то JAMES CURRIE, of Liverpool, M. D. F. R.S. &c. DEAR SIR, WHEN your letter, commercial and peli tical, came out, under the name of JASPER WILSON, I was bufy, during the mornings, with my usual duties, and, during the evenings, with very different ftudies. I little heeded Jafper Wilfon, or his letter; thinking him to be one of those patriotic writers, who dafh out on the call of the moment, to alarm by their vehemence, or to delude by their fophiftry. Amidft thofe engagements, and under that apathy, I had remained fome months, when I was told by our common friend, that you were the real author of Jaíper Wilson's letter. A few days had only paffed away, when I heard the bookfellers runners loudly announcing, in bookfellers fhops, that Doctor Currie, of Liverpool, was the true Jafper Wilfon. Ah! thought I, my old acquaintance, by revealing his own fecret, has furnished his adverfaries with half an answer to his letter; as he has enabled them to ask, who, and what, is he? why doth he publish? publifh? wherefore this fury against the funding' system, and this violence for peace? they will fay with Lord Bacon, whom you are ftudious to quote, "That in dealing with cunning perfons, we must ever confider their ends, to interpret their speeches." I haftened, upon this information, to perufe your letter, expecting to be inftructed by your knowledge, and improved by your elegance. I foon perceived, that you had mentioned my ESTIMATE, as a masterly work, though you do not, in your practice, pay much regard to its facts, or yield, in your reasonings, any affent to its inferences. Your references, however, to my book, fometimes for what is, and often for what is not, in it, have made a new edition neceffary. The former editions found their own way in the world, and were tranflated into the languages of the continent; owing to the authenticity of their documents, and the ftrength of their facts. But, I prefumed to dedicate this new edition to you, as it will give me an opportunity of repaying your praife, by allowing your merits; of correcting your mistakes, without the acrimony of conteft; and of comparing your doctrines with my own, on interefting topics, without the invidioufnefs of competition, or the anxieties of fear. I have another motive for this dedication. It is to call your attention to two points, which, though of great importance, you have not fufficiently fettled, in your letter: The fat is, with regard to the matter of inftruction; the second, in refpect 2 respect to the mode. Neither as a philofopher, nor as a politician, have you determined, whether the progrefs of knowledge be happy, in its effects, on the condition of our fpecies. You, indeed, quote Lord Bacon upon the point*: yet, you fly off in a fit of Sceptical doubts, as your friend HUME would fay, leaving your readers perplexed in error. I have long thought, and often repeated, that real information is of great ufe, both to the governors, and the governed; as the million, who are well inftructed, are lefs fubject to temporary terrors, and are more free from lafting impreffions, whether they arise from the fophiftry of an orator, or, the perfuafion of a pamphleteer. I-agree, then, with Lord Bacon, that knowledge is ftrength. In the acquirement of inftruction, I have liftened, at the Royal Society, with pleafure, and improvement, to your papers. As a philofopher, you make experiments, you adjuft facts, you deduce juf conclufions, and you fettle an ufeful principle. The members, indeed, would not liften to loofe affertions, and vague deductions. The Society had been taught, in its youth, by that wonderful man, Sir William Petty, who may be deemed a second Bacon, never to talk of any thing in the general; but ever to mention the time, and place, the measure, or the weight, in precife terms. As a politician, you heed not this precept of Petty, though you practise it as a philofopher. Yet, throughout your letter, you |