[ 13 ] 
my* No man ought to pretend to knowledge on this sub- 
ject, who has not studied Adam Smith’s volumes. Since 
his time, the generality of English writers have adopted 
the leading principles of the economistes, but with vari- 
ations as to the productive nature of manufactures and 
commerce; such as Arthur Young, Crumpe. Anderson, 
W. Vaughan, Lord Lauderdale, &c. 
The particular value of foreign compared with domes * 
tic commerce, or the home trade, has not been sufficient- 
ly agitated* Some desultory remarks are to be found 
scattered among the numbers of Young’s annals of agri- 
culture. In the latter end of the year 1799, I undertook 
briefly to discuss this question, not knowing of any regu- 
lar investigation of it in England, That essay I shall re- 
publish. Some years afterward, the same side of the ques- 
tion was taken up by Mr. Spence and Mr. Cobbett. Spen- 
ce’s pamphlet. Great Britain Independent of Commerce , 
(1808) has not agreed with the meridian of British po- 
litics either in that country or in this ; but it contains much 
matter worthy of reflection. Those who defend the mer- 
cantile system of foreign commerce, are universally 
hostile to it ; but it will stand its ground. 
The work of Mr. Say I have never seen. Nor did I 
meet with Ganilh, until I perused the laboured panegyric, 
on it, in Mr. Walsh’s review. The public are obliged to 
that gentleman, for giving notoriety and circulation to a 
book written with undoubted ability, on a subject of the 
very first importance ; and I hope with the editor of that 
review, that a translation of Mr. Say’s treatise will meet 
with sufficient encouragement, to remunerate its pub- 
lication, Too much publicity cannot be given to 
works of merit, on any side of the great questions of poli- 
tical economy, 
& 
