i'JCft. REVIEW. — ^WANSEY' ON WOOt. 253 



affiftant to a political party in diftrefs. It will not be denied, 

 that his talents are, in this line, of a very fuperior fort; and 

 there is little doiibt but a difcerning minifter will foon perceive 

 the ufe that may be made of fuch an able affiftant. 



If the author has had any othes obje£l in view than that 

 above explained, it feems to have been a dcfire to convince his 

 readers, that~the growth of Britifh wool, and its improvement 

 in quality, cannot be prevented or rctajded by the law pro- 

 hibiting its exportation, but that it will be ratlier encouraged 

 and promoted by that law. That is to fay, that a man will 

 be encouraged to produce a greater quantity of any article, 

 and be at more pains to render it valuable, if he is to have 

 a limited market for its faie, and a circumfcribed competition 

 of merchants, than if no reilraints in either of thefe refpedts 

 were put upon him. This pofition, v/hen placed thus before 

 the eyes of the reader, in its naked fimpliciry, is fo inconceiv- 

 ably abfurd, that the effayilt, who is by no means deftitute of 

 penetration, perceived the neeeflity of wrapping it up in a 

 cloud of words, the meaning of which, if they have any mean- 

 ing at all, few perfons will be able to difcovcr. 



The objedt he has chieHy aimed at in this performance is 

 apparently to invalidate, to the utmoft of his power, the ftate 

 of fa(2s refpedting Britiih wool, and the Britifli woollen manu- 

 faSures, that had been laid before the public by Dr Anderfon, 

 in the 4th Appendix to Sir John Sinclair's Report to the High- 

 land Society on the fubjetl of Bi itifh Wool ; but fcnfible as hs 

 was, that thefe fa£ts could not be /airly controverted (for he 

 has evidently made fome refearches on the fubjeit), he has 

 been reduced to the neeeflity of wading in the confulion he 

 has created. While he admits, in the fulltil manner, the 

 truth of every pofition Dr Anderfon has there alTumcd, (the influ- 

 ence of the prohibitory wool laws alone excepted), he has en- 

 deavoured, by every art he could de%'ife, to weaken the force 

 of the arguments, which alone tend to crtabliih the truth of 

 the pofitions he himfelf has admitted : fo that fuppofing all he 

 contends for fhould be granted, it would not advance hisargu- 

 ment in the fmalleft degree, but only leave his own pofiiions 

 deftitute of fupport. 



Thus, Mr Wanfey allows In the moft unequivocal manner, 

 that"' Englifli wool before the year 1579 was fuperior in 

 quaKty to Spanifli wool, and fold in a fair market at a higher 



