which has been laid down on the subject of demand and supply'; and 8. The new principle which has been laid down on the subject of profits, and the competition of capital.

We are inclined, however, to think that these differences may be still further concentrated; and that it will not be incorrect to state, that all the peculiar doctrines of the new system directly and necessarily flow from the first of these new principles; namely, that the exchangeable value of commodities is determined by the quantity of labour worked up in them. It follows, directly and necessarily from this principle, that neither the demand compared with the supply, nor the relative abundance and competi tion of capital, can have more than a mere temporary effect on values and profits.

This draws a strongly marked line of distinction between the two systems in reference to the main object of inquiry in the science of Political Economy, namely, the causes which encourage or discourage the increase of wealth. In both systems it is allowed that these depend mainly on the state of profits. And the grand distinction between the two may be stated shortly to be this :The new school suppose that the mass of commodities obtained by the same quantity of labour remains always substantially of the same value, and that the variations of profits are determined by the variations in the value of this same quantity of labour: while Adam Smith and Mr. Malthus suppose that the value of the same quantity of labour remains substantially the same, and that the variations of profits are determined by the variations in the value of the commodities produced by this same quantity of labour. In the one case, the varying value of labour is considered as the great moving principle in the progress of wealth; in the other, the varying value of the produce of labour. The difference is most distinct and important. And as political economy, according to the first description of it in the present Treatise, 'is not a science of speculation, but of fact and experiment,' the specific question is, which of the two views here stated best explains the broad and established facts of which we have had experience.

For our own parts we have no hesitation in saying that the events of the last thirty years, in this country, appear to us to be absolutely inexplicable on the supposition that the mass of commodities produced by the same quantity of labour, remained during that time of the same value;* while they are explained in

* It would imply, that, during the war, the value of labour was low, on account of the food of the labourer being obtained with great facility; and that since the war the value of labour has been high, on account of the food of the labourer being obtained with great difficulty ;-positions which it is impossible to maintain.

the

the clearest and most obvious manner, by allowing, in conformity with all appearances, that the value of the produce of the same quantity of labour rose during the war, and has fallen since, owing to the state of the demand and supply, and of the relative abundance and competition of capital in the two periods. * And we believe it will be found, that no instance of a rise or fall of profits has ever occurred which may not justly be attributed to a rise or fall in the value of the produce of the same quantity of labour occasioned by these causes.

The reader will be aware that this proposition in no respect impeaches the very great advantages derived from that fall of price which arises from the saving of labour, the use of improved machinery, and the diminution of taxes, or any other outgoings. Such improvements, while they lower the value of any specific quantity of the article produced, have the strongest tendency to raise the value of the produce of the same quantity of labour; and this tendency can only fail to be effectual for short periods, or under particular circumstances.

The frequent fall of price arising from the saving of labour and other outgoings, is almost always beneficial. The frequent fall of price not arising from this cause, but from the state of the demand and supply, and the competition of capital, is often prejudicial. The rapid progress of wealth for a continuance, depends upon the produce of labour being of such a value as to occasion its division between the capitalist and labourer in the proportions which are at once the most advantageous to both,† and will increase most rapidly and steadily the quantity and value of the capital, and the number of the people.

The system of the new school of political economy has always struck us as bearing a very remarkable resemblance to the system of the French Economists. Their founders were equally men of the most unquestionable genius; of the highest honour and integrity, and of the most simple, modest and amiable manners.

If the money price of labour had remained the same during the whole period, this rise in the value of corn and commodities in the first twenty years, and fall subsequently, would have been exactly expressed and measured by the rise and fall in the money prices of commodities. But under great changes in the state of the demand and supply of commodities, money rarely retains the same value. Still, it is of some use as a measure. And as the money prices of corn and commodities rose more during the first part of the period, and fell more during the second part than the money price of labour, this fact, which is absolutely incontrovertible, shows at once that the great change of value was in corn and commodities, while labour remained comparatively

constant.

↑ It has been said that the manner in which the produce of labour is divided cannot alter the value. If it do not actually alter its value, it clearly shows that its value is altered. Properly speaking, indeed, it is the value of the produce, determined by the demand and supply, which regulates the division, not the division which regulates the value.

Their systems were equally distinguished for their discordance with common notions, the apparent closeness of their reasonings, and the mathematical precision of their calculations and conclusions founded on their assumed data. These qualities in the systems and their founders, together with the desire so often felt by readers of moderate abilities of being thought to understand what is considered by competent judges as difficult, increased the number of their devoted followers in such a degree, that in France it included almost all the able men who were inclined to attend to such subjects, and in England a very large proportion of them.

The specific error of the French Economists was the having taken so confined a view of wealth and its sources as not to include the results of manufacturing and mercantile industry.

The specific error of the new school in England is the having taken so confined a view of value as not to include the results of demand and supply, and of the relative abundance and competition of capital.*

Facts and experience have, in the course of some years, gradually converted the economists of France from the erroneous and inapplicable theory of Quesnay to the juster and more practical theory of Adam Smith; and as we are fully convinced that an error equally fundamental and important is involved in the system of the new school in England as in that of the French economists, we cannot but hope and expect that similar causes will, in time, produce in our own country similar effects in the correction of error and the establishment of truth.

ART. II.-A Critical Inquiry into Ancient Armour, as it existed in Europe, but particularly in England, from the Norman Conquest to the Reign of King Charles II. with a Glossary of Military Terms, &c. By Samuel Rush Meyrick, LL.D. and F.S.A. &c. 3 vols. 4to. London. 1824.

THE

HERE is no branch of antiquarian research more interesting in itself, or more useful for historical illustration, than the study of the armour of the middle ages. The subject awakens every association which belongs to the olden time of romance. It is interwoven with all the splendour of chivalry; the din of Paynim battle, the alarums of feudal combats, and the festive but perilous

The precise cause of the superiority of Adam Smith's and Mr. Malthus's measure of value, namely, the labour which a commodity will command, over the measure adopted by the new school, namely, the labour worked up in a commodity, is, that the former includes the effects of demand and supply, and the competition of capital, and the datter excludes them. It is a satisfactory circumstance that the principles of free trade are fully acknowledged in all the three systems, and that any deviations from them can only be defended on special grounds.

encounter

encounter of the courtly joust and tournament. Among those monumental effigies which are frequently our only records of armour, some cross-legged figure in the aisles of our venerable cathedrals will occasionally recall the memory of the heroic enthusiasm and mistaken piety of the crusader, and conduct us in idea through his toilsome march and deadly conflict with the Saracen at such a moment his contempt of suffering and of danger; his sacrifice of home and kindred; his ready endurance of torture and death, rise at once before us, and forbid us from censuring with severity the madness of his enterprise. Or, if we turn to the rude paintings and illuminated MSS. of the times for armorial costume, the well-foughten' fields of honour, the glittering array of steel-clad warriors, the solemn display of judicial battle, the gayer lists for trial of knightly skill and ladye love; the baronial hall, the minstrelsy, the masque, the banquet and the ball, spring up before us in dazzling and fantastic imagery.

But dispelling the illusions of fancy, it is by reducing the inquiry into the changes of armour to the standard of sober reason, that the subject acquires its historical value. It is, in fact, impossible to understand the condition of society in Europe during the middle ages without some acquaintance with the peculiar warfare of the times; and, as the genius of chivalry was wholly personal, and rendered the encounters of nations no more than a multitude of single combats, the inventions of the military art were exhausted in perfecting the construction and the use of individual weapons and defensive harness. All that great game of war which is reducible into the science of tactics, and which with modern armies, as with those of Greece and Rome, is played by a single intelligence pervading mighty masses of physical power, was utterly unknown to the rude chieftains of the feudal hordes. Yet war was their incessant occupation, and the image of war and the chase their only pastime. Since the Homeric age, there has never occurred, perhaps, an era so exclusively military, as that which is comprehended between the tenth and the fifteenth centuries. Almost every order of society mingled in the work of slaughter. Monarchs, nobles, and the inferior proprietors of the soil, found in camps their common theatre of action; and free cities poured forth bands of armed burghers to protect their harvests, or manned their walls with artizans, who enjoyed security within them by no other tenure than their own good swords.

During this long and turbulent period, the influence of the softer sex tempered the passion for arms, and the fierce and brutal spirit of feudal anarchy was gradually calmed and humanized by the progress of romantic sentiment. It is a trite observation, that we are indebted for the polished courtesy of modern society

Y 4

ciety to the institutions of chivalry; but the fact is alone sufficient to invest the examination into these singular ordinances with particular interest; and, while their peculiarities and the state of manners generally, during the middle ages, can be learned only through their connexion with military usages, these again were sensibly affected by progressive changes in the quality and form of arms. As illustrating, therefore, the civil and military history of the middle ages, as shedding a curious light upon the manners customs, and feelings of society, and as forming, moreover, a complete chronology of costume, a systematic dissertation upon armour, accompanied by a full series of clear and accurate engravings, is in every way a desideratum; and as we have hitherto remained without any sufficient work of this nature,-for Capt. Grose's Essay, however valuable as far as it goes, is very incomplete, we had recourse to the volumes before us with much curiosity.

We cannot say that we have risen from their perusal with any extraordinary respect for the judgment and taste of the author, or without considerable disappointment at the style and execution of his costly production. The plan upon which he has conducted his inquiry appears to us extremely inconvenient and ill chosen. The natural divisions of the subject are so strongly marked, that we are at a loss to account for his failing to adopt them; and the steps of improvement by which defensive armour attained its perfection are so easily to be traced, that we cannot but wonder at his discarding the obvious classification of distinct periods in the art, for artificial lines of separation which had no influence upon its general character. After the settlement of the barbarian conquerors of the western empire in their new possessions, and the foundation of the feudal monarchies of Europe, the earliest species of body armour which they adopted was composed of metal rings or scales, sewn on leather or cloth; and this was gradually improved into coats of chain and scale mail, and extended into general coverings for the whole frame. Then mail armour came by degrees to be strengthened by detached plates of iron or steel. This mixed harness was again improved; and the mail disappeared, first from some parts of the body and afterwards from others, until the perfection of defence found the warrior completely cased in steel plates. If villainous saltpetre had never been digg'd out of the bowels of the harmless earth,' in this state the art might have remained to our days; but the invention and murderous improvement of fire-arms slowly wrought their effect upon military science, and brought the vain and cumbrous load of armour into contempt and disuse. As it had progressively increased in weight, quality, and surface over every