The net receipt of the exchequer for that year was estimated to produce rather less than 7. 22,000,000. Now if we suppose the expense of the civil government, including that of the emperor and his court, to be only two millions, which is not more than our own, we have only 1. 20, 000, 000, for the support of the naval and military establishment of France. Compare this with Great Britain; the estimate of the supplies. for the present year, exclusive of the civil list and the charge on account of the national debt, amounts to the sum of l. 42, 939, 604! Such is the incredible difference in the power of maintaining fleets and armies in a country whose inhabitants are permitted to enjoy as much as possible beyond mere necessaries, and the country where they have been so deprived of the fruits of their industry as to have been in a great measure confined to what barely suffices to support a physical existence.

No declamation is more idle and unmeaning than that against "luxuries," in the philosophical sense of the term. It is not the liberal supply of the accommodations of life that is in any case an evil; but only that unequal division, by which, while one part of the community is entirely deprived of them, another is provided with such an undue proportion, as to be tempted to all the freaks and vices of excess, and to ob tain such an influence and dominion over the indigent part of their brethren as corrupts the heart and banishes virtue, forming slaves of the one, and tyrants of the other. The desire of these accommodations is a principle in the nature of man, admirably suited to stimulate his efforts and improve his condition. The acute author whom we have already quoted, says, that "if it be an illusion by which we are thus animated, it is well that nature imposes upon us in this manner. It is this deception which rouses and keeps in continual motion the industry of mankind. It is this which first prompted them to cultivate the ground, to build houses, to found cities and commonwealths, and in to invent and improve all the sciences and arts, which ennoble and embellish human life; which have entirely changed the whole face of the globe, have turned the rude forests of nature into agreeable and fertile plains, and made the trackless and barren ocean a new fund of subsistence, and the great high road of communication to the different nations of the earth. The earth by these labours of mankind has been obliged to redouble her atu al fertility, and to maintain a greater multitude of inhabitants."

How inexpressibly ridiculous, then, is the proposal for a plan of government, which entirely subverts this great, principle of human action! But as Mr. Chalmers seems too much in

love with his own discoveries, to be a man whom it is easy to convince, we will not remain satisfied with these important and conclusive statements. We will examine the particulars of the very case which he himself puts, and show him to what deplorable consequences it would inevitably lead.

Let us suppose, in the present state of industry in Great Britain, that as great a proportion of the population as he pleases might be withdrawn for the service of government, and, that as small a proportion as he pleases would suffice to provide necessaries for the whole. Let us suppose this division made, and all that part of the population, not absolutely neces sary for providing necessaries, employed as sailors and soldiers. Our author tells us that the country would suffer no other misfortune, than that individuals would be deprived of all their luxuries. Alas, Mr. Chalmers, you see a very little way into the interior of human society! Let us suppose that at an average, according to the present rate of industry, every man reserved for the supply of necessaries would provide three times the quantity requisite for his own consumption; in other words, that two thirds of the population might be employed as soldiers and sailors. Can Mr. Chalmers imagine that any man who beholds the whole of his earnings regularly taken from him, except what is absolutely necessary to preserve him in existence, would toil with pain and anxiety, early and late, to render these earnings as great as possible? Would not by far the greater part of mankind, as soon as they had earned the necessary supply which must be left with themselves, grudge every effort they must afterwards make, labour with reluc tance, with sloth, with subterfuge, and diminish prodigiously the amount of their produce? It is the hope of enjoying the fruits of their industry, of obtaining gratifications beyond the mere necessaries of life, of saving part of the produce of their earnings to exalt them among one another, that is the universal stimulus of mankind to exertion. Were this powerful principle of sloth introduced, how quickly would it degrade and disfigure a nation, how rapidly would. our population decline, how squalid the appearance our country would assume, how futile the efforts it would be able to make!

Let us weigh the evidence which individual instances afford; and begin with one of the least complicated cases which such a state of society presents. The taylor, it is assumed, can make clothes sufficient to purchase necessaries for himself and two others. But if the whole is taken from him save that alone which is requisite to purchase necessaries for himself, are there any means by which he can be induced to make so many clothes? Will he not slacken his endeavours, as soon as he has accomplished that portion which alone is left to him

self? If his earnings fall not down entirely to that lowest degree which measures his own necessities, they will infallibly sink very near it. The circumstances of all other artificers are so nearly similar, that the argument can easily be applied. But even the agriculturists themselves are in exactly the same situation. The very servants of the farmer, though generally paid by their time rather than their work, have yet a motive to industry by the superior wages which are always given to a good above a bad servant. If all are reduced to equality by receiving nothing above the mere necessaries of life, all motive to industry is cut off. The influence upon the farmer himself is, if possible, still more pernicious in its effects. All men know what a careful, anxious, and laborious life is that of the husbandman. If the whole produce of so much industry, anxiety, and care, is carried off from him, and nothing left but the bare necessaries of life, will he not consider, "for what good all this toil, and trouble of mind? It only increases the sum which is taken from me. Let me indulge in a little ease." Presently the produce of the farm diminishes, and even the stock by which it was cultivated and improved gradually disappears. Why should the farmer be very anxious about it? He is reduced to the necessaries of life as well as his servant, and when he must part with his farm, is in no worse condition than before. The rent can no longer be paid to the landlord. But what motive has the landlord to exert himself that his rents should not fail? By the supposition, he too is reduced to the necessaries of life, and whether the rents of the estates which he nominally owns are great or small, is a matter of indifference to him. The sum which he is allowed to retain is neither greater or less. He takes therefore from his tenants what they say they are able to give, and al lows the produce to decline as it pleases. It thus abundantly appears, that a scheme of government, formed on the principle of reducing the population to the bare necessaries of life, is a scheme to destroy completely all industry and duce, and to introduce a state of entire poverty and barbarism. Strange it is that an author, composing a book on government, should be capable of over-looking all this. It is the same thing as if a man should erect, for some great manufactory, an immense and elaborate pile of machinery, and lo! when the whole is completed, should perceive that he has so contrived it, that neither wind nor water, nor any other effectual agent, can be employed to keep it in motion. This is the nature of the remedy which Mr. Chalmers recommends to us, against the terror inspired by the power of Bonaparte. These are the ad~ vantages we are to reap by increasing our naval and military establishments, by giving up our earnings as taxes into the hands

pro

of government till we ourselves retain nothing but the neces saries of life. No country in Christendom is thus wretchedly oppressed. The motive to exertion in a free state is hope; under Mr. C.'s system it is fear, which could never be kept in exercise beyond the supply of individual necessaries but by an universal coercion, or in other wordsthe establishment of slavery. It is no wonder that a man, who overlooks the grand spring of human action and improvement, in the hurry of giving his advice on national affairs, should overlook another circumstance, on which, in the estimation of the generous and liberalminded, all the blessings of society depend. We mean liberty. Mr. Chalmers talks in praise of liberty, and we are persuaded with sincerity. We see no reason to believe that he is one of those, who would gladly see their countrymen in the chain, provided they might be in the number of the slave drivers. It is from pure want of reflection that he recommends a plan of government which is utterly subversive of liberty.

Let us put the question, what is the cause by which a government originally free is naturally, and too certainly and commonly, converted into a despotism? The answer is abundantly plain; we believe that Mr. Chalmers himself will not dispute it. A free government is naturally and easily converted into a despotism, by assuming gradually a greater command over the resources of the country, over the annual produce of its lands and labour. It thus proceeds, by degrees, augmenting that proportion of the population, who are dependent on government, and find their interest in obeying its impulse. When it has reached that point, at which the number of the people decidedly under the controul of government is greater than any number that can be easily combined by any other interest or influence in the country to act against it, it is then absolute; then no effectual obstruction stands in the way of its operations. It requires only time for brutalizing the minds of the people, to reduce the country to the dead silence and tranquillity of a lethargic despotism.

It now remains for us to contemplate the advice of Mr. Chalmers. He fearlessly, or rather desperately and franticly, urges us to throw at once into the hands of government two thirds of the whole produce of the nation, and the command of two thirds of the whole population. Does Mr. Chalmers imagine that after such a surrender, in any country, a single spark of liberty would be found, unless recovered by a revolution? Were such a power once lodged in any government, where then would remain the ability to withdraw it? Where, on the other hand, is the instance of a government ever intrusted with absolute power, that voluntarily laid it down again? What would this be, but to escape from one despotism to fall under another?

After this criticism on the general outline of Mr. Chalmers's system, we think it unnecessary to dwell minutely on the subordinate and auxiliary tenets; on his notion of the frivolous and ideal advantages arising from commerce; on his curious opinions about capital, and his no less curious doctrine about wealth. All old definitions of wealth, he tells us, are mere nonsense. He gives us a new definition, which henceforth must supersede them all. The wealth of a country, he says, consists, in its disposable population; in which case Ireland in our estimation is one of the most wealthy countries in the world; so is Tartary; but China is one of the poorest.

There is one other topic, however, which deserves a serious attention, on account of the fatal consequences to which it leads. We mean taxation; on which the rash opinions of this and other paradoxical authors, falling in with the strong natural propensity of the chief imposers of taxes, are in danger of increasing the momentous evils to which society is at all times too much exposed from this very quarter. To bid governments heap taxes upon taxes, is truly, in the language of a significant proverb, ruentem impellere.

In Mr. C.'s doctrine, that the country cannot be too heavily taxed, it is implied, that the taxes under which we already labour bear no comparison to the load which we may and ought to sustain. He adds a separate chapter on the subject, the purpose of which is to prove, that taxes can never fall upon the labouring classes; that however the burthens of the state be increased, however taxes be nominally imposed upon the labouring members of the community, they in fact always go free. His reason is this.

The wages of labour must be sufficient to procure the labourer all those accommodations which make up the general standard of enjoyment among the peasantry. This gives rise to a general standard of wages, and it is not in the power of employers to degrade the wages of a la bourer below this general standard. There is a sine qua non, which every labourer must have, and which if you refuse, will infallibly have the ef fect of reducing the number of labourers. In addition to maintenance for himself, he must have maintenance for a family, else it is not in his power to keep up the numbers of the country.'

The author has thus had recourse to certain important doctrines of Adam Smith, which, however, by misunderstanding, he has perverted to the support of opinions, which they flatly contradict. But few words are needful to show the absurdity of his reasoning. The present circumstances of the country, and the present habits of the people, have established a certain rate of wages of labour. Let us suppose that a tax is im posed upon the labourers. This, says Mr. Chalmers, cannot affect the labourer, because his wages must rise to the former