treatise lean much. With such a text, the sermon cannot well contain sound doctrine. In the third chapter the sources of wealth are analysed in the following terms.

"In treating of political economy, the science which professes to display and to teach the means of increasing the wealth of a state, it would seem that the first and most anxious object of inquiry ought to have been, what wealth is, and from what sources mankind derive it? for it appears impossible to dass with precision the means of increasing any thing, without an accurate notion of its nature and of its origin. Yet, if we reject the doctrine of the economists, it is in vain we look for a decided and precise opinion upon the origin of wealth in any moden work on public economy; and it is impossible not to think, that the auxiety of the economists to overthrow that system, which regards commerce as the source of opulence, has led them, in rejecting labour and capital as original sources of wealth, beyond the bounds that reason authorises.

"The liberal doctrines to which this theory led, by inculcating the impropriety of all leslative restraints, or interference in comLercial transaction, must command approbaon; but they are nowise inconsistent with the opinion we shall endeavour to establish, that land, labour, and capital, are all three enginal sources of wealth; that each has its dstinet and separate share (which it is most necessary should be defined and understood), in the formation of those objects which are desirable to man, and which have been shewn to constitute his wealth.

46

Though these three original sources of wealth in the various states of existence in which history displays inan, contribute to his wealth in very different proportions, yet in every state of society in which he is known to exist, each, more or less, affords its share. Consumption, most undoubtedly, must always precede production; but, long before man cultivated the earth as a means of proeaning his subsistence, he must have derived lus wealth from all these sources. To appropriate the fruit of a tree or an animal for food, he must have, in a certain degree, laLoured; and it will be shewn, that the first stick or stone he took into his hand, to aid and assist him in procuring those objects, by performing a portion of his labour, fulfilled the same duty in which every branch of the capital of a mercantile nation is now engaged.

1. Of Land, including Mines and Fisheries,

as a Source of national Wealth.

"In the earliest stages of society, men acquire that portion of wealth they derive from the surface of the earth, in the same manner as, in every stage of society, they attain that part of their wealth, which proceeds from the ocean. Their exertions are not made to

increase the quantity, but to appropriate and adapt for use the portions of those thingy nature has formed, for which their wants and their appetites give them a desire.

"In this state of his existence, therefore, man derives a greater proportion of what forms his wealth from land, than in subse. quent stages of society, when the aid of labour and capital are called in, not only to appropriate and render fit for use, but to meliorate the quality, and increase the quantity of those commodities for which his desires create a demand.

"This, however, is but of short continuance; for nature, whilst she has implanted in him the seeds of an unbounded variety of desires, has every where scattered with so sparing a hand, the means of satisfy ing them, that the assistance of labour and capital is early called in to perform the most important duty allotted to them through any stage of society, that of increasing the quan tity of those productions of nature which form the objects of our desire; and from that moment, the natural produce of the earth gives way to those productions, which the industry of man, by improvement in cultiva tion, procures in augmented quantity and superior quality.

"In treating of the increase of wealth, therefore, we shall again be called upon to consider this subject. At present it is only necessary to observe, that with the single exception of the economical system long prevalent in France, every thing useful to mm, produced by land, whether spontaneously or extracted by art, has been deemed, under all systems of political economy, to add to the wealth of a country.

"It was, indeed, the principal tenet of the economists, that the earth is the sole source of riches, which are multiplied by agriculture; but by a strange inode of reasoning, they exclude that part of the produce of the earth, which is reserved for seed, and for furnishing the nourishment of the cultivator, from forming any portion of national wealth. This produce was by them deemed necessary to secure the production of future wealth, and to use their own language, they regard it not as wealth, but as a machine that must be carefully preserved, for the continual reproduction of wealth."

dual riches. In this mistake he has been preceded by Dr. Adam Smith, who borrowed from the French physiocrates his unfounded or rather misfounded distinc, tion between productive and unproductive labour. Dr. Smith classes the labour of actors, preachers, barristers, as unproductive; merely because it assumes no permanent form, and is not consolidated with the price of any wares or commodities. An exhibition of fire. works is not an unproductive investiture of capital; although the whole capital employed is exploded on the spot, and loses its previous exchangeable value. From the income of the spectators was derived a new capital, not only equal to, but greater than, the capital thus consumed and annihilated. Very few of the spectators diminished their own capital by attending, and thus at the end of the transaction, the national capital was greater by all the profit of the undertaker, less the loss of capital to those few spectators, who withdrew from their capital and not from their revenue the price of admission. It is thus with actors and singers. Out of income that would not else be hoarded, they collect in small sums a mass of property. Whatever portion of it they hoard becomes an addition to the national capital. Whatever portion of it they spend increases circulation as much as an addition to the national capital producing an equivalent revenue. Disinterested labour is the only unproductive labour.

Lord Lauderdale, it seems, is an anxious Anti-Pittite, which, in questions of statesmanship, does honour to his judgment: but, in questions of finance, Mr. Pitt has usually taken a wise course, has selected the most rational plans of others, and has executed them with great practical dexterity. Among his meritorious laws, surely must be classed the institution in 1786 of an accumulating fund for the progressive purchase of the national debt. Unless a vast sun were daily brought into the stock-market for the purchase of funded property, it would be impossible to keep afloat so vast a national debt. Where could the large stock-holders find, any day, ready-money purchasers, if the absorption of the commissioners was not nearly equivalent to the daily redundance of stock? The depreciation of the funds would proceed with accelerated velocity, whenever a tendency to sell had once begun; and government would

have to borrow at a double rate of interest. If a banker were to leave off exchanging his notes for cash, those notes would depreciate: so, if government were to leave off exchanging stock, by means of the commissioners, for ready money, we should again have Ame rican-war prices, public despondence, nodding institutions, and certain bankruptcy. The ancient maxim Si vis amari, languida regnes manu has sunk rather too deep into lord Lauderdale's benevolent nature; he would relieve the people from the just burden of their own expenditure, and hand over to posterity undiminished the whole debt created by the present generation. A vast portion of the fourth chapter is consecrated to the attack of Mr. Pitt's law of 1786: this forms the only dangerous part of the volume.

Some just observations occur in the concluding chapter.

which produces a conviction, that the dis"But it is not general reasoning alone tribution of wealth, in all societies, must ultimately regulate the formation of wealth. The saine conclusion may be deduced, by a still plainer and more familiar process, from an examination of the situation, the habits, and the distribution of the property of mankind; a view of the subject which may be formly evincing, that, in every society, it is illustrated by examples innumerable, unithe wealth of the consumers who resort to the market, and the manner in which it is distributed amongst them, that universally decide both the quantity and quality of the goods that are exposed to sale.

"We have often occasion to remark, in many of the sinall fishing-towns of England, shops are of a nature adapted to the demand where the goods generally exposed in the dictated by the property of the inhabitants, that the summer season no sooner invites to the coast a number of opulent families, for the purpose of bathing, than there is tra ferred thither a quantity of goods suited to the demand which the fortunes of those who for a time visit the place create; and the residue of these goods is at the end of the season natives are not such as to create a demand constantly removed, because the fortunes cí for commodities of that nature.

It is to be remarked, too, that for the good of that place, as well as of those new shopkeepers who resort to it, it is necessare that those who thus for a time reside in it should not be too affluent; for the tastes and habits which extreme affluence generates, naturally induce those who possess it to br from a distance their wines, and many other articles of their consumption, as well as to send to the capital for any new ornaments, ut additional articles of clothing, which the taste of day may suggest as desirable; s

matter, by omitting what is vague, indefinite, or notorious, in the argument. The style will appear diffuse to those who have the habit of reasoning: in abstruse disquisitions this favours popularity. Adam Smith is diffuse; but clear, intelligible, and significant. The subject does honour to the author's choice, and merits his persevering attention. What Turgot recommends to the statesmen of France, is also applicable

to Great Britain. "Cette nation est nombreuse; ce n'est pas le tout qu'elle obéisse, il faut s'assurer de la pouvoir bien commander: et pour y parvenir, il semble qu'il faudrait connaitre sa situa tion, ses besoins, ses facultés, et meme dans un assez grand détail." To such statistical inquiries, the leisure and the labour of lord Lauderdale are honoura bly consecrated.

IN the preface to this most instructive work, we read much of the fickleness of the French people; of its changes from democracy to royalty; from infidelity to catholicism; from arrogance to servility; and this with a nationality of concert, which demonstrates alike the internal indifference to each successive form of profession. The fact is, that Frenchmen all pursue advancement in life; that they adapt themselves, without scruple, to the slang in vogue, and immediately engage in any competition, where superiority is honoured with public recompenses. In plasticity, emulation, and ambition, they abound; in principle, perseverance, and disinterest, not at all.

Under governments that have long been free, and are accustomed to the alternate ascendancy of hostile parties, consistency is a rational speculation. The steady, but temperate, partisan, may rival the new zealot in his chance of preferment: fidelity has its value as well as intrepidity. Such governments too are tolerant; they suffer the display of adverse excellence, and have a secret pleasure in dividing the public suffrage, against potent eloquence and acknowledged merit. But, in France, whatever is not heard with pleasure, by the ruler of the hour, is not long heard at all; and thus an apparent unanimity is produced, not by the conversion of opinion, but by the silencing of contradiction. They have made an outcry about the liberty of opinion, and the liberty of the press; but they have done nothing to protect either: the tribune is banished for his harangue, and the author for his diatribe.

The habit of tolerance is best generated by rival periodical publications, which contend as often about topics indifferent to the magistrate, as about those which excite his jealousy. Thus factious ques

tions become mere seasonings in the cauldron of public opinion, not its ele mental ingredients. The subdivision of attention weakens the bitterness of its adherence; and truths, which whole would nauseate, are swallowed without reluctance in minces.

The habit of tolerance must precede the institutions to defend it. Laws avail not without manners. The pret tiest plans of reformation cannot be superinduced by a vote; they must accord with the best usage of instructed districts, and respected citizens. Every thing should be tried; first on the small, next on the large scale. Give to one ward of the metropolis, or to one city of the empire, a wise charter of representation, a popu lar judicial constitution, a pervasive administration of the poor, before the forms of proceeding be superinduced on the whole state. The forty-third of Elizabeth resulted from the experience t Norwich; therefore it has been found a wise poor-law. Had a-priori lawgivers attempted such a statute, they would have done no more good than the Linguets and the Mirabeaus, by their spe culations on mendicity and work-houses Legislation, like all sound philosophy. begins in experiment; and ought mere! to define and generalize the result of th best practice. Laws should be made not for, but from, usage; and ought more to survive, than to precede it. They are patent machines for facilitating social labour; but they are only useful, where the sort of labour to which they refer is in demand. The French seem t think they require no human tendance but are to bestow order and welfare without being put in motion.

Hence it happens that their legislation is so versatile: whatever of ancient practice has remained is returning to be law. whatever of reformation has been un