hoarded up Our woollens and our hardware, or exchanged them for Italian marble, or for American bars of gold, that in a short time we should have none of our own goods, or more marble or gold bars, than we should know what to do with, or that they would be of no value, because nobody would buy them. Mr. Speuce says, that the land pro prietors ought to spoud their rents for the good of the nation, that luxuries offer, and ought to offer inducements to them to spend these rents; but, that he means home made luxuries: now, is it not the same thing, Sir, with respect to encouragement to the manufacturer, whether the rents of the nation be spent in tobacco, and paid from America to our manufacturers for their goods, or whether the money be paid by the landholders for goods immediately to the manufacturers? But, here Mr. Spence and you turn upon me and say, then the commerce is useless, cut it off, or let the landholders buy the goods of the manufacturers: and, I agree, that this would answer exactly every purpose, if the landholders could be induced to purchase the manufactures; but,. unluckily they are already supplied with as much woollen and hardware as they want: let the manufacturers then, say you, be employed about something that the landholders do want. Now, it lies upon you and Mr. Spence to show what these articles are which the consumers will want, and which the manufacturers can supply: for my own part, I believe, it will be found, that no such articles can be supplied at home to the same extent that commerce can supply them; and, if so, it being necessary, that the land proprietors should spend their rents, that luxuries should offer inducements to them to do so; that the more luxuries are offered, the greater the inducement; that home manufacturers cannot offer so many or great inducements, as manufactures and foreign commerce together can offer, it follows that foreign commerce is necessary to the prosperity of the country; the conclusion is inevi table; and it must not be forgotten that, as Mr. Spence states, for the constantly pro⚫gressive maintenance of the prosperity of the community, it is absolutely requisite ⚫that the class of land proprietors should go on progressively increasing their expenditure. It lies therefore, upon you and Mr. Spence to show, how, the fortunes of 10,000 and of £20,000 a year in this country, can be spent in home manufactures.

At page 58, Mr, Spence supposes an objection to be started, that although com..merce does not increase the wealth of the 1. nation directly, it may do it indirectly;

but the direct creation of wealth by com merce is the opinion here controverted,' says Mr. Spence. But, here, Sir, I should think, that Mr. Spence must have forgotten the title of his book, because Britain is no more independent of commerce, if commerce increase her wealth indirectly, than if it did so directly; and, in order to prove that Britain is independent of commerce, it must be shewn that commerce does neither the one nor the other; or, at least, that Britain can do equally well without it: which, I apprehend has not yet been proved. Mr. Spence says, that it is in consequence of the consumption of so great an amount of foreign commodities in this country, that there is so great a consumption of our manufactures by foreign nations; and, who ever doubted this fact? But if this consump tion of our manufactures by foreign nations, in consequence of our consumption of foreign commodities, adds as much to the wealth of the nation by stimulating agricul ture, as if that wealth had been created by commerce, where lies the difference, and what does it signify, whence the wealth is derived? If (according to Mr. S.) the land of the country produce £120 millions a year, and a sixth part of the population be employed in producing it, that sixth part of the population will consume 20 millions, and there will remain one hundred millions, one half of which is exported in some shape or other, and the remaining half is expended by the manufacturers for home consumption: on this state of the case, I cannot perceive why the nation is not indebted for its pros. perity, as much to the 50 millions exported by commerce, as to the 50 millions consumed by our home manufacturers; and, it appears to me, that the nation is more prosperous, not by 4 or 10 millions at most, as Mr. S. states it, which may be gained by trade (and which, I believe, is not gained at all) but by the whole 50 millions exported in our produce, or manufactures.-But, say you, the nation can do without commerce, because com merce is only an exchange: here the money is, and it may be applied directly to the maintenance of the manufacturers, if the land proprietors chuse it. The manner in which this money is to be so applied is the case in point. Supposing any great check to the export of our manufactures, you do not suppose, that the land proprietors (or rather the home consumers whoever they be) will immediately buy the produce of the manufacture. No; for I remember in one number of your Register, that you suppose the manufacturers to be thrown out of em ployment, and propose that, they shall be

"

adduced as a demonstration." If a coach"maker were to employ so many men for "half a year in the building of a coach, as "that for their subsistence during that time "he had 50 quarters of corn, and if we suppose that he sold this coach to a land "proprietor for 60 quarters of corn, it is "evident that the coachmaker would be ten quarters of corn richer than if he had sold "it for 50 quarters, its original cost. But it "is equally clear that the land proprietor "would be 10 quarters of corn poorer than "if he had bought his coach at the prime "cost." This being the case, the following remark is added. "A transfer then, not a "creation of wealth has taken place, what"ever one gains the other loses, and the "national wealth is just the same." Mr. Spence, in the passage which I have just quoted, supposes that the master manufacturer derives his profit at the expence of the land proprietor, and that what the former gains the latter loses; but, this I entirely dissent from, and do contend that the latter has sustained no loss in parting with his corn, for he has got an equivalent in the coach in exchange for it. I say, Sir, an equivalent, for if the coach can be sold for 60 quarters of wheat, I maintain that it is worth that quantity. An article is worth just as much as it will sell for and no more. What other criterion is there to judge by Can you, Mr. Cobbett, or can Mr. Spence point out any other? The labour of the workman, and the cost of the materials then amount to 50 quarters of wheat, and the coach is sold for 60 quarters of wheat, then there must obviously be a clear gain of 10 quarters. It was stated by Mr. Spence, that the surplus profit arising from the cultivation of land, is clear gain after the expences attending the cultivation and the maintenance of the cultivator are deducted. Then why is not the surplus produce of the coach equally clear gain. There does not appear to me to be the least difference between the two cases. In the one the value of the corn, horses, cows, sheep, and other articles on the laud depends on the price they will sell for... In the other, the value of the coach depends on a similar contingency. I do, therefore, think it is quite clear that the profit which the master manufacturer derives from the manufacture of the coach is clear gain to the nation. And, I think it will presently appear that the wages of the common workman are equally so. Your correspondent Wroc, and my old antagonist (The Game Cock as he modestly Called himself in his communication on the dominion of the sea, but who has proved to

be a downright dunghill on this subject, as he termed me in that) has observed that the master and journeymen manufacturers if they had not been employed in building the coach, must notwithstanding have eaten, and would in point of fact, have consumed the same quantity of food. In answer to this, your correspondent says, to have eaten without producing something in return, would have been attended with a diminution of the wealth of the country. Now, I think it is clear that to eat upon any event, whe ther upon the event of producing something in return, or upon any other, will be produc tive of a diminution of wealth. And, I think it is equally clear, that if the manu facturer must have eaten at all events, and have thereby occasioned a diminution of national wealth, the coach which he produces must be an addition to that wealth. It is to him as manufacturer the public is indebted for the coach, but it is not to him as manufacturer that the public loses the food which he consumes, for he would eat that food whether he were a manufacturer or not. If the diminution of food were owing to the manufacture of the coach, it might be then with reason contended that no accession of wealth was produced by means of the manufacture, not more so than if by entering a shop and taking away 21s. in silver, and leaving 1 guinea in gold in exchange, I should add to the wealth of the shopkeeper, But as the diminution of the food is entirely distinct and independent of the manufacture of the coach, this manufacture must ob viously be a source of wealth, as much so as if I take the 21s. from the shopkeeper in taxes, and pay him one guinea as a remune ration for vending in his shop certain arti cles of my property, this one guinea would be an accession to his wealth. To ascend to a much higher subject, but which I can not forbear noticing on account of its stri king analogy. The ocean loses its waters by evaporation, and is supplied by rivers... now as this evaporation is wholly uncou nected with, and not occasioned by the ri vers, those rivers are undoubtedly the source of the sea; and so as the consumption of the manufacturers food is not occasioned by the manufacture of the coach, the manufac ture of the coach is indisputably a source of wealth to the nation, Those are the obser vations which have presented themselves to my mind, in opposition to your doctrine that manufactures are not a source of wealth to the nation. I shall at present confine myself to this subject, and will on some future 00 casion enter into the consideration of and attempt to answer the exceedingly ob

jectionable matter which I find in many other parts of Mr. Spence's pamphlet, particularly that which relates to our foreign commerce in both its branches of export and import.-G.Jan. 23, 180S.

"PERISH COMMERCE.

SIR, You observe in your strictures on commerce, that foreign coinmerce does not produce wealth, and that the manufacturers of Birmingham and Manchester might be better employed in cultivating the land. I am not a merchant, nor am I connected with manufacturers; but have travelled through some of the mining and manufacturing parts of England, and the following observations have occurred to me. If I am wrong I shall be happy to be corrected by your better judgment. I believe I am pretty near the truth when I state that as much iron ore, at the mine, as would make a pound of iron, would hardly cost a half-penny, and the coals and lime-stone to flux it perhaps a halfpenny more, or thereabouts.. The materials therefore to make six pounds of iron we will say cost about six-pence, at the mine. After it has been fluxed, and gone through the process necessary to render it malleable, it is sent to Birmingham; then it is made into steel, and of this steel the ingenious manafacturers of that place make articles of the value of £500 and upwards; I know dress swords have been made there of that value. But for the illustration of my argument, we will take the more moderate sum of £50. This sword, or whatever other article of the value of £50, is exported and sold for that amount in a country producing cotton. With this sum we will assume that 1000lbs. of cotton may be purchased. This cotton is imported into England and carried to Manchester, where, we will say, each pound is matiufactured into articles of the value of 10s.; and it will be admitted that it may be fabricated into goods of much greater valge, The 1000lbs of cotton will therefore, when re-exported in a manufactured state, produce £500. With this £500. 10,000lbs., of cotton may be purchased and again imported into England. Now we have 10,000 lbs. of cotton, which may be manufactured into a thousand different things for the convenience and comfort of the rich as well as the poor of this country. Is not this real wealth? And more truly so than either gold or silver? And what is it that has produced this wealth? why the labour and ingenuity of our countrymen emploved upon sixpence worth of iron ore and coals. What is it that has produced this ingenuity? Is it not commerce, and were commerce to perish

would not this ingenuity perish along with it, and would not the towns of Birmingham, and Manchester, where this ingenuity is exerted to the greatest extent, be deserted and perish also? And how could you employ their inhabitants in any other way so productively as this? We now acquire the productions of the very best lands and the fruits of the labour of other countries by their industry at the forge and loom instead of the scanty crops which their labour would furnish if employed upon the sterile waste lands of England.-In your lucubrations on this subjeet I perceive that money, as a circulating medium, is excluded, and food substituted, in order, as it is said, to simplify the question, But is this fair? Is not the labour of the Englishmen employedon the iron of England as much the production of our country as the corn raised by the cultivation of the soil? And is not clothing, a necessary of life as well as food? Or take it in your way, and call food the only national. wealth, Will not hard-ware, will not manufactured cotton, instead of wine and tobacco which no doubt are superfluities, purchase grain in foreign countries? I con. fess I cannot answer these questions in suca manner as to enable me to accede entirely to the opinion which you have supporteh with your usual ability; and I therefore propose them not as a disputant, but from a real wish to have my doubts resolved,—I am aware that my story of the sixpenny worth of iron ore and coals,..may bear some resemblance to that of the girl and her basket of eggs; but my iron ore is not as perishable an article; and, as I insure my goods, I go upon better. grounds than that unlucky personage. 24th Jan.

OFFICIAL PAPERS. WESTPHALIA. King Jerome's. Proclamation, dated Cassel 17th Dec. 1807..

We Jerome Napoleon, by the grace of God and the Constitution, King of Westphalia, French Prince, &c. &c. to our good. and faithful subjects, and inhabitants of our kingdom of Westphalia, greeting-Westphalians, Divine Providence itas pointed this era in order to re-unite your scattered provinces under one august institution, together with neighbouring families though strangers to each other.I come to occupy this throne, prepared by victory, raised by the assent of the greatest powers of Europe, founded on a title no less sacred, by your real interest.. -Too long has your country suffered from the pretensions of families and the intrigues of cabinets: you were exposed to all the