therefore, cannot in any degree be augmented by them, otherwise than by their saving part of what is intended for their daily subsistence; whereas cultivators, on the contrary, may live up to the whole of their income, and yet at the same time greatly enrich the state, because their industry affords the surplus produce called rent. The author of this tract observes that Dr. Smith, in putting the labour of menial servants on the same footing with the labour of artificers, has totally mis-stated the doctrine of the œconomists; who make a distinction between the labour which yields an equivalent for expenditure, and the labour that yields no equivalent: which last is the case with the labour of menial servants. To exemplify the author's mode of argumentation, we shall insert the following passage; containing, first, Dr. Smith's reason for thinking that labour of artificers not only affords an equivalent for expenditure, but also yields an increase; and secondly, the present writer's attack on that doctrine : "It seems upon every supposition improper to say, that the labour of artificers, manufacturers, and merchants, does not increase the real revenue of the society. Though we should suppose, for example, as it seems to be supposed in this system, that the value of the daily, monthly, and yearly consumption of this class was exactly equal to that of its daily, monthly, and yearly production, yet it would not from thence follow that its labour added nothing to the real revenue, to the real value of the annual produce of the land and labour of the society. An artificer, for example, who in the first six months after harvest, executes ten pounds worth of work, though he should, in the same time, consume ten pounds worth of corn and other necessaries, yet really adds the value of ten pounds to the annual produce of the land and labour of the society. While he has been consuming a half yearly revenue of ten pounds worth of corn and other necessaries, he has produced an equal value of work, capable of purchasing either to himself, or to some other person, an equal half yearly revenue. value therefore of what has been consumed and produced, during these six months, is equal not to ten, but to twenty pounds. It is possible, indeed, that no more than ten pounds worth of this value may ever have existed at any one moment of time. But if the ten pounds worth of corn and other necessaries, which were consumed by the artificer, had been consumed by a soldier, or by a menial servant, the value of that part of the annual produce which existed at the end of six months, would have been ten pounds less than it actually is, in consequence of the labour of the artificer. Though the value of what the artificer produces therefore, should not, at any one moment of time, be supposed greater than the value he consumes, yet at every moment of time the actually existing value of goods in the market is, in consequence of what he produces, greater than it otherwise would be. The "When "When the patrons of this system assert that the consumption of artificers, manufacturers, and merchants, is equal to the value of what they produce, they probably mean no more than that their revenue, or the fund destined for their consumption is equal to it. But if they had expressed themselves more accurately, and only asserted that the revenue of this class was equal to the value of what they produced, it might readily have occurred to the reader, that what would naturally have been saved out of this revenue, must necessarily increase more or less the real wealth of the society. In order therefore to make out something like an argument, it was necessary that they should express themselves as they have done; and this argument, even supposing things actually were as it seems to presume them to be, turns out to be a very inconclusive one.” I choose to give Dr. Smith's arguments without any abridgment, though they would lose nothing in being expressed in fewer words. His verboseness and ambiguity clearly shew how a man of ability, when overlooking fundamental principles, may speculate upon the surface of things,without ever getting at the kernel. In this third observation we have what, in mercantile accounts, is called a second entry, that is, the same articles stated twice in the same account, which must necessarily occasion a false aggregate or false conclusion, "While an artificer," he says, "has been consuming a half yearly revenue of ten pounds worth of corn, and other necessaries, he has produced an equal value of work capable of purchasing either to himself, or to some other person, an equal half yearly revenue. The value therefore of what has been consumed and produced, during these six months, is equal not to ten, but to twenty pounds." Were this true, artificers and manufacturers would certainly be a productive class. But in stating the case with precision, which the Doctor has not done, it will appear that this hocus pocus manner of turning ten into twenty, is like legerdemain tricks in general, a mere deception. The artificer, he means to say, who produces a piece of manufacture, after half a year's work, may sell it for as much as will maintain him a second half year; consequently, though he has consumed only what fed him six months, he may get, by his manufacture, what will feed him twelve months. It has totally escaped Dr. Smith, that the artificer had no right to sell his manufacture, as it was previously mortgaged to pay for his first six months provisions; for it cannot be presumed that his first six months provisions were given to him gratis. He that furnished those provisions to him must be reimbursed; and how is he to be reimbursed? By the piece of manufacture. Consequently the ten pounds still remain ten pounds. I will state a case analogous, and similar to that mentioned by Dr. Smith, which will render his false conclusion still clearer to my reader. Suppose a farmer has a desire for a good clock, and meeting with a skilful clock-maker, just come out of prison, without a farthing in his pocket, agrees with him on the following terms, namely, to furnish him with provisions, materials and tools, till he finish the clock, and to have the clock in return. Would not the clock-maker be deemed a dishonest person, or a fool, if he attempted to dispose of the clock to any other person but the farmer who furnished him with provisions? It is, I think, unnecessary to enlarge further in the refutation of the third observation. I shall only remark, that the second argument, that the artificer by his labour must create an increase of value, because the menial servant does not, is equally inconclusive as the first, and has already been answered." The author maintains that, while Dr. Smith has directed his arguments against the sound part of the economical system, he has adopted the greatest error of that system; which consists in considering the receivers of land-rents as a productive class in society. What made the French writers persevere in this error, this cautious inquirer does not pretend to determine. He thinks, however, that they make some compensation for their mistakes, by intimating that the church and the king are to be served out of the land-rents: but Dr. S., he says, is not aware of their error; which, having received it as an engraftment from them, he allows to pervade the whole of his own inquiry. The proprietors of lands, as mere receivers of land-rents, are so far from being a productive class, that they are the most unessential and most burdensome class in society. It is contrary to all reason and to all policy to allow mere idlers in a state, and to suffer those who receive one-fourth of the whole income of the kingdom to do nothing for it in return. Cicero says to landholders," major hereditas venit unicuique vestrum in iisdem bonis a jure et a legibus, quam ab iis a quibus illa ipsa bona relicta sunt." "You are not so much indebted to those who bequeathed to you your estates, as to the laws and govenrment which protect you in the enjoyment of them.", The defence of the state, therefore, necessarily devolves on them, since they are the only class in society who have not any other appropriate employment; and thus, by placing the national defence on the surplus revenue, every landlord in the kingdom becomes politically as much a tenant to the state, as any of his farmers is a tenant to him. The author shews, by an elaborate yet perspicuous computation, that, had a rent of four shillings in the pound been raised on the rents of land since the æra of the revolution, when the land-tax was imposed, we should have been entirely free from any national debt. The Anglo-Saxon monarchs placed the whole defence of the kingdom on a single land-tax; and the feudal system confirmed that mode of taxation. Henry II., when he obtained possession of Ireland, firmly united that island to England by the fiefs and benefices which he there established, holding of the crown of England. The tenants in sapite, whose lands lay in Ireland, were bound by their tenures to give their fixed supplies to the crown of England; and they they took their seats in the parliaments of England as pos sessors of those fiefs; a circumstance which explains the hitherto inexplicable riddle of the Irish peers in the English parliament. Our limits do not allow us to enumerate the many important benefits that might, according to our author, have resulted from the continuance of this system, and that might still result from a return to the spirit of it. The following will serve as a specimen : There is not, at present, a complaint more general among all classes of men than that there is hardly any living, because all things are become so extravagantly dear. There is, however, a possibility that all things might become extremely plentiful, and consequently extremely cheap, and the system of the Economists leads to that. A common complaint, even among the rich, is, that the keeping of a horse is at present extremely expensive, oats and fodder are become so immoderately dear. Now the fact is, that the keep of a horse. is in reality not dearer at present than it was 500 years ago; nay, perhaps is even cheaper; for 500 years ago it might have required the produce of three acres, but, from the improvements in agricul ture, the produce of two acres may perhaps now suffice. In like manner, the maintenance of a regiment of soldiers is probably not more in reality now than it was 150 years ago, but the parliamentary estimates, and exceedings of estimates, prove that the pecuniary expence of present days is far beyond what it was 150 years ago; that government accomplishes not so much with 20 millions as it formerly did with 5 millions, and that it is now actually experiencing the impotence of pecuniary wealth. Other political writers, besides Mr. Young, have been deluded by the notion of the great importance of high price. The following false computation of Davenant has been repeated, with eulogiums, by subsequent writers." In the year 1600," says Davenant, "the whole rental of England did not exceed 6 millions, and the price of land was 12 years purchase; in 1688 the rental was 14 millions, and the price of land 18 years purchase, so that within this period, the land rose from 72 to 252 millions." A modern author, by the same way of computing, reckoned the value of the lands of England a few years ago at 700 millions, that is, according to him, the lands of England are near ten times as valuable now as they were in the end of Queen Elizabeth's reign. This the Economist affirms to be a most gross miscalculation, similar to that of doubling the price of the supply of a garrison, instead of doubling the supply; for, in the time of Elizabeth, England fed and clothed 4 millions of people; and at the present day can hardly feed and clothe 8 millions of people; consequently the real rise of value of its lands is barely double. But, if instead of multiplying money, and thereby needlessly raising prices, we had been studious for these 200 years past to have multiplied substantial and physical wealth by an unremitting encouragement of agriculture, the lands of England at this moment might perhaps have been near four times as valuable as in the time of Elizabeth; that is, they might now be feeding and clothing 15 or 16 millions of inhabitants." • Mr. Mr. Young's ill-grounded fondness for high price leads him to undervalue or decry low price or cheapness, without, however, explaining by any kind of illustration, the prejudice that low price would bring upon a community. He makes assertion supply the place of argument, and says, p. 82, Cheapness of provisions is such an encourager of idleness, that no manufactures can stand under it.' Now, so far from this assertion being consistent with fact, cheapness of provisions is the very thing that enterprising master manufacturers above all things wish for. It is the load-stone that draws manufactures to itself. It has drawn the woollen manufacturers even away from the woollen counties into the North; it has removed the gauze manufacture from London to Paisley; and the blanket manufacture from London to Dundee. What cheapness of provisions is in some places, cheapness of coals is to Bristol, Newcastle, Birmingham, and Carron. Were coals to be as dear in those places, as in some parts of the kingdom, can it be doubted but their glass works and iron works would quickly decline. Were a manufacturer of Birmingham to be asked whether he would wish coals and provisions to be dear there, he would probably answer by the following question: Sir, would you wish to ruin our town? Before we conclude this article, we may observe that, in the computation in p. 24, the number 715 is repeatedly written by mistake for 525; and, in enumerating the sources of the former wealth of Holland, p. 30 et seq. the author seems to forget the prodigious benefit derived by that country from being the depository of the merchandice of all parts of the world. Without speaking decidedly on the principal points at issue between the present writer and the illustrious Adam Smith, we recommend the perusal of this judicious performance to those who turn their thoughts to the subject of political economy; persuaded that there are few readers who may not derive from it some useful information. ART. IX. Vaurien: or, Sketches of the Times: exhibiting Views of the Philosophies, Religions, Politics, Literature, and Manners of 12mo. 2 Vols. 8s. sewed. Cadell jun. and Davies. the Age. 1797. THIS writer attacks modern philosophy, republicanism, socinianism, &c. with wit and vivacity, tempered with a love of very restricted liberty, and a predilection for toleration; manifesting also a competent knowlege of the world,—of characters, and of the arts of narrative:-but we consider as reprehensible his holding up to ridicule, almost by name, persons of no inconsiderable respectability: the species only, not the individual, being the fair game of the satirist. This licen tious proceeding becomes truly cruel, when to the individual thus attacked and indicated, fictitious crimes are attributed, in REV. SEPT. 1797* D the |