Philosophy oj Contemporary Criticism^ No. XXXF. 35 



most vulnerable side, — that of our 

 commercial importance and pros|)erity ; 

 and having, in the possession of Cadiz, 

 tacitly surrendered to the most politic 

 of all that continental confederacy so 

 holily allied against our naval power, 

 and even our national independence, 

 not indeed another Gibraltar, but the 

 very best counterpoise against the 

 advantages derived from tiiat imprcg- 

 uable fortress; and whicii, at the 

 breaking out of any new war, it must 

 be our first object,' at an immense 

 expenditure of blood and treasure, to 

 wrest again from the hands of so formi- 

 dable a rival ; — it behoves us, indeed, 

 to consider deeply how we are to meet 

 the exigencies which a little more cal- 

 culation of consequences, and a little 

 less of lurking anxiety for the ascen- 

 dancy of monarchic despotism, might 

 have enabled our cabinet to avert. 

 We have now, in fact, to consider 

 whether the comparative bankruptcy 

 into which we have so lavishly brought 

 ourselves for the restoration of the 

 Bourbons and other legitimates of the 

 Continent, hath really left to us tlie 

 meansofdcfending our own commercial 

 interests against the despotisms vvc 

 have so restored ; and, if so, what are 

 the safest and the wisest means by 

 which our yot-remaining resources 

 can be applied to so necessary a pur- 

 |M>se. Upon tiic main subject of the 

 article before us, wc have no hesita- 

 tion in declaring our full accordance 

 with the reviewer, that the expendi- 

 ture of the year should be raised within 

 the year, and no further appeals be 

 made to. the funding system. Wc 

 suspect, however, that a very different 

 principle will be acted upon. That 

 the borrowers will take upon them- 

 selves to reduce the interest they 

 agreed to pay to liie lenders, and trust 

 to the gullibility of mankind for tho 

 facility of raising new loans. But, 

 though we agree to the full extent in 

 the reprobation of the funding system, 

 and the idea of new loans, yet in many 

 of the collateral arguments and pro- 

 positions, wc discover the cloven foot 

 of that worst of all factions, which con- 

 fines its regard to what are called 

 property arul pro|)rietors, (that is to 

 say, to the opulent and comparatively 

 opulent «;lasses,) and entirely over- 

 looks the mass of the pr>pulation, in 

 wlinse labour, as Adam Smitli hus 

 siillirirMlly shown, all a(;tiial pioperly 

 originates ; and upon whose thouMcis, 



as he might equally have shown, the 

 burthen of taxation must eventually 

 be thrown: while, at the same time, 

 they have neither voice nor shadow 

 of influence in the accnmulation oir 

 disposal of that burthen. So far as 

 proprietors and capitalists are alone 

 concerned, the controverted maxim of 

 M. Pinto is correct — " the interest of 

 the public debt is (in this point of view) 

 a debt of the right hand to the left, or 

 so much wealth transferred from one 

 class of society to another;" and no- 

 thing can be more false than the 

 reviewer's assertion, that "the capital 

 lent by tlie stockholder to government 

 has been annihilated ;" although at the 

 same time it is true, that, " instead of 

 deriving a revenue from it, the revenue 

 of the stockholders is exclusively de- 

 rived from the capital and industry of 

 otlicrs." The capital borrowed by the 

 government (that portion of it alone 

 excepted which has been squandered 

 in foreign subsidies, or expended upon 

 a foreign soil,) is not, with respect to 

 the country at large, annihilated. So 

 far as it has been expended in the 

 country, it has only changed hands; 

 and the essential enquiry is, whether 

 those who have been benefited by the 

 transfer are the persons who eventu- 

 ally pay the interest. Upon this 

 enquiry, the reviewer, however, plays 

 false, with all the unfeeling craftiness 

 of a thorough-paced partisan. It is 

 true, indeed, that " if we attend, not to 

 the transitory only, but also to the 

 lasting, eD'ccts of the funding system, 

 we shall find that the facility it gives 

 of raising the supplies, so far from be- 

 ing an advantage, is really one of its 

 greatest defects ;" inasmuch as " to 

 cause industry and economy to be 

 practised," (luid the evils of war to be 

 duly estimated,) the people " ought to 

 be made fully sensible of the induencc 

 of war-expenditure on their own pri- 

 vate fortunes." Jiut men " invariably 

 reckon a war burlhensome only in 

 proportion to what they are at the 

 moment calletl u|)on to pay for it in 

 taxes, without rellectJng on their pro- 

 bable duration." This is good logic 

 for those who have no share in the 

 olHcial emoluments, ike. which war 

 creates. .I5ut by 

 does tlio 



be adopted ?— But, when he 



proceeds to state, (however 



s his first premises,) that "it 



what party, if in 

 ivievvcr expect it 



power, 

 would 

 furtlier 

 spei.ioii 



must be obviously a matter o( perfect 

 iudilieercuco 



