only in a comparative way; the comparison either being made with other nations at the same time, or with the same nation at different times.  Thus, for example, in comparing the wealth and power of Britain now, with what they were at the latter end of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, we find that the merchants of Liverpool, during the first three years of last =sic= war, fitted out a force of privateers equal to the Spanish armada; and consequently superior to the whole naval force of England at that time; there can be no doubt, then, that both the wealth and power of the nation are increased.  Again, if we find that our ships block up the

—–­ {11} A man may be very feeble, yet in very good health for his whole life-time.  He may also have great strength, though he may not enjoy a very good state of health; yet nevertheless, health and strength are very intimately connected, and never can be completely separated. -=-

[end of page #8]

ports of Holland, and prevent their navy from venturing to sea, we must conclude, that the relative power of the two nations is altered, since the time that the Dutch fleet rode triumphant in the river Thames.  But, if we want to make a comparison between the naval power of England and that of France and Spain, we must not compare it with the strength of their navies in the year 1780, when they bid us defiance at Plymouth, but take things actually as they are at this present time.

When a nation is upon an equality with others, for wealth, it may be considered as neither deserving the name of a rich or a poor nation, whatever its real wealth or poverty may be.  The same thing holds with power.  When a nation is merely able to protect itself, but fully equal to that, though unable to make conquests, or aggrandize itself, against the will of other nations, it may be said to be neither weak nor strong.  Thus, for example, Denmark as a nation is upon a par with others; and neither to be called wealthy and powerful, nor weak and poor, though it certainly has both more actual wealth and power than it had in the eighth century, when the Danes burnt London, Paris, and Cologne.

Thus, then, with respect to my reasoning, the whole is to be considered as applying to other nations at the same time; and the degree they are above or below par, is the measure of wealth and power, poverty and weakness. {12}

But, with respect to a nation itself, wealth is comparative in the progression of time.  In speaking of power, we compare nations at the same period, and, in speaking of wealth, we may either compare a nation with itself at different periods, or with others at the same time.

We shall not find any example of a nation’s becoming less wealthy whilst it increased in power; but we shall find many instances of nations becoming wealthy whilst they were losing their power, though,

—–­ {12} According to this definition, if all the nations on earth were to increase in wealth and power equally, they would be considered as stationary; their relative situations would remain the same; like those of the fixed stars, or those of soldiers who march in a regiment with perfect regularity, and retain their relative portion in the same manner as if they stood still.  But this case, among nations, is only an imaginary one; therefore, the definition given answers the true purpose of investigation. -=-