Besides the manufacture of agricultural products, there is the manufacture of the products of mines. A mine cannot be classed altogether either with manufac tures or agriculture, as these terms are vulgarly understood. Mining produces raw products, which have no value till they are subjected to the various processes by which an infinite variety of useful articles are made out of them. So far mining bears the same relation to certain branches of industry that agriculture does to other branches of industry which it supplies with raw materials. Fisheries produce a supply of food, and are there fore precisely like those branches of agri culture which are directed solely to the production of food.
Now if the question be, which of all these branches of industry adds most to wealth, or, in other words, is most useful to mankind, the answer must be,—they are all equally useful. If it be urged, that some are of more intimate necessity than others, inasmuch as food is essential and therefore its production is the chief branch of industry, it may be replied, that in the present condition of man it is not possible to assert that one branch of industry is more useful than another; each depends on every other. Further, if food is essential to all men in all coun tries, clothing and houses are equally essential even to the support of life in most countries ; and the production of clothing and the building and furnishing of convenient houses comprehend almost every branch of manufacturing industry which now exists. It is an idle question to discuss the relative value of any branches of industry, when we found the compari son upon a classification of them which rests on no real difference, and leave out of the question their aptitude to minister to our wants. One might discuss the relative value of the manufacture of scents and perfumes, and the manufacture of wine and beer; and the foundation of the comparison of value might be the number of persons who use or wish to use the two things, and the effect which the consumption of scents and perflimes on the one hand, and of wine and beer on the other, will have on the consumers and the condition of those who produce them.
But though it is an idle question to discuss the relative value of the variety of processes included in the term agri culture, and of the infinite variety of pro cesses included in the term manufac tures, it is not an idle labour, if we can show that such a discussion is worth less and can lead to no valuable results. It is not an idle labour to attempt to dis sipate an error which affects the com mercial policy of most nations, and is a deeply rooted error in the minds of the ill instructed, both rich and poor. It was the opinion of a set of persons who have been called the Economistes, that agricul ture was the source of all wealth, and therefore the most important branch of industry. This doctrine was founded
on the assumption that all the mate rials that we use are ultimately derived from the earth. This, however, is not true : the products of the sea, of hunt ing, of mining, are not due to agriculture, even in the sense in which the advocates of this theory understood the term agri culture : and further, a large part of agri cultural products receive most of their value from other labour besides agricul tural labour. Even corn, the material of bread, as already observed, must undergo a manufacturing process before it be comes bread. But the greatest part of the corn that is produced has little value in the place where it is produced : it obtains its value by being transported to another place where it is wanted, and at a cost which forms a considerable part of its selling price. Lastly, the corn is of no value even when it has thus been removed from one place to another, unless it has been removed to a place where it is wanted by those who are not raising corn, but are producing something to give in exchange for it. The value, then, of the corn depends ultimately on the labour and the wants of those who do not concern themselves about its production.
If those who possess political power were free from all prejudices and all mo tives of self-interest, or what they suppose to be their interest, there would neither be encouragement nor discouragement given to any branch of industry, and least of all to agriculture. If taxes must be raised, they would be raised in such way as would least interfere with the free exercise of all branches of iLdustry.
The State would provide for defence against foreign aggression, for the admi nistration of justice, and for all such mat ters of public interest as require its direc tion and superintendence. To ascertain what these matters may be and how they are to be done, belongs to the subject of government; and the sphere to which the State should limit its activity cannot be exactly defined. But there is one prin ciple which excludes its interference from many matters; which is this. If men are not interfered with they will employ their labour and capital in the way which is most profitable to themselves ; and each man knows better how he can employ himself profitably than anybody else can, or any government can, whether such government is of one or many. Agricul ture is no exception to this general prin ciple ; and there is no reason of public interest why a government should either encourage it or discourage it. In order that the agriculture of a country may at tain its utmost development, it is neces sary that it be free from all restraint, and that it also be free from the equally inju rious influence of special favour or pro tection.