Proceeding upon the fuppofition, that the exports of this country have, at different times, been greater than its imports, while an unfavourable balance of trade was indicated by the course of exchange, our author attempts to reconcile the inconfiftency, by examining the state of foreign expenditure during those times. This, he obferves, could only abforb the money that would o therwife have been imported, if a balance had been due. But it is, in fact, entirely tranfacted by bills; that is to fay, either by the remittance of bills in favour of this country, obtained instead of the balance due; or by drafts against this country, which constitute a debt, if no balance is due. Now, as no balance can be due, according to our author, while the courfe of exchange continues. below par, the foreign expenditure must be defrayed by drafts upon this country, as indeed the public reports state it to have been; in other words, the amount of this expenditure, which does not appear in the custom-house books, must be added to the imports; and it is to meet this expence, that the excess of exIn all this ports, otherwife unaccounted for, has been made. reafoning, we can difcover no inaccuracy. It is, indeed, futfciently ingenious and correct; tending to exhibit, in a very clear point of view, a palpable deficiency in the custom-house returns, as meafures of the commercial balance; and fupported by the official documents refpecting the public foreign expenditure, as well as by the fact of the fuddenly increafed exportation to Germany during the years of war.

But, in the remainder of Mr Wheatley's fpeculations upon the fame branch of his fubject, we meet with a remarkable degree of carele ffnefs and confufion. The foreign expenditure, he maintains, can never alter the standard of currency; that is, the relative proportion of money in the nation. But if the total balance of trade is unfavourable, the imports must exceed the exports, according to Mr Wheatley's own admiffion, P. 73. Now, all that part of the imports, which is accounted for by the custom-houfe books, falis fhort of the exports: therefore, the whole foreign expenditure, public and private, is justly added to the oftenfible imports. But this addition renders the imports greater than the exports, fince the courfe of exchange and the total balance is unfavourable. Hence, it is evident, that the balance is turned by that part of the imports which the customhoufe books do not account for, viz. by the foreign expenditure.

By comparing the tonnage with the value of the cargoes in the public returns for years of war, the increafed exportation will be found to confift chiefly of the finer manufactures, according to Dr Smith's remarks, from which more illuftration of the subject might have been de rived, than Mr Wheatley has thought proper to draw.

tual neceffaries. The effect of this barter, too, would not be confined to the exchange of the exifting fuperfluity; it would ftimulate both countries to increafe their industry, and enlarge the quantity of their exchangeable produce. The one would cultivate its corn fields, and the other its cotton plantations more extenfively; and the population of both would increafe, along with its ability to feed and clothe an additional number of inhabitants. To this fimple cafe, all the complicated operations of commerce are ultimately reducible; for all the advantages of trade centre in this, that it enables us to get what we want, by giving what we have no ufe for, and ftimulates our induftry to increase the quantity of that furplus, which is good for nothing, but for being exchanged against fomething elfe. It is impoffible, therefore, to commit a greater error than Mr Wheatley has done, in afferting that all trade of exchange is abfolutely unprofitable, and that a real gain can only be made by the tranfit trade. This fundamental error, however, runs through the whole of the third chapter; and towards the conclufion, it is defended by the example of the greateft commercial ftates, particularly Holland, Hamburgh, and the Italian republics; all of which, fays our author, acquired their principal wealth by the profits of the tranfit trade, p. 165, 6, 7, 8. We will venture to affert, that no part of the mercantile theory is more abfurd, than the peculiar favour with which it regards the carrying trade, as a special means of levying contributions upon foreigners. And the only difference between this feature of the mercantile theory, and the positions juft quoted from Mr Wheatley, is, that he favours the carrying trade (of which the entrepôt trade forms a branch), as a means of levying thofe contributions, not in the fhape of money, but of goods. The merchant who employs his ftock in circulating the commodities of foreign nations, receives a profit from them; but the effect of this employment of his stock, is to replace two foreign capitals; to promote the industry, and increase the wealth of foreigners. Had he employed the fame ftock in circulating the produce of his own country, it would have yielded him quicker returns of profit-would have promoted the induftry, and increased the wealth of his countrymen. Had he employed it in exchanging the produce of his country against that of foreigners, it would ftill have yielded profit; and would have increased the wealth of the country more than the carrying trade can do-though lefs than the home trade.

In every fort of foreign commerce, both in the foreign trade of confumption, and in the carrying trade, the profits of the merchant come from the foreign country, inafmuch as the use of foreign commodities enables the capitalift to obtain returns. In the

foreign

foreign trade of confumption, he receives his profit out of that valuable furplus which his operations have added to the stock of his country, by procuring a ufeful for a fuperfluous portion of property. In the carrying trade, his gains arife from the value which he has added to the ftocks of foreign nations, by means either of his capital alone, as in that carrying trade which employs foreign veffels; or of his capital, and fome part of the fixed tock of his own country, as in the entrepôt trade, and in that carrying trade which employs no foreign veffels. The direct augmentation of wealth, which his country receives in the shape of his profit, is the fame in all these cafes. That much more important increase of opulence, which it receives from the replacing of ftock, is confined to the foreign trade of confumption, and the latter branch of the carrying trade; but is, beyond all comparison, greateft in the foreign trade of confumption.

The example of thofe commercial nations, whofe wealth has been promoted by the tranfit trade, is of no moment in the prefent difcuffion. Their attention was directed to that branch of traffic, from the extent of their capitals, and the peculiar circumftances of their fituation with refpect to other ftates. The acquifition of the carrying trade is, in fact, a certain con fequence of an overflowing capital, and a convenient maritime fituation. But it is an acquifition not to be defired, until every other channel of employment is full. Mr Wheatley appears to us almost equally inaccurate in his general obfervations upon the wealth of nations, as deduced from their exports. In order to estimate the comparative wealth of Great Britain and the Con tinental ftates, he thinks it fufficient to compare the total exports of Great Britain with the exports of thofe other states. It is unneceffary to remark, that without exporting a fingle ton of goods, a nation may acquire prodigious wealth; and that the net revenue of a country engaged in foreign trade, cannot be calculated from its exports, any more than from any particular branch of its domeftic circulation.

The remaining part of this chapter we confider as by far the best part of Mr Wheatley's whole treatife. It is occupied with remarks upon the commerce of Great Britain, which he divides into three branches-the home trade, the colonial trade, and the tranfit trade. We particularly refer our readers to his remarks upon the Eaft Indian commerce, which are, for the moft part, ingenious and liberal, and which we wish he had not coupled with the very loofe and declamatory allufions to the provincial government of Rome, p. 161. The errors of his general opinions concerning the tranfit trade, we have already aken the liberty of noticing. His more minute and practical obfervations

obfervations upon the benefits of a free-port law, are entirely anexceptionable. But we muft obferve, before leaving this chapter, that there is a great degree of inaccuracy in his divifion of the fubject. By home trade, our author understands the exchange of domestic produce, or domeftic manufactures, against foreign produce or manufactures. This is exactly what all other writers denominate a foreign trade. Purfuing the erroneous idea formerly pointed out, he confiders the extent of this traffic, and of the colonial furplus of imports, as the true tests of national wealth; and omits altogether the moft important branch of traffic--the internal commerce of the country-that of the country and the towns-that, in fhort, which all other writers have denominated the home trade. Yet Mr Wheatley confiders the colonial trade, which is in fact a home trade, as a branch of foreign commerceotherwife, he would fcarcely enumerate it as one of his three divifions; and he beltows, at the fame time, unbounded eulogium on the penetration of the late Infpector-General, for having difcovered that the imports from the colonies are not like thofe from foreign nations, but are to be viewed as remittances, in fo far as they exceed the exports thither. It is inconfiftent, too, with all accuracy of principle to maintain, that this excefs of imports is the only gain which accrues from the colonial trade. cefs is not a gain from the colony trade; it is a remittance of rent to the non-refident proprietors of colonial property, and of in-, tereft to the moneyed men whofe capitals are lent upon colonial fecurities. The abolition of fome branches of the colonial monopoly might indeed augment this furplus, but not exactly in the manner defcribed by Mr Wheatley.

The ex

If fays he fome proportion of the produce now forced out to our colonies were diverted to an independent ftate, for an equivalent in foreign merchandise, and the fame quantity of colonial produce were notwithstanding imported, the nation would be enriched by the proportion directed to the continent for a foreign equivalent. If by a forced exportation of seven millions of produce to the Weft Indies, we received only eight millions in return, which is the present ftate of our trade, the nation gains [would gain] but one million by the bargain. But if, instead of this policy, we exported four millions out of the seven to the continent, to be returned in an equivalent of foreign produce, and the eight millions of fugar were received, with the aid of only three millions from home, the nation would gain five millions by this trade, instead of one. I have no means of eftimating the proportion of supply which the planter would draw from this country, if he were at liberty to choose his market; but it is obvious, that the lefs exports he take [takes] from us, and the more produce he bring [brings] to us, the more he advances the interefts of his country; and not by the more [the more] he take [takes] from us, and the lefs he bring [brings] to aus, as the Balance of Trade [Theory of a Balance of Trade] has endeavoured to perfuade us. p. 132. 33.

The

The great omiffion of circumftances in this ftatement of the fubject, is too obvious to require farther notice.

Upon the whole view of thefe three chapters, which contain Mr Wheatley's examination of the mercantile fyftem, and exhautt the main part of his defign, we have little hesitation in giving it as our opinion, that he fhould not expect to convert one fupporter of the old theory, whom the copious and matterly refutation of Dr Smith, and the luminous, though lefs correct arguments of Mr Hume (apparently more familiar to our author), have failed to undeceive.

The remaining part of Mr Wheatley's work does not require fo minute a confideration ;-the fubjects which it difcuffes are more concife, and the difcuffions themselves more confiftent. This, however, is the department in which we meet with the greatest portion of error; and the general conclufions are here as unfounded as those of the former chapters were felf-evident. The two leading doctrines of Mr Wheatley, in this part of his fpeculations, are, the rapid progreffive depreciation of currency, and the neceffity of a reformation in the paper circulation of Great Britain. The former of thefe topics he has needlefsly divided into two difcuffions, feparated by the latter. We fhall offer a few remarks on both his theories, in the order just now mentioned.

I. It is well known to our scientific readers, that Dr Smith made ufe of the average prices of grain, as the most accurate measure of the value of the precious metals at different periods. His reasons for adopting this ftandard, were partly drawn from his peculiar habit of confidering labour as the only measure of value, and partly from thofe circumftances in the nature of grain, which render it of all commodities the most conftantly exchanged, the most frequently compared with money, the most regularly demanded at all times, and the most univerfally used in all places. The common opinion, that filver had been finking in value, with more or less rapidity, ever fince the Romans left Britain, was therefore examined by Dr Smith, and refuted, upon a comparative view of the money prices of grain. He endeavoured to show, that, as the increase of corn had outftripped the fupply of the precious metals before the American mines were difcovered, the value of filver was rifing previous to that event ;-that, fince the influx from thofe mines completely produced their effects upon prices, the value of filver has again begun to rife, or, at least, is by no means falling;-and that all the additions which continually come from thence, are abforbed by newly formed or improved communities; confumed in manufactures; loft during tranfportation; or carried away to the markets of Afia.

Q3

T.