satisfy the wants of the other portion of the nation, we are unable to determine, unless the same values may be consumed twice, once before they cease to exist, and once afterwards. "The annual product of a nation's labour is its revenue,"* according to our author. This is paid to the treasurer of government. Upon what then does the nation subsist? The treasurer pays it again to the public creditors, and they pay it to the producers. For what? For food and raiment certainly. But have not those producers just now paid the whole produce of their industry into the treasury, and in consequence do not possess a penny's worth? The producers, therefore, must perish through want, while the public creditors may live in luxury; only, however, for a single year, when they must perish too, as their stock will be exhausted, and there will be no producers to furnish a new supply.

66

We may see more clearly the result of this improved method of multiplying wealth, when applied to an individual. "A manufacturer pays ten thousand dollars into the public coffers, equal to the whole value of the product of his labour. This money the government pays to a public creditor as interest on the public debt, and the creditor returns it to the manufacturer in payment for goods, which he and his dependants consume; and thus the money circulates from hand to hand, and is paid away for precisely the same considerations, after it has come out of the treasury, that it would have been paid away for, had it never been paid into the treasury, and it amounts to no more than an artificial mode of dividing property, and of distributing the product of labour among the people."+ Q. E.D. But wait a moment, kind sir! we wish to be shewn the connexion of the various steps of the demonstration. First then, what induced the stockholder to give the interest which he received on his stock, to the manufacturer? The product of the manufacturer's industry. But if you will take the trouble of retracing your path for a short distance, you will find that the manufacturer paid the whole produce of his labour into the public coffers. Ah, true; but that was the revenue for last year, and he is exchanging what he produces now with the stockholders for money. Since then the whole of his produce is disposed of in this way, upon what does the manufacturer subsist? On gold and silver? Ah, that also deserves consideration for this no provision appears to have been made.‡

* Vol. ii. pp. 256, 264.

+ Ibid. p. 265.

If Mr. R. had said that a nation can pay taxes to the whole amount of its net revenue, all difficulty would have been removed from the proposition; but at the same time all appearance of novelty. That the author means gross revenue is evident from vol. ii. p. 264, and various other passages.

Our author seems to have made the slight mistake of supposing the producers to have paid the whole of their revenue into the public treasury, and still to retain it in their own hands, with which to supply their wants. If this arrangement be practicable, certainly public debt will not affect national wealth; but if it be not so, (which we confess to our very plain understanding appears the more probable) then we say, that neither Mr. Raymond nor any other person can show that after ten millions have been consumed by the army or navy, those ten millions still exist. The money may still exist, which as a medium of exchange, assisted in the transfer of values to the amount of ten millions; but those who received the commodity, money, gave an equivalent in other commodities:-the farmer his grain and his cattle; and the tradesmen their respective products; and these values have been consumed-annihilated forever without reproduction.

The source of this and other small matters, such as building ships of the line, and then destroying them; digging canals in situations, where to supply them with water is an utter impossibility; or performing excavations for the exquisite pleasure of filling them up again;* and all these pleasant divertisements without any diminution of national wealth-is the exploded error of the mercantilists, that money alone is wealth. "There will be just as much money in the nation after these expenditures as before," says our author.

There is another course of policy which originated in the same school, and which is much more extensively supported than the notions that have just engaged our attention the latter falling to pieces by their own rottenness—we refer to restrictions on trade. In a society where individuals are free to dispose of their capital and industry in the manner that best pleases themselves, all the different employments which will yield the ordinary profits, will present equal attractions to capitalists; and, consequently, will be occupied according to the demand of the community. When then any department of industry does not draw towards it capital and labour, we may be certain that it will not afford the compensation obtained in other branches of business; since, if such were not the case, there is no reason why it should be unoccupied rather than others. It will be understood that we are speaking of net profits. Now what will be the effect of a bounty to a particular class of producers on the supposition that all who are engaged in production receive the average profits? It must be visible to all, that the class

which receives the bounty, will then make more than the average profits by the whole amount of the bounty; and that this excess will fall upon the community at large, who pay the tax by which government is enabled to grant the bounty. But this state of things cannot continue; as not only will the capitalists, already embarked in the production which receives the bounty, be enabled to extend their business, and be made desirous of doing this by the unusual profits, but others also will invest their funds in the same employment, and thus, in a short period, the price of the products of that department will be reduced to the sum, which, with the bounty will pay the average profits. Was there any injustice then in conferring this upon a particular class? There was; because its immediate effect was to transfer property from the consumers to the producers, for which the former received no equivalent whatever. The regulation did not affect national wealth, except in so far as this may have been influenced by the sudden fluctuations in business, caused by the irregular gains of some, and the unforeseen losses of others; for what the body of the nation lost, the producers gained. Besides, it will have very injurious effects in causing the transfer of capital from other employments to that which receives the bounty, and afterwards back again, as these transfers can scarcely be made without considerable loss. The bounty is also impolitic, since the part of the cost of production paid by it, is not, in all probability, distributed throughout the community, according to the individual consumption of the article. What then would be the effect of an equal bounty to all the different departments of industry? It is evident that in this case, all enjoying impartially the gifts of government, equally high profits would be made by all, and therefore there would be no transfer of capital. Those engaged in the production of what Say terms "immaterial products,"-governors, legislators and professional men would be oppressed for a time, as they would have to pay the ordinary prices of commodities, besides their share of the tax necessary to supply the means of paying bounty. But this would soon change. The producers by their high profits, would have both the power and desire of extending their production; and the increased supply would cause competition in the market, and by degrees prices would be brought down to that point, at which, when added to the bounty, they would yield what is the average rate of profit in the nation. Equal encouragement to all then, if carried further than the protection of all in their rights, will produce merely an unnatural excitement for the moment, that will be followed by a cor

responding depression,* and nermanent effett whatever will be accomplished. Government withdraws a part of its property from the community by taxation, and pays it back in the diminished prices of the articles of consumption; deducting, however, the charges of collecting the taxes, and distributing the bounties, which are never returned to the nation, but entirely consumed. Neither do these form the whole loss; for besides the evil, before mentioned, that the taxes may not press in proportion to the consumption of individuals, we cannot doubt that the property of the nation would have been appropriated more beneficially, had it been permitted to remain, without being carried hither and thither, in the hands of those who acquired it. A bounty then on a particular branch of industry, may encourage this department at the expense of all others; while bounties on all at the same time will have but a momentary influence. Indeed, even in the first case, when a grant is made to one of the departments of industry, where all previously afforded equal profits, the operation of the bounty will not be much more lasting.

But there are some employments which do not engage the capitalists of a nation, because they do not hold out the allurement of the customary profits; and it has been more frequently the intention of governments to nourish those occupations which do not present sufficient inducements to individual enterprize, than to encourage those already flourishing. This is what is proposed by increasing the tariff rates, so as to give the domestic producer, in a great measure, the monopoly of the home market; and it is with respect to this policy, that there are so many discordant opinions. The propriety of such duties as may be necessary for raising a revenue, is generally admitted; and we suppose it will be granted that the request for protection and exclusive privileges in favour of any branch of industry,

* We are now experiencing this inevitable consequence of the interference of the public authorities in the private affairs of individuals The large increase of duties on foreign goods, in the last revision of the tariff, opened an unbounded field for speculation; and persons who previously had been advancing in wealth with the gradual but certain progress of the ordinary profits of our country, were captivated by the prospect of amassing property almost instantaneously, and without limits; and rushed in crowds to the protected employments. The consequence has been what any one of tolerable judgment might have foreseen. The cotton business is completely overdone, and also the iron; and those engaged in these employments, complain that they cannot continue them at the present rate of profits. Those persons who have been long employed in these occupations, say the tariff has injured them, and that they are less profitable than before the additional protecting duties were imposed. From this state of things, it must result that hundreds of those, possessing the smaller capitals, will sink into bankruptcy and ruin; and thus thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars will be utterly sacrificed. Our Congress has given origin to this wild speculation that we may thus pay for our experience.

implies that its products, if sold at the price which has been current with respect to the foreign article, will not yield the common returns to the adventurers; since in such circumstances only will any commodity need the fostering care of government. In all other cases, individual enterprize will soon occupy any field which may exhibit the prospect of a reasonable compensation. We may remark also, that if there is a probability that the domestic product will soon attain to such perfection and cheapness, as to be sold lower than that received from abroad, the only thing to be considered is, whether the future advantage is likely to be so great as to counterbalance the present loss in paying a higher price for the commodity. That there is a present loss, and a national loss, is so obvious that we believe few can deny it.

We are furnished with a commodity from abroad at a certain price. This price will not recompense the domestic producers of the same commodity. Government then gives them a bounty on their production, or imposes a duty on the foreign article. In the first case, we have to pay the former price for the same product, and also the taxes which are expended in the payment of the bounty. In the last, the duty on the foreign product will cause its price to rise, as it will not be imported till its price has been so much increased as to pay the costs of production, its former price, and also the duty. In both cases then, we pay a higher price for the same commodity-for the same gratification which we may derive from its consumption. If, for example, it should cost one-fifth more to produce the commodity at home than to purchase it from foreigners, we will have to give our service during six days for what previously had been obtained for the labour of five, when we employed those five in the production of other commodities, which were exchanged with the foreign merchant for the article in question. Neither do the domestic producers of the privileged commodity gain what the consumers lose; since, owing to obstacles in the way of that species of production, they are supposed to receive only the ordinary profits by selling at the increased price; and if they should receive more, the accession of other capitalists would cause the price to fall down to the lowest rate at which the domestic production could be carried on-that rate which would yield the same profits which those same producers received in their former occupations. Still there would be a national loss; (unless the exchangeable value of the domestic product should fall to that rate at which the price of the foreign article had been previously ;) and this loss would be exactly equal to the VOL. V.-No. 1.

8