great competition of capitals, in a well stocked country, tends to bring down the gains of each trader. France or Spain could give as great credit as Holland or England, were they to charge higher in proportion as the term of payment was delayed,-were they, in fact, to charge intereft for the loan. It is becaufe, without this additional charge, England can afford to fell at long credits, and to buy at ready money, that the pushes her trade where France cannot reach. So far, then, from the English merchants repaying themselves for the long credit which they give their American customers, this credit unrecompenfed, is the cause of their capital finding employment in the American ftates, and the confequence of that capital being very extenfive. M. Talleyrand feems to think it voluntary on the part of the creditor; an accommodation which he allows his debtor for a certain confideration. On the contrary, it is a matter of neceffity, and is forced upon him by the competition of other capitalifts, while it is rendered practicable by the great extent of his own stock.

In the third place, Our author falls into an error of a much more general and fundamental nature, in ftating the progress of the American commerce with England. Instead of fimply afferting that the mercantile relations between the two countries, interrupted by the war, were revived after the peace, and continued as clofe after the independence of the United States, as they had been during the existence of the colonial government; he affumes that those relations were multiplied and extended in confequence of the feparation, and that Great Britain was therefore a gainer by that event. He only takes care to warn France not to reckon upon a fimilar gain when the gives up her colonial dominions; obferving, with great justice, that the cafes of the continental and infular fettlements are by no means parallel. The fact upon which this doctrine is founded, does, however, in no degree warrant fuch an inference. The consumption of English goods in America had increafed when our author wrote, to three millions Sterling, from lefs than one half the fum, its amount after the peace of Verfailles. But where is the proof that the fame augmentation would not have taken place though the colonial fyftem had been preferved? It furely is not in confequence of the change, that the population of the States goes on doubling every twenty-five years; for, before the rupture, the increafe of numbers proceeded at a rate fomewhat more rapid, from the mere circumftance of the total amount being confiderably lefs. Nor can the fubftitution of a primary for a fubordinate form of government, have promoted the clearing of the forefts, when, before the revolution, ground was conftantly

prepared

prepared for the tens of thoufands which each year added to the mals of the inhabitants. And if the freedom of navigation be fufpected of having augmented the American wealth, it must be thewn, in the first place, that all our author's own reafonings on the clofenefs of the voluntary connexion between England and America are falfe; and that what he justly terms the voluntary manoply, has no existence. In truth, this monoply which has furvived the navigation laws, is the cleareft poflible proof, that the only effect of thofe laws was to enforce what muft have taken place naturally. If a trifling commerce be now car ried on by American traders with foreign nations; and if, in confequence of its profits, the Americans are enabled to buy a little more from England than they otherwife could have done, the; difference is probably more than counterbalanced by two cir cumstances, both effects of the revolution,-the exclufion of the Americans from a free trade with one of their best markets, the British West Indies,-and their receiving the articles of foreign growth at first hand, inftead of getting them, as formerly, through the medium of the mother country. The former of thofe circumftances has injured both the growth of the United States, and of the colonies which remain dependant; the latter has been favourable to the United States, but has been attended, of course, with a flight direct detriment to Great Britain; and this must be fet off against the indirect advantages which the reaps from the benefit which the fame circumftance confers on the North Americans. The effect of both thefe circumstances upon Great Britain, taken together, muft obviously turn the balance of the profit and lofs arifing from the free trade of the Americans fomewhat against her. She indeed retains the power of admitting them to a full fhare of the Weft Indian commerce; but the question is, whether, in point of fact, the increafe of demand for British goods has been owing in any degree to the independence of North America; and, indeed, the poffible advantages which England may derive from a change of her navigation laws, in favour of the United States, can no more enter into a lift of the good effects produced by the revolution, than the advantages fhe might have derived from a change of the fame laws in favour of the North American colonies can enter into a lift of the good effects which would have accrued from a continuance of their dependence. We are therefore decidedly of opinion, that M. Talleyrand's affumption (for he does not argue at all to this point) of the fuperior clofenefs of mercantile connexion between Britain and America, in confequence of their political feparation, is entirely unfounded. That the natural circumftances of relationship, which arofe out of the ori

ginal

ginal connexion, maintained unbroken the intercourfe between the two countries, and permitted their commerce to go on increafing as rapidly as it would have done, had the ancient ties of colonial fubordination fubfifted, is the utmost extent of the conclufions which the facts and arguments warrant, even as ftated by M. Talleyrand himfelf. No attempt is made to demonftrate, that the change has augmented thofe relations of commerce; and although it were proved that fuch had been the effects of the revolution, ftill it would remain to fhew that Great Britain had been a gainer by the lofs of her American dominions; in other words, that profit upon stock is all a great nation has to think of in the management of its affairs.

We shall here take our leave of thefe interefling tracts; but we cannot refift the temptation of prefenting our readers with a fpecimen of thofe talents for philofophical obfervation and for general defcription of manners, which made us regret, in former part of this article, that M. Talleyrand had not devoted himself to fupply the great defideratum in modern literature, a fcientific political traveller. The following picture of American fociety, is indeed very striking; and the character of the planter is placed in a point of view confiderably lefs romantic than that in which both American and European dealers in fentiment have been accustomed to give it. We have only to premife, that when M. Talleyrand blames the inaccuracy of claffing fishing with agriculture, he forgets that the arrangement never bore any reference to the effects of the two purfuits upon the character or manners of the perfons engaged in them; it related entirely to the connexion of thofe employments with national wealth.

Que l'on confidere ces cités populeufes remplies d'Anglais, d'Allemands, d'Irlandais, de Hollandais, et aufli d'habitans indigenes; ces bourgades intaines, fi diftantes l'un de l'autre ; ces valtes contrées incultes, traverfées plutôt qu'habitées par des hommes qui ne font d'aucun pays quel lien commun concevoir au milieu de toutes ces difparités? C'est un fpectacle neuf pour le voyageur qui, partant d'une ville principale où l'etat focial eft perfectionné, traverse fucceffivement tous les degrés de civilization et d'induftrie qui vont toujours en s'affabliffant, jufqu'à ce qu'il arrive en tres peu de jours à la cabane informe et groffiere conftruite de trones d'arbres nouvellement abattus. Un tel voyage cft une forte d'analyfe pratique et vivante de l'origine des peuples et des etats; on part de l'enfemble le plus compofé pour arriver aux clemens les plus fimples; à chaque journée on perd de vue quelques unes de ces inventions que nos befoins, en fe multipliant, ont rendues neceffaires; et il femble que l'on voyage en arriere dans l'hiftoire des progrès de l'efprit humain. Si un tel fpectacle attache fortement l'imagination, fi l'on fe plait à retrouver dans la fucceffion de Pefpace ce qui femble n'appartenir qu'à la fucceffion des temps, il faut fe refoudre à ne voir que tres peu de liens fociaux, nul caractere com

mun

mun, parmi des hommes qui femblent fi peu appartenir à la même af fociation.

Dans plufieurs cantons, la mer et les bois en ont fait des pecheurs ou des bûcherons; or, de tels hommes n'ont point, à proprement parler, de patrie, et leur morale fociale fe reduit à bien peu de chose. On a dit depuis long-temps que l'homme eft difciple de ce qui l'entoure; et cela eft vrai; celui qui n'a autour de lui que des deferts, ne peut donc recevoir des leçons que de ce qu'il fait pour vivre. L'idée du befoin que les hommes ont les uns des autres n'existe pas en lui; et c'eft uniquement en decompofant le metier qu'il exerce, qu'on trouve le principe de fes affections et de toute fa moralité.

Le bûcheron Americain ne s'intereffe à rien; toute idée fenfible eft! loin de lui; ces branches fi elegamment jetées par la nature, un beau feuillage, une couleur vive qui anime une partie de bois, un verd plus fort qui en affombrit une autre, tout cela n'eft rien: il n'a de fouvenir à placer nulle part: c'eft la quantité de coups de hache qu'il faut qu'il donne pour abattre un arbre, qui eft fon unique idée. Il n'a point planté; il n'en fait point les plaifirs. L'arbre qu'il planteroit n'eft bon à rien pour lui; car jamais il ne le verra affez fort pour qu'il puiffe l'abattre c'eft de detruire qui le fait vivre: on detruit par-tout: auff tout lieu lui eft bon; il ne tient pas au champ où il a placé fon travail, parce que fon travail, n'eft que de la fatigue, et qu'aucune idée douce n'y eft jointe. Ce qui fort de fes mains ne paffe point par toutes les croiffances fi attachantes pour le cultivateur; il ne fuit pas la deflinée de fes produc tions; il ne connoît pas le plaifir des nouveaux effais; et fi en s'en allant il n'oublie pas fa hache, il ne laiffe pas de regrets là où il a vecu des années.

Le pecheur Americain reçoit de fa profeffion une ame à peu pres auffi infouciante. Ses affections, fon interet, fa vie, font à coté de la focieté à laquelle il croit qu'il appartient. Ce feroit un préjugé de penfer qu'il eft un membre fort utile; car il ne faut pas comparer ces pêcheurs-là à ceux d'Europe, et croire que c'eft comme en Europe un moyen de former des matelots, de faire des hommes de mer adroits et robuftes en Amerique, j'en excepte les habitans de Nantuket qui pêchent la baleine, la pêche eft un metier de parelleux. Deux lieues de la côte quand ils n'ont pas de mauvais temps à craindre, un mille quand le temps eft incertain, voilà le courage qu'ils montrent, et la ligne eft le feul harpon qu'ils fachent manier: ainfi leur fcience n'est qu'une bien petite rufe; et leur action, qui confifte à avoir un bras pendant au bord d'un bateau, refemble bien à de la faineantife. Ils n'aiment aucun lieu; ils ne connaiffent la terre que par une mauvaise maifon qu'ils habitent : c'est la mer qui leur donne leur nourriture; auffi quelques morues de plus ou de moins determinent leur patrie. Si le nombre leur paroît diminuer à tel endroit, ils s'en vont, et cherchent une autre patrie où il y ait 'quelques morues de plus. Lorsque quelques ecrivains politiques ont dit que la pêche etoit une forte d'agriculture, ils ont dit une chofe qui a l'air brillant, mais qui n'a pas de verité. Toutes les qualités, toutes les vertus qui font attachées a l'agriculture marquent à l'homme qui se

livre

livre à la pêche. L'agriculture produit un patriote dans la bonne acception de ce mot; la pêche ne fait faire que des cofmopolites. '

We are far from confidering every part of this picture as accurately drawn from nature. On the contrary, there are not a a few of its lines which refemble a composition rather than a portrait. But, in the general, it is unquestionably like; and every touch, even the most partial, betrays the hand of a maf ter. Who that looks at it does not recognize, to take only a fubordinate merit, that turn of expreffion which has gained for its author the reputation of being indifputably the wittiest of the present generation?

ART. VII. Flora Britannica. Auctore Jacobo Edvardo Smith,. M. D. Societatis Linneanæ Prefide, &c. Londini, tom. I. & II. 1800; III. 1804. 8vo. White.

FE

EW Countries can boaft of fuch a variety and profufion of plants as the British islands. This circumftance has been noticed by all the botanists who have attended to the enumeration of our indigenous vegetables; and though it unquestionably increased the difficulty of their undertaking, appears only to have excited the ardour of scientific men; and from this caufe has arisen both the number and the excellence of our Flora.

The first profeffed enumeration of the British plants, with which we are acquainted, was by William How, in his Phytologia Britannica, Lond. 1650, 8vo. In 1660, Ray began his botanical career, by publishing his Catalogus plantarum circa Cantabrigiam nafcentium, Cant. 8vo. He was followed, in 1667, by Merret, who extended his researches, indeed, throughout every kingdom of nature, in his Pinax rerum Britannicarum, Lond. 8vo. A few years after this, Ray enlarged his original plan, and produced the Catalogus plantarum Anglia, Lond. 1670, 8vo.

The preceding works were only catalogues, with the addition of the places of growth; but Ray, who faw the advantages of fyftematic arrangement in the recent publication of Morison, and in his own Hiftoria plantarum, publifhed in 1690 the first edition. of the Synopfis methodica ftirpium Britannicarum, Lond. 8vo. In this he gave, not only the characters of the feveral genera, but alfo the fynomyms and ufes of the plants, with feveral other remarks, tending to facilitate the progrefs of the ftudent. A fecond edition of this juftly celebrated work appeared in 1696: and as Ray had amended his fyftem in 1703, a third edition of the Synopfis, rendered agreeable to this emendation, and with large

additions,