r 14 3 
Mr. Ganilh’s leading positions are 
1st. That the basis of public happiness and prosperity 
is national wealth. 
2dly. That national wealth connects the poor and the 
rich, ameliorating always the condition of the former, as to 
their rights, privileges, and enjoyments. 
3dly. That national wealth always has followed, and is 
principally promoted by foreign commerce. 
4thly. That there can be no accumulation of wealth in a 
state merely agricultural, inasmuch as no equivalent can be 
given in such a state for the surplus produce of agricul- 
tural labour. 
Sthly. That the foreign trade, is greatly more productive 
of national wealth than the home trade : and therefore go- 
vernments ought to afford it particular encouragement, 
Gthly. That Colonies contribute greatly to national 
wealth. 
7thly. That it is the duty of governments, to interfere, 
and to regulate the course of national industry. 
In all these positions I think Mr. Ganilh more or less 
mistaken. I shall therefore take an opportunity of review- 
ing Mr. Ganilh’s book, and of refuting (if I can) not only 
these leading features of his system, but many of his other 
statements of minor importance, connected with his ge- 
neral theory. Probably in the next number. T. G. 
