That evermore his teeth they chatter, Chatter, chatter, chatter still. Good duffle-gray, and flannel fine, And coats enough to smother nine. This may be poetry-if it be so, and if it be with such Mr. W. thinks himself a "Hannibal among the Alps," cutting his own road into the public taste, all I will add is, it is with stuff sourer than vinegar itself. But it is not for such Mr. W. is admired now, or will be so hereafter it is for something else he is deservedly admired, and must be always increasing in admiration. I will have the vanity to say few can feel Mr. Wordsworth's beauties more justly, or perhaps more intensely than I do, or appreciate them more highly; but I am not blind to his faults from my admiration of his excellencies. What I have done, I have done for a good purpose, unbiassed by any literary prejudice or base personality. The specimens I have chosen I think sufficient to point out his most glaring absurdities; though his "White Doe" would give rather a pleasant chace to the stag-hounds of criticism, and his Pedlar might be convicted of a great many contraband commodities both in poetry and philosophy; while in Peter Bell, his Pegasus seems to be haltered to the waggon. We cannot well conceive either by what association of curious thinking Mr. Wordsworth can liken a daisy in one place to Saint Peter or Saint Paul, which he does in thus addressing that flower : Thou wanderest the wide world about, In peace fulfilling. And in another place to Polyphemus! By the way, this daisy puts me in mind of Burns. Let the Lakers learn true simplicity from him. His "Mountain Daisy" is worth all the daisies in Westmoreland; nay it and its little “neebor" lark are worth all the "Gardens of Gul," with all the enamoured bulbuls, in the entire range of European Orientalism. The chief reason, I think, of these fanciful and ridiculous oddities appearing so often in Mr. W. and his Brethren of the Lakes, is, that they write down every foolish and fantastical idea that flits over a poetical mind-in fine, every idea, good, bad, or indifferent, that occurs to them from the most distant affinities, the most of which should have been only for a moment laughed at by themselves and then forgotten, and not be registered as sillinesses to be laughed at by a nation. The greatest minds may unbend and trifle in private; but trifling will never contribute to the enhancement of poetical or public character. I could quote a great many of those fanciful follies, but I abstain. There is one curious thought which struck me very much; it may be admired at first sight, but if looked into it will be discovered to be very incongruous, calling an infant's smiles "feelers of love." What affinity is there between a child's innocent seraph smiles and the disgusting members of some loathed reptile or insect? us, There is a great propensity to such thoughts in the Lake poetry. Mr. Wordsworth tells it is in the fine arts, as in the affairs of life, and as in the scriptural apothegm, no man can obey two masters. Lord Byron tells us openly, we "must not set up Coleridge, Wordsworth, Southey." And I think a little "Anthropomorphitism," or some sort of morphitism, is necessary for our heathen imaginations, ere we can worship them. We cannot adore that unknown poetical god, living in the cloudy imaginations of the Bards of the Lakes. If we must be made intellectual Ixions of-to embrace a cloud-we must at least be tempted by the phantom of Ju no. Mr. Wordsworth has gone far to prove that every great and original mind must create that taste by which its productions are to be appreciated and admired. We will allow that Mr. Wordsworth is a master-spirit, and has given a tone to the most of the poetical writings of this age. We should be glad to see his intuitive knowledge of the human heart, his holy communion between the phenomena of the external universe and the internal feelings, when it does not dive into mysticism, imitated; but we must protest against the taste, that would adopt his idiotry, his affectation, his riddling and ridiculous rusticity. We (I mean the literary and poetical world, assured of their sameness of thinking on this subject,) should be sorry to find the sweet chirpings of the grasshoppers, or the divine harmonies of the nightingales of the English poesy, turned into the hoarse and ominous croakings of Winandermere frogs. Now one word to the School in gene ral, and I have done. Let them beware of that inanity, affectation, babyism, and adopted meanness, which are well calculated" to humble" but not "to humanize, purify, or exalt" the human heart, in the minor species of their poetry, and they will be the most pleasing pastoral writers that ever piped on the Arcadian reed. Let them beware of mysticism in the higher order, and we shall see poetry that can claim the true title of sublimity, and not that wild and wayward mysticism, which like Wordsworth's description of the cuckoo, is but a wandering voice," "a thing invisible," "a mystery," a mystery indeed, so obscure, that we often have not even the shadow, much less the substance of sense; and striving as they do each to outrun the other in this obscurity, they often remind us of those magicians who had lost their shadows. We hear the devil often amused himself in hunting the students in magic, and he often ran them so close, that though at the end perhaps he missed the person of the hindmost, yet he sometimes nicked their shadows, and those who lost their shadows were generally accounted the best magicians; so among the Lakers, they are generally the best who soar into the undefined and interminable region of abstraction, and who have lost in the vacuum not only their substance but their shadows. In the race of obscurity, their motto seems to be, on the plan of the magicians,The devil take the hindmost! LETTERS TO MR. MALTHUS, ON SEVERAL SUBJECTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, AND PARTICULARLY ON THE GENERAL STAGNATION OF COMMERCE. LETTER II. BY M. SAY. SIR, I THINK I have proved in my first letter that produce can only be purchased with produce; I do not therefore yet see any reason to abandon the doctrine, that it is production which opens a market to production. I have indeed considered as produce all the services arising from our personal capacities, from our capitals, and our lands; which has obliged me to sketch anew, and in other terms, the doctrine of production, which Smith evidently did not comprehend, and has not completely described. But on reading again the third section of your 7th chapter, I feel that there is still a point on which you will not agree with me. You will probably grant that produce can only be bought with produce; but you will persist in maintaining that people may create a quantity of produce of all sorts exceeding their occasions, and that consequently part of this produce may not be used or wanted; that there may be a superabundance and glut of all commodities at once. In order to present your objection in its full force, I shall transform it into a sensible image, by saying: Mr. Malthus will readily allow that 100 sacks of corn will buy 100 pieces of stuff, in a society which has occasion for those quantities of stuff and corn for its rainient and food; but if the same society should happen to produce 200 sacks of corn and 200 pieces of stuff, although these two commodities may still be exchangeable for each other, he will maintain that one of them will no longer find purchasers. It is therefore necessary for me to prove, first, that whatever may be the quantity of produce and the consequent depression of price, a quantity of produce of one species always suffices to enable those who have produced it to acquire a quantity of produce of another species; and after proving that the possibility of acquiring exists, I shall endeavour to shew how the superabundance of produce creates a demand for it, for the purpose of consumption. The undertaker who produces corn, or the farmer, after having purchased the productive services of the land and capital which he employs, and of his labourers, and added to these services that of his own personal labour, has consumed all those values to convert them into sacks of corn; let us suppose that each sack stands him in thirty shillings, including the value of his own labour, that is to say, his profit. On the other hand the undertaker who produces stuffs of linen, woollen, or cotton, the manufacturer, after having consumed in like manner the services of his capital, those of his workmen and his own, has produced stuffs which stand him in thirty shillings the piece. If I may be permitted to jump at once to the main point of the inquiry, I will premise that this manufacturer of stuffs represents in my mind the producers of manufactured produce, and this grower of corn the producers of all provisions and raw materials. The question is, whether their two articles of produce, to whatever quantities they may be multiplied, and whatever depression of price inay result from that multiplication, may be wholly purchased by the producers, who are also the consumers; and how the demand for articles always increases on account of an increase in the quantity produced. We must first inquire into the course of things upon the hypothesis of a perfect liberty, permitting the unrestrained and indefinite multiplication of productions; and afterwards examine the obstacles which the nature of things and the imperfect laws of society oppose to this liberty of indefinite production; but you will remark that the hypothesis of indefinite liberty is more favourable to your cause, because it is much more difficult to dispose of unlimited produce than that which is restricted; and that the hypothesis of restricted production owing sometimes to one cause and sometimes to another, is more favour able to mine, which supports the doctrine, that these restrictions are the very causes which, by limiting certain productions, impede the purchases which might be made of the only productions which can be indefinitely multiplied. Upon the hypothesis, then, of perfect liberty, suppose the grower brings to market a sack of corn, which including his profit comes to thirty francs, and the manufacturer brings a piece of stuff which comes to the same price, and consequently these productions will be exchanged at par*. Of these two dealers, if one have gained more than his costs of production, he will draw into his line of business a part of the persons occupied in the production of the other article, until in both arts productive services shall be equally well paid this is an effect generally allowed. Here we ought to observe, that upon this supposition, the producers of the piece of stuff have together gained wherewith to repurchase that entire Does not the farmer who sells a sack of corn for thirty francs, and buys a piece of calico at thirty francs, exchange his corn for the stuff; and does not the manufacturer who buys a sack of corn at thirty francs, being the price of his piece of stuff, exchange that piece for a sack of corn? NEW MONTHLY MAG.-No. 81. piece, or to buy any other product of equal value. If, for instance, it amounts to thirty francs, including the profit of the manufacturer at the rate fixed by himself and all other expenses, this sum is distributed amongst all the persons concerned in the production of the piece of stuff; but in unequal shares, according to the nature and amount of the services which they have rendered in the operation of its production. If the piece contain ten yards, he who has received six francs can buy two yards of it; he who has received thirty sous can only buy half a yard: but all of them together can certainly buy the whole piece. If, instead of the stuff, they wish to buy the corn, they are able together to purchase the whole quantity, since its value is the same with that of the stuff; so each of them can purchase, according to their respective occasions, either a part of the piece of stuff, or an equivalent portion of the sack of corn. He who has received for his services in either of these productions six francs, may use three francs in the purchase of a tenth part of the piece of stuff, and three francs in buying a tenth of the corn; in all cases it is clear that the producers possess collectively the means of acquiring the whole of the produce. Here, Sir, I meet your objections. If commodities increase, or wants diminish, you say, commodities fall to a price too low to pay the labour requisite for their production. In proceeding to answer this assertion, I wish to premise, that if I consent to employ your word labour, which, according to the explanation given in my former letter, is incomplete, I shall comprehend under that denomination, not only the productive services of a workman and his master, but the productive services rendered by capital and land; services which have their price, as well as personal labour, and a price so strictly real, that the capitalist and the landholder live upon it. This point being understood, I answer you in the first place, that the depression of the price of produce, does not prevent the growers or manufacturers from purchasing the labour requisite for its production, or any other equivalent labour. In the case we have put, suppose by an improved process, the grower to produce a double quantity of corn, and the manufacturer a double quantity of stuffs; and the corn and stuffs to fall to half their prices; what will follow? The producers of corn VOL. XIV. 3 B Spit At sig, 15] will receive for the same services as before, two sacks worth only what one sack was before worth. In the ex change called production, the same services will have respectively obtained a double quantity of produce; but these double quantities may be acquired by each other as before, and as easily as ever; so that, without a greater expense in productive services, a nation in which this productive faculty should be thus developed would have double the quantity of commodities for consumption; whether in corn, stuffs, or any other articles; as we have agreed to represent by corn and stuffs, all things of which men stand in need for their support and accommodation. Produce in such an exchange is opposed to productive services; now as in every exchange, the value of one of the terms is greater in proportion to the greater quantity of the other which it obtains, it follows that productive services are increased in value in proportion as the produce is increased in quantity, and diminished in price. This is the reason why the reduction of the price of produce, by increasing the value of the productive funds of a nation and of the revenues derived thence, augments the national wealth. I think this demonstration, which may be seen at length in my Traité d'Economie Politique (4th edition, book ii. ch. 3.), has done some service to science, by elucidating what previously had been felt, but not explained; that is to say, that although wealth is an exchangeable value, the general wealth is increased by the low price of commodities and produce of all sorts*. Probably it never happened that the productive power of labour was suddenly doubled with respect to produce of every kind at once; but a gradual augmentation with respect to many articles, and în various proportions, has undoubtedly * This demonstration, by the bye, completely overthrows an assertion of Mr. Malthus, that cheapness is always at the expense of profits (p. 370), and consequently all the reasoning which he has built on this foundation. It is also fatal to all that part of Mr. Ricardo's doctrine, in which he flatters himself that he has proved, that the costs of production, and not the proportion of supply and demand, regulates the prices of goods. He identifies the costs of production with the produce itself, whereas they are completely opposed to each other, and the former are diminished in proportion to the increase of the latter. But to return to the first part of your objection. The growers of corn and makers of stuffs will then produce more corn and stuffs than they can consume. Ah! my good Sir, after having proved that notwithstanding a fall of one half in the value of produce, the same labour may purchase the whole of it, and thereby procure an increase of as much again in the necessaries and luxuries of life, can it be necessary for me to prove to the justly celebrated author of the Essay on Population, that whatever is produced will find consumers, and that among the enjoyments procured by the quantity of produce which men can com mand, they set some value on the comforts of a home, and the affections of children? After having written three justly admired volumes to prove that population always rises to the level of the means of subsistence, is it possible that you have admitted the case of a great augmentation of produce, with a stationary number of consumers, and wants limited by parsimony? (p.355.) In this case, either the author of the "Essay on Population," or the author As soon as men are provided with the means of producing, they appropriate their productions to their wants; for production itself is an exchange, in which we offer productive means, and demand in return the thing of which we are most in need. To create a thing which no one wanted, would be creating something worthless it would not be production. But the moment it has a value, its author may exchange it for other commodities which he may wish to procure. This faculty of exchange, peculiar to man among all animals, adapts all sorts of produce to their appropriate demands, and enables man to derive his support, not from the species of his productions, but from their value. The difficulty, you will say, is to create produce equivalent to the costs of its production. This I well know; and in my next letter, you will find what I think on the subject. But upon the hypothesis which we have already supposed, of the freedom of industry, permit me to point out that the only difficulty we find in creating produce worth the costs of its production, arises from the high demands of the vendors of productive services. Now the high price of productive services denotes that what is required, exists; namely, that there are employments the produce of which suffices to repay the costs of production. You charge those who entertain the same opinions with me, with attaching no consequence to that general and very important influence of man's disposition to indolence and inactivity, (p. 358). You suppose the case that men after having produced the means of satisfying their primary and most urgent wants, would prefer to have nothing farther to do, the love of repose overbalancing in their minds the desire of enjoyment. This supposition is all in my favour. What do I say? That things are only sold to those who produce. Why are objects of luxury not sold to an idle farmer who chooses to lead an inactive life? Because he prefers idleness to the trouble of producing the means of purchasing objects of luxury. Whatever be the cause which limits production, whether the want of capital or of population, of diligence or liberty, the effect is, in my opinion, the same; the productions which are offered on one side are not sold, because sufficient commodities are not produced on the other. You consider the indolence which refuses to produce as directly impeding the sale of productions, and I entirely agree with you on that point. But then, how can you look on the indolence of those whom you call unproductive consumers, as favourable to the same sale, (c. vii. sect. 9). "It is absolutely necessary," you say, (page 463) “ that a country which has great means of production should possess a numerous body of unproductive consumers." How can that unproductive indolence, which is prejudicial to the markets in the former case, be favourable to them in the latter? The fact is, this indolence is injurious to them in both cases. Whom do you designate by this numerous body of unproductive consumers, so necessary, according to you, for the sale of produce? Is it the proprietors of lands and capitals? Undoubtedly they do not directly produce, but their property does it for them. They consume the value to the production of which their lands and capitals have contributed. They therefore assist in production, and can only make purchases by means of this assistance. If they also contribute their personal services, and join to their profits as capitalists and landholders other profits as labourers, they can, by thus producing more, consume more; but it is not in their non-productive capacity that they increase the markets for the sale of productions. Do you allude to public functionaries, the military, and fund-holders? Still it is not on account of their non-productive quality that they increase the demand for produce. I am far from disputing the legitimacy of the emoluments which they receive; but 1 cannot believe that those who are taxed would be much embarrassed with their money even were they deprived of the assistance of these receivers of contributions: either their wants would be more amply satisfied, or they would employ this same money in a reproductive manner. In either case the money would be spent, and would promote the sale of some produce equal in value to what is now bought by those whom you call unproductive consumers. Confess then, Sir, that it is not through the unproductive consumers that sales are promoted, but by the productions of those who contribute to their expenses; and that even should all the unproductive consumers vanish, which heaven forbid, there would not be a pennyworth the less sold. I know not on what foundation you decide (page 356), that production cannot continue if the value of the commodities pays for but little labour beyond what they cost. It is by no means necessary to the continuance of produc |