POLITICAL ECONOMY

From Agepedia

POLITICAL ECONOMY is the science which treats of the general causes affecting the production, distribution and consumption of things having an exchangeable value, in reference to the effects of such production, distribution and consumption, upon the national wealth and welfare. The definition of this science has been a subject of some discussion. That of Mr. Malthus gives it a wider range than is conceded to it by Mr. M'Culloch, extending it to the investigation of the production and consumption of all that man desires, as useful and agreeable, according to which definition Mr. M'Culloch says it would include all other sciences, so that " the best encyclopaedia would really be the best treatise on political economy." But Mr. M'Culloch's definition is liable to the same objection, if taken in its full literal sense; for he calla it "the science of the laws which regulate the production, distribution and consumption of those material products wrhich have an exchangeable value, and which are either necessary, useful or agreeable." This definition would evidently, if taken in its full breadth, comprehend a very large portion of the encyclopaedia. But though Mr. Malthus considered the science as comprehending all those things which men desire as useful or agreeable, yet he undoubtedly intends to limit it to certain views of this great variety of subjects. But the definitions, both of Mr. Malthus and Mr. M'Culloch, seem to be too broad. Political economy refers only to the general causes affecting the productive faculties and means of a nation, meaning by productive faculties and means the capacity and resources for producing things that have an exchangeable value. Thus the constitution of government, the laws, the judicial, social and economical institutions, the schools, the religion, morals, soil, geographical position, climate, arts, indeed all the circumstances in the char acter and condition of a people, as far as they have a general effect on the puolio wealth; in other words, the production, distribution and consumption of commodities, are subjects of this science. Et is, accordingly, a science of a lofty and liberal character, not identified with that of politics, but very nearly allied to it, and, indeed, one of its branches; for a man would be but ill qualified to legislate for a state, who should be ignorant of the general laws affecting its productive capacity. This being the character of the science, it is iiot a little remarkable that it has not been more honored and more generally studied, as a distinct field of inquiry; for it has necessarily been studied and practically applied by all statesmen and rulers, from the beginning of time, since the effect of all measures of the government, and all causes, upon the condition of a community, must have been objects of consideration, from the dawn of human reflection, though the notions of men may have been very crude, and often erroneous, upon this as upon all other sciences. Men very early studied the human body, and even formed something like a science to account for its functions; but correct notions of anatomy are of comparatively recent origin. The science of chemistry is still more recent. That of political economy, like others, has had its stages of progress, and some of its professors consider it now to be placed upon as firm a basis, and reduced to a system of rules as completely demonstrated, as that of astronomy since the time of Newton ; while others consider the present state of political economy as far below a full developement and demonstration of its prin ciples, as the system of the nine mundane spheres, or perhaps the theory of Tycho Brahe, as compared to modern astronomy. It certainly seems to be singular, if the rules whereby a nation may be made to flourish or decay, are as well defined, and as satisfactorily demonstrated, as the theorems of geometry, that they should be so rarely and so imperfectly reduced to practice. Some of the fundamental doctrines of those writers, who have occupied the greatest space in the written expositions of this science, are not adopted by any nation whatever occupying a respectable rank in the civilized world. This might be accounted for, if the doctrines in question were professedly proposed for simultaneous adoption by all nations, like those of the peace societies; for then the doctrines might be theoretically true, but yet fundamentally inapplicable in the actual condition of the world. But these doctrines are not proposed as being subject to this condition : they are pressed upon every single people, without regard to the conduct of others, and independently of the policy that may be pursued by foreigners. It is not one of the conditions on which thev are recommended, that nations must be prepared for their reception by an entire revolution in national relations and policy, and that they can have place only in the train of evente attending a political millennium; their advocates profess their adaptation to the present state of national rivalships and collisions of interest. It follows that the practical truth of these doctrines is not so demonstratively proved as their advocates suppose, or that the legislators are not so wise as they should be. In this state of the case, admitting a great deal of corruption, ignorance and error, on the part of those who control the measures of the different civilized nations of Christendom, yet their general concurrence in rejecting these doctrines, even in those two or three countries where they are most confidently asserted and most learnedly inculcated, presents an authority against their practical utility quite as imposing as that of the professors by whom they are so strenuously advocated. This science, like othei speculative sciences, commenced in theories ; and the discussion and refutation of them still occupies a great share in the re cent treatisesa circumstance which, of itself, shows that it is in rather a rude state ; since, in those sciences which have reached an advanced state, the visionary systems of the first speculators are now mentioned as matters of mere historical curiosity, a formal confutation of which would be superfluous. Another circumstance indicates the rude state of this science: it is matter of common observation that the early explorers of the arcana of science assume a certain oracular, mysterious air, the infallible badge of empiricism, which always disappears on the estabhshmentof real knowledge. And the mystical, solemn, and somewhat pompous air of many of the doctors of political economy affords some ground for suspicion that this science has not yet reached perfection. Unless we should consider the notion of some ancient nations, that plunder was the great source of national wealth, as a theory in this science, the first step in political economy was the theory of the commercial or mercantile system, which taught that a nation could grow rich only by trade, and that its growing rich in this way depended on the balance received in the precious metals, on adjusting its accounts with other nations. Neither of these views is entirely visionary ; for a nation may gain wealth by cany ing on either war or trade, upon very advantageous terms. It is assumed, in deed, that all commercial exchanges are only those of equivalent values. But, notwithstanding this axiom, an individual merchant or speculator will sometimes make his fortune by exchanging, or, in other words, by buying and selling. And so a nation, if it possesses some very great commercial advantagelike those of the early Spanish traders with the native Americans, who could exchange iron and bits of tin for a much greater weight of goldmay grow wealthy by trade; for the nation may in this way get, for what costs them only a day's labor, what would cost them, or what may be worth to them, five, six or twenty days' labor. The mercantile system had therefore some foundation in fact and experience ; for every one will probably admit, that any particular branch of trade may be more or less advantageous to those engaged in it, and to the countries to which they belong, and that one branch may be more advantageous than another. It is said, indeed, that a disadvantageous trade will cease; and it is thence inferred that all those which continue to be carried on are profitable and useful. This is, at least, admitting that there may be a disadvantageous trade, and that some branches may be advantageous will not be disputed. The mercantile system, then, had some foundation ; but, like some other theories of political economy, it was carried too far. The science of national wealth, as applied to nations generally, is reduced to very narrow limits, if we suppose it to rest wholly upon the bargains made in foreign barter. They mistook, then, in magnifying the relative importance of foreign trade as a part of the causes of national industry and resources, since the annual profit derived thence, even in a very commercial country, does not usually exceed some very inconsiderable per centage of the whole annual production and consumption. But a still more objectionable part of this theory was the supposition that the gain thus derived depended wholly upon the balance received in gold and silver,according to which notion such a country as Mexico, a great portion of the exports of which are necessarily gold and silver, could never grow rich. The more it produced of the very articles the gaining of which alone could make other nations rich, the more demonstrably impossible it was that it should grow wealthy itself. So far, therefore, as the theory referred national growth in wealth exclusively to the receipt of such a balance of trade, and made the growth in wealth proportional to the amount of this balance, it was en tirely fanciful. This theory was support ed, in the latter part of the seventeenth and early part of the eighteenth century, in England, by Mr. MUD, sir Josiah Child, doctor Davenant, and sir James Stuart: but it was called in question, at the same period, by sir William Petty, sir Dudley North, Mr. Barlow, and later by sir Matthew Decker and Mr. Harris. Sir Matthew Decker's Essay on the Decline of Foreign Trade was published in 1744, and Mr. Harris's Essay upon Money and Coins in 1757. Mr. Hume treated of the same subject in his political essays published in 1757. So far, then, as this theory rested upon the notion of a money balance, as being the only source of national growth in wealth, it was ably discussed before the publication of Smith's Wealth of Nations. But the practical question at the bottom of the theorynamely, the national advantages and disadvantages of particular branches of trade, and the effect upon a nation of a trade which keeps it always in debt to anotherhas not been settled to this day; the economists of the new school, as it is termed, maintaining that all foreign trade is advantageous to a country precisely to the degree to which it is profitable to those engaged in it, and therefore that the immediate interest of the merchant, under the actual circumstances, is the infallible criterion of the national interest; while others, on the contrary, and with them most legislators, practically act upon the doctrine that the immediate interest of the merchant is not in all cases a criterion of the permanent national interest. The doctrine resolves itself into this maxim, namely, that the interest of a nation that was to exist only for two or three years, and then to be swept away by a pestilence or swallowed up by an earthquake, and of a similar one that was to exist for as many centuries, would lead to precisely the same policy for the present year in respect to foreign trade; so that no regard is to be had, in commercial reg ulations, to the vicissitudes of war and peace, and other changes incident to a nation. In a question, then, of vital importance, which has now been agitated for more than two centuries, the theoretical economists are divided. We think we may say, then, that the real question which gave rise to the mercantile system is still involved in much obscurity. (See articles Mercantile System, and Balance of Trade.) The manufacturing system has been ranked as another economical theory; but it can hardly be regarded in this light. It supposes that a nation promotes its wealth and productive capacity by manufacturing for itself all those commodities, for the manufacture of which it is adapted by its climate, agricultural pursuits, and the habits and character of its people. It is not now disputed that manufacturing will contribute to the aggregate value of annual products as well as agriculture or commerce. The only questions are, 1. what descriptions of manufacturing industry will increase the productive resources of a particular country; and, 2. whether it should be an object of legislation to foster and promote these branches of industry. Those opposed to any such legislative interference, namely, the advocates of free trade, assume that the national industry, left entirely free, and open to a competition with that of other nations, will infallibly take those channels by which its aggregate results will be the greatest. The foundation of the doctrine of the let us alone policy was laid by Adam Smith, since whose time its advocates have assumed it upon the principles by which it is supported in the Wealth of Nations. Smith rests the doctrine upon two propositions :1. " that every individual can judge, better than any statesman or lawgiver can do for him, what is the species of industry on which he can best employ his capital;" and, 2. " the study of his own advantage naturally, or, rather, necessarily, leads every individual to prefer that employment of capital which is most advantageous to society." The doctrine of free trade rests wholly upon these two propositions. Our limits will not allow us to consider the arguments in favor or against their soundness as the guides of legislation in all cases. For these the reader is referred to the works mentioned at the end of this article, also to Mr. Phillips's Manual of Political Economy, to Mr. Madison's letter on the subject of the protecting policy, and sundry articles of the North American Review. It is sufficient to remark here that the doctrine of free trade must be, as yet, considered merely a theory. Another theory, in relation to national wealth, was that of Qxiesnay, denominated the agricultural system (see Physiocratic System), namely, that agricultural is the only productive sort of labor, since this affords a surplus (to wit, rent), after paying the laborer; whereas all other kinds only replace the value of the stock, and pay the wages. This theory is, however, entirely exploded ; and, besides, it is of a kind not calculated to do any practical injury ; for no nation would think of legisla ting upon the assumption that, because the raising of cattle, and thus producing hides, was, according to this doctrine, a productive labor, and that of tanning the hides and making the leather into shoes, was not productive, or left no net gain,therefore the two latter branches might as well be discontinued. These doctrines go to the general national industry and growth in wealth; others are partial in their application, of which we will notice a few that are adopted by those writers who are the most disposed to consider political economy a science. One of these doctrines, stated by Adam Smith, is, that the wages of common day labor finally fix at the point at which they barely afford the laborer the means of subsistence and of continuing the race of laborers. This is called by the followers of Adam Smith the "natural rate of wages." It is usually assumed in their writings as settled. But it is not pretended that the wages of labor are the same in the different countries of Europe and the U. States; on the contrary, it is every where taken for granted, , that they are higher in some countries than in others. It would follow from this doctrine, that in those countries the necessary expense of supporting and reproducing the laborers, is in proportion to the wages paid in them respectively ; whereas the fact is quite otherwise. And what entirely confutes the notion of any such " natural rate" of wages, is, that the rate varies in different kinds of labor, in which the expense of supporting, instructing and reproducing the laborers is apparently equal. The very statement of this doctrine presupposes a natural rate of expenditure for shelter, clothing and food for the laboring classes, a supposition which has no plausibility in theory and no support in fact. The doctrine of a natural rate of wages of the laboring classes is, indeed, entirely fanciful. It is very true that the present pecuniary interest of those who hire and those who are hired, is at variance, as well as that of those who buy and those who sell; and the party having the greatest advantage in either case, will, general ly speaking, use it; and, accordingly, where the laborers are poor, thriftless and improvident, saving nothing, and being obliged to depend upon the earnings of the day for their food, they put themselves very much in the power of their employers. If to this be added a superfluity of laborers and a want of employment for all, the advantage of the employers is in creased, and the laborers will accordingly be reduced to a lower and lower compensation, until, perhaps, at length, the wages paid will not more than supply them with the poorest fare and the meanest clothing and accommodations. But the degree to which they may be reduced by the operation of these causes, will evidently depend upon the situation of the country, the demand at successive times for labor, in comparison with the supply of laborers, and, most of all, upon the character of the laborers themselves. To say that there is some point at which these circumstances are naturally balanced, in all countries and all stages of economical improvement at which the "natural rate" of wages is graduated, seems to be a proposition too fanciful and vague to deserve the name of a theory. But such is the doctrine of the economists. Another leading doctrine of Adam Smith and his followers grows out of the state of the English poorlaws. It is, that all provision by law for the support of the poor is useless and injurious. This doctrine is fortified by Mr. Malthus's theory of the fatal necessity of starvation. He maintains that human fecundity tends to get the start of the means of subsistence, since the formeV moves with a geometrically increasing rapidity, and soon leaves behind the latter, which can only proceed at a uniform arithmetical pace. The inference which he makes from this is, that the human race has been and will be kept dqwn to its actual numbers by starvation. The consequence drawn from this proposition, which is stated with all the air of a demonstration, is, that poorlaws, or any efforts of charity, are only a childish and useless indulgence of feeling; for, since there will be superfluous numbers, who must at all events be starved, if the life of one is saved by charity, whether public or private, it is only that another may be starved in his stead. A more hearthardening doctrine could not be broached. It is a conclusion at which humanity revolts, and to which no one will consent without compulsion. How, then, is the fact ? The theorem requires that some millions should perish of want annually. It does not, however, appear that they do so perish. And yet this doctrine is reiterated, and very complacently inculcated, as a part of the science of political economy. (See Pauperism.)A proposition, dwelt upon, at some length, by Mr. Say, and carefully inculcated in many other writers on the science of economy, is, that production is 19* not creation; that a farmer cannot make corn, nor a weaver cloth, out of nothing Mr. M'Culloch says labor is " the only source of wealth." This is one of the doctrines of the economists, from which consequences of some weight are deduced. Now all will, without doubt, agree that, without any materials, or, in other words, without the earth, men would not produce wealth ; and it may be conceded also, for the purpose of the argument, that the earth, without inhabitants, would have no wealth. But men, being placed upon earth, may produce wealth by working upon the materials supplied by it; and the earth is itself sold in portions as a part of the common stock of wealth, and the men are also sometimes themselves bought and sold, as being a part of the same stock. In general, two things must concur in order to the production of value, namely, the thing to be wrought or used, and a person to work or use \U To insist that one or the other is the exclusive source of value, seems to savor more of the obsolete metaphysics of the schools, than of practical speculation. The utmost that can be made out of it, is a merely verbal distinction. And one would hardly expect so trivial a subtilty to occupy much space in a branch of knowledge holding the rank of a science. All writers agree in the doctrine that security of property is essential to the accumulation of the products of labor, that is, wealth, for no one will save what he has no reasonable assurance that he shall enjoy; and it is also agreed by all, that accumulation, that is, a stock on hand, is necessary, to the productiveness of labor. Adam Smith lays great stress upon the division of labor as one of the causes of the great productiveness of industry. His remarks upon this subject are just, with the qualification, perhaps, that he over estimates the importance of the principle, since he attributes to it the improvements made in various processes of industry, whereas many of the improvements are themselves the causes, or, rather, afford the means of a separation of employments. Any machine is an illustration of this remark. \It is asserted by some of the writers on this science, that there are no limits to the beneficial effects of the accumulation of capital upon the productiveness of the industry of a nation ; or, in other words, that a given number of people, however small, can advantageously employ any amount of capital, however great. But if we assume a certain number of employ ments and professions, there is certainly a limit beyond which no additional stock and materials could be employed. The proposition may mean that the ingenuity of men can, or will, find out modes of employing advantageously any amount of capital that can be accumulated by them. The proposition thus stated is, at least, a theoretical one, but the inquiries and investigations to which it leads, are certainly not sterile of useful results. All the products of industry are divided among the persons by whom the taxes are received and consumed, the holders of sinecures, the capitalists, and the laborers, including in this latter class all the industrious in all professions and pursuits. A great problem in political economy is to determine the mode of distribution most advantageous to the nation ; and this problem, \ybich is very general and very complicated in its details, has not yet been fully solved. It is generally agreed, that all absolute sinecures, whether under the government or otherwise constituted, are prejudicial. What distribution among the usefully employed, or what comparative remuneration for the labor or services of the respective classes and professions, is the most advantageous, is a subject very little discussed by the writers on economy. But the question as to the distribution between the capitalists, who are entitled to profits, and those who labor upon or with the capital, who are entitled to wages, is a,subject of considerable speculation in the books. One doctrine is, that, where profits are highest, accumulation will be most rapid \ that is, the greater the mass of .the annual products that go to those whose capital supplies the materials and instruments of labor, the more rapid will be.the growth in wealth. This is assuming that nothing will be:saved by the laborers, or not so much in proportion as will be saved out of the profits^ The first assumption cannot be made, and the second is questionable; for example, a great proportion of the agricultural lahorers by the month, in the U. States, are young men who save;their wages in order to purchase a farm foi* themselves. There is no mode of saving that could be devised which would so "rajjHdly promote the increase of the national stock, and a change wliereby the farmers, by paying less wages, should themse.l#eft .make greater profits, instead of augmenting lsb$ "atjo#al accumulation, would vepry materially o|^ck it. Other instances might be given to the same effect The doctrine, therefore, seems to jbe^ftsptmd. Taking the two divisions in the above distribution, it is evident that one cannot be increased but at the expense of the other. But there is one species of capital distinguished from all others, namely, that in land. The lower the rents are that are paid for the mere use of land, in exclusion of buildings and fixtures, the greater amount of annual products will be left to divide between those who supply the stock and those who perform the labor. It may, we think, be laid down as a sound maxim, that low rents, which leave a proportionally large amount of the annual income to be divided, as wages and profits, will very materially promote the national growth, by giving greater stimulus to labor and the employment of stock. This mode of distribution explains, in part, the fact that both the wages and profits are higher in the U. States than in Europe. By higher wages, we mean not merely the money price, but the greater quantity of similar articles that can be purchased for the wages of the same labor. So far, high profits and high wages are compatible; but, when the question is between wages and profits, as it is put by the economical writers, the preference of high profits at the expense of wages, seems not to be well founded as a general doctrine, though it may be true of Great Britain. After disposing of the question, whether agricultural, manufacturing or commercial industry is most advantageous to a nation, and concluding, as all now agree, that they are equally conducive to national wealth, contrary to the opinion of Adam Smith, who gave the preference to agriculture, the writers on economy then go into the inquiry how far any one of these branches is objectionable on account of its effect on the character of the population. In this respect, foreign commerce is undoubtedly the most injurious of the three. As to manufacturing, its varieties are almost infinite, and no general remark is applicable to the effects of all upon the persons employed. It seems, indeed, to be now pretty well agreed, in the U. States, that the mode of conducting any branch of manufacture, and the system of educating and employing the operatives, determine the effects of the employment upon the character and habits of the population; and that it is not the necessary effect of this or that branch of manufacturing, to degrade and corrupt the persons .employed in it In this opinion the writers on economy generally agree. The same writers agree generally m the definition of value, as being determined Iv* the amount of marketable things, for which an article can be exchanged. It is also well settled that demand determines the market value; but they assert, again, or at least seem to imply, that value and cost are synonymous. They also generally imply, by the mode of using the term cost, that it is some definite, fixed quantity. This use of language throws great obscurity on their speculations on this subject, since the cost of producing an article varies from week to week, by the variation of the price of the materials, and the wages; and the same kind and quality of articles will, at the same time, cost one producer more than another. The proposition that cost regulates value, is laid down by the writers with great solemnity, and inculcated at great length. It is a subject on which there certainly is a great deal of unprofitable prolixity in the books; for what argument or illustration is necessary to establish the proposition, that men will not continue long to produce an article by which they lose money ? The proposition seems to stand in quite as great need of an apology for stating it, as of a disquisition to explain or support it.Mr. Ricardo's theory of rent is an ingredient in recent treatises on political economy. The result of his theory is, that, if there was no difference in the productive qualities of all the parts of the whole territory of a nation, there would be no such thing as rent. The conclusion of bis theory is, that every additional bushel of com raised in a country costs more than the preceding. Very few persons will probably assent to the first of these two propositions, and the last is absurd as applied to the U. States and many other countries. He doubtless had England in his view in framing his theory; but.Mr. Lowe denies its accuracy in respect to England, as a matter of fact, upon the statement of cultivators themselves. Mr. M'Culloch goes into a consideration of the effect of the fluctuations of wages upon the cost of commodities, in order to establish the proposition that if the cost of the production of two articles depends upon.the use of machinery, and the machinery for one is of short duration, and that for the other of long, then a rise in wages will affect the cost of the products of the transient machinery, more than that of the other. He discusses this proposition quite elaborately, for the purpose, apparently, of showing that an increase of wages will, in effect, result in a comparative enhancement of the profits of the producer who uses the durable machinery; for he has only to pay the advanced wages for working his machine, whereas the other must pay both for replacing and for working his. This is rather an obscure and nice distinction, and, to be just, requires that the price of the durable machine shall not have risen in value, in consequence of the increase of the expenseof building a new one, by reason of the rise of wages; whereas it is according to common experience to suppose that it would rise in value,in which case Mr. M'Culloch's theory vanishes. Passing over what relates to consumption (q. v.), the above are some of the leading doctrines and theories of what is called the science of political economy, as taught by recent writers in France and England ; a science of which Adam Smith is said, by its professors, to be the founder. Perhaps no study of the day, which bears the name of science, presents more vague theory, grave, mysterious empiricism, dull prolixity, inconsequential argument?, gratuitous assumptions, jejune discussions, and elaborate triviality. There are many useful truths, which pass under the name of political economy; but a large proportion of the treatises, from that of Adam Smith downwards, by the disciples of his school, seem, to bear the same relation to an intelligible practical developement of the causes and phenomena of national growth, wealth and decline, that alchemy does to modern chemistry.For other branches of political economy, see the articles Banks, Bounties, Circulating Medium, Commerce, Consumption, Corn Laivs, Credit, Debtor and Creditor, Direct Tax, Laborers, Laborsaving Machines, Lotteries, Mercantile System, Money, Monopoly, Literary Property, Patent, Physiocratical System, The following are some of the principal writers on political economy: 1. On the mercantile system : Stuart's Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy (3 vols., London, 1767} : Genovesi, Lezioni di Commercio ossia d'Econo mia civile (2 vols., Bassano, 1769); Buseh, Jlbhandlung von dem Geldumlavf (2 vols.: new edition, Hamburg, 1800). 2. On the physiocratic or agricultural system : Quesnay, Tableau iconomique avec son Explication (Versailles, 1758); this work was printed, with several others on the same system, in a collection edited by Dupont de Nemours, entitled La Physiocratie (6 vols., Yverdun, 1768); Tnrgot, Recherches sur la Richesse et VOrigine des R%chesses nationales (Paris, 1774); Le Trosne, De VOrdrt social (Paris, 1777); Theodore Schmalz, StaaUivifthsckafldehrt(2 vols., Berlin, 1818). 3. Adam Smith's system, as set forth by himself, and developed by his followers: Adam Smith's Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (2 vols., London, 1776; 4 vols., Edinburgh, 1814); Sartorius, Von den ElemeMen des JYationalreichthums und von der Staatsivirthschqfl (Gottingen, 1806); Liider, Ueber Nationalindustrie und Staatswirthschqft (3 vols., Berlin, 1800) ; Say's Traite d'Economie politique; Ganilh's Des Systemes d'Economie politique (2 vols., Paris, 1809 and 1822); Storch, Cours d'Economie politique (6 vols., Petersburg, 1815); and his Betrachtungen iiber die JSTatur des Nationaleinkommens (Halle, 1825); Sismondi's Nouveaux Principes d'Economie politique (2 vols., Paris, 1818); Ricardo, On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (new edition, London, 1819) ; Malthus's Principles of Political Economy (London, 1820); Jakob, Grundsdtze der JVdtionalokonomie (Halle, 1805 and 1825); Soden, Nationalokonomie (9 vols., Leipsic, Arau and Nuremberg, 1805-24); Whately's Introd. Lect. on Polit. Econ. (1831); Senior's Lectures on Population (1831); Sadler, Law of Population (antiMalthusian) (vols, i and ii, 1830); Cooper's Lectures on the Elements of Polit. Econ. (Columbia, 1826); Cardozo's Notes on Polit. Econ.(Charleston,1826); Thoughts onPolit. Econ. by D. Raymond (Baltimore, 1820). POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS. The origin of political societies and institutions has been a frequent subject of disquisition. Like many other things, they are supported from an instinctive feeling of their necessity, though their origin and true principles may not be correctly understood. The universal feeling of their necessity has induced some persons to compare political institutions to languages; both, they say, are essential to the existence of mankind ; both exist from time immemorial, and neither can be changed at will;a comparison which tends, like other partial analogies, to lead the inquirer into error. The theories of the origin of the state may be comprised under two headsthose which make authority the starting point, and those which seek it in equality. Those who support the former principle are again divided; some recur at once to God, and say, that he united all power in the hands of the father of the family, who, therefore, at first, had the priestly and princely, as well as the paternal authority; and it was only in later times that these functions became separated ; but it is idle, in scientific speculation, to refer positive institutions to God. He implanted the principles of very thing good, but we are not to take >or granted a direct interference, on his part, in their application. Other advocates of authority place the origin of political institutions in force. Mr. von Haller started this idea anew. (See the article Haller, Charles Louis von.) We have already epoken of the mistake of laying much stress upor the supposed origin of bodies POLITIC, in the article Estates (vol. iv, note on p. 585) What did Mozart, in composing his Requiem, care for the origin of musicj? or Ariosto,or Milton, for the origin of languages ? Political institutions may have originated in a variety of ways, from force, compact, reverence, &c; and they actually have, as history shows us. But their acci dental origin does not show the principle which lies at their foundation, holds them together, and is understood more (ftlearly with the improvement of the social order. The accidental origin of the hut of the savage does not teach us the principled of architecture. These are gradually unfolded, in proportion as the art advances. The principle which lies at the basis of all political union we hold to be the idea of the just, as that of the good is the foundation of morals, and that of the beautiful of the fine arts. The idea of the just, again, in politics is but a modification of the idea of equality. This is the animating principle of all political societies, whatever may have been their origin, and is invariably developed in the progress of society, as the flower is the product of the perfect plant. The idea of force declines as this principle is unfolded. We might add, that the idea of the just is at least as ancient as that of paternal authority ; because, as soon as two individuals are placed together, the idea of equal rights arises, the idea of "doing as one would be done by." Still more is this the case in a family, because as soon as there are seve ral children, parents as well as children feel that it is not right to prohibit to one of the children what, in the same case would be allowed to another. That children obey their parents originally from a mere feeling of inferiority, may be allowed; but states consist of men, and little would the remembrance of former inferiority avail for the maintenance of social order. The idea of the state and of law (for both go hand in hand, and the essence of law is equality, even where it establishes differences and privileges) has a much surer foundation in the idea of the just, which is as primitive an idea as that of the good. Whether, therefore, all bodies politic wero originally founded upon the social compact or not diis social compact is the fundamental idea of all, and that to which all strive in*j the progress of their developement. (See our article Estates for the various stages of political government; see, also, Constitution, and Sovereignty.)