but 60,000, who were divided among the Spaniards as slaves. Excessive fatigue in the mines, and want even of necessaries, reduced them in five years to 14,000. Considering them to be only beasts of burden, they would have yielded more profit had they been<126> treated with less inhumanity. Avarice frequently counteracts its own end: by grasping too much, it loses all. The Emperor Charles resolved to apply some remedy; but being retarded by various avocations, he got intelligence that the poor Indians were totally extirpated. And they were so in reality, a handful excepted, who lay hid in the mountains, and subsisted as by a miracle in the midst of their enemies. That handful were discovered many years after by some hunters, who treated them with humanity, regreting perhaps the barbarity of their forefathers. The poor Indians, docile and submissive, embraced the Christian religion, and assumed by degrees the manners and customs of their masters. They still exist, and live by hunting and fishing.
Affection for property! Janus double-faced, productive of many blessings, but degenerating often to be a curse. In thy right hand, Industry, a cornucopia of plenty: in thy left, Avarice, a Pandora’s box of deadly poison.<127>
Origin and Progress of Commerce
The few wants of men in the first stage of society, are supplied by barter in its rudest form. In barter, the rational consideration is, what is wanted by the one, and what can be spared by the other. But savages are not always so clear-sighted: a savage who wants a knife, will give for it any thing that is less useful to him at the time, without considering either the present wants of the person he is dealing with, or his own future wants. An inhabitant of Guiana will for a fish-hook give more at one time, than at another he will give for a hatchet, or for a gun. Kempfer reports, that an inhabitant of Puli Timor, an island adjacent to Malacca, will, for a bit of coarse linen not worth three-halfpence, give provisions worth three or four shillings. But people improve by degrees, attending to what is wanted on the one side, and to what can be spared on the other; and in that lesson, <128> the American savages in our neighbourhood are not a little expert.
Barter or permutation, in its original form, proved miserably deficient when men and their wants multiplied. That sort of commerce cannot be carried on at a distance; and, even among neighbours, it does not always happen that the one can spare what the other wants. Barter is somewhat enlarged by covenants: a bushel of wheat is delivered to me, upon my promising an equivalent at a future time. But what if I have nothing that my neighbour may have occasion for? or what if my promise be not relied on? Thus barter, even with the aid of covenants, proves still defective. The numberless wants of men cannot readily be supplied, without some commodity in general estimation, which will be gladly accepted in exchange for every other. That commodity ought not to be bulky, nor be expensive in keeping, nor be consumeable by time. Gold and silver are metals that possess these properties in an eminent degree. They are at the same time perfectly homogeneous in whatever country produced: two masses of pure gold or of pure silver<129> are always equal in value, provided they be of the same weight. These metals are also divisible into small parts, convenient to be given for goods of small value.*
Gold and silver, when introduced into commerce, were probably bartered, like other commodities, by bulk merely. Rock-salt in Ethiopia, white as snow, and hard as stone, is to this day bartered in that manner with other goods. It is dug out of the mountain Lafta, formed into plates a foot long, and three inches broad and thick; and a portion is broken off equivalent in value to the thing wanted. But more ac-<130>curacy came to be introduced into the commerce of gold and silver: instead of being given loosely by bulk, every portion was weighed in scales: and this method of barter is practised in China, in Ethiopia, and in many other countries. Even weight was at length discovered to be an imperfect standard. Ethiopian salt may be proof against adulteration; but weight is no security against mixing gold and silver with base metals. To prevent that fraud, pieces of gold and silver are impressed with a public stamp, vouching both the purity and quantity; and such pieces are termed coin. This was a notable improvement in commerce; and was probably at first thought complete. It was not foreseen, that these metals wear by much handling in the course of circulation; and consequently, that in time the public stamp is reduced to be a voucher of the purity only, not of the quantity. Hence proceed manifold inconveniencies; for which no other remedy occurs, but to restore the former method of weighing, trusting to the stamp for the purity only. This proves an embarrassment in commerce, which is remedied by the use of paper-<131>money. And paper-money is attended with another advantage, that of preventing the loss of much gold and silver by wearing. Formerly in China, gold and silver were coined as among us; but the wearing of coin by handling obliged them to recur to scales; and now weight alone is relied on for determining the quantity. Copper is the only metal that is circulated among them without weighing; and it is with it that small debts are paid, and small purchases made.1
When gold or silver in bullion is exchanged with other commodities, such commerce passes under the common name of barter or permutation: when current coin is exchanged, such commerce is termed buying and selling; and the money exchanged is termed the price of the goods.
As commerce cannot be carried on to any extent without a standard for comparing goods of different kinds, and as every commercial country is possessed of such a standard, it seems difficult to say by what means the standard has been established. It is plainly not founded on nature; for the different kinds of goods have naturally no common measure by<132> which they can be valued: two quarters of wheat can be compared with twenty; but what rule have we for comparing wheat with broad cloth, or either of them with gold, or gold with silver or copper? Several ingenious writers have endeavoured to account for the comparative value of commodities, by reducing them all to the labour employed in raising food; which labour is said to be a standard for measuring the value of all other labour, and consequently of all things produced by labour. “If, for example, a bushel of wheat and an ounce of silver be produced by the same quantity of labour, will they not be equal in value?” This standard is imperfect in many respects. I observe, first, that to give it a plausible appearance, there is a necessity to maintain, contrary to fact, that all materials on which labour is employed are of equal value. It requires as much labour to make a brass candlestick as one of silver, tho’ far from being of the same value. A bushel of wheat may sometimes equal in value an ounce of silver; but an ounce of gold does not always require more labour than a bushel of wheat; and yet they<133> differ widely in value. The value of labour, it is true, enters into the value of every thing produced by it; but is far from making the whole value. If an ounce of silver were of no greater value than the labour of procuring it, that ounce would go for payment of the labour, and nothing be left to the proprietor of the mine: such a doctrine will not relish with the King of Spain; and as little with the Kings of Golconda and Portugal, proprietors of diamond-mines. Secondly, The standard under review supposes every sort of labour to be of equal value, which however will not be maintained. An useful art in great request may not be generally known: the few who are skilful will justly demand more for their labour than the common rate. An expert husbandman bestows no more labour in raising a hundred bushels of wheat, than his ignorant neighbour in raising fifty: if labour be the only standard, the two crops ought to afford the same price. Was not Raphael entitled to a higher price for one of his fine pictures, than a dunce is for a tavern-sign, supposing the labour to have been equal? Lastly, As this standard is applicable to things<134> only that require labour, what rule is to be followed with respect to natural fruits and other things that require no labour?
Where a pound of one commodity gives the same price with a pound of another, these commodities are said to be of equal value; and therefore, whatever rule can be given for the price of commodities, that rule determines
