After the elapse of eight days the goods are offered for sale inHamburg， Berlin， or Frankfort， and after three weeks in New York，at fifty per cent under their real value.The English manufacturerssuffer for the moment， but they are saved， and they compensatethemselves later on by better prices.The German and Americanmanufacturers receive the blows which were deserved by the English-- they are ruined.The English nation merely sees the fire andhears the report of the explosion； the fragments fall down in othercountries， and if their inhabitants complain of bloody heads， theintermediate merchants and dealers say， 'The crisis has done itall！' If we consider how often by such crises the wholemanufacturing power， the system of credit， nay the agriculture， andgenerally the whole economical system of the nations who are placedin free competition with England， are shaken to their foundations，and that these nations have afterwards notwithstanding richly torecompense the English manufacturers by higher prices， ought we notthen to become very sceptical as to the propriety， of thecommercial conditions of nations being regulated according to themere theory of values and according to cosmopolitical principles？
The prevailing economical school has never deemed it expedient toelucidate the causes and effects of such commercial crises.
The great statesmen of all modern nations， almost withoutexception， have comprehended the great influence of manufacturesand manufactories on the wealth， civilisation， and power ofnations， and the necessity of protecting them.Edward IIIcomprehended this like Elizabeth； Frederick the Great like JosephII； Washington like Napoleon.Without entering into the depths ofthe industry theory， their foreseeing minds comprehended the natureof in its entirety， and appreciated it correctly.It was reservedfor the school of physiocrats to regard this nature from anotherpoint of view in consequence of a sophistical line of reasoning.
Their castle in the air has disappeared； the more modern economicalschool itself has destroyed it； but even the latter has also notdisentangled itself from the original errors， but has merelyadvanced somewhat farther from them.Since it did not recognise thedifference between productive power and mere values of exchange，and did not investigate the former independently of the latter， butsubordinated it to the theory of values of exchange， it wasimpossible for that school to arrive at the perception how greatlythe nature of the agricultural productive power differs from thenature of the manufacturing productive power.It does not discernthat through the development of a manufacturing industry in anagricultural nation a mass of mental and bodily powers， of naturalpowers and natural resources， and of instrumental powers too (whichlatter the prevailing school terms 'capital')， is brought to bear，and brought into use， which had not previously been active， andwould never have come into activity but for the formation anddevelopment of an internal manufacturing power； it imagines that bythe establishment of manufacturing industry these forces must betaken away from agriculture， and transferred to manufacture，whereas the latter to a great extent is a perfectly new andadditional power， which， very far indeed from increasing at theexpense of the agricultural interest， is often the means of helpingthat interest to attain a higher degree of prosperity anddevelopment.
NOTES：
1.This is true respecting Spain up to the period of her invasionby Napoleon， but not subsequently.Our author's conclusions are，however， scarcely invalidated by that exception.-- TR.
2.Say states in his Economie Politique Pratique， vol.iii.p.242，'Les lois ne peuvent pas cr閑r des richesses.' Certainly theycannot do this， but they create productive power， which is moreimportant than riches， i.e.than possession of values of exchange.
3.Wealth of Nations， Book IV.chap.ii.
4.From the great number of passages wherein J.B.Say explainsthis view， we merely quote the newest -- from the sixth volume ofEconomie Politique Pratique， p.307： 'Le talent d'un avocat， d'unm閐ecin， qui a 閠？acquis au prix de quelque sacrifice et quiproduit un revenu， est une valeur capitale， non transmissible ？lav閞it？ mais qui r閟ide n閍nmoins dans un corps visible， celui dela personne qui le poss鑔e.'
