whom the law levies them, the inquiry must be, how and when can the labourer exact the amount of a tax on wages from his employer? Now the ordinary rate of wages in any given period is just sufficient to keep the population up to the level of demand for labourers: and if from this rate be deducted the tax, the supply will in time fall below the demand; but in the mean time the number of labourers not being actually diminished by the tax, and the demand continuing the same, the wages paid will be the same as before, till an actual decline in the population be felt; and then, if the demand continue the same, wages will rise to the full amount of the tax, and to more, till the population have time to be restored to the former level.

But when Smith and Ricardo have agreed, that the tax on wages must be paid by the employer, they differ on the subject of that employer's reimbursement. Smith maintains, that the manufacturer will repay himself by a higher price charged on commodities, and the farmer by deduction from his rent;* and these opinions are defended by Garnier † against the attack of Ricardo, who successfully shews, that the farmer and manufacturer, being mutually consumers of each other's commodities, could not be benefited by a rise on both. The error of Smith seems to have arisen from considering the tax as operating first exclusively on one of the classes, and then exclusively on the other; whereas the question is, the effect of a tax simultaneously operating on both. Assuredly if manufacturing labour alone were taxed, capital would be withdrawn from manufactures, and thrown into other employments, till manufacturing supply falling below demand, the price of such produce would be increased to the amount of the tax. This, however, would not be necessarily the case with a partial tax on agricultural labour, though Ricardo maintains that it would. But there is here an intermediate contracting party between the producer and consumer, namely, the landlord, whose bargain with the farmer is to retain, for his own use, a certain portion of the gross produce, and leave a portion for the tenant, such as to enable him to derive as great a profit from his capital employed in agriculture as if it had been used in manufacturing: and when agricultural profits are diminished by the partial tax, the landlord must forego so much of his reserved portion, as will indemnify the farmer for the tax. It may be urged that the manufacturer, when partially taxed, might make the same demand for reduction of price from the seller of the produce of his manufacture-not so-for that seller or producer could apply his capital to some other purpose, if not sufficiently # P. 255, &c.

*iii. 323.

+ vi. 426.

§ P. 259. remunerated

remunerated by the manufacturer But the landlord can apply his land to no other purpose than letting it to a farmer, or (what is the same thing in its effect on the market) farming it himself, and paying the tax in his capacity of proprietor. This is a peculiarity in the situation of land-owners which has not been sufficiently adverted to in the reasonings of political economists.

From Smith's view of the subject he deprecated all taxes on wages, as tending to a rise in the price of all commodities, and consequent decline of export trade,* which he exemplifies in the fate of the manufactures of Holland, and of several of the Italian States. Ricardo denies the result, even if he were to admit the premises of a rise in price from a tax on wages; for, says he, If any cause should raise the price of a few manufactured commodities, it would prevent or check their exportation: but if the same cause operated generally on all, the effect would be merely nominal, and would neither interfere with their relative value, nor in any degree diminish the stimulus to a trade of barter, which all commerce, both foreign and domestic, really is.' But by Ricardo's own admission,‡ general high prices imply increased difficulty of production and consequent diminished share of produce both to the labourer and consumer; so that the effect ought by no means to be considered as merely nominal' in domestic commerce; and so in foreign commerce, if our difficulty of production be increased, we do in barter give a larger portion of our labour for a smaller of the foreigners'. This argument, it is to be observed, applies to all causes which produce a general rise of prices, whether Smith be right or wrong in supposing a tax on wages to do so. If, on the contrary, a tax on wages be, according to Ricardo, in fact, a tax on profits,§ the danger of diminishing the rate of profits in any country will be, that the capital will be removed to other countries where a higher profit can be had. And this argument also applies to all causes which reduce in any one country the rate of profits below its rates in the neighbouring countries, whether we admit or reject Ricardo's opinion on the operation of a tax on wages.

There remains to be discussed the subject of capital, as the third source of wealth; but that involves a number of such important questions, that their consideration would occupy more space than can be spared in the present number, and must therefore be deferred.

ART. VII.-1. Opere Teatrali e Memorie per servir alla vita di Carlo Goldoni. 33 vols. Lucca.

2. Opere del Conte Carlo Gozzi. 10 vols. 8vo. Venezia.

3. Commedie dell' Avocato. Alberto Nota. 5 vols. Firenze. 4. Commedie del C. Gio. Giraud. 6 vols. Firenze.

ONE

NE of the Italian Economists, of whom we gave an account in the last number of our Review, a Venetian, of the name of Ortis, among other strange opinions and whimsical theories, which he stoutly advanced and defended, had the boldness to contend that the capital of a nation cannot be increased by any law whatever; and that it can only exchange hands. Laws of entail, for instance, could, in his opinion, make some families richer at the expense of others who were reduced to poverty, and vice versá; but the stock of riches must always remain the same. In ruminating on the turn which literature has taken of late years, we have been struck with the idea that Ortis's theory might perhaps be better applied to the stock of learning belonging to a nation than to its wealth. There is no doubt that there are more men who study the classics now than a century ago; but where are those individuals whose thews and sinews in learning were equal to the prodigious muscular invincibility of the children of Titan and the sons of Anak? We are decidedly of opinion that the present distribution of the capital of learning is more useful, on the whole, to society; yet since, in all human affairs, sunt mala mixta bonis, we cannot help regretting, that, as we increase in surface, we are more and more diminishing in depth. The studies of those critics to whom we are indebted for the pleasure which we experience in reading the ancient poets, whom they, with incredible labour and patience, have rendered intelligible, are ridiculed. We forget, that without them the general learning of which we boast would never have attained its present advancement, and that it is by their unremitting labours that we are enabled to consider study as an amusement. The race of folio readers, as was observed once by Dr. Parr to a friend, has disappeared, and the highbred dandy in literature laughs at them, and at any one who will not join him in his pitiful pleasantry. To appear before the world with a ponderous volume is like going to a dance with a pair of quaker's shoes. We must know so many things, that we have time to learn but little of any, and our invidious nature makes us despise in others that deep knowledge in whichwe feel ourselves deficient.

In proportion with this increased thirst after information is the number

number of those who profess to impart that information, which they modestly claim, to others, who always take for granted whatever is told to them. The consequence is, that we see the most ridiculous opinions formed and adopted, with a levity equalled only by the tenacity with which they are defended. Where is the man, of good education, in this country, who does not pretend to know Italian thoroughly, and to judge of Italian literature? You will hear, a thousand times, the same common-place kind of judgment passed on Italian authors with the greatest solemnity, by persons hardly able to understand the very works of which they speak, and who, we are certain, never read any of them with due attention. Those who are able to judge laugh; but the man who boldly props the weakest opionion with a few general observations, either hackneyed or paradoxical-who forges quotations, who mistranslates-and, above all, who speaks with an air of contemptuous self-sufficiency-is sure of being considered in the right by the great majority of his readers; for they know of the matter even less, if possible, than he does himself.

Among the most remarkable changes which literary pursuits have undergone of late, one is, that writing for the public has ceased to be, in general, the best manner of disseminating truths useful to our fellow-creatures, and tending to the common good, for which an honest and honourable remuneration was to be expected. Now-a-days the remuneration is the sole end in view. Truth is not spoken out fearlessly and honestly, lest the book should not sell: the prejudices and passions of the public are flattered; and that is the best work which sells best. The Roman laws did not, any more than ours, admit in principle that an advocate should be paid for his advice :- Sanctissima enim res est civilis sapientia; sed quae pretio nummario non est aestimanda nec dehonestanda, quum in judicio honor petitur.' Yet advocates, (we shall not speak of our barristers) professing to be in pursuit of honour, were very sharp after their fees, and, we rather think, laughed at Ovid's line :

Turpe, reos emptâ miseros defendere linguâ.'

In our own times, and in this country particularly, authors are more sharp after money than fame. Our publisher's ledger' is unblushingly appealed to as the only evidence of the merits of a book. Had Milton's poem been judged upon such evidence, it would perhaps never have been reprinted.

To convince people of their error is a thankless and ungracious office. We are too apt to revolt against those who take

* See Foot Note To our Readers, p. 649, No. vi. Foreign Quarterly Review, published by Treuttel, Würtz, and Co. 2 E 2

upon

upon themselves to show us our errors, and who, undeceiving us, try to set right those sciolist notions which we believe indisputable. Notwithstanding this, and putting out of view the publisher's ledger, we shall turn our attention in this paper to a subject, on which we are sorry to see that every one, although scarcely knowing the Italian alphabet, thinks himself a competent judge.

We remember that, on the publication of our Fifth Number, the article on Italian comedy was kindly noticed by several periodicals, one of which, however, distinguished alike for its impartiality and information, advised us not to write concerning Goldoni, as his merits were well known in this country. But as it appears to us, that this is not universally the case, we have persisted in our determination of completing the history of Italian comedy, in which Goldoni occupies a prominent station. We are anxious for truth, and not for victory, in battles of the goosequill, as in every other discussion into which we happen to be driven. We say this, as we deem it somewhat ungenerous to impute to us the desire of exciting prejudice against a contemporary publication, because we happen to dissent from it in this particular subject, and be in the right. This petty idea never entered our heads, and we attacked, fairly and critically, the opinion which was advanced, because it was wrong, and not because we had any grudge against the publication in which it was set forth. Wishing to write on the history of Italian comedy, we were compelled both to agree and to disagree with our contemporary. It would be very unjust to accuse us of plagiarism for agreeing with it, and it is equally unjust to accuse us of fondness of literary squabbles, because we disagree from that publication. This unintelligible necessity of agreeing and disagreeing, at the same time with it, was forced upon us, because in that same periodical two opinions, exactly opposite, are set forth. Here they are side by side, and fully worthy of each other in unrivalled peculiarity of diction:

By much the greater part of Goldoni's numerous plays afford little addition to the previously enumerated dramatis personæ, (The Four Masks) although he did occasionally vary all but the masks, and, in a very few instances, omitted even these, including the most pertinaciously adhering of all, Arlecchino himself. But Goldoni had too little force or wit for a successful innovator.

'Baretti was unjust to the great Italian dramatist, Goldoni, who, with all his faults, was the creator of the Italian drama, merely because Baretti patronized the eccentric, but perverse genius of Carlo Gozzi, who, from hatred of innovation, wished to perpetuate the reign of masks and of farce on the Italian stage,' &c.-For. Quart. Rev. vol. ii. p. 646.

• We