14

THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF

of different trades and employments from one another seemsto have taken place, in consequence of this advantage. Thisseparation too is generally carried furthest in those coun-tries which enjoy the highest degree of industry and im-provement; what is the work of one man in a rude state ofsociety, being generally that of several in an improved one.In every improved society, the farmer is generally nothingbut a farmer; the manufacturer, nothing but a manufacturer.The labour too which is necessary to produce any one com-plete manufacture is almost always divided among a greatnumber of hands. How many different trades are employedin each branch of the linen and woollen manufactures, fromthe growers of the flax and the wool, to the bleachers andsmoothers of the linen, or to the dyers and dressers of thecloth! The nature of agriculture, indeed, does not admit ofso many subdivisions of labour, nor of so complete a separa-tion of one business from another, as manufactures. It isimpossible to separate so entirely the business of the grazierfrom that of the corn-farmer, as the trade of the carpenter iscommonly separated from that of the smith. The spinner isalmost always a distinct person from the weaver; but theploughman, the harrower, the sower of the seed, and thereaper of the corn, are often the same. The occasions forthose different sorts of labour returning with the differentseasons of the year, it is impossible that one man should beconstantly employed in any one of them. This impossibilityof making so complete and entire a separation of all the dif-ferent branches of labour employed in agriculture, is per-haps the reason why the improvement of the productivepowers t of labourfm this art does not always keep pace withtheir improvement in manufactures. The most opulent na-tions, indeed, generally excel all their neighbours in agricul-ture as well as in manufactures; but they are commonly moredistinguished by their superiority in the latter than in theformer. Their lands are in general better cultivated, andhaving more labour and expense bestowed upon them, pro-duce more in proportion to the extent and natural fertility ofthe ground. But this superiority of produce is seldom muchmore than in proportion to the superiority of labour and ex-pense. In agriculture, the labour of the rich country is notalways much more productive than that of the poor; or, atleast, it is never so much more productive as it commonly isin manufactures. The corn of the rich country, therefore,