Law, Preface.)

With respect to these canons it was, at the time of the Reformation, provided by stat. 25 Henry VIII. c. 19 (afterwards repealed by 1 Philip and Mary, c. 8, but revived by 1 Eliz. c. 1), that they should be reviewed by the king and certain commissioners to be appointed under the act, but that, till such review should be made, all canons, constitutions, ordinances, and synodals provincial, being then already made and not repugnant to the law of the land or the king's prerogative, should still be used and executed. No such review took place in Henry's time; but the project for the reformation of the canons was revived under Edward VI., and a new code of ecclesiastical law was drawn up under a commission appointed by the crown under the stat. 3 & 4 Edward VI. c. 11, and received the name of Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, The confirmation of this was prevented by the death of the king, and though the project for a review of the old canons was renewed in the reign of Elizabeth, it was soon dropped, and has not been revived.

The result is, that so much of the English canons made previously to the stat. of Henry VIII. as are not repugnant to the common or statute law, is still in force in this country. It has, however, been decided by the Court of King's Bench that the canons of the convocation of Canterbury, in 1603_(which, though confirmed by King James I., never received the sanction of parliament), do not (except so far as they are declaratory of the antient canon law) bind the laity of these realms. (Middleton v. Croft; Strange's Reports, 1056.) It was, however, admitted by Lord Hardwicke, in delivering judgment in this case, that the clergy are bound by all canons which are confirmed by the king. [CONSTITUTIONS, ECCLESIASTICAL.] There are two kinds of courts in England, in which the canon law is under certain restrictions used. 1. The courts of the archbishops and bishops and their officers, usually called in our law Courts Christian, Curiæ Christianitatis, or ecclesiastical courts. 2. The courts of the two universities. In the first of these, the reception of the canon law is grounded

the case of the universities derives additional support from the acts of parliament which confirm the charters of those bodies. They are all subject to the control of the courts of common law, which assume the exclusive right of expounding all statutes relating to the ecclesiastical courts, and will prohibit them from going beyond the limits of their respective jurisdictions; and from all of them an appeal lies to the king in the last resort.

Before the Reformation, degrees were as frequent in the canon law as in the civil law. Many persons became graduates in both, or juris utriusque doctores; and this degree is still common in foreign universities. But Henry VIII., in the twenty-seventh year of his reign, issued a mandate to the university of Cambridge, to the effect that no lectures on canon law should be read, and no degrees whatever in that faculty conferred in the university for the future. (Stat. Acad. Cantab., P. 137.) It is probable that Oxford received a similar prohibition about the same time, as degrees in canon law have ever since been discontinued in England.

The decree of Gratian and the Decretals are usually cited not according to book and title, but by reference to the first word of the canon, which renders it necessary for the reader to consult the alphabetical list of the canons, in order to find out the book, title, and chapter, under which the canon he wishes to consult is to be found.

CAPACITY, LEGAL. [AGE; InSANITY.]

CAPITAL is a term used in commerce to express the stock of the merchant, manufacturer, or trader, used in carrying on his business, in the purchase or manufacture of commodities, and in the payment of the wages of labour; and is understood not only of money, but of buildings, machinery, and all other material objects which facilitate his operations in trade. The term itself and the practical qualities and uses of capital are sufficiently understood in this its commercial sense; but it is the object of the present article to treat of capital in a more extended form, as within the province of political economy, and embracing

not only the capital of particular individuals, but the entire capital of a country. In this latter sense, capital may be defined as the products of industry possessed by the community, and still available for use only, or for further production.

To consider capital in all its relations to the material interests of man, to the increase of population, the employment and wages of labourers, to profits and rent, it would be necessary to travel over the entire range of political economy; but this article will be confined to the following points.-I. The origin and growth of capital. II. Its application and uses.

I. Capital is first called into existence by the natural foresight of man, who even in a savage state discerns the advantage of not immediately consuming the whole produce of his exertions in present gratification, and stores up a part for his future subsistence. The greater proportion of mankind possess this quality, and those who do not possess it are admonished of its value by privation. In civilized life there are many concurrent inducements to accumulate savings; of which the most general are the anxiety of men to provide for their families and for themselves in old age; social emulation, or their desire to substitute the manual labour of others for their own, and of advancing themselves from one grade to another in society; and a love of ease and luxury, which can only be purchased by present sacrifices.

A desire to accumulate some portion of the produce of industry being thus natural to mankind and nearly universal, the growth of capital may be expected wherever the means of accumulation exist; or, in other words, wherever men are not obliged to consume the whole products of their labour in their own subsistence. From the moment at which a man produces more than he consumes, he is creating a capital; and the accumulated surplus of production over the consumption of the whole community is the capital of a country.

Thus far the origin and growth of capital are perfectly intelligible; but in order to understand completely the progress of accumulation, it will be necessary to advert to certain matters which inter

fere with its apparent simplicity. As yet no distinction has been noticed, either in the original definition of capital or in the succeeding explanation of its causes, between those parts of the products of labour which are reserved for the reproduction of other commodities, and those parts which are intended solely for use or consumption. These two classes of products have been divided by Adam Smith and others into capital and revenue; by which division all products are excluded from the definition of capital unless they be designed for aiding in further production. The impropriety of this distinction, however, has been pointed out by Mr. M'Culloch ('Principles of Political Economy,' p. 97), and it does not appear that any such division of the stock of a country is founded on a proper distinction. How can its future application be predicated? The fund exists, and so long as it is not sent abroad or consumed it must be regarded as capital. The whole of it may be made available for further production, or the whole may be consumed in present enjoyment; but no part is separable from the rest by an arbitrary classification. A man may choose, hereafter, to spend all his savings in drinking spirits and frequenting the theatres; or he may carefully lay them aside for the employment of a labourer in some profitable work: but in either case the stock has the same capacity for production while in the possession of the owner.

These different modes of expending capital produce very distinct results, both as regards the interests of the individual and of society, which will be examined under the second division of this article, where the application and uses of capital are considered; but here it must be observed that the accumulation of capital proceeds slowly or rapidly in proportion as one or other of these modes of expenditure is most prevalent. men habitually consumed or wasted all the results of their industry, it is obvious that the effect of such conduct would be precisely the same to themselves, in preventing accumulation, as if they were unable to earn anything more than was absolutely necessary for their support. It is true that

If

they would enjoy more of the luxuries of life, and, as will presently be seen, their expenditure would conduce, indirectly, to the accumulation of capital by others; but still their labour would only suffice for their own support from year to year, and no part of the produce of last year's labour would be available, in the present year, either for their support or for any other purposes. But when a man, instead of spending the results of a whole year's labour within the year, subsists upon one-half of them, the other half remains to him in the succeeding year, and in the course of two years such economy will have placed him a whole year in ad

vance.

As it is evident from these illustrations, that capital must increase in the ratio in which the products of labour exceed the expense of subsistence, it would seem to follow as a necessary consequence that, when a certain amount of capital has already been produced, the higher the rate of profit which may be obtainable from such capital, the greater will be the means of further accumulation. [PROFITS.] It is not necessary, indeed, that larger savings should in fact be made, as that must depend upon the conduct of those who enjoy the profits. The larger their profits may be, the greater may be their personal expenditure; and a taste for luxury and display may be engendered, the gratification of which may be more tempting than the desire of further accumulation. Nor can it be denied that, in practice, an unusually high rate of profits very often encourages an extravagant expenditure. It is, perhaps, more natural that it should produce self-indulgence rather than stimulate economy. The accumulation of savings is an act of selfdenial very necessary and profitable, it is true, but not very pleasing when the sacrifice is about to be made; and its necessity is less obvious when large profits are rapidly secured, than in less prosperous circumstances. When the profits arising from a man's capital, if expended, are already sufficient to satisfy his desires, we cannot wonder if he thinks less of the

morrow.

Yet, whether savings proportionate to the means of saving be made or not, it

is undeniable that a high rate of profit offers the best opportunity for augmenting capital. If three per cent. profit upon a man's stock will enable him to subsist as he has been accustomed, and to lay aside one per cent. annually as capital, the rise of profit to six per cent. would at once give him the power of adding four per cent., instead of one, to his capital, so long as he made no change in his style of living: and thus the doubling of the rate of profit would add to the means of accumulation in the proportion of four to one.

Making all due allowances, therefore, for greater profusion of expenditure, the proposition that large profits are favourable to accumulation may be held as demonstrable; for, reverse the circumstances, and suppose that profits were so small as to disable those who were willing to save from retaining any surplus whatever, the result must be precisely the same to themselves as if they had voluntarily consumed the whole excess of their production; while their poverty would not conduce indirectly to accumulation by others, as their expenditure of a surplus might have done.

But, apart from abstract reasoning, does the experience of different countries bear out the same conclusion? In England, for example, was capital accumulated more rapidly while profits were high, than within the last few years? These questions do not always receive the same answer. Mr. M'Culloch compares the progress of the United States of America, in wealth and population, with that of England and Holland, and ascribes the comparative rapidity of their advancement to the fact, that the rate of profit is generally twice as high in America as in either of the other countries. (Principles of Pol. Ec., p. 107.) He adds (p. 110), that if the rates of profit have become comparatively low, the condition of a nation, "how prosperous soever in appearance, is bad and unsound at bottom." Professor Joncs, on the other hand, denies this inference, and takes a more encouraging view of the state and prospects of our own country. He says, "That fall of the rate of profits, which is so common a phenomenon as to be almost a constant

These opinions, apparently conflicting, upon matters of fact, may prove, upon examination, not to be wholly irreconcilable. It is doubtful whether the United States of America be a good example for the purpose of this inquiry, as there have been many concurrent circumstances in operation, in that country, all tending to the same result; and of which high profits may be regarded as the effect rather than the cause. It will be safer, therefore, to confine the examination of the effects of high profits upon accumulation to our own country at different times.

First, then, it will be admitted on all hands that individual fortunes have been more rapidly accumulated in England at those times in which the profits in particular departments of industry were the highest. This admission is no more, in other words, than the truism, that when a trade is prosperous money is made by it. The next question is, whether a high rate of profit in all departments of industry has the same effect in augmenting the sum total of national capital. Political reasoners are too apt to assume a universal analogy between individuals and nations, which is often deceptive, and leads to inaccurate conclusions. In the present instance, if this analogy were alfowed, it would be decisive of the whole question, and would exclude all observation of facts. The fact, as stated by Professor Jones, is undeniable, that a fall in the rate of profits is the ordinary accompaniment of increasing population and land and in Holland, in proportion to the population, than in any country in the

The examination of the causes of profit is reserved for a separate article [PROFITS]; but here it may be stated that a fall in the rate of profits is the inevitable result of enormous accumulations of capital. Capitalists are forced into competition with each other, and are ultimately obliged to content themselves with lower profits. But, in the meantime, does the aggregate accumulation of national wealth diminish? This inference is contradicted by all the statistics which illustrate the progress and present condition of Great Britain. [CENSUS of 1841.] All evidence shows that British capital is positively overflowing, and seeking employment in every enterprise at home or abroad. It is true that no statistics can decide, with arithmetical precision, the comparative rate of increase in the accumulation of capital at different times; but so far as outward indications of wealth may be relied on, there are very few who are prepared to deny that accumulation is now advancing, in the aggregate, at least as rapidly as ever, in proportion to the population of the country.

This fact, it is submitted, is nevertheless consistent with the general proposition, that high profits are favourable to accumulation. In calculating the aggregate savings of a people already rich and populous, it must be borne in mind, first, that the existing generation has inherited the accumulations of many preceding generations; and, secondly, that a large number of persons continually saving a small portion of their individual gains, may produce a greater aggregate accumulation than the larger proportionate

With reference to the first point, t need only be observed, that if the inhe

2 G