ciple of demand and supply, and ascribing too much force to the correcting tendency connected with the cost of production. He admits (page 68) that "the relative value of commodities, or in other words, the quantity of one which exchanges for a given quantity of another, depends upon demand and supply in the first instance; but upon cost of production ultimately; and hence, in accurate language, upon cost of production, entirely." Now, it is very clear, that this is seizing by strong means a point which would not be conceded to him; for if it be admitted that demand and supply determines the exchangeable value of commodities in the first instance, how can the cost of production be said, “in accurate language," to do it entirely? The truth seems to be, that the market price of all commodities vibrates to a certain distance on each side of the cost price, is directed by the competition of capital to settle there as the point of rest, but is constantly disturbed by the varying relation which the quantity at market bears to the number of those who wish to purchase. But we have dwelt too long on this subject, which is only darkened and perplexed by the repetition of verbal niceties, contemptible in the view of practical men, and of very little use to those who endeavour to estimate their meaning for the purposes of science.

In the Third Chapter, which treats of "Interchange," there is a good deal of information, more valuable however to the man of business than to the student. The Sections on Foreign trade, Money, Paper-money, and the Exchange, are not, properly speaking, elementary; but, on the contrary, enter fully into the practical details of commerce, of mercantile payments, and the balance of trade. The reasoning which pervades this part of the book, manifests not only talent but much attentive observation; and leads us to conclude that, were Mr. Mill to throw aside some of his theoretical absurdities, he could write a treatise on what might be called the Philosophy of Merchandize, to much better purpose than he will ever make up books for the use of schools.

The arguments employed for a free trade in corn, (under the article Bounties) are nugatory in the extreme, and have often been successfully answered. There would assuredly be neither wisdom nor policy in the measure which would render this kingdom dependent, to any great extent, on the growth of foreign nations for an article so indispensably necessary to our existence as corn. And passing over that consideration, is the agriculture of the country a matter of such trivial importance, that its interests should be sacrificed for the chance of getting up, in our crowded manufactories, a few more

spinning-jennies, or of erecting around our large towns, an additional number of steam-engines? It is, no doubt, a good rule, in general, to let capital and enterprise exert themselves wherever they can do it with the best effect, and to buy things where they are to be had at the lowest price; but all rules have exceptions, and we continue to think, notwithstanding Mr. Mill's reasoning and authority, that the protection given to the domestic grower of corn, is founded in just and liberal views of national advantage. The grounds of this opinion we have given on several occasions, and need not now repeat them.

We have only one other topic to review; one, indeed, which constitutes a principal branch of the new doctrine, and which is here very ingeniously but most sophistically handled by our author. We allude to the tenet held by several modern writers, particularly by Mr. Mill, M. Say, and Mr. Ricardo, viz. that, as commodities always exchange for commodities, the supply will always be equal to the demand, and of course, there never can be an overstocked market, or what is called a glut of any one article, except when there is a simultaneous and corresponding deficiency in some other article. The doctrine is stated by Mr. Mill in the following

terms.

"In whatever shape any part of the annual produce has come into the hand of any man, if he propose to consume no part of it himself, he wishes to dispose of the whole; and the whole, therefore, becomes matter of supply; if he consumes a part, he wishes to dispose of all the rest, and all the rest becomes matter of supply.

"As every man's demand, therefore, is equal to that part of the annual produce, or of the property generally, which he has to dispose of, and each man's supply is exactly the same thing, the supply and demand of every individual are of necessity equal.

"Demand and supply are termns related in a peculiar manner. A commodity, which is supplied, is always, at the same time, a commodity which is the instrument of demand. A commodity, which is the instrument of demand, is always, at the same time, a commodity added to the stock of supply. Every commodity is always at one and the same time matter of demand and matter of supply. Of two men who perform an exchange, the one does not come with only a supply, the other with only a demand; each of them comes with both a demand and a supply. The supply which he brings is the instrument of his demand; and his demand and supply are of course exactly equal to one another.

But if the demand and supply of every individual are always equal to one another, the demand and supply of all the individuals in the nation, taken aggregately, must be equal. Whatever therefore be the amount of the annual produce, it never ean exceed the

amount of the annual demand. The whole of the annual produce is divided into a number of shares equal to that of the people to whom it is distributed. The whole of the demand is equal to as much of the whole of the shares as the owners do not keep for their own consumption. But the whole of the shares is equal to the whole of the produce. The demonstration therefore is complete."

We repeat once more the expression of our regret that Mr. Mill has found it convenient to refer to no other writer who 'has treated of these subjects, and to reply to no specific objections made to his own opinions. He could not possibly have brought forward in his work Mr. Malthus' excellent reasoning on this head, and ventured in the same chapter, to defend the sophistry by which he himself endeavours to blindfold his readers.

As to the question at issue, can there, we ask, be any thing more absurd than to assert that the demand possessed by every individual, is always equal to his supply, when it may happen that nobody wants the thing which alone constitutes that supply. If the people of Great Britain require annually 10,000,000 of hats, the holders of hats to that amount possess a supply to make good, or render effectual, their demand to the full extent of the market value of these articles; but if, by any improvement in machinery, the same labour and capital shall produce 40,000,000 of hats, the holders of nearly threefourths of these could not be said to have a demand equal to their supply, because the commodity in which their only supply consists, is one for which there is no market, and of course no return. Instead of the hypothetical case now given, let us take the actual condition of the cotton manufactares, all over the kingdom, during three or four years immediately after the peace, and the proof of the principle just stated, will be found equally convincing. The supply so far exceeded the demand, that immense warehouses and lofts were stuffed full of goods, which, to the manufacturer's sad experience, afforded a striking refutation of Mr. Mill's hypothesis, that the effectual demand of a holder is always equal to his share of the annual produce. Listen with wonder tó Mr. Mill's explanation. Though it be undeniable" that the demand which every man brings, is equal to the supply which he brings, he may not find in the market the sort of purchaser which he wants. No man may have come desiring that sort of commodity of which he has to dispose. It is not the less necessarily true, that he came with a demand equal to his supply; for he wanted something in return for the goods which he brought."

VOL. XVII. FEBRUARY, 1822.

L

There is an enigma in the expression:-the demand is equal to the supply, says he; let that be granted; but if the supply, owing to the state of the market, be equal to nothing, what is the demand equal to? If a man bring a commodity to a market open, he does not find "the sort of purchaser he wants," and to which "no man may have come desiring that sort of commodity of which he has to dispose;" to what, we ask once more, does the exchangeable value of the commodity really amount? The man may, to use Mr. Mill's language, "want something in return for the goods which he has bought;" but if nobody wants the goods, he may wait long enough for the "return," and find, to his cost, that his supply, however ample, does not constitute an effectual demand upon the commodities which he wished to carry home. He who goes to a market with goods which no one will buy, cannot, of course, be a purchaser in that market; and whatever may be the portion of the annual produce which he happens to possess, he is, practically speaking, as poor as if not the smallest fraction had fallen to his share. It is unnecessary to add, after this, that the whole theory is founded on a false assumption, inconsistent at once with the sound principles of political economy, and with the actual experience of mankind.

If, indeed, the total amount of the annual produce of the country were divided into two equal parts to be exchanged, the one for the other, it is obvious that the demand and supply being equal, the one would countervail the other. But commodities are not so divided nor assorted. Year after year, there is a discrepancy between the supply and the demand, in numerous articles; a deficiency of one and a glut of another: and the attempt to equalize them, by an increased production of what lacks, and a diminished quantity of that which abounds, has sometimes no other effect than to augment the distance by which they are separated. Nor are commodities always exchanged for commodities, as is assumed by Mr. Mill, but very often for labour, productive and unproductive; and no article which is brought to market in these days, is more liable to variations, both in the supply and the remuneration bestowed upon them, than the time and the exertion of the human being, which must, of course, affect with corresponding uncertainty, the things for which they are exchanged. It is, in short, well observed by Mr. Malthus, that "if commodities were only to be compared and exchanged with each other, then indeed it would be true that, if they were all increased in their proper proportions to any extent, they would continue to bear among themselves the same

relative value," and consequently, he who possessed any given portion of any given commodity, would enjoy an effectual demand over any other commodity to the full value of the one he possessed; and in this case, assuredly, every man's effectual demand would be equal to his actual supply. But, if we compare commodities, as we ought to compare them, with the numbers and wants of the consumers, then, a great increase of produce, in any one department, must infallibly occasion a diminution of exchangeable value, and derange the equilibrium of supply and demand as determined by the cost of production.

We take leave of Mr. Mill with some regard for his talents, but with very little respect for his opinions as an economist. His "School-Book" is a compound of absurdity, as far as principle is concerned-a manual which could have no other effect in the hands of a student, but to bewilder his judgment, and fill his mouth with paradoxes. We recommend it not.

ART. IV. The peculiar Difficulties of the Clergy in India. A Sermon preached at the Second Visitation of the Lord Bishop of Calcutta at St. Thomas's Church, Bombay, on Monday, March 5th, 1821. By the Rev. Thomas Robinson, A. M. Chaplain of Poona. 8vo. pp. 24. Rivingtons. 1821.

Ir a new proof was now required, of the practical good resulting from our Episcopal Polity and discipline, it would be furnished by the Church in India. Let any dispassionate and considerate man compare that branch of our establishment, as it now exhibits itself to his view in its growing exertions, its continually increasing moral influence, and its united character, with the state to which it was reduced when the Bishop of Calcutta first took possession of his See, and he will require no further evidence on the subject. We are perfectly ready to admit, that, before that period, many valuable clergymen had devoted their talents, and the best portion of their lives to a conscientious discharge of their professional duties in those regions. But, acting without concert, without encouragement, without support; with no superior to advise, no authority to controul their labours, or direct them to one common end, the benefits resulting from their services were necessarily confined to the narrow sphere of