It will, indeed, be readily allowed, that even the third footman who stands behind a coach, and seems only to add to the fatigue of the horses and the wear and tear of the carriage, is still employed to gratify some want or wish of man, in the same manner as the riband maker or the lace maker. It will further be readily allowed, that it is by no means politic to interfere with individuals in the modes of spending their incomes. But does it at all follow from this, that if these different kinds of labour have very different effects on society in regard to wealth, as the term is understood by the great mass of mankind, that they should not be distinguished by different appellations, in order to facilitate the explanation of these different effects? Mr. Macculloch might unquestionably discover some resemblance between the salt and the meat which it seasons: they both contribute, when used in proper proportions, to compose a palatable and nutritive meal, and in general we may leave it to the taste and discretion of the individual to determine these proportions; but are we on that account to confound the two substances together, and to affirm that they are equally nutritive? Are we to define and apply our terms in such a way as to make it follow from our statements, that, if the individual were to compound his repast of half salt and half meat, it would equally conduce to his health and strength?
But Mr. Macculloch states, that a taste for the gratifications derived from the unproductive labourers of Adam Smith “has exactly the same effect upon national wealth as a taste for tobacco, champagne, or any other luxury.”[[31]] This may be directly denied, unless we define wealth in such a manner as will entitle us to say that the enjoyments derived by a few great landlords, from the parade of menial servants and followers, will tell as effectually in an estimate of wealth as a large mass of manufacturers and foreign commodities. But when M. Chaptal endeavoured to estimate the wealth of France, and Mr. Colquhoun that of England, we do not find the value of these enjoyments computed in any of their tables. And certainly, if wealth means what it is understood to mean in common conversation and in the language of the highest authorities in the science of Political Economy, no effects on national wealth can or will be more distinct than those which result from a taste for material conveniencies and luxuries, and a taste for menial servants and followers. The exchange of the ordinary products of land for manufactures, tobacco, and champagne necessarily generates capital; and the more such exchanges prevail the more do those advantages prevail which result from the growth of capital and a better structure of society; while an exchange of necessaries for menial services, beyond a certain limited amount, obviously tends to check the growth of capital, and, if pushed to a considerable extent, to prevent accumulation entirely, and to keep a country permanently in a semi-barbarous state.
Mr. Macculloch, when not under the influence of his definition, justly observes, that “the great practical problem, involved in that part of the science of political economy which treats of the production of wealth, must resolve itself into a discussion of the means whereby the greatest amount of necessary, useful, and desirable products may be obtained with the least possible quantity of labour.”[[32]] But among the unproductive labourers of Adam Smith there is no room for such saving of labour. The pre-eminent advantages to be derived from capital, machinery, and the division of labour, are here almost entirely lost; and in most instances the saving of labour would defeat the very end in view, namely, the parade of attendance, and the pride of commanding a numerous body of followers.
Now, if the employment of the labour required to produce material conveniencies and luxuries necessarily occasions the creation and distribution of capital, and, further, affords room for all the advantages resulting from the saving of labour and the most extended use of machinery; while the employment of the labour, called by Adam Smith unproductive, is necessarily cut off from all these benefits, I would ask whether these two circumstances alone do not form a sufficiently marked line of distinction amply to justify the classification of Adam Smith; and the utility of such a classification, in explaining the causes of the wealth of nations, is most obvious and striking.
So difficult is it, consistently, to maintain a definition which contradicts the common usage of language, and the common feelings of mankind, that I have not the least doubt, if Mr. Macculloch himself were to travel through two countries of the kind before described, that is, one flourishing in manufactures and commerce, and the other, though with the same population and food, furnishing little more to the great mass of its people than panem et Circenses, he would call the latter poor, and the former comparatively rich.
Now, what must have been the cause of this difference? Adam Smith would give a simple, sufficient, and most intelligible reason for it. He would say, that the number and powers of those whom he had called productive labourers, had been much greater in one country than in the other. This seems to be a clear and satisfactory explanation. How Mr. Macculloch could explain the matter according to doctrines which make no difference between the different kinds of labour, I am utterly at a loss to conjecture[[33]].
Perhaps, however, he would say, upon recollection, that his definition of wealth did not oblige him to allow that there would really be any difference in the wealth of these two countries. In that case, I think it may be very safely said that his definition of wealth violates all the most obvious rules for the definition and application of terms. It is opposed to the meaning of the term wealth as used in common conversation; it is opposed to the meaning of the term wealth as applied by the writers of the highest authority in political economy; it is so far from removing the little difficulties which had attended former definitions of wealth and productive labour, that it very greatly aggravates them; it so contradicts our common habits and feelings, that it is scarcely possible to maintain it with consistency.
Mr. Macculloch’s definition of capital has exactly the same kind of character as his definition of wealth, namely, that of being so extended as to destroy all precision, and to confound objects which had before been most usefully separated, with a view to the explanation of the causes of the wealth of nations. The alteration of a definition seems with Mr. Macculloch to be a matter of very slight consequence. The following passage is certainly a most extraordinary one. “The capital of a country may be defined to be that portion of the produce of industry existing in it, which can be made directly available, either to the support of human existence, or to the facilitating of production. This definition differs from that given by Dr. Smith, which has been adopted by most other economists. The whole produce of industry belonging to a country, is said to form its stock; and its capital is supposed to consist of that portion only of its stock, which is employed in the view of producing some species of commodities. The other portion of the stock of a country, or that which is employed to maintain its inhabitants, without any immediate view to production, has been denominated its revenue, and is not supposed to contribute anything to the increase of its wealth.”
“These distinctions seem to rest on no good foundations. Portions of stock employed without any immediate view to production, are often by far the most productive. The stock, for example, that Arkwright and Watt employed in their own consumption, and without which they could not have subsisted, was laid out as revenue; and yet it is quite certain that it contributed infinitely more to increase their own wealth, as well as that of the country, than any equal quantity of stock expended on the artisans in their service. It is always extremely difficult to say whether any portion of stock is, or is not, productively employed; and any definition of capital which involves the determination of this point, can only serve to embarrass and obscure a subject that is otherwise abundantly simple. In our view of the matter, it is enough to constitute an article capital, if it can either directly contribute to the support of man, or assist him in appropriating or producing commodities; but the question respecting the mode of employing an article ought certainly to be held to be, what it obviously is, perfectly distinct from the question whether that article is capital. For any thing that we can à priori know to the contrary, a horse yoked to a gentleman’s coach may be just as productively employed as if he were yoked to a brewer’s dray, though it is quite plain, that whatever difference may really obtain in the two cases, the identity of the horse is not affected; he is equally possessed, in the one case as well as the other, of the capacity to assist in production, and so long as he possesses that capacity, he ought to be viewed, independently of all other considerations, as a portion of the capital of the country.”[[34]]
If these doctrines were admitted, there would be an end, at once, of all classifications, and of all those appropriate designations which so essentially assist us, in explaining what is going forward in society. If the distinction between the whole mass of the products of a country, and those parts of it which are applied to perform particular functions, rests on no solid foundation, it may be asked, on what better foundation does the distinction between the mass of the male population of a country, and the classes of lawyers, physicians, manufacturers, and agriculturists rest? They all equally come under the general denomination of men; but particular classes are most usefully distinguished by particular appellations founded on the particular functions which they generally perform.