the competition of supply and demand, is acknowleged as the sole regulator,the natural and divine law! The economists believe that those departments of industry most needed by man, thrö the temptations of higher wages or profits than the average, 'naturally' and 'best' cause labor and capital to be invested therein (on the principle ubi mellis, ubi musca, 'where there is honey, there will be flies'), and thus tend to keep the supply and demand on a par. On the other side, when too much labor and capital are invested in any department, then wages and profits fall, and thus drive people out, which again tends to proportion the supply to the demand, and thus keep things at a level. Under this system society is like water, ever tending to find its level, providing that it be let alone'. It is not needed to legislate for society in order to promote the welfare of the individual. All that is needed is, to leave each man free to follow his interests in his own way; and hence, as he will both know them best, and have the greatest reason for securing them, the interests of Society, which is made up of the parts, will be secured at the same time.

Now this would be a plausible theory enough, and if it were true; would indeed supersede all other laws whatever. In temporal affairs there are but two interests concerned that of myself and that of my neighbor; and if by my regarding my own interests alone, and my neighbor doing the same, both interests were attained, the object for which all human, and most divine, laws are given, would be secured. All other principles are, in that event, unnecessary. With the Caliph Omar, one might say, 'If they agree therewith they are useless, if they disagree therewith they are false.' Instead of reiterating 'Do unto others as you would be done unto, '—'Love thy neighbor as thyself, '—and similar obsolete commands, we might be taught-Do thyself as much good as possible, and rest assured that what thou doest, will be best for thy neighbor.'

As a philosophical theory it is especially remarkable. Legislation—the art of government is reduced to the simplest matter possible. All the ponderous tomes written on the subject,—all the lessons of history,-are contained in one simple maxim-Laissez Faire, do nothing, or next to nothing! The highest law is to have no law, and the world goes by itself. The saying of Count Oxenstein to his son, Quam parva sapientia regitur mundus-'with how little wisdom the world is governed-contains not only a fact but a principle, and political science becomes the philosophical exponent of the maxim-Each man for himself, and God for us all.'

On the supposition that men were either machines or angels, the theory might stand: if there were no powerful, and ever varying, disturbing causes, such as the fluctuation of nature, the ignorance, selfishness, and passions of men: or if men possessed intelligence sufficient to know all the wants of the race, power sufficient to supply them, and benevolence sufficient to disclaim any advantage inconsistent with the welfare of their brethren: but on any other conditions the hypothesis is unsound. To our apprehension there is the same fallacy in it which Whately points out in the word tendency, which sometimes means the existence of a cause which, if operating unimpeded, would produce a certain result, and sometimes the existence of such a state of things that that result may be expected to take place. So the theory of the economists would be true, if no extensive

counteracting causes prevented, but they overlook these, and assume that what would be, necessarily is.

One might have thought that, as the theory just explained was so satisfactory to the writers who announced it, they were at least bound to notice some of the glaring discrepancies between actual facts and so beautiful a system. It is true they affirm that political economy never has had a fair trial of its principles, and we apprehend the entire let-alone portion of it never will; but surely the system of letting every man follow his own interests in his own way has been tried to an extent quite enough to enable us to test its merits. No doubt various unjust or injudicious restrictions have existed on the production and consumption of wealth, and which were made to benefit one portion of the community at the cost of the other, and we readily allow for such disturbances of the economical laws. We shall show, however, that there are other disturbances besides those made by Kings or Lords for their own behoof,-disturbances the effects of which political economy not only does not help us to get rid of, but scarcely notices as yet,possessing force in themselves sufficient to completely nullify the claims of the 'let-alone' system.

One of the greatest of these disturbing causes is the variations which nature makes in the seasons, and which causes the same amount of capital and labor in different years to return very different amounts of raw produce. One season may be crowned with abundance, while in the next there may be dearth or famine. Charles Lamb records that roast pig was a Chinese discovery, accidentally made by the burning down of a house, and for many years it was deemed essential to burn down houses in order to attain that delicate edible, being in fact not roast pig, but burnt-house-pig. 'Even thus,' says the Westminster Review, quoting the above tale, do we in England talk of 'mummy wheat' 3,000 years old, and yet capable of germination. We have not yet asked ourselves the question, whether the 'mummy' be essential, or whether the wheat might not be preserved 3,000 years without the 'mummy.'

The thought which naturally arises is, if wheat will keep 3,000 years, why have we famine? Why all the faces of a nation turn with anxious looks to the aspect of the weather as the corn is ripening? Why should newspapers notice every shower? or why should a thing so proverbially uncertain as the weather become a thread whereon the comfort, almost the existence, of millions must depend? The answer is easy: we have got a theory; some of us have written books; and, like Dr. Sangrado, tho a nation perish for it, we will maintain our doctrine.

It may safely be affirmed that the wants of men, for lengthened periods, are very equable. Variations in consumption are neither extensive nor rapid. In general we eat but one dinner at once, and wear but one suit of clothes at a time, and therefore sudden fluctuations in the consumption of the great staple articles of human commerce, never or rarely occur.

Now, if the let-alone system be a sound one, the production of food, say corn, should proceed at as equable a rate as the consumption. If it proceed faster there is a glut, if slower a famine; and in either case the direst evils results. But the variations in consumption are quite insignificant when compared with the fluctuations in production. The obvious dictate of common sense would be, to store up the surplus in good harvests in order to meet the scarcity of bad ones. That

which the lowest instinct does for the bee, the boasted cultivation of modern times has not yet done for man; in fact, under the competitive system, it is impossible to be done. For to whom should this task be entrusted,-to the government? Under the present system that would be unfair to the private trader; it would disarrange all his calculations, and lead to numberless abuses. To the private individual? But who can be expected to have so much public spirit as to keep a stock on hand to meet the contingencies of a bad harvest, one, two, or three years hence, and not only lose all the profit deriveable from the use of his capital in the interim, but, should the next harvest prove abundant, be compelled to dispose of his store at a loss. His individual interest, therefore, demands a scarcity, and prudence will not allow him to keep a greater stock than is likely to be called for by the present demand of the market. Every step in production beyond this, approximates his business to that of a speculator and gambler.

Under the system of Competition any unusual productiveness of nature becomes a curse to the producer. Tho corn fields double their return, human stomachs do not double their capacity; and hence when nature has been very bountiful, the competition in corn lowers prices so much below the costs of production that ruin stares the farmer in the face. In such cases, remarks Mr. Mc Culloch, "the occupiers of poor land are involved in the greatest difficulties; a number of them are driven in consequence from their employments; and a smaller supply of corn being brought to market, prices are elevated so as to yield the customary rate of profit, and no more to the cultivators of the poorest soils that are still continued under tillage." Of course the farmer, in order to secure himself from the calamity of plenty, and acting in accordance with the principles of political economy, puts less land under cultivation. But how fare the Public? The following year, perhaps, the harvest is not abundant, but deficient: prices rise: there is not enough of corn to supply every body's need. The affluent and those in comfortable circumstances can buy even at the advanced prices. The poor go without, or subsist on garbage. But on whom falls the loss? No foresight can prevent a bad harvest, yet see how the let-alone principle works when it occurs! Having prevented any surplus for meeting the evil, it is doubly unjust by causing the loss to fall, not on the farmer or landlord, but principally on the working classes.

It certainly does not fall upon the farmer. Facts prove that a dearth is his greatest gain, a plentiful harvest his greatest loss.

In his work on prices Mr. Tookea quotes this statement from Arthur Young:

The price of wheat for the twelve months from May 1795 to April 1796, has been, on an average, in England and Wales, 10s. 7d. per bushel, and that of barley 4s. 9d. Now the price for twelve years, ending, 1794, was for wheat 5s. 10d., and for barley 3s. 3d. For the year above described, therefore, the price has exceeded that average 4s. 9d. per bushel for wheat, and 1s. 6d. for barley. Let us suppose the annual consumption of wheat to be 8,701,875 quarters; and that of barley 10,545,000 quarters; and, further, that the deficiency of the crop on the average of the two years, so far as they affect the period in question, has amounted in wheat to one fifth; and that the barley has, on an average of the two crops, being a medium: in this case there would have been consumed— a p. 186, vol. 1.

Of wheat 6,961,500 qrs., the extra price on which, at 4s. 9d. the bushel, 38s. the quarter, is

Of barley, 10,545,000 qrs. at 1s. 6d. per bushel, or 12s. per quarter

£13,226,849.

£6,327,000. £19,553,849.

If, therefore, these data are just, and they are ventured merely as approximate calculations, the farmers have received, in these two articles alone, nearly £20,000,000 sterling beyond the deficiency of the crop, supposing the deficiency to be one fifth, which is a very great one, and without adding a word on the price of meat, or any other article.b

To the working man the item of bread is most important. It is his staple consumption; frequently a fourth, a third, and even half of his wages, is spent in this one article. Whatever this commodity costs beyond its due rate, he must deduct in some other item, and this will generally be in clothes. His diminished demand for clothes diminishes the manufacturer's need for his services; and thus he pays the loss twice over, once in the increased price of bread, and once in diminished employment. The manufacturer also suffers, but not in the same proportion; he pays more for his bread and he loses some profit on his capital, but in the one case it is like taking a bucket full of water from the sea, while in the other it is like taking it from a nearly dried up well.

But the real scarcity is not half the evil. There is an artificial scarcity still more dreadful, resulting, not from the niggardliness of nature, but from the cupidity of man. The threatened scarcity brings the Speculators into the market, who buy up the corn in the hope of selling it at an exorbitant profit. The misfortunes of their fellow men become to them a mine of wealth, and human feeling and common sense are alike outraged in beholding granaries filled with rotting corn, while the people are famishing for bread.

What is the defence set up for such men by the Political Economist? for, on the principle of the identity of public and private interests, he is bound to defend them. The defence is certainly ingenious, if not sound. The plea is, that the advanced prices tend to economize the consumption at the time when it is most desirable that consumption should be diminished. The utility of regrators and forestallers (i. e. Speculators) is, say they, much like the effect of Joseph's foresight when in Egypt, which caused the superabundance of one period to be stored up for the famine of the succeeding period; or to the conduct of a provident sea-captain, who, finding the supply of biscuit or water falling short, curtails the daily allowance, in order that the stock may last to the end of the voyage, rather than, by continuing the full ration, run the risk of the crew perishing before the termination of the voyage.

Unfortunately, however, as the competitive principle caused the famine, or at least prevented that accumulation of grain which would have removed it, so now it does little or nothing beyond transferring the scarcity from all classes in order to concentrate it upon the poor. The speculators do not know of the scarcity till it arrives, and then their transactions increase instead of diminishing the evil. As human greed is greatest while winning, the corn is held as long as possible, in the hope that prices may get a little higher. Generally a panic sets in, and

all rush to sell. The grain has been kept until it is a living mass of filth, and in this state is thrown on the market precisely when it was not needed. It was held back when there was a scarcity, it is offered when there is none. A few men retire with fortunes, secured by two or three 'lucky specs,' while many others are bankrupt. The wealthy have paid dear for their corn, and the poor have been deprived of it altogether. And all because we trust the business of providing food to the self-interest of individual Josephs, instead of allowing a wise prudence and social foresight to provide for the interest of the whole by storing up the superfluity of good seasons against the deficiency of bad ones. It is folly to exclaim against speculators or forestaliers, or, as a certain noble lord proposed, to hang up fifty of them as a warning to the rest. Such people attack the symptoms only, and do not touch the disease. A man who buys up corn, or other commodity, in a time of scarcity, has a perfect right to do so, so long as every man has but to see after his own interest. Not until we have reversed the maxim, and seek the interest of each in the interest of all, will this scandal to common sense and morality be removed.

We have cited but one commodity, the most important one of corn, but the same evils, tho in a less degree, result from variations in other crops. In cotton we had a deficient supply in 1847, and hundreds of mills were consequently kept on short time, or standing, for the manufacturers feared to pay the then prices, lest a plentiful season might reduce the price before they had disposed of the high priced cotton goods. As in corn so in cotton, gambling greater than ever the rouge et noir table exhibited, took place. The mercantile pulse became as sensitive as the electrical needles which communicated the quotations, because a single speculation might make or lose a fortune.

This theory of competition, however, is not only subject to the fatal defect of leaving mankind exposed to the fluctuations of the seasons, and all the distressing consequences, but is, besides, constantly liable to other impediments to its successful working, each of them productive of the greatest evils, and each of them inevitable. They may be thus briefly considered:

1st. The evils which arise from the ignorance of the producer as to the extent of the market for the commodities he intends to produce.

2ndly. Those which arise from the destruction of income, thrö the desire of self-aggrandizement.

3rdly. The deterioration of production.

4thly. The multiplication of capital faster than profitable modes of employing it open out.

5thly. Credit.

The first of these evils, is one which is felt to be so great, that an eminent economist proposed that statistical tables should be prepared for agriculture, similar to, or better than, those which exist for manufactures. It is obvious that, so long as the market is as extensive as the nation or the world, no individual can pretend to suit his investment to the actual wants of mankind; he must be working in the dark. The capitalist builds a cotton mill, the agriculturist rents a farm, the shopkeeper opens a shop, the youth becomes a lawyer, a doctor, a soldier, and in no instance is there any consideration as to whether more cottons, corn, distributors, lawyers or doctors, are really wanted,—or whether the capital