Page images

rily, be very expensive; for, on account of its capriciousness, its demands could not be supplied but at a high rate of remuneration. An article in great demand this week may, next week, become dead stock. The patrons of fashion must, of course, pay a price that will cover these risks and losses. Hence we often pay more for the fashion of an article than for its quality; and hence, also, the difference in the prices of articles after the fashion has changed. Things of the best quality are cheapest, therefore, only when you pay for the quality alone; and the cheapest of all are those of the best quality when gone out of fashion; for the maker probably realized his profit on them while in the fashion, and he can often afford to sell them afterward for less than the cost.

On the employment of domestic labor Dr. Wayland observes,"Economy directs, that in a household we should purchase as much labor as we need, and of the kind that we need, but no more than we need."

The same principle applies here as in the other case, viz., that the best kind is usually cheapest in the end. It would be a great mistake to refuse five dollars a month to an economical and capable domestic, and then give four to one who would waste, and break, and spoil more than would pay the difference; to say nothing of the vexation and disagreements that would follow. We are always to compare the price with the utility, and remember that that is most economical which gives us the best return for our money.

Again, as it is poor economy to hire more labor than we need, it is about equally so to hire less; for, in the latter case, the work must be left undone or we must do it ourselves. The question, then, to be decided is, whether it be worth doing; and if so, is our own labor as valuable in that form as in any other? It would certainly be great folly to leave undone what is worth a dollar and a half for the sake of doing what we might hire another to do for a dollar. Men generally have sagacity enough to perceive this, and hence a man's employment is considered an indication of the value he sets upon his time. Yet there are some people who are too penurious to be economical.

But it is time for us to point out what we conceive to be defects in this treatise.

Dr. Wayland has omitted a doctrine of no small importance in this science, which, we believe, the elder Say was the first to point out; viz., the distinction between the real and the relative variation of price. Real variation is occasioned by a saving in the costs of production; relative is that variation which takes place while the costs of production continue the same. Thus, if ten men could make five pairs of boots in a day, and sell them at six dollars a pair, if any means were invented by which the same cost would produce ten pairs, the price might fall to three dollars. The effect would be, that while the boot-maker would be just as well off as he was before, the community would be much better provided for. The article, being cheaper, would be brought within reach of a larger portion of society; more would be consumed, and comfort would be extended. In this case, therefore, while the producer is not injured, the community is benefited to the full extent of the saving in productive agency. This is real variation. But, as in relative

variation, if the boot-maker have one hundred pairs on hand, which fall, without any saving in the cost of production, from six dollars to three, he will sustain a heavy loss. Again, if a farmer can raise thirty bushels of wheat to the acre, and sell it at seventy-five cents a bushel, if the same land and labor will produce only fifteen, it will occasion a real increase of price. He ought, in that case, to get one dollar and fifty cents, in order to be as well off as before. The country, therefore, would be all this the poorer and worse provided for. But it is found that a falling off of production never remunerates the producer by an equivalent rise of price; i. e., when the quantity produced is diminished by one half, though the price must rise, yet it never doubles. The producer, therefore, must lose, first, by a diminution of his receipts; and, secondly, by the rise of other prices, occasioned by the increased expenses of living. The community, also, will be injured, by a diminution in the quantity and an increase of price.

We look upon these principles as of great importance, as they serve to exhibit the mischievous effects of raising the prices upon consumers. These effects are, to diminish the amount of consumption, to abridge the means of comfort, and, perhaps, even of subsistence, and by this means to bring some to premature death. For as, in the best state of things, there must be some who can only just make out to live, and others only just live comfortably, when the means are removed farther off by one degree, the former class must die, and the latter fall into their place. Thus the tendency of society will be downwards. On the other hand, when prices fall through increased productiveness, the effects are just opposite. Those who barely lived before are made comfortable; the merely comfortable begin to possess conveniences and superfluities; the resources of the rich are increased, by which they can extend greater aid to the indigent and industrious; and the whole face of society wears a thriving and happy aspect.

But where the fall of price is but relatively to other products, without any saving in the costs of production, these benefits do not follow; because the producer loses, by the fall of the price, all that the consumer gains. Thus the one balances the other, and the community, therefore, are no gainers.

We did wish to supply some remarks which our author has omitted, in relation to the balance of trade. For instance, it is often said that, "if our importations be greater than our exportations, we must become poorer." This is about as wise as to say that if, for eight hundred dollars, I purchase what is worth, to me, twelve hundred, I suffer loss. Evidently, if a nation can, with exports worth forty millions, import to the amount of fifty millions, she has made a profit to the extent of the difference. "But, perhaps, she has to send out specie to pay for it." If so, it is because that is the most profitable way of paying for it. The specie must have been made or earned, I suppose, before it could be sent out, and so we have its value left in some other form. "But the country will be drained of specie." Well, then, the interest of money will rise, and that, provided trade be not crippled, nor public confidence shaken, will cause an influx from abroad. Men will not keep money in Europe at five per cent. interest if they can invest it here at seven. But, then, the

[ocr errors]

influx of specie will not depend on its scarcity alone, but chiefly on the facilities and profits of investment. "But we shall be in the pay of foreigners." Just as much as you are in the rich man's pay, of whom you borrow a thousand dollars to carry on business. "But if the nation pay more than it receives, it will certainly become empoverished." Not always; for the improvement made by the excess may more than counterbalance the outlay. Thus a person may lay out several hundred dollars upon his house or farm more than his income, and be all the richer for it. But having already extended our remarks so far, we must forbear.

But the greatest objection we feel to Dr. Wayland's work, is the little prominence which it gives to agriculture. We, of course, did not look for an agricultural treatise; but, then, a source of production so important, and so peculiarly adapted to our country, deserved to hold a very prominent place in an American text-book on Political Economy. Yet Dr. Wayland says almost nothing on it; and some things which he has said do not indicate the most profound acquaintance with the subject. Thus, for instance, he observes, "the produce of a soil, when new, is generally greater than ever afterwards." But this is true only where agriculture is in a bad condition. The old lands of England are as productive as the new lands of Michigan or Illinois. Again, "the soil (of rich new lands) never needing manure, requires but small investments of capital." There is no land which never needs manure. Constant exhaustion without renovation, must, in the course of time, destroy the productive power of any soil, however rich at first. As illustrations of both positions, there are lands in England, originally of great fertility, so perfectly exhausted, that they were thrown out into common as useless; and yet, by scientific culture, they have been reclaimed, and rendered more productive than ever, yielding of wheat, of the best quality, fifty bushels to the acre. Such is the case on Mr. Coke's estate, at Holkham Hall, in Norfolk. It is observed, also, in our own country, that where the farmers have access to fish manure, the poorest soil is made equal to the richest. This is thought by some an extraordinary fact. But the same effect may be produced on any land, by applying a manure adapted to the soil. But it requires skill and science to discover such manures and their application. Hence the importance Hence the importance of science, as well as capi. tal, in agriculture.

It seems strange to us, that a subject possessing so many claims to notice as this, should receive so little attention in our country. When we consider the nature of its employments, with their influence upon the health, morals, and intelligence of a people; the importance of the products it furnishes; the peculiar adaptation of this source of wealth to our country, arising from our extent of surface, variety of soil, climate, and productions, thin population, and, compared with many other nations, deficiency of capital for manufacturing purposes; when we consider these things, it seems strange that it should have been so much neglected by those who control the minds of the nation, and, by influencing opinion, direct their conduct. It seems really to be the object of the nation-for what are the acts of government but an expression of the nation's will?—to direct science, capital, and industry, into any channels rather than those of agriculture. Congress

protects manufactures by duties, and makes appropriations for exploring expeditions, to extend and facilitate commerce; meanwhile, what is done for agriculture? Our mother earth seems abandoned of her ungrateful children, and is almost left to throw out her bounty spontaneously, or, afflicted by our neglect, withhold her accustomed favors. The consequence is, what we have more than once alluded to, a deficiency of agricultural productions. We have not, during the past year, raised grain enough in our immense territory for the use of our own population, small as it is, while the little island of Britain can raise enough for her teeming swarms, and spare some for her neighbors. There was something deeply sarcastic in the reply of Rothschild to his agent Joseph, in New-York. In the mania of last year's speculation, when the nation was to get suddenly rich without production, Joseph advised Rothschild to invest a considerable amount in real estate in this country, promising him a large return. The reply was short and pithy: "I don't think much of a country that has to import her bread." The banker had sagacity enough to divine the result.

Now, it seems to us, an American text-book on Political Economy ought to make this subject decidedly conspicuous. True, it could not exhibit the different modes of tillage; but still it might throw a good deal of light upon the resources of agriculture. It might exhibit its capabilities; the necessity and application of science to agriculture; the value of its products compared with other products; it might even suggest the most profitable kinds of products; it could exhibit the modes in which government might foster agriculture; not, indeed, by duties or bounties, but by premiums for new inventions and discoveries; by the institution of pattern or model farms;* and by the diffusion of information and science on rural affairs. Moreover, by drawing his illustrations copiously from this department, he might contrive to convey, indirectly, a great deal of useful knowledge concerning it. A text-book on Political Economy, presenting agriculture with due prominence and in its proper bearings, is, in our view, still a desideratum among us.

Notwithstanding these defects, however, we consider Dr. Wayland's work decidedly superior to any other; and as such, we can cheerfully recommend it to the readers of this magazine. If they feel inclined to make themselves acquainted with a science whose principles are

*The suggestion of a pattern farm seems never to have received the attention which it deserves. The project is simply this: that government shall institute a farm under the management of a competent agent, a well-educated and scientific agriculturist, on which experiments shall be made to ascertain the most successful modes of tillage. Here all kinds of agricultural implements, new inventions, discoveries, different kinds of manures, modes of culture, breeds of cattle, qualities of soil, products of every kind, and all other matters belonging to agriculture on a liberal scale would be tested, and exhibited for the benefit of the public. Such an establishment should possess every possible convenience and utility, and be in every respect, as far as possible, a pattern farm." For ourselves, we know of no measure by which government could give such a stimulus to the national agriculture, nor any mode in which it could more profitably or judiciously employ a portion of its surplus funds. It is in this way that the agriculture of Great Britain has been raised to such a pitch of excellence, with this difference, that there such experiments have been made by individuals. In this country, where agricultural capital is so limited in individuals, it must be done by government if it be done at all.

at the foundation of national prosperity and individual comfort; a science so closely connected with religion, morals, intelligence, and happiness; a science which tends, as much as any other, to illustrate the wisdom, benevolence, and unity of the divine administration, they will have cause to rejoice in the facilities afforded them by Dr. Wayland.

For the Methodist Magazine and Quarterly Review.



REVELATION is, unquestionably, of paramount importance. Nor is its importance superseded by any production of man's invention. Whenever man, with all his wisdom, aided by the light of science and the erudition and literature of preceding ages, has attempted to devise a plan by which a fallen world might be saved, he has made an entire failure. Human reason proved inadequate to the task. Revelation, whose author is God, can alone furnish man with all that information necessary for fallen beings to know in order to be saved. A revelation replete with such information, should be held in high estimation by every son and daughter of Adam. We design, in the following pages, to give a summary view of the superiority of that system so clearly unfolded in the Scriptures, to what is generally denominated "natural religion.' As this term is commonly used equivocally, it becomes necessary to define before we proceed.


Some understand by the term, natural religion, those truths revealed in the Scriptures which, when once discovered and understood, may be clearly shown to have a foundation in the nature and relations of things, and which unprejudiced reason will approve when fairly presented to the mind; and accordingly very fair schemes of natural religion have been drawn up by Paley, and other Christian philosophers, embracing nearly the whole of revelation. In this view, natural religion is not so called because it was originally discovered by reason merely, but because, when once understood, it is what the reason of mankind properly exercised approves as based in truth and nature. Others take the term in a more limited sense, to signify that knowledge of God, his attributes and perfections, which, with the light of revelation, may be obtained from the works of nature. Others, again, take natural religion to mean, that religion which is discoverable by the exercise of reason without any higher assistance. This last definition we consider correct. The two preceding define not what is obtained from reason, but from revelation.

Having then defined natural religion to be that system which is discovered by unassisted reason, we are now led to inquire to what extent this religion has prevailed? History, as well as observation, teaches the melancholy fact, that its prevalence has not been circumscribed to one nation or country. Its abetters have not been few. Sages of antiquity, and renowned philosophers of former times, have not only embraced it as the way of salvation, but it has found ad.

« EelmineJätka »