of clearness, to be adopted altogether. Nay, he should have gone farther still. The wages of labourers in some countries-say India are nearly as low as they can be: and so are their productive powers. The wages of the Pole-the Frenchman-the Englishman-rise by gradation above these: and so do also their productive powers. Their superior skill and energy, as well as the favourable circumstances which contribute to aid them, are ⚫ appropriated natural agents.' Ought not the excess of remuneration obtained by these labourers respectively above the Hindoo to be termed 'rent,' as much as the excess of the gains of a Halford above those of a parish doctor?

In the next place, it will be seen (by the example of black cloth), that fortuitous contingencies, which may raise for a time the rate of profit, are considered by him as affording a rent. Now, here we cannot but think his nomenclature not only too refined, but somewhat misleading. The fact is, that these contingencies do enter for something, although for very little, into the calculations of those who are about to undertake any business; and are hence a portion of the causes which produce the ordinary rate of profit in that business. Thus the high gain of a miner who strikes on a vein of more valuable metal, or of a holder of black cloth on a royal decease, which Mr Senior regards as rent, we should rather consider as entering into the average return to capital in those two employments. At another time the miner may be working for a long time at a dead loss; and it may so happen that a general mourning is not proclaimed for several years together. The extra profits obtained on the occurrence of the favourable contingency may do no more than balance the loss sustained through the unfavourable. Again, if the gains of those few who make more than average profits in any employment, are all to be termed 'rent' (and any one who follows out Mr Senior's reasoning will see that they must be so), the common doctrine of the average equality of profits should seem to be founded altogether on a misnomer. He says, as we have seen, that all that is obtained without any sacrifice, is the same thing with all that is obtained 'beyond the remuneration for that sa'crifice,' meaning, we presume, the average remuneration; and consequently, that if the first be rent, the second is so likewise. But what is the meaning of the phrase average remuneration.* or 'average profit' ? Does not the very phrase imply that some profit is above the average? The common profits in trade are said to be at twelve per cent when A realizes fifteen, and B, with the same amount of capital, realizes nine. According to Mr Senior, A's extra three per cent is not profit at all, but rent. Then, twelve per cent is not the average profit, but the highest that

can be made. By the mere application of unusual abilities, and readiness in the pursuit of advantages, to the ordinary processes of retail trade, Mr Morrison-so well known in the mercantile world-has been enabled to realize large profits, and eventually an enormous fortune. According to Mr Senior's nomenclature, Mr Morrison's abilities must have yielded him a 6 rent,' as much as Sir Walter Scott's. But Mr Morrison's success must necessarily have impoverished many competitors, just as Sir W. Scott may have driven many a Leadenhall-Street artisan out of the market. And unless Mr Morrison's gains have been so incredibly immense as to raise the average rate of retail profits all over the country during the period of his operations, it is clear that some other traders must have remained as far below the average as he has soared above it. Why should their inferior gains be termed 'profit,' and his partly profit' and partly rent' ?

And if such a nomenclature is fallacious in the case of ordinary trades, it must be equally so, although less obviously, in respect of those which partake more of the nature of a lottery. It is one of Dr Smith's principles, that enormous prizes tend to fix the rate of profits or wages even below the average. The learned professions, for instance, attract competition, not so much in proportion to • the real value of the contingency, as to the excess of the possible ⚫ return over the certain outlay; and, consequently, it is possible that the whole revenue of all three may not be sufficient to replace the capital employed, and afford the wages of a day-labourer to every member of them in addition. Such, at least, is unquestionably the case in the legal profession; although Mr Senior, with that love of parodox which he occasionally evinces, will have it that it is less of a lottery than the church. Now, the profession to which Sir Walter Scott belonged is far more hazardous than any of the three. Where there is one Sir Walter Scott, there are perhaps a few hundred individuals who obtain prizes of more or less value; there are perhaps three or four thousand who gain a bare subsistence; and perhaps twice as many who continue to present the public with their lucubrations at a dead loss. Were the whole revenue of a Scott and all his successful brethren divided equally among the tribe of authors, they would undoubtedly remain the worst paid craft in Christendom.

This being the case, we cannot see any necessity for ranking those extra gains of individual labourers as rent, which, if divided among the whole body of labourers in that employment, might not raise their average reward even above that low remuneration which alone receives the name of wages from Mr Senior. And, lastly, his definition of rent, as is confessed by himself, excludes a condition which enters into all our ordinary notions of it ;—

namely, that it is something obtained by a proprietor for the use of his property, independent of his own exertions. A landowner cultivating his own soil does indeed obtain his surplus produce by his own labour; but if he were to let that soil to another, he would obtain the same surplus produce; whereas an artist, or an author, depends wholly on his own talents for his surplus remuneration.

On the whole, therefore, admitting the ingenuity of Mr Senior's nomenclature, we cannot but think that the inconvenience he incurs, by classing under the same name things so widely different, overbalances any superior clearness which he may expect to attain by it; especially iu a work professedly popular and elementary. We do not know that any shorter or plainer road is gained to the valuable conclusions of the science by establishing wages at an uniform standard as the remuneration of mere ordinary labour, or by denying the name of profits to all, that, from whatever cause, exceeds the average. We prefer to retain for rent its usual limited signification; and allow that wages and profits are liable to extensive variations, both in the amount obtained by different classes and by different individuals. We regret that our limits have obliged us to exhibit so imperfect a view of the contents of this valuable treatise. haps, we ought rather to reproach ourselves for having been tempted into incidental discussions on minor points, instead of employing our space more usefully in presenting a condensed view of its general character. But this is the less a matter of regret, because we hope on some future occasion to have the author's views developed in a fuller and completer shape. Devoted as he is to his science, we cannot suppose that he means to confine himself, as he has lately done, to the practical labour of furnishing valuable hints for public measures. Without undervaluing the assistance which he has rendered in this way, we trust he will not forget the claim which abstract science has upon him still, as one especially able to correct its hypothetical results, by his own extensive practical knowledge: indeed, the specimen before us differs from all other elementary treatises on the subject with which we are acquainted, less by the depth of its theoretical views than by the peculiar manner in which observation and experience are brought to bear upon them, without any of that exclusive arrogance with which theory and practice are wont to maintain their respective independence. It is at once philosophical and popular; presenting throughout a remarkable specimen of clearness, simplicity, and condensation of language, applied to subjects which it is often difficult to treat without harshness and obscurity.

ART. V. The Tribute: a Collection of Miscellaneous unpublished Poems by various Authors. Edited by LORD NORTHAMPTON. 8vo. London : 1837.

is seldom that a miscellaneous collection of verses, which stands so little in need of an apologetic preface, has so good an excuse to offer for its appearance as the present. The collection had its origin in the benevolent wish to soothe the hours of sickness, and to alleviate the sufferings of a deserving man, by enabling him to relax those literary exertions under which his powers were rapidly giving way. When the idea of the work occurred, in Spring, 1836, the Rev. Edward Smedley (the learned Editor of the Encyclopædia Metropolitana), on whose behalf it was undertaken, had already lost his hearing; and a disorder in his eyes was, to all appearance, sapping a sense still more precious. He died within a few weeks afterwards, and the project, which had been designed for his benefit, was continued for that of his family. From the apprehension that a scheme, depending on the co-operation of many individuals, might never be realized, the editor did not think it right to mention it to those for whose benefit it was intended, till it was so far advanced that at least it was not likely to fail from a deficiency in literary contributions. When this communication was at last about to be made, the editor found that Mrs Smedely ' was herself going to publish, by subscription, a volume of poems also, by her late husband, with a memoir of his life. Had this been known sooner, the editor would certainly never 'have undertaken the present work. He rejoices, however, 'that he did not know it; as, whatever may be the pecuniary ' result of this publication, he is sure that it must be gratifying 'to the feelings of Mr Smedley's friends to see this proof of the respect in which he was held.'

We should, indeed, have regretted if the accomplished editor's knowledge of the intention to publish the volume here alluded to had led to the abandonment of a project so honourable to the memory of the deceased, and so creditable both to the feelings and the talents of its contributors. Generally speaking, such a volume as the present affords no fit subject for critical notice. The end sanctifies the means, and reconciles the reader alike even to indifferent poetry and questionable prose. Criticism, if it cannot conscientiously applaud, is content to remain silent, or to say, with Dante's guide,

But the Tribute' has really very little to fear from critical examination. Without exhibiting any one specimen of very marked genius, or striking originality, it contains a greal deal of pleasing poetry, with considerable variety of tone and subject. We have scenes from gorgeous tragedy,' by 'Sand Electra's poet," Mr Savage Landor-followed by others where some anonymous contributor has his broadest comic sock put on,' in an Aristophanic farce, founded on the fate of the Frogs under King Log and King Stork. Wordsworth contributes a few verses-simple but sweet-and full of that pensive, unassuming morality which he links with all his pictures of nature. The names of Robert Southey, Thomas Moore, Alfred Tennyson, Joanna Baillie, James Montgomery, Bernard Barton, the Rev. W. Lisle Bowles, C. Elton, Gally Knight, G. P. R. James, appear in the list,each furnishing some specimen (some of them, no doubt, mere trifles) in his or her particular style; whilst with these are associated other names, which we should have less readily anticipated as contributors to an Anthology of this sort; such as Mr Spring Rice and Lord John Russel-the former as the author of some very pleasing and natural lines on revisiting Trinity College, Cambridge; the latter as the translator of part of the fifth book of the Odyssey. Then we have some graceful and high-toned sonnets by the editor himself, Sir Aubrey de Vere, the Rev. John Eagles, the Rev. C. Strong, Mr W. Empson, and others -favourable specimens, on the whole, of that much abused and most difficult form of composition, in which we have, unfortunately, very few successful examples to exhibit.

Not the least pleasing circumstance, however, connected with the volume, is the number of poems it contains from authors of whose names we must, in many cases, confess our ignorance; but whose compositions appear to no disavantage when placed by the side of those of higher name and established reputation. We had really no idea either of the number or effective strength of the recent additions to the grand army of Parnassus. Twenty, at least, of the contributors to this volume must have been enlisted within the last lustre; and recent as their enrolment has been, no veteran need be ashamed to march through Coventry with them.'

6

A volume such as this, embodying contributions from thirty or forty individuals, of all ranks, professions, states, and predilections, may be regarded as a sort of literary barometer, indicating, with quite sufficient truth for practical purposes, the present state and variations of the poetical atmosphere. Had the project been formed and carried into effect some twelve years ago, the index of such an instrument would have generally pointed to storm