

334 : Wo jringtin2$ t. Romuald. 
_ [May 4; 
ef the raw material; the value of the | affertions in fupport of this theory would 
wages expended in “3 fabrication; and, 
thirdly, the value or profit which: the ma- 
nufaciurer fuperadds to the other ‘two va- 
lues,as arecompence to himfelf.” And 
£¢ none of thefe three values comprehends 
jn it any increafe of general revenue, con- 
fequently the three together cannot form 
any increafe of general revenue.” What 
a’ perverfion of logical analyfis! How 
rikingly is a technical claffification of 
profit among the various members: of fo- 
ciety confounded with the actual benefit: 
fociety derives from the creation of a new 
commodity ! The original fin of the pam- 
phiet feems to be the unfounded fuppofi- 
tion, that the manufacturer adds no more 
than the value of his labour to the un- 
wrought article; as if nature, did not 
unite her operations with his. The ma- 
nufaGurer does not grow his productions ; 
they do not appear to arife from nothing, 
as. grain fprings ftom the foil but the 
form and Qualities of fubftances are, by 
his labour, alrogether changed :-—in thofeof 
the chymical department, qualities are, 
to the fenfe at leaft, newly created: and, 
by the aid of the mechanical arts, matter, 
before inert and dead, becomes a powerful 
inftrument and valuable convenience. ™, 
Acain, the value of the manufaéturer’s 
produce is faid to arife only from the 
** extinction of another value, previoufly 
provided for him by the cultivator.”” This 
proves nothing, unlefs the extinguifhed 
value be equal to the value produced. 
And what is the worth of unwrought ore, 
of cotton in the pod, or wool on the 
fheep’s back? The manufaQurer, we are 
further told, ‘* only gives a permanent 
value to the riches beftowed by nature on 
the labour of the cultivator, ‘* but dees not 
augment the prinary and fole fource of 
vyiches. Neither does the cultivator. The 
earth and fea are not augmented by the 
farmer and the fifherman. Nature is truly 
the common and bounteous, mother; and 
by the capacities of her rough produce in- 
vites the induftry of labourers of every 
de(cripticn. The mineral, the vegetable, 
and the animal world equally afford op- 
portunities for increaling the ingenuity and 
active talents cf mankind; and they ho- 
mourably exert that ingenuity and-thofe 
talents, who labour in producing the ne- 
_ceflaries and conveniences of life—as we] 
thofe who rear our houfes and fill them 
with furniture,- who fheltér us from the 
feafons, and furnifh us wath tools and im- 
plements of labour—as thofe who find food 
‘tor our fubfiftence. 
A ‘minute examination of the yarious 
fillavolume. I have already been tedious 
and prolix : but the rare and unaccountable 
concurrence of all our monthly critics in 
favour of this work, has, Lhope, juftified 
the attempt to vindicate the author of the 
Wealth of Nations. It would have been 
fingular indeed, if, after fo long reignin 
almott without a rival, he fhould fuddenly 
be defpiled without one ftruggle in his 
fupport. ‘jie SINBORON: 
Bury St. Edimunds, Feb. 1800. 
—= : 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
EADING in the laft Monthly Ma- 
Ji gazine the Memoirs of General 
W athington, I was much furprifed to find 
it aflerted in a note fubjoined, that General 
Wafhington never received any falary, in 
any, office civil or ‘military. It it well 
known that Wafhington refufed any com- 
penfation for his fervices during the Ame- 
rican war; and it is alfo as certain that 
he always received the falary annexed to 
the office of Prefident of the United States, 
which, I believe, is 25,000 dollars per an- 
num. If you have accefs to any files of 
Philadelphia Newfpapers, you may find, 
that Prefident Wafhington was even ac- 
cufed,in-the Aurora, and other democratic 
papers, of having received msore than the 
falary allowed by law; which produced a 
long ftatement of accounts from the trea- 
fury, that proved the eharge to be totally 
falle. _ Having no document to refer to, I 
cannot. particularife the dates of the pub- 
lications alluded to above, but I believe 
they were in the laft year of Wathington’s 
Prefidency.~ Having the higheft  venera- 
tion for the chara&ter of General Wafhing- 
ton, as that ofa truly great and good ian, 
I am anxious that nothing but the 
ftriCtelt truth fhould be recorded in his 
praife, as one falfe ffatement detected may 
lead many to think that others are exag- 
gerated. : I, B. 
Wakefield, March sath, 1800. 
/ 
— he 
to the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
Shey ait 
i N reading the fhort letter in your laft 
C) Number from ** Allafilivs,” it O¢- 
curred to me, that in the provincial fiua- 
tion of his refidence, ‘* St. Rombald”? is 
moft probably corrupted from Saizt Ro- 
MUALD, a perfonage of no fmall renown 
in the Catholic Calendar, and whofe-vifion 
of the afcent of all the Brotherhood of 
his -order, in long array, to” the third 
heaven, forms the fubje&t of a celebrated 
work 
