1 Notice, etc., p. 30, note

2 Notice sur la vie, etc.—Œuvres ComplÈtes, t. i. pp. 10, 11.

3 Correspondance—Œuvres ComplÈtes, t. i. p. 27. Revue des Deux Mondes, t. xvii. p. 139.

4 Œuvres ComplÈtes, tome i. p. 244.

5 Tome xvii. p. 148.

6 Revue des Deux Mondes, t. xvii. p. 146.

7 Correspondance—Œuvres ComplÈtes, t. i. p. 99.

8 Notice sur la vie, etc.—Œuvres ComplÈtes, t. i. p. 18.

9 This admirable work, the best and most complete treatise on money which exists in any language, well deserves a place in English literature.

10 “God made the country; and it is perhaps in surveying plains, and meads, and mountains, remote from man, that the mind is most elevated to pure and high contemplations. But cities, temples, and the memorials of past ages, bridges, aqueducts, statues, pictures, and all the elegancies and comforts of the town, are equally the work of God, through the propensities of His creatures, and, we must presume, for the fulfilment of His design.”—Sir Charles Bell on the Hand, ch. 3.

11 The following list of chapters, intended to complete the Harmonies Économiques, found among the author’s papers, is exceedingly interesting. Of those marked * no notes or traces were found.

12 The First Edition of the Harmonies Économiques appeared in 1850.—Translator.

13 The author employs the term prolÉtaire, for which we have no equivalent word, to distinguish the man who lives by wages from the man who lives upon realized property—“les hommes qui n’ont que leurs bras, les salariÉs.”—See post, Chap. X.—Translator.

14 I shall explain this law by figures: Suppose three periods during which capital increases, labour remaining the same. Let the total production at these three periods be as 80—100—120. It will be thus divided:

Of course these proportions are merely given for the sake of illustration.

15 This Chapter was first published in the Journal des Économistes, January 1848.—Editor.

16 Allusion to a socialist work of the day—La Reforme industrielle, ou la PhalanstÈre, par Ch. Fourier.—Translator.

17 MÉtayage is a mode of letting farms in the south of Europe, where the landlord furnishes a proportion of the means of cultivation, and shares the produce with the cultivator, or mÉtayer.—Translator.

18 “It is averred that the rÉgime of free competition demanded by an ignorant Political Economy, and intended to do away with monopolies, tends only to the general organization of monster monopolies in all departments.”—Principes du Socialisme, par M. ConsidÉrant, p. 15.

19 This and the following chapter were inserted in the Journal des Économistes, September and December 1848.—Editor.

20 Icarie, PhalanstÈre, etc.,—allusion to Socialist works of the day.—Translator.

21 “Our industrial rÉgime, founded on competition without guarantee and without organization, is then only a social hell, a vast realization of all the torments and all the punishments of the ancient TÆnarus. There is one difference, however—namely, the victims.”—(Vide ConsidÉrant.)

22 A mathematical law of frequent occurrence, but very little understood in Political Economy.

23 One of the indirect objects of this work is to combat modern sentimental schools, who, in spite of facts, refuse to admit that suffering to any extent enters into the designs of Providence. As these schools are said to proceed from Rousseau, I must here cite to them a passage from their master: “The evil which we see is not absolute evil; and far from being directly antagonistic to the good, it concurs with it in the universal harmony.”

24 The term consumption employed by English Economists, the French Economists translate by consommation.—Translator.

25 V. J. B. Say.

26 Moreover, this slave, by reason of his superiority, ends in the long-run by depreciating and emancipating all others. This is a harmony which I leave to the sagacity of the reader to follow to its consequences.

27 See Sophismes Économiques (English edition), 2d series, p. 127, et seq.

28 What follows is from a note found among the author’s papers. Had he lived, he would have incorporated the substance of it in the body of his dissertation on Exchange. All that we feel authorized to do is to place it at the end of the present chapter.—Editor.

29 See, for the refutation of this error, chapter xi., post.—Also chapters ii. and iii. of Sophismes Économiques, English Edition.

30 I have ventured to state elsewhere some of the reasons which induce me to doubt the entire soundness of Bastiat’s conclusions on the subject of Rent and the Value of Land.—See note to chapter ix. post.—Translator.

31 French Economists of the school of Quesnay.—Translator.

32 Adds! The subject had then intrinsic value, anterior to the bestowal of labour upon it. That could only come from nature. The action of nature is not then gratuitous, according to this showing; but in that case, who can have the audacity to exact payment for this portion of superhuman value?

33 The French Economists translate our word consumption by consommation.—Translator.

34 It is because, in a state of freedom, efforts compete with each other that they obtain this remuneration nearly in proportion to their intensity. But, I repeat, this proportionality is not inherent in the notion of value.

It is a proof that where this competition does not exist the proportionality ceases. In that case we discover no relation between divers kinds of labour and their remuneration.

The absence of competition may result from the nature of things or from human perversity.

If it arises from the nature of things, we shall see a very small amount of labour give rise to great value, and no one have reason to complain. Such is the case of the man who finds a diamond. Such is the case of Rubini, of Malibran, of Taglioni, of a fashionable tailor, of the proprietor of the Clos-Vougeot, etc., etc. Circumstances have put them in possession of rare means of rendering service; they have no rivals, and exact a high price. The service being, from its very nature, of excessive rarity, shows that it is not essential to the well-being and progress of mankind. It is an object of luxury, of vanity, which wealthy people are enabled to procure. Is it not natural that a man, before indulging in such satisfactions, should wait until he finds himself in a situation to provide for wants which are more imperious and more reasonable?

If competition is absent in consequence of some human intervention, the same effects are produced, but with this enormous difference, that they have been produced where they ought not. In that case we see a comparatively small amount of labour give rise to great value; but how? By forcibly interdicting that competition the effect of which is to proportion remuneration to services. Then, just as Rubini might say to a dilettante. “You must pay me handsomely, or I don’t sing this evening,”—presuming on being able to render a service which no one else can render,—in the same way a butcher, a baker, a landlord, a banker, may say, “I must have an extravagant price, or you shall have none of my corn, my bread, my meat, my gold; and I have adopted precautions, I shall employ force, to prevent you being able to provide yourself elsewhere, and to make sure that no one shall render you services analogous to mine.”

People who assimilate artificial to what they call natural monopolies, because they have this in common, that they enhance the value of labour, such people, I say, are both blind and superficial.

Artificial monopoly is nothing else than spoliation. It produces evils which, apart from it, did not exist. It inflicts privations on a considerable portion of society, frequently as regards commodities of primary necessity. Moreover, it gives rise to irritation, hatreds, reprisals,—all the fruits of injustice.

Natural advantages do no harm to mankind. At most we can say that they merely exhibit pre-existent evils, imputable to no one. It may be regretted, perhaps, that tokay is not as cheap and as abundant as vin ordinaire. But that is not a social evil; it is one imposed on us by nature.

Between natural and artificial monopolies, then, there is this essential difference:

The one is the effect of scarcity, pre-existent and inevitable.

The other is the effect of a scarcity which is factitious and unnatural.

In the first case, it is not the absence of competition which creates the scarcity; it is the scarcity which explains the absence of competition. Society would be puerile were it to complain and torment itself because there is in the world only one Jenny Lind, one Clos-Vougeot, one Regent.

In the second case it is very different. It is not on account of a providential scarcity that competition becomes impossible, but because force has repressed and put down competition that there is created among men a scarcity which ought not to have existed.—(Note extracted from MSS. left by the Author.)

35 Vide post, chap. xv.

Accumulation is a circumstance of no account in Political Economy.

Let the satisfaction be immediate or delayed, let it be adjourned or follow instantly on the effort,—in what respect does this change the nature of things?

I choose to make a sacrifice to enjoy the pleasure of hearing a fine voice. I go to the theatre, and pay for my entertainment—the satisfaction is immediate. I devote my money to the purchase of a basket of strawberries, and I can delay my satisfaction till to-morrow—that is all.

It may be said that the strawberries constitute wealth, because I can exchange them. True. Whilst the effort has been made and the satisfaction is delayed, wealth subsists. It is satisfaction which destroys wealth. When the strawberries been eaten the satisfaction will be on a level with that which I derived from hearing Alboni.

Service received—service rendered—this is political economy.—(Note from MSS. left by the Author.)

36 What follows was intended by the author to form part of this chapter.

37 These are the words by which Roman lawyers designated what they termed innominate contracts, as distinguished from contracts with known names, as purchase and sale, letting, hiring, borrowing, lending, etc.—Translator.

38 TraitÉ d’Économie Politique, p. 1.

39 Nouvel essai sur la Richesse des Nations, p. 438.

40 Ib., p. 263.

41 Ib., p. 456.

42 Ib., p. 456.

43 Nouvel essai sur la Richesse des Nations, p. 161.

44 Ib., p. 168.

45 Ib., p. 168

46 Ib., p. 63.

47 The Earl of Lauderdale, from adopting the false principle which the author here exposes, fell into the same error, maintaining that “an increase of riches, when arising from alterations in the quantity of commodities, is always a proof of the immediate diminution of wealth,” and that a diminution of riches is evidence of an immediate increase of wealth; and that “in proportion as the riches of individuals are increased by an augmentation of the value of any commodity, the wealth of the nation is generally diminished; and in proportion as the mass of individual riches is diminished by the diminution of the value of the commodity, the national opulence is generally increased.” This melancholy paradox Lord Lauderdale maintained stoutly in a set treatise. See Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of Public Wealth by the Earl of Lauderdale. Edition 1804, p. 50. Mr Ricardo has given an exposition of the “Distinctive Properties of Value and Riches” in his work on the Principles of Political Economy. Third Edition, p. 320.—Translator.

48 “Do you take the side of Competition, you are wrong—do you argue against Competition, you are still wrong; which means that you are always right.”—P. J. Proudhon, Contradictions Économiques, p. 182.

49 Always this perpetual and lamentable confusion between Value and Utility? I can show you many utilities which are not appropriated, but I defy you to show me in the whole world a single value which has not a proprietor.

50 What follows is the commencement of a supplementary note found among the papers of the author.—Translator.

51 See my brochure entitled Capital et Rente.

52 Allusion to Socialist works—La RÉforme industrielle, ou le PhalanstÈre, Recueil periodique, rÉdigÉ par Ch. Fourier, 1832.—Visite au PhalanstÈre, par M. Briancourt, 1848.—Voyage en Icarie, par Cabet, 1848, etc.—Translator.

53 Ante, p. 82, et. seq.

54 Public warehouses where goods were deposited, and negotiable receipts issued in exchange for them.—Translator.

55 Wealth of Nations (Buchanan’s 2d edit.), vol. ii. p. 53.

56 Ib., vol. ii. p. 54.

57 Ib., vol. ii. p. 55, note.

58 Ricardo’s Political Works (M’Culloch’s edit.), pp. 34, 35.

59 The words in italics and capitals are thus printed in the original text.

60 Alterner un champ, is to rear alternate crops of corn and hay in a field.—Translator.

61 On the subject of Rent, and the constituent elements of the Value of Land, Bastiat would seem to have adopted, though perhaps unconsciously, the theory of Mr Carey, in his able and original work on The Principles of Political Economy (Philadelphia, 1837-38). Practically, no doubt, Mr Carey’s view of the subject to a great extent holds true. If we take into account all the labour and capital laid out in permanent ameliorations upon a field or a farm, from its first clearance to the present moment, it may be true that there is scarcely any land now under cultivation which is worth what it cost; and that the Rent yielded by such land, consequently, resolves itself into the remuneration of anterior labour. But the sweeping assertion of Bastiat, that “land which has not been subjected, directly or indirectly, to human action is everywhere destitute of value,” is certainly not correct as a “matter of fact;” for from the spot where I am now writing, I can see thousands of acres which have never since the creation had a spade, or a plough, or a human hand applied to them, which nevertheless do yield a Rent—a small rent, a shilling, a penny an acre, it may be—but a return which can by no process of analysis be resolved into the remuneration of anterior labour or capital. With regard to such land, the question of rent or no rent would seem to depend on the current and usual rate of profits.

Land in its natural state, and without cultivation, is capable of producing grass for the food of cattle, and other products capable of rendering service to man. Suppose, for example, that the agriculture of a country has reached the least productive corn-land, which yields a return of £120 for each £100 of capital employed in its cultivation, and that much of the remaining land is incapable of cultivation,—a tract of moorland, or rough pasture, for instance, like some parts of the Highlands of Scotland. Whether such land will or will not yield a rent must depend on whether the return, in sheep, cattle, copsewood, or other produce, after replacing the capital employed, exceeds or falls short of 20 per cent.

Suppose that a person possessed of a capital equal to £100, instead of applying that capital to the cultivation of the least productive corn-land, with a return equal to £120, employs his £100 in purchasing, tending, and bringing to market 100 sheep,—if the annual produce and increase of his flock, over and above his necessary outgoings, amounts only to 10 per cent. on his capital, of course he will find the rearing of sheep unprofitable, and give up the trade. He can in that case pay no rent, for his return is not equal to even the ordinary profits. But if the increase of his flock, over and above his outgoings, amounts to 30 per cent. on the capital employed, then the land to which we refer will yield a rent equal to 10 per cent. on that capital. Whether this shall be the rent of 10, of 50, or 100, or 1000 acres of land, depends entirely on how much land is required to feed 100 sheep; the greater the extent of land, the less will be the rent of each acre; it may be a pound, or a shilling, or a penny an acre; still every acre, and every part of every acre, will yield a rent. Nor does the question of rent or no rent depend on the amount of the capital employed; for if a capital of £100 employed on 10,000 acres of land yields a clear return of £130 when profits are at 20 per cent., the surplus £10 clearly constitutes rent. Rent depends on the ratio of the product to the capital employed, and if that product, or its value, exceed the capital, or its value, by more than the ordinary rate of profits, a rent, greater or less in amount, according to the value of the capital and the extent of surface over which that capital is spread, will be yielded by every inch of land capable of giving nourishment to a blade of grass.

On a searching analysis of rent, then, we always find a residuum which cannot be resolved into the remuneration of anterior labour or capital; and as the value of land in its natural and uncultivated state depends on the amount of this residuum, or rent, if that value is to be brought within the limits of Bastiat’s theory, we must apply to it the same principle which he applied (Chap. V., pp. 139-141 ante) to the case of a diamond found by accident, and resolve it, not into service rendered by undergoing labour, or making an effort, for another, but into service rendered by saving another from undergoing the labour or making the effort for himself. Bastiat seems to have felt this as he approached the conclusion of the present chapter. (See post, p. 282.)

In this part of his work, Bastiat, in his desire to refute the fallacies of the Socialists and Communists on the subject of property, seems to have gone beyond the proper domain of Political Economy; for in strictness it is not the business of that science to vindicate the institution of property, or to explain its origin. It is enough for the Economist that property exists, and all that he is concerned to do is to explain the laws which regulate the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth.—Translator.

62 Ricardo.

63 Ante, p. 48 et seq.

64 Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.—Translator.

65 See Voltaire’s tragedy, Le Fanatisme.—Translator.

66 Economic Sophisms, chap. 1.

67 Allusion to Socialist works. See p. 205, ante.

68 See the author’s discourse Sur l’ImpÔt des Boissons, in the second edition of the pamphlet entitled IncompatibilitÉs Parlementaires.—Editor.

69 When the van-guard of the Icarian expedition left Havre, I questioned some of these visionaries with a view to discover their real thoughts. Competence easily obtained, such was their hope and their motive. One of them said to me, “I am going, and my brother follows with the second expedition. He has eight children, and you see what a great thing it will be for him to have no longer to educate and maintain them.” “I see it at once,” I replied, “but that heavy charge must fall on some other body.” To rid oneself of a burden and transfer it to the shoulders of another, such was the sense in which these unfortunate people understood the apophthegm of Fraternity—all for each.

70 See the pamphlet Spoliation et Loi, p. 22 et seq.—Editor.

71 Two or three short fragments are all that the author has left us on this important subject. The reason is, that he proposed, as he has told us, to set forth the views of Mr Carey of Philadelphia, in opposition to the theory of Ricardo.—Editor.

72 Celebrated vineyard of Burgundy.—Translator.

73 Of these intended developments none, unfortunately, exist; but we may be permitted to notice, briefly, the two principal consequences of the state of matters supposed by the author.

1. Two fields, the one cultivated, A, the other uncultivated, B, being supposed of identical quality, the amount of labour formerly devoted to the clearance of A is assumed as the necessary measure of the amount of labour required for the clearance of B. We may even say that, on account of our now superior knowledge of agriculture, of our implements, of our improved means of communication, etc., a less amount of labour would now be necessary to bring B into cultivation than was formerly required in the case of A. If land had value in itself, A would be worth all that it cost to bring it into culture, plus something additional for its natural productive powers; that is to say, much more than the sum now required to bring B into the same state. Now it is just the reverse. The field A is worth less since we buy it rather than bring B into cultivation. In purchasing A, then, we pay nothing for the natural productive powers, since the price does not even compensate the original cost of bringing it into cultivation.

2. If the field A produces 1000 measures of corn, the field B when cultivated must be supposed to produce the same quantity. The reason why A was formerly cultivated was, that formerly 1000 measures of corn amply remunerated all the labour required both for its original clearance and its annual cultivation. The reason why B is not cultivated is, that now 1000 measures of corn would not remunerate the same amount of labour, or even a less amount, as we have just before remarked.

And what does this show? Evidently that the value of human labour has risen in relation to corn; that a day’s labour is worth more wages estimated in corn. In other words, corn is obtained with less effort, and is exchanged for a less amount of labour; and the theory of the progressive dearness of the means of subsistence is erroneous.—Editor.

74 See the author’s brochure, Maudit Argent.—Editor.

75 See the author’s brochure, GratuitÉ du Credit.—Editor.

76 See ante, chapters i. and ii.

77 Ante, p. 172.

78 See post, chapter xx., on Responsibility.

79 Extract from La Presse, 22d June 1850.

80 Caisse de Retraite,—a friendly accumulation society which has for object to provide for the labourer in his old age.—See an account of these Caisses de Retraite in Dictionnaire de l’Économie Politique, t. i. p. 255.—Translator.

81 Emeutes of June 1848.

82 The chapter, “Des Machines,” is one of those included in the author’s list of intended additions, which he did not live to write. (See Notice of Life and Writings, etc., p. 30, ante.)—Translator.

83 For an explanation of these terms, borrowed from the Civil Law, see ante, p. 172.—Translator.

84 See ante, chapter iv.

85 The manuscript brought from Rome stops here. What is subjoined was found among the papers left by the author in Paris. It indicates how he intended to terminate and sum up this chapter.—Editor.

86 Sir James Steuart of Coltness, whose Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy was published in 1767, nine years before the appearance of Adam Smith’s great work, takes the very same view of the principle of population which Malthus, thirty years afterwards, more formally enunciated. “The generative faculty,” says Sir James Steuart, “resembles a spring loaded with a weight, which always exerts itself in proportion to the diminution of resistance. When food has remained some time without augmentation or diminution, generation will carry numbers as high as possible; if, then, food come to be diminished, the spring is overpowered, the force of it becomes less than nothing, inhabitants will diminish, at least in proportion to the overcharge. If, on the other hand, food be increased, the spring will begin to exert itself in proportion as the resistance diminishes, people will begin to be better fed, they will multiply, and, in proportion as they increase in numbers, the food will become scarce again.”—Translator.

87 “Threescore and ten souls.”—Gen. xlvi. 27. “Seventy souls.”—Exodus i. 5. “Threescore and ten persons.”—Deut. x. 22.—Translator.

88 601,730 “from twenty years old and upwards.”—Numbers xxvi. 2 and 51.—Translator.

89 What follows was written in 1846.—Editor.

90 It is fair to mention that J. B. Say represents the means of existence as a variable quantity.

91 “There are few states in which there is not a constant effort in the population to increase beyond the means of subsistence. This constant effort as constantly tends to subject the lower classes of society to distress, and to prevent any great permanent melioration of their condition. . .. The constant effort towards population... increases the number of people before the means of subsistence are increased,” etc.—Malthus on Population, vol. i. pp. 17, 18, 6th edition.

92 See chap. xi. ante.

93 “Although we might describe fermage, in a general way, as the letting or leasing of land, in whatever form it is done, we must distinguish two forms of letting, equally common in various parts of Europe, and very different in their effects. In the one form, the land is let for a fixed rent, payable in money annually. In the other, it is let under the condition of the produce being divided between the proprietor and the cultivator. It is to the first of these two modes of leasing land that we give more particularly the name of fermage. The other is generally designated in France as mÉtayage.” (Dictionnaire de l’Économie Politique, tome i. p. 759.)—Translator.

94 “The moment this value is handed over by the taxpayer, it is lost to him; the moment it is consumed by the Government, it is lost to everybody, and does not return to society.”—J. B. Say, TraitÉ d’Économie Politique, liv. iii. chap 9.

Unquestionably; but society gains in return the service which is rendered to it—security, for example. Moreover, Say returns to the correct doctrine almost immediately afterwards, when he says,—“To levy a tax is to do a wrong to society—a wrong which is compensated by no advantage, when no service is rendered to society in exchange.”—Ibid.

95 “Public contributions, even when they are consented to by the nation, are a violation of property, seeing they can be levied only on values which have been produced by the land, capital, and industry of individuals. Thus, whenever they exceed the amount indispensable for the preservation of society, we must regard them as spoliation.”—J. B. Say. TraitÉ d’Économie Politique, liv. iii. chap. 9.

Here, again, the subsequent qualification corrects the too absolute judgment previously pronounced. The doctrine that services are exchanged for services, simplifies much both the problem and its solution.

96 Civil law terms. See ante, p. 172.

97 The effects of such a transformation are strikingly exemplified in an instance given by M. d’Hautpoul, the Minister of War:—“Each soldier,” he says, “receives 16 centimes a day for his maintenance. The Government takes these 16 centimes, and undertakes to support him. The consequence is that all have the same rations, and of the same kind, whether it suit them or not. One has too much bread, and throws it away. Another has not enough of butcher’s meat, and so on. We have, therefore, made an experiment. We leave to the soldiers the free disposal of these 16 centimes, and we are happy to find that this has been attended with a great improvement in their condition. Each now consults his own tastes and likings, and studies the market prices of what they want to purchase. Generally they have, of their own accord, substituted a portion of butcher’s meat for bread. In some instances they buy more bread, in others more meat, in others more vegetables, in others more fish. Their health is improved; they are better pleased; and the State is relieved from a great responsibility.”

The reader will understand that it is not as bearing on military affairs that I cite this experiment. I refer to it as calculated to illustrate a radical difference between public and private service, between official regulations and liberty. Would it be better for the State to take from us our means of support, and undertake to feed us, or to leave us both our means of support and the care of feeding ourselves? The same question may be asked with reference to all our wants.

98 See the author’s pamphlet, entitled BaccalaurÉat et Socialisme.—Editor.

99 The author, in a previous work, had sought the solution of the same question. The subject of his inquiry was the legitimate province of law. All the developments in the pamphlet, entitled La Loi, are applicable to the subject he is now discussing. We refer the reader to that brochure.—Editor.

100 Here ends the MS. We refer the reader to the author’s pamphlet entitled Spoliation et Loi, in the second part of which he has exposed the sophisms which were given utterance to at this meeting of the Conseil gÉnÉral.

On the subjects of the six chapters intended to follow this, under the titles of Taxation, Machinery, Free Trade, Intermediaries, Raw Materials, and Luxury, we refer the reader, 1st, to the Discours sur l’ImpÔt des Boissons, inserted in the second edition of the pamphlet, IncompatibilitÉs Parlementaires; 2dly, to the pamphlet entitled Ce qu’on voit et Ce qu’on ne voit pas; 3dly, to the Sophismes Économiques.

101 The author was unable to continue this examination of errors—which are for those who are misled by them a nearly immediate cause of suffering—nor to describe another class of errors, which make their appearance in the shape of violence and fraud, and the first effects of which bear heavily on others. His notes contain nothing on the subject of disturbing causes but the preceding fragment and that which follows. We would also refer the reader to the first chapter of the second series of Sophisms, entitled Spoliation.—Editor.

102 See concluding part of chapter xi. ante.

103 We forget this, when we propose the question, Is slave labour dearer or cheaper than free labour?

104 See the author’s brochure, BaccalaurÉat et Socialisme.—Editor.

105..... because I believe that it is under the direction of a superior impulse, because, Providence being unable to act in the social order except through the intervention of men’s interests and men’s wills, it is impossible that the natural resulting force of these interests, the common tendency of these wills, should be towards ultimate evil; for then we must conclude that it is not only man, or the human race, which proceeds onward towards error; but that God himself, being powerless or malevolent, urges on to evil His abortive creation. We believe, then, in liberty, because we believe in universal harmony, because we believe in God. Proclaiming in the name of faith, and formulating in the name of science, the Divine laws of the moral movement, living and pliant as these laws are, we spurn the narrow, sinister, unbending, and unalterable institutions which the blind leaders of the ignorant would substitute for this admirable mechanism. It would be absurd in the atheist to say, laissez faire le hasard!—seek not to control chance, or blind destiny. But, as believers, we have a right to say, seek not to control the order and justice of God—seek not to control the free action of the sovereign and infallible mover of all, or of that machinery of transmission which we call the human initiative. Liberty thus understood is no longer the anarchical deification of individualism. What we adore is above and beyond man who struggles; it is God who leads him.

We acknowledge, indeed, that man may err; yes, by the whole interval which separates a truth realized and established from one which is merely guessed at or suspected. But since man’s nature is to seek, his destiny is to find. Truth, be it observed, has harmonious relations, necessary affinities, not only with the constitution of the understanding and the instincts of the heart, but also with the whole physical and moral conditions of our existence; so that even when we fail to grasp it as absolute truth, even when it fails to recommend itself to our innate sympathies as just, or to our ideal aspirations as beautiful, it, nevertheless, at length contrives to find acceptance in its practical and unobjectionable aspect as useful.

Liberty, we know, may lead to evil. But evil has itself its mission. Assuredly God has not thrown it across our path as a stumbling-block. He has placed it, as it were, on each side of that path as a warning,—as a means of keeping us in the right road, or bringing us back to it.

Man’s will and inclinations, like inert molecules, have their law of gravitation. But, whilst things inanimate obey blindly their pre-existent and inevitable tendencies, in the case of beings indued with free will, the force of attraction and repulsion does not precede action; it springs from the voluntary determination which it seems to be waiting for, it is developed by the very act itself, and it reacts for or against the agent, by a progressive exertion of co-operation or resistance, which we term recompense or chastisement, pleasure or pain. If the direction of the will coincides with that of the general laws, if the act is good, happiness is the result. If it takes an opposite direction, if it is bad, something opposes or repels it; error gives rise to suffering, which is its remedy and its end. Thus, Evil is constantly opposed by Evil, and Good as constantly gives rise to Good. And we venture to say that, when seen from a higher point of view, the errors of free will are limited to certain oscillations, of a determinate extent, around a superior and necessary orbit; all persistent resistance, which would force this limit, tending only to destroy itself, without at all succeeding in disturbing the order of the sphere in which it moves.

This reactive force of co-operation or repulsion, which, by means of recompense and suffering, governs the orbit, at once voluntary and necessary, of the human race, this law of gravitation of free beings (of which Evil is only a necessary part) is distinguished by the terms Responsibility and Solidarity; the one brings back upon the individual; the other reflects and sends back on the social body the good or bad consequences of the act; the one applies to man as a solitary and self-governing individual; the other envelops him in an inevitable community of good and evil as a partial element, a dependent member, of a collective and imperishable being—man. Responsibility is the sanction of individual liberty, the foundation of the rights of man. Solidarity is the evidence of his social subordination, and his principle of duty. . ..

[A leaf of Bastiat’s MS. being awanting, I hope to be pardoned for thus endeavouring to continue the idea of this religious introduction.]—R. F.

106 Religion (religare, to bind), that which connects the present life with the future, the living with the dead, time with eternity, the finite with the infinite, man with God.

107 May we not say that Divine Justice, which is so incomprehensible when we consider the lot of individuals, becomes striking when we reflect on the destinies of nations? Each man’s life is a drama which is begun on one theatre and completed on another. But the same thing cannot be said of the life of nations. That instructive tragedy begins and ends upon earth. This is the reason why history becomes a holy lesson; it is the justice of Providence.—De Custine’s La Russie.

108 Allusion to Socialist Utopias of the day.—Translator.

109 “As to the doctrine of necessity, no one believes it. If a man should give me arguments that I do not see, though I could not answer them, should I believe that I do not see?.... All theory is against the freedom of the will; all experience for it..... I know that I am free, and there’s an end on’t.” (Dr Johnson.)—Translator.

110 “Cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life: Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee. . .. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, until thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”—Gen. iii. 17, 18, 19.

111 The interesting developments which the author intended to present here by way of illustrations, and of which he indicated beforehand the character, he unfortunately did not live to write. The reader may supply the want by referring to chapter xvi. of this work, and likewise to chapters vii. and xi. of Bastiat’s pamphlet, Ce qu’on voit et Ce qu’on ne voit pas.—Note of the Editor.

112 “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves; which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another.”—Romans ii. 14, 15. See also Bishop Butler’s 3d Sermon, on Human Nature: “Nothing,” says he, “can be more evident than that, exclusive of revelation, man cannot be considered as a creature left by his Maker to act at random, and live at large up to the extent of his natural power, as passion, humour, wilfulness, happen to carry him; which is the condition brute creatures are in. But that, from his make, constitution, or nature, he is in the strictest and most proper sense a law to himself. He hath the rule of right within. What is wanting is only that he honestly attend to it.”—Butler’s Works, vol. ii. p. 65.—Translator.

113 The conclusion of this chapter is little more than a series of notes thrown together, without transitions or developments.—Editor.

114 This sketch terminates here abruptly; the economic view of the law of solidarity is not indicated. We may refer the reader to chapter x. and chapter xi. ante.

Moreover, the whole scope of this work on the Harmonies, the concordance of interests, and the grand maxims, “The prosperity of each is the prosperity of all—the prosperity of all is the prosperity of each,” etc., the accord between property and community, the services of capital, extension of the domain of the gratuitous, etc., are all developments in a utilitarian point of view of the very title of this chapter—Solidarity.—Note of the Editor.

115 “Poverty is the fruit of Political Economy. . .. Political Economy requires death to come to its aid;... it is the theory of instability and theft.”—Proudhon, Contradictions Économiques, t. xi. p. 214. “If the people want bread,... it is the fault of Political Economy.”—Ibid.

116 The author has unfortunately left nothing on the subject of the four chapters with which he appears (see ante, p. 30) to have intended to conclude the present work, except the following introduction to his projected chapter on the Relations of Political Economy with Religion.

The line which separates the field of Political Economy from the wider domains of Morals, Politics, and Legislation is perhaps by no writer more accurately marked than by Mr Senior in the admirable introduction to his article “Political Economy” in the Encyclop. Metropolitana.

“The questions, to what extent and under what circumstances the possession of wealth is, on the whole, beneficial or injurious to its possessor, or to the society of which he is a member? what distribution of wealth is most desirable in each different state of society? and what are the means by which any given country can facilitate such a distribution?—all these are questions of great interest and difficulty, but no more form part of the science of Political Economy, in the sense in which we use that term, than Navigation forms part of the science of Astronomy. The principles supplied by Political Economy are indeed necessary elements in their solution, but they are not the only or even the most important elements. The writer who pursues such investigations is, in fact, engaged on the great science of Legislation; a science which requires a knowledge of the general principles supplied by Political Economy, but differs from it essentially in its subject, its premises, and its conclusions. The subject of legislation is not wealth, but human welfare. Its premises are drawn from an infinite variety of phenomena, supported by evidence of every degree of strength, and authorizing conclusions deserving every degree of assent, from perfect confidence to bare suspicion. And its expounder is enabled, and even required, not merely to state certain general facts, but to urge the adoption or rejection of actual measures or trains of action.

“On the other hand, the subject treated by the Political Economist, using that term in the limited sense in which we apply it, is not happiness, but wealth; his premises consist of a very few general propositions, the result of observation or consciousness, and scarcely requiring proof or even formal statement, which almost every man, as soon as he hears them, admits as familiar to his thoughts, or at least as included in his previous knowledge; and his inferences are nearly as general, and, if he has reasoned correctly, as certain as his premises. Those which relate to the nature and the production of wealth are universally true; and though those which relate to the distribution of wealth are liable to be affected by the peculiar institutions of particular countries, in the cases, for instance, of slavery, legal monopolies, or poor laws, the natural state of things can be laid down as the general rule, and the anomalies produced by particular disturbing causes can be afterwards accounted for. But his conclusions, whatever be their generality and their truth, do not authorize him in adding a single syllable of advice. That privilege belongs to the writer or the statesman who has considered all the causes which may promote or impede the general welfare of those whom he addresses, not to the theorist who has considered only one, though among the most important, of those causes. The business of a Political Economist is neither to recommend nor to dissuade, but to state general principles which it is fatal to neglect, but neither advisable nor perhaps practicable to use as the sole, or even the principal, guides in the actual conduct of affairs. In the meantime, the duty of each individual writer is clear. Employed as he is upon a science in which error, or even ignorance, may be productive of such intense and such extensive mischief, he is bound, like a juryman, to give deliverance true according to the evidence, and to allow neither sympathy with indigence nor disgust at profusion or at avarice, neither reverence for existing institutions nor detestation of existing abuses—neither love of popularity nor of paradox, nor of system, to deter him from stating what he believes to be the facts, or from drawing from those facts what appear to him to be the legitimate conclusions. To decide in each case how far these conclusions are to be acted on belongs to the art of government, an art to which Political Economy is only one of many subservient sciences, which involves the consideration of motives, of which the desire for wealth is only one among many, and aims at objects to which the possession of wealth is only a subordinate means.”—Translator.