s；　who　shared　among　them　the　government　of　the　civilized　world。　Charles　V　united；　under　his　dominion；　all　the　counties　which　had　hitherto　been　celebrated　for　their　industry　and　wealth；　…　Spain；　nearly　all　Italy；　Flanders；　and　Germany；　but　he　united　after　having　ruined　them；　and　his　administration；　by　suppressing　all　their　privileges；　prevented　the　recovery　of　former　opulence。　The　most　absolute　kings　can　no　more　govern　by　themselves；　than　kings　whose　authority　is　limited　by　laws。　The　former　transmit　their　power　to　ministers　whom　they　themselves　select；　in　place　of　taking　such　as　would　be　nominated　by　the　popular　confidence。　But　they　find　them　among　a　class　of　persons　different　from　that　in　which　free　governments　find　them。　In　the　eyes　of　an　absolute　king；　the　first　quality　of　a　statesman　is　his　being　in　possession　of　a　rank　so　high　that　he　may　have　lived　in　noble　indolence；　or　at　least　in　absolute　ignorance　of　domestic　economy。　The　ministers　of　Charles　V；　whatever　talents　they　show　for　negotiation　and　intrigue；　were　all　equally　ignorant　of　pecuniary　affairs。　They　ruined　the　public　finances；　agriculture；　trade；　and　every　kind　of　industry；　from　one　end　of　Europe　to　the　other；　they　made　the　people　feel　the　difference；　which　might　indeed　have　been　anticipated；　between　their　ignorance　and　the　practical　knowledge　of　republican　magistrates。　　　　　Charles　V；　his　rival　Francis　I；　and　Henry　VIII；　who　wished　to　hold　the　balance　between　them；　had　engaged　in　expenses　beyond　their　incomes；　the　ambition　nf　their　successors；　and　the　obstinacy　of　the　house　of　Austria；　which　continued　to　maintain　a　destructive　system　of　warfare　during　more　than　a　hundred　years；　caused　those　expenses；　in　spite　of　the　public　poverty；　to　go　on　increasing。　But　as　the　suffering　became　more　general；　the　friends　of　humanity　felt　more　deeply　the　obligation　laid　on　them　to　undertake　the　defence　of　the　poor。　By　an　order　of　sequence　opposite　to　the　natural　progress　of　ideas；　the　science　of　political　economy　sprung　from　that　of　finance。　Philosophers　wished　to　shield　the　people　from　the　speculations　of　absolute　power。　They　felt　that；　to　obtain　a　hearing　from　kings；　they　must　speak　to　them　of　royal　interests；　not　of　justice　or　duty。　They　investigated　the　nature　and　causes　of　national　wealth；　to　show　governments　how　it　might　be　shared　without　being　destroyed。　　　　　Too　little　liberty　existed　in　Europe　to　allow　those　who　first　occupied　themselves　with　political　economy　to　present　their　speculations　to　the　world；　and　finances　were　enveloped　in　too　profound　a　secrecy　to　admit　of　men；　not　engaged　in　public　business；　knowing　facts　enough　to　form　the　basis　of　general　rules。　Hence　the　study　of　political　economy　began　with　ministers；　when　once　it　had　fortunately　happened　that　kings　put　men　at　the　head　of　their　finances；　who　combined　talents　with　justice　and　love　of　the　public　weal。　Two　great　French　ministers；　Sully　under　Henry　IV；　and　Colbert　under　Louis　XIV；　were　the　first　who　threw　any　light　on　a　subject　till　then　regarded　as　a　secret　of　state；　in　which　mystery　had　engendered　and　concealed　the　greatest　absurdities。　Yet；　in　spite　of　all　their　genius　and　authority；　it　was　a　task　beyond　their　power　to　introduce　any　thing　like　order；　precision；　or　uniformity　into　this　branch　of　government。　Both　of　them；　however；　not　only　repressed　the　frightful　spoliations　of　the　revenue　farmers；　and　by　their　protection　communicated　some　degree　of　security　to　private　fortunes；　but　likewise　dimly　perceived　the　true　sources　of　national　prosperity；　and　busied　themselves　with　efforts　to　make　them　flow　more　abundantly。　Sully　gave　his　chief　protection　to　agriculture。　He　used　to　say　that　pasturage　and　husbandry　wee　the　two　beasts　of　the　state。　Colbert；　descended　from　a　family　engaged　in　the　cloth　trade；　studied　above　all　to　encourage　manufactures　and　commerce。　He　furnished　himself　with　the　opinion　of　merchants；　and　asked　their　advice　on　all　emergencies。　Both　statesmen　opened　roads　and　canals　to　facilitate　the　exchange　of　commodities：　both　protected　the　spirit　of　enterprise；　and　honoured　the　industrious　activity　which　diffused　plenty　over　their　country。　　　　　Colbert；　the　latter　of　the　two；　was　greatly　prior　to　any　of　the　writers　who　have　teated　political　economy　as　a　science；　and　reduced　it　to　a　body　of　doctrines。　He　had　a　system；　however；　in　regard　to　national　wealth：　he　required　one　to　give　uniformity　to　his　plans；　and　delineate　clearly　before　his　view　the　object　he　wished　to　attain。　His　system　was　probably　suggested　by　the　merchants　whom　he　consulted。　It　is　now　generally　known　by　the　epithet　mercantile；　sometimes　also　by　the　name　Colbertism。　Not　that　Colbert　was　its　author；　or　unfolded　it　in　any　publication；　but　because　he　was　beyond　comparison　the　most　illustrious　of　its　professors；　because；　notwithstanding　the　errors　of　his　theory；　the　applications　he　deduced　from　it　were　highly　advantageous；　and　because；　among　the　numerous　writers　who　have　maintained　the　same　opinion；　there　is　not　one　who　has　shown　enough　of　talent　even　to　fix　his　name　in　the　reader's　memory。　It　is　but　just；　however；　to　separate　the　mercantile　system　altogether　from　the　name　of　Colbert。　It　was　a　system　invented　by　trading　subjects；　not　by　citizens；　it　was　a　system　adopted　by　all　the　ministers　of　absolute　governments；　when　they　happened　to　take　the　trouble　of　thinking　on　finance；　and　Colbert　had　no　other　share　in　the　matter　than　that　of　having　followed　it　without　reforming　it。　　　　　After　long　treating　commerce　with　haughty　contempt；　governments　had　at　length　discovered　in　it　one　of　the　most　abundant　sources　of　national　wealth。　All　the　great　fortunes　in　their　states　did　not　indeed　belong　exclusively　to　merchants；　but　when；　overtaken　by　sudden　necessity；　they　wished　to　levy　large　sums　at　once；　merchants　alone　could　supply　them。　Proprietors　of　land　might　possess　immense　revenues；　manufacturers　might　cause　immense　labours　to　be　executed；　but　neither　of　them　could　dispose　of　any　more　than　their　income　or　annual　produce。　In　a　case　of　need　merchants　alone　offered　their　whole　fortune　to　the　government。　As　their　capital　was　entirely　represented　by　commodities　already　prepared　for　consumption；　by　merchandise　destined　for　the　immediate　use　of　the　market　to　which　it　had　been　carried；　they　could　sell　it　at　an　hour's　warning；　and　realise　the　required　sum　with　smaller　loss　than　any　other　class　of　citizens。　Merchants　therefore　found　means　to　make　themselves　be　listened　to；　because　they　had　in　some　sort　the　command　of　all　the　money　in　the　state；　and　were　at　the　same　time　nearly　independent　of　authority　…　being　able；　in　general；　to　hide　from　the　attacks　of　despotism　a　property　of　unknown　amount；　and　transport　it；　with　their　persons；　to　a　foreign　country；　at　a　moment's　notice。　　　　　Governments　would　gladly　have　increased　the　merchant's　profit；　on　condition　of　obtaining　a　share　of　it。　Imagining　that　nothing　more　was　necessary　than　to　second　each　other's　views；　they　offered　him　force　to　support　industry。　and　since　the　advantage　of　the　merchant　consists　in　selling　dear　and　buying　cheap；　they　thought　it　would　be　an　effectual　protection　to　commerce；　if　the　means　were　afforded　of　selling　still　dearer　and　buying　still　cheaper。　The　merchants　whom　they　consulted　eagerly　grasped　at　this　proposal；　and　thus　was　founded　the　mercantile　system。　Antonio　de　Leyva；　Fernando　de　Gonnzago；　and　the　Duke　of　Alva；　viceroys　of　Charles　V　and　his　descendants　…　the　rapacious　inventors　of　so　many　monopolies　…　had　no　other　notion　of　political　economy。　But　when　it　was　attempted　to　reduce　this　methodical　robbery　of　consumers　into　a　system；　when　deliberative　assemblies　were　occupied　with　it；　when　Colbert　consulted　corporations；　when　the　people　at　last　began　to　perceive　the　true　state　of　the　case；　it　became　necessary　to　find　out　a　more　honourable　basis　for　such　transactions；　it　became　necessary　not　only　to　study　the　advantage　of　financiers　and　merchants；　but　also　that　of　the　nation：　for　the　calculations　of　self…interest　cannot　show　themselves　in　open　day；　and　the　first　benefit　of　publicity　is　to　impose　silence　on　base　sentiments。　　　　　Under　these　circumstances　the　mercantile　system　was　moulded　into　a　plausible　form；　and　doubtless　it　must　have　been　plausible；　since；　even　till　our　own　times；　it　continued　to　seduce　the　greater　part　of　practical　men　employed　in　trade　and　finance。　Wealth；　said　those　earliest　economists；　is　money：　the　two　words　were　received　into　universal　use　as　almost　entirely　synonymous；　no　one　dreamed　of　questioning　the　identity　of　money　and　wealth。　Money；　they　said；　disposes　of　men's　labour　and　of　all　its　fruits。　It　is　money　which　produces　those　fruits；　it　is　by　means　of　money　that　industry　continues　in　a　nation；　to　its　influence　each　individual　owes　his　subsistence　and　the　continuation　of　his　life。　Money　is　especially　necessary　in　the　relation　of　one　state　to　another。　It　supports　war　and　forms　the　strength　of　armies。　The　state　which　has　it；　rules　over　that　which　has　it　not。　The　whole　science　of　political　economy　ought；　therefore；　to　have　for　its　object　the　increase　of　money　in　a　nation。　But　the　money　possessed　by　a　nation　cannot　be　augmented　in　quantity；　except　by　the　working　of　mines；　if　the　nation　has　any；　or　by　foreign　trade；　if　it　has　none。　All　the　exchanges　carried　on　within　a　country；　all