grave.

me

DANGERS,

THE DEADLIEST IS FAINT-HEARTED COWARDICE;

And Grandeur from her votaries must have

homage.

Leon. Grandeur, Fiesko? oh that with my heart

Your spirit bears so little sympathy! Mark, I shall trust to that which you call fortune.

Say you have conquer'd; woe's me, then, of all

On earth, the poorest, most unhappy wife! You fail then I am lost!-Worse, if you triumph.

Here is no choice, Fiesko must be duke, Or perish; but when I embrace the duke, I lose for evermore my dearest husband. Fies. Leonora, now you speak in mys. teries.

Leon. No, no. Mid the cold sphere around a throne,

VOL. XVI.

201 Love like a tender flower must pine and wither.

Man's heart, even though Fiesko's were that heart,

Has not for two conflicting tyrant powers, At one time space enough. Now would'st thou lay

Thy head upon my bosom, but thou hear'st Rebellious vassals storming at thy gate. Smiling, I'd rest in my true lover's arms, But with a despot's faltering heart he hears The rustling of a murderer's step behind The costly hangings of th' imperial hall, And flies from room to room. Nay, dark mistrust

At length destroys all household unity,
The cool refreshing cup, thou dar'st not
And if Leonora to thy parch'd lip holds
drink,

But deem'st that with the blandishments
of love

She brings thee poison!

Fies. (Much agitated.) Hideous dreams!
No more!

I cannot now recede; the bridge whereon
I came so far is broken from behind me.
Leon. And this were all? Oh, deeds
alone, Fiesko,

Are here irrevocable. (Tenderly and half
ironical.) In past days,

Have you not sworn that Leonora's beauty From proud ambition's paths had quite misled you?

Flatterer! these vows were false, or her poor charms

Have early faded. Question thine own heart,

Who is to blame?

(Ardently, and embracing him.) Come,-come to me once more! Be yet a man! Renounce these fearful schemes,

And love shall be thy recompense. If such Affection cannot still thy restless mood, Trust me, the crown will prove yet more deceitful.

Come, I shall learn by rote each wish of thine,

Will in one kiss blend all the charms of love,

That in his silken bands I may for ever Hold thee, too venturous runaway! (In tears.) If 'twere

But to make one poor being happy, one, Who but upon thy bosom lives in heaven, Say, should not this alone fill every void Within thy restless heart?

Fies. (Overcome.) Oh, Leonora, What have you done? How shall I meet the looks

Of those who now will claim my promises? Leon. (joyfully.) Oh, dearest, let us fly from hence, cast off

At once all pomp and idle pageantry,
In tranquil woods and fields live but for
love!

Clear as the Heaven's unchanging azure
vault,

2 C

the guise of well-founded and indisputable truths.

This caution is more particularly necessary and salutary, when opposite and conflicting opinions are under our examination and judgments having succeeded in proving satisfactorily and unequivocally, that one set of opinions are erroneous, we naturally and almost imperceptibly permit the opposite set to glide into our minds, and to take firm and permanent possession there. It is well though quaintly remarked by the author of " New and Old Principles of Trade compared," that almost every Scylla in Politics has a Charybdis in its neighbourhood; and that we must remember in vitium ducit culpa fuga, si caret arte.

To hasty and superficial reasoners it might seem, that, because we have succeeded in proving that the most popular and celebrated Political Economists have failed in establishing that science on sound and unexceptionable principles, and in explaining what has occurred, and pointing out what ought to be done in the economy of nations-Political Economy would resist all attempts to be moulded into a science-Philosophy possessed no power over it-it did not admit of being reduced to first principles-and that what are called practical, or matter-of-fact men, were the only safeguards and instructors in whatever related to it.

Hasty and superficial reasoners will be the more apt and disposed to admit these conclusions, because they find a powerful ally in almost every mind, in the prepossession which is so generally entertained in favour of what is called experience and fact, when set in opposition to what is called theory and speculation. To all general reasoning, however sound may be the principles from which it sets out, how ever regular and connected the gradations and links of argument, drawn from those principles, and conducted to a legitimate conclusion-it is deemed quite sufficient to oppose what is called a fact, or to appeal to experience; few, after this, will venture to maintain the speculative opinion.

Perhaps no stronger illustration and proof of the evil influence of mere words in checking the progress of truth can be given, than that to which we have just alluded; since the Baconian method of induction has gained such

a powerful and general ascendancy, no theory or opinion will be long adhered to, which does not rest on facts, or which can be proved to be contradicted by them. Among the ancient philosophers, facts were disregarded, theories were produced and established without the smallest reference to them; things were supposed to exist, or, if really existing, were supposed, without any proof, to operate in that manner, which would account for the phenomenon under investigation. In many cases, mere words, to which no possible meaning could be fixed, were substituted for causes, or first principles. Philosophy, and the progress of the human mind and of society in all that concerns their real good, were thus checked. Bacon changed all this entirely and essentially; he taught and proved that observation and experience alone can conduct us, through facts, to the laws of nature, which we may, after we understand them, apply to our benefit.

Bacon was right; but we must not be deceived by names. We cannot possibly have any safe guides to science but facts; but we must not call those facts which are not such; we must not confound words, or prejudices, or inferences, with facts, nor place any reliance upon such facts as are not viewed in every possible light under a great variety of circumstances, and in all their connexions and consequences.

What is the real value and use of the testimony of practical or matterof-fact men, in questions relating to Political Economy? Are their testimony, experience, and advice, so enlightened, sound, and universally applicable, as to supersede the necessity of establishing and applying philosophical principles to this subject? If they are, we need not undertake to prove that Political Economy can be reduced to a science. A preliminary investigation will therefore be proper and necessary, in which we shall examine the claims of practical men to guide us through all the mazes and difficulties of Political Economy. The difference between practical and speculative opinions in Political Economy, is well and fairly pointed out in the following passage of Mr Stewart:

66

They who have turned their attention, during the last century, to in

quiries connected with population, national wealth, and other collateral subjects, may be divided into two classes: to the one of which we may, for the sake of distinction, give the title of Political Arithmeticians, or Statistical Collectors; to the other, that of Political Philosophers. The former are generally supposed to have the evidence of experience in their favour, and seldom fail to arrogate to them selves exclusively the merit of tread ing closely in the footsteps of Bacon. In comparison with them, the latter are considered as little better than visionaries, or, at least, entitled to no credit whatever, when their conclusions are at variance with the details of statistics."

In opposition to these claims, he goes on to state generally the real merits of those two classes:-" It may with confidence be asserted, that, in so far as those branches of knowledge have any real value, it must rest on a basis of well-ascertained facts; and that the difference between them consists only in the different nature of the facts with which they are respectively conversant. The facts accumulated by the statistical collector, are merely particular results, which other men have seldom an opportunity of verifying, or of disproving; and which, to those who consider them in an insulated state, can never afford any important information. The facts which the political philosopher proposes to investigate, are exposed to the examination of all mankind; and while they enable him, like the general laws of physics, to ascertain numberless particulars by sympathetic reasoning, they furnish the means of estimating the credibility of evidence resting on the testimony of individual observers."Elements of Philosophy, Vol. II. c. 4. 5. p. 447-8. 4to edit."

But it will be necessary to examine more closely and minutely, the real va lue of the facts, as they are styled, of the political arithmetician, in order that we may ascertain whether his labours ought to supersede those of the political philosopher. The political arithmetician boasts that he rests on facts alone, and does not permit himself to be swayed or prejudiced by general reasoning or theory; and that, therefore, he is the only safe guide in Political Economy. But theory or prejudice enters more frequently into the human

mind, than the political arithmetician is aware, when he boasts that he is exempt from their influence. He must possess a very superficial and limited acquaintance with mankind, who does not perceive, that on all subjects where their interest is concerned, or which are surrounded with a variety of circumstances, prejudice or theory either renders facts imperfectly or erroneously seen, or prevents them from being stated exactly as they exist and appear. The remarks of Mr Stewart apply with equal propriety and force to practical Political Economy, as to medicine. "So deeply rooted in the constitution of the human mind, is that disposition on which philosophy is grafted, that the simplest narrative of the most illiterate observer, involves more or less of hypothesis: Nay, in general, it will be found, that in proportion to his ignorance, the greater is the number of conjectural principles involved in his statements.

"A village apothecary, and, if possible, in a still greater degree, an experienced nurse, is seldom able to describe the plainest case, without employing a phraseology, of which every word is a theory; whereas, a simple and genuine specification of the phenomena which mark a particular disease; a specification unsophisticated by fancy, or by preconceived opinions, may be regarded as unequivocal evidence of a mind trained by long and successful study, to the most difficult of all arts, that of the faithful interpretation of nature."-P. 443.

The statements of the political arithmetician, therefore, and what he calls the results of his own observations, and experience, and inquiries, drawn aside as they are by interest or theory, on this ground alone, are certainly undeserving of the character and claims which they assume, and cannot be permitted to supersede the investigations of the political philosopher.

But it may be urged, that those who are practically engaged in commerce, are more worthy of our confidence as instructors and guides in Political Economy; and that the facts which they have accumulated during a life of personal observation and experience, must be not only well-founded, but also directly and profitably applicable to the most difficult and complicated cases of this science.

This, however, we suspect will be found far from the truth. In the first place, few men engaged in commerce are acquainted with any branch of it except that which they themselves follow in the second place, the small number whose thoughts and interests are directed to commercial objects on a large scale, seldom or never possess a deep and extensive insight into human nature. It seems, there fore, impossible to meet with merely practical men, who can instruct us from their own observation and experience in the fundamental principles of commerce. Let us, however, examine of what worth and utility they will be as guides in their own particular department. The object of Political Economy, as a science, is the increase of wealth and prosperity of communities at large, not of any class or portion of them, at the expense of another. The object of the commercial man is to benefit himself: he looks no farther; he decides on the propriety, the prudence, or the wisdom of every plan and measure, according as it is advantageous to the line of business he pursues, and, more especially, according as it is advanta geous to himself individually.

Hence, navigation and corn-laws, bounties, prohibition of foreign goods, or heavy duties upon them, have not only been defended, but extolled as beneficial; and facts are appealed to in support of this opinion, in opposition to what is sneeringly called speculative notions on Political Economy. Here, then, is one fertile source of fallacy in the facts of practical men; they state the fact and consequence of any measure, but not the whole fact and consequence; the fact and consequence as they affect their own interest, or the interest of that particular branch of trade in which they are engaged, but not as they affect the national interest. They know and feel that they are benefited by the measure, but they are ignorant, and they do not inquire, whether, while they are benefited, by their very benefit, others, and the nation at large, are injured.

"In all his meditations upon these principles," observes Child, in his Discourse on Trade, "the reader should warily distinguish between the profit of the merchant and the gain of the kingdom, which are so far from being

parallels, that frequently they run counter one to the other; although most men, by their education and business, having fixed their eye and aim wholly upon the former, do usually confound these two in their thoughts and discourses on trade, or else mistake the former for the latter."

Adam Smith has a similar remark. "The merchants know perfectly well in what manner to enrich themselves; it was their business to know it; but in what manner it enriched their country was no part of their business."-SMITH's Wealth of Nations, Vol. II. p. 8, 4to edition.

But facts, to be useful, must be stated not only impartially, and with a full and clear display of their influence on the wealth of the community at large, but they must also be traced to their remote and permanent consequences. In this respect, we shall find the facts of practical men of little value or utility; they do not look wide enough, and they do not look far enough; their individual interest does not require such a view, and therefore they do not take it. But the interest of society absolutely requires not only an extensive view on all sides, but a penetrating and long view to remote and permanent consequences.

What is the consequence of an increase in the circulating medium of a country? To this question, very opposite answers will be given by practical men, and each answer will appeal to facts; but if we examine these facts, we shall find, that they either do not take in all the circumstances, (a source of error we shall afterwards advert to,) or they are not traced in all their consequences.

Those who maintain that an in crease in the circulating medium does not enhance prices, nor add to produce, state the facts in support of their opinion in the following man

ner.

They admit, that the first and immediate effect of an increased circulating medium is to enhance the price of the article on which it is expended; but this effect, they allege, is counteracted by a diminution of demand, occasioned by that enhanced price. The price of meat rises 25 per cent in consequence of more money than usual being applied to its purchase; this is one part of the fact; but, on the