that, "as population increases, and recourse is had to inferior soils, the rate of profits must decline, as the farmer must support his labourers at the same rate, or nearly the same rate, out of a decreasing fund." The decreasing fertility of the soil," observes Mr. M'Culloch," is, therefore, at bottom, the great, and only necessary cause of a fall of profits."

66

"The supporters of this system," Mr. Longfield remarks, “ universally, I believe, maintain, that the increase of capital in any country, unaccompanied by an increase of population, has not even any tendency to reduce the profits of capital, since they say that the last capital employed in any manufacture will necessarily be as productive as the first, and probably more so; and they exemplify it by saying that if a thousand hats were required, the last would not be made at a greater cost of production than the first, and so on for any greater number."

66

Of the two arguments thus stated, he then exposes the fallacy. In the argument used to prove that the decreasing fertility of the soil is the great and necessary cause of a decline of profits, it is, I conceive, unwarrantably assumed, that the effect cannot be entirely borne by the labourer, and that, therefore, of necessity, some part of it must fall upon capital. This necessity I cannot perceive. As population was advancing, the wages of labour must have been more than what would be necessary to the subsistence of the labourers, with such families as would keep up an unvarying population; they may sustain some reduction, and why not the entire amount of the reduction that has taken place in the returns made to labour and capital? It should be remembered that these diminutions in the returns to capital and labour proceed by imperceptibly small differences, and not by sudden steps, and that, as long as population increases, the labourer may sustain some reduction in his wages. And even if the labourer cannot bear the entire reduction and continue to support himself and his family, as usual, out of the diminished wages, what is it that determines how large a portion of the reduction shall be borne by him, and how much, from his inability to bear the whole, will be thrown upon

the capitalist ? To say merely that part must be borne by the labourer, and the rest by the capitalist, is a very lame way of regulating a matter that must be settled by contract. Even on the principle against which I am contending, I see no way of determining the diminution the labourer can bear, except by leaving him such wages only, as shall be sufficient for his subsistence, and that of such a family, on an average, as shall sustain a merely stationary population. This cause, therefore, of a reduction of profits, can only operate when population ceases to increase. But I do not say that it is expedient that the wages of his labour should be thus reduced, but merely, that while population is increasing, he cannot occasion a fall in profits by his inability to bear a reduction of wages. The matter is left open to contract, where the only circumstance which increases, or causes the rate of wages, is the competition of employers, and this will not be increased by an increase in the number of labourers, unaccompanied by an increase of capital.

"In the argument to prove that the increase of capital has no tendency to diminish the rate of profits, the fallacy, I conceive, lies in the assumption, that without an increase of population an increased supply of any article can find purchasers without a reduction of price, and that, therefore, the additional capital can be employed in the same manner, and with the same rate of profits, as the old capital was before such addition took place. This, I think, is not true, but it is enough to say that it has never been attempted to be proved."

In order to facilitate the conception of his view of the matter, Mr. Longfield considers capital as a species of machinery which is hired out, as it were, to labourers at such a rate as they may find it convenient to pay for its assistance in facilitating production.

66

If the owner of one machine could obtain more for its use, than the owner of another of equal value and durability, people would purchase, and artificers would then make the former rather than the latter, until the profits of each were reduced to their level. This level must be determined by the less efficient machine, since the sum paid

66

for its use can never exceed the value of the assistance which it gives to the labourer," while its lesser limit is determined by the efficiency of that capital which, without imprudence, is employed in the least efficient manner."

"It may be thought," he observes, "that this analysis of profits is imperfect, as applying only to that portion of capital which is employed in machinery, or in assisting labour; but that I appear to have left altogether out of consideration the profits of that portion of capital which is employed in paying the wages of the labourer, or in advancing to him the means of his subsistence, while the product of his labour is incomplete or unsold. This is usually called circulating capital, and it is evident that the profits of this must be regulated by the profits of fixed capital. Both must keep their level, or bear their natural proportion to each other; and I have confined my investigations to fixed capital, because I conceived that its profits admitted more readily a comparison with labour, being regulated by that portion which the necessity of employing all capital within the country, compels to be least efficiently employed. The additional capital is so mixed up with the former quantity, that no separation can be made, except in imagination. A machine may render labour one thousand times more productive, and yet may partly consist of that capital which is least efficiently employed, since perhaps a similar machine, made in a less expensive manner, might be nearly as efficient in increasing the productiveness of labour. In such a case, I consider the difference in expense between the two machines as the last application of capital in this respect, and the difference of their efficiency as the measure of the efficiency of such last application."

In the next lecture the professor treats of wages; a subject confessedly the most important, from the multitude of those whose subsistence depends entirely upom them. We like the feeling which led to the following remarks:

66

There is one cause commonly assigned for the relative wages in different countries, to which I cannot agree, and which is generally supported

by a confused species of reasoning, confusing primary and secondary causes, and mixing metaphor and analogy with apparent demonstrative reasoning. The doctrine I allude to is this, that the value of labour, like every thing else, depends upon the cost of production, and that the cost of production of a labourer is that sum, which, according to his natural or artificial wants, is sufficient to support the labourer, together with, on an average, such a family as is necessary to keep up the population of the country, and to enable it to increase, or remain stationary, according as the wants of the nation require an increasing, or a stationary population. We know how the cost of production of any article has the power of regulating its average price, since the being able to procure such a price is the only and the necessary condition on which any persons will continue to produce the article. But the attempt to prove this truth by analogy, and to find out what is the cost of production of common labourers, appears to be trifling with a serious subject. No such calculations are made previous to the production of a common labourer. He is not produced for the sake of what he can afterwards earn. The expression, therefore, "cost of production," is merely metaphorical when applied to such a case; and no argument can be drawn from it, since the analogy is deficient in the very circumstance through which the cost of production affects the price of articles of commerce."

Mr. Longfield's view of wages is necessarily influenced by his view of profits. If the one be the sum which the labourer must pay for the use of the capital or machinery by which his efforts are rendered more productive, the other must be all that remains after that obligation has been discharged. He very properly separates the consideration of the remote and indirect causes which influence the condition of society, from those causes which determine the actual scale of remuneration by which their separate portions of the national wealth are distributed amongst its members. Most effects are produced by a variety of causes, all concurring to the same effect, and all essential to its production; so that if any one of those causes had been

absent, the effect would not have been produced. Some of those causes are generally certain laws of nature, others are mere facts, and properly speaking they altogether combine to form one cause. But in ordinary conversation, if we were asked the cause of any event, we should not answer by stating all the causes which concurred to produce it. We should attend more to the object which the interrogator had in view, and merely inform him of that cause which we supposed him previously ignorant of; and we should not hesitate to say that that was the cause, whether it was a fact or a law of nature, and whether its connection with the event enquired about, was immediate or remote. Hence, the word cause is used in a very extended But this does not make it the less important to distinguish the immediate and primary, from the mediate and secondary causes, and to examine and lay down accurately the rules by which they are connected. We shall then be able to form clear ideas, and what is scarcely less important, to use consistent language respecting the operation of those causes, and we shall not be involved either in a confusion of ideas, or a verbal controversy, if we find, as we frequently shall find, the primary causes producing a certain effect, and that effect re-acting upon the secondary causes, in such a manner as through them to influence the primary causes, and thus to prevent the first effect from being permanent."

sense.

being paid his wages on an average, a year before the sale of the article; then, the wages of each labourer must be 1-11th of what it sells for, the remaining 1-11th going as profit to the capitalist; and this must equally happen whether the article is one of luxury or necessity."

"In the same manner may be calculated how much of any commodity can be procured by any labourer in exchange for his wages, viz., by first calculating what portion will be received by the labourer employed in its fabrication, and then, on the principles which determine the relative wages of labour, determining the proportion that must exist between the wages of this latter labourer, and those of the one whose wages we desire to ascertain. A labourer will not receive for his wages either more or less than the amount of what he produces, minus the profits received by the capitalist."

That one man's labour is more valuable than that of another, and that there is a great difference between the various lengths of time that must elapse between the employment of the labourer and the sale of the produce of his labour, interferes not in the least. Mr. Longfield contends, with the general truth, that "the wages of labour depend upon the rate of profit, and the productiveness of labour employed in the fabrication of those commodities in which the wages of labour are paid; and that, therefore, the comforts of the labourer will depend upon the rate of profits, the relative value of his labour, and the productiveness of that labour which is employed in fabricating those commodities upon which he wishes to expend his labour." The first will only introduce a new element into the calculation which distributes to each labourer the amount of his wages, according as he has been instrumental in producing a greater or a less share of the commodity upon the fabrication of which he was employed; and the other only renders the calculation somewhat more complex, though by no means more inconceivable. It is, therefore, Mr. Longfield contends, demonstrably true, that nothing can produce increased wages for the labourer, but a diminution in the rate of profits, or an increase in the productiveness of labour.

'He cannot gain much by a reduc

tion of the rate of profits. If a labourer earns eight pence a day, advanced to him at an average interval of a year before the produce of his work is sold, a reduction of profits from ten to five per cent, would not add one halfpenny a day to his wages, and the total surrender of profits could not raise his wages to nine pence à day; besides, it is utterly impossible for any direct act of legislation to diminish profits in such a manner as to improve the condition of the labourer. This can only be effected by the gradual increase of capital, and by the spread of peace, and order, and justice, and freedom, and security; in short, by every law and custom, and circumstance, which would enable capital to accumulate, or invite it to come, or induce it to stay. From the wages of labour must be necessarily subtracted a certain sum proportional to the rate of profit, and an additional sum for an insurance against fraud and outrage. Every destruction of property by fraud or violence increases the amount of this insurance, and thus the irresistible nature of things imposes a tax upon the labourer sufficient to indemnify his employer for every injury occasioned by his misconduct. Another necessary consequence from what I have proved to you to day is, that taxes, unless so far as their sudden imposition disturbs the channel in which industry has been accustomed to flow, cannot effect the condition of the labourer, except when they are imposed on the commodities on which he would desire to expend his wages. The payment of a tax may be considered as part of the cost of production of the commodity on which it is imposed, and in all cases it falls on the unproductive consumer; that is, upon the person who consumes it in such a manner, that the mere consumption does not transfer its value to any thing else."

This theory is now fairly before the reader, and we leave him to judge of its merits. To us it appears both plausible and ingenious, and it will surprise us if it do not very speedily supersede that which has been deduced by the Malthusian or Ricardo economists from the new theory of rent. In originating it, our author is free from the least taint of paradox or affectation. He appears to have

viewed his subject in all its bearings, and with all the maturity and circumspection which its importance required. There is a manly modesty in his mode of putting forward his own views, which well becomes the severe simplicity of science, and where he dissents from those of other men, there is a quietness and ease as well as a fairness and candour in his mode of dealing with them, that ought, at least, to ensure their respect and adiniration. On the whole, the present work is highly creditable to the Dublin Uni versity. We have, we confess, some pride in thinking that our first professor, in his first course of lectures, has already laid one of the corner stones of the new science; and we shall only say, that if he proceeds as he has begun, it is our belief that the living man does not exist by whom political economy may be more advantaged.

One thing alone we desiderate, namely, somewhat more of elementary clearness in the manner of putting forward his opinions. The work before us is fitter for the study than the lecture room; and we are persuaded much of it must have been misunderstood by many of those before whom it was delivered. This is a serious evil; and it would not cost Mr. Longfield much pains to be as clear and intelligible as he is profound and ingenious. His habits are, we know, those of a deep thinker; and they must naturally be, to a certain degree, adverse to those of a popular lecturer. Besides, the very clearness with which a man apprehends abstract truths himself, may often render him unconscious of the necessity of levelling his exposition of them to the apprehensions of others. But such an accommodation on his part is absolutely indispensible to his utility as an oral instructor; and he might, literally, as well speak in an unknown tongue, or out of hearing distance, as convey his thoughts in a phraseology, that must over-shoot or out-strip the undertakings of his audience. He should consider himself as a guide, and take care not to advance at a rate that must leave his followers lagging behind him. We feel persuaded that he will excuse us for thus freely expressing ourselves upon the only point in which he ap pears deficient as a lecturer, as our