subject, it will be readily admitted that, if a farmer could raise a crop worth 201. an acre, at the trifling expence of 21. defraying the price of wages, of manure, the wear and tear of implements, that is, reserving the ordinary profits on capital in all the branches of his expenditure, then the landlord's share would naturally and justly be 181. per acre. But this principle applies solely to the raw produce; and the comparative cheapness or dearness of the subsequent processes of manufacturing industry, have no relation whatever either to the landlord's rent or to the farmer's profits. We have said that Mr. Buchanan is apt to be led away by the occurrence of particular words, and to write notes upon them without attending to the import of the discussion in which they present themselves. When writing on the subject of National Defence, Dr. Smith happens to call war, the "noblest of all arts," which encomium, although it has no connection with the merits of the argument in train, instantly calls forth the indignant reprobation of the editor in one of his longest notes. In like manner, when Smith in his article on education comes to use the words "moral philosophy," his editor seizes the clue, and indites a very learned note on morality. "Morality," says he, "is rather a matter of feeling than of reasoning, and it is not easy to see, therefore, how it can be either assisted or explained by philosophy, for what can the philosopher explain which we do not already know." Again, the author of the Wealth of Nations casually drops something about logic, and Mr. B. instantly produces his annotation, which is as follows. Logic is the art of reasoning. It professes to teach mankind the use of their reason. But the possession of reason implies the power of using it, and where then is the utility of artificial rules for this purpose?" We have not time to argue the point with the editor at every stage of his progress, on which account we shall let him have it all his own way as to logic and morality. There is, however, one weighty truth which he solemnly asseverates two or three times, and which we refrain from contradicting, merely, because we cannot call it in question, namely, that "Tailors' wages have risen considerably since the days of Adam Smith." We proceed now to the additional volume which Mr. Buchanan, or his publishers, have thought a suitable companion for the "Wealth of Nations;" and as we still regard the author as a young man of talents, who has ventured upon a great undertaking without the benefit of judicious advice, we shall be as merciful to him as possible. His first article is on metallic currency, which presents nothing either new or interesting. It seems seems indeed to be a compilation from Lord Liverpool's letter on the Coin, engrafted upon a few common-place remarks which appear in every essay on the subject. The article on the "Wages of Labour" is avowedly an abstract of Malthus's leading doctrines on the progress of population, interspersed with a few remarks by our author, who takes upon himself to inform his reader, at what point Mr. Malthus ceases to be a safe guide. The section on "Stock" is mere original, and contains, among other profound observations, the following one, which is as cheering as it is profound. "A capital of 10,000l. yielding a profit of ten per cent. will provide for an expenditure of 11,000l.; and if this capital be increased without any increase of expenditure, the consequence must be a diminution of profit to the precise amount of the additional capital; because otherwise this capital cannot find employment. A larger capital than 10,000l. with a profit of ten per cent. can never be employed in providing for an expenditure of 11,000l." In what manner a capital of 10,000l. with a profit of ten per cent. is to provide for an expenditure of 11,000l. Mr. B. has not condescended to explain; and it is a discovery of such wonderful value in these bad times, that we feel it hard to forgive the neglect. We can imagine the possibility of realizing this golden, dream for one year; but as the road to ruin, like the road to the grave, is to be trod but once, and as men do not usually re-taste their fortunes as a heron re-tastes an eel, we confess, that our knowledge of finance is completely inadequate to provide ways and means, for expending 11,000l. per ann. on a capital of 10,0001. even with an interest or profit of ten per cent. The chapter on "Productive and Unproductive Labour," presents a few good remarks; and in defence of that distinction which is so well illustrated by Dr. Smith, Mr. Buchanan's reasoning coincides very closely with our own arguments on the same subject, in our review of Craig's Elements of Political Science *. Dr. Smith's distinction between productive and unproductive labour, though it appears to be simple and obvious, has been perplexed by the ingenuity of subsequent reasoners, who maintain every species of industry to be equally productive, which contributes, however remotely, to the general wealth. According to this doctrine, the soldier and the judge are reckoned productive labourers, because they raise the value of * See our Review for November, 1814. the the national stock, by protecting it, the one from plunder, and the other from injury; for if the artificer of bolts and bars, who protects property in detail, be termed a productive labourer, much more, it is argued, should those be placed in the productive class, who protect property in the mass, and add to every portion of it, the quality of being secure. In his explanation of this subject, Dr. Smith expressly states, that he does not mean to undervalue the utility of the labour which he denominates unproductive; and the preceding argument seems to proceed upon the fallacy of maintaining, that labour because it is useful must necessarily be productive. But while the utility both of justice and of defence is freely admitted, the labour which is subservient to production, ought not therefore to be confounded with the labour which actually produces; since by such a mode of reasoning, the plainest distinctions might be subverted. If the soldier, for example, be termed a productive labourer, because his labour is subservient to production, the productive labourer might, by the same rule, lay claim to military honours; as it is certain that, without his assistance, no army could ever take the field to fight battles or to gain victories. The case of the menial servant is still more decisive in favour of Dr. Smith's distinction. It seems quite plain that the wealth of an individual, who maintains ten menial servants, will be diminished exactly by the expence of their maintenance: while by maintaining ten labourers who re-produce their maintenance with a profit, he will be richer by the whole amount of this profit. In answer to which, it is observed, that "there is no such difference as Dr. Smith supposes between the effects of maintaining a multitude of those several kinds of workmen. It is the extravagant quantity, not the peculiar quality of the labour thus paid for, that brings a ruin. A man is ruined if he keep more servants than he cau afford to employ, and does not let them out for hire; exactly as he is ruined by purchasing more food than he can consume, or by employing more workmen in any branch of manufactures than his business requires or his profit will pay It is only, therefore, when workmen or productive labourers are multiplied without necessity and maintained in idleness, or in other words, when they are not productive labourers, that they are compared by this writer to menial servants; for it is clear that when they re-produce their maintenance with a profit, they cannot be multiplied to the injury of their employer. Here then Dr. Smith's distinction between productive and unproductive labour is plainly recognized; since it appears that a master loses * See Edin. Review, vol. iv, p. 355. only only by maintaining workmen without employing them, or, in other words, by maintaining unproductive labourers. We have no hesitation in saying that Mr. Buchanan has the best of the argument, and that although it may not be easy to draw the line of distinction between productive and unproductive labourers, without taking in some on both sides of it which the general description or definition of such labourers would necessarily exclude, yet there can be no doubt that the distinction itself is founded in a just view of private prosperity and of national wealth. On the subject of " National Defence" our author has stepped entirely out of his department, as a writer on political science, and entered that of a military historian; on which account his article is in no respect a scheme of national protection, but a brief historical sketch of the art of war, together with certain instructions to fighting men, drawn as practical inferences for the review which he takes of their blood-stained annals. We have first the invasion of Greece by the Persians; then, the contests of the Greeks with each other; after which follow in order, the invasion of Persia by Alexander; the rise and decline of the Roman power; contests of the middle ages; invasion of Holland by Louis XIV.; wars of King William, of Marlborough, of Frederic the Great, American war; view of the modern system of tactics; campaign of 1795 in Germany, by the Archduke Charles, and in Italy by Bonaparte; Campaign of 1805, &c. As Mr. Buchanan evidently piques himself upon this article, we would willingly, in return for the amusement which his brisk detail has afforded us, say something in its favour; and had it appeared in the preface of an English Polybius, or as a commentary on Sir David Dundas's movements, it should certainly have been crowned with applause. But as we happen to agree with Dr. Smith, Mr. Craig, and other distinguished writers on national defence, that the cheapest means, and those which are least dangerous to the liberty of the subject, ought, as well as the most efficacious means, to be taken into consideration in every place which is devised for public security, we cannot help thinking, that he has passed by that into which it was most incumbent upon him to examine minutely. But we are tired of finding fault, for which reason, we shall abstain from any farther exercise of our inquisitorial authority. We regret, that literary justice, and a becoming regard for the great name of Adam Smith, have compelled us to be so decided in our disapprobation of Mr. Buchanan's labours, both as an editor and as an author. We think his notes are generally puerile, and sometimes flippant, while the essays which compose his volume, exhibit little of either reflection or information. VOL. III. FEBRUARY, 1815. K We 1 We have no intention to conceal, however, that our severity has been partly excited by the symptoms of self-sufficiency which pervade his production, but chiefly by the bold and unmeasured confidence which led him to sadertake the editing of the Wealth of Nations. ART. III. The Lord of the Isles. A Poem. By Walter Of those who are condemned to worship at the shrine of fashion, and to court the gale of popular applause, there are none who have more reason to complain of its tyrannous caprice, or to Lament its rapid and unaccountable reverse, than the favourite poets of the age. Fiddlers and physicians, preachers and players, can often count many seasons more passed in the sunshine of public approbation than the laureats of the day; fewer efforts. are required to fill their purses, and fewer sacrifices to preserve their fame. The large and repeated draughts which in the zenith of his popularity, are made upou the poet's genius, leave it spiritJess and exhausted; and when after any interval of repose, he returns, like the giant refreshed, to the course, he finds another in possession of the fiekt. The same harmony which once delighted the public ear, pleases it now no more; the anxiety which in former days anticipated every new exertion, has subsided into the listlessness of neglect; and the transports of admiration which attended its appearance are converted into the dammatory coldness of fait praise or the cavils of disappointed expectation. His only, consolation will be that the idol to whom those honours, which were once his own, are now transferred, will in his turn sink into neglect, and in due time be added to the number of those, who like the fat weed rot themselves on Lethe's wharf. They, whose exertions have never received the meed of popuJar favour, may console themselves with the hope, that posterity will grant what the present age has refused, and that the beauties which prejudice has neglected or envy proscribed will be proBounced standard by the test of time. But the favourite of fashion, who has either sacrificed his better judgment to the taste. of the day, or blinded by applause, has neglected those foundations which can alone secure an inmortality of fame, must deny himself even this consolation, and must remain content with the retrospect of a past existence, We know not how far the truth of these assertions may be exemplified in the poet now before us. There are none who have enjoyed |