and would die of hunger, or become a prey to wild beasts.

If these savages apply themselves to pasturage, their means of subsistence are brought within narrower limits, requiring only that degree of wandering necessary to provide fresh food for their cattle. Their flocks ensuring them a more easy subsistence, their families begin to increase; they lose in a great measure their ferocity, and a considerable improvement takes place in their cha

racter.

By degrees the art of tillage is discovered; a small tract of ground becomes capable of feeding a greater relative number of people; the necessity of wandering in search of food is superseded; families begin to settle in fixed habitations; and the arts of social life are introduced and cultivated.

In the savage state, scarcely any form of government is established; the people seem to be under no control but that of their military chiefs in time of warfare.

The possession of flocks and herds in the pastoral state introduces property, and laws are necessary for its security; the elders and leaders therefore of these wandering tribes begin to establish laws, to violate which is to commit a crime, and to incur a punishment. This is the origin of social order; and when in the third state the people settle in fixed habitations, the laws gradually as

sume the more regular form of a monarchical or republican government. Every thing now wears a new aspect: industry flourishes, the arts are invented, the use of the metals is discovered; labour is subdivided, every one applies himself more particularly to a distinct employment, in which he becomes skilful. Thus, by slow degrees, this people of savages, whose origin was so rude and miserable, become a civilised people, who occupy a highly cultivated country, intersected by fine roads, leading to wealthy and populous cities, and carrying on an extensive trade both at home and with other countries.

CAROLINE.

This is a very pleasing outline of the history of the rise and progress of civilisation: but I should -like to see it a little more filled up.

MRS. B.

The subject you will find hereafter sufficiently developed; for the whole business of political economy is to study the causes which have thus cooperated to enrich and civilise a nation. This science is, therefore, essentially founded upon history, not the history of sovereigns, of wars, and of intrigues, but the history of the arts, of trade, of discoveries, and of civilisation. We see some countries, like America, increase rapidly in wealth

and prosperity; whilst others, like Egypt and Syria, are impoverished, depopulated, and falling to decay when the causes which produce these various effects are well understood, some judgment may be formed of the measures which governments have adopted to contribute to the welfare of their people; whether such or such a branch of commerce should be encouraged in preference to others; whether it be proper to prohibit this or that kind of merchandise; whether any peculiar encouragement should be given to agriculture; whether it be right to establish by law the price of provisions or the price of labour, or whether they should be left without control; and so on.

You see, therefore, that political economy consists of two parts, theory and practice; the science and the art. The science comprehends a knowledge of the facts which we have enumerated: the art relates more particularly to legislation, and consists in doing whatever is requisite to contribute to the increase of national wealth, and avoiding whatever would be prejudicial to it. Mistakes in theory lead to errors in practice. When we enter into details we shall have occasion to observe that governments, misled by false ideas of political economy, have frequently arrested the natural progress of wealth, when it was in their power to have accelerated it.

་

CAROLINE.

But since the world was originally a rude wilderness, and yet has arrived at the improved state of civilisation in which we now find it, the errors of governments cannot have been very prejudicial.

MRS. B.

The natural causes which tend to develope the wealth and prosperity of nations are more powerful than the faults of administration, which operate in a contrary direction. But it is nevertheless true that these errors are productive of a great deal of mischief; that they check industry and retard the progress of improvement. Under bad governments particular classes of people are favoured, others discouraged and oppressed: prosperity is thus unequally shared, and riches unfairly distributed. You look very grave, Caroline; do you already begin to grow tired of the subject?

CAROLINE.

Oh, no; I think thus far I have understood you: but before we proceed you must allow me to mention an objection which, I confess, distresses me; if it is well founded, I shall be quite at variance with the maxims of political economy, and that science will no longer retain any interest for me. I find that you are constantly talking of wealth; of the causes which produce it; of the means of augment

ing it. To be rich, very rich, richer than other people, seems to be the great aim of political economy. Whilst religion and morality teach us that we should moderate the thirst of gain, that inordinate love of wealth is the source of all crimes. Besides that, it is very evident that the richest people are not always the happiest. Now, if wealth does not conduce to the happiness of individuals, how can it constitute that of nations? A poor but virtuous people is surely happier than a rich and vicious one. What remarkable examples do we not see of this in history. We are taught to admire the Greek republics, who despised the pomp and luxury of wealth. And then the Romans; during the early part of their history they were poor and virtuous, but the acquisition of wealth depraved their character, and rendered them the slaves of tyrants. Now, political economy appears to me to induce the love of riches, and to consider it as the only end to be attained by government.

MRS. B.

This is a móst alarming attack upon political economy! When, however, you understand it better, you will find that your censure is unfounded. At present you must take my word for it, as I cannot show you the benefits arising from just principles of political economy, before you are acquainted with the principles themselves; but I can