and no practical nor useful knowlege thence results, it is per- fectly indifferent to us whether that astronomer speaks truth or not: but, if, from the facts which he reports, there may be derived an immediate and sensible utility or detriment, then it is our duty to examine his statement with a care which is proportional to its importance. 2dly, The error or truth of a fact being proved, or even not being proved, it is necessary to limit ourselves to the direct consequences, and not to extend them beyond the sphere of activity; thus, suppose that a man asserts and even proves that he can raise up the dead; 'I say we ought to beseech that man to raise up more, and those the most honest men, since such a resurrection would be useful: but I add that this does not prove either that 2 and 2 make 4, or that they do not make 4; that it is needful or not needful to do this or that action: it only proves a resurrection, and nothing more; and it would not prove more resurrections, only inasmuch as they are repeated, and repeated with circumstances proper to attest them. Had nations but followed this principle, they would long ago have disconcerted the jugglers who have played off their tricks of cups and eggs before them, and would have avoided numerous calamities.'

In the debates on Literature, the Professor (La Harpe) as,serts that the line of demarcation, which separates the republican eloquence of the moderns from that of the antients, ought to be extended to the period between the death of Augustus and the French Revolution. You will mention the English as an objection, (he observed); and, in fact, we often discern, in the British Parliament, great force of argumentation, perspicuity, profound logic, and every thing which characterises that naturally deliberative and reflecting people: but such are not the distinguishing characters of true eloquence, of that eloquence which, with the lever of speech, elevates assemblies of men,' &c. &c,

To this sedateness and sobriety of character, thus ascribed to this nation, will perhaps be attributed our disapprobation of Professor Garat's tedious digressions and chimerical speculations. His reasoning about perfecting and aiding our senses appears to us trifling; and certain disciples of Locke, (we sup pose that Hume and Berkeley are meant), who maintained the doctrine of an immaterial world, are mentioned too slightingly. If they have erred, they have yet done much, and are too big to be "slain in puny battle." The Professor, we think, is not well acquainted with their writings.-Speaking of abstraction, M. Garat says that there are as many abstractions in the verses of Homer and Virgil as in the works of Newton and Leibnitz. Now, although this paradox may be explained into a justifiable opinion, yet it has too much the air of a futile re

finement;

די

finement; it reminds us of Mons. Jourdain, who would not admit that Nicole had said u when she really had pronounced it, but insisted that she had merely protruded her lips, and brought the upper jaw to the lower. What we have said, however, in animadversion, must not be conceived to apply generally to all that M. Garat has here written: he frequently distinguishes and analyses with great precision; and in the following passage he is at once brilliant and philosophic: We will treat thought (says he) as Lavoisier, Berthollet, and La Place, have treated the air which we breathe; which was deemed simple and uniform, but which has been decomposed into so many parts, differing in their forms and qualities.In the conferences, the question whether language or signs be essential to thought is considered; and M. Garat, with great clearness and precision, states his conviction that, without the mediation of language, we could not think. We are rather surprised that the Professor takes no notice of the opinions of Reid and Dugald Stewart on this subject.

We must here conclude our account of these volumes, and dismiss much excellent matter, that is worthy of particular comment, with a general commendation. The work is too copious and comprehensive for our limits, and others urge their claim to notice and consideration.

R.W.

ART. III. Principes d'Economie Politique, &c. i. e. Principles of Political Economy; a Work which was crowned by the National Institute, at its Session in January 1801, and since revised, corrected, and enlarged, by the Author, N. F. CANARD, Professor of Mathematics in the Central School of Moulins. 8vo. pp. 236. Paris. 1801. Imported by De Boffe, London. Price 38.

EVERY one, who is conversant with the late history of France,

must be well acquainted with the two financial sects which distracted the court and the country: which some writers have designated the Anglo-Genevese and the French; and which were at issue on these questions; What is the effect of taxation? What imposts are most eligible for a country like France? Do all taxes ultimately fall on agriculture, and ought they to be

"Mons. Jourdain.-Dis un peu, u, pour voir. Nicole. Hé bien, Mons. J. Qu'est ce que tu fais? Nic. Jedis, u. Mons. J. Oui, mais quand tu dis, u; qu'est ce que tu fais? Nic. Je fais ce que vous me dites. Mons. J. Oh, étrange chose que d'avoir affaire à des bêtes! Tu allonges les levres en dehors, et approches la mâchoire d'en baut de celle d'embas, u, vois tu? Je fais la moue, u," &c.

Hh 2

Bourgeois Gent.

imposed

#

imposed directly and exclusively on that branch of industry; or is it expedient, agreeably to the practice of England, to call in the aid of credit, and adopt the system of loans?-It was this controversy, prosecuted as we have seen with such animosity, which had so great a share in producing the recent troubles of that country; which still continues to divide its inhabitants; and which no doubt led the National Institute to propose the question that occasioned the present work; namely, In an agricultural country, does every kind of tax fall on the proprietors of land?

M. CANARD appears to have well merited the distinction conferred on his essay by the Institute, and to possess all the qualifications requisite for the nice and intricate investigation which he volunteered. He fathoms the depths of political science, and deduces from its doctrines conclusions favourable to the system of the Anglo-Geneve se party, viz. Necker, Clavière, and Johannot, (the latter, the present administrator of the French finances,) the respective opponents of Turgot, Calonne, Montesquieu, and Cambon. Those who have studied Dr. Smith may have recourse, with advantage, to the preli minary pages of this work; and they will find the author to be a complete master of the principles of his science :-one who needs not blush in the presence of the most able of his predecessors. They will have occasion to admire his success in analysing, and will admit that he has no superior in this most essential part of every treatise on political economy. Beaten as the subject is, he has discovered and illustrated parts of it which had remained obscure; and he has exposed errors, with regard to it, which bear the sanction of the greatest names. Having said so much in his praise, however, we are bound to observe that we do not conceive that he has either rendered any service to his science, or added to the interest of his work, by translating its positions into algebraic language, and deducing its conclusions by means of the processes of that rigorous art for we own that our turn of mind is not sufficiently mathematical, to find our conceptions assisted by this new mode of illustration. We also cannot help thinking that he has extended to a length equally offensive to sense and taste, the comparison between the circulation of wealth in a state, and that of the blood in a human body.

In M. CANARD's analysis, wealth is the power of commanding labour; and this power proceeds from three sources, the possession of land, that of skill in some branch of valuable industry, and that of a floating capital. He contends that the produce of each of these sources is of precisely the same nature, has the same operation in promoting the welfare of

society,

society, and is equally necessary to bring about that effect;.. that it is therefore equally taxable; and that the scope of taxa tion is that of affecting the produce without injuring the sources.

The opinion, that land constitutes the only productive property, calls from the author the following among many other equally forcible observations:-Land is an instrument of which labour makes use, and ought to be regarded in precisely the same light with the instruments which the industry of man has created; it is employed by the husbandman, in order to convert into corn the nutricious principles of vegetation which it contains, just as the miller uses his mill to convert the same corn into meal, and the baker his oven to form the latter into bread ; the materials of each of these instruments exist in rerum naturâ,* but the beneficial adaptation of the one, not less than that of the others, is to be traced to the exertions and guidance of human skill.

M. CANARD does not consider money as a representative sign of things, but as an intermediate mercantile commodity, of equal value with that for which it is taken in exchange; and a crown he states to be the result of as much labour, and to possess as much intrinsic value, as the article of provision which it purchases. He is a friend to paper credit, when voluntary: but he remarks that, when compulsory, it has in every state ended in bankruptcy. Facts warrant the observation: but we hope that our own country will furnish an exception to it; though we trust that this state of things, which necessity alone could justify, will not be permitted to continue a moment longer than that necessity requires.

The following is the author's account of the effect of a new tax, when imposed on some particular branch of industry; 1. The manufacturer in that line shares it with the buyerssellers, and the buyers-consumers -2. The effect of the tax is to diminish the branch: the poorer dealers in it are obliged to desert it, and to engage in other and unburthened pursuits, a circumstance which increases the competition in those branches, and consequently lessens the profits of the dealers in them. In this way, a tax, immediately affecting only one brauch, extends its effects to all, and in time it operates like a tax imposed on all :-3. Its prejudicial operation is, at length, lost in the superior consumption occasioned by the great numbers who derive advantage from the political. effort for which the tax was imposed. Time is necessary to allow things thus to find their level; the tax does not instantaneously divide itself between the venders and consumers; it is after a considerable interval that the balance is struck; and while the first friction continues, the weaker individuals inte

rested in the branch fall sacrifices.-As a corollary from this reasoning, the author lays it down that an old tax is a good one, and a new tax a bad one. The argument is ingenious, and the inference follows fairly from it but it were easy to shew that the doctrine which it holds out requires to be very considerably qualified. The reasonings which prove that tithes operate as a discouragement of agriculture will suggest to our readers the nature of our objection; or, to adopt the language of the author, if an old tax, though it does not diminish a productive source, yet materially hinders it from increasing, it cannot be called good. M. CANARD very justly compares changes in taxation to the frequent removal of plantations of young trees. He illustrates his doctrines by exposing the absurdity and impolicy of several revolutionary taxes, the abolition of which he earnestly recommends; and he proposes the revival of the tax on salt (the famous Gabelle) under certain modifications. We imagine that those of our readers, who are acquainted with the recent transactions of France, will (like ourselves) feel their minds assailed by a crowd of reflections, on finding it recommended to the present government, to revive a tax which was deemed one of the most obnoxious among those that were levied under the monarchy.

Loans, the author says, are become resources with which no state can dispense; they favor the extension of foreign traffic; and they hold out a premium to economy by offering an easy, secure, and commodious investiture of capital. This, like many others of his doctrines, requires proper qualifications, which he uniformly omits to introduce.

M. CANARD shares in the animosity against this kingdom which is common to all the publicists of France. Like them, he ascribes to it a vast proportion of the calamities of his country; like them, he describes it as at the highest pitch of power and prosperity; and, like them, he seems to derive consolation from the idea of a rapid decline, which, if certain causes intervene not, he prophesies will soon be witnessed. We are obliged to him for stating to us these causes, whence we may contrive preventatives of this galloping consumption, which so speedily awaits the British body politic.

The declaimers in favour of obsolete laws to regulate commerce, the enemies of voluntary paper credit, and the partisans of taxes laid exclusively on the rich, may, if inclined to receive instruction, most advantageously have recourse to the present work. Many readers, however, we doubt not, will pronounce that it is dry, too rigidly systematic, and too artificial in its composition; and it must be admitted that a popu lar style is the best suited to such subjects as are here treated.

A happy