‘ 
- 
1808.) 
True, Sir, T might reply ; but by pre- 
senting a motive to stimulate them, I can 
“create that wealth—I can purchase ee 
“No, rejoins Mr, S. you create nothing 
you only change one species of Seklth 
into another; which operation I call 
transmutation, or fixation of property. 
~Having ar rived at this observation, 
which I consider to be the error owing to 
which a wrong solution has been given, 1 
shall beg leave to drop the supposed con- 
yersation with Mr. S. in order toy consi- 
der the meaning of the word create. 
* Tt is (says Mr. S. p. 42) to bring into 
existence matter, without the annihila- 
tion of other matter,” and in this he is 
right: but the word has a more compre- 
hensive meaning. To shew this, we need 
only appeal to every day’s usual applica- 
tion of it. We “create” disturbances— 
create uneasiness. Now, in doing this, 
we bring no new matter into existence ; 
but Mr. S, will say this is the metaphori i- 
cal use of it, with which we have nothing 
to do. 
Let us then appeal to authority—let 
us consult Dr. Johnson :— 
Create (creo, Latin), to cause, to exist. 
2. To produce, to cause, to be the oc- 
casion of, 
5. To give any new qualities, to put 
any thing in a new state. 
If therefore I build a house, and by 
offering it to sale can present an induce- 
ment to the cultivators of land to increase 
their efforts, in order to procure an addi- 
tional quantity of corn (which additional 
quantity, please to observe, would not 
have been produced without such induce- 
ment), may it not be said that [am the 
occasion of the production of such pro- 
«luce—in other words, create it. 
Stimulate is sometimes synonymous 
with create. To stimulate is to produce 
an effect—an effect must have a cause, 
and what causes aneffect may be said to 
create it. 
Tf there is any truth in these oliserva- 
“tions, how much to be lamented is it, 
that words, on which knowledge depends, 
should be used so inaccurately ! 
As, however, Mr: S. may not readily 
see any advantage in the example I have 
eg and may be of opinion that 
is own reasonings and illustrations are 
more convincing, I sball examine into 
one passage, where | think I discover an ; 
error; which, as well as the improper 
se of the word create,-may have misled 
im, 
(P. 36.)--He says, “ Controversy can 
Opinion relative to the Source of Revenue. 
123 
exist only with respect to that small part 
of the revenue of the manufacturers and 
unproductive classes consisting of the dit 
ference in value between manufactured - 
articles in. their manufactured and. raw © 
state. Now to me it appears a reason 
quite sufficient to induce us to regard this 
portion of their revenue as a transfer, 
merely; that in conv erting this raw nae 
manufactured produce, food, which has 
been derived from the soil, has been con-' - 
sumed, and that the additional value con- 
ferred is_only equal to that of the food 
expended.” 
How can Mr, S, shew that the addi-_ 
tional value conferred on manufactured 
articles is only equal to the food expend- 
ed, when he himself allows that manu- 
factures serve to stimulate to agricultural 
pursuits. If they stimulate to increased 
efforts, this stimulus can only arise from 
the additional value they possess. 
Were I not unwilling to fill your pages 
unnecessarily; I might. amuse your read- 
ers with some of Mr. Spence’s similes. 
Paracelsus transmuting bushels of sand 
into grains of gold (p. 51.); the rain 
water collected without a cistern; the 
farmer who turns a lean ox upon rich 
pasture; prove nothing, illustrate nothing, 
but the author’s wit, which, on the pree 
sent subject, might have been Spared, 
(P. 53.)—“ If a land-proprietor chose 
to give Madame Catalani one hundred 
quarters of wheat for singing an Italian 
air, it wonld be ridiculous to assert that 
the real value of this wheat was merely 
the song. Its real intrinsic value would 
be all the enjoyments for which Madame 
Catalani could exchange it.” 
Yes, Mr. Spence, the price paid forthe 
wheat by Madame Catalani to those who 
gave it, was certainly the song, call it va- 
lue received, or not; 
wheat that was given isa separate con- 
8 
but the value of the - 
sideration, and ought not to have Beet, 
thus confounded. 
Let me, before I conclude, congratu- 
late Mr. Spence on the very severe, yet 
deserved rebuke he las given his oppo- 
nent Mr. Mill, who,-not satisfied with 
Mr. Spence’s definition of. wealth, would 
fain make'a better.—(See p. 27.) 
However dogmatical some .of my ob- 
servations may appear, I-would not wish 
to be considered as deciding on a. subject 
which has divided the opinions.of persons’ 
of abilities. Please to consider them as 
enquiries, and allow me to subscribe my- 
self, 
An Enquirer, 
‘ To 
