Inftead of having received from Spain the firft fheep that produced fine wool in this ifland, as hath been often afferted, he hows, from undoubted authorities, that in the time of the Romans our wool was held in fuch an high degree of eftimation, as to be employed for making cloth for the emperor's own peculiar ufe, that it was equally esteemed by the Venetians, and other Italian ftates, while the woollen manufacture was in a great measure confined to Italy; that it was held in equal eftimation by the Flemings, when the woollen manufacture was eftablished in the Netherlands; that during the 15th and 16th centuries English wool fold at a much higher price, in every market, than Spanish, and was univerfally a lowed to be more valuable, in every refpect; that not an ounce of Spanish wool entered into the fabric of English cloth till after the reign of Elizabeth, but that fince the reign of James I. the quality of British wool has gradually declined, til at length it has fallen to fuch a ftate of degradation, as to be unfit to enter at all into the fabrication of fuperfine cloths.

He next enquires into the caufe of this very interefting revolution in arts, and endeavours to show that it ought to be entirely attributed to the law prohibiting the exportation of British wool. This prohibition, he contends, was not enacted into a law either in the days of Edward II. or of Elizabeth, as hiftorians have afferted, but began firft to be introduced in the reign of James I, and his unhappy fon Charles, both of whom made fome proclamations against it, with a view to extort money for licences; but it n ver, Mr A. affirms, received the fanction of law till after the restoration, nor was the law ever attempted to be ftrictly put in force till the revolution. No fooner did the reftraint produced by this law begin to be felt, than the quality of our wool began to decline; and thus continuing to decrease as the law preffed more and more feverely, Spanish wool at length obtained a decided fuperiority over Englith wool, and we were forced either to impor, Span fh wool, or to renounce our fine woollen manufactures. But as other -nations can buy Spanish wool as cheap as ourfelves, the Author obferves, that we no longer poffefs any advantage over them in the manufacture of fine cloth; hence, fays he, the decline of our trade in fine cloths to Turkey and other places in the Levant, as well as on the borders of the Baltic, &c. To the fame law he afcribes in a great measure the rife of the French woollen manufacture; as the people of that country have been furnished with our wool by a pernicious fmuggling rade, at a much lower rate than they could otherwise have obtained it. The manner in which this law operates in forwarding the French manufactures, he thus explains in a note: B b 2

• When

When a nation adopts any iniquitous plan, to advance its own profperity at the expence of others, it is impoffible to forefee half the bad effects that may refult from it. It was vainly imagined by fome short-fighted politicians, that in confequence of the low price of wool in England that would refult from the law prohibiting the exportation of wool, the English manufacturer would be enabled to underfell all others, and would thus obtain a monopoly of the woollen trade to all the world; and it would be no difficult matter to produce many authors who fericufly believed in fuch a vifionary project. How different was the refult of that experiment! At that time France had almoft no woollen manufacture; and it would have been long before the would have been able to cope with England, had the been obliged to purchafe her wools at the former price. But when the prices of wool were fo much reduced in England, the French found themfelves able to purchase it, by a contraband trade, fo much below its old rate, that they were enabled not only to manufacture cloths for themselves, but to export them to others to a great amount. Thus, by endeavouring to grafp too greedily at more than our own, we furnished a weapon to our most dangerous rivals, by the aid of which they were enabled fuccefsfully to attack

us.

Since the former part of this note was written, I find some perfons have a difficulty to comprehend, how it was poffible for the French to purchafe their wool cheaper after the exportation of our wool was prohibited than before it, as it now muft come to them loaded with the whole charge of fmuggling, which it is imagined will at least be equal to the former duty on exportation. There are, however, feveral reafons why they fhould get it much cheaper than before, and even perhaps cheaper than the British manufacturers themselves.

In the first place, As foreign merchants are now excluded from the commerce of wool, it has fallen prodigiously in its price, being at a medium not above half the price it ufed formerly to be fold at; --fo that although France fhould be at the whole charge of fmuggling it, the original purchafe is fo much below what it formerly was, or ever would have been without that abfurd law, that her manufacturers can buy it at home at a much lower price than formerl. But,

Secondly, France does not in reality pay for the charge of fmuggling our wool. For by the many prohibitory laws against the commerce of France, our fmugglers are ready to run the risk, or at least to meet them half way, for the profit they are enabled to make by the goods they receive in return. And,

Thirdly, As the price of thofe French goods prohibited by the laws of Britain are prodigioufly enhanced in our market above their natural value, a very fmall quantity of thefe will amount to a much greater price to the fmuggler at home, than the home market price of his wool; fo that in this way, by'a very advantageous barter, the French may, and I believe really do, get our wool, from Ireland efpecially, cheaper than the British manufacturers themselves.

It is by attending to circumftances of this fort, that we are enabled to explain many feeming paradoxes in trade; among which

the

the following may be reckoned one.-A very fenfible manufacturer lately affured me, that for many years paft, English wool of equal finenes may be bought at Amfterdam cheaper than at London; and that he himself would probably have bought it there, and brought it to Scotland, had it not been that the general courfe of his trade led him more naturally to the London market. It is thus that Avarice almost always counteracts her own purpofes; and our endeavours to obtain an unjuft afcendency over others, for the most part turn out in the end to their emolument, and the detriment of ourfelves. Hoping to obtain an afcendency over all others by the mo nopoly of our wool, we have thus effentially hurt our own manufactures, and encouraged thofe of our rivals, to a degree that no efforts of their own, unaided by our felly, could ever have effected.'

Such being the confequences of this law, it is no wonder that he warmly prefles that it fhould be inftantly repealed.

It having been objected that cheapnefs of living is unfavourable to manufactures, and might deprive Scotland of one advantage he had ascribed to it, he is induced to examine this point at fome length. He agrees, indeed, with the advocates for this fyftem, in allowing that a temporary fall in the price of neceffaries of life in any country tends to difcourage manufactures; but he, at the fame time, fhows that if the price be permanently high it must operate as a perpetual bar to their progrefs. He likewife proves that every variation in the price of the neceffaries of life is deftructive of national induftry; on which account great care ought to be taken to prevent every fuch variation; and as he thinks the British fyftem of corn laws tends to keep the grain nearly at one price, he very much applauds the spirit with which they have been framed.

Finding, however, that he here differs in opinion from the celebrated Author of An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, he enters into a very minute examination of the arguments advanced by that writer againft the bounty on corn; but is obliged to draw conclufions in every refpect the reverfe of what Dr. Smith has done. Whether our Author has mifunderstood the doctor's arguments, as he modeftly intimates his fear that he may have done, or whether Dr. Smith may, through inadvertency, have advanced arguments in one part of fuch a long work that are contradicted by his reasoning in other parts of it, we will not at prefent enquire; but we think it is incumbent on this ingenious author either to reconcile the feeming contradictions and inaccuracies of reasoning here pointed out, or to give up the argument entirely. In hopes, therefore, of having occafion to refume this fubject in future, we fhall content ourselves at prefent with quoting our Author's general conclufion;

To conclude, fays he, It is certain, that if no over-raling influence had prevented it, the price of grain would have rifen in England, in the fame proportion with that of all other commodities, in confequence of the general decrease in the value of money :-but the price of grain has not only not rifen fince the bounty was inftituted, as has been the cafe with all other commodities, but has even fallen fince that period: therefore it has been kept thus difproportionately low by the powerful over-ruling influence of fome caufe.

If this effect had been produced by the general fecurity, as to property, that the fubject now enjoys in Great Britain, the fame caufe would have operated fill more powerfully in moderating the price of labour and manufactures -But the price of labour and of manufactures has encreafed fince that period;-it must therefore be attributed to fome other cause.

If the bounty had always raifed the nominal price of grain *,' that article of produce must have had its nominal value augmented, not only as much, but even more than that of any other commodity, fince the bounty took place.-But the nominal value of that commodity has decreafed fince that time, while that of all other commodities has encreased; therefore the bounty on corn has not encreased its nominal value.

If "the price of co n had abfolutely regulated the price of all other commodities," the price of every other commodity must by confequence rife or fall, as th general average money-price of corn rifes or falls in any country. But the average money price of corn in England has been lower fince the bounty took place, than it was before that period, al hough the price of all other commodities is now higher than formerly; therefore the price of corn does not ab folutely regulate the price of labour and of all other commodities.

If it is impoffible to alter the real price of corn by any contrivance," and if the real price of any commodity be the quantity of labour it can maintain or procure;" it must follow, that the price of one determinare quantity of corn will, at all times, and in all places, be capable of purchasing an equal quantity of labour :-but as it requires a much greater quantity of money now to purchase the fame quanti y of manufactures, or of labour, than it did fifty years ago; and as the fame quantity of corn cannot at this time purchase fo much money as before the bounty took place; -it follows, that the real price of corn is much lower at prefent than it was at fome former period; therefore it is poffible to augment or diminish the real value of corn, as well as of every other commodity.

But if the nominal value of corn has decreated ince the bounty was established; and if, in confequence of that, its real price be not now much more than one half of what it formerly was; and if no other probable caufe can be affigned for this but the operation of the bounty, and the other corn laws; and if thefe laws explain in a fatisfactory manner all the phenomena above enumerated; we shall

*The paffages inclofed within inverted double commas are quoted from Dr. Smith, and have each of them been answered more fully in the preceding parts of this effay.

then

then be obliged to acknowledge, that inftead of being "an abfurd regulation of commerce," it is perhaps the wifeft and the best political inftitution that has ever graced the annals of any nation.'

He clofes this very interefting digreffion with fome fevere animadverfions on the fpirit of the corn laws of Scotland, which he fays have been evidently framed with an intention to advance the interests of agriculture at the expence of the fifter arts. But to aim at feparating the intereft of manufactures from that of agriculture, is in his opinion like endeavouring to feparate the fhadow from the fubftance. He deems it both foolish and unjuft; he thinks that it muft end in the difappointment of its projector, and prove detrimental to the interefts of those very perfons whom it was moft intended to serve.

In order to obtain a more equitable system of corn laws for that country, he afcertains what are the circumstances that ought, in all cafes, to regulate the amount of the bounty, as well as the price at which it ought to be granted. This we do not remember to have feen attempted before; and therefore we are forry that as our limits are infufficient for any fatisfactory extracts from this part of the work, we can only, in brief, obferve, that the corn laws are here difcuffed on a more liberal, more enlarged plan, than any that we have met with in other treatifes, on the fubject; and we doubt not that if Dr. Smith fhall refume the argument, it will be the means of our arriving at a greater degree of certainty, with regard to this very important branch of civil polity than has ever yet been obtained: for we agree with our candid Author in thinking that it is of no moment to the public who it is that shall be right, or who wrong, but it may be of high importance to the nation that the truth in this cafe fhould be with certainty difcovered.

This digreffion being finifhed, the writer animadverts on the vulgar English for their abfurd prepoffeffion against the Scots; and fhows what little caufe there is for their entertaining any jealoufy of that part of the country, as a rival in manufactures. He proves that by encouraging the plan of improvement propofed, England might regain her former fuperiority in the woollen manufacture, which the cannot hope to recover by any other means.

You cannot, fays he, but have remarked, that as England has already loft a great part of her trade for fine cloths to many parts of the world, in confequence of having loft her fine wool, and runs a great risk of long that fhare of it which ftill remains; if fhe continues to depend on Spain for that neceffary article, it becomes neceffary to look around her to try if the can obtain it elfewhere at a more moderate rate.-From the prefent political fituation of England, there is but little hope that ever the could regain fuch a pre-eminence in rearing fine wool as the once enjoyed. But every thing concurs at prefent to favour the attempt in Scotland; and

Bb 4

fhould