the content of the men, by showing that wages are really determined by natural circumstances, of too powerful a character to be much influenced either by legislative enactments, or by any attempts or combinations of masters or men. On the other hand, erroneous views on these points may frustrate the best concerted measures for the public good. Turbulent men may take advantage of such errors to inflame the passions of a misguided populace, by representing the lowness of their wages, and the poverty of their condition, as owing to corruptions of the state, or to wicked combinations of employers, taking advantage of their ignorance or necessities to impose unequal terms upon them, in order to enrich themselves. Such errors may disturb the public peace, may lead to the destruction of property, and to drying up the sources of national prosperity; or, if not carried to this extent, they may lead to the regulating of wages by law, or by combinations amongst workmen. But the regulation of wages by law, or combinations, though it may do incalculable mischief, can seldom do any good. It may secure to the labourer from his employer that just remuneration for his toil, to which natural circumstances entitle him; but it is impossible for such regulation, by any direct act, to increase the fund for the payment of wages. It may effect a partition of that fund, different from what would take place, if left entirely free; but as much as may add to the wages of one class, it must diminish from that which is really due to another, and from what that other would receive, if not so prevented.'—Vol. ii. pp. 127,-8.

it

Mr. Eisdell, in his third book, takes up the subject of consumption, in the sense of its being synonymous with use. And here we cannot fail to be struck with all those traces of divine contrivance visible throughout the whole frame-work of society. Instead of consumption leading to destruction, or annihilation, the very reverse ensues. The consumers themselves are the producers; and the satisfaction, so to speak, of every human necessity, from pole to pole, is but casting seed into the earth to spring up again into the more and more overflowing harvest of almighty and infinite benevolence. Winter and summer, day and night, the motions of the heavenly bodies, together with all the demands and supplies of man, maintain sweet and perpetual proportions one with another; proclaiming, so that even he that runs may read, that God is the founder of families, appointing unto each nation its dwelling-place. In that dwelling-place people must be, and are fed, clothed, lodged, and favoured, according to their circumstances. Opulent, intelligent, and industrious nations are greater consumers than poor ones; but then they are incomparably greater producers. The well-being and happiness, however, both of individuals and societies, depend much upon the mode of their consumption. Wise expenditure will, of course, aim at the largest amount of enjoyment consistent with reason, the prospect of continuance, and general prosperity. It is observable, too, that although individuals may sometimes save to their injury, nations can never do it. Magnum vectigal est parsimonia! So

ciety never dying, nor being responsible to a future judgment in its aggregate capacity, may reap enormous benefits from accumulation, where there exists sufficient intelligence to employ its property aright. Such wealth becomes a fountain of civilization, -a prosperous bank of capital,-a magazine, whence fresh machinery may be constantly derived to push forward the work of re-production. Luxury, indeed, waits upon this state of things, with a legion of evils in her train, ready to corrupt individuals, and so through them infuse a leprosy into the community. Yet an era will come, when a degree of religion and consequent virtue shall so prevail, that probably the tendencies of mere civil improvement may take an upward direction altogether; when the wealth of nations may be possessed by nations almost without alloy ex necessitate rerum. Even now, perhaps, too much has been made by former political economists of the difference between productive and unproductive consumers. A gentleman, engaged in pursuits most important to the commonwealth, may keep a man-servant, whom Adam Smith would have termed an unproductive labourer; yet in this instance, according to Mr. Eisdell, the services rendered by the valet relieve his master from performing them himself, and therefore set free a greater portion of his time to be devoted to the important business. It is hard and difficult to say there is nothing in this, we think; but when, instead of keeping a footman for purposes of necessity, there are a dozen or a score kept for purposes of ostentation, then indeed the distinction re-appears in hideous dimensions. our conscience believe, that the expenditure of revenue, by an aristocracy generally, is the circulation by Mammon and Belial of the wages of slothfulness and iniquity, amidst consequences which angels only can fully discern, whilst piety or patriotism in vain bewails them.

case.

We in

In arguing against luxurious consumption, our author puts the question, as to what would be the consequences to society were no desire to exist amongst our species for any articles except such as are plain, cheap, and useful? He answers, that the effect would be a mere change of employment. Instead of lace, brocades, and finery, on the persons of a few, more feet would be shod, more ancles invested in socks or stockings, more linen, broad cloth, and gloves would be manufactured than is now the But there would be no want of work arising from this change of tastes, but rather the reverse. The world is the gift of God to mankind, and they are bound to use it for the sustentation and happiness of the greatest possible number. Frugality and simplicity of manners would conduce more towards these objects than extravagance, which is the hot-bed of vice and profligacy. They constitute, in fact, what is called economy, that is to say, the direction of expenditure with judgment and discretion. A prudent man balances his means against the present or future

wants of himself and family. He never consumes without an object equivalent to the money about to be laid out. Such economy affords riches with a moderate fortune; while the miser ' and prodigal are alike poor, though in possession of the largest ' resources.' Hence plain habits would augment immensely that fund set apart for purchasing the useful productions of labour; and since no one will go without shoes and hose who can help it, the knights of St. Crispin and the stocking-loom must grow, in the case supposed, just as sleek and comely as our jewellers and silversmiths have been for several generations. Mr. Say declares, that the gold buckles of the rich man leave the poor one ' without even a sandal; and the labourer will want a shirt to his 'back, while his rich neighbour glitters in velvet and embroidery. It is vain to resist the nature of things. Magnificence may do 'what it will to keep poverty out of sight, yet it will cross it at every turn, still haunting, as if to reproach it for its excesses. This contrast was to be met with at Versailles, at Rome, at 'Madrid, and at every seat of royal residence.' Our author adds, that on the other hand, in countries where private fortunes are smaller, and luxury less prevalent, the degree of misery is less also.

The prayer of Agur, 'Give me neither poverty nor riches,' may serve as a model to individuals; yet such is the desire for accumulation, that it becomes a question of interest to ascertain by what means the property of a nation may be increased, or what are the circumstances most favourable to its accumulation. These, as already intimated, are those which contribute to the success of industry, and those which are adverse to wastefulness and misconduct. Extraordinary convulsions of nature, such as earthquakes, storms, landslips and inundations, unsuccessful commercial enterprizes, despotic governments, oppressive taxation, insecurity of property, legal impediments, a rigid distinction of ranks, and above all things, war, operate, of course, as so many checks and restraints :

Unfortunately for the people, princes are usually surrounded by persons who have an interest in the lavish expenditure of public money. Holding emoluments derived from the public purse, or seeking for them, their interest is not merely to be liberally, but extravagantly paid. To such persons we owe the invention and propagation of arguments to prove that magnificence and profuse expenditure are conducive to public prosperity; and that taxation, although necessary, so far from being an evil, is beneficial to the state, and promotes the increase of national prosperity and wealth.'-vol. ii. p. 303.

This subject, however, brings us to the fourth and last book, on taxation. He dwells upon its effects, the parties upon whom it ultimately falls, on the rules for its apportionment, on their application as regards the expense of protection, and according to the benefits derived from government, on taxes directly affecting property, on indirect taxation, on its arrangements with respect to

the construction and maintenance of roads, bridges, canals, harbours, lighthouses, or other assistants to navigation; on the distribution of charges as to public institutions for education, religious worship, and the support of the poor; and, lastly, upon public debts. We can only touch upon two or three of these multifarious matters. For instance, as to the conclusions to which principles of fair apportionment must lead, it may be stated, that the costs of protection to our property and persons ought to be defrayed by direct imposts upon them. In other words, there can be slight hesitation in admitting, that the weight of our fiscal system ought to be removed from the sinews of industry, and placed upon the ample shoulders of capital or income. Abstractedly speaking, nothing can be fairer; and much is it to be wished, that our middle classes, as well as our upper ones, would open their eyes to the fitness of some such arrangement. As things are, however, we feel persuaded that indirect imposts will be more popular than direct ones, for at least half a century to come. Neither a property nor an income tax could be levied, without that degree of inquisitorial espionage which is hateful as death to the British mind. Prejudice and pride, as well as intense selfishness, possess their full share in this abhorrence, especially amongst commercial men, of any eyes than their own ever looking into their ledgers. A penalty, too, is paid for it, in our customs and excise, which press down industrial energies far more than persons are aware. Yet it must not be forgotten, on the other side, that if France and some other countries are before us in having nearly half their annual revenues raised by direct rather than indirect taxation, the ramifications of trade extend further, and are beyond measure more numerous amongst us than with them; which all tells most formidably, when taken in connexion with our reserved national habits, against any considerable or sudden modifications of our present system. Our countrymen, moreover, have for ages submitted to various processes of fleecing, so that they were and are but a little tickled at the same time. Indirect taxation takes far more money from the aggregate community than really need be paid upon the opposite scheme. But, then, the evil proceeds unconsciously. The impost seems confounded with the natural price of the commodity to be purchased. Something, at all events, is received for every sixpence paid; whereas, upon the direct demand of so much per cent for property, government uncovers its strong hand, and wears, to unreflecting people, the character of a spoiler. Nations little dream of the countless millions they have to disburse through popular ignorance. These constitute a downright blackmail, from which universal knowledge would quickly deliver us, were its influences allowed to be diffused. Meanwhile, we agree with Sir Robert Walpole, that subjects must be to a certain extent humoured, until they condescend

VOL. VI.

CC

to become better informed: and, as we intimated before, our convictions are strong, that Great Britain for a long period to come, will prefer paying ten shillings instead of five, for her tea and sugar, her wines, spirits, and tobacco, to any straightforward and cheaper income or property tax, however nicely graduated or delicately demanded.

Yet, is it altogether impossible, we cannot help asking, to prepare the machinery, and make some very moderate commencement in this way; so that when the actual necessity for such an impost shall occur, as in case of a war, it may not quite take us by surprize? We have often thought, that a duty of three shillings and fourpence levied upon every hundred pounds value of property, in its form of capital, equivalent as it would be to the real proceeds of an income tax at above three per cent, might under happy circumstances be suffered; so as that it was accompanied by a corresponding abolition of those public burdens which press upon prudence and industry. It would produce at least £6,000,000 per annum, taking the bulk of our wealth at £3,600,000,000! Were legacy duties, at the same time, extended to freehold as well as personal property, £2,000,000 more of annual revenue would be added; and retrenchment might easily add a third million. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could thus be placed in a position to remit nine millions a year of those taxes which can be proved injurious ones; such as those on malt, soap, glass, paper, bricks, windows, and insurances. The first indulgence might also be thrown as a sop to the agricultural Cerberus, on condition of its ceasing to bark against the annihilation of the Corn Laws. Should hostilities be again inevitable, the funds necessary for a contest, could more promptly be obtained by raising the rate of a small property tax already in existence, than by having to inflict upon the country, de novo, the oppressive incubus of Nicholas Vansittart, or Lord Henry Petty. Still, we are aware that much can be urged in opposition to our views-such as the facilities of transferring capital to other countries, and the impossibility of preventing enormous mischief, through fraudulent returns, or the means adopted to prevent and punish them.

With regard also to the expenses of institutions for education or public worship, we are happy that as to the former our author is liberal, and as to the latter opposed to religious establishments. He points out in the mildest, yet most satisfactory manner, the hardships of nonconformity. The Dissenter is required to contribute towards church-rates, for instance, though the duty of govern'ment is to protect the interests of all its subjects alike, and not to suffer one part to be oppressed by the domination of another. He is compelled to maintain a church, the doctrines and discipline of which he disallows; a church whose ministers publicly inveigh against his opinions and practices; while many of them impugn his motives, and hold up his conduct as deserving repro