Vou. IV.] Retrofpeet of Domeftic Literature.—Political Economy. 
the ftudy of which (cience, he recommends, 
(and we moft heartily agree with him in 
the recommendation} fhould form a confi- 
deradle part of education in our public 
{chools. Mr. Tugram difcuffes the intricate 
fubjeét offinance with asmuch f perfpicuity, 
perhaps, as it admits, and abiy examines the 
injurious policy of the corn-laws : the re-: 
duétion of the price of provifions is a fubject 
of diftinét and particular etrention, 
Every one mutt feel ag! low of fatisfae- 
tion in contemplating, ‘hat POVERTY is 
not merely the theme of idle and unmean~ 
ing commiferation, but that it has of late 
excited a particular attention, which has 
been followed up by various and valuable , 
plans for its relief. “ The effential prin- 
ciples of the Wealth of Nations, in oppafi- 
tion to fome falfe Principles of Dr. Adam 
Smith,” is an o€tavo pamphlet, whieh con- 
denfes, ina few pages, much found poli- 
tical reafoning, exprefied in perfpicuous 
language : the author is a partizan of the 
French éonomiffs, as they are called, whofe 
principles were impugned by Dr. Smith, 
whieh latter gentleman ts fatd by this in- 
genious writer to have mis-ftated their dec- 
trines mone or two important particulars : 
it is fhown in this pamphlet, by a clear cal- 
culation, that had a rent been raifed from 
the period of the revolution, when the 
land-tax was impofed, of four fhillings m 
the pound on the rent of land, at prefent 
we fhould have had no national ‘debt in 
exiftence : the author, though am *“ Eco- 
nomift,” however rejects fome parts of the 
“ Evonomical fyftem.” Mr. Marth, the 
well-known tranflator of Michaélis, and 
one among the numerous opponents of 
the hurniliated Travis, has tranfiated from 
the original of M. Patje, prefident of the 
‘board of commerce and finance at Hanover, 
“ An Bflay on the Enetifh National Cre- 
dit.” Such perfons as have money in the 
Englifh funds, hewever, will nor perhaps 
fee} much confoled at the fotlowing reflec- 
tion 5 nor wil! the peopie of England much 
thank bim forit: ** ‘hat the taxes may de aug- 
mented, to defray the increafedintereft of the 
national debt.” Many good obfervations oc- 
eur in this pamphlet,but when an order from 
the privy-council can in one arbitrary in- 
ftant fafpend payment in the national! bank, 
a wife man’s confidence in the public credit 
is confiderably weakened. Daniel Wake- 
fields, efq., has replied tothe ‘* Thoughts 
of the Eart of Lauderdale,” and the ** Ap- 
peal” of Mr. Morgan, in “ Obfervations 
on the credit and finances of Great Bri- 
tain;’? it is unreafonable, fays he, to fup- 
pofe that the expences of government alone 
505 
fhould ftand ftill, when the.experience of 
every houfekeeper proves, that three hun- 
dred a yéar now will fcarcely go as far as 
two hundred a year twenty years ago! 
furely it had never occurred to this gentle- 
man, that the rea/for why the expences of 
every houfekeeper have increafed fo ap- 
prefively within the laft twenty years, is, 
that the pockets of the people have been 
drained to fupply the extravagance of go- 
vernment! A valuabie * Colleétion of 
Traéts’” has been publifhed * On Wert 
Docks, for the port of London, with Hints 
on Trade and Commerce, and on Free 
Ports.” One great object of ibis ufeful 
work is, to afford tacal accormmedation to 
the ports of the Metropolis ; and the ober, 
to make Great Britain the grand empo- . 
rium for commerce. ‘ The Iniquity of 
Banking” has been ably argued in a pam- 
phlet of two parts ; the author contends 
that the eirculater of bank-notes as cer~ 
tainly commits: a robbery on focicty, as 
were he to gather a tax from it; becaufe 
there is no difference between enhancing 
the price of commodities and leffening the 
value of moneys and a man 3s equally im- 
jured, fays he, in having the money re- 
duced, and fuch is undoubtedly the ope- 
ration of bank- -notes, as by having a part 
of ittaken away. ‘* Read, or be Ruined,” 
4s a pamphlet, the Aippancy of whofe title 
-prepared us for much arrogance and 
quackery : we were agreeably difanpomred 
in perufing an argumentative produdtion, 
where the author glances ac the commence- 
ment, progrefs, and expenditure of the 
prefent ‘defolating war. The defaleation 
of taxes, and a comparifon of the amount 
of the cuftoms for feveral years, with the 
exports and rmports, are brought as an Hi- 
bernian preof cf the increafe of our trade 
and manufactures : the permanent taxes, 
fays this writer, in 1793, fell dhort of thofe 
In 3792, to the amount of £400,000: 
thofe of 794 were fhort of thofe in 1792, 
£500,000: thofe of 3795 were tefs than 
thofe of 1792, about £800,000: and thofe 
of 1796 fell fhort of thofe of 1792, to no 
sefs an amount than £1,100,000! Is this a 
proof of the increafe of our trade and ma- 
nufaétures > We cannot agree to the opi- 
nion of this writer, however, ‘ that na- 
tional economy would be national ruin.” 
Some of Sir Francis Baring’s ‘* Obferva- 
tions on the Eftabhifbment of the Bank of 
' England,” &&c. are folid and ingenious ; 
they are deficient, however, in point of 
arrangement, and his propofal, that in ail 
cafes bank-notes fhould be legal tender, ts 
to be reprobated with all pothble indigna- 
3 U2 T10R, 
