scarcely be said to have made compensation for that which he derived from our political writers on the subject of govern

ment.

About the middle of the last century, appeared Dr. Quesnay, whose notions attracted general attention, and procured a number of followers. The zeal of the disciples for their master, and the estimation in which they held his opinions, occasioned them to be denominated a sect, the famed sect of the Economists. The present author allows to this school the praise of proclaiming some important truths, with that of directing the attention to objects of public utility; and the good effects of these services remain, while the mischiefs arising from their demerits have disappeared, and are forgotten. One thing, with respect to the economists, (he says) cannot be denied, and it intitles them to the gratitude and esteem of mankind; their labours have been favourable to strict morality, and to the rights of men in disposing of their persons and goods. All the respectable writers who appeared in France, between 1760 and 1780, were evidently swayed by the maxims of this celebrated sect: but Turgot was rather their friend and patron than their disciple; he saw their errors, and held opinions peculiar to himself.

The author thus announces the appearance of the work of our great countryman :

· In 1776, Adam Smith, an élève of that Scotch school which produced so many literati, historians, philosophers, and learned men of the first order, presented to the public his " Inquiry into the nature and causes of the Wealth of Nations." When this performance was read, it was perceived that there was no political economy before Dr. Smith. The writings of the economists were no doubt of use to him, as well as the conversation which he had with estimable and learned Frenchmen in his several visits to Paris: but between the doctrines of that sect and his own, there exists as great a difference as that which separates the system of Tycho Brahe from the philosophy of Newton. Many of the facts which occur in his treatise were before known: but he first pointed out their connection, and traced them to the laws of nature. He has not only confirmed truths, but has set a mark on errors. His work is a series of demonstrations, which have elevated many propositions to the rank of first principles, and have plunged a number of others into that gulph in which false systems, vague ideas, and extravagant conceits struggle for an instant, before they disappear for ever.'

M. SAY then vindicates Dr. Smith from the charge of having borrowed from Stewart without acknowleging his obligations. We have sometimes heard this accusation preferred, but never have known it supported in any other way than by general assertions. Stewart's object was to persuade the public

that

that the riches of a nation depend on the quantity of its exports; and that of the partisans of Quesnay, that they consist solely of the produce of agriculture. There is good in each system, but they are both fundamentally false, and Smith has demonstrated them to be so. The system of Stewart was not in vented by him, but had been long known before he adopted it; and Dr. Smith, therefore, in refuting it, was not required to refer to him in particular,

As it is the sole object of the publication before us to exhibit the theory of Dr. Smith in a new and improved form, it will not be expected that we should do more than announce its grand divisions, and note some of those passages in which its principles are neatly stated, happily elucidated, or strikingly illustrated. The work is divided into three parts, the first of which treats of produce, the second of circulation, and the third of consumption, which M. SAY distinguishes from expenditure.

The author very ingeniously applies the principle of the division of labour to the practices of forestalling and engrossing; and we could wish that declaimers against them would peruse his observations. They would then see that they must either. abate their clamours, or new-model a disquisition which has been generally admired, and from which Dr. Smith obtained so much praise. He also well illustrates the superior interest which a state has in a capital invested in land, by remarking that no trace remains of many among the most flourishing of the Hanseatic towns; while Lombardy and Flanders, in spite of the wars of which they have often been the theatre, rank among the best cultivated and most populous countries in Europe.

A well known doctrine of Dr. Smith, which runs directly counter to former notions, is thus stated by M. SAY. When a nation has a surplus of produce of one kind, the way to dispose of it is to create that of another kind. It is when no ob

ject of exchange can be furnished at home, that exportation becomes profitable; and also when it procures commodities which grow solely in another climate: but the most profitable sales are those which a nation makes to itself, because they can only take place by the production of two values at home; that which is sold, and that which is bought. Exportation is then merely supplemental to interior consumption, and less beneficial than it.

In opposition to the opinions of the ablest writers, and to the most eloquent and forcible reasoning that is any where to be found, the author contends that servile is more efficient than free labour; and that the service of the slave, impelled

by the whip, exceeds that of the volunteer workman. Not only have publicists of the first order maintained an opposite doctrine, but powerful and enlightened sovereigns have been desirous of acting on other principles. Czars of Russia and kings of Poland wished to abolish slavery throughout their dominions. Was Europe in a higher state of culture, was greater labour bestowed on tillage, when serfs and villains were principally engaged in the business of husbandry? M. SAY does not sufficiently distinguish between the abstract question and the particular case. He considers the aversion of planters to the emancipation of their slaves as an unsurmountable argument against all the conclusions of the best writers but we were astonished to find so able a person hazard so weak an observation. Was there ever a practice that once generally prevailed in husbandry, or trade, in defence of which the same argument might not be urged? Have not those who have been long accustomed to usages the most incommodious, and customs the most preposterous, shewn a bigotted attachment to them, and a decided unwillingness to abolish them? It was with much difficulty that, at no great distance of time from the present, the people of some districts in Ireland could be induced to abandon the practice of attaching the plough to the tails of the horses: but will it be contended that this barbarous mede was superior to that of putting the animals in harness?

The writer's system of colonization is not, in the abstract, liable to objection; and, could the tranquillity of Europe be restored, and established on a permanent base, it would be as eligible as it is reasonable; but a state which should act on it, in the present circumstances of the world, would be guilty of gigantic folly, and expose itself to ridicule by its magnanimity.

Among many excellent observations, which might have been more forcibly urged and farther extended, we should recommend the following to declaimers against farmers and monopolists. The author is treating of the trade in corn:

Of all the articles of home produce, none is so little capable of being monopolized as corn. A monopoly of this kind requires an immense capital, for it is only supposed to take place in years of scarcity; and it is an article of most diffusive growth, which covers a vast space, and which is in the hands of a great number of people, so that it cannot be monopolized but by acts extending almost to all the points of a territory, and by the intervention of a multitude of agents. It is also one of the most bulky articles, and consequently one of those which is conveyed and stored at the most expence; one which requires to be kept with great care, and that is liable to very important alterations prejudicial to the owner, which are the more serious in proportion as the quantity on which he speculates is greater. If we

are

are to regard the clamours always prevalent in bad years, we should believe that every neighbourhood had its monopolist; while the above representation clearly shews that they must be very rare beings; or rather that it is impossible that they should exist to the extent supposed. The prepossessions against dealers in corn are of great public detriment, as they occasion the trade to be shunned by respectable persons, and to be thrown into the hands of low people.'

The manufacture of the Gobelins at Paris, it is well known, is conducted by the government; and it is carried on, as might be expected, at a considerable loss. The author remarks that it may be said that this sacrifice is necessary, because the undertaking furnishes articles proper for presents to be made by the rulers of the state, and such as are required to adorn its palaces: but, he adds, if a nation be better governed in consequence of this sumptuous liberality and internal magnificence, it needs. not add to this expence the loss incurred by speculations ill conducted. Let it fairly buy what it thinks proper to give; and it will procure better articles, at a less expence, because individuals manufacture at a cheaper rate than governments.

M. SAY is of opinion that government can best serve commerce by leaving it to its own course, and assisting its operations by canals, roads, and public buildings; and instead of keeping the soldiery idle in garrisons in time of peace, he would have them employed on useful public works. The statesman who should introduce this change would, in his judgment, acquire first-rate glory, and the benedictions of mankind.

The discussion, which here occurs, of the important question whether the prosperity of one country is injurious to that of another, is perspicuous, convincing, and worthy of an admirer and disciple of Dr. Smith. We wish that M. SAY could diffuse among his countrymen the same liberal and well-founded sentiments; and that he could render his government satisfied of their justice and soundness. Could he persuade it to adopt them, and act up to them, he also would intitle himself to the gratitude of millions on each side of the water.

Does England,' he says, possess a number of precious things; why should this hinder us from obtaining similar treasures? If England has more cotton, is it not in our power to secure more silk? Spain, in proportion to its size and population, boasts more specie than any country in Europe, and yet it is considered as one of the most indigent. It is the interest of a state to have a rich neighbour, which proves a fairer and larger dealer in its surplus articles. It was this conviction that, in 1802, determined the United States of North America to civilize the Creeks. It wished to make them owners of produce, in order that it might have dealings with them, and that the ne might have the power to buy that which the other had the desire to sell.

one

The writer intimates that this country, while it holds out profitable relations to France, is likely to supplant it in its commerce with other nations, and to deprive it of advantages which it would otherwise enjoy. We shall not vindicate ourselves, because the author does not impute any blame to us on this account; but, had he done so, he might have been answered by observations furnished by himself. He asks; are we to arm because Britain may possess herself of some of our foreign markets? I do not believe that there is any one country, the traffic with which yields profit sufficient to pay the interest of the principal swallowed by a war, without adverting to all the ills which follow in its train.' He then enters into a calculation in support of this assertion; and he adds that apprehensions of being thus outdone by its rival are chimerical, which he very satisfactorily proves.

M. Garnier had pointed out, * in his notes, the error of Dr. Smith with regard to the head of productive labour; which, however, he was by no means the first to detect. The author before us traces the mistake to its source, and sets the matter in a very clear light. He observes that Dr. Smith had combated the position of the economists, that the raw commodity alone constituted riches; and that he made a large stride in the science, when he advanced that the first material, with the Jabour superadded, formed riches. As he raised value (an abstract thing,) to the rank of wealth, how came he to estimate it as nothing when it exists alone, not inherent in any material > substance? He considered value much at large, deducting from it the gross material, which was its substratum; he ascertained the causes which determine value; and he regarded. it as the measure the most sure and least variable of all others; yet he allowed only exchangeable value, capable of being preserved, to constitute riches; while he denied that distinction to value equally unchangeable, but which is consumed the moment it is created: as the advice of a physician, the decree of a judge, the argument of an advocate, the performance of a musician, or the part of an actor. These contributions satisfy wants, and society could not exist without some of them at least. Are not the fruits of these labours real? They are so real that they are procured only at the price of that which the same person honours with the name of riches; and in consequence of repeated exchanges in the same way, the possessors of this immaterial value, those engaged in this labour termed unproduc tive, realize large fortunes. The author appears to us to concede too much, when, without qualification, he admits that

See Rev. Vol. xxxix. N. S. p. 509.

these