CHAPTER I.

Definition of Consumption—Consumption the End of Production—Test of advantageous and disadvantageous Consumption—Sumptuary Laws—Advantage of a Taste for Luxuries—Error of Adam Smith’s Opinion with respect to unproductive Consumption—Error of those who contend, that to facilitate Production it is necessary to encourage wasteful Consumption—Statement of Montesquieu—Consumption of Government—Conclusion.

It was formerly shown, that by the production of a commodity is not meant the production of matter, that being the exclusive prerogative of Omnipotence, but the giving to matter already in existence such a shape as may fit it for Edition: current; Page: [488] ministering to our wants or enjoyments. In like manner, by consumption is not meant the consumption or annihilation of matter, that being as impossible as its creation, but merely the consumption or annihilation of those qualities which render commodities useful and desirable. To consume products, is to deprive the matter of which they consist of the utility, and consequently also of the value, communicated to it by labour. And hence we are not to measure consumption by the magnitude, weight, or number of the products consumed, but by their value only. Large consumption is the destruction of large value, how small soever the bulk in which it may be compressed.

Consumption, in the sense in which the word is used in this science, is synonymous with use; and is, in fact, the great end and object of industry. The various products of art and industry are produced only that they may satisfy our wants or add to our enjoyments, or that they may be employed as capital, and made to assist in producing others. In most cases, too, it is advantageous, after commodities are in a state fit to be used, that we should avail ourselves of their services. Indeed, a large proportion of the products used as food can seldom be preserved for any considerable period without loss; and in delaying to employ those that are to be used as capital, we allow the instruments of production to lie idle, and lose the profit that might be realised through their agency.

But, though commodities be produced only that they may be used or consumed, we must not thence suppose that all sorts of consumption are equally advantageous. It is not always, however, easy to distinguish between advantageous or disadvantageous, or, as it is more commonly termed, productive and unproductive consumption. In so far, however, as the public interests are involved, (and it is with such only that we have to deal,) it may be laid down, that the consumption of any given amount of the products of art and industry is productive, if it occasion, whether directly or Edition: current; Page: [489] indirectly, the production of the same or a greater amount of equally valuable products, and unproductive if it have not that effect. A knowledge of the mode in which, or the purpose for which, wealth has been laid out, or consumed, will not warrant our affirming that its consumption has been productive, or the reverse. To decide upon this, we must look at the results of the consumption, and at them only. By fixing the attention on the species of consumption carried on, and not on its results, this part of the science has been encumbered with imaginary distinctions, and has been rendered, in no ordinary degree, obscure and unintelligible. It is plainly not enough, for example, to prove that a quantity of wealth has been productively employed, to be told that it has been expended in the improvement of the soil, in the excavation of a canal, or in any similar undertaking; for it may have been laid out injudiciously, or in such a way that it cannot reproduce itself. Neither, on the other hand, is it enough to prove that a quantity of wealth has been laid out unproductively, to be told that it has been expended on equipages or entertainments; for the desire to indulge in this expense may have been the cause that the wealth was originally produced, and the desire to indulge in similar expense may occasion the subsequent production of a still greater quantity.

Hence, if we would come to an accurate conclusion upon such points, we must carefully examine not the immediate only, but also the remote effects of expenditure; pronouncing it to be productive when it causes, either by its direct or indirect operation, the reproduction of the same or of a greater amount of wealth, and unproductive when it is not fully replaced. It is not practicable to adopt any other criterion of productive and unproductive expenditure, without leading to the most contradictory conclusions.

But, in whatever way wealth may be consumed, it is plain that the advance or decline of every nation depends on the balance between consumption and reproduction. If, in given Edition: current; Page: [490] periods, the wealth produced exceeds that consumed in a country, the means of increasing its capital will be provided, and its population will increase, or the actual numbers be better accommodated, or both. If the consumption in such periods fully equals the reproduction, no means will be afforded of increasing the stock or capital of the nation, and society will be at a stand; and if the consumption exceed the reproduction, every succeeding period will see the society worse supplied: its prosperity will evidently decline, and pauperism will gradually spread itself among the population.

It is impossible to fix on any standard for the regulation of individual expenditure. The sentiments of no two persons ever exactly coincide with respect to the advantage derivable from any outlay of wealth; and as each is held to be the best judge of what is profitable and advantageous for himself, we cannot decide à priori which is right or which is wrong. The opinions of different individuals depend on the circumstances under which they are placed. A rich man is naturally inclined to extend the limits of advantageous consumption farther than a man of middling fortune, and the latter farther than he who is poor. And it is sufficiently plain, that a man’s expenses should always bear some proportion to his fortune, his prospects, and station in society; and that what might be proper and advantageous expenditure in one case, might be most improper and disadvantageous in another. These, however, are matters which should be left to the discretion of individuals; and though a few may waste their fortunes wantonly and unprofitably, we may be assured that the efforts of a great majority will be directed to their increase.

Though governments have been generally, or rather, perhaps, it should be said, universally, more profuse than their subjects, they have, notwithstanding, very frequently enacted sumptuary laws, to restrain the extravagant expenditure of the latter. These laws were long popular in Rome, and Edition: current; Page: [491] were formerly enforced in this and most other European countries; but it may be safely affirmed that they have not, in any instance, been productive of any good effect. They are a manifest infringement of the right of property; and no legislator can ever fetter his subjects in the disposal of the fruits of their industry, without rendering them less zealous about their acquisition, and in so far paralysing their exertions.

Sir Dudley North has set the effect of sumptuary laws in its true light. “Countries,” he says, “which have these laws are generally poor; for, when men are thereby confined to narrower expense than they otherwise would be, they are, at the same time, discouraged from the industry and ingenuity which they would have employed in obtaining wherewithal to support them in the full latitude of expense they desire. It is possible families may be supported by such means, but then the growth of wealth in the nation is hindered; for that never thrives better than when riches are tossed from hand to hand. The meaner sort, seeing their fellows become rich and great, are spirited up to imitate their industry. A tradesman sees his neighbour keep a coach; presently all his endeavours are at work to do the like, and many times he is beggared by it; however, the extraordinary application he makes to gratify his vanity is beneficial to the public.”1

The public interest requires that the national capital should, if possible, be kept constantly on the increase; or, which is the same thing, that the consumption of any given period should be the means of reproducing a greater amount of useful and desirable products. But it has been sufficiently shown that this cannot be brought about by a system of surveillance and restriction. Industry and frugality never have been, and never can be, promoted by its means. To render a man industrious, secure him the peaceable enjoyment of the fruits of his industry; to wean him from extravagance, and Edition: current; Page: [492] to render him frugal and parsimonious, allow him to reap all the disadvantage of the one line of conduct, and all the advantage of the other.

Besides, it is clear that sumptuary laws, even were they in other respects advantageous, must operate partially and oppressively. What would be wanton and ridiculous extravagance in one man may be well-regulated moderate expenditure in another. If, therefore, for the sake of the prodigal, this expense be proscribed, the other is deprived of gratifications which his fortune gives him a right to command; and if it be allowed to those who can afford it, then, in order to ascertain to whom the regulation is applicable, an odious, and generally ineffectual, investigation must be instituted into the circumstances of individuals. Certainly, however, it is no part of the business of government to pry into the affairs of its subjects. It was not framed to keep their accounts and balance their ledgers, but that it might protect their rights and liberties. “If its own extravagance do not ruin the state, that of its subjects never will.” The poverty and loss of station which are the inevitable result of improvident consumption, are a sufficient security against its ever becoming injuriously prevalent; and wherever the public burdens are moderate, property protected, and the freedom of industry secured, the efforts of the great body of the people to rise in the world, and to improve their condition, will insure the continued increase of national wealth. It is idle to expect that unproductive expenditure should ever be wholly avoided; but the experience of every tolerably well-governed state proves, that, speaking generally, an incomparably greater amount of capital is expended productively than unproductively.

It was long a prevalent opinion among moralists, that the consumption, and consequently, also, the production of luxuries, was unprofitable and disadvantageous. If a man wished to get rich, his object, it was said, should not be to increase his fortune, but to lessen his wants. “Si quemEdition: current; Page: [493]volueris esse divitem,” says Seneca, “non est quod augeas divitias, sed minuas cupiditates.” Had these opinions ever obtained any considerable influence, they would have formed an insuperable obstacle to all improvement; and men would never have advanced beyond the state in which we find the wretched natives of Australia. Whoever is contented with the situation in which he is placed, has no motive to aspire to any thing better; and hence it is to the absence of this feeling of contentment, and the existence of that which is directly opposed to it—the desire to rise in the world, to improve our condition, and to obtain a constantly increasing command over conveniences and luxuries—that society is indebted for every improvement. It is not matter of blame, but of praise, that individuals strive to attain to superior wealth and distinction; that they scruple not

• “Certare ingenio, contendere nobilitate,
• Noctes atque dies niti præstante labore
• Ad summas emergere opes, rerumque potiri.”

• Lucret., ii. lin. 11.

Ambition to rise is censurable only when, to forward our object, we resort to means injurious to our own character or the well-being of others. So long as we avoid this, and depend for success on the fair exercise of our talents and industry, it is deserving of every commendation. Until it has been excited, no progress can be made in civilization; and the more it increases in strength, the more rapid will be the accumulation of wealth, and the more prosperous will every individual become. The mere necessaries of life may, in favourable situations, be obtained with but little labour; and the uncivilized tribes that have no desire to possess its comforts are proverbially indolent and poor, and are exposed in bad years to the greatest privations. To make men industrious—to make them shake off that lethargy which benumbs their faculties when in a rude or degraded condition, they must be inspired with a taste for comforts, luxuries, and enjoyments. When this is done, their artificial wants become equally clamorous Edition: current; Page: [494] with those that are strictly necessary, and increase exactly as the means of gratifying them increase. Wherever a taste for comforts and conveniences is generally diffused, the desires of man become altogether illimitable. The gratification of one leads directly to the formation of another. In highly civilized societies, new products, and new modes of enjoyment are constantly presenting themselves as motives to exertion, and as means for its reward. Perseverance is, in consequence, given to all the operations of industry; and idleness, and its attendant evils, almost entirely disappear. “What,” asks Paley, “can be less necessary, or less connected with the sustentation of human life, than the whole produce of the silk, lace, and plate manufactory? yet what multitudes labour in the different branches of these arts! What can be imagined more capricious than the fondness for tobacco and snuff? yet how many various occupations, and how many thousands in each, are set at work in administering to this frivolous gratification?” The stimulus which the desire to possess these articles gives to industry renders their introduction advantageous. The earth is capable of furnishing food for a much greater number of human beings than can be profitably employed in its cultivation. But the occupiers of the soil will not part with its produce for nothing, or, rather, they will not raise what they can neither use themselves nor exchange for what they want. As soon, however, as a taste for conveniences and luxuries has been introduced, they extort from the ground all that it can be made to produce, exchanging the surplus for the conveniences and gratifications they desire to obtain; so that those by whom these accommodations are furnished, though they have no property in the soil nor any concern in its cultivation, are regularly and liberally supplied with its produce. In this way the stock of necessaries, as well as of useful and agreeable products, is vastly increased by the introduction of a taste for luxuries; and the population, besides being better provided for, is rapidly augmented.

Edition: current; Page: [495]

Locke has given the sanction of his authority to this doctrine. “What,” says he, “would a man value ten thousand or an hundred thousand acres of excellent land, ready cultivated, and well stocked, too, with cattle, in the middle of the inland parts of America where he had no hopes of commerce with other parts of the world, to draw money (or the conveniencies and luxuries produced by others) to him by the sale of the product? It would not be worth the enclosing, and we should see him give up again to the wild common of nature whatever was more than would supply the conveniences of life, to be had there for him and his family.”1

And yet there is hardly a single article among those now reckoned most indispensable to existence, or a single improvement of any sort, which has not been denounced at its introduction as a useless superfluity, or as being in some way injurious. Few articles of clothing are at present considered more essential than shirts; but there are instances on record of individuals being put in the pillory for presuming to use so expensive and unnecessary a luxury! Chimneys were not commonly used in England until the middle of the sixteenth century; and, in the introductory discourse to “Hollinshed’s Chronicles,” published in 1577, there is a bitter complaint of the multitude of chimneys lately erected, of the exchange of straw pallets for mattresses or flock-beds, and of wooden platters for earthenware and pewter. In another place, he laments that nothing but oak is used for building, instead of willow as heretofore;—adding, that “formerly our houses indeed were of willow, but our men were of oak; but, now that our houses are of oak, our men are not only of willow, but some altogether of straw, which is a sore alteration!”

Many volumes have been filled with lamentations over the prevalence of a taste for tea, sugar, coffee, spices, and other foreign luxuries; and the idea that their consumption is Edition: current; Page: [496] prejudicial to the increase of wealth, is still very common. Voltaire, whose opinions on such subjects are, for the most part, very correct, has in this instance given currency to the prevailing delusion. “Henry IV.,” says he, “breakfasted on a glass of wine and wheaten bread; he neither used tea, nor coffee, nor chocolate; whereas the products of Martinique, Mocha, and China, are now served up at the breakfast of a lady’s maid! And if we reflect that these products cost France upwards of 50 millions a-year, we must obviously be carrying on some very advantageous branches of commerce, to support this continued loss.” But the gold and silver exported to India and China are procured in exchange for commodities produced in France; and what is the motive that makes these commodities be produced? Evidently, that they may be employed as means to obtain the tea, coffee, sugar, &c., for which there is a demand. Take away the taste for these articles, or prohibit their importation, and the export of the precious metals to the East will no doubt cease; but so will also the production of the commodities with which these metals are purchased; for, to suppose that they should still be produced, would be to suppose that men may be industrious without an object! Instead, therefore, of being enriched by the cessation of the demand for the articles in question, France would be rendered so much the poorer; she would retrograde in the scale of civilization; her inhabitants would be less industrious, and enjoy fewer gratifications.

“Un préjugé vulgaire,” says the Marquis Garnier, “porte à regarder comme désavantageux l’échange dans lequel on donne un morceau de métal qui peut durer des siècles, pour avoir une denrée que la consommation va détruire en une minute. Cependant, le métal, ainsi que la plante, n’ont de valeur qu’en raison du travail qu’ils ont coûté; l’argent ne manquera pas plus que le thé au travail qui voudra l’extraire du sein de la terre; et de ces deux substances, celle qui se consomme le plus rapidement est, par cette même raison, celle qui tient plus de travail en activité. Une révolution qui Edition: current; Page: [497] abîmeroit sous les eaux toutes les mines de l’Amérique appauvrirait fort peu les nations de l’Europe. Mais si le sucre, le café, le thé, &c., venaient à perdre tout-à-coup leur saveur et leur arôme, s’ils n’avient plus la propriété de charmer le palais, ils cesseraient de tenir rang parmi les richesses; alors s’arrêterait le travail qui les produit dans les deux Indes, et, par contre-coup, tout le travail qui s’exerce en Europe pour les acheter.”1

The admirers of simplicity, or rather of rusticity, may perhaps urge, that the happiness of mankind is not increased by this never-ceasing pursuit of new gratifications and additional wealth; that habit reconciles individuals to the state in which they are accustomed to live; and that the Irishman or Greenlander, when abundantly supplied with potatoes or fish, is as cheerful and happy as the lordly inhabitant of the Palais Royal, or of Belgrave Square. We may observe, however, that none but rich and refined countries can ever be secure against the devastations of famine, which frequently sweep off almost the entire population of semi-barbarous hordes; and it is in them only that the intellectual powers are ever fully exercised, or that man can make that progress in knowledge which constitutes so great a part of the excellence or perfection of which he is capable. But whether the attainment of wealth, or of distinction of any sort, be favourable or unfavourable to happiness, there can be no doubt of its pursuit being eminently congenial to human nature. The desire to improve our condition, though it may, for a while, be over-powered by circumstances, can never be wholly eradicated; Edition: current; Page: [498] and, speaking generally, is always impelling us forward in the career of invention and discovery. The prospect extends and varies as we advance. “The natural flights of the human mind are not from pleasure to pleasure, but from hope to hope;” and at every step of his progress man discovers new motives of action, new excitements of fear and allurements of desire. The paths of enterprise and ambition are uniformly most crowded, and pursued with the greatest eagerness, where there is most prosperity and freedom; and are deserted only in those unfortunate countries where distress and tyranny weigh down all the moral energies. When, indeed, the end is compassed, when the object of our exertions has been attained, it may, perhaps, be found not worth the trouble of acquiring; or, though prized at first, the enjoyment may pall upon the sense. But this, instead of discouraging, invariably tempts to new efforts; so that the pursuit of even imaginary conveniences—of riches, distinctions, and enjoyments that can never be realised—is productive of an intensity of gratification, unknown in the apathy of a fixed or permanent situation.

The truth is, that repose, and a contempt for wealth and power, how much soever they may have been lauded by moralists, are not consistent with the nature or the destiny of man. He is a progressive, not a stationary animal; and hence the happiness of every people emerged from barbarism is never found in indolence or enjoyment, but in continued exertion—in extending still farther the boundaries of science, and increasing their command over luxuries and conveniences. No degree of intelligence, or amount of fortune, or height of grandeur, ever sufficed to satiate the cravings of the human breast. “When,” said Pyrrhus, “we have conquered Italy and Sicily, we shall enjoy repose;” but had he accomplished this much, his fancied enjoyment would have been deferred till Greece and Asia had been added to his conquests. The remark of the Abbé Mably is as true as it is happily expressed—“N’est on que riche? On veut étre grand. N’est on queEdition: current; Page: [499]grand? On veut étre riche. Est on et riche et grand? On veut étre plus riche et plus grand encore.”1

It is not, however, meant, by any thing now stated, to imply that the stimulus given to industry and invention, by a desire to indulge in luxurious gratifications, is the best imaginable. Undoubtedly it were better were the immense sums so often lavished on the most ridiculous frivolities, applied to promote some useful art, science, or industrial undertaking, or expended in relieving those whom accident or misfortune has involved in unmerited distress. Self-aggrandisement, the indulgence in a taste for luxuries, and the exercise of power, should in all cases be made subservient to a man’s character, and to the interests of his country and of humanity. Riches, when honestly acquired, are an evidence of industry and economy, and should have the consideration which they deserve; but they should not be allowed to place their possessors on a level with men distinguished, for great talents, extensive learning, tried integrity, and true patriotism. But, in matters of this sort, it is useless to say what should or should not be. We have to deal with man as he is, and not as we might wish to find him. And such is human nature, that the great bulk of mankind have always preferred the palpable though vulgar distinctions of rank and riches to the highest moral and intellectual endowments; and that the desire of doing good to others, or of promoting the interests of science, has never influenced the great mass of mankind half so strongly as the desire to command some additional, though perhaps trivial, personal indulgence. The selfish passions are not, however, strengthened by a taste for luxurious accommodations. On the contrary, experience shows that, when this taste is comparatively feeble, sloth and barbarism uniformly usurp its place; and that the more generous sympathies are always most powerful in opulent, industriuos, and refined communities.

Edition: current; Page: [500]

The supposed pernicious influence which moralists have so often ascribed to luxury and refinement in the arts, seems to have principally originated in their contrasting the rapid growth of the Roman republic, during the period of its rusticity and poverty, and the disinterestedness then so frequently displayed, with the decline of the martial spirit, the loss of liberty, and the venality that universally prevailed after the revenues and refinements of Greece and Asia had been introduced into Rome. But these disorders really arose from the defective nature of the government at home, the too great extension of the territory, and the oppressions exercised upon the provinces. “Refinement,” says Hume, “on the pleasures and conveniences of life, has no natural tendency to beget venality and corruption. The value which all men put upon any particular pleasure depends on comparison and experience; nor is a porter less greedy of money, which he spends on bacon and brandy, than a courtier who purchases champagne and ortolans. Riches are valuable at all times and to all men, because they always purchase pleasures such as men are accustomed to and desire; nor can any thing restrain and regulate the love of money but a sense of honour and virtue, which, if it be not nearly equal at all times, will generally abound most in ages of knowledge and refinement.”1

It is plain, therefore, that a taste for luxuries cannot, provided it be confined within proper limits, be justly considered as prejudicial either in a moral or a political point of view. If, indeed, a man consume more luxuries than his fortune enables him to command, his consumption will be disadvantageous; but it will be equally so if he consume a greater quantity of necessaries than he can afford. The mischief does not consist in the species of articles consumed, but in their excess over the means of purchasing possessed by the consumer. This, however, is a fault which should be left for correction to the good sense of those concerned. The Edition: current; Page: [501] poverty and degradation caused by indulging in unproductive consumption is a sufficient guarantee against its being carried to an injurious extent; and to attempt to lessen it by proscribing luxury, is, in effect, attempting to enrich a country by taking away the most powerful incentives to production!

Adam Smith has given another criterion of productive and unproductive consumption; but his opinions on this subject, though ingenious, and supported with his usual ability, appear to be destitute of any solid foundation. He divides society into two great classes; the first consisting of those who fix, or, as he terms it, “realise their labour in some particular subject, or vendible commodity, which lasts, for some time at least, after that labour is past;” and the second, of those whose labour leaves nothing in existence after the moment of exertion, but perishes in the act of performance. The former are said by Smith to be productive, the latter unproductive, labourers. Not that, in making this distinction, he meant to undervalue the services performed by the unproductive class, or to deny that they are often of the highest utility, for he admits that such is frequently the case; but he contends that these services, however useful, add nothing to the wealth of the country, and, consequently, that the commodities consumed by this class are unproductively consumed, and have a tendency to impoverish, not to enrich. But, to avoid the chance of misrepresentation, we shall give Smith’s opinions in his own words.

“There is one sort of labour,” says he, “which adds to the value of the subject upon which it is bestowed; there is another which has no such effect. The former, as it produces a value, may be called productive; the latter unproductive labour. Thus, the labour of the manufacturer adds, generally, to the value of the materials which he works upon, that of his own maintenance, and of his master’s profit. The labour of a menial servant, on the contrary, adds to the value of nothing. Though the manufacturer has his wages advanced Edition: current; Page: [502] to him by his master, he, in reality, costs him no expense, the value of those wages being generally restored, together with a profit, in the improved value of the subject upon which his labour is bestowed; but the maintenance of a menial servant never is restored. A man grows rich by employing a multitude of manufacturers; he grows poor by maintaining a multitude of menial servants. The labour of the latter, however, has its value, and deserves its reward, as well as that of the former. But the labour of the manufacturer fixes and realises itself in some particular subject or vendible commodity, which lasts for some time at least, after that labour is past. It is, as it were, a certain quantity of labour stocked and stored up, to be employed, if necessary, upon some other occasion. That subject, or, what is the same thing, the price of that subject, can afterwards, if necessary, put into motion a quantity of labour equal to that which had originally produced it. The labour of the menial servant, on the contrary, does not fix or realise itself in any particular subject or vendible commodity. His services generally perish in the very instant of their performance, and seldom leave any trace or value behind them, for which an equal quantity of service could afterwards be procured.

The labour of some of the most respectable orders in the society is, like that of menial servants, unproductive of any value, and does not fix or realise itself in any permanent subject or vendible commodity, which endures after that labour is past, and for which an equal quantity of labour could afterwards be procured. The sovereign, for example, with all the officers both of justice and war who serve under him, the whole army and navy, are unproductive labourers They are the servants of the public, and are maintained by a part of the annual produce of the industry of other people. Their service, how honourable, how necessary, or how useful soever, produces nothing for which an equal quantity of service can afterwards be procured. The protection, security, and defence of the commonwealth, the effect of their labour Edition: current; Page: [503] this year, will not purchase its protection, security, and defence for the year to come. In the same class must be ranked some, both of the gravest and most important, and some of the most frivolous professions—churchmen, lawyers, physicians, men of letters of all kinds; players, buffoons, musicians, opera-singers, opera-dancers, &c. The labour of the meanest of these has a certain value, regulated by the very same principles which regulate that of every other sort of labour; and that of the noblest and most useful produces nothing which could afterwards purchase or procure an equal quantity of labour. Like the declamation of the actor, the harangue of the orator, or the tune of the musician, the work of all of them perishes in the very instant of its production.”1

But though these statements be plausible, it will not, we apprehend, be difficult to show the fallacy of the distinction which Smith has endeavoured to establish. To begin with his strongest case, that of the menial servant: He says, that his labour is unproductive, because it is not realized in a vendible commodity, while the labour of the manufacturer is productive, because it is so realised. But what, may we ask, are the results of the labour of the manufacturer? Do they not consist of comforts and conveniences required for the use and accommodation of society? The manufacturer is not a producer of matter, but of utility only. And is it not obvious that the menial servant belongs to the same class, and is also a producer of utility? It is universally allowed that the husbandman who raises corn, beef, and other articles of provision, is a productive labourer; but if so, why is the cook or menial servant who prepares and dresses these articles, and fits them for use, to be set down as unproductive? It is clear there is no difference whatever in the nature of their services—that they are either both productive, or both unproductive. To have a fire, it is quite as indispensable that coals should be carried from the cellar to the grate, as that they should be Edition: current; Page: [504] carried from the bottom of the mine to the surface of the earth; and if it be said that the miner is a productive labourer, must we not say as much of the servant employed to make and mend the fire? The whole of Smith’s reasoning proceeds on a false hypothesis: he has made a distinction where there is none, and where it is not in the nature of things there can be any. The end of all human exertion is the same—that is, to increase the sum of necessaries, comforts, and enjoyments; and it must be left to the judgment of every one to determine what proportion of these he will have in the shape of menial services, and what in the shape of material products. It is true, as has been sometimes stated, that the results of the labour of menial servants are seldom capable of being estimated in the same way as the results of the labour of agriculturists, manufacturers, or merchants; but are they, on that account, the less real or valuable? Could the same quantity of work be performed by those who are called productive labourers, were it not for the assistance they derive from those who are falsely called unproductive? A merchant or banker, realising £5,000 or £10,000 a year by his business, may perhaps be expending £1,000 on servants: now, suppose that he tries, by turning his servants adrift, to save this sum; he must henceforth, it is obvious, become coachman, footman, cook, and washerwoman for himself; and if he do this, he will, instead of making £5,000 or £10,000 a year, be most probably unable to make even £100! No doubt, a man will be ruined if he keep more servants than he has occasion for, or than he can afford to pay; but his ruin will be equally certain if he purchase an excess of food or clothes, or employ more workmen in any branch of manufacture than are required to carry it on, or than his capital can employ. To keep two ploughmen where one only would suffice, is as improvident and wasteful expenditure as to keep two footmen to do the business of one. It is in the extravagant quantity of the wealth we consume, or of the labour we employ, and not in Edition: current; Page: [505] the species of wealth or labour, that we must seek for the causes of impoverishment.

The same reasoning applies to all the cases mentioned by Adam Smith. Take, for example, that of the physician. We are told that he is an unproductive labourer, because he does not directly produce something that has exchangeable value: but if he do the same thing indirectly, what is the difference? If the exertions of the physician he conducive to health, and if, as is undoubtedly the case, he enable others to produce more than they could do without his assistance it is plain he is, indirectly at least, if not directly, a productive labourer. Smith makes no scruple about admitting the just title of the workman employed to repair a steam-engine to be enrolled in the productive class; and yet he would place a physician, who had been instrumental in saving the life of Arkwright or Watt, among those that are unproductive! It is impossible that these inconsistencies and contradictions could have occurred to Smith; and the errors into which he has fallen in treating this branch of the science, evince the necessity of advancing with extreme caution, and of subjecting every theory, how ingenious soever it may appear when first stated, to a severe and patient examination.

An occupation may be futile and trifling to the last degree without being unproductive. We are entitled, at once, to affirm, that an individual who employs himself an hour a-day in blowing bubbles, or building houses of cards, is engaged in a futile employment; but we are not, without further inquiry, entitled to affirm that it is unproductive. This will depend on a contingency: the employment will be as unproductive as it is frivolous, if it do not stimulate the individual to make any greater exertion during the remaining twenty-three hours of the twenty-four than he did previously; but if, in order to indemnify himself for the time that is thus spent, he render as much service, or produce as many useful and desirable commodities, during the period he may still devote to that purpose, as he previously rendered Edition: current; Page: [506] or produced, the employment will not be unproductive; and if the desire to indulge in it lead him to produce more commodities than he did before, it will be profitable.

Paley had a distinct perception of this doctrine, and has stated it with his usual clearness. “It signifies nothing,” he observes, “to the main purpose of trade, how superfluous the articles which it furnishes are; whether the want of them be real or imaginary; whether it be founded in nature or in opinion, in fashion, habit, or emulation; it is enough that they be actually desired and sought after. A watch may be a very unnecessary appendage to the dress of a peasant; yet if the peasant will till the ground in order to obtain a watch, the true design of trade is answered; and the watchmaker, while he polishes the case, or files the wheels of his machine, is contributing to the production of corn as effectually, though not so directly, as if he handled the spade or held the plough. The use of tobacco is an acknowledged superfluity; yet if the fisherman will ply his nets, or the mariner fetch rice from foreign countries, in order to procure to himself this indulgence, the market is supplied with two important articles of provision by the instrumentality of a merchandise which has no other apparent use than the gratification of a vitiated palate.”1

Hence, also, the productiveness of players, singers, opera-dancers, buffoons, &c. A taste for the amusements they afford has the same influence over national wealth as a taste for tobacco, champagne, or any other luxury. We wish to be present at their exhibitions; and, consequently, pay the price required to get admittance. But this price is not a gratuitous product—it is the result of industry. And hence the amusements in question—how trifling soever they may seem in the estimation of cynics and soi disant moralists—create new wants, and, by doing so, stimulate our industry to procure the means of gratifying them. They are unquestionably, Edition: current; Page: [507] therefore, a cause of production; and it is very like a truism to say, that what is a cause of production must be productive.1

Johnson has maintained the same doctrine. “Many things,” he observes, “which are false are transmitted from book to book, and gain credit in the world. One of these is the cry against the evil of luxury. Now, the truth is, that luxury produces much good. Take the luxury of the buildings in London: does it not produce real advantage in the conveniency and elegance of accommodation, and all this from the exertion of industry? People will tell you, with a melancholy face, how many builders are in gaol. It is plain they are in goal—not for buildings, for rents have not fallen. A man gives half-a guinea for a dish of green pease. How Edition: current; Page: [508] much gardening does this occasion! how many labourers must the competition to have such things early in the market keep in employment! You will hear it said, very gravely, ‘Why was not the half-guinea thus spent in luxury given to the poor?’ Alas! has it not gone to the industrious poor, whom it is better to support than the idle poor? You are much surer that you are doing good when you pay money to those that work, than when you give money merely in charity. Suppose that the ancient luxury of a dish of peacocks’ brains were to be revived, how many carcases would be left to the poor at a cheap rate? And as to the rout that is made about people who are ruined by extravagance, it is no matter to the nation that some individuals suffer. When so much general productive exertion is the consequence of luxury, the nation does not care though there are debtors in gaol; nay, they would not care though their creditors were there too.”1

The productiveness of the higher class of functionaries mentioned by Adam Smith is still more obvious. Far, indeed, from being unproductive, they are, when they properly discharge the duties of their station, the most productive labourers in a state. He says, that the results of their service—that is, to use his own words, “the production, security, and defence of the commonwealth, any one year, will not purchase its protection, security, and defence, for the year to come.” But this is plainly an error. Every one will allow that the corn and other commodities produced by the society this year form, along with portions of those produced in previous years, its capital, or its means of producing a supply of necessaries, conveniences, and enjoyments, for the ensuing year. But, without the security and protection given by government, this capital would either not exist at all, or be very greatly diminished. How, then, is it possible to deny that those by whose exertions Edition: current; Page: [509] the requisite security is afforded, are productively employed? Take a parallel case, that of the labourers employed to construct fences: no one ever presumed to doubt that their labour is productive; and yet they do not contribute directly to the production of corn or any other valuable product. The object of their industry is to give protection and security: to guard the fields, that have been fertilised and planted, from depredation; and to enable the husbandman to prosecute his employment without having his attention distracted by the care of watching. But if the security afforded by the hedger or ditcher justly entitle him to be classed among those who contribute to enrich their country, on what pretence can those public servants who protect property in the mass, and render every portion of it secure against hostile aggression, and the attacks of thieves and plunderers, be said to be unproductive? If the herdsmen who protect a single corn-field from the neighbouring crows and cattle be productive, then surely the judges and magistrates, the soldiers and sailors, who protect every field in the empire, and to whom it is owing that all classes feel secure in the enjoyment of their rights and privileges, have a good claim to be classed among those who are super-eminently productive.

That much wealth has been unproductively consumed by the servants of the public, both in this and other countries, it is impossible to doubt. But we are not to argue, from the abuses extrinsic to a beneficial institution, against the institution itself. If the public pay their servants excessive salaries, or employ a greater number than is required to insure good government and security, it is their own fault. Their conduct is similar to that of a manufacturer who pays his labourers comparatively high wages, and employs more of them than he has occasion for. But, though a state or an individual may act in this foolish and extravagant manner, it would be rather rash thence to conclude that all public servants and all manufacturing labourers are unproductive! If the establishments which provide security and protection Edition: current; Page: [510] be formed on an extravagant scale—if we have more judges or magistrates, more soldiers or sailors, than necessary, or if we pay them larger salaries than would suffice to procure their services—let their numbers and their salaries be reduced. The excess, if there be any, is not a fault inherent in the nature of such establishments, but results entirely from the extravagant scale on which they have been arranged.

But, in showing that Smith was mistaken in considering the consumption of menial servants, and of lawyers, physicians, and public functionaries, unproductive, we must beware of falling into the opposite extreme, and of countenancing the erroneous and infinitely more dangerous doctrine of those who contend that consumption, even when most unproductive, should be encouraged as a means of stimulating production, and of increasing the demand for labour! The consumption of the classes mentioned by Smith is advantageous, because they render services which those who employ them, and who are the only proper judges in such cases, consider of greater value than their wages. But the case would be totally different were government and others to employ individuals not that they might profit by their services, but that they might stimulate production by their consumption! It is absurd to suppose that wasteful consumption can ever encourage production. A man is stimulated to produce when he finds a ready market for his products—that is, when he can readily exchange them for others. And hence the efficient and only real encouragement of industry consists, not in an increase of wasteful and improvident consumption, but, as was formerly shown, in an increase of production.

It must, however, be remembered, consistently with what has been previously advanced, that, in deciding upon the character of the consumption or expenditure of any quantity of wealth, we must look at its indirect and ultimate, as well as at its direct and immediate effects. An outlay of capital or labour which, if we take its immediate results only into Edition: current; Page: [511] account, we should pronounce improvident and unproductive, may yet be discovered, by looking at it in its different bearings, and in its remote influences, to be distinctly the reverse; and it is also true, that cases frequently occur in which an expenditure which is ruinous to the individual may not be injurious, but beneficial to the state.

Montesquieu has said, “Si les riches ne depensent pas beaucoup, les pauvres mourront de faim.”1 The truth of this proposition has, however, been disputed; and this is not to be wondered at, seeing that it may be either true or false according to the sense in which it is understood. If it be construed to mean, that a rich man will be able directly to employ a greater number of servants or labourers if he spend his revenue in luxurious accommodations, than if he lay out part of it on the improvement of his estate, or accumulate it as a provision for his younger children, it is plainly erroneous. The demand for labour cannot be sensibly increased without an increase of capital; and it is quite impossible for those who spend their whole revenue on immediate gratifications to amass capital, or, consequently, to employ additional individuals. But the proposition advanced by Montesquieu should not be interpreted in this confined sense, or as referring only to the influence of the expenditure of wealthy individuals over their own demand for labour, but as referring to its influence over that of the society: and if we so interpret it, and suppose it to mean, that the lavish expenditure and luxury of the great and affluent materially benefit the poor by exciting the emulation of others, who cannot expect, except through an increase of industry and economy, to indulge in a similar scale of expense, it will, we apprehend, be found to be perfectly correct. To suppose, indeed, that the passion for luxurious gratifications should decline amongst the rich, and that men should, notwithstanding, continue equally industrious, is a Edition: current; Page: [512] contradiction. Riches are desirable only because they afford the means of obtaining these gratifications; and so powerful is the influence of a taste for them, that it may be doubted whether the extravagance which has ruined so many individuals, has not been, by giving birth to new arts and new efforts of emulation and ingenuity, of material advantage to the public.

These remarks are not made in the view of countenancing extravagant expenditure, but merely to show that those who attempt to decide as to the influence, in a public point of view, of any outlay of wealth, without endeavouring to appreciate and weigh its remote as well as its immediate effects, must, when they are right in their conclusions, be so only through accident. But without insisting further on this point, it is abundantly certain that there is nothing to fear from the improvidence of individuals. There is not, as has been already observed, an instance of any people having ever missed an opportunity to save and amass; and in all tolerably well-governed countries, the principle of accumulation has always had a marked ascendancy over the principle of expense.

Individuals are fully sensible of the value of the wealth they expend; for, in the vast majority of instances, they owe it to their own industry and frugality; and they rarely lay it out unless to defray the cost of their subsistence, or to obtain some really equivalent advantage. Such, however, it must be allowed, is not often the case with governments and their servants. They do not consume their own wealth, but that of others; and this circumstance prevents their being so much interested in its profitable outlay, or so much alive to the injurious consequences of wasteful expenditure. But economy on the part of governments, though more difficult to practise, is of infinitely greater importance than economy on the part of the most considerable individuals. A private gentleman may, inasmuch as he is the master of his own fortune, dispose of it as he pleases. He may act on the erroneous principle of profusion being a virtue, or he may Edition: current; Page: [513] attempt to excite the emulation and industry of his fellow-citizens by the splendour of his equipages and the magnificence of his mode of living. But government can, with propriety, do none of these things. It is merely a trustee for the affairs of others; and it is, consequently, bound to administer them as economically as possible. Were the principle admitted, that government might raise money, not for the protection and good government of the state, but to excite industry and ingenuity by the pressure of taxation, or by the luxury of public functionaries, an avenue would be opened to every species of malversation. It is, indeed, pretty certain that no people would submit to be taxed for such purposes; but if they did, the flagrant abuses to which it would inevitably lead, could scarcely fail of ending either in revolution or in national poverty and degradation. Economy in expenditure is, upon all occasions, the first virtue of government, and the most pressing of its duties.

We here close this view of the Principles of Political Economy. We have endeavoured to show the indissoluble connexion subsisting between private and public opulence,—that whatever has any tendency to increase the former, must, to the same extent, increase the latter,—and that, speaking generally, security of property, freedom of industry, diffusion of sound information, and moderation in the public expenditure, appear to be the only as they are the certain means by which the various powers and resources of human talent may be called into action, and society made continually to advance in the career of wealth and civilization. Every increase of security, freedom, and intelligence, is a benefit, as every diminution, whether of one only or of all, is an evil. We have endeavoured to show that there is no real opposition of interests amongst the various classes of the community—that they mutually depend upon each other; and that any favour or advantage given to one class, is not only Edition: current; Page: [514] immediately injurious to the others, and subversive of that equality of protection which every just government will always indiscriminately grant to all who are under its protection, but that it is not either really or lastingly beneficial to those whose interests it is intended to promote. Except on extraordinary occasions, the true line of policy is to leave every one to pursue his own interest in his own way, and not to lose sight of the maxim pas trop gouverner. Owing to the different dispositions and capacities of individuals, and the widely different circumstances under which they are placed, they will no doubt continue to exhibit in time to come, as they have done hitherto, great differences in their situation and conduct. But the adoption of a well-digested system of public economy is sure, notwithstanding, to conduce to the general well-being. While it adds to the numbers and wealth of the rich, it makes still greater additions to the numbers and wealth of the middle classes, and raises the poor more nearly to a level with the others. In a well-constituted society, all who pursue their occupations with diligence, intelligence, and economy, may reasonably expect to realize the advantages attached by Providence to such conduct. At all events, that is the only way in which their condition can be honourably, and therefore beneficially improved, and the public wealth augmented. It is by the spontaneous and unconstrained, but well-protected efforts of individuals to improve their condition, and to rise in the world, that nations become rich and powerful. Their labour and their savings are at once the source and the measure of national opulence and public prosperity. They may be compared to the drops of dew which invigorate and mature all vegetable nature: none of them has, singly, any perceptible influence; but we owe the foliage of summer and the fruits of autumn to their combined action.

Edition: current; Page: [515]