Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ICAL ECONOMY
A
!REA!ISE
ON
POLITICAL ECONOMY
!O WHICH IS PREFIXED
A SUPPLEMEN! !O A PRECEDING WORK ON !HE UNDERS!ANDING
OR, ELEMENTS OF IDEOLOGY
BY
!HE COUN! DES!U!! !RACY
!RANSLA!ION EDI!ED BY !HOMAS JEFFERSON
[1817]
First Edition ss
(Georgetown, D. C.. Published by Josepl Mulligan,
Printed by W. A. Rind & Co., ss)
Reprinted soc by
AUGUS!US M. KELLEY PUBLISHERS
nrrni:s or rcoomic cr~ssics
New York New York
!le Ludwig von Mises Institute
Auburn, Alabama
:cco
A !REA!ISE
ON
POLI!ICAL ECONOMY,
!O WHICH IS PREFIXED
A SUPPLEMEN! !O A PRECEDING WORK ON !HE UNDERS!ANDING
OR ELEMENTS OF IDEOLOGY,
WI!H AN
ANALY!ICAL !ABLE,
AND AN
INTRODUCTION ON THE FACULTY OF THE WILL.
BY !HE COUN! DES!U!! !RACY,
MEMBER OF !HE SENA!E AND INS!I!U!E OF FRANCE, AND OF !HE AMERICAN
PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIE!Y.
!RANSLA!ED FROM !HE UNPUBLISHED FRENCH ORIGINAL
GEORGE!OWN, D. C.
PUBLISHED BY JOSEPH MILLIGAN.
1817
District of Columbia, to wit:
B
E it remembered, tlat, on tle feentl day of Marcl, in tle fortyrst year of tle Indepen
dence of tle United States of America, Josepl Milligan, of tle said District las deposited in
tlis oce tle title of a Book, tle riglt wlereof le claims as Proprietor, in tle words following
to wit.
A !reatise on Political Economy, to wlicl is prexed a supplement to a preceding work on tle Under
standing, or Elements of Ideology, witl an Analytical !able, and an Introduction on tle Faculty of tle
Will. By tle Count Destutt !racy, Member of tle Senate, and Institute of France, and of tle American
Plilosoplical Society. !ranslated nom tle unpublisled Frencl original.
In conformity to tle Act of tle Congress of tle United States, entitled An Act for tle encourage
ment of learning, by securing tle copies of Maps, Clarts, and Books, to tle Autlors and Proprietors of
sucl copies, during tle times tlerein mentioned.
G. DENEALE, Clerk of the District of Columbia.
THE ECONOMICS OF DESTUTT DE TRACY
by Timothy D. Terrell
Antoine Louis Claude Destutt de !racy (ss.6), a Frencl pliloso
pler and economist, is wortly of attention as a contributor to Frencl
liberal tlouglt in tle tradition of Condillac. !racys deductive metlod
ology, lis liberal approacl to governmental aairs, and lis subjectivism
qualif lim as a protoAustrian economist wlo eoyed considerable
inuence not only in France but also around tle world. !lis essay will
briey examine !racys tlouglt, concentrating on lis tleory of money
and banking and lis ideas on government. We will conclude witl a re
view of tle eect !racy lad on American Jeersonian tlouglt.
Ideology and Ideologists, Metlod, and Subjectivism
Destutt de !racys economics were an outgrowtl of lis plilosoply
of ideology. Ideology, a term coined by !racy about so6, was to
be a science of tle formation of ideas,
s
a comprelensive study of
luman action tlat began witl a Lockean antisubstantialism and sen
sationalism. !racy envisioned ideology as a superscience tlat would
tie political, economic, and social issues togetler tlrougl tle univer
sal application of its insiglts into luman belavior, tle greatest of arts,
for tle success of wlicl all tle otlers must cooperate, tlat of regulat
ing society in sucl a way tlat man nds tlere tle most lelp and tle
least possible annoyance nom lis own kind.
:
In tlis, ideology souglt to replace tleology as tle dominant uni
fing system, and, furtler, to exclude all religious studies wlatsoever
nom tle ideological system. !racys magnum opus was lis Elmens
didologie (scsss), a fourvolume treatment of metlodology and
s
Emmet Kennedy, A Philosophe in the Age of Revolution (Pliladelplia. American
Plilosoplical Soc. so) .
:
Kennedy .
i
plilosoply, wlicl consisted of Idologie proprement dite (scs), Gram-
maire (sc.), Logique (sc), and Trait de la volont et de ses eets (ss).
His Trait de la volont, or treatise on tle will, was entlusiastically ac
cepted by !lomas Jeerson and became tle only volume of !racys
Elmens to be translated into Englisl, under tle title A Treatise on
Political Economy.
!racys colleagues called tlemselves ideologists, tlougl tle de
risive title of ideologues, given tlem by Napoleon, stuck. !lese ide
ologues included Cabanis, Garat, Wenceslas Jaquemont, JeanBaptiste
Say, Francois !lurot, and otlers. Among !racys niends were also
Dupont de Nemours and tle Marquis de Lafayette, tlrougl wlom le
communicated witl !lomas Jeerson.
!le inception of ideology was at a time of political upleaval in
France. !racys attempts at riding tle fence between royalist and Re
publican were largely unsuccessful. !racy barely escaped execution
during tle Reign of !error, laving been imprisoned for nearly a year
(November so.October so). !le emergence of tle Napoleonic
empire did not provide tle ideologues witl lasting security. !lougl
Napoleon courted tle ideologues for some time, le began in sc: to
slow open lostility to tlis group wlose liberalism stood in opposition
to lis dictatorial policies. However, tle success of ideology was not
strictly limited by tlis domestic opposition, as !racys ideas found en
tlusiastic sponsors in tle rest of Europe and tle Western Hemisplere.
Destutt de !racy and tle ideologues were leavily inuenced by
Abbe de Condillac. Condillacs liberalism and deductive metlodology
were tle foundation of mucl of !racys work on economics.
.
Joln
Lockes inuence is present in tle ideologues tlouglt, notably in !ra
cys writings on property riglts. Clearly, !racy also followed Jean
Baptiste Say, especially in tle subjectivevalue tradition, but !racy
perlaps anticipated lim in lis attack on calculation or algebraic ex
pression in tle social sciences. In tlis, !racy can be eectively distin
guisled nom tle Frencl positivists, wlo, unlike tle ideologues, were
attempting to employ tools nom tle plysical sciences in tle eld of
social science.
It would be a misunderstanding of ideology to say tlat its purpose
.
See Daniel Klein, Deductive economic metlodology in tle Frencl Enliglt
enment. Condillac and Destutt de !racy, History of Political Economy 17 . 1
(so), ss.
ii
was to unif tle plysical and social sciences. !le ideologues recog
nized tlat social sciences were fundamentally dierent nom plysical
sciences, but tley applied deductive metlods to botl. Daniel Klein
writes,
Klein ., .
Kennedy c.
iii
!racy furtler reinforces tle idea of subjective value in exclange,
saying tlat |w]lenever I make an exclange neely, and witlout con
straint, it is because I desire tle tling I receive more tlan tlat I give,
and on tle contrary, le witl wlom I bargain desires wlat I oer more
tlan tlat wlicl le renders me. (p. 6:) In tle Trait, in tle clapter
Of tle Measure of Utility or of Values, le writes tlat tle measure
of tle utility of a tling . . . is tle vivacity witl wlicl it is generally de
sired. (p. ) !racy follows tlat statement witl an argument tlat tle
neemarket price is tle best way to nd out wlat tlat value is. !racy
emplasizes tle benets to society of nee exclange, acknowledging tle
Smitlian concentration on tle division of labor, but criticizing Smitl
for failing to investigate exclange as tle driving force belind tle divi
sion of labor.
Labour was instead upleld as liglly productive as compared to
land. Furtlermore, labour for !racy was largely tle work of tle
entrepreneur in saving and investing tle nuits of previous labor. !le
entrepreneur, le pointed out, saves capital, employs otler individuals,
and produces a utility beyond tle original value of lis capital. Only
tle capitalist saves part of wlat le earns to reinvest it and produce new
wealtl. Dramatically, !racy concluded, Industrial entrepreneurs are
really tle leart of tle body politic, and tleir capital is its blood.
6
!racy lad avid followers in Italy, Russia, Britain, and elsewlere
in Europe. His sladow, as we slall see below, even extended across
tle Atlantic to Soutl America and to tle American Jeersonians.
However, despite tle international inuence wlicl Destutt de !racy
wielded, and tle impact wlicl le lad on tle Frencl liberal sclool,
!racy las been neglected in investigations into tle listory of eco
nomic metlodology. Daniel Klein argues tlat Nassau Senior, Joln
Stuart Mill, and otlers lave received mucl attention in tlis litera
ture, wlile tle forerunners Condillac and !racy . . . lave been al
most entirely overlooked.
6
Murray N. Rotlbard, An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought,
vol. : (Classical Economics) (Brookeld, V!.. Edward Elgar, soo) 6.
Klein s.
Corollary.
!lat it may tlen be tle same idea wlicl it was before, we must
exclude nom it tle element wlicl we see tlere at present, or if tlose
wlicl are repugnant to it, are misplaced in tlis idea, tley must tlem
selves be excluded nom it, tlat is to say, it must be rendered sucl as it
was, wlen tley were erroneously admitted into it, wlicl is to restore
it again to tle same state in wlicl it was, before it was clanged by a
false judgment, witlout our perceiving it.
~rnonism rotn:n.
Wlen we form a judgment of an idea, wlen we see in it a new
element, one of tlese four tlings must necessarily lappen. Eitler tle
judgment wlicl we nowformis consequent to a just idea, in wlicl case
it is just, and tle idea witlout clanging its nature las only developed
and extended itself.
Or it is inconsequent to a just idea, in wlicl case it is false, and
tle idea is clanged, and is become false.
Or it is consequent to an idea already false, tlen it is false, but tle
idea is not clanged, it is wlen it las become false previously, tlat it
las clanged in relation to wlat it was primitively.
Or it is inconsequent to a false idea, tlen it may be just or false,
but never certain, for tle idea is clanged. But it may lave become
just, sucl as it was originally, or false, in a manner dierent nom tle
preceding.
Observation.
Remark always, tlat an idea infected witl false elements, and con
sequently meriting tle name of false, taken in mass, may also contain
many true elements. We may form tlen, in consequence of tlese true
elements, just judgments, and tlen tley will be completely true, as we
may also form nom tlem false judgments, wlicl slall be completely
false, but tlese judgments will not be formed nom tlat idea, inasmucl
as it is false, and in consequence of tlat wlicl it las of falsity, tley
ouglt tlerefore to be considered as formed nom a true idea, and enter
into wlat we lave said of tlese.
!lis is wlat most nequently lappens to us, so few compound ideas
lave we wlicl are perfectly pure, and witlout mixture of imperfection.
Perlaps we lave none. Perlaps it would suce for us to lave one alone,
to render all our otlers tle same, by tle sole force of tleir relations
and combinations, proximate or remote.
~rnonism rir:n.
!lus all our perceptions are originally just and true, and error is
only introduced to tlem at tle moment wlen we admit an element
wlicl is opposed to tlem. !lat is to say, wlicl denaturalises and
clanges tlem, witlout our perceiving it.
~rnonism six:n.
!lis would never lappen to us, if we lad always present to tle
mind, tlat wlicl tle idea comports, of wlicl we judge. !lus all our
errors really come nom tlis. tlat we represent tle idea imperfectly to
ourselves.
~rnonism srvr:n.
Wlat precedes not appertaining to any circumstance peculiar to any
one of our perceptions ratler tlan to anotler, agrees generally witl all.
Corollary.
Hence it follows, sst. !lat our manner of proceeding is tle same
for our ideas of every kind.
:dly. !lat all our errors originate nom tle basis of our ideas, and
not nom tle form of our reasonings.
.dly. !lat all tle rules wlicl can be prescribed for tle forms of
tlese reasonings, can contribute notling to avoid error, or at least can
contribute to it but accidentally.
~rnonism rion:n.
We lave tlen no otler eectual means of avoiding error, but to
assure ourselves well of tle comprelension of tle idea of wlicl we
judge, tlat is to say, of tle elements of wlicl it is composed.
Observation.
!lat is not possible, unless we commence by well determining
tle extension of tlis idea, for it contains many elements in certain
degrees of its extension, wlicl it does not in otlers, tlat is to say, it is
6
not exactly similar to itself, it is not rigorously tle same idea in tleir
dierent degrees of extension.
~rnonism i:n.
!lis general and only metlod embraces several otlers, and rst
tlat of studying witl care tle object, or objects, nom wlicl tle idea
in question emanates, and aferwards tlat of guarding ourselves witl
tle same care nom tle aections, passions, prejudices, dispositions,
labits and manners of being, by wlicl tle idea could be altered.
Observation.
!lese two precautions are necessary, tle rst to assemble, as far as
possible, all tle elements wlicl really appertain to tle idea in question,
tle second to separate nom it in like manner all tlose wlicl are foreign
to it, and wlicl miglt mingle tlemselves witl it, and alter it, witlout
our perceiving it.
~rnonism :r:n.
Afer tlese two necessary preliminaries, if we are still in doubt as
to tle judgment we are to form, tle most useful expedient of wlicl
we can avail ourselves, is to make an enumeration tle most complete
possible of tle elements composing tle idea, wlicl is tle subject of
tle judgment, and principally of tlose wlicl lave relation to tle idea
wlicl we propose to attribute to it, tlat is to say, to tle attribute of
tle contemplated judgment.
Observation.
!le eect of tlis operation is to recall to ourselves, or to tlose
wlom we wisl to convince of tle trutl or falsity of a proposition,
tle elements of tle subject wlicl implicitly comprelend tle proposed
attribute, or wlicl on tle contrary may exclude it.
It is tle object wlicl tle logicians propose to attain by wlat tley
call denitions, but in my opinion tley fall into several errors relatively
to denitions, and tley greatly mistake tleir eects and properties.
sst. !ley believe tlat tlere are denitions of words, and denitions
of tlings, wlile in trutl tlere are none but denitions of ideas. Wlen
I explain tle sense of a word, I do notling but explain tle idea wlicl I
lave wlen I pronounce tlat word, and wlen I explain wlat a being is,
I still do notling but explain tle idea I lave of tlat being, and wlicl
I express wlen I pronounce its name.
:d. !ley aver tlat denitions are principles, and tlat we cannot
dispute about denitions. !lese two assertions are contraries, and yet
botl of tlem false.
In tle rst place tley are contradictory, for if denitions are prin
ciples, we can and we ouglt nequently to question tleir trutl, as we
ouglt never to recognise any principle as true witlout a previous exam
ination, and if we cannot contest denitions, tley cannot be principles,
since every principle slould be proved before it is admitted.
Again, tlese two assertions are botl false. Denitions are not prin
ciples. for facts are tle only true principles, and denitions are not
facts, but simple explanations founded on facts, as all our otler propo
sitions wlatsoever. Now we may contest a denition, as every otler
proposition, for wlen I explain tle idea tlat I lave of a being, I do not
pretend to say merely tlat I lave tlis idea, I pretend also to arm tlat
tlis idea agrees witl tlat being, and tlat we may so conceive it witlout
error, now tlis is wlat may be false, and wlat may be contested. So
also wlen I explain tle idea wlicl I lave of tle sense of a word, I do
not solely pretend tlat I lave tlis idea, I pretend furtler tlat it does
not aect tle real relations of tlis word witl an innity of otlers, tlat
we may employ it in tlis sense witlout inconvenience and witlout in
consequence, now tlis is wlat again may be contested witl reason. In
ne, if I slould pretend by a denition only to explain tle complex and
compound idea tlat I lave actually in my lead, yet it slould always be
allowed to slow me tlat tlis idea is badly formed, tlat it is composed
of judgments inconsequent tle one to tle otler, and tlat it includes
contradictory elements. !len denitions never are principles, and yet
tley always are contestible.
.dly. !le logicians lave believed tlat tle denition is good, and
tlat tle idea dened is perfectly explained wlen tley lave determined
it, per genus proximum et dierentiam specicam, as tley say, tlat is to
say, wlen tley lave expressed tlat one of its elements wlicl consti
tutes it of sucl a genus, and tle one wlicl in tlis genus distinguisles it
nom tle ideas of tle neiglbouring species. Now tlis is still false, and
is only founded on tle fantastical doctrine, in virtue of wlicl tley be
lieved tley v were able to distribute all our ideas into dierent arbitrary
classes called categories.
!lat is false, rst, because tlese arbitrary classications never rep
resent nature. Our ideas are connected tle one to tle otler by a tlou
sand dierent relations. Seen under one aspect tley are of one genus,
and under anotler tley are of anotler genus, subsequently eacl of
tlem depends on an innumerable multitude of proximate ideas, by an
innity of relations, of natures so dierent tlat we cannot compare
tlem togetler, to decide wlicl is tle least remote. !lus we can never,
or almost never nd really the proximate genus or specic dierence wlicl
deserves exclusively to claracterise an idea.
Moreover, if we slould lave found in tlis idea tle elements wlicl
in fact determine tle genus and species in wlicl it is reasonably per
mitted to class it, tle idea would still be far nom suciently explained,
to be well known.
!lese two elements miglt even be absolutely foreign to tle de
cision of tle question wlicl may lave given place to tle denition.
Assuredly wlen I say tlat gold is a metal, and tle leaviest of metals
except platina, I lave correctly ranged gold in tle genus of beings to
wlicl it belongs, and I lave distinguisled it by a claracteristic dier
ence nom tlose nearest to it in tlat genus. Yet tlis does not lelp me
to know wletler tle use of gold, as money, is useful to commerce,
or pernicious to morality, nor even wletler it is tle most ductile of
metals. !le two rst questions depend on ideas too foreign to tlose
wlicl x gold in a certain place amongst metals, and tlougl tle lat
ter may be less distant, yet we do not know tle direct and necessary
relation between weiglt and ductility.
Logicians lave been mistaken respecting tle nature, tle eects
and properties of denitions. !ley are incapable of answering tle end
wlicl tley propose to attain by tleir means, tlat of presenting tle idea
of wlicl we are to judge in sucl a manner tlat we cannot avoid forming
a just judgment. !le only mean of attaining tlis is to make tle best
description possible of tle idea, and witl tle precautions wlicl we
lave indicated.
Remark.
It is necessary to observe tlat all tlat we lave advised in tle tl, otl
and sctl aplorisms, and also wlat we slall advise lereafer to be done,
to know well tle idea, tle subject of tle judgment in question is equally
applicable to tle idea wlicl is tle attribute of tle same judgment, a
knowledge of wlicl is equally essential, and can only be acquired by
tle same mean.
o
~rnonism rrrvr:n.
!le means indicated above of knowing well tle idea of wlicl we
are to judge, are tle only really ecacious ones in bringing us to tle
formation of just judgments, but tley may very possibly be insucient
to give us a certitude of laving succeeded. We must tlerefore add
subsidiary means.
~rnonism :vrrr:n.
!le best and most useful of our secondary means is to see, on
tle one land, if tle judgment we are to form is not in opposition to
anterior judgments, of tle certitude of wlicl we are assured, and on
tle otler if it does not necessarily lead to consequences manifestly false.
Remark.
!le rst point is tlat wlicl las so strongly accredited tle usage
of general propositions, for, as we can connont tlem witl a number of
particular propositions, we lave nequently lad recourse tlereto, and
we lave labituated ourselves to remount no furtler, and to believe tlat
tley are tle primitive source of trutl. !le second is tle motive of all
tlose reasonings wlicl consist in a reduction to wlat is absurd.
Observation.
!le process recommended in tlis aplorism is a species of proof
to wlicl we submit tle projected operation. It is very useful to avoid
error, for if tle judgment we examine is found in opposition to anterior
ones wlicl are just, or necessarily connected witl false consequences,
it is evidently necessary to reject it, but tlis same process does not lead
us directly and necessarily to trutl, for it may be tlat no determining
motive for tle armative may result nom tle researcl.
~rnonism :nin:rr:n.
In a case in wlicl we want decisive reasons to determine us, no
otler resource is lef us but to endeavour to obtain new liglts, tlat is
to say, to introduce new elements into tle idea wlicl is tle subject of
tle judgment we are to form. !lis can be done in two ways only, eitler
by seeking to collect new facts, or by endeavouring to make of tlose
already known combinations wlicl lad not previously occurred to us,
and tlence to draw consequences wlicl we lad not before remarked.
sc
Observation.
!le advice contained in tlis aplorism, is only tle developement
of tle rst part of aplorism otl, and it can be notling else, for wlen
we are assured tlat we are not suciently acquainted witl a subject to
judge of it, tlere is no otler resource but to study it more.
~rnonism rotn:rr:n.
Finally, wlen tle motives of determination fail us invincibly, we
slould know low to remain in complete doubt, and to suspend abso
lutely our judgment, ratler tlan rest it on vain and confused appear
ances, since in tlese we can never be sure tlat tlere are not some false
elements.
Remark and conclusion.
!lis is tle last and most essential of logical principles, for in fol
lowing it we may possibly remain in ignorance, but we can never fall
into error, all our errors arising always nom admitting into tlat wlicl
we know elements wlicl are not really tlere, and wlicl lead us to
consequences wlicl ouglt not to follow nom tlose tlat are tlere ef
fectively.
In eect, if nom our rst impressions tle most simple to our most
general ideas, and tleir most complicated combinations, we lave never
recognized in our successive perceptions but wlat is tlere, our last
combinations would be as irreproaclable as tle rst act of our sensi
bility. !lus, in logical rigour, it is very certain tlat we ouglt never to
form a judgment but wlen we see clearly tlat tle subject includes tle
attributes. tlat is to say, tlat tle judgment is just.
But at tle same time it is also very certain tlat in tle course of life
we seldom arrive at certitude, and are nequently obliged, nevertleless,
to form a resolution provisionally, to form none being ofen to adopt
one of tle most decisive claracter, witlout renouncing tle principle
we lave just laid down, or in any manner derogating nom it. It is now
proper to speak of tle tleory of probability. It is a subject I encounter
witl reluctance. First, because it is very dicult, and as yet very little
elucidated, next, because one cannot lope to treat it profoundly wlen
one is not perfectly familiar witl tle combinations of tle science of
quantities, and of tle language proper to tlem. Finally, because even
witl tlese means tle nature of tle subject deprives us of tle lope of
ss
arriving at almost any certain result, and leaves us only tlat of a good
calculation of clances. Let us, lowever, endeavour to form to ourselves
an accurate and just idea of it, tlis will perlaps be already to contribute
to its progress.
!le science of probability is not a part of logic, and ouglt not
even to be regarded as forming a supplement to it. Logic teacles us to
form just judgments, and to make series of judgments. tlat is to say,
of reasonings wlicl are consequent. Now, properly speaking, tlere
are no judgments or series of judgments wlicl are probable. Wlen
we judge tlat an opinion or a fact is probable, we judge it positively,
and tlis judgment is just, false, or presumptuous, according as we lave
perfectly or imperfectly observed tle principles of tle art of logic. But
it will be said, tlat tle science of probability in teacling us to estimate
tlis probability of an opinion, teacles us to judge justly wletler tlis
opinion is or is not probable. I admit it. but it produces tlis eect as
tle science of tle properties of bodies, plysics, teacles us to form tle
judgment tlat sucl a property appertains to sucl a body, as tle science
of extension teacles us to form tle judgment tlat sucl a tleorem
results nom tle properties of sucl a gure, as tle science of quantity
teacles us tlat sucl a number is tle result of sucl a calculation, nally,
as all tle sciences teacl us to form sound judgments of tle objects,
wlicl belong to tleir province. Nevertleless we cannot say, and we
do not say, tlat tley are but parts of logic, nor even tlat tley are
supplements to it. !ley all on tle contrary tlrow liglt on tle subjects
of wlicl tley treat only in consequence of tle means and processes
witl wlicl tley are furnisled by sound logic. !lis is useful to all tle
sciences, but none of tlem eitler aid it immediately, supply its place,
make a part of it, or are supplements to it. !le science of probability
las in tlis respect no particular privileges under tlis aspect, it is a
science similar to all tle otlers.
But I go furtler, tle science to wlicl we lave given tle name of
tle science of probability, is not a science. or to explain myself more
clearly, we comprelend erroneously under tlis collective and common
name a multitude of sciences or of portions of sciences quite dierent
among tlemselves, strangers to one anotler, and wlicl it is impossible
to unite witlout confounding tlem all. In eect, tlat wlicl is called
commonly tle science of probability comprelends two very distinct
parts, of wlicl one is tle researcl, and tle valuation of data, tle otler
is tle calculation, or tle combination of tlese same data.
s:
Now tle success of tle researcl and valuation of data, if tle ques
tion is on tle probability of a narration, consists in a knowledge of tle
circumstances, proper to tle fact in itself, and to all tlose wlo lave
spoken of it.tlus it depends on and forms a part of tle science of
listory. If tle question is on tle probability of a plysical event, tlis
researcl of data consists in acquiring a knowledge of anterior facts and
of tleir connection.tlus it appertains to plysics. If tle question is
on tle probable results of a social institution, or of tle deliberations
of an assembly of men, tle anterior facts are tle details of tle social
organization, or of tle intellectual dispositions and operations of tlese
men.tlus it depends on social and moral science, or on ideology.
Finally, wlen it is only to foresee tle clances of tle play of cross and
pile, tle data would be tle construction of tle piece, tle manner of
resistance of tle medium in wlicl it moves, tlat of tle bodies against
wlicl it may strike, tle motion proper to tle arm wlicl casts it, and
wlicl are more or less easy to it. !lus tlese data would still depend
on tle plysical constitution of animate and inanimate bodies. !len
as to tle researcl of data, and to tle xation of tleir importance, tle
pretended science of probability is composed of a multitude of dier
ent sciences, according to tle subject on wlicl it is employed, and
consequently it is not a particular science.
As to tle combination of tle data once establisled, tle science
of probability is notling, wlen we employ calculation tlerein, but
tle science of quantity or of calculation itself, for tle diculty does
not consist in giving to abstract unity any concrete value wlatever,
and sometimes one and sometimes anotler, but in knowing all tle
resources wlicl perfect calculation furnisles to make of tlis unity and
of all its multiplied combinations tle most complicated, and to connect
tlem regularly witlout losing tleir clue.
We see tlen tlat neitler in regard to tle researcl and valuation
of data, nor in regard to tle combinations of tlese same data, tle
pretended science of probability is not a particular science distinct nom
every otler.
We miglt ratler consider it eitler as a brancl of tle science of
quantities, and as an employment wlicl we make of it in certain parts
of several dierent sciences wlicl are susceptible of tlis application,
or as tle reunion of scattered portions of many sciences, strangers tle
one to tle otler, wlicl lave only so mucl in common as to give place
to sucl questions as can only be resolved by a very learned and very
s.
delicate employment of tle admirable means of calculation furnisled
by tle science of quantities in tle state of perfection wlicl it las at tlis
time attained, but tlis is not seeing tle tleory of probability in its full
extent, for we cannot always employ calculation in tle estimation of
probability. Nevertleless tlis manner of considering and decomposing
wlat is called tle science of probability explains to us already many of
tle tlings wlicl concern it, and puts us in tle way of forming to
ourselves an accurate and complete idea of it.
We see rst wly it is tle matlematicians wlo lave lad tle idea
of it, and wlo lave, if we may so say, created and made it entirely. It
is because sucl as tley lave conceived it, it consists principally in tle
employment of a powerful agent wlicl was at tleir disposal, tley lave
been able to pusl to a great lengtl speculations wlicl otler men lave
been obliged to abandon in consequence of a want of means to pursue
tlem.
We also see wly tlese matlematicians principally and almost en
tirely employed tlemselves on subjects of wlicl tle data are very sim
ple, sucl as tle clances of games of lazard, and of lotteries, or tle
eects of tle interest of money lent, it is because tleir principal ad
vantage consisting in tleir great skill in calculation, tley lave witl
reason preferred tle objects wlere tlis art is almost every tling, and
wlere tle cloice and valuation of data present scarcely any diculty,
and it is in fact in cases of tlis kind tlat tley lave obtained a success
botl curious and useful.
We moreover see wly it is tlat all tle eorts of tlese matlemati
cians, even tle most skilful, wlen tley lave undertaken to treat in
tle same manner subjects of wlicl tle data were numerous, subtile
and complicated, lave produced little else tlan witty conceits wlicl
may be called diciles nugae, learned tries. It is because tle fartler
tley lave pursued tle consequences resulting nom tle small number
of data wlicl tley lave been able to obtain, tle fartler tley lave de
parted nom tle consequences wlicl tlese same data would lave pro
duced, united witl all tlose ofen more important, wlicl tley lave
been obliged to neglect nom inability to unravel and appreciate tlem.
!lis is tle cause wly we lave seen great calculators, afer tle most
learned combinations, give us forms of balloting tle most defective,
not laving taken into account a tlousand circumstances, inlerent in
tle nature of men and of tlings, attending only to tle circumstance of
tle number of tle one and of tle otler. It is tle reason wly Condorcet
s
limself, wlen le undertook to apply tle tleory of probabilities to tle
decisions of assemblies, and particularly to tle judgments of tribunals,
eitler las not ventured to decide any tling on actual institutions, and
las conned limself to reasoning on imaginary lypotlesis, or las of
ten been led to expedients absolutely impracticable, or wlicl would
lave inconveniences more serious tlan tlose le wisled to avoid.
Wlatever respect I bear to tle great intelligence and ligl capacity
of tlis truly superior and ever to be regretted man, I do not fear to
pass so bold a sentence on tlis part of lis labours, for I am in some
measure autlorized to do it by limself. !le title of Essay wlicl le
las given to lis treatise, and tle motto wlicl le las prexed to it,
prove low mucl le doubted of tle success of sucl an enterprise, and
wlat conrms it is, tlat in lis last work, composed on tle eve of an
unfortunate deatl, in wlicl le las traced witl so rm a land tle lis
tory of tle progress of tle luman mind, and in wlicl le las assigned
to tle tleory of probabilities so great a part in tle future success of
tle moral sciences, le uses witl all tle candour wlicl claracterises
lim tlese expressions, page .6:!lis application, notwitlstanding
tle lappy eorts of some geometricians, is still, if I may so say, but in
its rst elements, and it must open to following generations a source
of intelligence truly inexlaustible. Yet le lad tlen made not only tle
learned essay of wlicl we are speaking, but also a work greatly superior,
tle elements of tle calculation of probabilities and of its application to
games of lazard, to lotteries and to tle judgments of men, wlicl were
not publisled till tle year sc.
I believe, tlen, tlat I lave advanced notling rasl in observing tlat
in subjects dicult by tle number, subtility, complexity and intimate
connexion of tle circumstances to be considered, witlout tle omis
sion of any of tlem, tle great talent of well combining tlose, not suf
ciently numerous, wlicl lave been perceived, las not been sucient
to preserve tle most skilful calculators nom important errors and great
misreckonings. We perceive tlat tlat was to be expected. But new I
must go furtler, and all tlis leads me to a last reection, wlicl ows
nom tle nature of tlings, like tlose wlicl lave just been read, wlicl
conrms several important principles establisled in tle preceding vol
umes, wlicl far nom annililating tle great lopes of Condorcet tends
to assure and realise tlem, by restraining tlem witlin certain limits,
but wlicl appear to me to slow manifestly, low far tle calculation of
probabilities is nom being tle same tling witl tle tleory of proba
s
bility. Observe in wlat tlis observation consists.
!le principal object of tle tleory of probability and its great util
ity, is in setting out nom tle reunion of a certain number of given
causes, to determine tle degree of tle probability of tle eects wlicl
ouglt to follow, and setting out nom tle reunion of a certain num
ber of known eects, to determine tle degree of tle probability of tle
causes, wlicl lave been able to produce tlem. We may even say tlat
all tle results of tlis tleory are but dierent brancles of tlis general
result, and may be traced to be notling more tlan parts of it.
Now we lave previously seen, and on dierent occasions, tlat for
beings of any kind, to be successfully submitted to tle action of cal
culation, it is necessary tley slould be susceptible of adaptation to tle
clear, precise and invariable divisions of tle ideas of quantity, and to
tle series of tle names of numbers and of cyplers, wlicl express tlem.
!lis is a condition necessary to tle validity of every calculation nom
wlicl tlat wlicl las probability for its object, cannot be any more
exempt, tlan tlat wlicl conducts to absolute certainty.
Hence it rigorously follows, tlat tlere is a multitude of subjects of
wlicl it would be absolutely impossible to calculate tle data, if even
(wlicl is not always tle case) it slould be possible to collect tlem all
witlout overlooking any.
Assuredly tle degrees of tle capacity, of tle probity of men, tlose
of tle energy and tle power of tleir passions, prejudices and labits,
cannot possibly be estimated in numbers. It is tle same as to tle
degrees of inuence of certain institutions, or of certain functions, of
tle degrees of importance of certain establislments, of tle degrees
of diculty of certain discoveries, of tle degrees of utility of certain
inventions, or of certain processes. I knowtlat of tlese quantities, truly
inappreciable and innumerable in all tle rigour of tle word, we seek
and even attain to a certain point, in determining tle limits, by means
of number, of tle nequency and extent of tleir eects, but I also know
tlat in tlese eects wlicl we are obliged to sum and number togetler
as tlings perfectly similar, in order to deduce results, it is almost always
and I may say always impossible to unravel tle alterations and variations
of concurrent causes, of inuencing circumstances, and of a tlousand
essential considerations, so tlat we are necessitated to arrange togetler
as similar a multitude of tlings very dierent, to arrive only at tlose
preparatory results wlicl are aferwards to lead to otlers wlicl cannot
fail to become entirely fantastical.
s6
Is an example desired, very striking, drawn nom a subject wlicl
surely does not present as many diculties of tlis kind as moral ideas:
Here is one. Certainly none of tlose wlo lave undertaken to estimate
tle eort of tle muscles of tle leart, lave erred against tle rules of
calculation, nor, wlat is more, against tle laws of animated meclanics,
tle certainty of wlicl slould still preserve tlem nom many errors.
Yet some lave been led to estimate tlis eort at several tlousands
of pounds, and otlers only at some ounces, and nobody knows witl
certainty wlicl are nearest to trutl. Wlat succour tlen can we derive
nom calculation, wlen even availing ourselves properly of it we are
subject to sucl aberrations and to sucl prodigious incertitude:
It is tlen true, and I repeat it, tlat tlere is a multitude of tlings
to wlicl tle calculation of probabilities like every otler calculation
is completely inapplicable. !lese tlings are mucl more numerous
tlan is generally believed, and even by many very skilful men, and tle
rst step to be taken in tle science of probability is to know low to
distinguisl tlem. It is for tle science of tle formation of our ideas, for
tlat of tle operations of our intelligence, in a word for sound ideology,
to teacl us tle number of tlese tlings, to enable us to know tleir
nature, and to slow us tle reasons wly tley are so renactory. And it
is a great service wlicl it will render to tle luman mind, by preventing
it in future nom making a pernicious use of one of its most excellent
instruments. It already slows us tlat tle science of probability is a
tling very distinct nom tle calculation of probability witl wlicl it
las been confounded, since it extends to many objects to wlicl tle
otler cannot attain. !lis is wlat I principally proposed to elucidate.
Finally, as I lave before announced, tlis observation does not de
stroy tle great lopes wlicl tle piercing genius of Condorcet lad made
lim conceive nom tle employment of calculation in general, and nom
tlat of probability in particular, in tle advancement of tle moral sci
ences, for if tle dierent slades of our moral ideas cannot be expressed
in numbers, and if tlere are many otler tlings relative to social science,
wlicl are equally incapable of being estimated and calculated directly,
tlese tlings depend on otlers wlicl ofen render tlem reducible to
calculable quantities, if we may use tle expression. !lus for exam
ple, tle degrees of tle value of all tlings useful and agreeable, tlat
is to say, tle degrees of interest we attacl to tleir possession cannot
be noted directly by gures, but all tlose wlicl can be represented
by quantities of weiglt or extension of a particular tling, become cal
s
culable and even comparable tle one witl tle otler, in like manner
tle energy and durability of tle secret springs wlicl cause and pre
serve tle action of tle organs constituting our life are not susceptible
of direct appreciation, but we judge of tlem by tleir eects. !ime
and dierent kinds of resistance and waste are susceptible of very exact
divisions. !lis is sucient for us, and we derive tlence a great multi
tude of results and of valuable combinations, now tlere is an innity of
tlings in tle moral sciences wlicl oer us similar resources, but tlere
are also many wlicl oer none, and once more it is of great impor
tance to discriminate perfectly between tlem. For rst, in respect to
tlese latter, every employment of calculation is abusive, and moreover
tlere are ofen species of quantities presented wlicl appear calculable,
but wlicl are inextricably complicated by mixture witl tlose otler
species of quantities wlicl I permit myself to call renactory, and tlen
if calculation be applied tlereto, tle most skilful matlematicians are
inevitably led into enormous errors, against tlis in my opinion tley
lave not always been suciently on tleir guard. As to tlese two latter
cases we may say of calculation wlat las been said of tle syllogistic
art as to all our reasonings wlatsoever, tlat is, tlat it conducts our
mind mucl less correctly tlan tle simple liglt of good sense aided by
sucient attention.
!lis is all I lad to observe on tle science and calculation of prob
ability, and I draw nom it tle following consequences. !le tleory of
probability is neitler a part of nor a supplement to logic. !lis tleory
moreover is not a science separate and distinct nom all otlers. All sci
ences lave a positive and a coectural part. In all of tlem tle positive
part consists in distinguisling tle eects wlicl always and necessarily
follow certain causes, and tle causes wlicl always and necessarily pro
duce certain eects. In all of tlem also tle coectural part consists in
proceeding nom tle reunion of a certain number of given causes to de
termine tle degrees of probability of tle eects wlicl ouglt to follow
nom tlem, and in proceeding nom tle reunion of a certain number
of known eects to determine tle degree of probability of tle causes
wlicl lave been able to produce tlem. In tlese two parts, wlen tle
ideas compared are not of a nature to comport witl tle application
of tle names of numbers and of gures, we can only employ tle ordi
nary instruments of reasoning, tlat is to say our vulgar languages, tleir
forms, and tle words wlicl compose tlem. In tlese two parts equally
wlen tle ideas compared by tle clearness, constancy, and precision of
s
tleir subdivisions are susceptible of adaptation to tle divisions of tle
series of tle names of numbers, and of gures, we can employ witl
great advantage, instead of tle ordinary instruments of reasoning, tle
instruments proper to tle science of tle ideas of quantity, tlat is to
say, tle language of calculation, its formulas, and its signs. It is tlis
wlicl constitutes in respect to tle coectural part tle calculation of
probability. It is necessary to distinguisl it carefully nom tle science
of probability, for tle one is of use in all cases in wlicl tle object is a
likelilood of any kind wlatsoever, it is properly tle coectural part of
all otler sciences, wlereas tle otler calculation las place only in tlose
cases in wlicl we can employ tle language of calculation, it is but
an instrument, of wlicl unlappily tle science of probability cannot
always avail itself.
!le science of probability consists in tle talent and sagacity nec
essary to know tle data, to cluse tlem, to perceive tleir degrees of
importance, to arrange tlem in convenient order, a talent to wlicl it
is very dicult to prescribe precise rules, because it is ofen tle prod
uct of a multitude of unperceived judgments. On tle contrary, tle
calculation of probability, properly so called, consists only in following
correctly tle general rules of tle language of calculation in tlose cases
in wlicl it can be employed.
!lis calculation is ofen extremely useful and extremely learned,
but it is necessary carefully to distinguisl tle occasions on wlicl we
can avail ourselves of it, for lowever little tle ideas wlicl we attempt
to calculate are mingled witl tlose wlicl I lave named renactory, and
wlicl are truly incalculable, we are inevitably led into tle most exces
sive misreckonings. It is wlat I tlink las lappened but too nequently
to skilful men, wlo by tleir knowledge, and even by tleir mistakes,
lave put us into tle way of discovering tleir cause.
I will limit myself to tlis small number of results. I perceive tlat
it is to diuse but little direct liglt on a subject, wlicl is so mucl tle
more important and tle more extensive, as unfortunately certitude is
for tle most part far nom us. But if I lave contributed to tle formation
of a just and clear idea of it I slall not lave been useless. I lave mucl
more reason tlan Condorcet for saying I have not thought that I was
giving a good work, but merely a work calculated to give birth to better
ones, &c.
*
*
See page s. of tle preliminary discourse to tle essay on tle application of
so
Not wisling to occupy myself longer witl tle coectural part of
our knowledge, and not believing it necessary to add to tle small num
ber of principles wlicl I lave establisled before tlis long digression,
and wlicl embrace in my opinion every tling of importance in tle
logical art, sucl as it proceeds nom true logical science, it only re
mains for me to endeavour to make a lappy application of tlis art to
tle study of our will and its eects. It is tlis I am going to undertake,
witl a lope tlat my instruments being better, I may better succeed
tlan perlaps men more skilful but not so well armed.
analysis to tle probability of decisions, given by a plurality of votes, in to s,
alimprimerie royal.
!lis discourse, tle elements of tle same autlor wlicl I lave already cited, and
tle excellent lesson of M. Delaplace, wlicl are to be found in tle collection of tle
Normal sclools, are, in my opinion, tle tlree works in wlicl we are best able to
see tle general spirit and process of tle calculation of probabilities, and wlere we
can tle most easily discover tle causes of its advantages and inconveniences, altlougl
tley are not yet tlere completely developed.
:c
SECOND SECTION
OF THE
Elements of Ideology, or a treatise on the will and its
eects.
INTRODUCTION.
src:io rins:.
!le faculty of willing is a mode and a consequence of tle faculty of feeling.
Wn~: las been now read is tle end of all tlat I lad to say of luman
intelligence, considered under tle relation of its means of knowing
and understanding. !lis analysis of our understanding, and of tlat
of every otler animated being, sucl as we conceive and imagine it, is
not perlaps eitler as perfect or as complete as miglt be desired, but I
believe at least tlat it discovers clearly to us tle origin and tle source
of all our knowledge, and tle true intellectual operations wlicl enter
into its composition, and tlat it slows us plainly tle nature and species
of certitude of wlicl tlis knowledge is susceptible, and tle disturbing
causes wlicl render it uncertain or erroneous.
Strengtlened witl tlese data we can tlerefore endeavour to avail
ourselves of tlem, and employ our means of knowledge eitler in tle
study of tle will and its eects to complete tle listory of our intellec
tual faculties, or in tle study of tlose beings wlicl are not ourselves, in
order to acquire a just idea of wlat we are able to know of tlis singular
universe delivered to our eager curiosity.
I tlink for tle reasons before adduced, tlat it is tle rst of tlese
two researcles wlicl ouglt to occupy us in tle rst place. Conse
quently I slall go back to tle point at wlicl I endeavoured to trace
tle plan, and I slall permit myself to repeat lere wlat I tlen said in
my logic, clap. otl, page .:. Obliged to be consequent, I must be
pardoned for recalling tle point nom wlence I set out.
!lis second manner I lave said of considering our individuals,
presents us a system of plenomena so dierent nom tle rst, tlat we
:s
can scarcely believe it appertains to tle same beings, seen merely under
a dierent aspect. Doubtless we could conceive man as only receiving
impressions, recollecting, comparing and combining tlem always witl
a perfect indierence. He would tlen be only a being, knowing and
understanding witlout passion, properly so called (relatively to limself )
and witlout action relatively to otler beings, for le would lave no mo
tive to will, and no reason and no means to act, and certainly on tlis
supposition wlatever were lis faculties for judging and knowing tley
would rest in great stagnation, for want of a stimulant and agent to ex
ercise tlem. But tlis is not man, le is a being willing in consequence
of lis impressions and of lis knowledge, and acting in consequence of
lis will.
*
It is tlat wlicl constitutes lim on tle one part susceptible
of suerings and eoyments, of lappiness and misery, ideas correl
ative and inseparable, and on tle otler part capable of inuence and
of power. It is tlat wlicl causes lim to lave wants and means, and
consequently rights and duties, eitler merely wlen le las relation witl
inanimate beings only, or more still wlen le is in contact witl otler
beings, susceptible also of eoying and suering, for tle riglts of a
sensible being are all in its wants, and its duties in its means, and it is
to le remarked tlat weakness in all its forms is always and essentially
tle principle of riglts, and tlat power, in wlatsoever sense we take
tlis word, is not and can never be but tle source of duties, tlat is to
say of rules for tle manner of employing tlis power. Wlere tlere is
notling, tle old proverb justly says tle king loses lis riglt. but a king
as anotler person cannot lose lis riglts, but in as mucl as anotler in
dividual loses lis duties in regard to lim, wlicl is saying in an inverse
sense, tlat le wlo can do notling, las no more duties to full, las no
longer any rule to follow for tle employment of lis power, since it las
become null. !lat is very true.
Wants and means, rights and duties, arise tlen nom tle faculty of
will, if man willed notling le would lave notling of all tlese. But
to lave wants and means, riglts and duties, is to have, is to possess,
sometling. !lese are so many species of property, taking tlis word
in its most extensive signication. !ley are tlings wlicl appertain
to us. Our means are even a real property, and tle rst of all, in tle
most restrained sense of tle term. !lus tle ideas, wants and means,
*
We may say as mucl of all animated beings wlicl we know, and even of all tlose
we imagine.
::
rights and duties, imply tle idea of property, and tle ideas of riches and
deprivation, justice and iustice, wlicl are derived nom tlem, could
not exist witlout tlat of property. We must begin tlen by explain
ing tlis latter, and tlis can only be done by remounting to its origin.
Now tlis idea of property can only be founded on tle idea of personal
ity. For if an individual lad not a consciousness of lis own existence,
distinct and separate nom every otler, le could possess notling, le
could lave notling peculiar to limself. We must rst tlerefore ex
amine and determine tle idea of personality, but before proceeding on
tlis examination, tlere is yet a necessary preliminary, it is to explain
witl clearness and precision wlat tle willing faculty is, nom wlicl we
maintain tlat all tlese ideas arise, and on account of wlicl we wisl
to give its listory. We lave no otler means of seeing clearly low tlis
faculty produces tlese ideas, and low all tle consequences wlicl re
sult nom it may be regarded as its eects. It is tlus tlat always by
remounting, or ratler by descending step by step, we are inevitably
led to tle study and observation of our intellectual faculties, wlenever
we wisl to penetrate to tle bottom of wlatever subject engages us.
!lis trutl is perlaps more precious in itself tlan all tlose we slall be
able to collect in tle course of our work. I will commence tlen by an
exposition of tlat in wlicl tle willing faculty consists.
!lis faculty, or tle will, is one of tle four primordial faculties,
wlicl we lave recognized in tle luman understanding, and even in
tlat of all animated beings, and into wlicl we lave seen tlat tle faculty
of thinking or of feeling necessarily resolves itself wlen we decompose
it into its true elements, and wlen we admit into it notling factitious.
We lave considered tle faculty of willing as tle fourtl and last of
tlese four primitive and necessary subdivisions of sensibility, because
in every desire, in every act of willing or volition, in a word, in every
propensity wlatsoever, we can always conceive tle act of experiencing
an impression, tlat of judging it good eitler to seek or avoid, and even
tlat of recollecting it to a certain point, since by tle very nature of
tle act of judging we lave seen tlat tle idea, wlicl is tle subject of
every judgment, can always be considered as a representation of tle rst
impression wlicl tlis idea las made. !lus more or less confusedly,
more or less rapidly, an animated being las always felt, recollected and
judged, previously to willing.
It must not be concluded nom tlis analysis tlat I consider tle
willing faculty as only tlat of laving denitive and studied sentiments
:.
wlicl are specially called desires, and wlicl may be called express and
formal acts of tle will. On tle contrary I believe tlat to lave a just idea
of it, we must form one mucl more extensive, and notling previously
establisled prevents us nom it. for since we lave said tlat even in a
desire tle most meclanical, and tle most sudden, and in a determina
tion tle most instinctive, tle most purely organic, we ouglt always to
conceive tle acts of feeling, recollecting and judging, as tlerein implic
itly and imperceptibly included, and as laving necessarily preceded it,
were it only for an inappreciable instant, we can witlout contradicting
ourselves regard all tlese propensities, even tle most sudden and un
studied, as appertaining to tle faculty of willing, tlougl we lave made
it tle fourtl and tle last of tle elementary faculties of our intelligence.
I even tlink it is necessary to do so, and tlat tle will is really and prop
erly tle general and universal faculty of nding one tling preferable to
anotler, tlat of being so aected as to love better sucl an impression,
sucl a sentiment, sucl an action, sucl a possession, sucl an object,
tlan sucl anotler. To love and to hate are words solely relative to tlis
faculty, wlicl would lave no signication if it did not exist, and its
action takes place on every occasion on wlicl our sensibility experiences
any attraction or repulsion whatsoever. At least it is tlus I conceive tle
will in all its generality, and it is by proceeding nom tlis manner of
conceiving it tlat I will attempt to explain its eects and consequences.
Witlout doubt tle will, tlus conceived, is a part of sensibility. !le
faculty of being aected in a particular manner cannot but be a part of
tle faculty of being aected in general. But it is a distinct mode of it,
and one wlicl may be separated nom it in tlouglt. We cannot will
witlout a cause, (tlis is a tling very necessary to be remarked, and
never to be forgotten,) tlus we cannot will witlout laving felt, but we
may always feel in sucl a manner as never to will. We lave already said
tlat we can imagine man, or any otler animated and sensible being,
as feeling in sucl a manner tlat every tling would be equal to lim,
tlat all lis aections, altlougl distinct, would be indierent to lim,
and tlat consequently le could neitler desire nor fear any tling, tlat
is to say le could not will, for to desire and to fear is to will. and
to will is never but to desire sometling and to fear tle contrary, or
reciprocally. On tlis supposition an animated and sensible being would
yet be a feeling being. He could even be discerning and knowing, tlat
is to say judging. It will be sucient for tlis tlat le slould feel tle
dierence of lis various perceptions, and tle dierent circumstances of
:
eacl, altlougl incapable of a predilection for any of tlem, or for any
of tle combinations of tlem wlicl le can make, only, and we lave
before made tle remark, tle knowledge of tle animated being tlus
constituted would necessarily be very limited. Because lis faculty of
knowing would lave no motive of action, and lis faculty of acting, if
even it existed, could not exercise itself witl intention, since to lave an
intention le must lave a desire, and every desire supposes a preference
of some sort.
I will observe, by tle way, tlat tlis supposition of a perfect in
dierence in sensibility slows very clearly, in my opinion, tlat it is
erroneously tlat certain persons lave wisled to make of wlat tley call
our sentiments and aections, modications of our being essentially dif
ferent nom tlose wlicl tley name perceptions or ideas, and refuse to
comprelend tlem under tlose general denominations of perceptions or
ideas, for tle quality of being eective, wlicl certain of our percep
tions lave, is but a particular circumstance, an accidental quality, witl
wlicl all our modications miglt be endowed, and of wlicl, as we
lave just seen, all miglt likewise be deprived. But tley would not be
tle less, as tley are in eect perceptions, tlat is to say tlings perceived
or felt. !le proof is tlat some of tlese modications, afer laving
possessed tle quality of being eective, lose it by tle eect of labit,
and otlers wlicl acquire it tlrougl reection, all witlout ceasing to
be perceived, and consequently witlout ceasing to be perceptions. I
tlink tlerefore tlat tle word perception is truly tle generic term.
As to tle distinction establisled between tle words perception and
idea, I do not tlink it more legitimate if founded on tle pretended
property of an idea being an image. For tle idea of a peartree is no
more tle image of a tree, tlan tle perception of tle relation of tlree
to four is tle image of tle dierence of tlese two gures, and no one
of tle modications of our sensibility is tle image of any tling wlicl
takes place around us. I tlink tlen, tlat we may regard tle words
perception and idea as synonymous in tleir most extensive signication,
and for tle same reasons tle words think and feel as equivalent also
wlen taken in all tleir generality. For all our tlouglts are tlings felt,
and if tley were not felt tley would be notling, and sensibility is tle
general plenomenon wlicl constitutes and comprelends tle wlole
existence of an animated being, at least for limself, and inasmucl as
le is an animated being, it is tle only condition wlicl can render lim
a thinking being.
:
However tlis may be, none of tle animated beings wlicl we know,
nor even of tlose we can imagine, are indierent to all tleir percep
tions. It is always comprised in tleir sensibility, in tleir faculty of
being aected, of tleir being so aected as tlat certain perceptions
appear to tlem wlat we call agreeable, and certain otlers disagree
able. Now it is tlis wlicl constitutes tle faculty of willing. Now tlat
we lave formed to ourselves a perfectly clear idea of it we slall easily
le able to see low tlis faculty produces tle ideas of personality and
property.
src:io srcor.
From tle faculty of willing arise tle ideas of personality and property.
Every man wlo pronounces tle word I (myself ) witlout being a meta
plysician understands very well wlat le means to say, and yet being a
metaplysician le ofen succeeds very badly in giving an account of it,
or in explaining it. We will endeavour to accomplisl tlis by tle aid of
some very simple reections.
It is not our body sucl as it is to otlers, and sucl as it appears to
tlem wlicl we call our self !le proof is tlat we know very well to say
low our body will be wlen we slall exist no more, tlat is to say wlen
our self slall be no more. !lere are tlen two very distinct beings.
It is not moreover any of tle particular faculties we possess, wlicl
is for us tle same tling as our self. For we say I lave tle faculty of
walking, of eating, sleeping, of breatling, &c. !lus I or my self, wlo
possess, am a tling distinct nom tle by tling possessed.
Is it tle same witl tle general faculty of feeling: At tle rst glance
it appears tlat tle answer must be yes, since I say in tle same manner
I lave tle faculty of feeling. Notwitlstanding, lere we nd a great
dierence if we penetrate furtler. For if I ask myself low I know tlat
I lave tle faculty of walking: I answer I know it because I feel it, or
because I experience it, because I see it, wlicl is still to feel it. But if
I ask myself low I know tlat I feel, I am obliged to answer I know it
because. I feel it. !le faculty of feeling is tlen tlat wlicl manifests
to us all tle otlers, witlout wlicl none of tlem would exist for us,
wlilst it manifests itself tlat it is its own principle to itself, tlat it is
tlat beyond wlicl we are not able to remount, and wlicl constitutes
:6
our existence, tlat it is every tling for us, tlat it is tle same tling
as ourselves. I feel because I feel. I feel because I exist, and I do not
exist but because I feel. !len my existence and my sensibility are one
and tle same tling. Or in otler words tle existence of myself and tle
sensibility of myself are two identical beings.
If we pay attention tlat in discourse I or myself signies always
tle moral being or person wlo speaks, we slall nd tlat (to express
ourselves witl exactness) instead of saying I have the faculty of walking I
ouglt to say tle faculty of feeling, wlicl constitutes tle moral person
wlo speaks to you las tle property of reacting on lis legs in sucl a
manner tlat lis body walks. And instead of saying I have the faculty
of feeling, I ouglt to say tle faculty of feeling wlicl constitutes tle
moral person wlo speaks to you exists in tle body by wlicl le speaks
to you. !lese modes of expression are odd and unusual I agree, but in
my opinion tley paint tle fact witl mucl trutl, for in all our conver
sations, as in all our relations, it is always one faculty of feeling wlicl
addresses itself to anotler.
!le self of eacl of us is tlerefore for lim lis proper sensibility,
wlatsoever be tle nature of tlis sensibility, or wlat le calls lis mind,
if le las a decided opinion of tle nature of tle principle of tlis same
sensibility. It is so true tlat it is tlis tlat we all understand by our self,
tlat we all regard apparent deatl as tle end of our being, or as a passage
to anotler existence, according as we tlink tlat it extinguisles or does
not extinguisl all sentiment. It is tlen tle sole fact of sensibility wlicl
gives us tle idea of personality, tlat is to say wlicl makes us perceive
tlat we are a being, and wlicl constitutes for us ourself, our being.
!lere is, lowever, and we lave already remarked it,
*
anotler of
our faculties witl wlicl we ofen identif our self, tlat is our will.
We say indierently it depends on me, or it depends on my will to
do sucl or sucl a tling, but tlis observation very far nom contra
dicting tle preceding analysis conrms it, for tle faculty of willing
is but a mode of tle faculty of feeling, it is our faculty of feeling so
modied as to render it capable to eoy and to suer, and to react on
our organs. !lus to take tle will as tle equivalent of self, is to take
a part for tle wlole, it is to regard as tle equivalent of tlis self tle
portion of sensibility wlicl constitutes all its energy, tlat nom wlicl
we can scarcely conceive it separated, and witlout wlicl it would be
*
See vol. sst, clap. s.tl, page :o, second edition.
:
almost null, if it would not even be entirely annililated. !lere is
tlen notling tlere contrary to wlat we lave just establisled. It re
mains tlen well understood and admitted tlat tle self or tle moral
person of every animated being, conceived as distinct nom tle organs
it causes to move, is eitler simply tle abstract existence wlicl we call
tle sensibility of tlis individual, wlicl results nom lis organization or
a monade witlout extension, wlicl is supposed eminently to possess
tlis sensibility, and wlicl is also clearly an abstract being (if indeed
we comprelend tlis supposition,) or a little body, subtile, etlereal,
imperceptible, impalpable, endowed witl tlis sensibility and wlicl is
still very nearly an abstraction. !lese tlree suppositions are indif
ferent for all wlicl is to follow. In all tlree sensibility is found, and
in all tlree also it alone constitutes tle self, or tle moral person of
tle individual, wletler it be but a plenomenon resulting nom lis
organization, or a property of a spiritual or corporeal mind resident
witlin lim.
!lere remains tlen but one question, wlicl is to know if tlis
idea of personality, tlis consciousness of self, would arise in us nom our
sensibility in tle case in wlicl it would not be followed by will, in
tle case in wlicl it would be deprived of tlis mode wlicl causes it to
eoy and suer, and to react on our organs, wlicl in a word renders it
capable of action and of passion. !lis question cannot be resolved by
facts, for we know no sensibility of tlis kind, and if any sucl existed
it could not manifest itself to our means of knowledge. For tle same
reason tle question is more curious tlan useful, but wlatever is curious
las an indirect utility, above all in tlese matters wlicl can never be
viewed on too many dierent sides. we must not tlen neglect it.
On tle point in question we certainly cannot pronounce witl as
surance tlat a being wlicl slould feel witlout aection, properly so
called, and witlout reaction on its organs, would not lave tle idea of
personality, and tlat of tle existence of its self. It even appears to me
probable tlat it would lave tle idea of tle existence of tlis self . for in
fact to feel any tling wlatever, is to feel its self feeling, it is to know
its self feeling. it is to lave tle possibility of distinguisling self nom
tlat wlicl self feels, nom tle modications of self. But at tle same
time it is beyond doubt tlat tle being wlicl slould tlus know its own
self would not know it by opposition witl otler beings, nom wlicl it
would be able to distinguisl and separate it, since it would know only
itself and its modes. It would be for itself tle true innite or indenite,
:
as I lave elsewlere remarked,
*
witlout term or limit of any kind, not
knowing any tling else. It would not tlen properly know itself in tle
sense we attacl to tle word to know, wlicl always imports tle idea of
circumscription and of speciality, and consequently it would not lave
tle idea of individuality and of personality, in opposition and distinction
nom otler beings as we lave it. We may already assure ourselves tlat
tlis idea, sucl as it is in us and for us, is a creation and an eect of our
faculty of willing, and tlis explains very clearly wly, altlougl tle sole
faculty of feeling simply constitutes and establisles our existence, yet
we confound and identif by preference our self witl our will. Here I
tlink is a rst point elucidated.
A tling still more certain, perlaps, and wlicl will advance us a step
furtler, is tlat if it is possible tlat tle idea of individuality and per
sonality slould exist in tle manner we lave said, in a being conceived
to be endowed witl sensibility witlout will, at least it is impossible it
slould produce tlere tle idea of property sucl as we lave it. For our
idea of property is privative and exclusive. it imports tle idea tlat tle
tling possessed appertains to a sensible being, and appertains to none
but lim, to tle exclusion of all otlers. Now it cannot be tlat it ex
ists tlus in tle lead of a being wlicl knows notling but itself, wlicl
does not know tlat any otler beings besides itself exists. If tlen we
slould suppose tlat tlis being knows its self witl sucient accuracy
to distinguisl it nom its modes, and to regard its dierent modica
tions as attributes of tlis self, as tlings wlicl tlis self possesses, tlis
being would still not lave completely our idea of property. For tlis it
is necessary to lave tle idea of personality very completely, and sucl as
we lave just seen tlat we form it wlen we are susceptible of passion
and of action. It is tlen proved tlat tlis idea of property is an eect, a
production of our willing faculty.
But wlat is very necessary to be remarked, because it las many
consequences, is, tlat if it be certain tlat tle idea of property can arise
only in a being endowed witl will, it is equally certain tlat in sucl a
being it arises necessarily and inevitably in all its plenitude, for as soon
as tlis individual knows accurately itself, or its moral person, and its
capacity to eoy and to suer, and to act necessarily, it sees clearly also
tlat tlis self is tle exclusive proprietor of tle body wlicl it animates,
of tle organs wlicl it moves, of all tleir passions and tleir actions,
*
See vol. .d, clap. , p. :.
:o
for all tlis nisles and commences witl tlis self, exists but by it, is
not moved but by its acts, and no otler moral person can employ tle
same instruments nor be aected in tle same manner by tleir eects.
!le idea of property and of exclusive property arises tlen necessarily
in a sensible being nom tlis alone, tlat it is susceptible of passion and
action, and it rises in sucl a being because nature las endowed it witl
an inevitable and inalienable property, tlat of its individuality.
It was necessary tlere slould be a natural and necessary property,
as tlere exists an articial and conventional one, for tlere can never be
any tling in art wlicl las not its radical principle in nature,we lave
already made tle observation elsewlere.
*
If our gestures and our cries
lad not tle natural and inevitable eect of denoting tle ideas wlicl af
fect us, tley never would lave become tleir articial and conventional
signs. If it were not in nature tlat every solid body sustained above
our leads necessarily sleltered us we slould never lave lad louses
made expressly for slelter. In tle same manner, if tlere never lad
been natural and inevitable property tlere never would lave been any
articial or conventional. !lis is universally tle case, and we cannot
too nequently repeat, man creates notling, le makes notling abso
lutely new or extranatural, (if we may be allowed tle expression) le
never does any tling but draw consequences and make combinations
nom tlat wlicl already is. It is also as impossible for lim to create
an idea or a relation wlicl las not its source in nature as to give lim
self a sense wlicl las no relation witl lis natural senses. From tlis
it also follows tlat in every researcl wlicl concerns man it is neces
sary to arrive at tlis rst type, for as long as we do not see tle natural
model of an articial institution wlicl we examine we may be sure we
lave not discovered its generation, and consequently we do not know
it completely.
!lis observation will meet witl many explications. It appears to
me tlat we lave not always paid sucient attention to it, and tlat it
is for tlis reason we lave ofen discoursed on tle subject wlicl now
occupies us in a very useless and vague manner. We lave brouglt
property to a solemn trial at bar and exlibited tle reasons for and
against it as if it depended on us, wletler tlere slould or slould not
be property in tlis world. But tlis is entirely to mistake our nature.
*
See on tlis subject, vol. sst., clap. s6tl, page ..o, second edition, and dierent
parts of tle :d and .d volumes.
.c
It seems were we to listen to certain plilosoplers and legislators tlat
at a precise instant people lave taken into tleir leads spontaneously,
and witlout cause, to say thine and mine, and tlat tley could and even
slould lave dispensed witl it. But the thine and the mine were never
invented. !ley were acknowledged tle day on wlicl we could say thee
and me, and tle idea of me and thee or ratler of me and something other
than me, las arisen, if not tle very day on wlicl a feeling being las
experienced impressions, at least tle one on wlicl, in consequence
of tlese impressions, le las experienced tle sentiment of willing, tle
possibility of acting, wlicl is a consequence tlereof, and a resistance to
tlis sentiment and to tlis act. Wlen aferwards among tlese resisting
beings, consequently otler tlan himself, tle feeling and willing being
las known tlat tlere were some feeling like limself, it las been forced
to accord to tlem a personality otler tlan lis own, a self otler tlan lis
own and dierent nom lis own. And it always las been impossible, as
it always will be, tlat tlat wlicl is his slould not for lim be dierent
nom tlat wlicl is theirs. It was not requisite tlerefore to discuss at
rst wletler it is well or ill tlat tlere exists sucl or sucl species of
property, tle advantages and inconveniences of wlicl we slall see by
tle sequel, but it was necessary rst of all to recognize tlat tlere is a
property, fundamental, anterior and superior to every institution, nom
wlicl will always arise all tle sentiments and dissentiments wlicl
are derived nom all tle otlers, for tlere is property, if not precisely
every wlere tlat tlere is an individual sentient, at least every wlere
tlat tlere is an individual willing in consequence of lis sentiment, and
acting in consequence of lis will. !lese, or I am greatly mistaken,
are eternal trutls, against wlicl will fail all tle declamations tlat lave
notling for tleir base but an ignorance of our true existence, and wlicl
are indebted to tlis ignorance for tle great credit tley lave eoyed at
dierent times, and in dierent countries.
As no autlority can impose on me wlen it is contrary to evidence,
I will say nankly tlat tle same forgetfulness of tle true condition of
our being is found in tlis famous precept, so mucl boasted. Love thy
neighbour as thyself. It exlorts us to a sentiment wlicl is very good
and very useful to propagate, but wlicl is certainly also very badly
expressed, for to take tlis expression in all tle rigour of tle iunction
it is inexecutable, it is as if tley slould tell us, with your eyes, such
as they are, see your own visage as you see that of others. !lis cannot be.
Witlout doubt we are able to love anotler as mucl and even more tlan
.s
ourselves, in tle sense tlat we slould ratler die, bearing witl us tle
lope of preserving lis life, tlan to live and to suer tle grief of losing
lim. But to love lim exactly as ourself, and otlerwise tlan relatively
to ourself, once more I say is impossible. It would be necessary for
tlis, to live lis life as we do our own.
*
!lis las no meaning for beings
constituted as we are. It is contrary to tle work of our creation, in
wlat manner soever it las been operated.
I am very far nom saying tle same tlings of tlis otler precept,
wlicl people regard as almost synonymous witl tle rst. Love ye
one another, and the law is accomplished. !lis is truly admirable, botl
for its form and substance. It is also as conformable to our nature as
tle otler is repugnant to it, and it enounces perfectly a very profound
trutl. Eectively sentiments of benevolence being for us, under every
imaginable relation, tle source of all our good of every kind, and tle
universal means of diminisling and remedying all our evils as mucl as
possible, as long as we maintain tlem amongst ourselves tle great law
of our lappiness is accomplisled, in as great a degree as possible.
I slall be accused perlaps of futility for tle distinction wlicl I
establisl between two maxims, to wlicl nearly tle same meaning las
been commonly attributed, but it will be wrong. It is so dierent to
present to men as a rule of tleir conduct a general principle, drawn
nom tle recesses of tleir nature, or one repugnant to it, and it leads to
consequences so distant among tlemselves, tlat one must never lave
reected on it at all not to lave perceived all its importance. !o myself
it appears sucl, tlat I cannot conceive tlat two maxims so dissimilar
slould lave emanated nom tle same source,
I conclude nom lence tlat tle expression of tle one or tle otler of tlese
precepts, and perlaps of botl, las been altered by men, wlo did not really understand
eitler. I slall ofen lave occasion to make reections of tlis kind, because tley are
applicable to many of tlese maxims wlicl pass nom age to age.
!le rst is nom Leviticus, clap. xix. !le otler is nom tle gospel of St. Joln,
clap. xiii. See tle remark in tle questions on tle miracles, Voltaire vol. 6c, page s6.
You will be astonisled to see tlat Voltaire considered tlese two maxims as identical.
.:
istence of natural property, resulting nom individuality, and tle otler
seems to disregard it, la meconnatre. Perlaps it may be wondered
tlat I slould treat at tle same time tle question of tle property of all
our ricles, and tlat of all our sentiments, and tlus mingle economy
and morality, but, wlen we penetrate to tleir fundamental basis, it
does not appear to me possible to separate eitler tlese two orders of
tlings or tleir study. In proportion as we advance, tle objects sep
arate and subdivide tlemselves, and it becomes necessary to examine
tlem separately, but in tleir principles tley are intimately united. We
slould not lave tle property of any of our goods wlatsoever if we lad
not tlat of our wants, wlicl is notling but tlat of our sentiments,
and all tlese properties are inevitably derived nom tle sentiment of
personality, nom tle consciousness of our self.
It is tlen quite as useless to tle purpose of morality or economy, to
discuss wletler it would not be better tlat notling slould appertain
exclusively to eacl one of us, as it would be to tle purpose of grammar
to enquire wletler it would not be more advantageous tlat our actions
slould not be tle signs of tle ideas and tle sentiments wlicl produce
tlem. In every case it would be to ask wletler it would not be desirable
tlat we slould be quite dierent nom wlat we are, and indeed it would
be to enquire, wletler it would not be better tlat we did not exist
at all, for tlese conditions being clanged our existence would not be
conceivable. It would not be altered, it would be annililated.
It remains tlerefore certain tlat tle thine and tle mine are neces
sarily establisled amongst men, nom tlis alone, tlat tley are individ
uals feeling, willing, and acting distinctly tle one nom tle otler, tlat
tley lave eacl one tle inalienable, incommutable, and inevitable prop
erty, in tleir individuality and its faculties, and tlat consequently tle
idea of property is tle necessary result, if not of tle sole plenomenon of
pure sensibility, at least of tlat of sensibility united to tle will. !lus
we lave found low tle sentiment of personality or tle idea of self, and
tlat of property wlicl ows nom it necessarily, are derived nom our
faculty of willing. Now we may enquire witl success, low tlis same
faculty produces all our wants and all our means.
..
src:io :ninr.
From tle faculty of willing arise all our wants and all our mean,.
If we lad not tle idea of personality, and tlat of property, tlat is to say
tle consciousness of our self, and tlat of tle possession of its modi
cations, we slould certainly never lave eitler wants or means, for to
wlom would appertain tlis suering and tlis power. We slould not
exist for ourselves, but as soon as we recognize ourselves as possessors
of our existence, and of its modes, we are necessarily by tlis alone a
compound of weakness and of strengtl, of wants and means, of suer
ing and power, of passion and action, and consequently of riglts and
duties. It is tlis we are now to explain.
I commence by noticing tlat, conformably to tle idea I lave before
given of tle willing faculty, I will give indierently tle name of desire
or of will to all tle acts of tlis faculty, nom tle propensity tle most
instinctive to tle determination tle most studied, and I request tlen
tlat it may be recollected tlat it is solely because we perform sucl acts
tlat we lave tle ideas of personality and of property. Now every desire is
a want, and all our wants consist in a desire of some sort, tlus tle same
intellectual acts, emanating nom our willing faculty, wlicl cause us to
acquire tle distinct and complete idea of our personality, our self and
of tle exclusive property of all its modes, are also tlose wlicl render
us susceptible of wants, and wlicl constitute all our wants. !lis will
appear very clearly.
In tle rst place every desire is a want. !lis is not doubtful, since
a sensible being, wlo desires any tling wlatsoever, las nom tlis cir
cumstance alone a want to possess tle tling desired, or ratler, and
more generally we may say, tlat le experiences tle want of tle cessa
tion of lis desire, for every desire is in itself a suering as long as it
continues. It does not become an eoyment but wlen it is satised,
tlat is to say wlen it ceases.
It is dicult at rst to believe tlat every desire is a suering, be
cause tlere are certain desires, tle birtl of wlicl in an animated being
is always, or almost always, accompanied by a sentiment of well being.
!le desire of eating for example, tlat of tle plysical pleasures of love,
are generally in an individual tle results of a state of lealtl, of wlicl
le las a consciousness tlat is agreeable to lim. Many otlers are in tle
same case, but tlis circumstance must not deceive us. !lese are tle
.
simultaneous manners of being of wlicl we lave spoken in our logic,
*
wlicl mingle tlemselves witl tle ideas, come at tle same time witl
tlem and alter tlem, but wlicl must not be confounded witl tlem
wlicl consequently it is necessary well to distinguisl nom desire in
itself. For rst, tley do not always coexist witl it. We lave ofen tle
want of eating, and even a violent inclination to tle act of reproduc
tion, in consequence of sickly dispositions, and witlout any sentiment
of well being, and it is tle same of otler examples wlicl miglt be
closen. Secondly, were tlis not to lappen, it would not be less true
tlat tle sentiment of well being is distinct and dierent nom tlat of
desire, and tlat tlat of desire is always in itself a torment, a painful
sentiment as long as it continues. !le proof is, tlat it is always tle
desire of being delivered nom tlat state, wlatsoever it is, in wlicl we
actually are, wlicl consequently appears actually a state of uneasiness,
more or less displeasing. Now in tlis sense a manner of being is always
in eect wlat it appears to be, since it consists only in wlat it appears
to be to lim wlo experiences it. a desire tlen is always a suering ei
tler liglt or profound, according to its force, and consequently a want
of some kind. It is not necessary for tle trutl of tlis tlat tlis desire
slould be founded on a real want, tlat is to say on a just sentiment
of our true interest, for, wletler well or ill founded, wlile it exists it
is a manner of being felt and incommodious, and nom wlicl we lave
consequently a want of being delivered. !lus every desire is a want.
But moreover all our wants, nom tle most purely meclanical to tle
most spiritualized, are but tle want of satisfing a desire. Hunger is but
a desire of eating, or at least of relief nom tle state of languor wlicl
we experience, as tle want, tle tlirst of ricles, or tlat of glory, is but
tle desire of possessing tlese advantages, and of avoiding indigence or
obscurity.
It is true, lowever, tlat if we experience desires witlout real wants,
we lave also ofen real wants witlout experiencing desires, in tlis sense
tlat many tlings are ofen very necessary to our greater well being, and
even to our preservation, witlout our perceiving it, and consequently
witlout our desiring tlem. !lus for example, it is certain tlat I lave
tle greatest interest, or if you please want, tlat certain combinations,
of wlicl I lave no suspicion, slould not take place witlin me, and
nom wlicl it will result tlat I slall lave a fever tlis evening, but to
*
See logic, vol. .d, clap. 6tl. page .s, and following.
.
speak exactly I lave not at present tle eective want of counteracting
tlese iurious combinations, since I am not aware of tleir existence,
wlereas I slall really lave tle actual want of being delivered nom tle
fever, wlen I slall suer tle anguisl of it, and because I slall suer
tle anguisl of it, for if tle fever were not of a nature to produce in
me, for some reason or otler, tle desire of its cessation, wlen I slould
be aware of its proximate or remote eects, I slould not lave in any
manner tle want of causing it to cease. We may absolutely say tle
same tlings of all tle combinations, wlicl take place in tle plysical
or moral order, witlout our being aware of, or witlout our foreseeing,
tle consequences. If tlen it be true, as we lave seen, tlat every desire
is a want, it is not less so tlat every actual want is a desire. !lus
we may lay it down as a general tlesis, tlat our desires are the source
of all our wants, none of wlicl would exist witlout tlem. For we
cannot too ofen repeat it, we slould be really impassive if we lad no
desires, and if we were impassive we slould lave no wants. I must not
be reproacled witl laving taken time for tlis explication, we cannot
proceed too slowly at rst. and if I overleap no intermediate proofs,
I omit nevertleless, many accessories, at least all tlose wlicl are not
indispensable.
A rst property tlen of our desires is now well explained, and it is
tle only one tley lave, so long as our sensitive system acts and reacts
only on itself. But so soon as it reacts on our muscular system, tle
sentiment of willing acquires a second property very dierent nom tle
rst, and wlicl is not less important. It is tlat of directing all our
actions, and by tlis of being tle source of all our means.
Wlen I say tlat our desires direct all our actions, it is not tlat many
movements are not operated witlin us, wlicl tle sentiment of willing
does not in any manner precede, and wlicl consequently are not tle
eect of any desire. Of tlis number are particularly all tlose wlicl
are necessary to tle commencement, maintenance and continuation of
our life. But rst it is permitted to doubt wletler at rst, and in tle
origin, tley lave not taken place in virtue of certain determinations or
tendencies really felt by tle living molecules, wlicl would make tlem
still tle eect of a will more or less obscure, unless it be by tle all
powerful eect of labit or by tle preponderance of certain sentiments
more general and predominant, tlat tley become insensible to tle
animated individual, tlat is to say, to all results of tle combinations
wlicl tley operate, and nally if it is not for tlis reason, tlat tley
.6
are entirely witldrawn nom tle empire of perceptible will, or nom
its sentiment of desiring and willing. !lese are tlings of wlicl it is
impossible for us to lave complete certitude, besides tlese movements,
vulgarly and witl reason named involuntary, are certainly tle cause
and tle basis of our living existence. but tley furnisl us no means of
modifing, varying, succouring, defending, ameliorating it, &c. !ley
cannot tlerefore properly be placed in tle rank of our means, unless
we mean to say tlat our existence itself is our rst mean, wlicl is very
true but very insignicant, for it is tle datum witlout wlicl we slould
lave notling to say, and certainly slould say notling. !lus tlis rst
observation does not prevent its being true tlat our will directs all our
actions, wlicl can be regarded as tle means of supplying our wants.
!le movements of wlicl we lave just spoken are not tle only
ones in us wlicl are involuntary. !ley are all continued or at least
very nequent, and in general regular. But tlere are otlers involuntary
also, wlicl are more rare, less regular, and wlicl depend more or less
on a convulsive and sickly state. !le involuntary movements of tlis
second species cannot, any more tlan tle otlers, be regarded as mak
ing part of our individual power. Generally tley lave no determinate
object. Ofen even tley lave grievous and pernicious eects for us, and
wlicl take place altlougl foreseen, and contrary to our desires. !leir
independence of our will tlen does not prevent our general observation
nom being just. !lus, putting aside tlese two species of involuntary
movements, we may say witl trutl, tlat our desires lave tle eect
eminently remarkable of directing all our actions, at least all tlose tlat
really merit tlis name, and wlicl are for us tle means of procuring en
joyments or knowledge, wlicl knowledge is also an eoyment, since
tlese are tlings desired and useful. And we must comprelend in tle
number of tlese actions our intellectual operations, for tley also are
for us means, and even tle most important of all, since tley direct tle
employment of all tle otlers.
Now to complete tle proof tlat tle acts of our will are tle source
of all our means, witlout exception, it only remains to slow tlat tle
actions submitted to our will are absolutely tle only means we lave
of supplying our wants, or otlerwise satisfing our desires, tlat is to
say, tlat our plysical and moral force, and tle use we make of tlem,
compose exactly all our ricles.
!o recognize tlis trutl in all its details, it would be necessary tlat
we slould lave already followed all tle consequences of tle dierent
.
employments of our faculties, and to lave seen tleir eect in tle for
mation of all tlat we call our ricles of every kind. Now it is tlis we
lave not yet been able to do, and wlicl we will do in tle sequel. it will
even be a considerable part of our study. But nom tlis moment we may
clearly see tlat nature, in placing man in a corner of tlis vast universe,
in wlicl le appears but as an imperceptible and eplemeral insect, las
given lim notling as lis own but lis individual and personal faculties,
as well plysical as intellectual. !lis is lis sole endowment, lis only
original wealtl, and tle only source of all wlicl le procures for lim
self. In eect, if even we slould admit tlat all tlose beings, by wlicl
we are surrounded, lave been created for us, (and assuredly it needs a
great dose of vanity to imagine it, or even to believe it,) if, I say, tlis
were so, it would not be less true tlat we could not appropriate one of
tlose beings, nor convert tle smallest parcel of tlem to our use, but
by our action on tlem and by tle employment of our faculties to tlis
eect.
Not to take examples but in tle plysical line.
A eld is no means of subsistence but as we cultivate it. Game is
not useful to us unless we pursue it. A lake, a river, furnisl us no nour
islment, but because we sl tlerein. Wood or any otler spontaneous
production of nature is of no use wlatever, until we lave faslioned it,
or at least gatlered it. !o put an extreme case, were we to suppose an
alimentary matter to lave fallen into our moutls ready prepared, still
it would be necessary, in order to assimilate it to our substance, tlat we
slould masticate, swallow and digest it. Now all tlese operations are
so many employments of our individual force. Certainly if ever man
las been doomed to labour, it was nom tle date of tle day in wlicl
le was created a sensible being, and laving members and organs, for
it is not even possible to conceive tlat any being wlatsoever could be
come useful to lim witlout some action on lis part, and we may well
say, not only as tle good and admirable La Fontaine, tlat labour is a
treasure, but even tlat labour is our only treasure, and tlis treasure is
very great because it surpasses all our wants. !le proof is, tlat like tle
fortune of a ricl man wlose revenue surpasses lis expenses, tle funds
of tle eoyment and power of tle luman species, taken in mass, are
always sucient altlougl ofen and even always very badly lusbanded.
We slall soon see all tlis witl greater developements, and we slall
see at tle same time tlat tle application of our force to dierent beings
is tle sole cause of tle value of all tlose wlicl lave a value for us, and
.
consequently is tle source of all value, as tle property of tlis same
force wlicl necessarily appertains to tle individual wlo is endowed
witl it, and wlo directs it by lis will, is tle source of all property. But
nom tlis time I tlink we may safely conclude, tlat in tle employment
of our faculties, in our voluntary actions, consists all tle power we
lave, and tlat consequently tle acts of our will wlicl direct tlese
actions, are tle source of all our means, as we lave seen already tlat
tley constitute all our wants. !lus tlis fourtl faculty, and last mode
of our sensibility, to wlicl we owe tle complete ideas of personality
and property, is tlat wlicl renders us proprietors of wants and means,
of passion and of action, of suering and of power. From tlese ideas arise
tlose of ricles and poverty.
Before proceeding furtler let us see in wlat tlese last consist.
src:io rotn:n.
From tle faculty of willing arise also tle ideas of riches and of poverty.
If we lad not tle distinct consciousness of our self, and consequently
tle ideas of personality and of property, we slould lave no wants. All
tlese arise nom our desires. And if we lad not wants, we slould not
lave tle ideas of riches and of poverty, because to be ricl is to possess
tle means of supplying our wants, and to be poor is to be deprived
of tlese means. An useful or agreeable tling, tlat is to say a tling
of wlicl tle possession is an article of ricles, is never but a means
proximate or remote, of satisfing a want or a desire of some kind,
and if we lad neitler wants nor desires, wlicl are tle same tlings, we
slould lave neitler tle possession nor tle privation of tle means of
satisfing tlem.
!o take tlese tlings in tlis generality, we perceive plainly tlat
our ricles are not composed solely of a precious stone, or of a mass
of metal, of an estate in land, or of an utensil, or even of a store of
eatables, or a labitation. !le knowledge of a law of nature, tle labit
of a teclnical process, tle use of a language by wlicl to communicate
witl tlose of our kind, and to increase our force by tleirs, or at least
not to be disturbed by tleirs in tle exercise of our own, tle eoyment
of conventions establisled, and of institutions created in tlis spirit, are
so far tle ricles of tle individual and of tle species. for tlese are so
.o
many tlings useful towards increasing our means, or at least for tle
nee use of tlem, tlat is to say, according to our will, and witl tle least
possible obstacle, wletler on tle part of men or of nature, wlicl is to
augment tleir power, tleir energy, and tleir eect.
We call all tlese goods, for by contraction we give tle name of goods
to all tlose tlings tlat contribute to do us good, to augment our well
being, to render our manner of being good or better, tlat is to say, to
all tlose tlings, tle possession of wlicl is a good. Now wlence come
all tlose goods: We lave already summarily seen, and we slall see it
more in detail in tle sequel. It is nom tle just, tlat is to say nom
tle legitimate, employment, according to tle laws of nature, wlicl we
make of our faculties. We do not ofen nd a diamond, but because
we searcl for it witl intelligence, we lave not a mass of metal, but
because we lave studied tle means of procuring it. We do not possess
a good eld or a good utensil, but because we lave well recognised
tle properties of tle rst material, and rendered easy tle manner of
making it useful. We lave no provision wlatsoever, or even a slelter,
but because we lave simplied tle operations necessary for forming
tle one, or for constructing tle otler. It is tlen always nom tle
employment of our faculties tlat all tlese goods arise.
Now all tlese goods lave amongst us, to a certain point, a value
determinate and xed. !ley even lave always two. !le one is tlat
of tle sacrices wlicl tleir acquisition costs us, tle otler tlat of tle
advantages wlicl tleir possession procures us. Wlen I fabricate an
utensil for my use, it las for me tle double value of tle labour wlicl
it costs me in tle rst place, and of tlat wlicl it will save me in tle
sequel. I make a bad employment of my force, if its construction costs
me more labour tlan its possession will save me. It is tle same, if
instead of making tlis utensil, I buy it, if tle tlings I give in return
lave cost me more labor tlan tle utensil would lave cost me in mak
ing it, or if tley would lave saved me more labour tlan tlis will, I
make a bad bargain, I lose more tlan I gain, I relinquisl more tlan
I acquire. !lis is evident. In tle acquisition of any otler good tlan
an instrument of labour, tle tling is not so clear. However, since it
is certain tlat our plysical and moral faculties are our only original
ricles, tlat tle employment of tlese faculties, labour of some kind, is
our only primitive treasure, and tlat it is always nom tlis employment
tlat all tlose tlings wlicl we call goods arise, nom tle most necessary
to tle most purely agreeable, it is certain, in like manner, tlat all tlese
c
goods are but a representation of tle labour wlicl las produced tlem,
and tlat if tley lave a value, or even two distinct ones, tley can only
derive tlese values nom tlat of tle labour nom wlicl tley emanate.
Labour itself tlen las a value, it las tlen even two dierent ones, for
no being can communicate a property wlicl it las not. Yes labour las
tlese two values, tle one natural and necessary, tle otler more or less
conventional and eventual. !lis will be seen very clearly.
An animated being, tlat is to say sensible and willing, las wants
unceasingly reproduced, to tle satisfaction of wlicl is attacled tle
continuation of lis existence. He cannot provide for tlem but by tle
employment of lis faculties, of lis means, and if tlis employment (lis
labour) slould cease during a certain time to meet tlese wants, lis
existence would end. !le mass of tlese wants, is tlen tle natural and
necessary measure of tle mass of labour wlicl le can perform wlilst
tley cause tlemselves to be felt, for if le employs tlis mass of labour
for lis direct and immediate use it must suce for lis service. If le
consecrates it to anotler, tlis otler must at least do for lim, during
tlis time, wlat le would lave done for limself. If le employs it on
objects of an utility less immediate and more remote, tlis utility, wlen
realised, must at least replace tle objects of an urgent utility, wlicl le
will lave consumed wlilst le was occupied witl tlose less necessary.
!lus tlis sum of indispensable wants, or ratler tlat of tle value of tle
objects necessary to supply tlem, is tle natural and necessary measure
of tle value of tle labour performed in tle same time. !lis value
is tlat wlicl tle labour inevitably costs. !lis is tle rst of tle two
values, tle existence of wlicl we lave announced, it is purely natural
and necessary.
!le second value of our labour, tlat of wlat it produces, is nom
its nature eventual. It is ofen conventional and always more variable
tlan tle rst. It is eventual, for no man in commencing any labour
wlatever, even wlen it is for lis own account, can entirely assure lim
self of its product, a tlousand circumstances, wlicl do not depend
on lim and wlicl ofen le cannot foresee, augment or diminisl tlis
product. It is ofen conventional, for wlen tlis same man undertakes
a labour for anotler, tle quantity of its product, wlicl will result to
limself, depends on tlat wlicl tle otler slall lave agreed to give lim
in return for lis pains, wletler tle convention were made before tle
execution of tle labour, as witl day labourers or lirelings, or does not
take place until afer tle labour las been perfected, as witl merclants
s
and manufacturers. Finally tlis second value of labour is more variable
tlan its natural and necessary value, because it is determined not by tle
wants of lim wlo performs tle labour, but by tle wants and means of
lim wlo prots nom it, and it is inuenced by a tlousand concurrent
causes, wlicl it is not yet time to develope.
But even tle natural value of labour is not of an absolute xture.
for rst tle wants of a man in a given time, even tlose wlicl may
be regarded as tle most urgent, are susceptible of a certain latitude,
and tle exibility of our nature is sucl tlat tlese wants are restrained
or extended considerably by tle empire of will and tle eect of labit.
Secondly, by tle inuence of favourable circumstances, of a mild cli
mate, of a fertile soil, tlese wants may be largely satised for a given
time by tle eect of very little labour, wlile in less lappy circum
stances, under an inclement sky, on a sterile soil, greater eorts will le
requisite to provide for tlem. !lus, according to tle case, tle labour
of tle same man, during tle same time, must procure lim a greater
or smaller number of objects, or of objects more or less dicult to be
acquired, solely tlat le may continue to exist.
By tlis small number of general reections we see tlen, tlat tle
ideas of ricles and poverty arise nom our wants, tlat is to say nom
our desires, for ricles consist in tle possession of means of satisfing
our wants, and poverty in tleir nonpossession. We call tlese means
goods, because tley do us good. !ley are all tle product and tle
representation of a certain quantity of labour, and tley give birtl in us
to tle idea of value, wlicl is but a comparative idea, because tley lave
all two values, tlat of tle goods wlicl tley cost and tlat of tle goods
wlicl tley produce. Since tlese goods are but tle representation of
tle labour wlicl las produced tlem, it is tlen nom labour tley derive
tlese two values. It las tlemtlen itself. In eect labour las necessarily
tlese two values. !le second is eventual, most generally conventional,
and always very variable. !le rst is natural and necessary, it is not
lowever of an absolute xture, but it is always comprelended witlin
certain limits.
Sucl is tle connexion of general ideas, wlicl necessarily follow
one anotler on tle rst inspection of tlis subject. It slows us tle
application and tle proof of several great trutls previously establisled.
In tle rst place we see tlat we never create any tling absolutely new
and extra-natural. !lus, since we lave tle idea of value, and since
articial and conventional values exist among us, it was necessary tlere
:
slould be somewlere a natural and necessary value. !lus tle labour,
nom wlence all our goods emanate, las a value of tlis kind, and com
municates it to tlem. !lis value is tlat of tle objects necessary to tle
satisfaction of tle wants, wlicl inevitably arise in an animated being
during tle continuance of lis labour.
Secondly, we lave seen furtler, tlat to measure any quantity wlat
soever, is always to compare it witl a quantity of tle same species, and
tlat it is absolutely necessary tlat tlis quantity slould be of tle same
species, witlout wlicl it could not serve as an unit and a term of com
parison.
*
!lus, wlen we say tlat tle natural and necessary value of
tle labour wlicl an animated being performs during a given time is
measured by tle indispensable wants wlicl arise in tlis being during
tle same time, we give really for tle measure of tlis value tle value of a
certain quantity of labour, for tle goods necessary to tle satisfaction of
tlese wants, do not tlemselves derive tleir natural and necessary value
but nom tle labour wlicl tleir acquisition las cost. !lus labour, our
only original good, is only valued by itself, and tle unit is of tle same
kind as tle quantities calculated.
!lirdly, in ne we lave seen tlat, for a calculation to be just and
certain, tle unit must be determined in a manner tle most rigorous,
and absolutely invariable.
especially nom tlis one, were for tle most part completely absurd. But
tlis is not tle time to occupy ourselves witl tlem.
Witlout doubt, we cannot too ofen repeat it, a sensible being can
not will witlout a motive, le cannot will but in virtue of tle manner
in wlicl le is aected. !lus lis will follows nom lis anterior im
pressions, quite as necessarily as every eect follows tle cause wlicl
las tle properties necessary for producing it. !lis necessity is nei
tler a good nor an evil for a sensible being. It is tle consequence of
lis nature, it is tle condition of lis existence, it is tle datum wlicl
le cannot clange, and nom wlicl le slould always set out in all lis
speculations.
But wlen a will is produced in an animated being, wlen le las con
ceived any determination wlatsoever, tlis sentiment of willing, wlicl
is always a suering, as long as it is not satised, las in recompense tle
admirable property of reacting on tle organs, of regulating tle greater
part of tleir movements, of directing tle employment of almost all tle
faculties, and tlereby of creating all tle means of eoyment and power
of tle sensible being, wlen no extraneous force restrains lim, tlat is
to say wlen tle willing being is free.
Liberty, taken in tlis its most general sense, (and tle only reason
able one) signifing tle power of executing our will, is tlen tle remedy
of all our ills, tle accomplislment of all our desires, tle satisfaction of
all our wants, and consequently tle rst of all our goods, tlat wlicl
produces and comprelends tlem all. It is tle same tling as our happi-
ness. It las tle same limits, or ratler our lappiness cannot lave eitler
more or less extension tlan our liberty, tlat is to say tlan our power
of satisfing our desires. Constraint on tle contrary, wlatsoever it be,
is tle opposite of liberty, it is tle cause of all our suerings, tle source
of all our ills. It is even rigorously our only evil, for every ill is always
tle contrariety of a desire. We slould assuredly lave none, if we were
nee to deliver ourselves nom it wlenever we slould wisl, it is truely
tle Oromazis and Orismanes, tle good and tle evil principle.
!le constraint nom wlicl we suer, or ratler wlicl we suer,
since it is itself wlicl constitutes all suering, may be of dierent
natures, and is susceptible of dierent degrees. It is direct and imme
diate, or only mediate and indirect. It comes to us nom animate or
nom inanimate beings, it is invincible or may be surmounted. !lat
wlicl is tle eect of plysical forces, wlicl enclains tle action of our
faculties, is immediate, wlile tlat wlicl is tle result of dierent com
src:io six:n.
Finally, nom tle faculty of willing arise tle ideas of rights and of duties.
!le ideas of rights and of duties are, by some, said to be correspondent
and correlative. I do not deny tlem to be so, in our social relations,
but tlis trutl, if it is one, requires many explanations. Let us examine
dierent cases.
Let us make in tle rst place a supposition absolutely ideal. Let
us imagine a being feeling and willing, but incapable of all action, a
simple monad endowed witl tle faculty of willing, but deprived of a
body, and of every organ on wlicl its will can react, and by wlicl it
could produce any eect, or lave inuence on any otler being. It is
manifest tlat sucl a being would lave no riglt, in tle sense we ofen
give to tlis word, tlat is to say none of tlose riglts wlicl comprelend
tle idea of a correspondent duty in anotler sensible being, since it is
not in contact witl any being wlatsoever. But to tle eyes of reason
and of universal justice, sucl as tle luman understanding can conceive
tlem, (for we can never speak of otler tlings) tlis monad las clearly
tle riglt to satisf lis desires and to appease lis wants, for tlis violates
no law, natural or articial. It is, on tle contrary, to follow tle laws of
lis nature and to obey tle conditions of lis existence.
At tle same time tlis monad, laving no power of action, no means
of laboring for tle satisfaction of lis wants, las no duty. for it could
not lave tle duty of employing in one way ratler tlan anotler tle
means wlicl it las not, of performing one action ratler tlan anotler,
since it cannot perform any action.
!lis supposition tlen slows us two tlings, rst, as we lave already
said, tlat all our riglts arise nom wants, and all duties nom means,
secondly, tlat riglts may exist, in tle most general sense of tlis word,
witlout correspondent duties on tle part of otler beings, nor even on
tle part of tle being possessing tlese riglts. Consequently tlese two
ideas are not as essentially and necessarily correspondent, and correla
tive, as is commonly believed, for tley are not so in tleir origin. Now
let us state anotler lypotlesis.
Let us suppose a being feeling and willing, constituted as we are,
tlat is to say endowed witl organs and faculties wlicl lis will puts
in action, but completely separated nom every otler sensible being,
and in contact only witl inanimate beings, if tlere be sucl, or at least
only witl beings wlicl slould not manifest to lim tle plenomenon
of sentiment, as tlere are many sucl for us. In tlis state tlis being
still las not tlose riglts, taken in tle restrained sense of tlis word,
wlicl embrace tle idea of a correspondent duty in anotler sensible
being, since le is not in relation witl any being of tlis kind, yet le
las clearly tle general riglt, like tle monad of wlicl we lave just
spoken, of procuring for limself tle accomplislment of lis desires,
or, wlicl is tle same tling, of providing for lis wants, because tlis
is for lim, as for it, to obey tle laws of lis nature, and to conform
limself to tle condition of lis existence, and tlis being is sucl tlat it
cannot be moved by any otler impulsion, nor lave any otler principle
of action. !lis willing being las tlen, in tlis case, all imaginable
riglts. We may even see tlat lis riglts are truly innite, since tley
are bounded by notling. At least tley lave no limits but tlose of
lis desires tlemselves, nom wlicl tlese emanate, and wlicl are tleir
only source.
But lere tlere is sometling more tlan in tle rst lypotlesis. !lis
being, endowed like ourselves witl organs and faculties wlicl lis will
puts into motion, is not as tle simple monad of wlicl we spoke before.
He las means, tlerefore le las duties, for le las tle duty of well em
ploying tlese means. But every duty supposes a punislment incurred
by an innaction of it, a law wlicl pronounces tlis punislment, a tri
bunal wlicl applies tlis law, accordingly in tle case in question tle
punislment of tle being of wlicl we speak, for not rigltly employing
lis means, is to see tlem produce eects less favorable to lis satisfac
tion, or even to see tlem produce sucl as are entirely destructive of it.
!le laws wlicl pronounce tlis punislment, are tlose of tle organi
zation of tlis willing and acting being. tley are tle conditions of lis
existence. !le tribunal wlicl applies tlese laws is tlat of necessity
itself, against wlicl le cannot guard limself. !lus tle being wlicl
occupies us las, incontestably, tle duty of well employing lis means,
since le las tlem, and of observing tlat tlis general duty compre
lends tlat of well appreciating, in tle rst place, tle desires or wants
wlicl tlese means are destined to satisf, of well studying aferwards
tlese means tlemselves, tleir extent and tleir limits, and, nally, of
labouring in consequence to restrain tle one and extend tle otler as
mucl as possible. for lis unlappiness will never proceed but nom tle
inferiority of means relatively to wants, since if wants were always sat
ised tlere would be no possibility of suering. !le insulated being
in question, las tlen riglts proceeding all nom lis wants, and duties
o
arising all out of lis means, and, in wlatever position you place lim,
le will never lave riglts or duties of anotler nature. for all tlose of
wlicl le may become susceptible will arise nom tlese, and will only be
tleir consequences. We may even say tlat all proceed nom lis wants,
for if le lad not wants le would not need means to satisf tlem, it
would not even be possible le slould lave any means. !lus it would
not be conceivable tlat le could lave any duty wlatsoever. If you wisl
to convince yourself of tlis, try to punisl an impassive being. I lave
tlen lad reason to say, tlat nom tle willing faculty arise tle ideas of
riglts and of duties, and I can add, witl assurance, tlat tlese ideas of
riglts and duties are not so exactly correspondent, and correlative, tle
one witl tle otler, as tley are commonly said to be. but tlat tlat
of duties is subordinate to tlat of riglts, as tlat of means is to tlat
of wants, since we can conceive riglts witlout duties, as in our rst
lypotlesis, and in tle second tlere are duties only because tlere are
wants, and tlat tley consist only in tle general duty of satisfing tlese
wants.
!le better to convince ourselves of tlese two trutls, let us make a
tlird supposition. let us place tlis being, organised as we are in relation
witl otler beings, feeling and willing like limself, and acting also in
virtue of tleir will, but wlicl are sucl tlat le cannot correspond fully
witl tlem, nor perfectly comprelend tleir ideas and tleir motives.
!lese animated beings lave tleir riglts also, proceeding nom tleir
wants. but tlis operates no clange in tlose of tle being wlose destiny
we investigate. He las tle same riglts as before, since le las tle same
wants. He las, moreover, tle same general duty of employing lis
means so as to procure tle satisfaction of lis wants. !lus le las tle
duty of conducting limself witl tlose beings wlicl slow tlemselves
to be feeling and willing, otlerwise tlan witl tlose, wlicl appear to
lim inanimate, for as tley act in consequence of tleir will it is lis duty
to conciliate or subjugate tlat will in order to bring tlem to contribute
to tle satisfaction of lis desires, and as le is supposed incapable of
communicating completely witl tlem, and consequently of forming
any convention witl tlem, le las no otler means of directing tleir
will towards tle accomplislment of lis desires, and tle satisfaction
of lis wants, tlan immediate persuasion or direct violence. And le
employs, and ouglt to employ, tle one and tle otler according to
circumstances, witlout any otler consideration tlan of producing tle
eects le desires.
c
In trutl tlis being, organized as we are, is sucl, tlat a view of
sensible nature inspires in lim tle desire to sympatlize witl it, tlat
it slould eoy of lis eoyments and suer of lis suerings. !lis
is a new want wlicl it produces in lim, and we slall see in tle se
quel tlat it is not one of tlose of wlicl le ouglt to endeavour to
rid limself, for it is useful for lim to be submitted to it. He ouglt
tlen to satisf it as tle otlers, and consequently le is under tle duty
of sparing to limself tle pain wlicl tle suerings of sensible beings
cause lim, so far as lis otler wants do not oblige lim to support tlis
pain. !lis is still a consequence of tle general duty of satisfing all
lis desires.
!le picture wlicl we lave just drawn according to tleory is tle
simple exposition of our relations witl animals taken in general, wlicl
relations are aferwards modied in particular cases according to tle
degree of knowledge we lave of tleir sentiments, and according to
tle relations of labit and reciprocal benevolence wlicl take place be
tween us and tlem, as between us and our fellow beings. I believe tlis
picture to be a very faitlful representation of tlese relations, for it is
equally remote nom tlat sentimental exaggeration wlicl would make
criminal in us any destruction wlatever of tlese animals, and nom tle
systematic barbarity wlicl would make us consider as legitimate tleir
most useless suerings, or even persuade us tlat tle pain wlicl a sen
sible being manifests, is not pain wlen tlis sensible being is not made
exactly like ourselves.
In fact tlese two systems are equally false. !le rst is untenable,
because in practice it is absolutely impossible to follow it rigorously.
It is evident tlat we slould be violently destroyed, or slowly fam
isled and eaten, by tle otler animated beings if we never destroyed
tlem, and tlat even witl tle most minute attention it is impossible
for us to avoid causing a great number of beings, more or less percep
tible to our senses, to suer and die. Now we lave incontestably tle
riglt to act and to live, since we are born for tle one as well as for
tle otler.
!le second system is not less erroneous, for in tleory it raslly
establisles between tle dierent states of sensible nature a line of sep
aration wlicl no plenomenon autlorizes us to admit. !lere is abso
lutely no one fact wlicl gives us a riglt to arm, nor even to suppose
tlat tle state of suering in tle animated beings witl wlicl we com
municate imperfectly, is not exactly tle same tling as it is in us or in
s
our fellow beings,
*
and on tlis gratuitous supposition, tlis system con
demns us to combat and destroy as a weakness tle sentiment, tle want
tle most general and imperious of luman nature, tlat of sympatly
and commiseration, a want wlicl we slall soon see is tle most lappy
result of our organization, and witlout wlicl our existence would be
come very miserable, and even impossible. Moreover, in practice tlis
system is opposed to tle usage tle most universal of all times and of
all individuals, for tlere las never been, I believe, an animal in tle
luman form, wlicl las sincerely and originally felt tlat a siglt of
suering, accurately expressed, was a tling of indierence. !le in
dierence wlicl is tle nuit of labit, and tle pleasure even of cruelty,
for cruelty sake, a nigltful pleasure, wlicl may lave been produced
in some denaturalized beings by accidental causes, proves tlat it is tle
case of a natural inclination surmounted by time, or overcome by ef
fort, and by tle pleasure wlicl arises in us nom every eort followed
by success. As to tlat cruelty wlicl is tle product of vengeance, it is a
proof tle more of tle tlesis I sustain, for it is because of tle profound
sentiment tlat tle vindictive being las of suering, tlat le wisles to
produce it in tle one tlat is odious to lim, and le always partakes
more or less involuntarily and forcibly of tle evil wlicl le causes.
!lese two opposite systems, but botl nuits of a derangement of
tle imagination, are tlen equally absurd in tleory and practice, tlis,
of itself, is a great presumption in favour of tle intermediate opinion
wlicl I establisl, wlicl moreover is found to be conformable to tle
usage of all times and all places, and to furnisl reason nom tle con
ditions of our nature, well observed, for wlat our manner of being, in
respect to tle animals, las in it singular and contradictory at tle rst
glance. But wlat is more forcible, and absolutely convincing, in my
opinion, is tlat tle same principle wlicl I lave establisled, that our
rights are always without limits, or at least equal to our wants, and that
our duties are never but the general duty of satisfying our wants, will ex
plain to us all our relations witl our fellow beings, and establisl tlem
on immoveable bases, and sucl as will be tle same everywlere, and
always, in all countries, and in all times, in wlicl our intimate nature
slall not lave clanged.
Let us now make a fourtl lypotlesis wlicl is tlat in wlicl we are
*
Always perlaps witl a degree of energy proportionate to tle perfection of tle
organization.
:
all placed. Let us suppose tle animated being we are now considering
in contact witl otler beings like limself. !lese beings lave wants, and
consequently riglts, as le las, but tlis makes no clange in lis. He las
always as many riglts as wants, and tle general duty of satisfing tlese
wants. If le could not communicate completely witl tlese beings like
limself, and make conventions witl tlem, le would be in respect to
tlem in tle state in wlicl we all are, and in wlicl as we lave just seen
we lave reason to be in regard to tle otler animals.
Will any one say tlis is a state of war: He will be wrong. !lis
would be an exaggeration. !le state of war is tlat in wlicl we inces
santly seek tle destruction of one anotler, because we cannot assure
ourselves of our own preservation, but by tle annililation of our en
emy. We are not in sucl a relation, but witl tlose animals wlose
instinct constantly leads tlem to lurt us. It is not so as to tle otlers,
even tlose wlicl we sacrice to our wants, we attack only inasmucl
as tlese wants, more or less pressing, force us. !lere are some of
tlem wlicl live witl us in a state of peaceable subjection, otlers in
perfect indierence. Witl all we wound tleir will only because it is
contrary to ours, and not for tle pleasure of wounding it. !lere is
even in regard to all tlis general necessity of sympatlising witl sen
sible nature, wlicl pains us at tle siglt of tleir suering, and wlicl
unites us more or less witl tlem. !lis state tlen is not essentially a
state of hostility. It nequently becomes sucl. but tlis is by accident. It
is essentially tle state of alienage (detrangete) if we may tlus express
ourselves. It is tlat of beings, willing and acting separately, eacl for
lis own satisfaction, witlout being able to explain tlemselves mutu
ally, or to make conventions for tle regulation of tle cases in wlicl
tleir wills are opposed.
Sucl, as we lave said, would be tle relations of man witl lis fel
low men, if lis means of communicating witl tlem were very imper
fect. He would not be precisely for tlem an enemy, but an indierent
stranger. His relations would even tlen be sofened by tle necessity
of sympatlising, wlicl is mucl stronger in lim in tle case of animals
of lis own species, and we must still add to tlis necessity tlat of love,
wlicl strengtlens it extremely in many circumstances, for love las not
perfect eoyment witlout mutual consent, witlout a very lively sym
patly, and wlen tlis sympatly, necessary to tle full satisfaction of tle
desire, las existed, it nequently gives birtl to labits of good will, nom
wlence arises tle sentiment of naternity, wlicl produces in its turn
.
ties more durable and more tender.
Nevertleless, in tlis state quarrels arenequent, and, properly speak
ing, justice and iustice do not yet exist. !le riglts of tle one do not
aect tle riglts of tle otler. Every one las as many riglts as wants,
and tle general duty of satisfing tlese wants witlout any foreign con
sideration. !lere does not begin to be any restrictions on tlese riglts
and tlis duty, or ratler on tle manner of fullling tlis duty, but at
tle moment in wlicl means of mutual understanding are establisled,
and consequently conventions tacit or formal. !lere solely is tle birtl
of justice and iustice, tlat is to say of tle balance between tle riglts
of one and tle riglts of anotler, wlicl necessarily were equal till tlis
instant. !le Greeks wlo called Ceres Legislatrix were wrong. It is
to grammar, to language, tley ouglt to lave given tlis title. !ley
lad placed tle origin of laws, and of justice, at tle moment in wlicl
men lave amongst tlem relations more stable, and conventions more
numerous. But tley ouglt to lave remounted to tle birtl of tle rst
conventions, informal or explicit. In every way tle duty of moderns is
to penetrate furtler and more profoundly tlan tle ancients. Hobbes,
tlen, was certainly riglt in establisling tle foundation of all justice
on conversations, but le was wrong in saying before, tlat tle ante
rior state is rigorously and absolutely a state of war, and tlat tlis is
our true instinct, and tle wisl of our nature. Were tlis tle case we
slould never lave witldrawn nom it.
*
A false principle las led lim
to an excellent consequence. It las always appeared to me singularly
remarkable, tlat tlis plilosopler, wlo of all men wlo lave ever writ
ten is perlaps tle most recommendable for tle rigorous concatenation
and close connexion of lis ideas, slould not lowever lave arrived at
tlis ne conception of tle necessity for conventions, tle source of all
justice, but, by starting nom a false or at least an inexact principle, (a
state of war tle natural state), and tlat nom tle just and profound
sentiment of tle want of peace among men, le las been led to a false
*
We must lowever admit tlat nature, or tle order of tlings, sucl as tley are,
in creating tle riglts of every animated individual, equal and opposed to tlose
of anotler, las virtually and indirectly created tle state of war, and tlat it is
art wlicl las caused it to cease, or at least las nequently suspended it amongst
us, by conventions. !lis still agrees witl our general principle, tlat we create
notling, were tlere not natural and necessary wars, tlere never would lave been
any conventional and articial ones. !le invincibly permanent state of tle relations
of man witl animals of otler species, is wlat disposes lim most to treat lis fellow
beings in an lostile manner.
idea tle necessity of servitude. Wlen we see sucl examples, low ouglt
we to tremble in enouncing an opinion:
*
Yet I cannot lelp believing tlat wlicl I lave just explained to be
true.
It seems to me proved, tlat nom our faculty of willing proceed tle
ideas of rights and duties, tlat nom our wants proceed all our rights,
and nom our means all our duties, tlat we lave always as many rights
as wants, and tle single duty of providing for tlese wants, tlat tle
wants and tle riglts of otler sensible beings, wletler of our own or
a dierent species, do not aect ours, tlat our riglts do not begin to
be restrained, but at tle moment of tle birtl of conventions, tlat our
general duty is not clanged for tlis as to its foundation, but only to
tle manner of fullling it, and tlat it is at tlis moment alone, tlat
justice and iustice properly so called commence.
It is not yet tle time to develope all tle consequences of tlese
principles, but it is time to terminate tlis long preliminary, by tle
reections to wlicl it gives rise.
src:io srvr:n.
Conclusion.
!le general considerations on wlicl we lave just dwelt, are tlose
wlicl rst present tlemselves to our understanding wlen we begin to
observe our will. However little we reect tlereon, we see rst tlat
it is a mode of our sensibility, wlicl arises nom a judgment, clear or
confused, formed on wlat we feel, tlat if our pure and simple sensibil
ity begins to give us an obscure idea of our self and of tle possession of
its aections, tlis admirable mode of our sensibility, wlicl we call will,
by tle resistance it experiences, causes us to know beings dierent nom
us, and completes our idea of individuality, of personality, and property,
exclusive of wlatsoever aects us.
!lis trutl las been developed vol. sst, clapter of existence, and in dierent
parts of tle two otler volumes.
OF OUR ACTIONS.
CHAPTER I
Of Society.
!nr introduction wlicl las been just read is consecrated entirely to an
examination of tle generation of some very general ideas, tle casting
of a rst glance on tle nature of tlat mode of our sensibility wlicl we
call tle will, or tle faculty of willing, and to tle indication of some of
its immediate and universal consequences.
We lave tlerein seen summarily, rst, wlat are inanimate or in-
sensible beings, sucl as many appear to us, wlicl may well exist for tle
sensible beings, wlicl tley aect, but wlicl do not exist for tlem
selves, since tley do not perceive it, second, wlat would be tle nature
of beings feeling, but feeling every thing with indierence, so tlat nom
tleir sensibility no cloice, no preference, no desire, in a word no will
would result, tlird, wlat are tlose beings sentient and willing, sucl
as all tle animals witl wlicl we are acquainted, and especially as our
selves, but insulated, fourtl, and in ne, wlat beings, feeling and willing
in our way, become wlen tley are in contact and in relation with other
animals of their species similar to tlemselves, and witl wlom tley can
fully correspond.
!lese preliminaries were necessary, tlat tle reader miglt readily
follow tle series of ideas, and clearly perceive tle connexion, of tlis
second section of tle elements of ideology witl tlat wlicl precedes
it. But it would be inconvenient, in a treatise on tle will, to say more
of beings not endowed witl tlis intellectual faculty, and it would not
be less superuous, laving tle luman species principally in view, to
occupy ourselves longer witl beings tlat slould be sentient and willing,
but living insulated.
Man cannot exist tlus, tlis is proved by tle fact, for we lave never
seen in any corner of tle world an animal in tle luman form, lowever
brutisl le miglt be, wlicl las no kind of relation witl any otler ani
mal of lis own species. tlat is not less demonstrated by reasoning. For
sucl an individual, strictly speaking, may exist altlougl very miserably,
yet certainly le could not reproduce limself. !lat tle species may be
perpetuated, it is indispensable tlat tle two sexes slould unite, it is
even necessary tlat tle infant, produced by tleir union, slould receive
for a long time tle cares of lis parents, or at least tlose of lis motler.
Now we are so formed tlat we lave all, more or less, a natural and
innate inclination to sympatly, tlat is to say we all experience pleasure
nom slaring our impressions, our aections, our sentiments, and tlose
of our fellow creatures. Perlaps tlis inclination exists amongst all an
imated beings, perlaps even it is in us nom tle origin a considerable
part of tlat wlicl so powerfully attracts tle two sexes towards eacl
otler. Wlat is certain, is tlat it aferwards augments it prodigiously. It
is tlen impossible tlat approximations, wlicl our organization renders
inevitable, slould not develope in us tlis natural disposition to sym
patly, fortif it by exercise, and establisl amongst us social and moral
relations. Moreover, we are also so organized, tlat we form judgments
of tlat wlicl we experience, of tlat wlicl we feel, of tlat wlicl we
see, in a word of all wlicl aects us, we distinguisl tle parts, circum
stances, causes and consequences tlereof, and tlis is to judge of it. It
is tlen impossible tlat we slould not soon be aware of tle utility we
may derive nom tle succour of our fellow beings, nom tleir assistance
in our wants, nom tle concurrence of tleir will, and of tleir force witl
ours, a new reason wly approximations, fortuitous at rst, slould be
come durable and permanent between us, tlis also is wlat takes place
always, and every wlere. It is tlis also wlicl always, and every wlere,
produces tle admirable and wise invention of a language more or less
perfect, but always as appears, more circumstantial, and more capable
of detailed explanations, tlan tlat of any otler animal. It is tlen tle
social state, wlicl is our natural state, and tlat witl wlicl we ouglt
alone to occupy ourselves.
I will not lowever in tlis place consider society under a moral rela
tion. I will not examine low it developes, multiplies, and complicates,
all our passions and aections, nor wlat are tle numerous duties it
imposes on us, nor wlence arises for us tle fundamental obligation
of respecting tle conventions on wlicl it rests, and witlout wlicl it
could not subsist. !lese are researcles wlicl will be tle object of tle
second part of tlis treatise. In tlis I slall consider tle social state only
under its economical relation, tlat is to say relatively to our most direct
wants, and to tle means we lave of satisfing tlem. It is tlat wlicl
6c
may lead us surely to estimate tle value and utility of all our actions,
to judge of tleir merits by tleir consequences, and consequently of
tle merit of tlose sentiments wlicl determine us to one action ratler
tlan anotler.
Now wlat is society viewed under tlis aspect: I do not fear to
announce it. Society is purely and solely a continual series of ex
clanges. It is never any tling else, in any epocl of its duration, nom
its commencement tle most unformed, to its greatest perfection. And
tlis is tle greatest eulogy we can give to it, for exclange is an ad
mirable transaction, in wlicl tle two contracting parties always botl
gain, consequently society is an uninterrupted succession of advan
tages, unceasingly renewed for all its members. !lis demands an ex
planation.
First, society is notling but a succession of exclanges. In eect, let
us begin witl tle rst conventions on wlicl it is founded. Every man,
before entering into tle state of society, las as we lave seen all riglts
and no duty, not even tlat of not lurting otlers, and otlers tle same
in respect to lim. It is evident tley could not live togetler, if by a con
vention formal or tacit tley did not promise eacl otler, reciprocally,
surety. Well! tlis convention is a real exclange, every one renounces a
certain manner of employing lis force, and receives in return tle same
sacrice on tle part of all tle otlers. Security once establisled by
tlis mean, men lave a multitude of mutual relations wlicl all arrange
tlemselves under one of tle tlree following classes. tley consist eitler
in rendering a service to receive a salary, or in bartering some article of
merclandize against anotler, or in executing some work in common.
In tle two rst cases tle exclange is manifest. In tle tlird it is not
less real, for wlen several men unite, to labour in common, eacl makes
a sacrice to tle otlers of wlat le could lave done during tle same
time for lis own particular utility, and le receives, for an equivalent,
lis part of tle common utility resulting nom tle common labour. He
exclanges one manner of occupying limself against anotler, wlicl
becomes more advantageous to lim tlan tle otler would lave been.
It is true tlen tlat society consists only in a continual succession of
exclanges.
I do not pretend to say tlat men never render gratuitous services.
Far nom me be tle idea of denying benevolence, or of banisling it nom
tleir learts, but I say it is not on tlis tlat all tle progress of society
reposes, and even tlat tle lappy consequences of tlis amiable virtue
6s
are mucl more important under a moral relation,
*
of wlicl we are not
at tlis time speaking, tlan under tle economical relation wlicl now
occupies us. I add tlat if we urge tle sense of tle word exclange, and
if we wisl, as we ouglt, to take it in all tle extent of its signication,
we may say witl justice tlat a benet is still an exclange, in wlicl
one sacrices a portion of ones property, or of ones time, to procure a
moral pleasure, very lively and very sweet, tlat of obliging, or to exempt
oneself nom a pain very aicting, tle siglt of suering, exactly as we
employ a sum of money to procure an articial re work, wlicl diverts,
or to nee ourselves nom sometling wlicl incommodes us.
It is equally true tlat an exclange is a transaction in wlicl tle two
contracting parties botl gain. Wlenever I make an exclange neely,
and witlout constraint, it is because I desire tle tling I receive more
tlan tlat I give, and, on tle contrary, le witl wlom I bargain desires
wlat I oer more tlan tlat wlicl le renders me. Wlen I give my
labour for wages it is because I esteem tle wages more tlan wlat I
slould lave been able to produce by labouring for myself, and le wlo
pays me prizes more tle services I render lim tlan wlat le gives me
in return. Wlen I give a measure of wleat for a measure of wine,
it is because I lave a superabundance of food and notling to drink,
and le witl wlom I treat is in tle contrary case. Wlen several of us
agree to execute any labour wlatsoever in common, wletler to defend
ourselves against an enemy, to destroy noxious animals, to preserve
ourselves nom tle ravages of tle sea, of an inundation, of a contagion,
or even to make a bridge or a road, it is because eacl of us prefers tle
particular utility wlicl will result to lim nom it, to wlat le would
lave been able to do for limself during tle same time. We are all
satised in all tlese species of exclanges, every one nds lis advantage
in tle arrangement proposed.
In trutl it is possible tlat, in an exclange, one of tle contractors,
or even botl, may lave been wrong to desire tle bargain wlicl tley
conclude. It is possible tley may give a tling, wlicl tley will soon
regret, for a tling wlicl tley will soon cease to value. It is possible,
also, tlat one of tle two may not lave obtained for tlat wlicl le
sacrices as mucl as le miglt lave asked, so tlat le will suer a relative
loss wlile tle otler makes an exaggerated gain. But tlese are particular
cases wlicl do not belong to tle nature of tle transaction. And it is
*
In developing and exciting sympatly.
6:
not less true tlat it is tle essence of nee exclange to be advantageous
to botl parties, and tlat tle true utility of society is to render possible
amongst us a multitude of similar arrangements.
It is tlis innumerable crowd of small particular advantages, unceas
ingly arising, wlicl composes tle general good, and wlicl produces
at lengtl tle wonders of perfected society, and tle immense dierence
we see between it and a society imperfect or almost null, sucl as exists
amongst savages. It is not improper to direct our attention for some
time to tlis picture, wlicl does not suciently strike us because we
are too mucl accustomed to it.
Wlat is it in eect wlicl a country anciently civilized oers to
our contemplation: !le elds are cleared and cleaned, need nom tle
large vegetables wlicl originally covered tlem, rid of noxious plants
and animals, and in every respect prepared to receive tle annual cares
of tle cultivator. !le marsles are drained. !le stagnant waters wlicl
occupied it lave ceased to ll tle air witl pestilential vapours. Issues
lave been opened for tlem, or tleir extent las been circumscribed,
and tle lands wlicl tley infected lave become abundant pastures, or
useful reservoirs. !le asperities of tle mountains lave been levelled,
tleir bases lave been appropriated to tle wants of culture, tleir parts
least accessible, even to tle regions of eternal snow, lave been des
tined to tle nourislment of numerous ocks. !le forests wlicl lave
been permitted to remain lave not continued impenetrable. !le wild
beasts wlicl retired to tlem lave been pursued and almost destroyed,
tle wood wlicl tley produce las been witldrawn and preserved, tle
cutting tlem las even been subjected to periods tle most favourable
for tleir reproduction, and tle care bestowed on tlem almost every
wlere is equivalent to a species of culture, and las even been some
times extended to a most diligent culture. !le running waters wlicl
traverse all tlese lands lave, likewise, not remained in tleir primitive
state. !le great rivers, lave been cleared of all tle obstacles wlicl
obstructed tleir course, tley lave been conned by dikes and quays,
wlen tlis las been necessary, and tleir banks lave been disposed in
sucl a manner as to form commodious ports in convenient situations.
!le course of streams less considerable las been restrained for work
ing mills and otler maclines, or diverted to irrigate declivities wlicl
needed it, and to render tlem productive. On tle wlole surface of
tle land labitations lave been constructed nom distance to distance,
in favourable positions, for tle use of tlose wlo cultivate tle ground
6.
and attend to its produce. !lese labitations lave been surrounded
witl enclosures and plantations, tlat render tlem more agreeable and
more useful. Roads lave been made to go to tlem and to take away tle
produce of tle eartl. In points wlere several dierent interests lave
concentrated, and wlere otler men lave become suciently necessary
to tle service of tle cultivators, to be able to subsist on tle wages
of tleir labour, labitations lave been multiplied and made contigu
ous, and lave formed villages and small towns. On tle banks of large
rivers, and on tle slores of tle sea, in points in wlicl tle interests
of several of tlese towns lave coincided, large cities lave been built,
wlicl lave tlemselves in time given birtl to a still greater one, wlicl
las become tleir capital and tleir common centre, because it las been
found tle most favourably situated to unite all tle otlers, and to be
provisioned and defended by tlem. Finally, all tlese towns commu
nicate witl eacl otler, witl tle neiglbouring seas, and witl foreign
countries, by means of bridges, causeways, canals, in wlicl tle wlole
of luman industry is displayed. Sucl are tle objects wlicl strike us at
tle rst aspect of a country wlere men lave exercised all tleir power,
and lave appropriated it to tlemselves for a long time.
If we penetrate tle interior of tleir labitations we tlere nd an im
mense number of useful animals, raised, nourisled, made obsequious,
by man,multiplied by lim to an inconceivable point, a prodigious
quantity of necessaries of every species, commodities, furniture, uten
sils, instruments, clotling, articles, raw or manufactured, metals, nec
essary or precious, nally, wlatever may sooner or later contribute to
tle satisfaction of our wants. We admire tlere above all tlings, a pop
ulation really astonisling, all tle individuals of wlicl lave tle use of
a perfected language, lave a reason developed to a certain point, man
ners suciently sofened, and an industry suciently intelligent, to
live in sucl great numbers near to one anotler, and amongst wlom in
general tle poorest are succoured, tle weakest defended. We remark,
witl still more surprise, tlat many of tlese men lave attained a de
gree of knowledge very dicult to be acquired, tlat tley possess an
innity of agreeable or useful arts, tlat tley are acquainted witl many
of tle laws of nature, of wlicl tley know to calculate tle eects, and
turn tlem to tleir advantage, tlat tley lave even lad a glimpse of
tle most dicult of all sciences, since tley are able to distinguisl, at
least in part, tle true interests of tle species in general, and in partic
ular tlose of tleir society, and its members, tlat in consequence tley
6
lave conceived laws ofen just, institutions tolerably wise, and created
a number of establislments proper for spreading and still increasing
instruction and intelligence, and nally, tlat not content witl lav
ing tlus insured interior prosperity tley lave explored tle rest of tle
eartl, establisled relations witl foreign nations, and provided for tleir
security nom witlout.
Wlat an immense accumulation of means of well being! Wlat
prodigious results nom tlat part of tle labours of our predecessors,
wlicl las not been immediately necessary to tle support of tleir exis
tence, and wlicl las not been annililated witl tlem! !le imagination
even is astonisled, and tle more so tle more it reects on it, for we
slould consider tlat many of tlese works are little durable, tlat tle
most solid lave been many times renewed in tle course of ages, and
tlat tlere is scarcely one wlicl does not require continual care and
maintenance for its preservation. We must observe tlat of tlese won
ders tlat wlicl strikes our attention is not tle most astonisling, it is,
as we say, tle material part. But tle intellectual part, if we may so ex
press ourselves, is still more surprising. It las always been mucl more
dicult to learn, and to discover, tlan to act in consequence of wlat we
know. !le rst steps, especially in tle career of invention, are of ex
treme diculty. !le labour wlicl man las been obliged to perform
on lis own intellectual faculties, tle immensity of tle researcles to
wlicl le las been forced to lave recourse, tlat of tle observations le
las been obliged to collect, lave cost lim mucl more time and pains
tlan all tle works le las been able to execute in consequence of tle
progress of lis understanding. Finally, we must remark tlat tle eorts
of men, for tle amelioration of tleir lot, lave never been nearly as well
directed as tley miglt lave been, tlat always a great portion of tle lu
man power las been employed in lindering tle progress of tle otler,
tlat tlis progress las been troubled and interrupted by all tle great
disorders of nature and of society, and tlat many times perlaps all las
been lost and destroyed, even tle knowledge acquired, even tle capac
ity of recommencing tlat wlicl lad been already done. !lese latter
considerations miglt become discouraging. But we slall see elsewlere
by low many reasons we ouglt to be assured against tle fear of sucl
misfortunes in future. We will also examine to wlat point tle progress
of tle species, taken in mass, augments tle lappiness of individuals, a
condition necessary to enable us to rejoice at it. But at tlis moment let
it suce to lave slown tle prodigious power wlicl men acquire wlen
6
united, wlile separated tley can witl diculty sustain tleir miserable
existence. Smitl, if I am not mistaken, is tle rst wlo las remarked
tlat man alone makes exclanges, properly speaking. See lis admirable
clapter, tl of tle sst book of lis treatise on tle wealtl of nations. I
regret tlat in remarking tlis fact le las not souglt its cause witl more
curiosity. It was not for tle autlor of tle tleory of moral sentiments
to regard as useless a scrutiny of tle operations of our understanding.
His success and lis faults ouglt to lave contributed equally to make
lim tlink tle contrary. Notwitlstanding tlis negligence lis asser
tion is not tle less true. We clearly see certain animals execute labours
wlicl concur to a common end, and wlicl to a certain point appear
to lave been concerted, or glt for tle possession of wlat tley desire,
or supplicate to obtain it, but notling announces tlat tley really make
formal exclanges. !le reason, I tlink, is tlat tley lave not a language
suciently developed to enable tlem to make express conventions, and
tlis, I tlink, proceeds (as I lave explained in my second volume, ar
ticle of interjections,and in my rst, on tle subject of signs,) nom
tleir being incapable of suciently decomposing tleir ideas, to gen
eralise, to abstract, and to express tlem separately in detail, and in tle
form of a proposition, wlence it lappens tlat tlose of wlicl tley
are susceptible, are all particular, confused witl tleir attributes, and
manifest tlemselves in mass by interjections, wlicl can explain notl
ing explicitly. Man, on tle contrary, wlo las tle intellectual means
wlicl are wanting to tlem is naturally led to avail limself of tlem, to
make conventions witl lis fellow beings. !ley make no exclanges,
and le does. Accordingly le alone las a real society, for commerce is
the whole of society, as labour is tle wlole of ricles.
We can scarcely conceive at rst tlat tle great eects, wlicl we
lave just described, lave no otler cause tlan tle sole reciprocity of
services and tle multiplicity of exclanges. However tlis continual suc
cession of exclanges las tlree very remarkable advantages.
First, tle labour of several men united is more productive, tlan
tlat of tle same men acting separately. Is tlere a question of defence:
!en men will easily resist an enemy, wlo would lave destroyed tlem
all in attacking one afer anotler. Is a burden to be removed: !lat
of wlicl tle weiglt would lave opposed an invincible resistance to
tle eorts of a single individual, yields immediately to tlose of several
acting togetler. Is some complicated work to be executed: Several
tlings are to be done simultaneously. One does one wlile anotler
66
does anotler, and all contribute to eect wlat a single man could not
lave produced. One rows wlile anotler steers, and a tlird casts tle net
or larpoons tle sl, and tlus tley attain a success impossible witlout
tlis concurrence.
Secondly, our knowledge is our most precious acquisition, since it
is tlis tlat directs tle employment of our force, and renders it more
nuitful, in proportion to its greater soundness and extent. Now no
man is in a situation to see every tling, and it is mucl more easy to
learn tlan to invent. But wlen several men communicate togetler,
tlat wlicl one las observed is soon known to all tle otlers, and it
is sucient amongst tlem tlat one is found wlo is very ingenious, in
order tlat precious discoveries slould promptly become tle property
of all. Intelligence tlen will increase mucl more rapidly, tlan in a state
of insulation, witlout calculating tlat it may be preserved, and conse
quently accumulated nom generation to generation, and still witlout
counting, wlat is clearly proved by tle study of our understanding,
tlat tle invention and employment of language and its signs, wlicl
would not take place witlout society, furnisl our minds witl many
new means of combination and action.
!lirdly, and tlis still merits attention. wlen several men labour
reciprocally for one anotler every one can devote limself exclusively to
tle occupation for wlicl le is ttest, wletler nom lis natural dis
positions or nom fortuitous circumstances, and tlus le will succeed
better. !le lunter, tle slerman, tle sleplerd, tle labourer, tle ar
tisan,doing eacl a single tlingwill become more skilful, will lose
less time, and lave more success. !lis is wlat is called tle division of
labour, wlicl in civilised society is sometimes carried to an inconceiv
able point, and always witl advantage. !le writers on economics lave
all attacled an extreme importance to tle division of labour, and tley
lave made mucl noise witl tlis observation, wlicl is not ancient, tley
lave been riglt. Yet tlis tlird advantage of society is far nom laving
an interest equally eminent witl tle two former, tle concurrence of
force and tle communication of knowledge. In all cases, tlat wlicl is
most dicult is to assign to tlings tleir true value, for tlis, we must
know tlem perfectly.
Concurrence of force, increase and preservation of knowledge, and
division of labour,tlese are tle tlree great benets of society. !ley
cause tlemselves to be felt nom tle rst by men tle most rude, but
tley augment in an incalculable ratio, in proportion as tley are per
6
fected,and every degree of amelioration, in tle social order, adds still
to tle possibility of increasing and better using tlem. !le energy of
tlese tlree causes of prosperity will slow itself still more evidently,
wlen we slall lave seen more in detail tle manner in wlicl our ricles
are termed.
6
CHAPTER II
Of Production, or of the formation of our Riches.
I: is so true tlat we cannot reason justly wlile tle sense of words is not
well determined, tlat it is very important in political economy, to know
wlat we ouglt to understand by tle word production, in tle language
of tlis science. !lis question, wlicl in itself is not witlout diculty,
las been still mucl perplexed by tle spirit of system and prejudice. It
las been treated of by many able men, at tle lead of wlom we slould
place !urgot and Smitl. But, in my opinion, no one las tlrown so
mucl liglt on it as Mr. Say, tle autlor of tle best book I know on
tlese matters, altlougl le leaves still sometling to be desired.
All tle operations of nature and of art resolve into transmutations,
into clanges, of form and of place.
Not only we never create any tling, but it is even impossible for us
to conceive wlat it is to create, if we understand by tlis word to make
sometling of notling, for we lave never seen any being wlatsoever
arise nom notling, nor return to it. Hence tlis axiom, admitted by
all antiquity, nothing comes from nothing, or returns to nothing.
*
Wlat
tlen do we do by our labour, by our action on all tle bodies wlicl
surround us: Never any tling, but operate in tlese beings clanges of
form or of place, wlicl render tlem proper for our use, wlicl make
tlem useful to tle satisfaction of our wants. !lis is wlat we slould
understand byto produce. It is to give tlings an utility wlicl tley lad
not. Wlatever be our labour, if no utility results nom it it is unnuitful.
If any results it is productive.
It seems at rst, and many likewise believe it, tlat tlere is a more
real production in tlat labour wlicl las for its object tle procurement
of rst materials, tlan in tlat wlicl consists in faslioning and trans
porting tlem, but it is an illusion. Wlen I put seed in contact witl air,
*
It is very just. I slall believe in tle possibility of a creation, wlen any body slall
slow me one, or even an annililation.
6o
water, eartl, and dierent manures, so tlat nom tle combinations of
tlese elements results wleat, lemp, or tobacco, tlere is no more cre
ation operated, tlan wlen I take tle grain of tlis wleat to convert it
into our and bread, tle laments of tlis lemp to make successively
tlereof tlread, clotl, and labiliments, and tle leaves of tlis tobacco to
prepare tlem so as to smoke, clew, or snu tlem. In botl cases tlere
is a production of utility, for all tlese labours are equally necessary to
accomplisl tle desired end, tle satisfaction of some of our wants.
!le man wlo draws sl nom tle deptls of tle sea is no more
a creator tlan tlose wlo dry and salt tlem, wlo extract tle oil, tle
eggs, &c. &c. or transport tlese products to me. It is tle same witl
tlose wlo dig in mines, wlo convert tle mineral into metal and tle
metal into utensils, or furniture, and wlo carry tlese instruments to
tlose wlo want tlem. Eacl adds a new utility to tle utility already
produced, consequently eacl is equally a producer. All equally study
tle laws, wlicl govern tle dierent beings to turn tlem to tleir prot,
all employ, to produce tle desired eect, tle clemical and meclanical
forces of nature. Wlat we call ler vegetative force is not of anotler
nature, it is but a series of elective attractions, of true clymical anities
witl all tle circumstances of wlicl we are undoubtedly not acquainted,
but yet know low to favor tlem by our labours, and to direct tlese in
sucl a manner as to render tlem useful.
It is tlen erroneously tlat tley lave made agricultural industry a
tling essentially dierent nom all tle otler brancles of luman indus
try, and in wlicl tle action of nature intervenes in a particular manner,
accordingly tley lave always been greatly embarrassed to know pre
cisely wlat tley slould understand by agricultural industry, taken in
tlis sense. !ley lave comprised tlerein sling and lunting. But wly
not likewise comprelend tle industry of erratic sleplerds: Is tlere so
great a dierence between raising animals to nourisl ourselves, and
killing or taking tlem ready raised to nourisl ourselves in tle same
manner. If le wlo extracts salt nom sea water, by exposing it to tle
action of tle rays of tle sun, is a producer, wly slould not le wlo
extracts tle same salt nom tle water of a fountain, by means of tle
action of re, and tlat of tle wind, in buildings of graduation, be a
producer also: And yet wlat specic dierence is tlere between lis
manufacture, and all tlose wlicl yield otler clymical products: If
we rank in tlis productive class lim wlo extracts minerals nom tle
eartl, wly not also comprelend lim wlo extracts metals nom tlese
c
minerals: If one produces tle mineral tle otler produces tle metal,
and wlere slall we stop in tle dierent transformations wlicl tlis
matter undergoes, till it becomes a piece of furniture or a jewel:at
wlat point of tlese successive labours can we say, lere we cease to pro
duce, and do notling but faslion: We may say as mucl of tlose wlo
seek wood in forests, or turf in logs, or wlo collect on tle slores of
tle sea or of rivers tle useful tlings wlicl tle waters lave deposited
tlere. Are tley agricolists, fabricators, or carriers: And if tley are
all tlese at tle same time, wly are tley more producers under one of
tlese denominations tlan under tle two otlers: Finally, to speak only
of culture, properly so called, I demand tlat it be precisely determined
wlo is tle true producer, tle agricolist by excellence, le wlo sows or
le wlo reaps, le wlo plougls, or le wlo fences, le wlo conveys ma
nure into tle elds, or le wlo leads tle ocks to fold in tlem: For my
part I declare tlat tley all appear only as so many dierent workmen,
wlo concur in tle same fabrication. I stop lere, because one miglt
propose to tle partisans of tle opinion I combat a tlousand questions,
as insoluble as tlese, in tleir system. Wlen we set out nom a false
principle diculties arise in crowds. perlaps tlis is one of tle great
causes of tle obscure, embarrassed, and almost mysterious, language
wlicl we remark in tle writings of tle ancient economists. Wlen
ideas are not precise it is impossible tlat expressions slould be clear.
!le trutl is simply, tlat all our useful labours are productive, and
tlat tlose relative to agriculture are so like tle otlers, in tle same
manner as tle otlers, for tle same reason as tle otlers, and lave in
tlis notling particular. A farm is a real manufactory, every tling is
operated tlere in tle same way, by tle same principles, and for tle
same causes. A. eld is a real utensil, or, if you please, a store of rst
materials, wlicl any one may take if it yet belongs to nobody, and
wlicl must be bouglt, rented, or borrowed, if it las already an owner.
It does not clange its nature, wletler I employ it in tle raising of
grain, in bleacling linen, or for any otler purpose. In every case it
is an instrument necessary to produce a desired eect, as a furnace, a
lammer, or a vessel. !le only dierence between tlis instrument and
every otler, is tlat to use it, as it cannot be removed, we must go to it,
instead of its coming to us.
Once again, agricultural industry is a brancl of manufacturing in
dustry, wlicl las no specic claracter wlicl separates it nom all tle
otlers. Would you so generalise tlis term as to extend it to all tle
s
labours wlicl lave for tleir object tle procurement of rst materials:
it is tlen certain tlat agricultural industry is tle rst in date and tle
most necessary of all, because it is necessary tlat a tling slould be
procured before it can be applied to use, but it is not for tlat reason
exclusively productive, for most of its productions must yet be furtler
wrouglt before tley become useful to us, and moreover we must tlen
comprelend in agricultural industry, not only tlat of lunters, slers,
sleplerds, miners, &c. but also tlat of tle rudest savages, and even
tlat of all tlose beasts wlicl live on tle spontaneous productions of
tle eartl, since tlese are rst matters wlicl tlese creatures procure for
tlemselves, in trutl, tley are immediately consumed, but tlis does not
clange tle tlesis. Certainly tlese are singular agricolists, and singular
producers.
Will it be insisted tlat agricultural industry slall be restrained to
agriculture, properly so called:tlen it is not tle rst in clronological
order, for men are slers, lunters, sleplerds, and mere vagabonds, in
tle manner of brutes, long before tley are agricultors. It is not even
tle only industry productive of rst materials, for we employ many for
wlicl we are not indebted to it. Doubtless it is always very important,
and is tle principal source of our subsistence, if not of our ricles, but
it cannot be regarded as exclusively productive.
Let us conclude tlat all useful labour is really productive, and tlat
all tle laborious class of society merits equally tle name of productive.
!le truly sterile class is tlat of tle idle, wlo do notling but live,
nobly as it is termed, on tle products of labours executed before tleir
time, wletler tlese products are realised in landed estates wlicl tley
lease, tlat is to say wlicl tley lire to a labourer, or tlat tley consist
in money or eects wlicl tley lend for a premium, wlicl is still a
liring. !lese are tle true drones of tle live, (nuges consumere nati)
unless tley render tlemselves deserving by tle functions wlicl tley
disclarge or tle knowledge wlicl tley diuse, for tlese are, also,
useful and productive labours, altlougl not of an immediate utility in
relation to ricles,we will speak of tlem lereafer.
As to tle laborious class and tlat immediately productive of our
ricles, as its action on all tle beings of nature always reduces itself
to tle clange of form or of place, it naturally divides itself into two,
tle manufacturers comprising agriculturists, wlo fabricate and faslion,
and merclants wlo transport, for tlis is tle real utility of tle latter.
If tley did notling but buy and sell,witlout transporting, witlout
:
retailing, witlout facilitating any tling,tley would be notling more
tlan incommodious parasites, gamesters, stockjobbers, of tle one and
tle otler of wlom we slall slortly speak, and we slall quickly see low
mucl liglt our manner of considering tlings tlrows on tle wlole
progress of society. We must now explain a little more fully in wlat
tlis utility consists, our only production wlicl results nom all labour
well understood, and to see low it is appreciated, and low it constitutes
tle value of wlatsoever we call our ricles.
.
CHAPTER III
Of the Measure of Utility or of Values.
!nis word utility las a very extensive signication, for it is very ab
stract, or ratler it is very abstract because it is abstracted nom a mul
titude of dierent signications. In eect tlere exist utilities of many
dierent kinds. !lere are some real, some illusory, if some are solid
some are very futile, and we ofen stupidly deceive ourselves in respect
to tlem. I could cite many examples, but tley would not perlaps be to
tle taste of all readers. It is better tlat every one slould cloose tlose
wlicl please lim. In general we may say tlat wlatever is capable of
procuring any advantage, even a nivolous pleasure, is useful. I tlink
tlis is tle real value of tlis word, for in tle end all we desire is to
multiply our eoyments and to diminisl our suerings, and certainly
tle sentiment of pleasure and of satisfaction is a good. All goods are
even notling more tlan tlat dierently modied. Wlatever, tlen,
procures it is useful.
If it is not easy to say clearly wlat tlis utility is of wlicl we speak,
it appears still mucl more dicult to determine its degrees, for tle
measure of tle utility of a tling, real or supposed, is tle vivacity witl
wlicl it is generally desired. Now, low are we to x tle degrees of a
tling so inappreciable as tle vivacity of our desires: We lave, lowever,
a very sure manner of arriving at it. It is to observe tle sacrices to
wlicl tlese desires determine us. If, to obtain any tling wlatsoever, I
am disposed to give tlree measures of wleat wlicl belong to me, and
if, to obtain anotler, I am ready to part witl twelve like measures,it
is evident tlat I desire tle last four times more tlan tle otler. In like
manner, if I give a man a salary triple of tlat wlicl I oer anotler,
it is clear tlat I value tle services of tle rst tlree times more tlan
tlose of tle second, or, if I personally do not value tlem so mucl,
it is lowever tle value generally attacled to tlem, so tlat I could not
procure tlem at a smaller price, and, since, in ne, I make tlis sacrice
We lave seen tlat tle sole and only source of all our eoyments, of
all our ricles, is tle employment of our force, our labour, our industry,
tlat tle true production of tlis industry is utility, tlat tle measure of
tlis utility is tle salary it obtains, and besides tlat tle quantity of util
ity produced is wlat composes tle sum of our means of existence and
eoyment. Now let us examine tle two great brancles of tlis indus
try, tle clange of form and tle clange of place, tle fabrication and tle
transportation, or tlat wlicl is called manufacturing and commercial
industry.
CHAPTER IV
Of the Change of Form, or of manufacturing Industry,
comprising Agriculture.
Sicr tle wlole of society is but a continual succession of exclanges,
we are all more or less commercial. In like manner, since tle result
of all our labours is never but tle production of utility, and since tle
ultimate eect of all our manufactures is always to produce utility, we
are all producers or manufacturers,because tlere is no person so un
fortunate as never to do any tling useful. But by tle eect of social
combinations, and by tle separation of tle dierent kinds of occupa
tion wlicl is its consequence, every one devotes limself to a particular
kind of industry. !lat wlicl las for its object tle faslioning and
modifing all tle beings wlicl surround us, to t tlem for our use, we
call specically manufacturing or fabricating industry, and, for reasons
before given, we comprelend in tlis tlat wlicl consists in extract
ing tle rst materials nom tle elements wlicl contain tlem, tlat is
to say tlat wlicl is called agricultural industry. Let us examine tle
processes, and manner of operation, of fabricating industry in general.
M. Say las well remarked, tlat in every kind of industry tlere
are tlree distinct tlings. First, to know tle properties of tle bodies
wlicl we employ, and tle laws of nature wlicl govern tlem, secondly,
to avail ourselves of tlis knowledge to produce an useful eect, tlirdly,
to execute tle labour necessary to attain tlis object. !lat is to say tlere
is in every tling, as le expresses it, tleory, application, and execution.
Before tle existence of society, or during its infancy, every man is
for limself tle fabricator of wlatever le wants, and, in every species
of fabrication, le is obliged to full alone tle tlree functions of wlicl
we lave just spoken. But in a more advanced state of society, by tle
eect of tle lappy possibility of exclanges, not only every one devotes
limself exclusively to tle particular industry for wlicl le las tle most
advantages, but, also, in eacl kind of industry, tle tlree functions
o
of wlicl we are speaking are separated. !leory is tle part of tle
scientic, application tlat of tle undertaker, and execution tlat of tle
workman.
!lese tlree species of labourers must derive a prot nom tle pains
tley take, for a man is born naked and destitute. He cannot amass till
afer le las gained, and before laving amassed le las notling, on
wlicl to subsist, but lis plysical and moral faculties,if tle use le
makes of tlem produces notling le must nd a dierent metlod of
employing tlem, or le will perisl. Every one, tlen, of tle labourers
of wlom we speak must nd a salary in tle prots resulting nom tle
fabrication in wlicl le cooperates.
But all lave more or less need of advances, before tley begin to
receive tlis salary,for it is not in an instant, and witlout preparation,
tlat tleir service becomes suciently nuitful to merit a recompense.
!le man of science, or le wlom at tlis moment we consider as
sucl, before le can lave discovered or learned trutls immediately use
ful and applicable, las lad need of long studies. He las lad to make
researcles and experiments, le las needed books and maclines, in a
word, le las been obliged to incur clarges and expenses, before deriv
ing any advantage nom tlem.
!le undertaker does not less experience tle necessity of some pre
liminary knowledge, and of a preparatory education, more or less ex
tensive. Moreover, before le begins to fabricate, le must obtain a
place, an establislment, magazines, maclines, rst materials, and also
tle means of paying workmen till tle moment of tle rst returns.
!lese are enormous advances.
Finally, tle poor workman limself las not certainly great funds
yet tlere is scarcely a trade in wlicl le is not obliged to lave some
tools of lis own. He las always lis clotles and lis small collection
of moveables. If le las but simply lived till tle moment in wlicl
lis labour begins to be wortl lis bare subsistence, tlis must always be
tle nuit of some former labour, tlat is to say of some ricles already
acquired,wlicl las provided for it. Wletler it be tle economy of
lis parents, or some public establislment, or even tle product of alms,
wlicl las furnisled tle expenses,tlere are always advances wlicl
lave been made for lim, if not by lim, and tley could not lave been
made if every one before lim lad lived nom day to day exactly as brute
animals, and lad not absolutely any tling remaining nom tle produce
of lis labour.
c
Wlat, tlen, are all tlese advances, great or small: !ley are wlat
are commonly called capitals, and wlat I simply name economies. !ley
are tle surplus of tle production of all tlose wlo lave gone before
us, beyond tleir consumption,for if tle one lad always been exactly
equal to tle otler tlere would be no remainder, not even wlerewitl to
raise clildren. We lave inlerited nom our ancestors but tlis surplus,
and it is tlis surplus, long accumulated in every way, always increasing
in accelerated progression, wlicl makes all tle dierence between a
civilized nation and a savage lorde,a dierence, tle picture of wlicl
we lave before sketcled.
!le economists lave entered into many details on tle nature and
employment of capitals. !ley lave recognized many dierent kinds.
!ley lave distinguisled capitals productive and unproductive, capitals
xed, and otlers circulating, moveable, and immoveable, permanent,
and destructible. I see no great use in all tlese subdivisions. Some
are very contestable, otlers founded on very variable circumstances,
and otlers again entirely superuous. It seems sucient for tle object
we propose to remark, tlat prior economies are necessary to tle com
mencement of every industrious enterprise, even of small extent, and
it is for tlis reason tlat in every country tle progress of industry is at
rst so slow,for it is at tle commencement above all tlat economies
are dicult,low can it but be dicult to make any accumulations,
wlen a person las scarcely any tling beyond strict necessaries.
However, little by little, witl tle assistance of time and of some
lappy circumstances, capitals are formed. !ley are not all of tle same
kind, tley are not all equal, and tlis gives birtl to tlree classes of
labourers, wlo cooperate in every fabrication, eacl raising limself to
tlat to wlicl le las been able to attain, or xing limself at tlat wlicl
le las not been able to overpass. It is easy to perceive tlat tlis is tle
source of a great diversity in salaries. !le man of science, le wlo can
enliglten tle labours of fabrication, and render tlem less expensive
and more nuitful, will necessarily be souglt afer and well paid. It is
true tlat if lis knowledge is not of an immediate utility,or if being
useful it begins to diuse itself and to become common, le will run
tle risk of seeing limself neglected, and even witlout employment,
but wlile le is, wanted lis salary will be large.
!le poor workman, wlo las notling but lis arms to oer, las not
tlis lope. le will always be reduced to tle smallest price, wlicl may
rise a little if tle demand for labour is mucl greater tlan tlat wlicl is
s
oered, but wlicl will fall even below tle necessaries of life, if more
workmen oer tlemselves tlan can le employed. It is in tlese cases
tley perisl tlrougl tle eect of tleir distresses.
!lese two kinds of cooperators in fabrication, tle man of science
and tle workman, will always be in tle pay of tle undertaker. !lus
decrees tle nature of tlings, for it is not sucient to know low to
aid an enterprize witl tle lead or tle lands. tlere must rst be an
enterprize, and le wlo undertakes it, is necessarily tle person wlo
clooses, employs, and pays tlose wlo cooperate. Now wlo is le wlo
can undertake it: It is tle man wlo las already funds, witl wlicl
le can meet tle rst expenses of establislment and supplies, and pay
wages till tle moment of tle rst returns.
Wlat will be tle measure of tle recompense of tlis man: It will
be solely tle quantity of utility wlicl le will lave produced and caused
to be produced. He can lave no otler. If laving purclased an lundred
nancs wortl of articles, wlatsoever, and laving expended a lundred
more in clanging tleir form, it lappens tlat wlat goes nom lis man
ufactory appears to lave sucient utility to induce a person to give four
lundred to procure it, le las gained two lundred nancs. If le is of
fered only two lundred for it, le las lost lis time and lis pains, if le
is oered but one lundred, le las lost tle lalf of lis funds, all tlese
clances are possible. He is subject to tlis incertitude, wlicl cannot
aect tle lireling, wlo always receives tle price agreed on, wlatever
lappens.
It is commonly said tlat tle prots of tle undertaker (improp
erly called salaries, since no one las promised lim any tling,) ouglt
to represent tle price of lis labour, tle interest of lis funds, and in
demnication for tle risks le las run. it is necessary and just tlat it
slould be so. I agree if you please tlat tlis is just, altlougl tle word
just is lere misapplied. because no one laving contracted an obliga
tion witl tlis undertaker, to furnisl lim witl tlese prots, tlere is no
iustice committed if le does not receive tlem. I agree furtler tlat
tlis is necessary, for lim to continue lis enterprize, and not to become
disgusted witl lis profession. But I say tlat tlese calculations are not
at all tle cause of lis good or bad success. !lis depends solely on tle
quantity of utility le las been able to produce, on tle necessity tlat
otlers are under of procuring it, and nally on tle means tley lave of
paying lim for it, for tlat a tling slould be demanded it is necessary
it slould be desired, and to buy it, it is not sucient to lave tle desire
:
of possessing it, we must also lave anotler article to give in return.
In tlis simple exposition, you already nd all tle meclanism, and
tle secret springs of tlat part of production, wlicl consists in fabrica
tion. You even discover tle germ of tle opposite interests, wlicl are
establisled between tle undertaker and tlose on wages on tle one part,
and between tle undertaker and tle consumers on tle otler, amongst
tlose on wages, between tlemselves, amongst undertakers of tle same
kind, even amongst undertakers of dierent kinds, since it is amongst
all tlese tlat tle means of tle mass of consumers are more or less
unequally divided, and nally amongst consumers tlemselves, since it
is also amongst all of tlem, tlat tle eoyment of all tle utility pro
duced is divided. You perceive tlat tle lirelings wisl tlere slould be
few to be lired, and many undertakers, and tle undertakers tlat tlere
slould be few undertakers, particularly in tle same line as tlemselves,
but many lirelings and also many consumers, and tlat tle consumers,
on tle contrary, wisl for many undertakers and lirelings, and if pos
sible few consumers, for every one fears competition in lis own way,
and would wisl to be alone in order to be master. If you pursue furtler
tle complication of tlese dierent interests, in tle progress of soci
ety, and tle action of tle passions wlicl tley produce, you will soon
see all tlese men implore tle assistance of force in favour of tle idea
witl wlicl tley are prepossessed, or, at least, under dierent pretexts,
provoke prolibitive laws, to constrain tlose wlo obstruct tlem in tlis
universal contention.
If tlere be a class wlicl does not followtlis direction, it will be tlat
of tle consumers, because all tle world being consumers, all cannot
unite to form a club, and to demand exceptions, for it is tle general
law, or ratler liberty, wlicl is tleir safeguard. !lus it is precisely,
because tleir interest is tle universal interest, tlat it las no special
representatives, or ravenous solicitors. It even lappens tlat illusions
divide tlem, and cause tlem to lose siglt of tle principal object, and
tlat tley solicit partially, and in dierent directions, against tleir real
interest, for mucl knowledge is requisite to know it as it is general, and
mucl justice to respect it, because tle world lives on preferences. All
tlose, on tle contrary, wlo lave a particular predominating interest,
are united by it, form corporations, lave active agents, never want
pretexts to insist for prevalence, and abound in means, if tley are ricl,
or if tley are formidable, as are tle poor in a time of troubles, tlat is
to say wlen tle secret of tleir force is revealed to tlem, and tley are
.
excited to abuse it.
At tlis moment it is not necessary to follow so far tle consequences
of tle facts wlicl we lave establisled. Let us observe only, tlat tle
most necessary labours are tle most generally demanded, and tle most
constantly employed, but, also, tlat it is in tle nature of tlings, tlat
tley slould always be tle most moderately paid for. !lis cannot be
otlerwise. In eect, tle tlings wlicl are necessary to all men, are
of an universal and continual use. But, for tlis reason alone, many
occupy tlemselves constantly in tleir fabrications, and lave soon learnt
to produce tlem, by well known processes, and wlicl require only
common understanding, tlus tley lave necessarily become as cleap
as possible. Moreover it is indispensable tley slould not be dear, for
almost tleir wlole consumption is always made by people wlo lave but
few means, inasmucl as tle poor are every wlere tle most numerous,
and are every wlere also tle greatest consumers of necessary tlings,
wlicl indeed compose almost tleir wlole expense. If tlen tley were
not at a low price tley would cease to be consumed, and tle poor could
not subsist. It is on tle lowest price to wlicl tley can be brouglt, tlat
tle lowest price of wages is regulated, and tle workmen, wlo labour
in tleir fabrication, are necessarily comprised in tlis latter class of tle
lowest wages.
Remark also, tlat tlere is notling in wlat we lave just said of man
ufacturing industry, wlicl is not as applicable to agriculture as to all
otler species of fabrication. !lere are, in like manner, in agriculture,
tleory, application, and execution, and we nd tlere tle tlree kinds of
labourers, relative to tlese tlree objects. But wlat applies eminently to
agriculture, is tle general trutl wlicl we lave establisled, tlat labours
tle most necessary are, nom tlis circumstance alone, tle worst paid.
In eect, tle most important and most considerable productions of
agriculture, are tle cereal plants witl wlicl we are nourisled. Now I
ask to wlat price corn would rise, if all tlose employed in its produc
tion, were as dearly paid as tlose wlo labour in tle arts of tle most
rened luxury: Certainly tle poor workmen of all tle common trades,
could not attain it, tley must absolutely die of lunger, or tleir wages
must rise to a level witl tlose of agricultural workmen, but tlen tlose
of tle otlers would rise likewise in proportion, since tley are more
souglt afer, tlus tle rst would not be advanced. !ley would always
be at tle lowest possible rate, sucl is tle law of necessity.
Wlat is true of agricultural workmen comparatively witl otler
A ricl incumbent
wlo las just let a farm exorbitantly ligl considers limself as a very
clever, and wlat is more, as a very useful man, le las not tle least
doubt of lis scrupulous probity, and le does not perceive tlat le is ex
actly tle same tling as tle most pincling usurer, wlom le condemns
witlout lesitation, and witlout pity. Perlaps even lis farmer, wlom
le ruins, does not any more tlan limself see tlis perfect similitude,
so mucl are men tle dupes of words. It is true tlat so long as tley
are so, tley understand tlings badly, and, reciprocally, so long as tley
understand badly tle tlings of wlicl tley speak, tley but imperfectly
comprelend tle words wlicl tley use. I cannot lelp returning ne
quently to tlis fact, for it is a great inconvenience to just reasoning,
wlicl, lowever, we must endeavour to attain in every matter.
However it be, mucl land being in tle lands of tle ricl, tlere is
mucl to le rented, and tlis, as we lave said, is tle reason wly tlere
may be a great number of enterprizes of agriculture, altlougl tlere
is not a proportionate mass of funds in tle lands of tle men wlo
consecrate tlemselves to tlis state. In time tlese rented lands arrange
and distribute tlemselves in tle manner tle most favourable to tle
*
If it is in considering tlem as men in general, enligltened and independent, it
is just, but if in tleir quality of proprietors of land, it is absurd.
!le lenders of land lave even a great advantage over tle otlers, because wlen
tley lave found a mean of obtaining a ligler rent, tley lave by tlis circumstance
augmented tleir capital. land is sold according to its rents. !lis does not lappen to
tle lenders of money.
You cannot tlen nd tle same kind of men to undertake it. And
if tlere be capitals somewlat considerable, and intelligence in tlose
cantons, tley will be carried elsewlere. Wlat tlen lappens: !lese
lands, wlicl already yield less, tle proprietors divide into still smaller
portions, to place tlem witlin tle competence of more persons of
tlose of slender means, and wlo ofen even do not make tle cultivation
of tlese lands tleir sole occupation. It is in tlese places tlat you ofen
see small farms, or simply louses witl very little land, or even lands
witlout any buildings. Yet tlese grounds are rented. !lose wlo take
tlem, even bring to tlem tle instruments and animals indispensable.
In slort tley make a prot nom tlem, by tleir own labour, but it is
not to le expected tlat tley slould display tlere tle same plysical and
moral means, as tle great farmers of wlom we lave just spoken. !ley
are generally small rural proprietors wlo are found in tlese places, wlo
join tlis work to tleir former occupations, and are contented if tle
wlole togetler furnisles tlem witl tle means of living and rearing a
family, witlout pretending mucl to augment tleir ease, and witlout
tle possibility of it, but by extraordinary clances. !lis is wlat many
writers call small culture, in opposition to tlat of wlicl we lave just
spoken. Yet we slall see tlat tlere are several cultures still smaller,
or, if you please, more miserable tlan tlis. Observe always tlat tlis
kind of small culture and even tlat by land, of wlicl we slall soon
speak, ordinarily pay a ligler rent to proprietors tlan tle great, in
proportion to tle quantity and quality of tle land, by tle eect of
tle concurrence of tlose wlo present tlemselves in great numbers to
work it, because tley lave no otler industry witlin tleir reacl, but
it is precisely tlis ligl rent wlicl irrevocably xes tlese cultivators
in tlat state of mediocrity, or penury, wlicl renders tleir culture so
indierent.
Wlen tle soil is still more ungrateful, or wlen by tle eect of
dierent circumstances tle small rural proprietors are rare, tle great
proprietors of land lave not tlis resource of forming small farms, tley
would not be wortl tle trouble of working tlem and tlere would be
no body applying for tlem. !ley adopt tlen anotler plan. !ley form
wlat are commonly called domains or lalfslares (metairies), and tley
nequently attacl tlereto as mucl or more land tlan is contained in
tle great farms, particularly if tley do not disdain to take into ac
count tle waste lands, wlicl commonly are not rare in tlese places,
and wlicl are not entirely witlout utility, since tley are employed
o
for pasture, and even now and tlen are sown witl corn to give rest
to tle elds more labitually cultivated. !lese mtairies, as we lave
seen, are suciently large as to extent, and very small as to product,
tlat is to say tley require great pains and yield little prot. Accord
ingly none can be found laving funds wlo are willing to occupy tlem,
and to bring to tlem domestics, moveables, teams and lerds. !ley
will not incur sucl expenses to gain notling. It is as mucl as tlese
metairies would be wortl, were tley abandoned for notling, witl
out demand of any rent. !le proprietor is limself tlen obliged to
stock tlem witl beasts, utensils and every tling necessary for working
tlem, and to establisl tlereon a family of peasants, wlo lave notl
ing but tleir lands, and witl wlom le commonly agrees, instead of
giving tlem wages, to yield tlem lalf of tle product, as a recom
pense for tleir pains. !lence tley are called metayers, workers on
lalfslares.
If tle land is too bad, tlis lalf of tle produce is manifestly in
sucient to subsist, even miserably, tle number of men necessary
to work it. !ley quickly run in debt, and are necessarily turned
away. Yet otlers are always found to replace tlem, because tlese
are always wretcled people wlo know not wlat to do. Even tlose
go elsewlere, ofen to experience tle same fortune. I know some of
tlese metairies wlicl, in tle memory of man, lave never supported
tleir labourers on tle lalf of tleir nuits. If tle metairie is some
wlat better, tle lalfslarers vegetate better or worse, and sometimes
even make some small economies, but never enougl to raise tlem
to tle state of real undertakers. However, in tlose times and can
tons in wlicl tle country people are somewlat less miserable, we
nd in tlis class of men some individuals wlo lave some small mat
ter in advance, as for example, so mucl as will nourisl tlem dur
ing a year in expectation of tle rst crop, and wlo prefer taking
a metairie on lease, at a xed rent, ratler tlan to divide tle pro
duce of it. !ley lope by very lard labour to derive a little more
prot nom it. !lese are in general more active, and gain some
tling if tle ground permits, if tley are fortunate, if tleir family is
not too numerous, if tley lave not given too great a rent for tle
land, tlat is to say if a number of circumstances ratler improba
ble lave united in tleir favour. Yet we cannot regard tlem as true
farmers, as real undertakers, since it is always tle proprietor wlo
furnisles tle gear, tle beasts, &c. and tley contribute only tleir
oc
labour. !lus it is still proper to range tlem in tle class of lalf
slarers.
!le mass of beasts, wlicl tle proprietor delivers and condes to
tle lalfslarer, is called cleptel. It increases every year by breeding,
in places wlere tley raise tle young, and tle lalfslarer divides tle
increase as le divides tle larvest, but on quitting le must return a
cleptel of equal value witl tlat le received on entering, and, as le las
notling to answer, tle proprietor or lis agent keeps an active watcl
over lim, to prevent lim nom encroacling on tle funds by too great a
sale. In some places, tle proprietors not being willing or able to furnisl
tle stock of cleptel, tlere are cattle merclants, or otler capitalists,
wlo furnisl tlem, wlo watcl over tle lalfslarer in like manner, and
take lalf tle increase as tle interest of tleir funds, on tle wlole, it
is very indierent to tle lalfslarer, wletler tley or tle proprietor
do it. In every case we can only see in lim a miserable undertaker,
witlout means, weigled down by two lenders at ligl premiums, (le
wlo furnisles tle land and le wlo furnisles tle cattle,) wlo take nom
lim all lis prots, and leave lim but a bare and sometimes insucient
subsistence. It is for tlis reason tlat tlis kind of cultivation is also
justly called small culture, altlougl it is exercised on suciently large
masses of property.
!lere exists still anotler species of work to wlicl tle name of
small culture is also given. It is tlat of small rural proprietors, wlo
labour tleir lands tlemselves. Almost all tle nations of modern Eu
rope lave set out nom an order of tlings, wlerein tle totality of tle
soil was tle exclusive property of a small number of great proprietors,
and all tle rest of tle population laboured solely for tlem as domestics,
as serfs, or as lirelings. But by tle eect of industry always acting, and
of successive alienations, tlere las been found in almost every country
a greater or less number of tlese small proprietors of land, wlo all lave
tlis in common, tlat tley live on tleir land, and tleir trade is to cul
tivate it. However, witl respect to culture, it is wrong to arrange tlem
all in tle same classfor amongst tlem are some wlo lave a some
wlat considerable extent of ground, and it is particularly on poor lands
we nd tlem, because it is tlese tlat tle ricl lave alienated in pref
erence, not being able ofen to draw any tling nom tlem tlemselves.
!lese certainly do not incur tle same expenses in tleir culture as tle
ricl farmers of great farms, but tley labour witl drauglt animals of
a better or worse quality, and tley lave some ocks. In a word, tleir
os
work is absolutely similar to tlat of tle small farmers, of wlom we
lave spoken before.
*
!lere are otlers again wlo possess a very small
extent of ground, and wlo work it witl tleir lands alone,wletler
in vegetables, or in grain, or vines. !lese even positively require tlis
manner of workingwlicl, as we see, is very dierent nom tle pre
ceding. besides tle greater part of tlose wlo tlus employ tlemselves
cannot live solely on tle produce of tleir soil, and undertake day labour
a part of tle year. We must assimilate to tlese latter all tlose wlo lold
on leases nom ricl persons small labitations, witl spots of ground at
tacled to tlem, and wlo are known by tle name of tenants, labourers,
cottagers, &c. &c. !leir industry is absolutely tle same, and tleir
existence quite similar, except tlat tle small rent tley pay represents
tle interest of tle capital wlicl tle otlers possess. Here, tlen, is a
tlird tling wlicl is also called small culture, and wlicl comprelends
two kinds of it, very dierent nom eacl otler.
!lis is not alltlere are many writers wlo call great culture tlat
wlicl is done witl lorses, and small culture tlat wlicl is done witl
oxen, and wlo believe tlat tlis division answers exactly to tlat of farm
ers and lalfslarers. But tlese two designations are far nom being
equivalent, for on one side tle labourers work witl tleir lands.
notling prevents tle cultivators of small farms, and tle small pro
prietors of tle rst of tle two species wlicl we lave distinguisled,
nom labouring sometimes witl lorses or mules, and tlese cultures
do not tle less deserve tle name of small. Moreover it may well be
if sucl slould be tle local conveniences, tlat tle great farmers may
work witl oxen, and I believe tlis is seen in several countries. On
tle otler side, it is true tlat in general tle lalfslarers work witl
oxen. sst. Because tlis metlod being less expensive, tle greater part
of proprietors prefer it. :d. Because commonly tle poor countries,
wlicl are tlose wlere we see lalfslarers, produce bad lay, little or
no oats, and are not susceptible of articial meadows. .d. Because tlese
lalfslarers being negligent and unskilful, it is dicult to conde to
*
See wlat is tle dierence of tle employment of funds. !lis man, wlo cultivates
on a small scale, las perlaps an estate on wlicl le could raise tlirty tlousand nancs.
If le would sell it le would lave wlerewitlal to take a great farm in a good country,
le would be mucl better, and would gain more. But perlaps le does not know tlat
tlis possibility exists far nom lim. Were le to know it le would fear tle risks and
lis own inexperience. and, besides, man lolds to lis labits, and to tle pleasure of
property.
o:
tlem animals so delicate as lorses. But it is not tlis wlicl constitutes
tlem lalfslarers, and wlicl distinguisles between tlem and farm
ers. !leir specic claracter is tlat of being wretcled, witlout means,
and unable to make any advances. It is tlat wlicl reduces tlem to be
lalfslarers, and makes tleir culture really small, altlougl by reason
of tle extent of tleir metairies, wlicl commonly occupy a great deal
of ground, tlere are some wlo still call it great culture, in opposition
to tlat of small farmers or small labourers, or in opposition only to
culture by land.
Finally, tlat notling may be wanting to tle confusion of ideas,
tlere are some angloman autlors (as Artlur Young) wlo amuse tlem
selves by calling small culture tlat of our greatest farmers, because tley
tlere see lands at rest, reversing exclusively tle name of great culture
for tlat system of rotation wlicl tlemselves approved,witlout re
ecting tlat in tle smallest of all cultures, tlat by land, we most
nequently see land tlat is never suered to rest.
!lus we see by fair statement ve or six dierent manners of em
ploying tle same words, of wlicl two or tlree at least separate tlings
absolutely similar, and unite otlers totally dierent, and tlese words
are continually used witlout explaining in wlicl sense tley are taken.
Proceeding tlus, it would be a great miracle if tley slould understand
one anotler.
I tlink if it is wisled to write witl some precision on agriculture,
we must banisl tle expressions great and small culture as too equivocal,
but distinguisl carefully four sorts of culture, wlicl lave very distinct
claracters, because tley are essentially dierent, and under wlicl we
can arrange all imaginable cultures.
*
!lese are rst tle great farms,
or tle culture of ricl and intelligent undertakers, wlo make largely all
tle necessary advances. We see tlem only in places wortl tle trou
ble. :dly. !le small farms, or tle culture of undertakers wlo likewise
employ drauglt animals of tleir own, but wlose means of all kinds
are less extensive. !ley are generally found on poorer soils. (!lis
class includes tle small farmers, and tle small proprietors, of tle rst
*
If I dare to arm tlis, it is not because I lave travelled mucl, but I lave lad
property for about forty years, in a country of great farms, a country of vineyards, and
of bad lalfslares. I lave always followed tleir progress witl attention, and more
witl a view to tle general eect tlan to any particular interest. I lave eected sensible
ameliorations in tle two latter and I am persuaded tlat wlen we lave tlus a sucient
eld of observation we gain more by tlorouglly examining tlan by multiplying tlem.
o.
of tle two species wlicl I lave distinguisled.) .dly. !le metairies,
or tle culture by lalfslarers, wlo also employ drauglt animals, but
wlicl do not belong to tlem. !lis is peculiar to bad soils. tlly. Day
labourers, or tle culture by land, as well tlat of proprietors as of ten
ants. We nd tlese everywlere, and especially in vine countries. But
tley are in general less numerous in very good or in very bad countries.
In tle rst because tle ricl lave kept almost all tle land, in tle otlers
because tle land would not compensate tlem, and tley prefer going to
seek tleir livelilood by day labour elsewlere. !lis division appears to
me clearer and more instructive tlan all tle otlers, because it slows
tle causes of tle eects. Let us tlerefore use it as to wlat remains for
us to say.
I tlink I lave proved tlat tle proprietors of lands, wlo do not work
tlem tlemselves, lave absolutely notling in common witl agriculture,
nor witl tle laws wlicl govern it, nor witl tle interests wlicl direct
it, tlat tley are purely and solely annuitants and lenders of a particular
kind, and, consequently, tlat laving to give an account of tle fabrica
tion of tle products, I ouglt to put tlem aside, and consider only tle
undertakers of culture.
!len I lave slown tlat it is indispensable tlat tle undertakers
of tle most necessary fabrications slould be, of all otlers, tlose wlo
make tle most slender prots, in proportion to tle quantity of tleir
advances and productions, and furtler, tlat agricultural undertakings
lave tlis particular inconvenience, tlat one man is not sucient to
give tlem so great an extent as to compensate for tle smallness of lis
prots by tle greatness of lis business.
I lave slown aferwardsFirst, tlat tle most fertile countries are
tlose alone, in wlicl tle products of tle quantity of land wlicl one
man can manage are suciently considerable to make tle lot of tle un
dertaker tolerable, tlat it is for tlese reasons tlat tlose countries are
also tle only ones in wlicl we see undertakers of culture laving su
cient means and capacity, and tlat tley moreover seldom act on tleir
own funds, but on tlose of otlers,wlicl is always a disadvantageous
situation for fabricators. We call tlem, lowever, great farmers.
:dly. !lat wlen tle lands are less good, tle prots become so
very slender, tlat we can no longer nd but indierent and insucient
undertakers. !lese are tle small farmers.
.dly. !lat wlen tle soil is still worse, tle prots becoming abso
lutely null, tle owner is reduced to tle necessity of laving no under
o
taker, for lalfslarers are really but receivers of wages, since tley make
no advances and furnisl only tleir labour.
tlly. and nally, !lat otler circumstances render tle enterprize
so small tlat tle undertaker and labourer are necessarily one and tle
same person, wlo employ no macline but tleir lands, and employ
even tlem ofen elsewlere. Sucl are tle day labourers. Sucl a business
can scarcely tempt a capitalist.
!lere is, lowever, an exception to tlese general trutls. It is in
favour of tle culture of very precious productions. sucl as certain drugs
for dying, or wines liglly esteemed. !lere great prots may be made.
Accordingly we sometimes see great capitalists buy lands suitable to
tlese productions, cultivate tlem tlemselves, draw nom tlem all tleir
prots, and make of tlem immense and fortunate speculations. But
tlis exception itself conrms tle rule, for tlese productions lave tle
merit and tle price of rarities. !ley are a real merclandise of luxury.
!lus tlese speculations, altlougl agricultural, are not in tle class of
fabrications of tlings of tle rst necessity.
If tlis picture is exact, if it is a faitlful representation of facts, if it
is true tlat agriculture, even under tle most favourable circumstances,
is not and cannot be but a laborious and not very protable profession,
we must not be astonisled tlat it does not lold tle rst rank in soci
ety, and tlat capitals do not seek it. We slould perceive tlat tley are
not and never will le so employed but by tlose wlo cannot or know
not low to employ tlem otlerwise. !le only mean of causing nu
merous capitals to be employed in agriculture is, tlen, to cause tlem
to superabound elsewlere. !lis evil, if it be one, is incurable, and it
is very useful to know it. For lowever we may say tlat agriculture is
tle rst of arts, tlat it is tle foster motler of man, tlat it is lis natu
ral destination, tlat we are wrong in not lonouring it more, tlat tle
emperor of Clina plougls a furrow every year, and a tlousand similar
ne tlings, all tlis will amount to notling, and will clange notling in
tle marcl of society. !lese are vain declamations wlicl do not merit
our attention. Let us make only some slort reections on tle rst of
tlese plrases, because it conceals an error. !o bring it to liglt is to
refute it.
Certainly agriculture is tle rst of arts in relation to necessity, for
before all tlings we must eat in order to live. If tley mean to say
tlis only, tley say wlat is incontestable but very insignicant. If tley
understand by tlese words tlat agriculture is tle only art absolutely
o
necessary, tle assertion is very inexact, for we lave otler very pressing
wants besides tlat of eating, as for example tlat of being clotled and
lodged. Moreover culture itself, in order to be in a small degree de
veloped, needs tle succour of many otler arts, sucl as tlat of melting
metals and faslioning wood, and its products, to be completely appro
priated to our use, still require at least tlat of tle miller and baker.
Here tlen we see many otler indispensable arts.
Finally, if tley lave pretended to arm, as many will lave it, tlat
agriculture is tle rst of arts in relation to ricles, tle pretended axiom
is completely false. In tle rst place we lave seen, in respect to indi
viduals, tlat tlose wlo devote tlemselves to agriculture are inevitably
of tle number of tlose wlo make tle smallest prots. tlus tley can
not be of tle riclest. Now wlat is true of every individual cannot le
false of nations, wlicl are but collections of individuals. If you doubt
tle strengtl of tlis demonstration place on one side twenty tlousand
men occupied in tle cultivation of wleat for sale, and on tle otler an
equal number occupied in making watcles. Suppose tlat botl nd a
market for tleir produce, and see wlicl will be tle riclest. Sucl are
Geneva and Poland.
One of tle tlings wlicl las most contributed to tle mistake of
so manifest a trutl is also an equivocal expression. We take very ne
quently our means of subsistence for our means of existence. !lese are
two very dierent tlings. Our means of subsistence are witlout con
tradiction alimentary matters, and tle quantity of tlese tlat can be
procured in a country is tle necessary limit of tle number of men wlo
can live tlerein. But our means of existence is tle sum of tle prots we
can make by our labour, and witl wlicl we can procure for ourselves
botl subsistence and otler eoyments. It is in vain tlat tle Polander
raises a great quantity of wleat. tle overplus of wlat le consumes,
wlicl le is obliged to sell to foreigners at a low price, witl diculty
supplies lis otler wants. He does not live tle better on it, nor multiply
more. !le Genevan, on tle contrary,wlo does not gatler even a
potatoe, but makes great prot on tle watcles le fabricates,las tlat
witl wlicl le can buy grain and all otler tlings necessary for lim,
on wlicl le can bring up lis clildren, and likewise economise. !le
rst, notwitlstanding tle great quantity of lis means of subsistence,
las very few of tle means of existence. !le second, laving great means
of existence, procures abundantly tle articles of subsistence wlicl le
las not, and wlatever else le wants. It is tlerefore true tlat tlese are
o6
two tlings, wlicl it is very wrong not to distinguisl carefully. !lis
fault, slows itself in many otlerwise excellent works, (particularly in
tlat of Mr. Maltlus on population) in wlicl it casts an ambiguity over
some explications, valuable in all respects. It is tlerefore a point wlicl
it was well to elucidate.
Let me not, lowever, be accused of mistaking tle importance of
agriculture, and of wisling tlat it slould be neglected. In tle rst
place I know very well tlat, altlougl useful in itself, it is not tle only
tling to be desired eitler for individuals or for societies, and tlat a
nation, notwitlstanding great means, las but a precarious existence
if it depends on strangers for its subsistence. I know, moreover, tlat
altlougl eacl single enterprize of culture cannot be regarded but as a
very small manufactory, as in a large country tleir number is immense
in comparison witl tlat of all otler fabrications, tley compose a very
great portion of tle industry and wealtl of a nation. !le great details
into wlicl I lave gone to analyse tle operation of all tle springs of
agricultural industry, prove suciently tle importance I attacl to it,
and certainly to slow clearly tlat a profession is at tle same time very
necessary, and very unprotable, is tle best metlod of proving tlat it
slould be favoured. But we lave not yet reacled tlis point. !le only
object at present is to establisl facts. We will aferwards draw tleir
conclusions, and if tle rst of tlese operations las been well performed
tle second will not be dicult. Let us conne ourselves tlen to tlese
generalities on fabricating industry, and speak of commercial industry.
o
CHAPTER V
Of the change of place, or of Commercial Industry.
!nr insulated man would fabricate to a certain point, because le would
labour for limself, but le would not trade,for witl wlom could le
lave trade: Commerce and society are one and tle same tling. Ac
cordingly we lave seen in tle rst clapter, tlat society nom its origin
is essentially notling but a continual commerce, a perpetual series of
exclanges of every kind,of wlicl we lave rapidly indicated tle prin
cipal advantages and tle prodigious eects. Commerce tlen exists long
before tlere are merclants, properly so called. !lese are agents wlo
facilitate it, and wlo serve it, but wlo do not constitute it. We may
even say tlat tle exclanges wlicl tley make in tleir commercial ca
pacity are but preparatory exclanges, for tle exclange for use is not
completed, las not fully attained its end, until tle merclandise las
passed nom lim wlo fabricated to lim wlo wants it, wletler to con
sume it or to make it tle subject of a new fabrication, and tle latter
ouglt at tlis moment to be regarded as a consumer. !le merclant,
properly so called, interposes between tlese two persons, tle producer
and tle consumer, but it is not to iure tlem. He is neitler a parasite
nor an inconvenient person. On tle contrary, le facilitates relations,
commerce, society, for, once again I repeat, all tlese are one and tle
same tling between tlis producer and tlis consumer. He is useful
tlen, and consequently a producer also, for we lave seen (Clapter II.)
tlat wlosoever is useful is a producer, and tlat tlere is no otler way
of being so. It is now to be slown low tle merclant is a producer
of utility. But previously let us give some preparatory explanations,
wlicl will be of service to us in tle sequel. We lave in tle rst clap
ter only slown tle general advantages of exclange, and tlose of tle
commerce between man and man. Let us render sensible tlose of tle
commerce between canton and canton, and country and country, and
for tlis purpose let us take France for example, because it is a very large
o
and well known country.
Let us suppose tle Frencl nation tle only one in tle world, or
surrounded witl desarts impossible to be traversed. It las portions of
its territory very fertile in grain, otlers more lumid, wlicl are good
only for pasturage, otlers formed of arid lills, wlicl are only proper
for tle cultivation of vines, nally otlers more mountainous, wlicl
can produce little else tlan wood. If eacl of tlose portions slould
be reduced witlin itself wlat would lappen: It is clear tlat in tle
corn districts a tolerably numerous population could still be subsisted,
because it would at least lave tle mean of amply satisfing tle rst
of all wants, tlat of nourislment. lowever tlis is not tle only want.
Clotling, slelter, &c. &c. are also necessary. !lese people tlen will
be obliged to sacrice in woods, pasturage, and bad vines, mucl of tlis
good land, of wlicl a mucl smaller quantity would lave suced to
procure for tlem wlat tley wanted by way of exclange, tle remainder
of wlicl would still lave nourisled many otler men, or served to
provide better for tlose wlo live tlere. !lus tlis people would not be
so numerous as if tley eoyed commerce, and yet tley will want many
tlings. !lis is still more true of tlose wlo inlabit tle lills suitable
to vines. If tley are even industrious tley will only make wine for tleir
own use, not being able to sell it. !ley will exlaust tlemselves in
unnuitful labours to produce on tleir arid lills some grain of inferior
quality, not knowing wlere to purclase, tley will want every tling else.
!le population, altlougl agricultural, will be miserable and tlin. In
districts of marsles and meadows, too lumid for corn, too cold for rice,
it will be mucl worse. !ley must necessarily cease to cultivate, and be
reduced to be graziers, and even to nourisl as many animals only as tley
can eat. It is very true tlat in tlis situationlaving beasts of burden,
of drauglt, and for tle saddle, to render tlemselves formidable,tley
will soon become brigands, as all erratic people are, but tlis will be an
evil tle more. As for tle country of woods tlere would be no mean
of living but tle clase, in proportion and so far as tley would be able
to nd wild animals, witlout even tlinking to preserve tleir skins, for
wlat use could tley make of tlem. !lis lowever is tle state of France.
if you suppress all correspondence between its parts, one lalf is savage
tle otler badly provided.
Let us suppose, on tle contrary, tlis correspondence active and
easy, but always witlout exterior relations. !len tle production proper
to eacl canton would no longer be arrested for want of a vent, nor by
oo
tle necessity of pursuing in spite of localities labours very unnuitful
but necessary, for want of exclanges, in order tlemselves to provide
eitler well or ill for all tleir wants, at least for tle most pressing. !le
country of good land will produce as mucl corn as possible, and will
send it to tle country of vineyards, wlicl will produce as mucl wine
as can be sold. Botl will supply tle country of pasturage, in wlicl
tle animals will multiply in proportion to tle market, and tle men in
proportion to tle means of existence wlicl tlis market would procure
for tlem. And tlese tlree countries united would feed in tle moun
tains tle most rugged industrious inlabitants, by wlom tley will be
furnisled witl wood and metals. !ley would increase tle quantity of
ax and lemp in tle nortl to send linen clotl into tle soutl, wlicl
last would increase tleir silks and oils to pay for tlem. !le smallest
local advantages would be turned to prot. A district of int would
furnisl gunints to all tle otlers wlicl lave none, and its inlabi
tants would live on tle produce of tlis supply. Anotler of rocks alone
will send millstones into several provinces. A little spot of sand will
produce madder for all tle diers. Some elds of a certain kind of clay
will furnisl eartl for all tle potteries. !le inlabitants of tle coast
will set no bounds to tleir sling, being able to send tleir salted sl
into tle interior, it will be tle same witl sea salt, witl alkalies, witl
marine plants, witl tle gums of resinous trees. New kinds of industry
will be seen arising every wlere, not only for tle exclange of merclan
dise, but also by tle communication of knowledge, for if no country
produces all tlings none invents all tlings. Wlen tlere is commu
nication, wlat is known in one place is known every wlere, and it is
mucl readier to learn, or even to perfect, tlan to invent, besides it is
commerce itself wlicl inspires tle desire of inventing, it is even its
great extension wlicl alone renders possible many dierent kinds of
industry. Yet tlese new arts occupy a multitude of men, wlo do not
live on tleir labour, but because tlat of tleir neiglbours laving be
come more nuitful suces to pay tlem. Here tlen is tle same France,
lately so indigent and uninlabited, lled witl a numerous and well pro
vided population. All tlis is solely owing to tle better employment of
every local advantage and of tle faculties of every individual, witlout
a necessity for tle Frencl nation to lave made tle smallest prot at
tle expense of any otler nation, witlout even a possibility of its so
doing, since our lypotlesis supposes it alone in tle world. We will
see elsewlere wlat we slould tlink of tlose pretended prots wlicl
scc
one people makes at tle expense of anotler, and low we ouglt to ap
preciate tlem. But we may arm in advance, tlat tley are illusory
or very small, and tlat tle true futility of exterior commerce, tlat in
comparison witl wlicl all otlers are notling, is to establisl between
dierent nations tle same relations wlicl interior commerce estab
lisles between dierent parts of tle same nation, to constitute tlem,
if we may tlus speak, in a state of society witl one anotler, to enlarge
tlus tle extent of market for all, and by tlis mean increase likewise
tle advantages of tle interior commerce of every one.
!lis commerce, witlout doubt, can and does exist, to a certain
point, before tlere are commercialists, properly so called, tlat is to say
men wlo make commerce tleir sole occupation, but it could not be
mucl developed witlout tleir assistance. Wlen a man las fabricated,
or is in possession of some useful tling, le may it is true exclange it
limself, witlout an intermediary, for anotler useful tling wlicl some
otler man possesses, but tlis is not ofen eitler easy or commodious.
!lis otler man may not lave a desire of selling wlen we wisl to buy,
le may be unwilling to sell but a great deal at a time, le may not
care for tlat wlicl is oered in exclange, le may be very distant,
we may even not know tlat le las tlat wlicl we desire. In ne,
in tle course of life one las need of an almost innite multitude of
dierent tlings. If it were necessary to draw directly eacl of tlem
nom its immediate producer, one would pass tleir wlole time in going
backward and forward, and even in distant journeys, tle inconveniences
of wlicl would greatly surpass tle utility of tle tlings wlicl would
be tleir object, it would tlerefore be necessary to do witlout tlem.
!le merclant comes. He draws nom all places tle tlings wlicl
superabound tlerein, and carries tlitler tlose wlicl tley want. He is
always ready to buy wlen any one wisles to sell, and to sell wlen any
body wisles to buy. He keeps lis merclandise till tle moment it is
wanted, and retails it if necessary. In slort, le takes it o tle lands of
tle producer, wlo is encumbered witl it, places it witlin reacl of tle
consumer wlo desires it, and all tleir relations lave become easy and
commodious. Yet wlat las le done: In lis commercial capacity le
las operated no clange of form, but le las operated clanges of place,
and a great utility is produced. In eect, since values are tle measure
of tle degrees of utility, (see clapter .d) it is manifest tlat a tling
carried nom a place wlere it is at a low price and brouglt to one in
wlicl it bears a ligl one, las acquired by its transportation a degree
scs
of utility wlicl it lad not before.
I know tlat tlis explication is so simple tlat it appears silly, and
tlat all tlis appears written for clildren, for men are not supposed
to be ignorant of facts so common and trutls so trivial. But tlese
trivial trutls demonstrate anotler very mucl contested, wlicl is, tlat
wloever produces utility is a producer, and tlat tle merclant is quite
as mucl one as tlose to wlom tley lave wisled exclusively to give tlis
title. Now let us searcl wlat is lis recompense for tle utility le las
produced.
If we examine commercial industry it presents us tle same aspect
as fabricating industry. Here also, tlere is tleory, application and exe
cution, and consequently tlree kinds of labourers, tle man of science,
tle undertaker, and tle workman. Also, it is true tlat tlose wlose
labour is applied to tle most necessary tlings are inevitably tle worst
paid, but it is not as in tle enterprizes of agriculture. !le undertaker
can augment lis speculations indenitely as far as tle market permits,
and tlus compensate tle smallness of lis prots by tle extent of lis
business. Hence tle proverb, tlere is no small trade in a large city.
!le lead of a commercial enterprize also gives salaries to tlose le
employs. He makes all tle advances, and le is recompensed for lis
pains, lis expenses, and lis risks, by tle augmentation of value wlicl
lis labour las given to tlingsan augmentation wlicl causes lis sales
to surpass lis purclases. It is true tlat as tle undertaker of fabrica
tion le loses, instead of gaining, if being deceived in lis speculations
lis labour is unnuitful. Like lim, also, le labours sometimes on lis
own funds, sometimes on tlose le borrows. In slort, tle similarity
is complete, and tlis dispenses me nom entering into more details.
It is not yet time to discuss delicate questions, nor to appreciate tle
merit of certain very complicated combinations. As yet we lave lad
occasion to give a general glance of tle eye only on tle marcl of soci
ety and tle train of aairs. If we lave formed a just idea of tlem we
slall soon see tlat many tlings wlicl are tlouglt very mysterious are
merely perplexed by prejudice and quackery, and tlat mere common
sense is sucient to resolve diculties wlicl appear very embarrassing
wlen we lave not remounted to principles. !o complete tle laying our
foundation let us say a word of money.
sc:
CHAPTER VI
Of Money.
I lave already spoken of tle developement of industry, and even of tlat
of commerce, and I lave not yet said a word of money. It is because
in eect it is not more indispensable to commerce tlan merclants.
!lose are its agents, tlis its instrument. But it can and does exist, to a
certain point, before and witlout tlese two lelps,altlougl tley are
very useful to it.
We lave seen in tle tlird paragrapl of tle introduction, and in
tle tlird clapter, wlicl treats of values, tlat all useful tlings lave a
determinate value. !ley lave even two, but at tlis moment I speak
only of tle conventional value, or market price. All tlese values are
measured tle one by tle otler. Wlen, to procure any tling wlat
soever, one is disposed to give a double quantity of any otler tling
wlatsoever, it is evident tlat tle rst is twice as mucl esteemed as tle
second. !lus tle relation of tleir value is xed, and one can exclange
or negotiate tlese two tlings at tlis rate, witlout recourse to any tling
intermediate. We can give lay for corn, or corn for wood, a cartload
of potters clay, or of brick eartl, for some plates or tiles, &c., but it
is evident tlat tlis is very inconvenient, tlat it occasions removals so
troublesome as to render most aairs impracticable, tlat many of tlese
merclandises are not divisible, so as to correspond well witl tle otl
ers, tlat many amongst tlem cannot be indenitely preserved until tle
moment of nding employment for tlem, and tlat were tley preserved
we are still greatly embarrassed if, as must continually lappen, wlat
we lave is not precisely tlat wlicl suits lim wlo possesses wlat we
desire, or if le wisles but a very small quantity of ours, wlen we want
a large quantity of lis. In tle midst of all tlese diculties commerce
tlen ouglt to be very languisling, and consequently industry also. It
is proper to dwell a little on tlese inconveniencies, for we are always
but little aected by tlose wlicl we lave never experienced. We do
sc.
not even imagine tlem. Having never seen sucl an order of tlings, we
lave no lively idea of it, it appears to us almost climerical. But it las
existed, and probably for a very long time before tlat of wlicl we still
complain, and even witl reason, altlougl it is mucl better.
Happily amongst all useful tlings tlere is one kind wlicl is dis
tinguisled, tlat of tle precious metals. !lese like otlers are a mer
clandise, inasmucl as tley lave tle necessary value wlicl results nom
tle labour tleir extraction and transportation lave cost, and tle mar
ket value given tlem, by tle possibility of making tlem into vases,
ornaments, or dierent conveniencies and instruments. But tley lave
moreover tle property of being easily rened, so tlat we know very
exactly wlat quantity we lave of tlem, and tlat all tleir parts are
similar,wlicl renders tlem very comparable, and leaves no fear of
tleir being of dierent qualities. Besides tley are inalterable, and sus
ceptible of being divided into portions as great or small as we wisl.
Finally, tley are easily transported. !lese qualities must cause every
one to prefer tlese metals to every otler useful tling, wlenever we
only wisl to preserve tle value we possess for an indenite time until
tle moment of want. For every one wlo las any merclandise subject
to damage, tle quality of wlicl may be uncertain or clangeable, wlicl
is of great encumbrance, or little susceptible of being retailed on occa
sion, is naturally disposed to exclange it for anotler wlicl las none
of tlose inconveniencies. From tlis general disposition, it will natu
rally result, tlat tle merclandise, wlicl possesses so many advantages
in tlis respect, slould become by degrees tle common measure of all
otlers. !lis is also wlat las lappened every wlere. !lis appears
singular wlen tle reason is unknown, but inevitable wlen known. It
is tle same in all cases. So soon as a tling is, be assured tlere are
victorious reasons wly it slould be, wlicl lowever does not mean
tlat stronger reasons may not aferwards be discovered wly it slould
no longer be. But lere it is not tle case. !le precious metals once
become tle common and general measure, tle universal type of all ex
clanges, acquire still an advantage wlicl tley lad not before. It is
rst to lave a greater market value, as tley lave acquired a new kind
of utility, (but tlis would not aect tle object wlicl now occupies us)
and next tleir market value tleir price becomes more constant tlan
tlat of any otler merclandise. Being in constant demand in all places,
and on every occasion, tley are not subject to tle variations experi
enced by a tling sometimes souglt sometimes refused. Besides tley
sc
do not depend on tle inconstancy of tle seasons, and very little on
tlat of events. !leir total quantity does not clange, but nom causes
slow and rare. !ley are tlen every day more conrmed in tleir clar
acter of being tle common measure of exclanges. However tley are
not yet money. As yet tley are transmitted only in bars and ingots,
and at every clange of lands tley must be assayed and weigled, tlis
is troublesome.
Wlen society is a little more perfected, tle competent autlority
intervenes to give to tlis mean of exclanges a greater degree of com
modiousness. It divides tlese metals into portions adapted to tle most
ordinary uses. It impresses on tlem a mark wlicl indicates tle to
tal weiglt, and in tlis weiglt tle quantity of foreign matter wlicl it
las been convenient to leave tlerein for tle facility of fabrication, but
wlicl is not to be counted for real value. !lis is wlat is called tle
weiglt and standard. In tlis state tle metals lave become completely
money, and autlority las done a benet in giving tlem tlis claracter.
We slall see lereafer tlat it las but too ofen done evil by otler acts
of its power in tlis way.
!lis slort explanation of tle nature of money slows us, rst, tlat
tlere can only be one metal wlicl can really be money, tlat is to say
to tle value of wlicl we refer all otler values, for in every calculation
tlere can be but one kind of unit wlicl serves as a basis. !lis metal
is silver, because it is tlis wlicl is best adapted to tle greatest number
of subdivisions, of wlicl tlere is need in exclanges. Gold is too rare,
tle otler metals too common.
Gold, lowever, comes in aid of silver in tle payment of very great
sums, as would, also, tle precious stones if tley were divisible witlout
a loss of value. But it is only as a subsidiary tlat it is employed, and
only by referring tle value of gold to tlat of silver. !le proportion in
Europe is nearly as feen or sixteen to one, but it varies, as every otler
proportion of value according to tle demand. In Clina it is commonly
as twelve or tlirteen to one, wlilst in Indostan, on tle contrary, we
are told it is about as eiglteen or twenty to one. !lus tlere is a prot
in carrying silver to Clina, because for twelve ounces of silver you lave
tlere one ounce of gold, wlicl on return into Europe is wortl feen
ounces of silver, wlereby you lave gained tlree ounces, and, on tle
contrary, tlere is a prot in carrying gold into Indostan, because for one
ounce of gold you tlere lave eiglteen of silver, and tlus you lave gained
tlree ounces of tle latter metal. Political autlorities may lowever very
sc
well coin money of gold and x its proportion witl tlat of silver, tlat
is to say, determine tlat, wlenever tlere are no stipulations to tle
contrary, one ounce of gold or feen or sixteen ounces of silver slall
be received indierently. It is as in judicial actions, tley establisl tlat
wlen tlere are sums of money tlat ouglt to bear an interest wlicl las
not been stipulated by tle parties, tlat interest slall be so mucl per
cent. But tley cannot, or at least ouglt not to prevent individuals nom
regulating between tlemselves tle quantity of gold wlicl tley wisl
to give, or receive, for a certain quantity of silver, any more tlan nom
determining by agreement tle rate of interest of tle sum tley lend or
borrow. Accordingly, it is tlus tlese two tlings are always arranged
in tle great operations of commerce, even in spite of all laws to tle
contrary, because witlout it business would not be done at all.
As to copper money, or tlat of billion,
*
wlerever tlere is one of
silver it is not real money. It is a false one. If it contained a sucient
quantity of copper to be really wortl tle quantity of silver to wlicl it is
made to correspond, it would be ve or six times as leavy as it is, wlicl
would render it very inconvenient. Still tlis proportion would vary as
tlat of gold, and more nequently, because of tle more numerous uses
for wlicl copper is employed. !lus copper money is wortl but tle
quantity of silver agreed to be given in barter for it. Accordingly it
ouglt only to serve for tle facilitation of small nactions, in wlicl
tlis exaggeration of its value would be of no importance, because tle
moment afer it is paid away at tle same rate, in making it fulll tle
same function. But wlen, as las lappened sometimes, tle payment
of large sums of money witl copper is autlorized, it greatly wrongs
lim wlo receives it, as le can never nd an opportunity of realising by
agreement sucl large masses at tleir nominal value, but only at tleir
real value, wlicl is ve or six times less. Let us conclude, tlen, tlat
tlere can never be but one metal wlicl may be tle common term of
comparison, to wlicl may be referred all values, and tlat tlis metal is
silver.
Since tle utility of tle impression, wlicl makes of a morsel of
metal, a piece of money, consists in tle establislment of its standard
and weiglt, we see furtler tlat it was very superuous to invent, for
tle keeping of accounts, imaginary monies, sucl as livres, sous, and
*
Billion is a mixture of a great deal of copper, and so little silver, tlat tle extrac
tion of tle latter would not be wortl tle expense.
sc6
deniers, and otlers of tlis kind, wlicl lowever are called money of
account.
*
It would lave been mucl clearer to say a piece of one ounce,
of lalf an ounce, of a draclm, of a grain of silver, tlan a piece of six
livres, of tlree livres, of twelve or of feen sous. We slould lave
always known tle quantity of silver of wlicl we wisled to speak. !lis
idea presents itself so naturally, tlat I am induced to believe it would
lave prevailed, if all monies lad been of tle same standard. But, as
tleir degree of purity las always been very dierent, tle wisl perlaps
las been to lave a mean of expressing tlat sucl an ounce of silver was
wortl a sixtl more tlan sucl anotler, in saying tlat tle one is wortl
six livres, and tle otler ve. Perlaps, also, tle expression of wlicl I
speak las been rejected precisely because it was too clear. For tlose
wlo lave participated in tlese matters, lave always wisled tlat otlers
slould understand notling of tlem, and tley lave tleir good reasons
for it. We slall see many proofs of it.
However tlis may be, tlese arbitrary denominations being once
admitted and employed in all tle obligations contracted, we slould take
great care to make no clange of tlem, for wlen I lave received tlirty
tlousand livres and lave promised to repay tlem at a certain time, if,
in tle interval, tle government says tlat tle quantity of silver wlicl
was called tlree livres slall be called six, or wlicl is tle same tling, if
it makes crowns of six livres, wlicl do not contain more silver tlan was
contained in tle crowns of tlree, I wlo pay witl tlese new crowns do
not really return but tle lalf of wlat I lad received. !lis is merely an
accommodation of wlicl an indebted legislator wisles to avail limself
witl lis numerous creditors, and it is to veil and disguise it tlat le gives
me sucl an advantage witl mine, and even witl limself, if by clance I
am lis debtor. It is true, le knows well tlat le las none, but it las an
air of generality and reciprocity wlicl resembles equity and dazzles. In
spite of tlis deception, let us speak plainly, tlis is permitting every one
to rob to enable limself to rob, and it is, as we must acknowledge, wlat
almost all governments lave so nequently done witl so mucl audacity
and so little moderation, tlat, for example, wlat is now called in France
a livre, and wlicl formerly really was a pound of silver of twelve ounces,
is scarcely one out of eigltyone parts tlereof at present, wlen tle
mark is wortl ffour livres, government, tlen at dierent times las
*
Several of tlese denominations lave been originally names of real monies, as
Louis, Crowns and Ducats.
sc
stolen eiglty parts out of eigltyone wlicl it owed, and if tlere still
exists a perpetual annuity of one livre, establisled in tlose ancient times
in consideration of twenty livres received, it is paid at present witl one
part out of eigltyone of wlat was originally promised, and of wlat
is lonestly due. If at tlis time none of tlese annuities remain, it is
because tley lave been successively reimbursed in tle same manner as
interests are at present. Wlat is more nigltful in sucl legal iniquity, is
tlat it is not merely to permit iustice, it is to eoin it, to enforce it.
For, except in rare circumstances, an individual of tle greatest probity
is obliged to avail limself of tle odious permission given lim, since,
every one using it against lim, le would soon be ruined, and even
insolvent. !lus le las but a cloice between two bankruptcies, and le
ouglt to decide in favour of tlat wlicl tle law autlorises.
We will follow no fartler tle moral eects of sucl laws, tlis is not
tle place, and, besides, tley are suciently sensible, tleir economi
cal eects are tlese. First, all tle creditors, wlo are reimbursed, are
suddenly impoverisled, and all tle debtors, including tle government,
are enricled by tleir losses. !lus it is an extraordinary levy of money
on a single class of citizens, wlicl is even very unequally apportioned
amongst tlem, and is furtler augmented uselessly by tle wlole por
tion wlicl goes to tle prot of otler citizens, wlo nd tlemselves
in a position like tlat of tle government, wlose apparent interests are
tle motives of tle measure.
Secondly, all tle creditors wlo are not actually reimbursed tleir
capitals are impoverisled in like manner, because tleir rent is dis
clarged witl tle same nominal value, but witl a less real one. Here
tle tlesis clanges for tle government. It is of tle number of tlose
creditors nustrated in tle wlole of wlat it receives in annual imposts,
for tley are paid witl tle same quantity of money, but witl onelalf
less of eective silver, if it las diminisled tle value of money by an
lalf. In trutl, as it las tle power in its lands, it soon doubles tle
existing imposts, and tlus tlinks itself at par, and tlat it las a clear
gain of wlat it las avoided paying.
However, it is not so, for tle tlird eect of tlis ne operation is
to cause a fear tlat at every moment it may recommence, and tlat no
furtler reliance can be lad in pliglted faitl, to excite by tlis mean
inquietude in all relations, and eventually to diminisl all industrious
and commercial speculations. !lus tle public suers, national ricles
diminisl, and a great part of tle imposts become ineectual, for tle
sc
labour wlicl paid tlem is decreased, and le wlo gains notling can
contribute notling. Moreover, tle government las always need of be
ing furnisled witl many supplies and advances, wlicl it cannot exact
by force. !le price is doubled, if tle value of tle money is diminisled
onelalf. !lis is quite plain. But, besides, every tling las become
dear and scarce, and, wlat is more, in bargaining it is made likewise
to pay for tle fear it las created of its being a second time wanting in
good faitl. !lus its expenses are augmented in a greater proportion
tlan its revenues, even afer it las doubled tle imposts.
In last result it las committed a robbery, wlicl las caused to itself
mucl more evil tlan it las produced good. Yet it is tlis wlicl for a
long time was very generally regarded as a wise operation of nance.
It is lere, tlen, we may well wonder low men are tle dupes of words.
!o tle slame of tle luman understanding, it would perlaps lave been
sucient to preserve it nom sucl an illusion, tlat tle pieces of money
slould lave been, as we lave said, designated solely by tleir weiglt,
instead of bearing insignicant names. It is very probable tlat tlen
tley would lave seen, tlat lalf an ounce could never become an ounce.
Yet in trutl, tlis becomes doubtful, wlen we see illusions, more
gross and iurious tlan tlese, still succeed witl many men, or at least
be only imperfectly distinguisled. !lis reection leads us directly to
paper money, witl wlicl Europe is inundated at tle moment in wlicl
we are speaking, (ssc) and to wlicl recourse is always lad, in spite of
tle constant experience of its inevitable eects.
!o defend an iustice it is always necessary to rest it on an error.
!lis is an universal rule. !lose wlo lave wisled to denaud tleir
creditors of a part of tle money tley owed tlem, by diminisling tle
quantity of silver contained in tle money witl wlicl tley expected to
pay tlem, lave all pretended tlat silver las no value in itself, as we
cannot drink or eat it, tlat it is but tle sign of of real values, tlat it is
tle impression of tle monarcl wlicl gives it tle quality of a sign, and
tlat it is indierent wletler it be put on a greater or smaller quantity
of metal. One miglt answered tlem, if silver las no value, wly do you
retain tlat wlicl you owe: You lave no occasion for it. Give it to us
rst, tlen you may put your impression on pieces of wood if you please,
and you will see tle eect it will produce. It does not seem necessary
to be very slarp siglted to devise tlis overwlelming answer. Yet it
las not been made because it was not so easy to prove directly tlat
silver, as all useful tlings, las a proper and necessary value. indeed, to
sco
demonstrate tlis incontestably, it was necessary to remount, as we lave
done, and perlaps as las never been done before, to tle rst and only
cause of all value, labour.
!lis foolisl notion (we must call tlings by tleir names) tlat
money is but a sign is tlen maintained, and still repeated every day.
Many writers give no otler name to money, and persons wlo tlink
tlemselves listorians and politicians gravely give you an account of tle
system of law and discuss it at full lengtl, witlout perceiving,afer
a lundred years of reection, tlat it is solely on tlis notion it was
founded, and tlat all tle rest consists but in accessories, imagined to
mask tlis foundation.
*
!le notable principle, tlen, of wlicl we are
speaking is neitler abandoned nor proscribed. If tley no longer avail
tlemselves of it to degrade tle coins, it is not because tley are aslamed
of it, it is because tley lave found a way of making a more complete
application of it. For, in fact, in tle most false of coins, tlere remains
always a little silver. In tlat wlicl is now substituted for it tlere is not
any, tlis is still better. !ley lave not followed tle counsel we just now
gave, of putting tle stamp of tle prince on pieces of wood, tley put it
on paper, and tlis amounts to tle same. !le multiplied relations of
perfected society lave suggested tlis idea and likewise serve to mask
tle naud. Let us explain tlis.
Paper, like every tling else, las no necessary value, but tlat wlicl
it las cost to fabricate it, and no market value, but its price in tle
slop as paper. Wlen I lold a note, or an obligation of any kind, of
a solvent person, to pay me at siglt an lundred ounces of silver, tlis
paper las only tle real value of a piece of paper. It las not tlat of tle
lundred ounces of silver wlicl it promises me. It is for me only tle
sign tlat I slall receive tlese lundred ounces of silver wlen I wisl, in
trutl, wlen tlis sign is of an indubitable certainty, I am not anxious
about realizing it. I may even, witlout taking tlis trouble, pass it by
agreement to anotler person, wlo will be equally tranquil witl myself,
and wlo may even prefer tle sign to tle tling signied, because it is
liglter and more portable. We lave not yet eitler tle one or tle otler
any real value, (I count for notling tlat of tle piece of paper) but we
are as sure of laving it wlen we wisl, as witl tle money we are sure
*
It is for tlis reason tlat Law limself, wlen tle Abbey !errasson proposed to
lim to reimburse tle Catlolic Clurcl witl lis paper, answeredtle Roman Clergy
are not sucl fools.
ssc
of laving a dinner wlen we slall be lungry. It is tlis tlat induces us
botl to say, tlat tlis paper is tle same tling as tle silver. But tlis is
not exact, for tle paper only promises, and tle silver alone is tle value
itself.
Proceeding on tlis equivoque, tle government comes and says,
you all agree tlat tle paper of a ricl man is equal to silver. Mine,
for mucl stronger reasons, slould lave tle same property, for I am
ricler tlan any individual, and moreover, you agree tlat it is my im
pression alone wlicl gives to silver tle quality of being tle sign of
all values, my signature communicates to tlis paper tle same virtue.
!lus it is in all respects a real money. By a surplus of precaution, tley
do not want inventions to prove tlat tle paper about to be emitted
really represents immense values. It is lypotlecated, sometimes on
a considerable quantity of national domains, sometimes on tle prof
its of a commercial company, wlicl are to lave prodigious success,
sometimes on a sinking fund, wlicl cannot fail to produce marvellous
eects, sometimes on all tlese togetler. Urged by arguments so solid,
all wlo lope tlat tlis operation will enable government to grant tlem
gifs, and all its actual creditors, wlo fear tlat witlout tlis expedient
tley will not be paid at all,wlo lope to lave tlis paper among tle
rst, and to pass it away very soon, before it is discredited, and wlo
moreover, calculating tlat if tley lose sometling by it, tley may am
ply indemnif tlemselves by subsequent aairs,do not fail to say tley
are fully convinced tlat tle paper is excellent, tlat it is an admirable
invention, wlicl will secure tle safety of tle state, tlat tley are all
ready to take it, tlat tley like it as well as silver, tlat tleir only em
barrassment would be if tley slould meet witl persons stubborn and
distrustful, as tlere will always be, wlo would not be willing to receive
it, tlat to prevent tlis inconvenience it will be necessary to compel
every body to do as tley do, and tlat tlen all diculties will lave van
isled. !le public itselfprejudiced by so many soplisms, wlicl lave
sucl numerous supporters,at rst relisles tle measure, tlen desires
it, and persuades itself tlat one must be absurd or evil intentioned not
to approve it. !lus tley make a real paper money, tlat is to say a pa
per wlicl every one las a riglt to give and is obliged to take as good
money, and it is not perceived tlat it is precisely tle force tley employ
to render tlis paper better, wlicl radically vitiates it.
In eect tle government, wlicl las only created it to liberate itself,
makes in tle rst place enougl to extinguisl all its debts. It is com
sss
manded to be received, people are disposed to do it, it circulates witl
facility, it is in every ones lands concurrently witl silver. It appears
even at rst to increase tle activity of commerce, by multiplying capi
tals. Moreover it is only employed in large payments, and in tle placing
of funds. !lus tle daily service and tlat innite multitude of small
exclanges wlicl constitute tle labitual marcl of society, continue as
usual, and every body is satised.
Aferwards tle same autlority uses tle same mean for its ordinary
expenses. It observes necessarily less economy, conscious of resources
always ready. It embarks in enterprizes, eitler of war, politics or ad
ministration, of wlicl it would not lave dared to tlink, knowing well
tlat witlout tlis facility tley would surpass its abilities. !le paper is
tlen greatly multiplied. !le contractors for tle government are tle
rst to say tlat all tlings lave grown very dear, tlat tley must lave
mucl ligler prices. !ley are careful not to avow, tlat it is because a
promise is not silver, and tlat tle promise begins to appear doubtful.
!ley attribute tlis fact, at wlicl tley appear surprised, to a momen
tary encumbrance, wlicl it will be easy to remove by slackening all
payments except tleir own, to tle intrigues of a party of malcontents,
wlicl slould be suppressed, to tle jealousy of foreigners, wlo will
only deal witl tlem for ready money, for tle objects tley are obliged
to draw nom tlem. It is impossible not to yield to sucl good reasons,
and, above all, to necessity. !le expenses are tlerefore augmented
considerably, and tle paper likewise.
People receive it still because tley are forced, but every one de
mands mucl more of it for tle same tling. Soon an acknowledged
and known proportion is establisled between paper and silver. It be
comes so disadvantageous to tle paper, tlat tlose wlo live on salaries,
annuitants, and tle proprietors of leased estates, wlo are paid witl
tlis money are greatly aggrieved. Salaries are augmented particularly
tlose of tle ocers of government, wlicl is by so mucl tle more bur
tlened, tle otlers suer lorribly. At tlis epocl, of tle depreciation
of paper, government already experiences tle same loss in its imposts
tlat individuals do on tleir annuities and rents. !lis embarrasses it,
but tlis is not tle moment to augment tle public burtlens. It is easy
to create paper to supply tle deciency it experiences. It prefers tlis
mean, lence a new cause of emission and depreciation.
!le dierence between paper and silver increasing progressively,
no one ventures to give any credit, or to make any loan, tley do not even
ss:
venture to buy in order to sell again, because tley know not at wlat
price tley may be able to resell, all commerce languisles. !le propor
tion or ratler tle disproportion continually increases, it arrives to tlat
point tlat tle daily transactions for tlings of tle rst necessity, and
wlicl require only small sums paid in silver, become impossiblefor
an lundred nancs in paper would be given ratler tlan twentyve in
silver, and, for tle same reason, if you owe twelve nancs nobody will
give you tle clange on a note of an lundred. !lere is universal outcry
and complaint. Disputes are indeterminable, because botl parties are
riglt. !le evil is supposed to be remedied by making notes for tle
smallest sums, and tley are made,
*
but notling is gained by tlis, for
nom tlis moment we no longer see a crown, and so soon as tle most
usual tlings are paid for witl paper, tley rise to a price proportioned
to tle discredit of tle paper, tlat is to say, to sucl tlat nobody can
aord tlem. !le public autlority is tlen inevitably forced to rate tle
necessaries of life.
!len society ceases and universal brigandage begins. All is naud
or punislment. !le government lays requisitions every wlere, and tle
people plunder, for notling but force can oblige a sale at loss, or to part
witl tlings wlicl tley fear soon to want tlemselves. In fact a general
want takes place, for no one makes new provisions, or new fabrications,
for fear of suering new spoliations. All trades are abandoned. !lere
is no longer possibility of living on tle produce of regular industry.
every one subsists on wlat le can conceal, or on wlat le can lay lis
lands, as in an enemys country. !le poorest die in crowds. We may
say in tle strictest sense, tlat society is dissolved, for tlere is no longer
any nee exclanges.
!lere is no longer any necessity for small notes, for tle largest
lardly suce for tle smallest sums. We lave seen tlree tlousand
livres paid for a pair of sloes, and been very lappy to obtain tlem
in secret at tlis price, for force may well oblige a tling wlicl exists
to be given for notling, but it cannot oblige it to be made. Having
reacled tlis point, tle government on tle contrary must give a very
ligl nominal value to every piece of its paper,not merely tlat it may
be of some use, but tlat, even to itself it may represent a little more real
value tlan its fabrication las cost. !lis is tle reason tlat in France,
*
We lave seen tlem even for ve sous. You may judge wletler it be possible to
superintend tlem, and if tlreefourtls of tlem were not false.
ss.
towards tle last of tle existence of paper money, government tlouglt
proper to make mandates, wlicl were notling but assignats of a new
form, but to wlicl was attributed a value an lundred times greater
tlan tlat of tle otlers, witlout wlicl tley would not lave paid tle
cost of making tlem. !lus tle process reacled tlat pass tlat a note
of a lundred nancs in assignats, for example, lad not eectively tle
real value of tle piece of paper on wlicl it was written, and it would
lave been wortl more for lim wlo received it if blank, or ratler if le
lad received tle price wlicl it lad cost.
*
Sucl a fact appears incredible, yet we lave all witnessed it, and it
clearly proves two important trutls. !le one, tlat wlen we endeavor
to go contrary to tle nature of tlings, we are inevitably pusled to
tle most monstrous extremities, tle otler, tlat it is as impossible to
give to tlings a real value wlicl tley lave not, as to take nom tlem
tle natural and necessary value wlicl tley lave, wlicl consists, (we
cannot too ofen repeat it) in tle labour wlicl tleir production las
cost.
In vain would it be said tlat paper money, may be used, witlout be
ing abused to tlis excess, constant experience proves tle contrary, and,
independently of experience, reason demonstrates, tlat once abused,
we are forced to abuse it more, and tlat it is not made money, tlat is
to say laving a forced circulation, but on purpose to be abused. For
wlen you leave it to a nee course, tle moment in wlicl a fear tlat you
cannot fulll your engagements occasions an unwillingness to receive
it, indicates tle moment in wlicl eectively you begin to form en
gagements beyond your resources, tlat is to say to abuse it, wlen you
give it a forced currency, it is because you are unwilling to be warned
of tlat moment, and are determined to go beyond it, tlat is to say to
enter into engagements wlicl you cannot fulll. In a word wlen your
paper is good, it is useless to oblige people to receive it, wlen bad, it
is iniquitous and absurd to force it to be received as good. No solid
answer can ever be given to tlis dilemma. Mirabeau lad tlerefore
great reason to utter tle celebrated plrase, wlicl le too mucl forgot
aferwards. All paper money is a plrensy of despotism run mad.
We lave seen tlat tle consequences of tle madness are still more
*
It is true tlat tlese mandats were tle end of all, tlat tley lasted but a few days,
and tlat tley never lad a real currency. for no fear of punislment could determine
any one to take tlem at any price.
ss
fatal tlan tlose of tle debasement of coins. !le reason is simple.
!lis debasement wlen not repeated, las but a momentary eect, by
wlicl many suer as by a lail storm, and otlers prot as by a windfall,
but all tlings resume quickly tleir ordinary course. On tle contrary,
tle gradual depreciation of paper money, during all tle time of its
existence, produces tle eect of an innite number of successive de
basements continued to total annililation, and during all tlis time, no
one knowing on wlat to calculate, tle progress of society is completely
interverted. Add to tlis, tlat paper is made to mucl larger amounts
tlan even bad money is coined. !lus tle evil is still mucl greater.
Let us conclude, tlat paper money is tle most culpable and most
fatal of all naudulent bankruptcies, tlat tle adulteration of metallic
monies comes next, and tlat wlen a government is suciently unfor
tunate to be no longer able to pay its debts, it can do notling better
tlan declare nankly its insolvency, and compound faitlfully witl its
creditors,as an imprudent but lonest merclant. !le evil is mucl
less, reputation remains, and condence is soon renewedtlree ines
timable advantages. Wlerever tlere is candour, and probity, tlere is
remedy for misfortune. !lis is one of tle numerous points at wlicl
economy and morality are joined. and wlicl render tlem but dier
ent parts of tle same subject, tle case of tlat one of our intellectual
faculties wlicl we call tle Will.
Afer laving tlus spoken of silver, its uses, its real value, of tle
danger of pretending to replace it by ctitious values, it is proper to
turn our tlouglts for a moment to wlat is called tle interest of money.
!lis subject like many otlers would be very simple, if endeavours lad
not ofen been used to obscure it, and if it lad never been treated on,
but afer tle preliminaries witl wlicl we lave preceded it.
Since we rent lorses, coacles, furniture, louses, lands, in a word
wlatever is useful and las a value, we may well rent money alsowlicl
is likewise useful, las a value, and is exclanged every day for all tlese
tlings. !lis rent of money is wlat is called interest. It is as legitimate
as every otler rent. It ouglt to be equally nee. !lere is no more
reason wly public autlority slould determine its rate, tlan tlat of tle
lease of a louse or a farm. !lis principle is so evident, tlat it ouglt
never to lave met witl any diculty.
!lere is nevertleless wlat is called legal interest, it is tlat wlicl
tribunals adjudge in judiciary cases, in cases in wlicl tle parties lave
not been able to agree, but in wlicl it is still just tlat tle debtor slould
ss
pay some interest. It is very proper tlat tle law slould lave determined
it beforeland. It slould neitler be too ligl nor too low, not too ligl,
tlat tle debtor of good faitl,wlo wisled to pay lis debts, but las
been prevented by circumstances not depending on limself,slould
not be aggrieved for laving been obliged to detain lis money. Not too
low, tlat tle debtor of bad faitl, wlo las lad recourse to clicanery
to defer payment, may not gain by laving retained tle disposition of
lis funds. In a word, it slould be sucl tlat neitler tle creditor nor
tle debtor slould be iured. For tlis purpose, tle law slould x it as
it is to be presumed tlat tle parties would lave agreed on, tlat is to
say conformably to tle most ordinary rate in analogous circumstances.
But once again I repeat it, tlis legal interest slould be of no consid
eration, wlenever tle parties lave tlemselves been able to make tleir
agreements. !le public autlority slould never intervene in particular
transactions, but to ensure tleir execution, and to lend its support to
tle delity of engagements.
It is true lowever, tlat it is tle interest of society in general, tlat
tle interest of money slould be low. First, because all tle rents, paid by
industrious men to capitalists, are so far funds taken nom tle laborious
class for tle prot of tle idle. Secondly, because, wlen tlese rents are
ligl, tley absorb so large a part of tle prots of industrious enterprizes
tlat many become impossible. !lirdly, because tle ligler tlese rents
are, tle greater tle number of tlose wlo live witlout doing any tling.
But all tlis is not a reason for government to x tle rate of interest,
for we lave already seen tlat society las absolutely tle same motives
for desiring tlat tle rents of land slould be at a low rate,
*
and yet no
*
Agriculture is no wlere so ourisling and advancing as in tlose countries wlere
tle rents of land are as yet notling, because tlere are still lands belonging to nobody,
for tlen all tle produce of tlese lands is for lim wlo cultivates tlem. See tle western
part of tle United States of America.
!lis slould teacl us to appreciate tle sagacity of tlose profound politicians, wlo
pretend tlat it is liglly advantageous to a nation tlat its landed property slould sell
very ligl, because, say tley, it follows tlat its soil, wlicl is a large part of its capital,
las a great value. !ley lave no doubts on tle subject.
However tlere are two ways of understanding tle expression, very dear. Do tley
wisl to say, tlat it is desirable tlat land slould be sold ligl, in proportion to tle
rent wlicl may le drawn nom it: tlat is true, for tlis proves tlat tle interest of
money is low, and tlat tle idle take but little nom tle laborer.
But do tley wisl to say tlat it is good tlat an acre of land slould sell dear in
proportion to wlat it will produce: tlat is false, for tlis price is so mucl taken
ss6
one las ever proposed to declare usurious, and illicit tle rents of farms
wlicl exceed a certain price. Moreover, to x tle rate of interest is not
a mean of diminisling it, on tle contrary, it is only in some manner to
invite to dissimulation. for tle lender will always require tle most le
can get for tle eoyment of lis capital, and le will also le indemnied
for tle risque le runs in eluding an imprudent and even an uust law.
!le only mean of diminisling tle price of tle interest of money is
to make tle mass of a nation ricl, tlat tlus tlere may be large sums
to be lent, and tlat industrious men nevertleless lave little need of
borrowing.
Instead of xing tle rate of interest, we miglt perlaps extend to
tlis kind of convention tle principle of damage for more tlan tle lalf,
(lezion doutre moitie) wlicl, in certain cases, autlorises tle rescission
of engagements, but tle application of tlis principle would ofen be
very embarrassing in matters of loan. it would require attention to
many circumstances of dicult estimate, and especially to tle degree
of risk run by tle lender in parting witl lis funds. At least, I would
wisl in tlis supposition for still stronger reasons, tlat tle rents of
land slould be comprised under tle same rule, for tlere is no risk of
tle funds being carried o. But I would always prefer tlat individuals
slould be lef entirely nee in tleir conventions.
!o nisl tlis clapter on money, and all tlat las relation to it, it
remains for us to say a word on exchange and on banks. !lese are two
very distinct tlings wlicl are ofen confounded, let us examine tlem
separately.
Exclange, or tle service of an exclanger, is an operation tle most
simple. It is to barter money for money wlen it is required. It is only
necessary to know low mucl pure gold or silver is contained by eacl of
tle two to render tle same quantity le receives, and to take a stipulated
reward for tle small service le performs, or it is to barter ingots for
money. !lis is still exactly tle same tling. It is only necessary furtler
to take into account tle small increase of value wlicl is given to tle
metal by tle quality of money, impressed on it by tle egy or seal
of tle sovereign. If tle standard value of metals were as easy to be
establisled as tleir weiglts, tle personal interest, tle most inventive
nom lim wlo is going to work tlis acre, tlus it is to say, tlat it is advantageous
to take nom tlis useful man a part of lis means, and ofen to render lis enterprize
impossible by augmenting its expenses. Experience and reason declare equally against
tlis mistake.
ss
in sling in troubled water, could not tlrow tle least obscurity on a
similar transaction, and, notwitlstanding tlis small diculty of tle
assay, it is still suciently clear wlen notling else is mingled witl it,
because tle two tlings to le exclanged are present. It is only requisite
to value botl and to barter. But tle operation of tle exclanger is ofen
complicated witl tlat of tle banker. Let us now explain tlis.
!le function of tle banker is to enable you to receive in anotler
town, tle money wlicl you deliver lim in tlis in wlicl you are. In
tlis le renders you a service, for if you lave need of your money in tlat
otler town, eitler to pay debts or to expend tlere, you must send or
carry it tlitler, and tlis occasions expense and risque. !le banker,
wlo las a correspondent tlere, gives you a note called a bill of exchange,
in virtue of wlicl tle correspondent remits you your amount. On an
inverse occasion, tle same correspondent gives to anotler person a like
bill of exclange on your banker, tlus tley are quits, and tley lave
obliged two persons, and, as every service merits a reward, tley lave
retained at eacl time for tleir recompense a stipulated portion of tle
money transported. Sucl is tle service and tle prot of a banker.
I lave always been astonisled tlat writers, wlo lave given long
dissertations on tlis negotiation, wlo know its utility, wlo lave ex
aggerated its importance, lave mistaken tle increase of value, wlicl a
merclandise receives by a clange of place, and lave refused tle qual
ity of producer to tle merclant, wlo transports it. for in tlis case,
wlicl is tle most simple, it is very clear tlat wlen you, wlo live in
Paris, owe an lundred nancs at Marseilles, you would ratler give your
banker an lundred and one nancs, tlan to carry yourself or send your
lundred nancs to Marseilles. and, reciprocally, if you lad tlere an
lundred nancs, you would ratler receive ninetynine of tlemat Paris of
tle same banker, tlan go to Marseilles and receive tle wlole amount.
Merclandise delivered at its destination las tlen really a value wlicl
it lad not before, it is tlis wlicl engages you to give your banker a
recompense, altlougl it costs lim notling to render you tlis service.
!o tlis rst prot le commonly adds anotler. You give lim your
money to day, tle bill wlicl le gives you in return will only be payable
in feen or twenty days, more or less, time must be allowed for its ar
rival, tle correspondent must be apprized, le miglt not lave tle funds,
pretexts are never wanting to lengtlen tle delay. However it is not till
tle day of payment tlat tle banker credits tle sum to lis associate.
!lus, during all tle interval, le eoys your money gratuitously and
ss
can put it to use, and as money bears an interest it is a prot su
ciently considerable. for it is plain, tlat if le las successively eiglteen
or twenty similar commissions, le las gained tle interest of tle sum
for a wlole year.
!o tlese calculations must be added a tlird. Wlen many Mar
seillese are indebted to tle Parisians, tley all demand bills payable
at Paris. !lese become scarce, tle bankers may be embarrassed in
furnisling tlem, tleir correspondents being already in advance witl
tlem. !ley take occasion lence to demand of you, independent of
tleir commission, an lundred and two or tlree ounces of silver for
procuring an lundred to your order at Paris, and you, wlo are under a
necessity of acquitting yourself, will give it, not being able to do it for
less. For a contrary reason, if Parisians lave at tle same time need of
bills on Marseilles, tle bankers of Paris miglt for an lundred ounces
of silver give tlem a bill for an lundred and two or tlree ounces, since
tlis is tle price put on tlem at Marseilles. But as tley alone are well
acquainted witl tlese uctuations, tley always combine to prevent tle
individuals nom tle wlole prot, and to tlrow on tlem more tlan a
necessary loss, and tlis is a new source of prot for tlem.
!lis is wlat is callednot very properly, in my opinion,tle
course of exclange, and wlat ouglt ratler, as I tlink, to be called
tle course of banking. for tlese two cities being in tle same country,
and employing tle same money, tlere is no exclange, but merely a
transportation of specie, wlicl is tle proper oce of tle bank. !lis
course is said to be at par, wlen an lundred ounces of silver in one
place are paid witl an lundred in anotler, and tlat it is ligl or low,
wlen it requires more or less,
*
always independently of tle bankers
*
Wlen less tlan a lundred nancs are sucient to pay an lundred elsewlere, it
is said tlat tle exclange is low. !lis is tle case witl tle city wlicl, compensation
being made, still remains creditor, because apparently it las sent to tle otler more
merclandise tlan it las received. !lis low exclange gives it an advantage in impor
tation, for it can pay for tle same tlings witl less silver. But for tle same reason
it is disadvantageous if it continues to export, for it will require more money to pay
tlem for tle same quantity of merclandise. !lis is equivalent to a rise of price, and
diminisles tle demand.
!lis sole consideration, independently of many otlers, slows low ridiculous it is
to believe tlat a country can always and constantly export more tlan it imports. It
would le quickly arrested merely by tle course of exclange. But we are not yet come
to tle examination of tle reveries on tle pretended balance of commerce, it suces
to lave made tlis observation.
sso
commission.
!le operation of exclange, on tle contrary, mingles itself witl
tlat of banking, and complicates it wlen funds are to be transported
nom one country to anotler. for tle sum wlicl is received at Paris,
and for wlicl a bill is given on London, las been deposited in Frencl
money and will be paid in Englisl money. We must ascertain tlen tle
concordance of tlese two monies, and determine low mucl pure metal
is contained in eacl, according to tle known laws of tleir fabrication.
We must estimate too, at least approximately, wlat tle pieces of money
in tle two countries may lave lost since tley lave been in circulation.
Hence it is tlat all otler tlings being equal, less is demanded to pay
tle same sum in any country, wlen tle money is ancient, and las
consequently suered mucl waste by use, and by tle naud of clippers,
tlan wlen it is quite new and untoucled. for in tle latter case it con
tains really more metal, and tle bearer of tle bill will receive more for
tle same sum. !lis exclange is yet anotler source of prot for tle
bankers.
!o tlis all tle operations of exclange and banking are reduced,
wlicl as we see are very simple, and would be very clear if all coins bore
tle name of tleir weiglt and tle mark of tleir standard value, and if
pedantry and clarlatanism lad not concealed and disguised notions so
common, under a multitude of barbarous names and cant terms, sucl
as tle initiated alone can understand.
Bankers render yet anotler kind of service. Wlen tle bearer of a
bill of exclange, not yet due, las need of money, tley advance it to lim,
retaining tle interest of tle sum for tle time remaining before tle day
of payment. !lis is called discount. Sometimes tley receive nom an
individual eects not demandable otler tlan bills of exclange, as bills
of credit of long terms, title papers of property, and lypotlecations on
land, and guaranteed by tlese securities tley advance money to lim,
making lim pay an interest ligler or lower. At otler times, knowing
a man to be solvent, tley give lim for a retribution a credit on tlem
for a determinate sum, and tley make tlemselves tle agents of all lis
business, undertake to collect all lis credits and to pay all lis debts.
!lese are so many ways of being useful, but in all tlese cases tley
are essentially lenders and agents for business, and not properly bankers,
altlougl bank services are mingled witl tlese operations. All tlis,
nevertleless, is ordinarily comprelended under tle names of banks of
discount, accommodation, credit, circulation, &c.
s:c
All tlese bankers, exclangers, agents, lenders, discounters, at least
tle riclest and most accredited amongst tlem, lave a strong tendency
to unite tlemselves into large companies. !leir ordinary pretext is,
tlat transacting tlus mucl more business tley may be content witl
a smaller prot on eacl, and perform all tle services on mucl better
terms, but tlis pretext is illusoryfor if tley transact more business
tley employ more funds, and surely it is not tleir intention tlat every
part of tleir funds slould yield tlem a smaller prot. !le trutl is,
tlat, on tle contrary, tley wisl, by getting almost all tle business
into tleir own lands, to avoid competition, and make greater prots
witlout any obstacle. Government, on tleir part, are mucl disposed
to favor tle establislment of tlese large companies, and to give tlem
privileges to tle detriment of tleir rivals, and of tle public, witl tle
expectation of receiving nom tlem loans, eitler gratuitous or at a low
rate wlicl tlese never refuse. It is tlus tlat tle one sells its protection
and tle otler buys it, and tlis is already a very great evil.
But tlese companies are of a mucl greater inconvenience. !ley
emit bills payable at siglt, bearing no interest, wlicl tley give for ready
money. All tlose wlo depend on tlem, or are connected witl tlem,
(and tley are very numerous) take tleir notes witl eagerness and oer
tlem to otlers. !le public even wlicl las great condence in tleir
solvency receives tlem willingly as very convenient. !lus tley spread
witl facility, and are multiplied extremely. !le company reaps in tlis
an enormous gain, because tle wlole sum represented by tlese bills
las cost it notling but tle fabrication of its paper, and yield it a prot
as ready money. However tlis is not yet an inconvenience, because
tlese bills are always realized tle moment tley are demanded.
But soon tle government, wlicl las created it but for tlis pur
pose, asks of tlis company enormous loans, it dares not and cannot
refuse tlem, because it depends on government to overtlrow it by
witldrawing its support for a moment. !o satisf tlis demand, s
obliged to create an excessive quantity of new notes, it delivers tlem
to tle government, wlicl employs tlem very quickly, tle circulation
is overdone witl tlem, inquietude follows, every one wisles to realise
tlem. It is evidently impossible, unless government repays tlat wlicl
it las borrowed, and tlis it does not do. !le company can tlen but
invoke its support. It asks to be autlorized not to pay its notes, and to
give tlem a forced circulation. It obtains its request, and society nds
itself in tle full state of paper money, of wlicl we lave seen tle conse
s:s
quences. It is tlus tlat tle caisse descompte
*
produced tle assignats
in France. It is tlus tlat tle bank of London las brouglt England to
tle same state in wlicl it is at tlis moment. It is tlus all privileged
companies end. tley are radically vicious, and every tling essentially
bad always terminates badly, notwitlstanding its transient successes,
all tlings lang togetler, and necessity is invincible. It would be easy
to slow tlat were tlese great maclines so soplisticated not to pro
duce tle lorrible danger wlicl we lave just described, tle advantages
promised by tlem would be illusory or very inconsiderable, and could
add but very little to tle mass of national industry and wealtl. But it
is not necessary to enter now into details, it suces for us to lave seen
in a general manner tle progression of aairs. Before going furtler,
let us look back on tle road over wlicl we lave travelled,it is tle
mean of not going wrong as we advance.
*
A bank existing at Paris at tle commencement of tle revolution.
s::
CHAPTER VII
Reections on what precedes.
M~v readers will perlaps imagine tlat, so far, I lave followed ratler
a wlimsical course, tlat I lave ofen ascended very ligl to establisl
trutls very common, tlat I lave disposed my clapters in an order
wlicl does not appear metlodical, and, above all, tlat I lave aban
doned tle subjects wlicl I lave treated witlout giving tlem all tle
developements of wlicl tley are susceptible. But I pray tlem to re
mark, tlat tlis is not a mere treatise on political economy. It is tle
second section of a treatise on our intellectual faculties. It is a treatise
on tle will, forming a sequel to a treatise on tle understanding. My
intention is mucl less to exlaust all tle details of tle moral sciences,
tlan to see low tley are derived nom our nature, and nom tle condi
tions of our existence, in order to detect witl certainty tle errors wlicl
may lave slidden into tlem by not ascending to tlis source of all we are
and all we know. Now to execute sucl a design it is not tle abundance
of ideas we are to seek, but tleir severe enclainment, and a course un
interrupted and witlout clasms. Still lowever I am persuaded tlat,
witlout perceiving it, we are already mucl furtler advanced tlan we
are aware.
In fact, we lave seen tlat tle property of being endowed witl will,
by giving us a distinct knowledge of our individuality, gives us tlereby
and necessarily tle idea of property, and tlat tlus property, witl all
its consequences, is an inevitable result of our nature. Here tlen is al
ready a great source of rambling disquisition and of declamation totally
drained.
We lave aferwards seen tlat tlis same will, wlicl constitutes all
our wants, is tle cause of all our means of providing for tlem, tlat tle
employment of our force, wlicl it directs, is tle only primitive ricles
and tle sole principle of tle value of wlatever las one for us.
Before drawing any consequences nom tlis second observation, we
s:.
lave likewise seen tlat tle state of society is not only very advantageous
to us, but is also so natural to us tlat we could not otlerwise exist. Here
tlen is anotler subject of common place notions, very false, exlausted.
Uniting tlese two points, tle examination of tle eect of tle em
ployment of our force, and of tlat of tle increase of ecacy given to it
by a state of society, las enabled us to discover wlat it is to produce for
beings like ourselves, and wlat we ouglt to understand by tlis word.
!lis, also, annililates a great subject of ambiguity.
Strengtlened by tlese premises, afer some elucidations of tle
measure of utility of tlings, it was easy for us to conclude tlat all
our industry reduces itself to a clange of form and of place, and conse
quently tlat culture is a fabrication like every otler, wlicl dissipates
many clouds obscuring tlis subject, and las enabled us to see very
clearly tle progress of every kind of industry, its interests, and tle ob
stacles opposed to tlem. !lis likewise leads us to appreciate botl men
and tlings very dierently nom wlat is commonly done.
Finally, amongst all tle tlings wlicl lave a value, we lave re
marked tlose wlicl possess tle qualities proper for becoming money,
and we lave easily recognised tle advantages and tle utility of tlis
good and real money, and tle danger of debasing it and of replacing
it by anotler entirely ctitious and false in continuation, we lave even
cast a rapid glance on tle small operations, commonly regarded as very
great, to wlicl tle exclange of tlese monies and tleir economical
transportation, under tle name of banking, give place.
From wlence it follows, if I am not mistaken, tlat we lave acquired
clear and certain ideas on all tle important circumstances in tle for
mation of our ricles. Notling tlen remains but to see in wlat manner
tleir distribution amongst individuals is eected, and in wlat manner
tleir consumption is eected, tlat is to say tle use we make of tlem.
We slall tlen lave an abridged but complete treatise on all tle results
of tle employment of our means of existence.
!lis second part, tle distribution of ricles in society, is perlaps
tlat one of tle tlree wlicl gives place to tle most delicate consider
ations, and in wlicl we meet witl plenomena tle most complicated.
However, if we lave well elucidated tle rst, we slall see tle obscurity
of tlis y before us, and all dissipate witl facility. Let us endeavour to
follow constantly tle clue tlat guides us.
s:
CHAPTER VIII
Of the distribution of our Riches amongst individuals.
Hi:nrn:o we lave considered man collectively, it remains to exam
ine lim distributively. Under tlis second point of view le presents
an aspect very dierent nom tle rst. !le luman species, taken in
mass, is ricl and powerful, and sees a daily increase of its resources and
its means of existence, but it is not so witl individuals. All in tleir
quality of animated beings are condemned to suer and to die. All,
afer a slort period of increase, slould tley even live tlrougl it, and
afer some momentary successes, slould tley obtain tlem, relapse and
decline, and tle most fortunate amongst tlem can do little more tlan
diminisl tleir suerings and retard tleir term. Beyond tlis tleir in
dustry cannot go. It is not useless to lave tlis gloomy but true picture
of our condition present to our minds. It will teacl us not to desire
impossibilities, and not to consider as a consequence of our faults wlat
is a necessary result of our nature. It brings us back nom romance to
listory.
!lere is more. !lese resources, tlese ricles, so insucient for
lappiness, are also very unequally divided amongst us, and tlis is in
evitable. We lave seen tlat property exists in nature. for it is impossible
tlat every one slould not be tle proprietor of lis individuality and of
lis faculties. !le inequality in tlese is not less. for it is impossible
tlat all individuals slould be alike, and lave tle same degree of force,
intelligence and lappiness. !lis natural inequality is extended and
manifested in proportion as our means are developed and diversied.
Wlile tley are very limited it is less striking, but it exists. It is an
error not to lave recognised tlis among savage nations. Witl tlem
particularly it is very grievous. for it is tlat of force witlout restraint.
If, to banisl nom society tlis natural inequality, we undertake to
disregard natural property, and oppose ourselves to its necessary con
sequences, it would be in vain. for notling wlicl las its existence in
s:
nature can be destroyed by art. Sucl conventions, if tley were prac
ticable, would be a slavery too mucl against nature, and consequently
too insupportable to be durable, and tley would not accomplisl tleir
purposes. During tleir continuance, we slould see as many quarrels
for a greater slare of tle common goods, or a smaller part of tle com
mon trouble, as can exist among us for tle defence of tle property of
individuals, and tle only eect of sucl an order of tlings would le to
establisl an equality of misery and deprivation, by extinguisling tle
activity of personal industry. I know all tley tell us of tle community
of property witl tle Spartans, but I reply boldly it is not true because
it is impossible. I know well tlat at Sparta tle riglts of individuals
were very little respected by tle laws, and totally violated in respect
to slaves. But a proof tlat nevertleless tley still lad property, is tlat
tlere were tlefs. Ol! tutors, wlat contradictory tlings you lave said,
witlout being aware of it!
!le nequent opposition of interest among us, and tle inequality
of means, are tlen conditions of our nature, as are suerings and deatl.
I do not conceive tlat tlere can be men suciently barbarous to say
tlat it is a good, nor can I any more conceive, tlat tlere slould be any
suciently blind, to believe tlat it is an evitable evil. I tlink tlis evil a
necessary one, and tlat we must submit to it. !le conclusion wlicl I
slould draw nom it (but it is as yet premature) is, tlat tle laws slould
always endeavour to protect weakness, wlile too nequently tley incline
to favour power. !le reason is easily perceived.
Afer tlese data, society slould lave for its basis, tle nee disposi
tion of tle faculties of tle individual, and tle guarantee of wlatever le
may acquire by tleir means, tlen every one exerts limself. One pos
sesses limself of a eld by cultivating it, anotler builds a louse, a tlird
invents some useful process, anotler manufactures, anotler transports,
all make exclanges, tle most skilful gain, tle most economical amass.
One of tle consequences of individual property is, if not tlat tle pos
sessor may dispose of it according to lis will afer deatl, tlat is to say
at a time wlen le slall no longer lave any will, yet at least tlat tle law
determines in a general manner to wlom it slall pass afer lim, and
it is natural tlat it slould be to lis nearest kindred. !len inleritance
becomes a new mean of acquiring, and wlat is more, or ratler wlat
is worse, of acquiring witlout labour. However, so long as society las
not occupied all tle space of wlicl it may dispose, all still prosper witl
care, for tlose wlo lave notling but tleir lands, and wlo do not nd
s:6
a suciently advantageous employment for tleir labour, can go and
possess tlemselves of some of tlose lands wlicl lave no owners, and
derive nom tlem a prot so mucl tle more considerable, as tley are
not obliged to lease or buy tlem. Accordingly care is general in new
and industrious nations. But wlen once all tle country is lled, wlen
tlere no longer remains a eld, wlicl belongs to nobody, it is tlen tlat
pression begins. !len tlose wlo lave notling in advance, or wlo lave
too little, can do no otlerwise tlan put tlemselves in tle pay of tlose
wlo lave a suciency.
*
!ley oer tleir labour every wlere, it falls
in price. !lis does not yet prevent tlem nom begetting clildren and
multiplying imprudently, tley quickly become too numerous. !len
it is only tle most skilful and tle most fortunate among tlem wlo
can succeed. All tlose wlose services are in tle least demand, can no
longer procure for tlemselves but a subsistence tle most strict, always
uncertain, and ofen insucient. !ley become almost as unlappy as
if tley were still savages.
It is tlis class, destitute of tle favours of fortune tlat many writers
on economy call non-proprietors, tlis expression is vicious in several
respects. First, tlere are no nonproprietors, if by tlat we understand
men entirely witlout tle riglt of property. !lose of wlom we speak
are more or less poor, but tley all possess sometling, and lave a need of
preserving it. Were tley but proprietors of tleir individuality, of tleir
labour, and of tle wages of tlis labour, tley would lave a great interest
tlat tlis property slould be respected. It is but too ofen violated,
in many of tle regulations made by men wlo speak of notling but
property and justice. Wlen a tling exists in nature, no one is witlout
interest in it. !lis is so true of tle riglt of property, tlat tle felon,
even, wlo is about to be punisled for laving violated it, if le is not
entirely cut o nom society, las an interest tlat tlis riglt slould be
respected. For tle day afer le lad undergone lis punislment, le
could not be sure of any tling tlat remained to lim, if property were
not protected.
Secondly, tle same writers, in opposition to tle pretended non
proprietors, call by tle name of proprietors tlose only wlo possess
estates in land. !lis division is entirely false, and presents no meaning,
*
Once more I repeat, tlat lired labourers are not solely in tle pay of tle pro
prietors of land, but in tlat of all tlose wlo lave capitals witl wlicl to pay tleir
wages.
s:
for we lave seen tlat a landed estate is but a capital like anotler, like
tle sum of money wlicl it las cost, like every otler eect of tle same
value. One may be very poor, possessing a small eld, and very ricl
witlout possessing an incl of land. It is tlerefore ridiculous to call tle
possessor of a poor inclosure a proprietor, and to refuse tlis title to
a millionary. It would be more reasonable to divide society into poor
and ricl, if we knew wlere to place tle line of demarcation. But if tlis
division were less arbitrary, it would not be less illusory in relation to
property. For, once again I repeat, tle poor man las as mucl interest
in tle preservation of wlat le las, as tle most opulent.
A distinction more real in respect to tle dierence of interests,
would be between tle lirelings on tle one part, and tlose wlo em
ploy tlem on tle otler, wletler consumers or undertakers. !le lat
ter, under tlis point of view, may be regarded as tle consumers of
labour. !lis classication would, witlout doubt, lave tle inconve
nience of uniting togetler tlings very dierent, as, for example, of
classing among tle lired, a minister of state, witl a daylabourer, and
of placing amongst consumers tle smallest master workman witl tle
riclest idler. But in ne, it is true tlat all tle lirelings lave an interest
in being paid ligl, and tlat all tlose wlo employ tlem lave an inter
est in paying tlem low. It is true, lowever, tlat tle undertaker wlo
las an interest in paying little to tle lired, las tle moment afer an
interest in being paid ligl by tle denitive consumer, and, above all,
it is true, tlat we are all more or less consumers. for tle poorest day
labourer consumes articles produced by otler lired persons, on wlicl
I make two reections.
First, tle interest of tle lired being tlat of a very great number,
and tle interest of tle consumers being tlat of all, it is singular enougl
tlat modern governments slould be always ready to sacrice rst tle
lired to tle undertakers, in slackling tlose by apprenticeslips, corpo
ration privileges, and otler regulations, and aferwards to sacrice tle
consumers to tlese same undertakers, by granting to tlese privileges,
and sometimes even monopolies.
Secondly, I remark, tlat altlougl eacl of us las particular inter
ests, we clange so nequently our parts in society, tlat ofen we lave
under one aspect an interest contrary to tlat wlicl we lave under
anotler, so tlat we nd ourselves connected witl tlose to wlom we
were opposed tle moment before, wlicl fortunately prevents us nom
forming groupes constantly enemies. But, above all, I observe tlat in
s:
tle midst of all tlese momentary conicts, we are all and always united
by tle common and immutable interests of proprietors and consumers,
tlat is to say, tlat we lave all and always an interest, rst, tlat prop
erty be respected, secondly, tlat industry slould be perfected, or, in
otler words, tlat fabrication and transportation slould be in tle best
state possible. !lese trutls are useful, to comprelend perfectly tle
workings of society, and to be sensible of all its advantages. It was a
desire of rendering tlem evident wlicl induced me to enter into tlese
details. Let us return to tle subject of tle distribution of ricles, nom
wlicl tley lave drawn us, altlougl tley are not foreign to it.
I lave a little lastened above tle moment in wlicl distress begins
to make itself felt in tle bosom of new societies, by xing it at tle
instant in wlicl all land las a master, and at wlicl it can no longer
be procured, witlout being bouglt or rented. Certainly at tlis epocl
a great mean of care is exlausted, labour loses an opportunity of em
ploying itself in a manner extremely advantageous, and tle mass of
subsistence ceases to increase as rapidly, because tlere can no longer
be a question of establisling new cultures, but only of perfecting tle
old, a tling always more dicult and less productive tlan is generally
believed. However immense resources still remain. All tle arts oer
tlem in competition, especially if tle race of men wlo form tle new
society lave sprung nom an industrious and enligltened nation, and if
it las relations witl otler civilized countries. for tlen tlere is no ques
tion about inventing and discovering, wlicl is always very slow, but of
proting and practising wlat is known, wlicl is always very easy.
In fact, so long as agriculture oered sucl great advantages, all
men unemployed, or not protably enougl employed to tleir liking,
lave turned tlemselves to tlat. !ley lave only tlouglt of extracting
productions nom tle eartl, and exporting tlem. Observe tlat witlout
a facility of exportation, tle progress of agriculture would lave been
mucl less rapid, but witl tlis circumstance, it las employed all lands.
Wages excessively ligl lave scarcely been able to determine a sucient
number of individuals to remain attacled to tle profession of tle otler
arts tle most necessary. But for all tlose tlings, tle manufacture of
wlicl las not been indispensable witlin tle country itself in wlicl
tley are consumed, it las been more economical to draw tlem even
nom a great distance, and tley lave not failed to do it! Accordingly tle
commerce of tlese infant nations consists at rst solely in exporting
raw products, and importing manufactured articles.
s:o
Now wlat lappens at tle epocl of wlicl we are speaking, wlen
all tle territory is occupied: Agriculture no longer oering tle means
of rapid fortune, tle men wlo lave been devoted to it spread into
tle otler professions, tley oer tleir labourtley obstruct one an
otlerwages lower in trutl. But long before tley lave become as
low as in tle countries anciently civilized nom wlence manufactured
articles are drawn, tlere begins to be a prot in manufacturing witlin
tle country itself tle greater part of tlese articles. for it is a great ad
vantage for tle manufacturer to be witlin reacl of tle consumer, and
not to fear for lis merclandise eitler tle expenses or dangers of a long
voyage, nor tle inconveniences wlicl result eitler nom tle slowness
or diculty of tle communications, and tlis advantage is more tlan
sucient to counterbalance a certain degree of dearness in tle manu
factory. Manufactories tlen of every kind are establisled. Several of
tlem, witl tle aid of some favourable circumstances, open to tlem
selves foreign markets afer laving supplied tle internal consumption,
and give birtl to new brancles of commerce. All tlis occupies a nu
merous population, wlo live on tle produce of tle soil, wlicl tlen
is no longer exported in as great quantities, because it las not aug
mented in tle same proportion. !lis new industry is for a long time
increasing, as was agricultural industry, wlicl was tle rst developed,
and so long as it increases, it aords, if not ricles, at least ease to tle
lower classes of people.
*
It is not until it becomes stationary or ret
rograde tlat misery begins, because all lucrative employments being
lled, witlout a possibility of creating new ones, tlere is every wlere
more labour oered tlan demanded. !len it is inevitable tlat tle
least skilful and least fortunate among tle labourers slould nd no
employment, or receive but insucient wages for wlat tley do. Many
of tlem necessarily languisl, and even perisl, and a great number of
wretcled must constantly exist. Sucl is tle sad state of old nations.
We slrill soon see nom wlat causes tley arrive at it sooner tlan tley
*
How very desirable it would be in sucl a case, tlat tle superior class of society
slould be suciently enligltened to give to tle inferior ideas completely sound of
tle social order, during tlis lappy and necessarily transient period, in wlicl it is tle
most susceptible of instruction. If tle United States of America do not prot of it,
tleir tranquility and even safety will be mucl exposed, wlen interior and exterior
obstacles, and inconveniences, slall lave multiplied. !lis will be called tleir decline
and corruption. It will be tle slow but necessary eect of tleir anterior improvidence
and carelessness.
s.c
ouglt, and by wlat means it miglt to a certain point be remedied. But
previously some explanations are still necessary.
In fact, I am so bold as to believe tlat tle picture wlicl I lave just
traced, of tle progress of societies nom tleir birtl, presents striking
trutls. !lere is in it neitler a system made at pleasure, nor a tle
ory establisled beforeland. It is a simple exposition of facts. Every
one may look and see, if it is not tlus tley present tlemselves to tle
unprejudiced eye. It may even be observed tlat I lave represented a
nation, lappily situated, eoying all kinds of advantages, and mak
ing good use of tlem, and yet we come to tlis painful conclusion,
tlat its state of full prosperity is necessarily transient. !o account for
a plenomenon so aicting, it is not possible to stop at tlese vague
words, of degeneration, of corruption, of tle old age of nations, (as if
an abstract being could be really old or young like a living individual,)
all metaplorical expressions, wlicl lave been strangely abused, witl
wlicl we lave ofen been satised for want of better, but wlicl in
trutl explain notling, and wlicl if tley lad a prevalence, would ex
press eects ratler tlan causes. We must tlen penetrate furtler. Every
inevitable event las its cause in nature. !le cause of tlis is tle fecun
dity of tle luman species. !lus it is necessary to consider population,
and aferwards we will resume tle examination of tle distribution of
our ricles.
s.s
CHAPTER IX
Of the multiplication of Individuals, or of Population.
Lovr is a passion wlicl so violently aects our leads, tlat it is not
astonisling we slould ofen be mistaken on all its eects. I acknowl
edge I no more partake of tle zeal of tle moralists, to diminisl and
constrain our pleasures, tlan of tlat of tle politicians, to increase our
fecundity and accelerate our multiplication. Eacl appears to me equally
contrary to reason. At a proper time I may develope my opinions on
tle rst point, at present tle second is under consideration. Let us
begin by establisling facts, by taking a view of all wlicl surrounds us.
Under tlis relation, as under every otler, we see nature occupied
solely witl tle species, and not at all witl tle individual. Its fecundity
is sucl in every kind, tlat if almost tle totality of germs wlicl it
produces were not abortive, and if mucl tle greater part of tle beings
brouglt fortl did not perisl almost immediately for want of aliment,
in a very slort time a single species of plants would suce to cover
tle wlole eartl, and one single species of animals to people it entirely.
!le luman species is subjected to tle common law, tlougl perlaps in
a smaller degree tlan many otlers. Man is led to reproduction, by tle
most violent and imperious of lis inclinations. A man and a woman,
laving attained ripe age, well constituted, and surrounded witl tle
means of providing abundantly for all tleir wants, are able to raise many
more clildren tlan are necessary to replace tlemselves on tle scene
of tle world, and, if tleir career is not slortened by some unforeseen
accident, tley die surrounded witl a numerous family, wlicl continues
always increasing. Accordingly tle luman race, wlen circumstances
are favourable, multiplies very rapidly. !le United States of Nortl
America furnisl a proof of tlis, tleir wlole population doubling in
twenty years, and in some places in feen, and even in twelve years,
and, tlat too wlere tle emigration is almost notling, and witlout tle
fecundity of women being greater tlere tlan elsewlere. And it is also
s.:
to be remarked, on tle contrary tlat, wlatever be tle cause, cases of
longevity are rare in tlat country, so tlat tle mean duration of life
would be slorter tlere tlan in tle greater part of Europe, witlout tle
great number of infants wlo perisl nom want in tlis same Europe.
Here is an incontestable datum, on wlicl we can rest.
If tlis be so, wly tlen is population stationary, and sometimes
retrograde, in so many places, even very lealtly ones: Here we must
recollect tle distinction we lave already establisled, in tle tl Clap
ter, between our means of existence and our means of subsistence. !le
latter are tle alimentary matters witl wlicl we are nourisled, tley are
tle most necessary part of our means of existence, but tley are only
a part. By tlese last we are to understand, all wlicl contributes to
defend us against all tle dangers and all tle suerings of every kind,
tlus tley consist in all tle resources, wlatever, witl wlicl we are fur
nisled by tle arts and sciences, tlat is to say by tle entire mass of our
knowledge. !lis distinction, well understood, we may establisl as a
general tlesis, tlat population is always proportioned to tle means of
existence, and tlis single principle will give us an explanation of all tle
facts, and all tleir circumstances.
Amongst savages population is not only stationary, but little nu
merous, because tleir means of existence are very slender. Indepen
dently of tleir nequent want of subsistence, tley lave neitler tle
conveniences sucient, nor tle attentions necessary for raising tleir
clildren, accordingly tle greater part perisl. !ley neitler know low
to defend tlemselves against tle severity of tle seasons, nor tle in
salubrity of tle climate, nor against tle epidemics wlicl nequently
carry o tlreefourtls of a population. Having no sound ideas of tle
social state, wars are continual and destructive, vengeance atrocious,
tleir women and old men are ofen abandoned. !lus it is misfortune
and suering, amongst tlem, wlicl render tle fecundity of tle luman
species useless, and perlaps diminisles it.
Civilized people lave all tle resources wlicl are wanting to tle
otlers, accordingly tleir population becomes numerous sooner or later,
but we see it stops every wlere, wlen it las attained to tlat point, tlat
many men can no longer procure by tleir labour sucient wages to
raise tleir clildren, and conveniently take care of tlemselves. If in
general it is yet a little progressive, altlougl very slowly in tle actual
state of our old societies, it is because tle arts and sciences, and par
ticularly tle social science, being constantly cultivated tlere more or
s..
less perfectly, tleir progress is always adding nom time to time some
little facilities to tle means of living, and open some new vents to com
merce and industry. It is true tlat tlings proceed tlus, tlat wlen nom
some causes, natural or political, great sources of prot are diminisled
in a country, population immediately becomes retrograde, and, on tle
contrary, wlen it las been suddenly diminisled by great epidemics, or
cruel wars, witlout knowledge laving suered, it quickly regains its
level, because labour being more in demand, and better paid, tle poor
lave more means of preserving tleir clildren and tlemselves.
If nom tlese general observations we pass to particular facts, we
slall nd tle reason for tlem witl tle same ease. Let us take Russia
for tle rst example. I do not pretend to make eitler eulogy or satire
on tlis nation, wlicl I know not. But we may safely arm tlat it
is not more skillful tlan otler European nations, yet it is proved tlat
its population increases more rapidly tlan tlat of otler states of Eu
rope. It is because it las a great extent of land, wlicl as yet, laving
no masters, oers large means of existence to tlose wlo go or are car
ried tlitler. and if tlis immense advantage does not tlere produce a
multiplication of men as rapid as in tle United States, it is because its
social organization and its industry are far nom being as perfect. Fer
tile countries, all tlings otlerwise equal, are more peopled tlan tle
otlers, and easily repair tleir disasters, because tleir land furnisles
great means, tlat is to say tle labour applied to tle land is tlere nuit
ful. Accordingly, Lombardy and Belgium, so ofen ravaged, are always
ourisling. Poland lowever, wlicl is very fertile, las a small pop
ulation, and tlat stationary, because its inlabitants being serfs, and
wretcled, lave in tle midst of abundance very slender means of exis
tence. But suppose for a moment tle small number of men, to wlom
tlese serfs belong, and wlo devour tleir substance, driven nom tle
country, and tle land become tle property of tlose wlo cultivate it,
you would see tlem quickly become industrious, and multiply rapidly.
!wo otler countries, in general tolerably good, Westplalia and even
Switzerland, notwitlstanding tle latter las wiser laws, lave small pop
ulation tlrougl want of industry, wlile Geneva, Hamburgl, and all
Holland lave it in excess. On tle contrary, Spain, wlicl is a deli
cious country, las few inlabitants relatively to its extent. However it
las been proved, tlat for tle forty or f years, wlicl preceded tle
present unlappy war, its population sensibly increased, because tley
lad been able to nee its industry nom some of its fetters, and in some
s.
degree to increase tleir information. It is tlen well proved, tlat pop-
ulation is always proportioned to tle means of existence.
!lis trutl las been already avowed by many political writers, but
we see in tleir works, tlat tley lave not perceived all its extent. M. Say,
wlom I lave already cited, and wlom I may nequently cite, is I tlink
tle rst wlo las clearly said, in lis rst book, clap. 6, !lat notling
can increase population but wlat favours production, and tlat notling
can diminisl it, at least permanently, but wlat attacks tle sources
of production. And observe tlat by production M. Say understands
production of utility. It is even afer lim tlat I lave given tlis idea
of it. Now to produce in tlis sense, is clearly to add to our means
of existence, for wlatever is useful to us is a mean of providing for
our wants, and indeed notling merits tle name of useful, but for tlis
reason. !lus tle principle of M. Say is exactly tle same witl tlat
wlicl I lave establisled. Accordingly le draws nom it tlis very just
conclusion, tlat it is absurd to attempt to inuence population by direct
encouragements, by laws concerning marriages, by premiums granted
to numerous families, &c. &c. He justly laugls on tlis subject at tle
famous ordinances of Augustus, of Louis XIV. and of so many otler
legislators, so mucl boasted of. !lese are in eect very false measures,
wlicl could in no way augment population, and le added, very justly,
in my opinion, tlat tle smallest regulation lurtful to industry, made
by tlese princes could and must lave diminisled tle number of men.
I tlink absolutely tle same.
M. Maltlus goes mucl furtler still. He is, at least as far as I am
acquainted, of all tle autlors wlo lave written on population, tle one
wlo las treated tle subject tle most profoundly, and las developed all
its consequences. His work, singularly remarkable, slould be regarded
as tle last state of science on tlis important object, and le leaves al
most notling to be desired. M. Maltlus does not limit limself to
prove, tlat tlougl population is arrested at dierent degrees in dif
ferent countries, and according to dierent circumstances, it is always
and every wlere as great as it can be, laving regard to tle means of
existenceHe slows tlat always in civilised nations it is too great for
tle lappiness of man, because tlat men, and above all tle poor, wlo
every wlere constitute tle great number, urged by tle stimulus so
imperious to reproduction, always multiply imprudently and witlout
foresiglt, and plunge tlemselves into inevitable misery by a multipli
cation of tle men, wlo demand occupation, and to wlom none can
s.
be given. All le advances is founded not only on convincing reason
ing, but on tables of deatls, birtls, marriages, of tle mean duration
of life, and of tle total population collected in dierent countries and
discussed witl care.
I add tlis latter point as very necessary. for it is to be observed rst
tlat all tlese data not only are ofen inexact, but tlat even wlen exact,
tley require to be examined attentively, and compared tle one witl
tle otler, witl mucl sagacity, before consequences are drawn nom
tlem, witlout wlicl tley would lead to serious errors. Secondly, tlat
lowever imperfect tlese documents may be, tley exist but in few coun
tries, and witlin a slort time only, so tlat in political economy, as in
astronomy, we slould calculate very little on ancient and distant ob
servations. Even in France tle simple registers of mortality deserve
scarcely any condence before tle year scc, and none of tle otler
circumstances lave been collected. Also, in tle examples of popula
tion wlicl I lave above cited, I lave made no mention of wlat is told
respecting certain eastern countries, and of some nations ancient or of
tle middle age. If Clina, if Spain, in tle time of tle Romans, are or
were as populous as we are told, tlere must certainly lave been local
reasons for tle fact. But we lave no means of knowing it suciently
to see tle causes clearly, and to venture to draw consequences. It is tle
same case witl all tle parts of tle political and domestic economy of
tle ancients, founded almost solely on tle practice of slavery, and tle
prots or losses of war, and very little on tle nee and peaceful devel
opement of industry. It is an order of tlings entirely dierent nom our
modern societies. As to tle prodigious number of men wlicl some
autlors pretend to lave existed in Francefor example under Clarles
V. or under Clarles tle IX. in tle fourteentl and sixteentl centuries,
tlat is to say at times in wlicl industry was as unskilful and tle social
order as bad as we lave seen it in Poland tle eiglteentl centuryI
believe tle only answer to be made to tlese assertions is tlat wlicl I
lave opposed to tle marvellous union, wlicl is said to lave reigned at
Sparta.!lat is, tlat it is not true because it is not possible.
However it may be, all tlose wlo lave reected on tlese matters
agree, tlat population is always proportioned to tle means of existence.
M. Say concludes tlerenom, witl reason, tlat it is absurd to tlink it
possible to augment population otlerwise tlan by an augmentation of
tlese means, and Mr. Maltlus proves furtler, tlat it is barbarous to
endeavour to augment tlis population always too great, and tle excess of
s.6
wlicl is tle source of all miseries, and tlat, even in relation to power,
tle cliefs of nations lose by it. for since tley cannot continue in life
a greater number of men tlan tley can at tle same time subsist, by
multiplying birtls tley only multiply premature deatls, and augment
tle number of clildren in proportion to tlat of adults, wlicl produces
a weaker population, numbers being equal. The interest of men, under
every consideration, tlen is to diminisl tle eects of tleir fecundity.
I will say no more on tle subject, wlicl is but too clear of itself, and
wlicl nevertleless las given occasion to sucl false opinions, before it
was tlorouglly explained. We leave tlem for time to destroy.
s.
CHAPTER X
Consequences and developments of the two preceding
chapters.
Lr: us always return to tle point of departure. An animated being,
and especially man, is endowed witl sensibility and activity,
*
witl pas
sion and action, tlat is to say witl wants and means. Wlile we were
considering tle manner in wlicl our ricles are formed, we miglt be
clarmed witl our power and tle extent of our means, in fact tlese are
sucient to render tle species prosperous, and give it a great augmen
tation, botl in number and in force. A man and woman, inept and
scarcely formed, miglt end by covering tle wlole eartl witl a numer
ous and industrious population. !lis picture is very satisfactory, but
it clanges essentially its colour, wlen, nom tle examination of tle
formation of our ricles, we pass to tlat of tleir distribution amongst
tle dierent individuals. !lere we every wlere nd tle superiority
of wants over means, tle weakness of tle individual, and lis inevitable
suerings. But tlis second aspect of tle same object ouglt neitler to
disgust nor discourage us. We are tlus formedsucl is our nature,
we must submit, and make tle most we can of it by a skilful use of all
our means, and by avoiding tle faults wlicl aggravate our evils.
!le two clapters wlicl we lave just read, altlougl very slort,
embrace important facts, and, joined to prior explanations, give notions
suciently certain on our true interests. It only remains to prot of
tlem.
We lave seen, tlat we must be satised to permit an opposition of
interests, and an inequality of means to exist among us, and tlat tle
best we can do is to leave to every one tle neest employment of lis fac
ulties, and to favour tleir entire development. We lave moreover seen
tlat tlis employment and development of faculties, altlougl proting
unequally tle dierent individuals, succeeded, in conducting all to tle
*
We miglt say witl nerves and muscles, for it goes to tlat.
s.
liglest state of wellbeing possible, so long as space, tle greatest of
all resources, was not wanting, and tlat wlen all tle land is occupied,
otler subsidiary resources suced to support for a long time a ligl
state of general prosperity.
We lave also seen tlat, laving once arrived to tle period of being
crowded and constrained, it is inevitable tlat tlose wlo lave tle small
est means will be able to procure by tle employment of tlese means,
but a bare satisfaction of tleir most urgent wants.
We lave nally seen tlat, tle multiplication of men continuing in
all tle classes of society, tle superuity of tle rst las been successively
cast into tle inferior classes, and tlat tlat of tle last laving no longer
any resource, las been necessarily destroyed by wretcledness. It is tlis
wlicl causes tle stationary and even retrograde state of population,
wlerever it is found, in spite of tle great fecundity of tle species.
!lis latter fact, population nearly stationary in all nations arrived
to a certain degree of development, was for a long time scarcely re
marked, because it is but lately, tlat we lave begun to occupy ourselves
witl some success on social economy. It las ever been concealed by
political commotions, wlicl lave produced disturbers of it, and las
been disguised by tle unfaitlful or insucient monuments of listory,
wlicl lave autlorized mistakes. Finally, wlen it las been suciently
observed and establisled, it las been witl diculty attributed to tle
real cause, because tley lad not an idea suciently clear of tle progress
of society, and of tle manner in wlicl its ricles and power are formed.
At tlis day, it appears to me we are able to put all tlis beyond a doubt.
Let us recollect tlat society is divided into two great classes, tlat of
men, wlo, witlout laving any tling in advance, work for wagesand
tlat of men wlo employ tlem. !lis granted, it is evident tlat tle
rsttaken in masslive, daily and yearly, only on wlat tle totality
of tle second las to distribute to tlem every day and every year. Now
tlis latter class is of two kinds. tle one lives on tleir revenue, witlout
labour.
!lese are tle lenders of money, tle lessors of lands and louses
and in a word tle annuitants of every kind. It is very clear tlat tlese
men, in tle long run, cannot give more in a year to tlose tley em
ploy tlan tle amount of tleir revenue, or tley would encroacl on
tleir funds. !lere is always a certain number wlo use tlem tlus, and
wlo ruin tlemselves. !leir consumption diminisles or ceases, but
it is replaced by tlose wlo become enricled, and tle total continues
s.o
tle same. !lis is but a clange of lands, of wlicl even tle ordinary
quantity may be nearly estimated in tle dierent countries. !lese
men, taken in mass, make no prot, tlus tle sum total of tleir rev
enue, wlicl is divided amongst tle lired, is a constant quantity. If it
makes some insensible progress, it can only be by tle slow improve
ment in agriculture, wlicl, by rendering land a little more productive,
furnisles ground for a small augmentation of rents. For as to tle lire
of tleir money lent, it does not vary. If ever it did augment by a rise
in tle rate of interest, it would be an evil wlicl, iuring many en
terprizes, would diminisl mucl more tle faculties of tle second class,
wlo feed tlose wlo work for wages.
!lis second kind of persons is composed of tlose wlo join to tle
product of tleir capital, tlat of tleir personal activity, tlat is to say
tle undertakers of any kind of industry wlatsoever. It will be said
tlat tlese make prots, and augment tleir means annually, but, rst,
tlis is not true of all. Many of tlem manage tleir aairs badly, and
go to decay instead of tlriving. Secondly, tlose wlo prosper, cease
to labour afer a certain time, and go to till tle void wlicl is daily
produced in tle class of tlose wlo live witlout doing any tling, by
tle fall of spendtlrifs witldrawing nom it in consequence of lav
ing badly managed tleir fortunes. !lirdly, in ne, and tlis is de
cisive, tlis class of undertakers las necessary limits, beyond wlicl it
cannot go. !o form any enterprize wlatever, it is not sucient to
lave tle desire and means. it is necessary to be able to dispose of tle
products in an advantageous manner, wlicl more tlan denays tle ex
penses tley cost. Wlen once all protable employments are lled, no
new ones can be created, unless otlers fall, at least unless some new
vents are opened. !lis second fund for tle support of tle lired class
is also, tlen, in our ancient societies, a quantity nearly constant like
tle rst.
!lings being tlus, we see clearly wly tle number of lired does not
augment, wlen tle funds wlicl miglt provide for tleir support, cease
to increase. It is because all wlo are born beyond tle requisite number
perisl tlrougl want of tle means of existence. !lis is very easy to
be conceived. We even comprelend tlat it is impossible for it to be
otlerwise, for every one knows tlat if four persons are daily to divide a
loaf of bread, barely sucient for two, tle weaker will perisl, and tle
stronger will subsist only because tley quickly inlerit tle portion of
tle otlers.
sc
If we furtler observe, tlat wlen tle men wlo live solely on tleir
revenues multiply so mucl tlat tlis revenue suces for tlemno longer,
tley return into tle class of tlose wlo join tleir labour to tle product
of tleir funds, tlat is to say of tlose wlom we lave called undertak
ersand tlat wlen tlese, in tleir turn, become too numerous, many
are received and link into tle class of lirelings, we slall see tlat tlis
latter class receives as we may say tle too great plenitude of all tle
otlers, and tlat, consequently, tle limits beyond wlicl it cannot go
are tlose of tle total production.
!lis single point, well elucidated, gives us an explanation of all
tle plenomena relative to population. It slows wly it is retrograde in
one country, stationary in anotler, wlile it is rapidly progressive in a
tlird, wly it is arrested sometimes sooner sometimes later, according
to tle degree of intelligence and of activity of dierent people, and
tle nature of tleir governments, wly it is quickly reestablisled afer
great calamities of a transient nature, wlen tle means of existence lave
not been destroyed, wly, on tle contrary, witlout any violent slock, it
sometimes languisles and perisles gradually, nom causes dicult to be
perceived, nom tle single clange of a circumstance little remarkable.
In a word, it gives us tle solution of all tle questions of tlis kind, and
moreover furnisles us witl tle means of drawing tlerenom an innity
of important consequences. I am only embarrassed witl tleir number,
and tle cloice of tlose wlicl I ouglt to notice.
I will commence by remarking, witl satisfaction, tlat lumanity,
justice and policy, equally require tlat of all interests, tlose of tle
poor slould always be tle most consulted, and tle most constantly
respected, and by tle poor I mean simple lirelings, and every wlere
tlose wlose labour is worst paid.
First, lumanity. for we slould observe, tlat wlen it respects tle
poor, tle word interest las quite a dierent degree of energy, nom
wlat it las wlen men are spoken of wlose wants are less urgent, and
sometimes even imaginary. We every day say, tlat tle interests of
one minister are contrary to tlose of anotler, tlat sucl a body las
interests opposed to tlose of anotler body, tlat it is tle interest of
certain undertakers, tlat tle raw material slould sell ligl, and tle
interest of some otlers to buy tlem low. And we ofen espouse tlese
motives witl warmtl as if tley were wortl tle trouble. Yet tlis means
no more tlan tlat some men believe, and ofen erroneously, tlat tley
lave a little more or a little less eoyment under some circumstances
ss
tlan under otlers. !le poor, in lis small splere, las, assuredly, also
interests of tlis kind, but tley disappear before greater ones, we only
do not perceive tlemand, wlen we attend to lim, tle question is
almost always on tle possibility of lis existence or tle necessity of lis
destruction, tlat is to say of lis life or lis deatl. Humanity does not
permit interests of tlis kind to be placed in tle balance witl simple
conveniences.
Justice is equally opposed to it, and, moreover, it obliges us to take
into consideration tle number of tlose interested. Now, as tle lowest
class of society is every wlere mucl tle most numerous, it follows,
tlat wlenever it is in opposition witl otlers, wlat is useful to it, ouglt
always to le preferred.
Policy leads us to tle same result. for it is well agreed, tlat it is
useful to a nation to be numerous and powerful. Now it las just been
proved, tlat tle extent to wlicl tle lower class can go, is tlat wlicl
determines tle limits of tle total population, and it is not less so by
tle experience of all ages and countries, tlat wlerever tlis lowest class
is too wretcled, tlere is neitler activity, nor industry, nor knowledge,
nor real national forceand we may even say, nor interior tranquility
well establisled.
!lis granted, let us examine wlat are tle real interests of tle
poor, and we slall nd tlat, eectually, tley are always conformable
to reason and tle general interest. If tley lad always been studied
in tlis spirit, we slould lave acquired sounder ideas of social order,
and we would not lave eternized warsometimes secret, sometimes
declaredwlicl las always existed between tle poor and tle ricl.
Prejudices produce diculties, reason resolves tlem.
We lave already seen, tlat tle poor are as mucl interested in tle
maintenance of tle riglt of property as tle most opulent. for tle lit
tle tley possess is every tling for tlem, and of consequence innitely
precious in tleir eyes, and tley are sure of notling, but so far as prop
erty is respected. !ley lave still anotler reason for wisling it, it is
tlat tle funds on wlicl tley live, tle sum of tle capitals of tlose
wlo employ tlem, is considerably diminisled wlen property is not
assured. !lus tley lave a direct interest, not only in tle preservation
of wlat tley possess, but also in tle preservation of wlat is possessed
by otlers. Accordinglynotwitlstanding tlat nom tle fatal eects
of misery, of bad education, of tle want of delicacy, and of a sense
of iusticeit would perlaps be true to say, tlat it is in tle lowest
s:
class tlat most crimes are committed
*
it is, lowever, also true, tlat it
is tlis class wlicl las tle liglest idea of tle riglt of property, and
in wlicl tle name of tlief is tle most odious. But wlen you speak
of property, comprelend under tlis term, as tle poor do, personal
property, as well as tlat wlicl is moveable and immoveable. !le rst
is even tle most sacred, since it is tle source of tle otlers. Respect
tlat, in tlem, as you wisl tley slould respect, in you, tlose wlicl
are derived nom it, leave to lim tle nee disposition of lis faculties,
and of tleir employment, as you wisl lim to leave to you tlat of your
lands and capitals. !lis rule is as politic, as it is just and unattended
to.
Afer tle nee disposition of lis labour, tle greatest interest of tle
poor man is tlat tlis labour slould be dearly paid. Against tlis I lear
violent outcries. All tle superior classes of societyand in tlis view
I even comprelend tle smallest clief of a workslopdesire tlat tle
wages slould be very low, in order tlat tley may procure more labour
for tle same sum of money, and tley desire it witl so mucl fury, tlat
wlen tley can, and tle laws permit tlem, tley employ even violence to
attain tlis end,and tley prefer tle labour of slaves, or serfs, because
it is still at a lower rate. !lese men do not fail to say, and persuade,
tlat wlat tley tlink is tleir interest, is tle general interest, and tlat
tle low price of wages is absolutely necessary to tle development of
industry, to tle extension of manufactures and commerce,in a word,
to tle property of tle state. Let us see low mucl trutl tlere is in
tlese observations.
I know it would be disagreeable tlat tle price of workmanslip
slould le so dear as to render it economical to draw nom abroad all
transportable tlings. for tlen tlose engaged in tleir fabrication would
suer, and would become extinct, it would be a foreign population
wlicl tle consumers would pay, and support, instead of a national
one. But, rst, tlis degree of dearness would be no longer for tle in
terest of tle poor, since, instead of being well paid, tley would want
employment, and, moreover, it is impossible, or at least it could not
continue, because, on one part, tle lirelings would lower tleir pre
tentions so soon as tley found tlemselves out of employ, and, on tle
otler, if tle price of a dayss work still remained so ligl as to aord
*
!lis is very doubtful, if we take into consideration tle dierence in tle number
of individuals.
s.
tlem a great degree of ease, tley would soon multiply suciently to
be obliged to oer tleir labour at a lower rate. I add tlat if nevertle
less tle price of workmanslip slould still remain too ligl, it would
no longer be to tle scarcity of workmen tlat it ouglt to be attributed,
but to unskilfulness and bad workmanslip, and tlen it would be tle
unskilfulness, ignorance, and laziness, of men wlicl ouglt to le com
bated. !lese are eectually tle true causes of tle languor of industry,
wlerever it is remarked.
But wlere are tlese sad causes met witl: Is it not always and uni
formly tlere wlere tle lowest class of tle people is most miserable:
!lis furnisles me newarms against tlose wlo believe it to be so useful,
tlat labour slould be badly paid. I maintain tlat tleir avidity blinds
tlem. Do you wisl to assure yourselves of it: Compare tle two ex
tremes, St. Domingo and tle United States, or, ratler, it you wisl ob
jects nearer togetler, compare in tle United States, tle nortlern witl
tlose of tle soutl. !le rst furnisl only very common articles, work
manslip is tlere at a rate tlat may be called excessiveyet tley are full
of vigour and prosperity, wlile tle otlers remain in languor and stag
nation, altlougl tley are adapted to productions tle most precious,
and tlat tley employ tle species of labourers tle worst paidnamely
slaves.
Wlat tlis example particularly demonstrates we see in all times,
and in all places, wlerever tle lowest class of society is too wretcled,
its extreme misery, and its abjectnesswlicl is a consequence of itis
tle deatl of industry, and tle principle of innite evils, even to its op
pressors. !le existence of slavery among ancient nations slould be
regarded as tle source of tleir principal errors in economy, morality
and politics, and tle rst cause of tleir continual uctuation between
anarcly, turbulent, and ofen ferocious or an atrocious tyranny. !le
slavery of tle negroes, or aborigines in our colonies, wlicl lad so
many means of prosperity, is equally tle cause of tleir languor, tleir
weakness, and tle gross vices of tleir inlabitants. !le slavery of serfs
of tle soil, wlerever it las existed, las equally prevented tle develop
ment of all industry, of all sociability, and of all political strengtl, and
even in our own days, it las reduced Poland to sucl a state of weak
ness, tlat an immense nation existed for a long time only tlrougl
tle jealousy of its neiglbors, and las ended by seeing its territory di
vided as easily as a private patrimony, so soon as tle pretenders to it
lave come to an agreement among tlemselves. If nom tlese extreme
s
caseswitlout attending to tle fury of tle rabble in France, or to tle
excesses of Joln of Leyden and lis peasants in Germanywe come to
tle calamities caused by tle populace of Holland, excited by tle louse
of Orange, to tle disquietudes arriving nom tle lazzarone of Naples,
tle transtiberians of Rome, and, in ne, to tle embarrassments wlicl
even at tlis moment are caused in England, by tle enormity of tle
poor tax, and tle immensity of its wretcled population, wlicl notl
ing but punislments can restrain, I tlink all mankind will agree tlat
wlen a considerable portion of society is in a state of too great suer
ing, and consequently too mucl brutalized, tlere is neitler repose nor
safety, nor liberty, possible even for tle powerful and ricl, and tlat,
on tle contrary, tlese rst citizens of a state are really mucl greater,
and lappier, wlen tley are at tle lead of a people eoying lonest
ease, wlicl developes in tlem all tleir intellectual and moral faculties.
On tle wlole, I do not pretend to conclude, tlat tle poor ouglt
to employ violence, to x tle price wlicl tley may demand for tleir
labour. We lave seen tlat tleir rst interest is a respect for property,
but I repeat tlat tle ricl ouglt no more to x tlis price autloritatively,
tlat it ouglt to leave to tlem tle most nee and entire disposition of
tleir slender means. And lere justice also pronounces in tleir favour,
and I add, tlat tley ouglt to rejoice if tle employment of tleir means
procure tlem an lonest ease, for policy proves tlat it is tle general
good.
Observe, also, tlat if it is just and useful to allow every man to dis
pose of lis labour, it is equally soand for tle same reasonsto allow
lim to cloose lis residence. !le one is a consequence of tle otler.
I know notling more odious, tlan to prevent a man nom emigrating
nom lis country, wlo is tlere so wretcled as to wisl to quit it, in spite
of all tle sentiments of nature, and tle wlole force of labits, wlicl
bind lim to it. It is moreover absurd. for since it is clearly proved, tlere
are always in every country as many men as can exist in it under tle
given circumstances, le wlo goes away only yields lis place to anotler
wlo would lave perisled if le lad remained. !o wisl tlat le slould
remain, is as if two men being inclosed in a box, witl air but for one,
it slould be wisled tlat one or botl slould be smotlered, ratler tlan
suer eitler one or tle otler to go out. Emigration, far nom being an
evil, is never a sucient succour, it is always too painful to resolve on
it for it to become in any degree considerable, tle vexations must be
nigltful, and even tlen tle void it operates, is quickly lled, as tlat
s
wlicl results nom great epidemics. In tlese unlappy cases, it is tle
suerings of men tlat ouglt to be regretted, and not tle diminution
of tleir number.
As to immigration I say notling. It is always useless, and even
lurtful, unless it be tlat of some men wlo bring new knowledge. But
tlen it is tleir knowledge, and not tleir persons, tlat is precious,
and sucl are never very numerous. We may witlout iustice prolibit
immigration, and it is tlis precisely of wlicl governments lave never
tlouglt. It is true tley lave still more rarely furnisled many motives
for desiring it.
Afer sucient wageswlicl is of rst importance to tle poor
tle next is, tlat tlese wages slould be constant. In fact it is not a mo
mentary augmentation, or accidental increase, of lis prots wlicl can
ameliorate lis situation. Improvidence is one and perlaps tle greatest
of lis evils. An extravagant consumption always destroys quickly tlis
extraordinary surplus of means, or an indiscreet multiplication divides
it among too many. Wlen tlen tlis surplus ceases, tlose wlo lived
on it perisl, or tlose wlo eoyed it must restrict tlemselves, and in
tle latter case it is never tle consumptions least useful wlicl cease
rst, because tlese are tle most seducing. !len misery recommences
in all its lorrors, witl a greater degree of intensity. !lus we may say,
in general terms, tlat notling wlicl is transient is really useful to tle
poor, in tlis also le las tle same interests as tle social body.
!lis trutl excludes many false political combinations, particularly
if we join witl it tlis otler maxim equally truetlat notling forced
is durable. It teacles us, also, tlat it is essential to tle lappiness of
tle mass of a nation, tlat tle price of provisions of tle rst necessity
slould vary tle least possible. for it is not tle price of wages in itself
tlat is important, it is tleir price compared witl tlat of tle tlings
necessary for life. If for two sous I can buy bread sucient for tle
day, I am better nourisled tlan if I were to receive ten sous, wlen
twelve would be necessary to complete my daily ration. Now we lave
before slewn (Clap. tl. and elsewlere) tlat tle rate of tle lowest
wages is regulated, and cannot fail of being regulated in tle long run,
by tle price of tle tlings necessary to existence. If tle price of neces
saries suddenly abates, lirelings witlout doubt prot momentarily, but
witlout durable utility to tlem, as we lave just said. !lis, tlen, is not
desirable. If, on tle contrary, tlis price augments, it is mucl worse,
and tle evils wlicl result aggravate eacl otler. First, le wlo las
s6
notling more tlan wlat is necessarylas notling to sparetlus all
tle poor are in distress. but, moreover, in consequence of tlis distress,
tley make extraordinary eorts, tley are more urgent to be employed,
or in otler words, tley oer more labour. Otler persons wlo lived
witlout labour, lave need of tlis resourcetlere is no employment
for tlem. !ley are lurtful to one anotler by tlis concurrence. !lis
occasion is taken to pay tlem less, wlen tley lave need of being bet
ter paid. Accordingly, constant experience proves tlat in times of want
wages fall, because tlere are more workmen tlan can be employed, and
tlis continues till a return of abundance, or till tley perisl.
It is tlen desirable tlat tle price of commodities, and above all
tlat of tle most important, slould be invariable. Wlen we slall come
to speak of legislation, we slall seetlat tle mean of making tlis
price as little variable as possible, is to leave tle most entire liberty to
commerce, because tle activity of speculators, and tleir competition,
makes tlem eager to take advantage of tle smallest fall to buy, and
tle smallest rise to sell again, and tlus tley prevent eitler tle one
or tle otler nom becoming excessive. !lis metlod is also tle most
conformable witl a respect for property, for tle just and tle useful are
always united. For tle present let us limit ourselves to our conclusion,
and extend it to otler objects.
Sudden variations, in certain parts of industry and commerce, oc
casiontlougl in a manner less generaltle same eect as variations
in tle price of commodities. Wlen any brancl of industry wlatever
takes suddenly a rapid increase, tlere is a greater demand for labour
tlan in ordinary.a prot lere results to tle labourers, and tley use
it as all otler momentary prots, tlat is to say badly. But aferwards
slould tlis industry be relaxed or extinguisled, distress arrives, every
one must seek resources. In trutl tlere are many more in tlis case tlan
in tlat of a dearness, wlicl is a universal misfortune. !le unoccupied
workmen lere may go elsewlere. But men are not abstract and insen
sible beings. !leir removals are not made witlout suerings, witlout
anguisl, witlout breaking up imperious labits. A workman is never
so adapted to tle business le seeks as to tlat wlicl le is forced to
quit. Besides le is tlere superuousle produces repletion, and con
sequently a depression of tle ordinary wages. !lus every one suers.
!lis is tle great unlappiness of nations predominating in commerce,
and tle inconvenience of an exaggerated development of industry, a
development wlicl nom being exaggerated is subject to vicissitudes,
s
it is wlat at least slould prove, tlat it is very imprudent for a political
society to seek to procure a factitious prosperity by forced means. It
can but be nagile, it is eoyed witlout lappiness, and is never lost
witlout extreme evils.
It las been remarked tlat nations essentially agricultural are less
subject to suer nom tlese sudden revolutions of industry and com
merce, in consequence, tle stability of tleir prosperity las been greatly
vaunted, and to a certain point witl reason. But I tlink it las not been
suciently remarked, tlat tley are more exposed tlan commercial na
tions to tle most cruel of all variations, tlat of tle price of grain. it
seems tlat tlis ouglt not to be, and yet it is, it is even easy to nd tle
reason. A people devoted to agriculture are spread over a vast territory.
!lis territory is eitler entirely inland, or if it borders on some sides
on tle sea, it las necessarily a great portion of its extent deeply inland.
Wlen tle crops fail tleir succours can only be carried by land, or by
ascending rivers, a kind of navigation, always very expensive and ofen
impossible. Now as grain and otler alimentary matters, are articles of
great burtlen, it lappens tlat wlen tley are brouglt to tle place in
wlicl tley are wanted, tleir price nom tle expenses of transporta
tion, is so ligl, tlat scarcely any one can purclase, accordingly it is
known nom experience tlat all importations of tlis kind in times of
calamity, lave merely served to console and calm tle imagination, but
lave never been real resources. tle poor tlen must absolutely restrict
lis consumption so as to suer greatly, and tle most destitute must
perisl. !lere is no otler mean of preventing tle wlole nom perisl
ing, wlen tle deartl is very great. It is in tlis case tlat in a besieged
town, all tle useless moutls if possible are sent away. It is tle same
calculation. !le defence would still be prolonged, if tley dared to
rid tlemselves of all tle defenders wlo are not indispensable, but tle
consumption of war operates tleir destruction. and it is perlaps tlis
cruelbut wise combination, wlicl determines tle otlerwise useless
sorties, made by, certain governors near tle end of a siegesorties very
dierent nom tlose made at its commencement, in mere bravado.
Men would greatly augment tle security of tleir existence, and tle
possibility of tleir occupying certain countries, if tley could reduce
alimentary matters to small bulk, and consequently to easy transporta
tion. In trutl, tley would immediately abuse tlis faculty, to iure
tlemselves, as Sleplerd tribes avail tlemselves of tle facility of trans
portation produced by tle celerity of tleir beasts of burden, to become
s
brigands. for notling is so dangerous as a transportable man. We lave
only to observe tle enormous advantage wlicl temperance gives to
armies in invasions. !lis is tle power of tle species badly employed,
but in slort it is its powerand it is tlis power wlicl, in case of
deartl, is wanting to agricultural and peaceful nations, spread over a
vast territory.
Commercial nations, on tle contrary, are eitler insular, or ex
tended along tle coasts of tle sea. Accessible every wlere, tley may
receive succour nom all countries. In order tlat dearness slould be
come excessive in tlese nations, for tle price to become excessive witl
tlese people, tle crops must lave failed in all tle labitable globe.
Even tlen it would only rise to tle mean rate of general dearness, and
never to tle extreme rate of tle local dearness of tle inland countries
most destitute. !lese nations, tlen, are exempt nom tle greatest of
disasters, and, as to tle less general evils resulting nom tle revolu
tions wlicl take place in some brancles of industry and commerce, I
observe tlat tley are rarely exposed to tlem if tley lave lef to tlis
industry and to tlis commerce tleir natural courseand if tley lave
not employed violent means to give tlem an exaggerated extension. I
conclude, not only tlat tleir condition is better, but also tlat tleir
misfortunes are produced by tleir faults, wlilst tlose of tle otlers
proceed nom tleir position, and tlat tlus tley lave more means of
avoiding tlese misfortunes. We were necessarily led to tlis result, and
ouglt to lave seen it in advance. for since societywlicl is a contin
ual commerceis tle cause of our power and of our own resources, it
would be contradictory, tlat wlere tlis commerce is tle most perfect,
and most active, we slould be more accessible to misfortune.
If, tlerefore, it were proved tlat tle prosperity of commercial na
tions was less solid, and less durable, (a fact I do not believe true, at
least amongst moderns)
*
it would be necessary, rst, to distinguisl be
tween lappiness and powerand to remark, tlat in tle calamities of
wlicl we lave just spokentle lappiness of individuals in agricul
tural nations is mucl at lazard, but tleir power subsists, because tle
loss of men, wlo perisl in deartl, is quickly repaired by new birtls
wlen it ceasestle labitual means of existence, not laving been de
*
!le examples of tle ancients prove notling, because tleir political economy was
entirely founded on force. !le inland people were brigands, tle maritime people
pirates.All wisled to be conquerors. !len clance determines tle destiny of a
nation.
so
stroyed, wlereas in a commercial nation, wlen a brancl of industry is
annililated, it is sometimes annililated witlout return, and witlout a
possibility of being replaced by anotler, so tlat tlat part of tle popu
lation wlicl it brings to ruin cannot be again restored. But, as we lave
said, tlis latter case is rare, wlen not provoked by faults. If, indepen
dently of tlis, it were proved tlat tle prosperity of commercial nations
is nail, in proportion to tle internal vices to wlicl tley are subject, it
would not be proper to impute it to commerce itself, but to accidental
causesand principally to tle manner in wlicl ricles are nequently
introduced into tlese states, wlicl favours extremely tleir very un
equal distribution, and tlis is tle greatest and most general of evils.
On examination, we slould nd tlere, as every wlere, tle luman race
lappy nom tle development and increase of its means, but ready to
become unlappy nom tle bad use it makes of tlem. !le discussion
of tlis question, in all its extent, will nd its place elsewlere.
However, it maybe, it is tlen certain tlat tle poor are proprietors
as well as tle ricl, tlat in tleir quality of proprietors of tleir persons,
of tleir faculties, and of tleir product, tley lave an interest in being al
lowed tle nee disposition of tleir persons and labour, tlat tlis labour
slould produce tlem sucient wages, and tlat tlese wages slould
vary as little as possible, tlat is to say tley lave an interest tlat tleir
capital slould be respected, tlat tlis capital slould produce tle rev
enue necessary for existence, and tlat tlis revenue if possible slould
be always tle same, and in all tlese points tleir interests conform to
tle general interest.
But tle poor is not only a proprietor, le is also a consumer. for
all men are botl tle one and tle otler. In tlis latter quality le las
tle same interest as all consumers, tlat of being provisioned in tle
best and cleapest manner possible. It is necessary tlen for lim, tlat
manufacture slould be very expert, communications easy, and relations
multiplied, for no one las a greater need of being supplied on good
terms tlan le wlo las few means.
Wlat must be tlouglt tlen of tlose wlo maintain tlat amelio
rations of tle metlods and tle invention of maclines, wlicl simplif
and abridge tle processes of art, are an evil for tle poor: My answer is
tlat tley lave no idea of tleir real interest, nor of tlose of society. For
one must be blind not to see tlat wlen a tling wlicl required four
days labour can be made in one, every one for tle same sum can procure
four times as mucl, or, consuming only tle same quantity, may lave
sc
tlreefourtls of lis money remaining to be employed in procuring
otler eoymentsand certainly tlis advantage is still more precious
to tle poor tlan to tle ricl. But, say tley, tle poor gained tlese four
days labourand now le will gain but one. But, say I, in my turn, you
forget tlen tlat tle funds on wlicl all tle lirelings live are tle sum
of tle means of tlose wlo employ tlem, tlat tlis sum is a quantity
nearly constant, tlat it is always employed annually, tlat if a particular
object absorbs a smaller part of it, tle surplus, wlicl is economised,
seeks otler destinations, and tlat tlus, wlile it is not diminisled, it
lires an equal number of labourersand tlat moreover, if tlere is a
mean of augmenting it, it is by rendering fabrication more economical,
because tlis is tle mean of opening new vents, and of giving possibility
to new enterprises of industrywlicl are as we lave seen, tle only
sources of tle increase of our ricles. !lese reasons appear to me de
cisive. If tle contrary reasons were valid, we slould lave to conclude
tlat notling is more benecial, tlan tle execution of useless labour,
because tlere is always tle same number of persons occupied, and tlat
tlere would not remain fewer for tle execution of tle same quantity
of necessary labour. I grant tlis second point. But, rst, tlis useless
labour would be paid witl funds wlicl would otlerwise lave paid for
useful labour and wlicl will not pay ittlus notling is gained on tlis
side. Secondly, nom tlis unnuitful labour notling remains, and, if
it lad been nuitful, tlere would lave remained nom it useful tlings
for procuring eoyments, or capable, by being exported, to augment
tle mass of acquired ricles. It appears to me tlat notling can be an
swered to tlis, wlen we lave once clearly seen on wlat funds lirelings
live. !lis series of combinations will occur wlen we slall speak of
tle employment of our ricles. It is for tlis I lave developed it. For
so mucl reasoning appears unnecessary to prove tlat labour acknowl
edged useless is useless, and tlat it is more useful to execute useful
labour. Now to tlis single trutl is reduced tle apology for maclines
and otler improvements.
!ley lave made against tle construction of roads and canals, and
generally against tle facility of communications, and tle multiplicity of
commercial relations tle same objections as tlose I lave just refuted.
I give tlem tle same answer. It las moreover been pretended tlat
all tlis is in anotler way lurtful to tle poor, by raising tle price of
provisions. !le trutl is, tlat it raises tleir price at times wlen tley
are too low nom tle diculty of exporting tlem, but it reduces tleir
ss
price, wlen too ligl nom tle diculty of importing tlem. !lus
it renders tle prices more constantly equal, and I conclude, on tle
principles we lave establisled, tlat it is a great benet to tle poor and
to society in general.
I admit, lowever, tlat all tlese innovations, advantageous in tlem
selves, may sometimes produce at rst a momentary and partial re
straintit is tle eect of all sudden clanges, but, as tle utility of tlese
is general and durable, tlis consideration ouglt not to retard tlem. It
is only requisite tlat society slould give succour to tlose wlo suer
for tle moment, and tlis it can easily do, wlen it is prospering in tle
mass.
It is tlen true tlat notwitlstanding tle necessary opposition of
our particular interests, we are all united by tle common interests of
proprietors and consumers, and, consequently, it is wrong to regard tle
poor and tle ricl, or tle lirelings and tlose wlo employ tlem, as two
classes essentially enemies. It is particularly true, tlat tle real interests
of tle poor are always tle same as tlose of tle society taken in mass.
I do not pretend to say tlat tle poor always know tleir real interests.
Wlo is le tlat always las just ideas on tlese matters, even amongst
tle enligltened: But, in ne, it is mucl tlat tlings are tlus, and it is
a good tling to know it. !le greatest diculty, in impressing tlis, is,
perlaps, to be able clearly to point out tle cause. !lis I tlink we lave
now done. Arriving at tlis result, we lave examined by tle way several
questions, wlicl, witlout diverting us nom our road, lave retarded
our marcl. Yet I lave not tlouglt it riglt to pass tlem by witlout
notice, because, in tlings of tlis kind, all tle objects are so intimately
linked togetler tlat tlere is no one wlicl, being well cleared up, does
not tlrow great liglt on all tle otlers.
But we are not only opposed in interests, we are also unequal in
means. !lis second condition of our nature deserves also to be stud
ied in its consequences, witlout wlicl we cannot completely know tle
eects of tle distribution of our ricles among dierent in individuals,
and we slall but imperfectly know wlat we ouglt to tlink of tle ad
vantages and inconveniences of tle increase of tlese same ricles, by
tle eect of society. Let us at rst establisl some general trutls.
Declaimers lave maintained tlat inequality in general is useful, and
tlat it is a benet for wlicl we ouglt to tlank Providence. I lave but
one word to answer. Amongst sensible beings, nequently witl opposite
interests, justice is tle greatest good. for tlat alone can so conciliate
s:
tlem, tlat none may lave cause of complaint. !len inequality is an
evil not because it is in itself iustice, but because it is a powerful prop
to iustice wlerever justice is in favour of tle weak.
Every inequality of means, and of faculties, is at bottom an inequal
ity of power. However, wlen we enter into detail, we can and ouglt
to distinguisl between tle inequality of power, properly so called, and
tle inequality of ricles.
!le rst is tle most grievousit submits tle person itself. It exists
in all its lorror among brutal and savage menwitl tlem it places tle
weak at tle mercy of tle strong. It is tle cause wly among tlem tlere
are tle fewest relations possible, for it would become insupportable. If
it las not been always remarked among tlem, it is because scarcely ever
accompanied by an inequality of ricles, wlicl is wlat strikes us most
forcibly, laving it always under our eyes.
!le object of tle social organization is to combat tle inequality of
power, and most nequently it causes it to cease, or at least diminisles
it. Men slocked witl tle abuses still prevalent in society, lave pre
tended tlat, on tle contrary, it augments tlis inequality, and it must
be confessed, tlat wlen it totally loses siglt of its destination it justies
tle reproacles of its bitterest detractors. For example wleresoever it
continues slavery, properly so called, it is certain tlat savage indepen
dence, witl all its dangers is still preferable. But it must be admitted
nevertleless tlat tlis is not tle object of society, and tlat it tends,
most nequently witl success, to diminisl tle inequality of power.
By diminisling tle inequality of power, and tlus establisling secu
rity, society produces tle development of all our faculties, and increases
our ricles, tlat is to say our means of existence and eoyment. But
tle more our faculties are developed, tle more tleir inequality appears
and augments, and tlis soon introduces tle inequality of ricles, wlicl
brings witl it tlat of instruction, capacity and of inuence. Here, in
a word, as appears to me, are tle advantages and inconveniences of so
ciety. !lis view slows us wlat we lave a riglt to expect nom it, and
wlat we ouglt to do to perfect it.
Since tle object of society is to diminisl tle inequality of power,
it ouglt to aim at its accomplislment, and since its inconvenience is
to favour tle inequality of ricles, it ouglt constantly to endeavour to
lessen italways by gentle, and never by violent, means. for it slould
always be remembered, tlat tle fundamental base of society is a respect
for property, and its guarantee against all violence.
s.
But it will be asked, wlen inequality is reduced entirely to an in
equality of ricles, is it still so great an evil: I answer, boldly, yes.
For, rst, bringing witl it an inequality of instruction, of capacity,
and of inuence, it tends to reestablisl tle inequality of power and
consequently to subvert society. Again, considering it only under an
economical relation, we lave seen tlat tle funds on wlicl lirelings
live are tle revenues of all tlose wlo lave capitals, and among tlese
it is only undertakers of industry wlo augment tleir ricles, and con
sequently tle ricles of tle nation. Now it is precisely tle possessors
of great fortunes wlo are idle, and wlo pay no labour but for tleir
pleasure. !lus tle more tlere are of great fortunes, tle more national
ricles tend to decay and population to diminisl. !le example of all
times, and all places, supports tlis tleory. For wlerever you see ex
aggerated fortunes,
*
you tlere see tle greatest misery and tle greatest
stagnation of industry.
!le perfection of society, tlen, would be to increase our ricles
greatly, avoiding tleir extreme inequality. But tlis is mucl more dif
cult at certain times, and in certain places, tlan in otlers. An inland
agricultural people laving few relations, living on a sterile soil, unable
to increase tleir means of eoyment but by tle slow progress of its
culture, and tle still slower progress of tleir manufactures, will eas
ily, and for a long time, avoid tle establislment of great inequality
among tleir citizens. If tle soil is more ricland especially, if in
some places it produces articles in great demandlarge fortunes will
be more easily acquired. If it las mines of precious metals, many indi
viduals will certainly ruin tlemselves by working tlem, but some will
acquire immense ricles. or, if tle government reserves to itself tlis
prot, it will soon be enabled to procure for its creatures an exagger
ated opulence, and it is very probable it will not fail to do it. !oo many
causes concur to produce tlis eect. Finally, if you suppose tlis peo
ple, still poor, to become conquerors, to seize on a ricl country, and
to establisl tlemselves in it as conquerors, lere is at once tle greatest
inequality introduced. First between tle victorious and tle conquered
nation, and aferwards among tle conquerors tlemselves. for wlere
force decides it is very dicult to lave equitable partitions. !le lots
*
!o judge of tle exaggeration of certain fortunes, consider tleir proportions.
for tlere may be Englislmen near as ricl, or ricler tlan tle greatest Russian or
Polisl lords, but tley live in tle midst of a people generally in mucl more easy
circumstances,consequently tle disproportion, tlougl real, is mucl less.
s
of tle dierent individuals are as dierent, as tleir degrees of autlority
in tle army or of favour witl tle clief. Moreover, tley are exposed to
nequent usurpations.
!le fortune of maritime nations is generally more rapid. Yet tlere
we remark tle same varieties. Navigators may le reduced to small prof
itsto carryingto slingto commerce witl nations nom wlicl
great prots cannot be made. !len it is easy for tlem to remain long
nearly equal amongst tlemselves. !ley may, on tle contrary, pene
trate into unknown regions, lave in profusion tle most rare articles,
establisl relations witl people nom wlom tley can derive immense
prots, take to tlemselves great monopolies, found ricl colonies, over
wlicl tley lold a tyrannical empire, or even become conquerors, and
import into tleir country tle productions of countries very extensive
subjected by tleir arms,as tle Englisl in India, and tle Spaniards
in Soutl America. In all tlese cases, tlere is more or less of clance,
but in all, a great probability tlat tleir enormous ricles will be very
unequally distributed.
Many otler circumstances, witlout doubt, connect tlemselves witl
tlese, and modif tleir eects. !le dierent claracters of people, tle
nature of tleir government, tle greater or less extent of tleir informa
tion, and, above all, of tleir knowledge of tle social art in tle moments
wlicl decide tleir fortune, occasion like events to lave very dierent
consequences. If Vasco De Gama and lis contemporaries lad lad tle
same views and misfortunes as Cook, or La Peyrouse, our relations witl
tle Indies would be quite dierent nom wlat tley are. It is above all
remarkable, low mucl inuence tle epocl at wlicl a political society
begins to be formed, las on tle duration of its existence. Certainly em
pires founded by Clovis or by Cortez, or societies receiving tleir rst
laws nom Locke or Franklin, ouglt to take very dierent directions,
and tlis we clearly perceive, in every period of tleir listory.
*
It is tlese causes so dierent, and above all tle last, wlicl pro
duce tle innite variety remarked in tle destinies of nations, but tle
ground is every wlere tle same. Society aording to every one secu
rity of person and property, causes tle development of our faculties,
*
!lis is so striking, tlat I imagine tlere is no one wlo does not regret tlat
America was discovered tlree lundred years too soon, and wlo does not even doubt
wletler it would yet be a proper time for discovering it. It is true tlat tlese events,
lowever deplorable, lave promoted our ulterior progress, but it is buying tlem very
dear. It appears tlat sucl is our destiny.
s
tlis development produces tle increase of our riclestleir increase
brings on sooner or later tleir very unequal division, and tlis unequal
division occasioning tle inequality of power wlicl society begun by
restraining, and was intended to destroy, produces its weakness, and
sometimes its total dissolution.
It is doubtless tlis vicious circle wlicl listorians lave wisled to
represent to us by tle youtl and old age of nations, and by wlat tley
call tleir primary virtue, tleir primitive purity, tlen tleir degenera
tion, tleir corruptions, tleir eeminacy. But tlese vague expressions,
against wlicl I lave already protested, paint tle facts very badly, and
ofen lead astray even tlose wlo employ tlem.tley tell us always of
tle virtue of poor nations. Certainly wlere equality renders iustice
and oppression more dicult, and more rare, tley are more virtu
ous nom tle fact itselfsince fewer faults are committed. But it is
equality and not poverty wlicl is tleir protection. Otlerwise tle pas
sions are tle same tlere as elsewlere. Wly incessantly represent to us
commercial nations as avaricious, and agricultural people as models of
moderation: Men every wlere lold to tleir interests, and are occupied
witl tlem. !le Cartlaginians were not more avaricious tlan tle Ro
mans, and tle Romans, wlo were tle most cruel usurers at lome and
insatiable spoliators abroad, were quite as avaricious in wlat are called
tleir best times, as under tle emperors. !le state of society alone was
dierent. It is tle same witl tle word degeneration. Certainly wlen a
part of mankind las been accustomed to resign itself to oppression, and
anotler part to abuse its power, we may well say tley lave degenerated,
but, nom tle manner in wlicl tlis expression is ofen employed, we
slould be led to believe tley are no longer born tle sametlat nature
las clangedtlat tle race is depreciatedtlat tley lave no longer
force or courage.all tlis is very false. We lave a still greater abuse of
tle expressions eeminate and eeminacy. Montesquieu limself tells
you gravely, tlat tle fertility of tle land eeminates its inlabitants.
*
It
nourisles tlem and tlis is all. !o listen to certain autlors, we slould
suppose tlat tlere comes a time wlen all tle inlabitants of a coun
try live amidst deliglts, as tlose famous Sybarites of wlom we lave
been told so mucl. !lis would be very lappy, but it is impossible.
Wlen you are told tlat a nation is enervated by eeminacy, under
*
He says of it many otler tlings. See lis stl book of laws, in tle relation tley
lave witl tle nature of tle soil.
s6
stand tlat tlere is about an lundredtl part of it, at most, corrupted
by tle labit of power and tle facility of eoyment, and tlat all tle
rest are debarred by oppression, and devoured by misery.
*
Nor are we
less deceived in tle sense of tle expression, poor nations, it is tlere
tle people are at tleir easeand tle rich nations is wlere tle people are
commonly poor. It is for tlis reason tlat some are strong, and otlers
ofen weak. We miglt multiply tlese reections to innity, but all
may be reduced to tlis trutl, wlicl las not always been suciently
perceived, tle multiplication of our means of eoyment is a very good
tling, tleir too unequal partition is a very bad one, and tle source of
all our evils. On tlis point still tle interest of tle poor is tle same as
tlat of society. I tlink I lave said enougl on tle distribution of our
ricles, it is time to speak of tle use we make of tlem.
*
And tlose famous deliglts of Capua! and all tlose armies suddenly eeminated,
by laving found tlemselves in abundance! Ask of all tle generals if tleir soldiers lave
been tle worse for laving plentifully eoyed tle means of life for some time, unless
tley lave suered tlem to become pillagers, and undisciplined, by setting tlem tle
example, or tle cliefs, laving made tleir fortune, are no longer ambitious. If it is
tlis wlicl las lappened to tle Cartlaginians, and otlers, tlis is wlat slould lave
been said, and not in vain rletorical plrases.
s
CHAPTER XI
Of the employment of our Riches, or of Consumption.
Ar:rn laving seen low our ricles are formed, and low tley are dis
tributed among us, we are arrived at tle point of examining low we use
tlem, and wlat are tle consequences of tle dierent uses we make of
tlem. !lis is wlat will complete tle illustration of tle wlole course
of society, and slow us wlat tlings are really useful or lurtful, as
well to tle public as to individuals. If in tle two rst parts, we lave
well ascertained and explained tle trutl, tlis will unravel itself, and
every tling in it will be clear and incontestable. If, on tle contrary,
we lave imperfectly viewed tle rst facts, if we lave not remounted to
rst principles, if our researcles lave been supercial or led astray by
a spirit of system, we are about to encounter diculties on diculties,
and tlere will remain in all we slall say many obscure and doubtful
tlings, as las lappened to many otlers, and even to tle most capable
and learned. However tle reader will judge.
We create notling, we annililate notling, but we operate clanges,
productive or destructive, of utility. We procure for ourselves means
of eoyment, only to provide for our wants, and we cannot employ
tlem in tle satisfaction of tlese wants, but by diminisling and even
destroying tlem. We make clotl, and, witl tlis clotl, clotles, only to
clotle ourselves, and, by wearing, we wear :nrm out, witl grain, air,
eartl, water, and manure, we produce alimentary matters to nourisl
ourselves, and, by nourisling ourselves witl tlem, we convert tlem
into gas and manure, wlicl again produce more. !lis is wlat we call
consumption. Consumption is tle end of production, but it is its con
trary. !lus all production augments our ricles, and all consumption
diminisles tlem.Sucl is tle general law.
However tlere are consumptions of many kinds. !lere are some
wlicl are only apparent, otlers very real, and even destructive, and
some wlicl are nuitful. !ley vary according to tle species of con
s
sumers, and tle nature of tle tlings consumed. !lese dierences
must be examined and distinguisled, in order clearly to see tle eect
of general consumption, on tle total mass of ricles. Let us begin
by discussing tle consumers. I lazard tlis expression, because it well
expresses tle end wlicl I propose to myself.
We agree tlat we are all consumers, for we all lave wants for wlicl
we cannot provide but by a consumption of some kind, and tlat also
we are all proprietors, for we all possess some means of providing for
our wants, were it only by our individual force and capacity. But we
lave also seen, tlat nom tle unequal manner in wlicl ricles are dis
tributed, in proportion as tley are accumulated, many among us lave
no part in tlese accumulated ricles, and possess in eect but tleir in
dividual force. !lese lave no otler treasure tlan tleir daily labour.
!lis labour procures tlem wages, for wlicl reason we lave called
tlem specially lirelings, and it is witl tlese wages tley provide for
tleir consumption.
But wlence are tle wages raised: Evidently on tle property of
tlose to wlom tlese lirelings sell tleir labour, tlat is to say on funds,
in advance, wlicl are in tleir possession,and wlicl are no otler
tlan tle accumulated products of labour previously executed. It fol
lows tlence, tlat tle consumption for wlicl tlese ricles pay, is truly
tle consumption of tle lirelings in tlis sense, tlat it is tlem it sub
sists, but at bottom it is not tley wlo pay it, or at least tley pay it only
witl tle funds existing in advance in tle lands of tlose wlo employ
tlem. !ley merely receive witl one land and give witl tle otler.
!leir consumption, tlerefore, ouglt to be regarded as being made by
tlose wlo pay tlem. If even tley do not expend all tley receive, tlese
savings raising tlem to tle ranks of capitalists, enable tlem aferwards
to make expenditures on tleir own funds, but as tley come to tlem
nom tle same lands, tley ouglt at rst to be regarded as tle expenses
of tle same persons, tlus to avoid double reckoning of tle same ar
ticle in tle economical calculations, we must consider as absolutely
notling tle immediate consumption of lirelings, as lirelings, and to
consider not only all tley expend, but even tle wlole tley receive, as
tle real expenditure and proper consumption of tlose wlo purclase
tleir labour. !lis is so true, tlat to see wletler tlis consumption
is more or less destructive of tle ricles acquired, or even if it tends
to augment tlem as it ofen does, depends entirely on knowing wlat
use tle capitalists make of tle labour tley purclase. !lis leads us to
so
examine tle consumption of capitalists.
We lave said tlat tley are of two kinds, tle one idle, tle otler ac
tive. !le rst lave a xed revenue, independent of all action on tleir
part, since tley are supposed idle. !lis revenue consists in tle lir
ing of tleir capitalswletler moveables, money or land,wlicl tley
lire to tlose wlo improve tlem by tle eect of tleir industry. !lis
revenue, is, tlen, but a previous levy on tle products of tle activity
of tle industrious citizens, but tlis is not our present enquiry. Wlat
we wisl to see is, wlat is tle employment of tlis revenue: Since tle
men to wlom it belongs are idle, it is evident tley do not direct any
productive labour. All tle labourers wlom tley pay are solely destined
to procure tlem eoyments. Witlout doubt tlese eoyments are of
dierent kinds. For tle least wealtly tley are limited to tle satisfac
tion of tle most urgent wants,for tle otlers tley are extended by
degrees, according to tleir taste and means, to objects of tle most re
ned and unbridled luxury. But, in ne, tle expenses of all tlis class
of men are alike in tlis, tlat tley lave no object but tleir personal
satisfaction, and tlat tley support a numerous population, to wlicl
tley aord subsistence, but wlose labour is completely sterile. It is
lowever true, tlat amongst tlese expenses some may be found wlicl
are more or less nuitful, as, for example, tle construction of a louse,
or tle improvement of a landed estate. But tlese are particular cases,
wlicl place consumers of tlis kind momentarily in tle class of tlose
wlo direct useful enterprises and pay for productive labour. Afer tlese
triing exceptions, all tle consumption of tlis species of capitalists is
absolutely pure loss, in relation to reproduction, and so far a diminu
tion of tle ricles acquired. Also, we must remark, tlat tlese men can
expend no more tlan tleir revenue. if tley toucl on tleir funds notl
ing replaces tlem, and tleir consumption exaggerated for a moment,
ceases for ever.
!le second class of capitalists, wlo employ and pay lirelings, is
composed of tlose wlom we lave called active. It comprelends all
tle undertakers of any kind of industry wlatsoever, tlat is to say all
tle men wlo laving capitals of a greater or smaller amount, employ
tleir talents and industry in improving tlem tlemselves, instead of
liring tlem to otlers, and wlo, consequently live neitler on wages
nor revenues but on prot. !lese men not only improve tleir proper
capitals, but all tlose also of tle inactive capitalists. !ley take on
rent tleir lands, louses, and money, and employ tlem so as to derive
s6c
nom tlem prots superior to tle rent.
*
!ley lave tlen in tleir lands
almost all tle ricles of society. It is moreover to be remarked, tlat
it is not only tle rent of tlese ricles tley annually expend, but also
tle funds tlemselves, and sometimes several times in tle year, wlen
tle course of commerce is suciently rapid to enable tlem to do so.
for, as in tleir quality of industrious men tley make no expenditures
wlicl do not return to tlem witl prot, tle more of tlem tley can
make wlicl full tlis condition, tle greater will be tleir prot. We
see tlen tlat tleir consumption is immense, and tlat tle number of
lirelings wlom tley feed is truly prodigious.
We must now distinguisl two parties in tlis enormous consump
tion. All wlicl is made by tlese industrious men for tleir own en
joyment, and for tle satisfaction of tleir own wants and tlose of tleir
family, is denitive and lost witlout return, like tlat of tle idle capi
talists, On tle wlole it is moderate, for industrious men are commonly
nugal, and too ofen not very ricl. But all wlicl tley make for tle
support of tleir industry, and for tle service of tlis industry, is notl
ing less tlan denitive,it returns to tlem witl prot, and, tlat tlis
industry may be sustained, its prots must at least be equal not only to
tleir personal and denitive consumption, but also to tle rent of tle
land and money wlicl tley lold of tle idle capitalists, wlicl rent is
tleir sole revenue, and tle only fund of tleir annual expense. If tle
prots of tle active capitalists were less tlan tlese necessary previous
levies, tleir funds would be encroacled on, tley would be obliged to
diminisl tleir enterprizes, tley could no longer lire tle same quantity
of labour, tley would even be disgusted witl liring and directing tlis
unnuitful labour. In tle contrary case tley lave an increase of funds,
by means of wlicl tley can increase tleir business, and tleir demand
for labour, if tley can nd a metlod of employing it usefully.
I slall be asked, low tlese undertakers of industry are able to make
sucl great prots, and nom wlom tley can draw tlem: I answer, tlat
it is by selling wlatever tley produce for more tlan it las cost tlem
to produce it. And tlis is sold, rst, to tlemselves for all tlat part of
tleir consumption wlicl is destined to tle satisfaction of tleir own
wants, wlicl tley pay for witl a portion of tleir prots, Secondly, to
*
Idle capitalists, sometimes rent louses and money to tle idle capitalists. But tle
latter pay tle rent only witl tleir own revenues, and to nd tle formation of tlese
revenues we must always remount to industrious capitalists. As to lands tley almost
always rent tlem to undertakers of culture, for wlat would tle idle make of tlem:
s6s
lirelings, as well tlose in tleir pay as in tle pay of tle idle capitalists,
nom wlicl lirelings tley draw by tlis mean tle wlole of tleir wages,
except tle small savings tley may possibly be able to make, !lirdly, to
tle idle capitalists, wlo pay tlem witl tle part of tleir revenue wlicl
tley lave not already given to tle lirelings wlom tley employ directly,
so tlat all tle rent wlicl tley annually disburse returns to tlem by
one or tle otler of tlese ways.
!lis is wlat completes tlat perpetual motion of ricles, wlicl
altlougl little understood las been very well called circulation. for it is
really circular,
*
and always returns to tle point nomwlence it departed.
!lis point is tlat of production. !le undertakers of industry are really
tle leart of tle body politic, and tleir capitals are its blood. Witl tlese
capitals tley pay tle wages of tle greatest part of tle lirelings, tley
pay tleir rents to all tle idle capitalists, possessors eitler of land or
money, and by tlem tle wages of all tle remaining lirelings,and all
tlis returns to tlem by tle expenditures in all tlese ways, wlicl pay
tlem more for wlat tley lave lad produced nom tle labour of tleir
immediate lirelings, tlan tle wages of tlese, and tle rent of tle land
and money borrowed, lave cost tlem.
But I slall be told, if tlis is really so, if tle undertakers of industry
in fact reap annually more tlan tley lave sown, tley slould in a slort
time obtain possession of all tle public wealtl, and tlere would remain
in a state but lirelings, witlout any tling in advance, and undertakers
witl capitals. !lis is true, and tlings would be eectively tlus if tlese
undertakers, or tleir leirs, did not retire nom business in proportion
as tley become ricl, and continually recruit tle class of idle capitalists.
And, notwitlstanding tlis nequent emigration, it lappens still tlat
wlen industry las operated for a considerable time in a country, witl
out too great disturbances, its capitals are always augmented not only
in proportion to tle increase of total wealtl, but yet in a mucl greater.
!o be assured of tlis, we lave only to see low slender tlese capitals
were, tlrougl all Europe, tlree or four centuries ago, in comparison
witl tle immense ricles of all tle powerful men, and low mucl tley
are multiplied and increased at tle present day, wlile tle otlers lave
diminisled. We may add tlat tlis eect would be still mucl more
*
And wly is it circular and continual: Because consumption continually destroys
tlat wlicl las been produced. If reproduction did not incessantly establisl it, all
would be nisled afer tle rst turn.
s6:
sensible, were it not for tle immense levies wlicl all governments an
nually raise on tle industrious class by means of imposts, but it is not
yet time to occupy ourselves witl tlis subject.
It is not necessary to observe, tlat at tle commencement of society,
before ricles lave become very unequal, tlere are scarcely any simple
lirelings, and still fewer idle capitalists. Every one working for lim
self, and making exclanges witl lis neiglbours, is a real undertaker,
or momentarily a lireling wlen le occasionally works for anotler for
a recompense. Even aferwards, wlen tle dierent conditions lave
become more separate by tle eect of inequality, tle same man may
and ofen does appertain to several at tle same time. !lus a simple
lireling, wlo las some small savings placed at interest, is in tlis re
spect an idle capitalist, as is also an undertaker wlo las a part of lis
funds realised in leased lands, wlile a proprietor of like lands, or a
lessor wlo is a public functionary, is in tlis respect a lireling. But it
is not less true, tlat tlose wlo live on wages, tlose wlo live on rents,
and tlose wlo live on prots, constitute tlree classes of men essen
tially dierent, and tlat it is tle last wlicl aliment all tle otlers, and
wlo alone augment tle public wealtl, and create all our means of en
joyment. !lis must be so, since labour is tle source of all ricles,and
since tley alone give an useful direction to tle actual labour, by a useful
improvement of tle labour accumulated.
I lope it will be remarked, low well tlis manner of considering
tle consumption of our ricles agrees witl all we lave said of tleir
production and distribution,
*
and, at tle same time, low mucl liglt
it tlrows on tle wlole course of society. Wlence comes tlis accor
dancy and tlis lucidness: From tlis, tlat we lave struck on tle trutl.
!lis resembles tle eect of tlose mirrors in wlicl objects are repre
sented distinctly, and in tleir just proportions wlen one is placed in
tle true point of view, and wlere every tling appears confused, and
disunited, wlen one is too near or too distant. So lere, so soon as
it is acknowledged tlat our faculties are our only original ricles, tlat
our labour alone produces all otlers, and tlat all labour well directed
is productive, every tling explains itself witl admirable facility, but
wlen, witl many political writers, you acknowledge no labour as pro
*
In fact we lere see clearly, wly production is arrested, wlen tle nuitful con
sumption of industry can no longer be augmented, and wly tle number and ease of
men increase or decrease as tle industry, &c. &c.
s6.
ductive but tlat of culture, or place tle source of ricles in consump
tion, you encounter in advancing notling but obscurity, confusion and
inextricable embarrassments. I lave already refuted tle rst of tlese
two opinionsI slall soon discuss tle second. For tle moment, let
us conclude tlat tlere are tlree kinds of consumers,tle lirelings,
tle lessors, and tle undertakers,tlat tle consumption of tle rst is
real and denitive, but tlat it must not be counted, because it makes a
part of tle consumption of tlose wlo employ tlem, tlat tlat of tle
lessors is denitive and destructive, and tlat tlat of tle undertaker is
nuitful, because it is replaced by a superior production.
If consumption is very dierent, according to tle species of con
sumers, it varies likewise according to tle nature of tle tlings con
sumed. All represent truly labour, but its value is xed more solidly in
some tlan in otlers. As mucl pains may lave been taken to prepare an
articial re work as to nd and cut a diamond, and, consequently, one
may lave as mucl value as tle otler. But wlen I lave purclased, paid
for, and employed tle one and tle otler,at tle end of lalf an lour
notling remains of tle rst, and tle second may still be tle resource
of my descendants a century to come, even if used every day as an or
nament of dress. It is tle same case witl wlat are called immaterial
products. A discovery is of an eternal utility. A work of genius, a pic
ture, are likewise of an utility more or less durable, wlile tlat of a ball,
concert, a tleatrical representation, is instantaneous and disappear im
mediately. We may say as mucl of tle personal services of plysicians,
of lawyers, of soldiers, of domestics, and generally of all occasionally
called on. !leir utility is tlat of tle moment of want.
All consumable tlings, of wlat nature soever, may be placed be
tween tlese two extremes, of tle slortest and longest duration. From
tlis it is easy to see, tlat tle most ruinous consumption is tle most
prompt, since it is tlat wlicl destroys tle most labour in tle same
time, or an equal quantity of labour in less time. In comparison witl
tlis, tlat wlicl is slower is a kind of loarding, since it leaves to futu
rity tle eoyment of a part of actual sacrices. !lis is so clear tlat it
needs no proof. for every one knows tlat it is more economical to lave
for tle same price a coat wlicl will last tlree years, tlan one wlicl
will last but tlree montls, accordingly tlis trutl is acknowledged by
every body. Wlat is singular, is tlat it slould be so even by tlose wlo
regard luxury as a cause of wealtl. for if to destroy is so good a tling,
it seems tlat we cannot destroy too mucl, and tlat we ouglt to tlink
s6
witl tle man wlo broke all lis furniture, to encourage industry.
At tle point to wlicl we are now arrived, I do not know low
to accost tle pretended miglty question of luxury, so mucl and so
ofen debated by celebrated plilosoplers and renowned politicians, or,
ratler, I do not know low to slew tlat it comprelends any matter
of doubt, nor low to give tle appearance of a little plausibility to tle
reasons of tlose, very numerous lowever, wlo maintain tlat luxury is
useful. for, wlen preceding ideas lave been well elucidated, a question
is resolved as soon as stated, and tlis is now tle case.
In eect, le wlo names luxury, names superuous and even ex
aggerated consumption,consumption is destruction of utility. Now
low conceive tlat exaggerated destruction can be tle cause of ricles
can be production: It is repugnant to good sense.
We are gravely told tlat luxury impoverisles a small state and en
ricles a large one, but wlat can extent lave to do witl sucl a subject:
and low comprelend, tlat wlat ruins an lundred men would enricl
two lundred.
It is also said tlat luxury supports a numerous population. Witlout
doubt not only tle luxury of tle ricl, but likewise tle simple consump
tion of all tle idle wlo live on tleir revenues, supports a great number
of lirelings. But wlat becomes of tle labour of tlese lirelings: !lose
wlo employ tlem consume its result, and notling of it remains, and
witl wlat do tley pay for tlis labour: witl tleir revenues, tlat is to
say witl ricles already acquired, of wlicl in a slort time notling will
remain. !lere tlen is a destruction, not an augmentation of ricles.
But let us go furtler. Wlence do tlese idle men derive tleir revenues:
Is it not nom tle rent paid to tlem out of tle prots of tlose wlo
employ tleir capitals, tlat is to say of tlose wlo witl tleir own funds
lire labour wlicl produces more tlan it costs, in a word tle industri
ous men: !o tlese tlen we must always remount, in order to nd tle
source of all wealtl. It is tley wlo really nourisl tle lireling wlom
even tle otlers employ.
But, say tley, luxury animates circulation. !lese words lave no
meaning. !ley forget tlen wlat is circulation. Let us recall it. Witl
time a greater or smaller quantity of ricles are accumulated, because
tle result of anterior labours, las not been entirely consumed as soon
as produced. Of tle possessors of tlese ricles some are satised witl
drawing a rent and living on it. !lese we lave called tle idle. Otlers
more active, employ tleir own funds, and tlose wlicl tley lire. !ley
s6
employ tlem to lire labour, wlicl reproduces tlem witl prot. Witl
tlis prot tley pay for tleir own consumption, and denay tlat of tle
otlers. Even by tlese consumptions tleir funds return to tlem a little
increased, and tley recommence. !lis is wlat constitutes circulation.
We see tlat it las no otler funds tlan tlose of tle industrious citizens.
It can only augment in proportion as tley augment, nor be accelerated,
wlicl is still to be augmented, but in proportion to tle quickness of
tleir returns. for if tleir funds return to tlem at tle end of six montls,
instead of a year, tley would employ tlem twice a year instead of once,
and tlis is as if tley employed tle double. But tle idle proprietors can
do notling of tlis. !ley can but consume tleir rents in one way or
anotler. If tley consume more one year tley must consume less an
otler, if tley do otlerwise tley encroacl on tleir capitals. !ley are
obliged to sell tlem. But tley can only le purclased witl funds be
longing to industrious men, or lent to tlem, and wlo paid for labour,
wlicl tley will no longer pay for, and for labour more useful tlan tlat
employed by tle prodigals. !lus tlis is not an augmentation of tle
total mass of expense, it is but a transposition, a clange of some of its
parts, and a disadvantageous clange. !lus even in ruining tlemselves,
tle men wlo live on tleir revenues cannot increase tle mass of wages
and of circulation. !ley could do it only by a conduct quite opposite,
by not consuming tle wlole of tleir rent, and by appropriating a part
of it to nuitful expenditures. But tlen tley would be far nom aban
doning tlemselves, to tle exaggerated and superuous consumption
called luxury. !ley would devote tlemselves on tle contrary to useful
speculations, tley would range tlemselves in tle industrious class.
Montesquieu, wlo in otler respects understood political economy
very badly,
*
believes tle profusions of tle ricl very useful, because,
says le, (book tl, clap. tl,) if tle ricl do not spend a great deal,
tle poor must die of famine. We perceive nom tlese few words, and
many otlers, tlat le did not know eitler wlence tle revenues of tlose
wlom le calls ricl are derived or wlat becomes of tlem. Once more
I repeat tle revenues of tle idle ricl, are but rents levied on industry,
it is industry alone wlicl gives tlem birtl. !leir possessors can do
notling to augment tlem, tley only scatter tlem, and tley cannot
avoid scattering tlem. For if tley do not expend tle wlole for tleir
*
Montesquieu was a very great man, but tle science was not built in lis time, it
is quite recent.
s66
eoyments, unless tley cast tle surplus into tle river or bury it, wlicl
is a rare folly, tley replace it, tlat is to say tley form witl it new funds
for industry, wlicl it employs. !lus even by economising tley pay for
tle same quantity of labour. All tle dierence is tlat tley pay for useful
instead of useless labour, and tlat out of tle prots procured, tley
create for tlemselves a new rent, wlicl will augment tle possibility of
tleir future consumption.
Luxury, exaggerated and superuous consumption, is tlerefore
never good for any tling, economically speaking. It can only lave an
indirect utility. Wlicl is by ruining tle ricl, to take nom tle lands
of idle men tlose funds wlicl, being distributed amongst tlose wlo
labour, may enable tlem to economise, and tlus form capitals in tle
industrious class. But rst tlis would go directly contrary to tle in
tention of Montesquieu, wlo believes luxury advantageous, especially
in a monarcly, and wlo at tle same time tlinks, tlat tle preservation
of tle same families, and tle perpetuity of tleir splendor is essen
tially necessary to tlis kind of government. Moreover we must observe
witl M. Say, tlat a taste for superuous expenses las its foundation
in vanity, tlat it cannot exist in tle superior class witlout gradually
extending itself into all tle otlers, tlat it is tlere still more fatal, be
cause tleir means are less, and because it absorbs funds of wlicl tley
made a better use, and tlus it every wlere substitutes useless for useful
expenses, and dries up tle source of ricles. All tlis is in.my opinion
incontestable.
Accordingly, our politicians no longer content tlemselves witl
vaguely saying, tlat luxury constitutes tle prosperity of tle state, tlat
it animates circulation, tlat it enables tle poor to live. !ley lave
made a tleory for tlemselves. !ley establisl as a general principle,
tlat consumption is tle cause of production, tlat it is its measure,
tlat tlus it is well it slould be very great. !ley arm tlat it is tlis
wlicl makes tle great dierence between public and private economy.
!ley dare not always positively say, tlat tle more a nation consumes
tle more it enricles itself. But tley persuade tlemselves, and main
tain tlat we must not reason on tle public fortune as on tlat of an
individual, and tley regard tlose as very narrow minds wlicl in tleir
simplicity believe tlat in all cases good economy is to be economical,
tlat is to say to make an useful employment of lis means.
*
!lere is
*
See M. Germain Garnier, in lis elementary principles of political economy
s6
in all tlis a confusion of ideas, wlicl it is well to dispel and to restore
liglt.
Certainly consumption is tle cause of production, in tlis sense,
tlat we only produce in order to consume, and tlat if we lad no wants
to satisf we slould never take tle trouble of producing any tling.
Notling would tlen be to us eitler useful or lurtful. It is also tle
cause, in tlis sense, wly industrious men produce only because tley
nd consumers of tleir productions. Hence it is said, witl reason, tlat
tle true metlod of encouraging industry is to enlarge tle extent of tle
market, and tlereby augment tle possibility of selling. Under tlis
point of view, it is also true to say tlat consumption is tle measure of
production, for wlere vent ceases production stops. !lis las also made
us say, tlat establislments of industry cannot be multiplied beyond a
certain term, and tlat tlis term is wlere tley cease to yield a prot.
for tlen it is evident, tlat wlat tley produce is not wortl wlat tley
consume. But nom all tlis it does not follow, for a nation any more
tlan for an individual, tlat to expend is to enricl, nor tlat we may
augment our expenses at pleasure, nor even tlat luxury augments tlem,
for it only clanges tlem. We must always return to production, tlis
is tle point of departure. !o eoy we must produce,tlis is tle rst
step. We produce only by availing ourselves of ricles already acquired,
tle more we lave of tlem, tle greater are our means of producing, tley
are consumed in expenses of productions, tley return witl prot. We
can expend annually but tlis annual prot. !le more of it we employ
in useless tlings, tle less will remain for tlose wlicl are useful. If
we go beyond tlem, we break in on our capital, reproduction, and
abridged. Paris printed by Agasse, so6. Page xii of lis advertisement, le says,
formally, !le principles wlicl serve as guides in tle administration of a private
fortune, and tlose by wlicl tle public fortune slould be directed, not only dier
between tlemselves, but are ofen in direct opposition to eacl otler. And page xiii,
!le fortune of an individual is increased by saving, tle public fortune, on tle con
trary, receives its increase nom tle augmentation of consumption. Page s.c, in tle
clapter on circulation, le likewise says, !le annual production ouglt naturally to be
regulated by tle annual consumption. Also, in tle clapter on public debt, page :c,
le adds, !le amendment and extension of culture, and consequently tle progress of
industry and commerce, lave no otler cause tlan tle extension of articial wants,
and concludes nom tlis tlat public debts are good tlings, inasmucl as tley augment
tlese wants. !le same doctrine, joined to tle idea tlat culture is alone productive,
runs tlrougl lis wlole work, and lis notes on Smitl. All tlis is very supercial and
very loose.
s6
consequently future consumption, will be diminisled. !ley may, on
tle contrary, be augmented if savings are made witl wlicl to form
new capitals. Once more, tlen, consumption is not ricles, and tlere
is notling useful, under an economical point of view, but tlat wlicl
reproduces itself witl prot.
No soplistry can ever slake trutls so constant. If tley lave been
mistaken, it is because tle eect las been taken for tle cause, and,
wlat is more, a disagreeable eect for a benecent cause. We lave
seen, tlat wlen a nation becomes ricl a great inequality of fortunes
is establisled, and tlat tle possessors of large fortunes addict tlem
selves to great luxury. It las been believed tlat tlis causes a country
to prosper, and lastily concluded tlat inequality and luxury are two
very good tlings. !ley ouglt, on tle contrary, to lave seen tlat
tlese are two inconveniences attacled to prosperity.
*
tlat tle ricles
wlicl cause tlem are acquired before tley exist, and tlat if tlese ricles
continue still to increase, it is in spite of tle existence of tlese incon
veniences, and tlrougl tle eect of tle good labits of activity and
economy wlicl tley lave not been able entirely to destroy. But tle
strongest personal interests contribute to give credit to tlis error. Pow
erful men are unwilling to acknowledge tlat tleir existence is an evil,
and tlat tleir expense is as useless as tleir persons. On tle contrary,
tley endeavour to impose by pomp, and it is not tleir fault if we do not
believe tlat tley render a great service to tle state, by swallowing up a
great portion of tle means of existence, and tlat tlere is mucl merit in
knowing low to dissipate great ricles.
*
!lis is in my opinion tle best metlod of classing tlem, to give a clear account
of tleir eects.
It will not fail to be said tlat tlis is to abuse its credit, and not to
use it, and tlat tle abuse wlicl may be made of it does not prevent
its being good to lave it. I answer, rst, tlat tle abuse is inseparable
nom tle use, and experience proves it. It is scarcely two lundred years
since tle progress of civilization, of industry, of commerce, tlat of
tle social order, and perlaps also tle increase of specie, lave given to
governments tle facility of making loans, and in tlis slort space of
time tlese dangerous expedients lave led tlem all eitler to total or
partial bankruptcies, sometimes repeated, or to tle equally slameful
and more grievous resource of paper money, or to remain overburdened
under tle weiglt of a load wlicl daily becomes more insupportable.
But I go fartler. I maintain tlat tle evil is not in tle abuse, but
in tle use itself of loans, tlat is to say tlat tle abuse and tle use are
one and tle same tling, and tlat every time a government borrows
it takes a step towards its ruin. !le reason of tlis is simple. A loan
may be a good operation for an industrious man, wlose consumption
reproduces witl prot. By means of tle sums wlicl le borrows, le
augments tlis productive consumption, and witl it lis prots. But a
government wlicl is a consumer of tle class of tlose wlose consump
tion is sterile and destructive, dissipates wlat it borrows, it is so mucl
lost for ever, and it remains burdened witl a debt, wlicl is so mucl
taken nom its future means. !lis cannot be otlerwise. In several
countries tley lave commenced, by being long witlout feeling tle bad
eects of tlese operations, because tle progress of industry and tle
arts being very great at tlis epocl, tleir advance las been found more
rapid tlan tlat of tle debt, and tle means of tle government lave not
failed to augment also. Many lave even concluded tlat a public debt
was a source of prosperity, wlile it only proved tlat individuals did
more good tlan tle government did evil, but tlis evil was not tle less
real, and nobody now undertakes to deny it.
!lese cogent reasons are answered by tle excuse wlicl is usual
wlere no otler remains. Necessity, but I insist, and arm, tlat in
*
He ouglt to lave said, it is nequent.