as land, houses, furniture, clothes, food, &c. constitute riches; and not the money by which they are obtained. Caroline. Certainly these are clearly the things which constitute real wealth; for unless we could procure the necessaries of life with gold and silver, they would' be of no use to us.

Mrs B. We may therefore say that wealth comprehends every article of utility, convenience, or luxury. This includes every object of our wishes which can become an article of commerce; such as landed estates, houses, the products of agriculture, those of manufactures, provisions, domestic animals, in a word, whatever can contribute to the welfare and enjoyment of men.

Caroline. Why should you confine you definition of wealth to things that can become articles of commerce?

Mrs B. Because there are many countries where the earth spontaneously produces things which can neither be consumed nor sold; and however valuable such things would be to us, could we obtain them, they cannot under those circumstances, be considered as wealth. The herds of wild cattle, for instance, which feed on the rich pastures called the Pampas, in South America, are of this description. Many of those large tracts of land are uninhabited; and the cattle that range at large over them are of no value. Parties of hunters occasionally make incursions, and destroy some of them for the sake of their hides and fat; whilst the flesh, which we should esteem most valuable, is either left to putrify, or is used as fuel to melt the fat for the purpose of tallow, which being transported to places where it can be sold and consumed, it acquires value and becomes wealth.

In other parts of America, the grass of rich pastures is burnt on the ground, there being no cattle to consume it.

63. Why did she confine her definition of wealth to such things as can become articles of commerce?. -64. What illustration of her position did she give from the herds of wild cattle in South America? 65. And what one did she give from the rich pastures in some parts of North America?

Caroline. This may be the case in wild and uncultivated countries: but in those which are civilized, any land yielding unsaleable produce would be converted by the proprietor to some other use.

Mrs B. I have heard that the fruit of many of the vineyards in France, was not gathered a few years ago, the grapes being so much reduced in value in consequence of a decree prohibiting the exportation of French wines, that the price at which they could be sold would not pay the expense of gathering them. In England, also, when all kinds of colonial produce were excluded from the continent of Europe, coffee is said to have been thrown into the sea, because it would not pay the charges, on being landed. You see, therefore, that the effects of war or other circumstances, may for a time, in any country, destroy the value of commodities.

Caroline. How very much you have already extended my conception of the meaning of wealth! And yet I can perceive that all these ideas were floating confusedly in my mind before. In speaking of wealth we ought not to confine ourselves to the consideration of the relative wealth of individuals, but extend our views to whatever constitutes riches in general, without any reference to the inequality of the division.

All this is perfectly clear: no one can be really ignorant of it; it requires only reflection; and yet at first I was quite at a loss to explain the nature of wealth.

Mrs B. The confusion has arisen from the common practice of estimating riches by money, instead of observing that wealth consists in such commodities as are useful or agreeable to mankind, of which gold and silver constitute but a very small portion.

66. Whal further illustration did she give from the vineyards in France?- -67. And what one from the plenty of coffee in England? -68. What remark does Caroline introduce in the close of the second conversation, as to the meaning of wealth?69. From what does Mrs B. say that confusion as to the meaning of wealth had arisen?

CONVERSATION III.

ON PROPERTY.

About the origin of Wealth; Legal institution of Property; of landed Property; Security the result of Property; Objections to landed Property answered; Origin of Nations in a savage or pastoral life; their progress in Agriculture; Cultivation of Corn; Recapitulation.

CAROLINE.

WELL, my dear Mrs B., since you have reconciled me to wealth, and convinced me how essential it is to the happiness and prosperity of nations, I begin to grow impatient to learn what are the best means of obtaining this desirable object.

Mrs B. Do not leave everything to me, Caroline. I have told you that you were not without some general notions of political economy, though they are but ill arranged in your mind. Endeavor, therefore, to unravel the entangled thread, and discover yourself what are the principal causes of the production of wealth in a nation.

Caroline. I assure you that I have been reflecting a great deal upon the subject. I do not know whether I am right, but I think it is labor which is the cause of wealth. Without labor the earth would yield but very little for our subsistence. How insignificant are its spontaneous productions compared with those derived from agriculture! The crab with the apple; the barren heath with the rich pasture of the meadow !

Mrs B. It is very true that labor is a most essential requisite to the creation of wealth, and yet it does not necessarily insure its production. The labor of the savage who possesses no wealth is often more severe than

70. What does Mrs B. tell Caroline to do, in the beginning of the third conversation?- -71. What does Caroline suppose is the first cause of wealth? -72. What reason does she assign for this opinion?-73. Is labor necessarily a cause of wealth?

that of our common ploughman, whose furrows teem with riches. The long and perilous excursions of savages in search of prey, the difficulty which, from want of skill, they must encounter in every process of industry, in constructing the simplest habitations, fabricating the rudest implements ;-all concur to increase their toil. Labor is the lot of man; whether in a barbarous or civilized state, he is destined to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow. But how is it that in the one case labor is productive of great wealth, whilst in the other it affords barely the necessaries of life?

Caroline. You have observed that the labor of the savage is less advantageous on account of his ignorance. and want of skill; besides, he works neither with the activity and the zeal, nor with the perseverance of men in civilized society. Savages, you know, are proverbial for their idleness.

Mrs B. Inducements must then be found to rouse them from that idleness; motives to awaken their industry and habituate them to regular labor. Men are naturally disposed to indolence; all exertion requires effort, and efforts are not made without an adequate stimulus. The activity we behold in civilized life is the effect of education; it results from a strong and general desire to share not only in the necessaries of life, but in the various. comforts and enjoyments with which we are surrounded. The man who has reaped the reward, as well as undergone the fatigues of daily exertion, willingly renews his efforts, as he thus renews his enjoyments. But the ignorance of a savage precludes all desires which do not lead to the immediate gratification of his wants; he sees no possessions which tempt his ambition--no enjoyments which inflame his desires; nothing less than the

74. How does Mrs B. prove that it is not?--75. What reply does Caroline make to the question-why is not labor productive of wealth in a savage as well as in a civilized state?- -76. How is the natural disposition in man to indolence to be overcome?77. Of what is the activity in civilized life the effect?-78. Why does the savage desire to satisfy his immediate wants only?

strong impulse of want rouses him to exertion; and, having satisfied the cravings of hunger, he lies down to rest without a thought of the future.

Caroline. But if the desires of savages are so few and so easily satisfied, may not their state be happier than that of the laboring classes in civilized countries, who wish for so much, and obtain so little?

Mrs B. The brutish apathy which results from gross ignorance can scarcely deserve the name of content, and is utterly unworthy that of happiness. Goldsmith, in his Traveller, justly as well as beautifully observes, that

..

Every want that stimulates the breast

Becomes a source of pleasure when redress'd."

Besides it is only occasionally that a savage can indulge in this state of torpid indifference. If you consult any account of travels in a savage country, you will be satisfied that our peasantry enjoy a comparative state of affluence and even of luxury.

But let us suppose a civilized being to come among a tribe of savages, and succeed in teaching some of them the arts of life-he instructs one how to render his hut more commodious, another to collect a little store of provisions for the winter, a third to improve the construction of his bows and arrows; what would be the consequences?

Caroline. One might expect that the enjoyment derived from these improvements would lead their countrymen to adopt them, and would introduce a general spirit of industry.

Mrs B. Is it not more probable that the idle savages would, either by force or fraud, wrest from the industrious their hard-earned possessions; that the one

79. What inquiry does Caroline propose, as to the comparative happiness of the savage and civilized state?--80. What reply does Mrs B. make to this inquiry?— -81. What supposition does she make of a civilized person who takes up his residence with savages?-82. Would the savages generally be likely to adopt the improvements which he taught a few of them?