corn necessary for the subsistence of the manufacturer, To render this however more apparent, it will be necessary to explain the nature, and point out the original source, of value. Value is in every case, I believe, constituted by labour, or the diffi culty of producing any commodity. shall not stop here to explain how the liberal arts and a knowledge of those sciences which time and capital are necessary to acquire, obtain a preeminence, but merely remark that the labour of one man appears to be originally equal in value to that of another, and that he is entitled to demand for the work of his hands that quantity of the produce of another person's which it required an equal length of time to fabricate. In bartering my goods with another person's therefore, I do not state my commodity, but my labour, against his. It is perhaps true that the agriculturist is capable of producing a greater quantity of grain than the manufacturer can of any commodity; but as things become increased in quantity, or as a less degree of labour is required for their production, they become diminished in value, and therefore a small quantity of manufactures may be stated against a large quantity of grain or rude produce.It is here to be remarked however, that as every manufacturer, as well as the agriculturist, produces a quantity of those articles which he is employed in fabricating equal to the supply of many individuals besides himself, he is entitled to rank this surplus of his labour with the surplus of the labour of other arti ficers, and to set off a certain portion of it, according to its quantity, against that portion of the superduous food raised by the agriculturist which he receives, and in the same manner to barter the remainder among the followers of other arts for the other necessaries which he may require. The value of manufactures is never so much lessened by competition as to resolve itself into the mere subsistence of the manufacturer, because he could never be satisfied with se inadequate a return for his labour, and would therefore betake himself to another profession; and even that ingenuity which tends to increase the facility of the fabrication of any commodity never reduces its price beyond a degree which does not leave the manufacturer the full value and due reward of his industry. By nothing, however, is it better proved that the productive capacity of agriculture does not surpass that of other arts than by this-that agriculture and manufactures may be made to change circumstances, in such a manner, that it may be demonstrated in an inverse ratio to

the system of the economists, that while an agriculturist is employed in raising grain he consumes manufactures equal to its value. Nothing can indeed be more evident than that the agriculturist is as much maintained at the expence of the manufacturer as the latter is at that of the former; and that the price of grain resolves itself into the amount of the manufactures exchanged for it, as much as the price of manufactures into the amount of the food which is received for them. Of what use is it, therefore, in demonstrating a difference between the circumstances of manufacturers and agriculturists, to say that the manufacturer has transmuted articles of a perishable into those of a durable nature, or the agriculturist those of a durable into those of a perishable nature ? For each consumes what the other creates; each gains what the other loses; each exchanges that which is of no use for that which is of use to him; each gives no more

of the work of his own hands for that of the other's than its value, the relative amount of which that competition which exists among agriculturists, as well as manufacturers, always renders exact.-But instead of saying that one species of labour is more productive than another, it would be more correct to say that one commodity is more easily produced than another; which however can only have the effect of proving it to be of less value. For if the labour required to produce any commodity be small according to its quantity, the price must be in the same degree low; if, on the contrary, great, the price must be proportionally high. An equality must be observed in apportioning the emoluments of different professions, in order to induce the application of the members of society equally towards them, and there can be no other rule for this distribution of reward than labour. All arts are equally useful which society can afford to cultivate; and all professions must be equally paid if they are equally necessary. Even the soldier, the judge, and the menial servant, who produce no tangible commodity, are entitled to rank their labour as equal to a portion of the superfluous produce of almost all the manufacturers within the society to which they belong, as all derive benefit from it; and to be remunerated for the security and facility which they give to the production of articles of necessity and luxury, or the addition which their labour makes to the enjoyment of them, with a certain por tion of them for their own consumptionThe only difference which is to be discovered between the productive nature of agricultural labour and that employed in other arts

appears in this that the farmer, besides deriving, from his profession, a revenue for himself, is enabled at the same time to pay a rent to the landlord; while the manufacturer can spare nothing from the revenue necessary to reward his own labour, and to replace the wages of the men and the expense of the tools which he employs. This difference between manufacturers and agriculturists is however more nominal than real. The rent paid, to the landlord is evidently a profit on stock for money or property invested in land, which does not exceed the ordinary return of expence and maintenance, and places him in no more advantageous circumstances than any other capitalist; and if a master manufacturer borrows money for carrying on his business and pays interest for it, or if it is recollected that he pays a price for the rude produce which he manufactures, he will be found to be exactly in the situation of a farmer paying a rent. But by those who contend for the superiority of agriculture, the comparison is generally made between journeymen manufacturers and farmers. To be fair however, it should be between the master manufacturer and the farmer; for the capacity of a landlord is an addition to the profession of the latter. A landlord and a tenant are to be considered as engaged in two distinct trades, in which two capitals are employed, and from each of which a profit is to be derived. But it is obvious, that the rent received by the landlord is paid by manufacturers, or that they give articles to the tenant in exchange for grain equal to a revenue for himself and, anotber to the landlord,-only because the two stocks employed, in justice, demand it. Stock is again to be considered but as an accumulation of labour, which, on account, its utility, necessarily demands a certain revenue. In every case, indeed, however much the intricate nature of the subject may perplex our judgment, profit always resolves itself into a reward for labour, and as the competition between the members of society, in the different arts, reduces this reward to exact justice, it is impossible that the agriculturist, more than those who are engaged in other professions, can derive any extraordinary or unjust reward from his labour, or that it can therefore be in any higher degree productive to himself or the community than that which is engaged in other professions.-With regard to the necessity of foreign commerce, I shall only quote the following words of Dr. Adam Smith, from the chapter which he writes on the agricultural system. "The perfection of manufacturing industry,"

་

SIR, Various have been the plans proposed by theoretical writers for the improve ment of mankind. Among the most specious of these may be reckoned, what has been usually termed a popular education. The connection between truth and virtue is thought to be so intimate, that by whatever means the former is, accelerated, by pre cisely the same, and to the same extent, will the practice of the latter be promoted. Than this opinion, it is scarcely possible to conceive one, at greater variance with the whole tenor of human experience. Were it true, that in the same proportion as nations emerge from a state of barbarism, they were known to cultivate those graces which tend to adorn the human character, then indeed there would be some apparent propriety, in using every possible exertion towards a general diffusion of knowledge. But luxury has hitherto, in an infinite variety of forms, been the inseparable concomitant of refinement, just as much as avarice has been of commerce, or rapacity of power. From the history of what country may the moral influence of knowledge, even when it has truth for its object, be deduced, is therefore neither an invidious, nor an useless inquiry? For, is it not a lamentable fact, that the mind of man may be highly improved, while he remains a stranger to every emotion almost, which ought to agitate his breast.-The plan of education proposed by Mr. Whitbread, I am willing to believe, originated in an ardent desire of promoting the welfare of a large class of his fellow creatures. But, that there was any rational probability of its accomplishing the end in view, may be very fairly questioned. Its being so nearly related to the far-famed discoveries of those high-toned philosophers, who are ever crying up the omnipotence of truth, afforded a strong presumption against it, in the judgment of sober minds. The bare possibility of living to see a motley company of ploughmen, thread-spinners, and tobaccotwisters, disputing with their great-grandmothers, concerning the eternal fitness of things, seems enough to support the drooping spirits of these venerable sages. Accustomed, however, to rely with confidence

unpopular of all principles, namely, that they have nothing earthly to do with the lows, but to obey them. On this account, perhaps, more than on any other, they have arrived at the summit of human felicity. In spite of placemen and pensioners, as well as the whole host of muckeaters at Lloyd's, they are, through unwearied assiduity, prospeting in their several callings. But in large towns, the case is materially different. In these, the effects of popular education are sensibly felt. What is the fruit of their reading? Were I to answer, penury, unsiness, perplexity and sorrow, I do not know that I should be much wide of the truth. The inhabitants are fonder of copying the vices, than of imitating the virtues of their more southern neighbours. In crowded cities passion rules and rages. The understandings of the people may be irradiated; but their hearts are awfully depraved. And, while they are eternally ringing in our ears the magical. aphorism, magna est veritas, et praevalebit, or that other still more pernicious maxim, truth must be favourable to virtue, they are exemplifying those tempers and dispositions, which human nature ought not to possess. May heaven guard my country against the impious designs of those dauntless speculators, who wish to deprive them of every remaining portion of their happiness.-Ignorance may be denominated the parent of the welfare of individuals and communities. The term, however, is very equivocal, and is often grossly mis-applied. To be ignorant of what is commonly dignified with the name of wisdom, would, in a vast variety of instances, be no common acquisition. Were we total strangers to the feverish sensibility of Rousseau, and the daring impiety of Voltaire, the present discontents would speedily subside. Murmurings and complainings would be heard no more for ever. The age of popular clamour, of oligarchi cal despatism, would be succeeded by that of chivalry and of manly sentiment. But it is almost hopeless, perhaps completely visionary, to expect so total a revolution in huraan opinions, at least in our day.-Democratical principles have now been of so long standing in this country, that they have, so to express myself, become consolidated into our general habits, and habit is assuredly the greatest tyrant that ever plagued any people. Still, however, it were unmanly to despair-rather against hope, let us believe in hope. Happy, happy, says the Moniteur, will it be for England, when she once more becomes a monarchy.-It is pretended by the partizans of Mr. Whit

bread's scheme, that the chief, if indeed not the only object they have in view, in instructing the people, is to enable them to read the sacred scriptures. Really, there is something truly laughable in the idea of such men as Godwin for instance, wishing the people to pursue a course of reading of this description. Against such contempti ble hypocrisy, it were in vain to argue. But permit me to ask Mr. Whitbread, (and I know he is incapable of professing what he does not believe) whether he thinks seriously, that the people would read nothing else than the bible. Are they in no danger of having their religious principles undermined by Infidels, or perverted by a certain description of dissenters? And is it a matter of any moment, whether they prefer the sophisms of a Voltaire, to those of a Priestly?-Will not the moral effects be precisely the same in either' case? The votaries of Atheism, and the followers of Socinus, though they do not go by the same name, naturally enough rally round the same standard.-They both cry hideously for the diffusion of knowledge, and by that term they invariably mean, the mere glimmerings of unassisted reason. From the propagation of their blasphemous dogmas, persons of real learning and taste have little to fear. It requires no uncommon sagacity to perceive, that what they call profound reasoning, is nothing more than mere subtilty attenuated into inanity-Yet it is very unfortunate, that the ignorant, and those who can just barely read, are ever ready to rẻceive the maxims of a perverted understanding, of a sickly imagination. Persons who. can just read the sacred writings, but who are wholly, incapable of forming a proper judgment upon their important contents, are those among whom the shafts of scepticism fly thickest, and inake the greatest ravages. From this numerous class, who constitute the majority in all civilized countries, every thing is to be expected, or every thing must be dreaded.-To encrease their happiness by adding to their enjoyments, and diminishing the quantity of their labour, cannot fail of being the wish of every benevolent mind. But how is this to be done?Not surely by instructing them how to spend their leisure hours in laborious idleness. Not by making them disrelish as tasteless and insipid, the manly pleasures of the field, and substituting in their room, those kind of books, which will have a tendency to enervate their minds, to foster luxury and effeminacy-But say the popular education philosophers, by teaching, these people to read, we effectually aggravate