these metals are distributed for the several and various uses to which they are applied. Without explaining even what he means by "the imperfect data within our reach," Mr. Gallatin estimates the quantity of gold and silver remaining in Europe and America, after allowing for the various sources of loss and channels of exportation, at about 4,500 millions of dollars, and the portion used for currency at one-third or two-fifths; a statement upon which we can pronounce no opinion without a further knowledge of his data; and we will only stop to observe upon it as remarkable, that through a series of vague assumptions, and even of positive errors in calculation, (as we think we could show, if this were the opportunity,) Mr. Jacob arrives at the sum of about 312 millions sterling, as that remaining in coin in 1830, which at the rate of fifty pence per dollar gives about 1,497 millions of that coin, an amount not very far removed from 1,650 millions, which is the mean between the two fractions of the 4,500 millions suggested by Mr. Gallatin, and is almost identical with the lowest, namely, 1,500 millions, or one-third of the said sum; and this obviously upon a widely different assumption of the proportions in question. In the midst of all this confusion, however, the main objects of the inquiry may be sufficiently discerned for practical conclusions. The actual amount of money either existing or to be supplied, is only of great consequence as affording the proportions between the two, for it is the change of quantity, and not its positive sum, which is of importance to the transactions of mankind. We know at least that the supplies of precious metal have been formerly much more than sufficient to counterbalance their consumption; whatever defalcation may have latterly occurred, is in a great measure owing to broils which must have an end, and to poverty which will cease with them; and while we may, we think, for these reasons look forward to the ultimate abundance of production from the western mines, to animate the intercourse of nations, we may conclude with our author, that we need anticipate "only such slow and gradual changes, as cannot substantially affect the great mass of ordinary contracts."

But however, be this as it may be, there is no doubt that it would prove of the highest importance to this point, if, in addition to our ascertaining the amount of supply, we could also establish the peculiar circumstances which regulate the corresponding demand. The passage wherein the writer endeavours to do this, is one of the few with which we feel disposed to find fault with his course of reasoning.

"Mines," says the pamphlet, "being, like tillable land, private property, and of different fertility, the rent of either, as well as the intrinsic

value of their respective produce, are regulated by analogous laws. But there is an essential difference between the demand for corn and that for the precious metals. That for corn, or the ordinary article of food, is for an amount in quantity, without much regard to value. That for gold and silver is for an amount in value and not in quantity."-pp. 10, 11.

"

Now if a " demand for quantity" means anything, it can only mean such a demand as must be supplied with a given amount, at whatsoever cost; and, in like manner, the demand for value must be construed to signify that which requires a certain value in exchange, whatever may be the quantity, great or small, which is necessary to convey it; for we must here remark, that value is restricted by the terms of this proposition to the latter sense alone. The article of which the quantity is required, like corn, must have a great "value in use,' as Adam Smith has called it, while the value demanded, without reference to quantity, can only be that which is indicated by the measure of exchange. Now there may be no regard to value where the supply of quantity, like that of water in ordinary circumstances, is universal and unlimited. There is, perhaps, none either where the quantity is indispensable to the first wants of life, and where the means of exchange exist. But if these means are insufficient, the demand becomes at once involved in that for value, and must so universally follow the same course, as to justify the stricture upon Adam Smith's distinction-that it implies no practical difference, because value in exchange can be the only real value with which political economy has ultimately to deal.

This, then, we conceive, leads us to one, at least, of the elements of error, which, in spite of the qualifications to that effect, by which it is followed, prevail in the passage now before us. The demand mentioned by Mr. Gallatin must be, not a mere want, but an effective demand. If this were not commonly true of the term, as used in the general science, it must be so, at all events, in this place, because his argument relates to its connection with the cost and amount of production; and as this can act through the market only, it must do so of course by such a demand as can offer what the market may require. Now in the sense of want, there is, no doubt, an abstract distinction between the demand for two articles, such as corn, representing food, and the precious metals. A given population must clearly require a certain quantity of food to sustain life. If corn were the only or the cheapest attainable article of food, and the wealth of the community were shared in fully sufficient portions by every individual, there can be no doubt that each man would give whatever cost might be necessary, rather than want the corn and starve; and there would then be always a demand for this certain quan

tity, no matter what the value. But this hypothesis assumes what can never be admitted in reality. In the first place, the distinction, as stated by Mr. Gallatin, is between corn and the precious metals; and, therefore, corn is taken to be the single, indefeasible, requisite of food: and secondly, it is supposed that the want of each individual is an effective demand upon the market, by the abundance of his means. But how is it with human societies in fact? Corn has, by the habits of man in general, been, to be sure, constituted the most universal article of sustenance, but if its cost be greatly raised, it is well known that substitutes are constantly introduced, partly of permanently lower value, partly from those substances which have become so by the rise in the value of corn: and on the other hand, the real distribution of wealth being, even in the most level societies, very far from equal, the truth is, that multitudes have perished, and must perish, in famine, before many have parted with their luxuries. The demand therefore never can in such cases correspond with the wants of the community, at the lowest point of subsistence; whereas above that point there can be no question that any essential decrease in the value of corn, or augmentation of the general wealth, will be accompanied with a consumption, or waste, far beyond the proportions indicated by population. The amount of wheat commonly required in the United Kingdom may be taken, for instance, at about one million of quarters in a month. If the value were doubled by scarcity, there can be no doubt that this quantity would be most seriously reduced. If it were trebled, it would be still further lessened, and it would be impossible to fix a point at which, after the total abandonment of its use by the poor, its more and more scanty consumption by the rich might not be still narrowed by augmented value. While if that value were indefinitely lowered, or the wealth of every individual indefinitely raised, there can be as little question, that the monthly million would be much expanded; and it would seem to us as absurd to affirm the contrary, as to contend that a given number of the natives of Africa, or New South Wales, demand a supply of the common article of food, approaching to that necessary for the usual sustenance of as many individuals taken indiscriminately from our countrymen in England.

To say then that there will always be found and felt a demand for a determinate quantity of corn, from a given amount of population, without regard to the value of the commodity, appears to us, however just under certain theoretical conditions, so wide of the truth in practice, as to lead to no useful conclusion. Let us now turn to the precious metals. The purposes of the demand for these substances are of two separate descriptions; either for the

ornamental arts, or for a measure of exchange. In the first case, there can be obviously no limits assigned to the quantity required, either in restriction or extension. It is only a portion of what may be termed the superfluous stock of a nation which will be invested in such objects. The demand, therefore, will here certainly be regulated entirely by value, without regard to quantity; but by value, we apprehend, less in relation to the aggregate amount of wealth, as the author supposes, than to the distribution of that wealth; for we can conceive that the means possessed by certain classes might be doubled, and the expenditure for these purposes be thereby largely increased, and yet that the same amount, if universally and equally diffused throughout the community, would add scarcely any thing to this branch of consumption, We know that in Ancient Rome the accumulation of wealth among the great citizens of the capital, rendered comparatively enormous the use of gold and silver for the purposes of pomp and luxury; yet if these same sums had been added to the possession of every person in the empire, or even in Italy, it may be much doubted whether the demand for such uses would have been thereby much extended. But the distinction between a mere want and "an effective demand, including both the wish to possess, and the means to pay," (which is thus recognized in the language of the pamphlet with respect to the precious metals,) although in the cases just mentioned it is scarcely to be discerned, becomes more definite when we consider their use as the material of money. If we can conceive a country about to assign a commodity to this purpose for the first time, it would signify little, indeed, what its quantity might be, provided it were such as to allow of an adequate division, or even what its value, provided it were generally admitted. But where these substances have been long established in that capacity, and subjected to the interference of positive artificial regulation, value is not the only attribute required, for it is quantity alone which can be fixed by law, and not value, which is beyond its control. At any given moment, and abstractedly considered, it is manifestly of no importance what may be the quantity contained in the circulation of two countries, provided that in the one a single ounce will go as far in exchange as its multiple in the other; although even in this sense the quantity might become of consequence beyond certain limits, for the ounce might be, in theory, of so high a value as to be deficient in the other qualities of practical convenience requisite for money. But under the actual circumstances of metallic currency, and at separate periods, the quantity is far from a matter of indifference. Supposing the currency of the United States, taken by Mr. Gallatin at about seventy-three millions of dollars,

to be entirely metallic, and silver, as it is, in fact, the legal standard, if instead of using the term dollar, an engagement were made to pay 73,000,000 part of the whole amount of silver so employed, it would, indeed, signify nothing to the parties what the quantity paid might be (as long as that fraction were not so small as to be practically indivisible,) for the value in relation to the other elements of wealth would remain the same, whether the whole amount were 73, or 100, or 50 millions of ounces. But the law says, not that a proportionate, but that a positive quantity must be paid; if, therefore, either the cost of production of silver were raised, the quantity to be obtained remaining undiminished, or the quantity supplied were to fall off, without any alteration in its cost, or if both contingencies were to occur, it is evident that the fixed quantity, or dollar, being rendered of greater relative value, every man who had that quantity to pay, must obtain it at some greater sacrifice than usual; and in like manner must the aggregate of individuals or nations. The necessary sacrifice, in order to obtain the only legal instrument of payment, would then contribute to increase the effective demand for quantity, beyond its equivalent in the augmented value; whereas the want for it would be increased from the first moment of the change, and must gain in intensity to that extreme point, before supposed, where what may be called a famine in these commodities must lead to universal ruin, and when recourse must be had either to substitutes or to simple barter. If the value of the metals were on the contrary diminished, it would not be difficult to trace the reverse of these consequences; but we will here only add, that in the present artificial systems of promissory currency, and particularly in the United States, where it is so largely adopted, there is at all times a great standing engagement, which, if suddenly enforced, must be satisfied, and therefore must raise a demand, entirely in quantity, whatever may be its representative in value.

When, therefore, Mr. Gallatin speaks of a demand for quantity without much regard for value, and for value independently of quantity, we must venture to consider it rather a subtle than a sound distinction, not very intelligibly expressed, and, however just in principle, applicable to existing circumstances only in a very limited degree. The demand for these commodities, like that for all others, must be regulated ultimately by value. We might conceive, indeed, though we could not determine, a point, at which the demand for food would be so satiated, as to be incapable of increase from the same numbers, while the precious metals would be sought without any limitation as they declined in value; but on the other hand we must think with Mr. Malthus, that, though this be true at a given moment, the amount of