturing and other working classes. 
 
 Cobbett, in his famous address of the 2d November 1816, " to the journey- 
 men and laborers of England, Wales, and Scotland," of which, the party 
 boasted they had published 44,000 copies, and which ended in tlie Spafields 
 Meeting, makes that dogma, or which is the same, that labor is the sole 
 resource of all our wealth and resources, the instrument to goad this discontent- 
 ed mass to insurrection against the plunderers. This very dogma was 
 one of the mottos of the Radicals of Manchester. And while this 
 absurd doctrine is taught by scribblers and declaimers of all ranks, and ac- 
 quiesced in, either from pusillanimity or misconception, on the other side, 
 this immense mass of active and sturdy persons will scarcely return again to 
 the habits of due subordination.
 
 si] on the Production of Wealth. 415 
 
 I am confident I am addressing a gentleman who will fully ap- 
 preciate the force of this reasoning. 
 
 THE SUBSISTENCE AND ANTIPOPULATION THEORIES. 
 
 At concluding this discussion, concerning the real process of 
 Nature in the production of wealth, I shall embrace the opportunity 
 to add a few words, with respect to a theory which is more your 
 own. In investigating the causes and results of the increase of popu- 
 lation, 1 have had occasion to bring forward some views of the sub- 
 ject, which you do not seem to have taken into your consideration 
 in the formation of your theory ; nor do I lind you have hitherto 
 either endeavoured to show them to be erroneous, or admitted 
 them to be correct. Yet they are of the most vital importance 
 towards coming to a correct conclusion concerning the real system 
 of Nature in the case. 
 
 I here repeat what I have already stated, that I shall be happy 
 to discuss the question at issue between us, either privately or 
 publicly, in a friendly way. 
 
 What 1 would wish to press upon your attention is, that facts 
 uniformly show, that the great law of Nature, the regulating power 
 of the demand over the supply, extends as completely to subsis- 
 tence, as to any other branch of the supply : that population is so far 
 from having a natural tendency to increase faster than subsistence, 
 that, for these four thousand years its increase has not at all ap- 
 proached the rate at which the latter can be made to increase': 
 probably not nearer than as 30 to 420 : that, in further proof of 
 there being no such tendency in population, there is every where an 
 abundance of materials for supplying additional food, in unculti- 
 vated or ill-cultivated land ; and that, instead of there being a natu- 
 ral deficiency of suppliers of food, there is an universal and con- 
 stant emigration of nelsons from the country to towns, from the 
 want of employme) It i the. cultivating lines: and that, as a deci- 
 sive confirmation v^fthe supply of subsistence being, on the 
 average, fully equal to 'he demand, the price of it, on the average, 
 has been fair, and fu''. " ' ' ■• ." yi- 
 
 it. 
 
 That with respect I J ^...^.^^...c, ».-«,/.«. u,t«n.'i, .'ncis umioniiiy 
 agree in proving, that the increase of population. >)>!' .- ^ of having 
 a tendency to diminish employment, and pruduv. is the 
 
 grand source of all permanent increase in employment . •' 
 
 ' If even your principle of population were that of Nature, by tht 
 principle of circulation, an increase of wealtli, not of poverty, would neces- 
 sarily be the result. "Were it true, that population increabcd faster than 
 subsistence, famine indeed would ensue ; but it is plain, from the laws of
 
 416 Mr. S. Gray's Remarks Jp2 
 
 that a town, a district, or a country, cateris paribus, is uniformly 
 more constantly employed and richer, the more populous it is, and 
 in a higher degree than the different numbers, calculated at the 
 former rate, would warrant : that the faster population increases, 
 the more rapid is the increase of employment and wealth, while a 
 stationary condition of population is constantly attended with stag- 
 nation and low prices ; and, with a decreasing population, there is 
 constantly a diminution of the means of employment and wealth, 
 and a ruinous decay of commercial enterprise : and that the increase 
 of pauperism, which is frequently found in the most populous states, 
 springs not, like the poverty so universal in thinly-peopled coun- 
 tries, from a deficiency of the means of employment, butyl o^w 
 the vicious and imprudent habits, zehich wealth is so apt to generate, 
 and from the great portion of the young, in such states, having 
 employment so early and amply afforded them, as to prevent the 
 formation of the sober, frugal, accumulating habits, necessary to 
 ensure success in life, even in states where there is the greatest 
 abundance of employment. 
 
 If these positions be founded on facts— and they certainly have 
 the appearance of being so founded — the subsistence theory, and 
 the antipopulation dogmas are contrary to the principle of Nature's 
 arrangements. They must, therefore, be proved to be unwar- 
 ranted, before either your principle of population, or the doctrine 
 of Arthur Young, Sismondi, and others, concerning the impover- 
 ishing effects of populousness, can be admitted. But as far as 
 I know, though of the most decisive influence on the great question 
 at issue, they have not yet been distinctly considered either by you or 
 by any other writer who denies the wealth-augmenting influence, 
 which I have endeavoured to show is essentially connected v ith 
 the increase of population. 
 
 1 have now only to add, that any observations, which yottii^y 
 reckon the interests of science call upon you * / ' ' ^ \^ ^ res^ %: 
 to these principles and facts, you may rest^.ssurea will mf^ct with 
 attention, and be considered with cando.urJ' , 
 
 T have the honor to bt. J^n-Tverend Sir, 
 
 Camden Town, - , -oedient Servant, 
 
 2,5th Jail/, IP'^o. S. GRAYv 
 
 Statistics, that the superioritj of the demand over the supply, insteaJ of prOf 
 ducing slackness with respect to employment, would tend to create a constant 
 stimulus, and quicken the demand for hands. By raising the prices of 
 the cultivating class very high, it would raise those of other classes also, 
 aiinl augment inc nac, capital, and wealth." '* liap. of State?," p. xxx,
 
 
 ft^i" 
 
 ill 
 
 [^ 
 
 m 
 
 
 ^■"<L^' 
 

 
 St^i^ 
 
 ■MHMHMMiMBiaaBflatBflaBaeaBaaBaBaBBBMi