drawbacks, the owner may succeed finally in obtaining for a first-rate horse (once known for good performances) as much as £4,000; whilst the whole value, computed on the resistance, may not have been more than as many hundreds. And this fact, though standing back in the rear as regards public knowledge, we may see daily advertised in effect by that common regulation which empowers the loser in many cases to insist on the winning horse being sold for £200, or a similar small sum. Were it not for this rule, which puts a stop to all such attempts without hazard of personal disputes, it would be a capital speculation for any first-rater, though beaten at Newmarket, to sweep all the stakes without effort on a tour through the provincial courses: justice would cease for the owners of inferior horses, and sport for the spectators of the competition.

The last case must have convinced the reader, that, however uncommon it may be, the cost-the resistance

- does not always take place even in the bosom of high civilization. And, by the way, amongst many other strange examples which we could state of anomalous values not considered in books of political economy, it would be easy to show that the very affirmative values of things have shifted under shifting circumstances. Pearls were most valued amongst the ancient Romans, diamonds and rubies amongst modern nations. Why? We are persuaded that, besides other reasons founded on resistance for the varying ratio of prices, this following affirmative reason has prevailed: the Roman festivals were all by daylight, under which sort of light pearls tell most at a distance. The modern are chiefly by lamplight, where the flashing and reverberated lustres of jewels are by far the more effective. The intrinsic have shifted. As an embellishment of female powers

beauty or distinction, pearls are no longer what they were. Affirmatively they have shifted, as well as in the resistance, or negatively.

SLAVES are valued alternately under both laws. Enter the slave-market at Constantinople; not in its now ruined state, but as it existed at the opening of this nineteenth century. The great majority of ordinary slaves were val ued, simply as effects derived from certain known causes adequate to their continued reproduction. They had been stolen; and the cost of fitting out a similar foray, when divided suppose amongst a thousand captives, quoted the price of each ordinary slave. Even upon this class, however, although the cost (that is, on our previous explanation, the negative value) would form the main basis in the estimate, this basis would be slightly modified by varieties in the affirmative value. The cost had been equal; but the affirmative value would obviously vary under marked differences as to health, strength, and age. Was the man worth five or eight years' purchase?-that question must make a slight difference, even where the kind of service itself, that could be promised, happened to rank in the lowest ranges of the scale. A turnip cannot admit of a large range in its appreciation; because the very best is no luxury. But still a good turnip will fetch more than a bad one. We do not, however, suppose that this difference in turnips will generally go the length of making one sort sell at negative or cost value, the other at affirmative. Why? Simply because the inferiority in the turnip A, is owing to inferior cost on its culture; and the superiority in turnip B, to superior cost. But in the case of the slaves this is otherwise. Upon any practicable mode of finding their cost, it must prove to have been the same. The main costs of the outfit were, of necessity, common to the total products of the expe

dition. And any casual difference in the individual expenditure, from sickness or a longer chase, &c., must be too vague to furnish a ground of separate appreciation. Consequently the mob, the plebs, amongst the slaves, must be valued as the small ordinary pearls are valued, – simply so many stone-weight on the basis of so much outlay.

But the natural aristocracy amongst the slaves, like the rarer pearls, will be valued on other principles. Those who were stolen from the terraces and valleys lying along that vast esplanade between the Euxine and the Caspian, had many chances in favor of their proving partially beautiful; by fine features and fine complexions at the least. Amongst the males, some would have a Mameluke value, as promising equestrian followers in battle, as capital shots, as veterinary surgeons, as soothsayers, or calculators of horoscopes, &c. All these would be valued affirmatively; not as effects that might be continually reproduced by applying the same machinery of causes to the resistance presented by the difficulties; but inversely, as themselves causes in relation to certain gratifying effects connected with Mohammedan display or luxury. And if we could go back to the old slavemarkets of the Romans, we should meet a range of prices (corresponding to a range of accomplishments) as much more extensive than that of the Ottoman Porte, as the Roman civilization was itself nobler and ampler than that of Islamism. Generally, no doubt, the learned and the intellectual slaves amongst the Romans, such as Tiro, the private secretary of Cicero, were vernæ, - slaves not immediately exotic, but homebred descendants from slaves imported in some past generation, and trained at their master's expense upon any promise of talent. Tutors (in the sense of pedagogues), physicians, poets, actors,

brilliant sword-players, architects, and artists of all classes, savans, littérateurs nay, sometimes philosophers not to be sneezed at were to be purchased in the Roman markets. And this, by the way, was undoubtedly the cause of that somewhat barbarian contempt which the Romans, in the midst of a peculiar refinement, never disguised for showy accomplishments. We read this sentiment conspicuously expressed in that memorable passage where Virgil so carelessly resigns to foreigners, Græculi, or whatever they might be, the supremacy in all arts but those of conquest and government; and, in one instance, viz. "orabunt causas melius," with a studied insult to a great compatriot recently departed, not less false as to the fact than base as to the motive. But the contempt was natural in a Roman noble for what he could so easily purchase. Even in menial domestics, some pretensions to beauty and to youth were looked for: "tall stripling youths, like Ganymede or Hylas," stood ranged about the dinner-table. The solemn and shadowy banquet, offered by way of temptation to our Saviour in the wilderness, (see Paradise Regained,) is from a Roman dinner; and the philosophic Cicero, in the midst of eternal declamations against luxury, &c., thinks it a capital jest against any man, that his usual attendants at dinner were but three in number, old, shambling fellows, that squinted perhaps, two of them bandy-legged, and one with a tendency to mange. Under this condition of the Roman slave-shambles as respected the demand, we must be sure that affirmative price would interfere emphatically to govern the scale. Slaves possessing the greatest natural or acquired advantages, would often be thrown, by the chances of battle, into Roman hands, at the very same rate as those who had no advantages whatever. The cost might be very little, or it might be none, except for

uses.

a three months' voyage to Rome; and, at any rate, would be equal. So far, there would be no ground for difference in the price. But if at all on a level as to the cost, the slaves were surely not on a level when considered as powers. As powers, as possessors of various accomplishments ministering to the luxury or to the pompous display of some princely household, the slaves would fetch prices perhaps as various as their own numbers, and pointing to a gamut of differences utterly unknown to any West Indian colonies, or the States of Continental America. In that New World, slavery has assumed a far coarser and more animal aspect. Men, women, or children, have been all alike viewed in relation to mere prædial Household slaves must there also be wanted, no doubt, but in a small ratio by comparison with the Roman demand; and, secondly, they were not bought originally with that view, so as materially to influence the market, but were subsequently selected for domestic stations, upon experimental discovery of their qualities. Whereas in Rome—that is, through all Italy and the Roman colonies-the contemplation of higher functions on a very extensive scale, as open almost exclusively to slaves, would act upon the total market, even upon its inferior articles, were it only by greatly diminishing the final residuum available for menial services. The result was, that, according to the growth of Rome, slaves were growing continually in price. Between 650-660 U. C. (the period of Marius, Sylla, &c.) and 700-710 (final stage of the Julian conflict with Pompey), the prices of all slaves must prodigiously have increased. And this object it was ― viz. the slave-market, a most substantial speculation, not by any means the pearl market (as rumor stated at the time) — which furnished the great collateral motive (see Mitford's Greece) to Cæsar's two British expeditions.