An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of

13

Adam Smith

upon them, produce more in proportion to the extent and natural

fertility of the ground. But this superiority of produce is seldom

much more than in proportion to the superiority of labour and

expense. In agriculture, the labour of the rich country is not al-

ways much more productive than that of the poor; or, at least, it is

never so much more productive, as it commonly is in manufac-

tures. The corn of the rich country, therefore, will not always, in

the same degree of goodness, come cheaper to market than that of

the poor. The corn of Poland, in the same degree of goodness, is as

cheap as that of France, notwithstanding the superior opulence

and improvement of the latter country. The corn of France is, in

the corn-provinces, fully as good, and in most years nearly about

the same price with the corn of England, though, in opulence and

improvement, France is perhaps inferior to England. The corn-

lands of England, however, are better cultivated than those of

France, and the corn-lands of France are said to be much better

cultivated than those of Poland. But though the poor country,

notwithstanding the inferiority of its cultivation, can, in some

measure, rival the rich in the cheapness and goodness of its corn,

it can pretend to no such competition in its manufactures, at least

if those manufactures suit the soil, climate, and situation, of the

rich country. The silks of France are better and cheaper than those

of England, because the silk manufacture, at least under the present

high duties upon the importation of raw silk, does not so well suit

the climate of England as that of France. But the hardware and

the coarse woollens of England are beyond all comparison supe-

rior to those of France, and much cheaper, too, in the same degree

of goodness. In Poland there are said to be scarce any manufac-

tures of any kind, a few of those coarser household manufactures

excepted, without which no country can well subsist.

This great increase in the quantity of work, which, in conse-

quence of the division of labour, the same number of people are

capable of performing, is owing to three different circumstances;

first, to the increase of dexterity in every particular workman; sec-

ondly, to the saving of the time which is commonly lost in passing

from one species of work to another; and, lastly, to the invention

of a great number of machines which facilitate and abridge labour,

and enable one man to do the work of many.

First, the improvement of the dexterity of the workmen, neces-

sarily increases the quantity of the work he can perform; and the

division of labour, by reducing every man’s business to some one

simple operation, and by making this operation the sole employ-

ment of his life, necessarily increases very much the dexterity of

the workman. A common smith, who, though accustomed to

handle the hammer, has never been used to make nails, if, upon

some particular occasion, he is obliged to attempt it, will scarce, I

---

14

The Wealth of Nations

am assured, be able to make above two or three hundred nails in a

day, and those, too, very bad ones. A smith who has been accus-

tomed to make nails, but whose sole or principal business has not

been that of a nailer, can seldom, with his utmost diligence, make

more than eight hundred or a thousand nails in a day. I have seen

several boys, under twenty years of age, who had never exercised

any other trade but that of making nails, and who, when they

exerted themselves, could make, each of them, upwards of two

thousand three hundred nails in a day. The making of a nail, how-

ever, is by no means one of the simplest operations. The same

person blows the bellows, stirs or mends the fire as there is occa-

sion, heats the iron, and forges every part of the nail: in forging

the head, too, he is obliged to change his tools. The different op-

erations into which the making of a pin, or of a metal button, is

subdivided, are all of them much more simple, and the dexterity

of the person, of whose life it has been the sole business to per-

form them, is usually much greater. The rapidity with which some

of the operations of those manufactures are performed, exceeds

what the human hand could, by those who had never seen them,

he supposed capable of acquiring.

Secondly, The advantage which is gained by saving the time

commonly lost in passing from one sort of work to another, is

much greater than we should at first view be apt to imagine it. It is

impossible to pass very quickly from one kind of work to another,

that is carried on in a different place, and with quite different

tools. A country weaver, who cultivates a small farm, must loose a

good deal of time in passing from his loom to the field, and from

the field to his loom. When the two trades can be carried on in the

same workhouse, the loss of time is, no doubt, much less. It is,

even in this case, however, very considerable. A man commonly

saunters a little in turning his hand from one sort of employment

to another. When he first begins the new work, he is seldom very

keen and hearty; his mind, as they say, does not go to it, and for

some time he rather trifles than applies to good purpose. The habit

of sauntering, and of indolent careless application, which is natu-

rally, or rather necessarily, acquired by every country workman

who is obliged to change his work and his tools every half hour,

and to apply his hand in twenty different ways almost every day of

his life, renders him almost always slothful and lazy, and incapable

of any vigorous application, even on the most pressing occasions.

Independent, therefore, of his deficiency in point of dexterity, this

cause alone must always reduce considerably the quantity of work

which he is capable of performing.

Thirdly, and lastly, everybody must be sensible how much labour

is facilitated and abridged by the application of proper machinery.

It is unnecessary to give any example. I shall only observe, there-

---