Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

clearly, is this, that, for a long series of years they have seen corn brought into England and Scotland from foreign countries, without having, in any one instance, complained against it, as likely to ruin the farmers. Now there is no foreign country that can send us any corn; but our lands in the West Indies are able to send us sugar that will supply the place of the corn that we used to get from foreign countries; and, observe, that we buy this sugar of our own countrymen, and pay them in flax and wool and iron and tin and copper, all the natural produce of our own soil, while the corn which we drew from fo

than this reasoning, I do not remember to have met with in the course of my life. What! is plenty the farmer's ruin? Is abundance to be a source of national danger? Is cheapness of corn the people's curse? The farmer has poor-rates to pay as well as rent; and, you all well know, gentlemen, that he has more to pay in poor-rates when corn is dear than when corn is cheap; you know, in fact, that the amount of his poor-rates keeps in exact proportion to the price of corn; you know, also, that what is not given in times of scarcity to the labourer in increased poor-rates must be given him in increased wages; you know further, that, if the far-reign countries was, for the greater part,

mer sells his corn cheap, he fats his hogs cheap, he feeds his horses and cattle cheap, he keeps his servants cheap; and, indeed, you, who are farmers, well know, from bitter experience, that the greatest evil of your lives were the high prices of the years 1800 and 1801, an evil which you feel to this hour, and which you will feel for many years yet to come. -But, gentlemen, I beg you to consider the sweeping tendency of the principle, upon which the intended bill is objected to, which principle applies to all cases wherein an increase in the produce of corn takes place. According to this principle, to improve the land already enclosed is an evil, because such improvement will certainly add to the produce of the land; that increased produce will as certainly lower the price of corn (unless more mouths are found to eat it); to lower the price of corn is, according to the opposers of this bill, to ruin the farmer; and, therefore, if we admit this principle, to improve the land already enclosed is an evil. And, gentlemen, what shall, then, be said, of new enclosures? It is the general opinion, that new enclosures ¡ cause an addition to the quantity of corn produced; it is the opinion of many of those who oppose the bill, that the way to prevent scarcity in England and Scotland is to bring large tracts of waste lands into cultivation, because, they say, that the quantity of corn produced would thereby be made greater than it now is. Supposing this to be the case (and that no new mouths are created to eat such addition to the produce) the price of corn will certainly be lowered by the new enclosures; the lowering of the price of corn will here again, according to the opposers of the bill, ruin the farmer; and, therefore, upon their principle, those new enclosures, which they themselves represent as being necessary to the salvation of the country, would be a great national evil. The light, however, in which the inconsistency of these gentlemen's conduct appears the most

[ocr errors]

paid for in gold and silver; and yet, Gentlemen, strange it is to say, that the persons who oppose the intended Bill, who call themselves the friends of the farmers, who quietly suffered eight hundred thousand quarters of corn to be brought every year from foreign countries, would now fain persuade those same farmers, that they will be ruined by the bringing in of that which will supply the place of, at most, three hundred thousand quarters of corn, that being the full amount of what is used yearly in the distilleries. Nay, gentlemen, these same persons have no scruple to express their sorrow that the supply of foreign corn is cut off by the enemy, and their wishes that that supply may be again renewed; just as if 800,000 quarters of corn, brought from abroad, would not lower the price of our corn produced at home more than 300,000 thrown back from the distilleries; and yet, gentlemen, the opposers of the intended Bill call themselves the friends of the farmer. There may be some farmers so easily misled, so completely blinded, as to believe this, and may carry their folly so far as to be induced to join in a petition to parliament against a bill which they are told will make corn cheap; but, I trust that the farmers of Hampshire have too much good sense to be so deceived; and that, at any rate, if the petition, which is talked of, should be seriously proposed, we, the freeholders in general, shall not be so shamefully deficient in the duty we owe to ourselves, to the poor, and to our country, as to suffer it to be carried, without such an opposition on our part as shall convince the pariiament, that it speaks not the sense of the county.—I am,

&c. &c."

It was not until after this letter was written, that I was informed, that MR. ARTHUR YOUNG was one of the persons, who had been examined by the committee that reported in favour of the intended bill, and that he expressed his decided opinion against the suffering of sugar to be made use of in

the distilleries. MR. WAKEFIELD, 1 understand, was also examined before the committee, and gave his opinion on the same side.The readers of the Register will recollect, that my columas have, of late, been a good deal devoted to Mr. Young. To both these gentlemen, indeed; but, first to Mr. Young. I had given it as my opinion, that England (meaning the whole of the kingdom) might exist, in safety and greatness, independent of commerce. Amongst those who were of a different opinion, there were some who maintained, that we were unable to grow corn enough for our own consumption. I replied, that, if commerce ceased, there would be more hands to cultivate the land, and not more mouths to eat the corn. Mr. Young, who was the most formidable of my opponents, took great pains to convince me, that, for years to come, we could not raise corn enough to feed ourselves. He showed, that we had been importing for many years last past, to the average amount of 2,000,000 of pounds sterling a year; he insisted, that there was no remedy but that of bringing the waste lands into cultivation by the means of a General Enclosure bill; and, he acknowledged that this must necessarily be a work of time. —In short, this was what he said: importation is now necessary; to put a stop to the necessity of importation you must augment your domestic produce; to augment your domestic produce you must enclose new lands, but this will be a work of time.-Now, as Mr. Young desired to see more corn produced, and an importation, until more corn could be produced, I wonder (for I have not yet seen his evidence) what objection he could possibly have stated against the importation of sugar to supply the place of corn. Mr. Young tells us; indeed he proves to us, that our average import of corn, for the last twenty-six years has amounted to two millions sterling; what objection, then, could he have made against the importation of sugar, to supply the place of corn, to the amount of about half a million a year? He was alarmed at the shutting of all the foreign corn ports against us; and he is now alarmed, apparently in a greater degree, at the opening of a port in our own colonies for something that will supply the place of part of our corn.— -Mr. WAKEFIELD (see page 501) took the pains to furnish me with a statement of the importation of corn for many years past. "From 1800 to-1801," says he, 46 we have, on an average imported "the enormous quantity of 1,447,500 quar"ters yearly," of whent only, 'I believe, he means. Then he proceeds to a description

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]

no longer a matter of profit and loss, whe"ther the past system is to be pursued. "However willing we may be to enrich "other countries, to vivify the agriculture, "and stimulate the industry of other na "tions, we shall not be permitted to pur"chase the agricultural produce of the con"tinent. All the corn ports of Europe are "closed, and all the wealth of these islands "will be unable to purchase a supply of food "from the continent. To such observations as I have been addressing you, I have not unfrequently heard it remarked, "wheat "is only about 70s. a quarter." So much "the worse on every account: the price is "too low to stimulate an increasing and

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

scarcity we depend upon foreign supply "for nearly a fifth of our consumption, and "that in ordinary seasons we depend upon

[ocr errors]

importation for a seventh part of our sub"sistence.' Now, what practical purpose could this gentleman possibly have in view, but that of impressing our minds with the persuasion, that we should be in great danger from the cutting off of the foreign supply of corn, and of stimulating us to an increase of our domestic production? And yet, he is now alarmed, he now feels aditional alarm, because a measure is about to be adopted, that will introduce from our own colonies, annually, about a fifth part as much corn, in the shape of sugar, as was be

fore introduced, from foreign states, in the shape of corn! In my address, above inserted, I took the average annual importation at 800,000 quarters; but, it appears from Mr. Wakefield's statement, that it has been 1,447,500. of wheat only, during the last 6 years. Have the farmers been" ruined" thereby? Have they found any want of a market? Has not their corn borne a good price? Do they not drink wine? Do not their wives have their parties? Do not their daughters make a villainous noise upon the piano? Well, then, if they have survived and even become luxurious in their living, under this importation of 1,447.500 quarters of corn annually, can Mr. Wakefield really fear that they will be ruined now that 300,000 quarters are to be imported, in the shape of sugar, all the other channels of importation being completely stopped up?Mr. Wakefield has, another letter, which will be found inserted in the present number.

When I saw his name at the bottom of it, I expected to meet with some satisfactory explanation upon the principal points of the subject; but, I must confess that I met with nothing but disappointment.He divides his matter under three heads. He considers the proposed bill, 1st, as to the claims which the planter has to its benefits, at the expence of the farmer, upen the score of right; 2ndly, as it will affect the revenue, in which he apprehends that it will produce a defalcation; 3dly, as it will operate with respect to the general interests of the nation. The question of right is of no importance, until we have settled the point, that the bill will be injurious to the farmer, and which point, I think, must be settled in the negative. As to the revenue, if Mr. Wakefield will but suffer the sugar to be distilled, I will venture to answer for the government's taking care that the distillation shall cost enough in the way of taxes. It is, indeed. a subject of serious alarm, that a thousand or two of gallons of gin should reach the lips of hackney-coachmen, unhallowed by the touch of an exciseman's rule.

Let

[blocks in formation]

his seal, at the sight of which the owner trembles as if it were the seal of the Holy Inquisition. When this is the case; when every man's neighbour, servant, and child is invited to be a spy upon his actions, as far as relates to the evasion of taxes, is it possible, that a man like Mr. Wakefield should object to a measure, upon the ground of its being likely to relax the rigours of taxation? There is one objection coupled with this, which, however, is worthy of particular notice. The houses, &c. for distilling corn, Mr. Wakefield says, cost a large sum of mo ney; the trade, as now carried on, requires a large capital; but, that a distillery for sugar will cost, comparatively, nothing; that, therefore, the introduction of sugar will render large capitals useless in the trade, and rivalship will reduce the profits to a bare subsistance. This would be an excellent objection for a great distiller to make in his counting-house, or in a whisper to his partner; but, I think, he would take special care to disguise it from the public, and more particularly from those who have to legislate for the general good, to whom, supposing them to have even a small share of very common sense, it must be evident, that the smaller the capital required to carry on a trade of any given magnitude, the greater the benefit to the state, in which that trade is carried on; and that, if the trade, which now gives opulence to a few, can be made to provide subsistence for many, it is, I think, a thing most ardently to be wished. now come to Mr. Wakefield's third head, under which I did expect to find something to the point; something in the way of direct answer to what the "learned" call the argumentum ad hominem, contained in my last Register and in my separate address; something to explain the apparent inconsisteney of earnestly recommending an aug mentation of produce one day, and the very next day expressing alarm at a measure that must, in effect, augment the produce; something to explain why no remonstrance was made against the importation of 1,447,500 quarters of corn annu ally. if the importation of the means of saving 300,000 quarters is to ruin the farmer; something to explain why Messrs. Wakefield and Young were so alarmed at the shutting of the foreign corn ports, if it be true that the importation of what will supply the place of corn ought not, upon any account, to be imported; something to explain why these gentlemen recommended new enclosures as the means of adding to the quantity of our corn, if it be true that the trifling addition of 300,000 quarters a year take away the

motive to produce corn. Mr. Wakefield does, indeed, at the close of his letter, announce his 'intention of treating more largely upon the effect of enclosures in his next, which he politely declines doing at present, lest he should occupy too much of niy-room; for which I thank him; but, I certainly should, upon this occasion, have been very glad if he had paid less regard to my convenience. In the mean while, however, and, as it were to stay my longing, he refers me to his sentiments (upon this part of the subject), contained in a former letter, which sentiments we will now examine." Inclosures," says he, "merit par"ticular consideration. If they should be forced upon the farmer, it will augment "the evil [the evil of cheap market] of " which I am complaining; but if only

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

encouraged by means of facilitating "enclosure bills, bringing of the waste "lands into cultivation will not proceed "faster than the joint prosperity of the farmer "and the country will warrant. Inclosures, "bowever, will rather be the effect of prospe

[ocr errors]

rity, than its positive parent, though, after"wards they will have the effect of uphold"ing and perpetuating it." Now, though I do not understand this clearly, I may, I think, venture to assume, that Mr. Wakefield would wish to see something done in the way of enclosing; and, that he thinks, that enclosing more land would add to the quantity of corn produced. If this be his meaning, then I should be glad to know, why that addition, whatever it might be, would not injure the farmer in the same way that the introduction of sugar, to be used as corn, would injure him. If this be not his meaning; if he does not believe, that an addition to the quantity of enclosed land would make an addition to the corn produced, why enclose at all? At any rate, there is an essential diference between Mr. Wakefield and Mr. Young: one is for a very slow process in the way of enclosure, the other for a general law that would set all the adventurers and speculators at work ip a moment. What Mr. Wakefield means by forcing enclosures upon the farmer, I really cannot con.prehend; and, indeed, the whole of this passage appears to ine, to betray evident signs of a want of clear and settled notions, in the mind, whence it proceeded. Mr. Wakefield was (see his letter, page 655, strenuously contending, that the prices of corn were too low. He was about to devise means for raising and keeping up the price of corn; but, it occurred to him, as it naturally must, that, as (according to the general supposition, which he appears

to have adopted) new enclosures would in crease the quantity of corn already raised, and would, of course, tend to bring the price. still lower than it now is, it was necessary to guard against this objection; yet, he did not like to say, that enclosures were mischievous. He, therefore, endeavoured to steer a middle course; and, as it mostly happens in such cases, rendered himself perfectly unintelligible. There was, besides, another difficulty, which Mr. Wakefield fairly gave the go-by, naurely, that of improvement; for, if, as he contends, the way to make corn plenty is to raise and to keep up the price of it; if plenty is to be produced only by dearth (good lord, what an idea!) then the way to have a superabundance is to put a total stop to dunging and chalking and claying, and to manuring and improving in every way and degree!—In the letter, which I insert in another part of the present Number, Mr. Wakefield notices what was said by me, in the last Register, at page 644. He says, he thanks me for the idea of the corn used in the distilleries and breweries being thrown away. He is very welcome to it as far as it is mine; but, he will please to recollect, that I did not say a word about breweries, and that the idea was, in fact, his own, the words only belonging He says, however, that I have imputed to him a meaning not his. Let us see if this be so. He had said, that, in order to provide against a time of scarcity, that is to say, against the evils attending a scanty crop, we must, in common years, produce more corn than we consume in food, and that the surplus must be used in distilleries. That is to say, said I, you mean, that a part of the common crop must be bought of the farmer to be thrown away; for, as food, it must be thrown away, or it answers the purposes of food when it comes out of the still. I see no "fallacy." And Mr. Wakefield allows, that, as food, the corn used in the distilleries is thrown away. The farmer, indeed, receives the value of it; but, that value must come out of the labour of the consumer of the spirituous liquors; and, by the nation, the corn is really thrown away, (upon the admission of Mr. Wakefield) who, if consistent, will certainly allow, that the throwing of it into the sea would answer all the purposes full as well. He was driven to this acknowledgement; because I had reminded him, that, if the hot liquors saved food, the mouth that fed upon them would, when the still ceased working, fall upon the corn in some other shape, and that, then, the still would certainly be no granity against a time of scarcity. He was, there

to me.

[ocr errors]

fore driven to the other horn of the dilemma; and I leave the reader to judge of the set of principles, which could lead this gentleman to conclude, that, in order to be provided against a year of scarcity, a certain portion of the produce of every common year must be thrown into the sea. -In answer to the narrow-viewed argument, that the barleyfarmer would suffer greatly, I had said, that the demand would regulate the production." This Mr. Wakefield denies. He truly says, that this denial requires explanation, but, if I understand his explanation, it is by no means satisfactory. I said nothing about bad years or good years. I said, that, at all times, the demand would regulate the production, meaning, of course, upon an average of years. Is barley dearer than oats? A greater proportion of barley is sure to be sown the next year. Are oats dearer than barley (as is the case at present)? A similar effect is produced. Thus, the farmer is, and always will and must be, directed by the market; and thus there is, upon an average of years, sure to be a due proportion of every species of produce.In another part of his letter, he supposes me incapable of forming a correct judgment upon this matter, because I am not a practical farmers as if, in order to reason correctly upon the operations of self-interest, it were necessary to know how to manage an arable farm. But, I am told, that there are some lands, whereon barley is grown, that will not bear wheat. I noticed this before, and I said, that, if they would not bear wheat they would always bear oats, which may serve as an answer to Mr. Bell's Messenger, who is very much alarmed at the prospect of destroying the grass which succeeds the barley, and which, it is well known, 'succeeds oats full as well as barley. Suppose, however, for argument's sake, that there are some lands that will bear no corn but barley. It is a strange supposition; but, admit it for the sake of the argument. Let those perverse lands bear barley still, and let others, which now bear barley, and which are more accommodating in their nature, bear oats or wheat. If all Hampshire, for instance, were made up of the perverse lens and all Surrey of the accommodating lands, I'll warrant that the whole of the corn, when raised, would find its way very quickly to the precise spot where it was most wanted. It is nonsense, then; it is totally unworthy of a man of any mind to suffer himself to be led to dabble in such puddleIk arguments-Let us now take one more view of Mr. Wakefield's "granary" which is to arise from the throwing away of a certain Diorts. I

portion of the produce of every abundant, and even every common, year, "From the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

present state of the continent," says, he, towards the close of this, his last, letter, we cannot import. This" (the corn thrown away through the distilleries) " is, there"fore, our only resource. Take it away, and one of two things will follow, either this surplus quantity of food will no longer be grown, or a new population will arise to consume it; which ever happens the pro"duce will not exceed the demand one fair year with another; and if, while we can"not import, we have neither an export to "retain, nor a surplus luxurious consump"tion to convert into food, we are without resource, and exist at the mercy of the seasons. This is the old argument, with the addition of the circumstance of a supposed increase of population as the consequence of an increase in the quantity of food.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

-But, let us examine a little more minutely into the effect of this supposed "gra

[ocr errors]

nary." Let us suppose a little pation growing a thousand quarters of corn annually, in fair years; that it contains a thousand people, and that each person eats annually a quarter of corn. Now, says Mr. Wakefield, I would have the nation, in fair years, raise an additional 500 quarters to throw away; so that, when a year of half-crop comes, each person should still have his quarter of corn. There may be difference in the degree, but the principle is the same.-This would, indeed, be setting the seasons at defiance; it would be to "take a bond of fate;" but, it would also be to set human nature at defiance; it would be to assume an absolute controul over physical and moral causes. Does Mr. Wakefield consider, that there would be labour required to produce the 500 quarters to be thrown away? Does he consider, that the land, for the purpose of raising, these 500 quarters to be thrown away, would be worn bare?The very worst effect that the opposers of the proposed measure anticipate, is a diminished produce. A diminished produce would surely be accompanied with a rest in the land; and rested is land enriched; and land enriched ready for the plough is the best possible resource. One year of short crop never yet was greatly distressing in this kingdom; it cannot, from the nature of things, be so; and, if there are rested fields always ready for the plough, there can be only one year of short crop at a time. It will, therefore, I think, be found, after all, that the only resource safely to be relied on, the only granary against a time of scarcity, lies in the bosom of the earth, and in that foresight, that intuitive wisdom, which

« PreviousContinue »