starve in the midst of plenty, would retire from the inquiry in despair. And surely you, Sir, who have looked only at the surface, must, if you think with attention, be astonished at the miserable state of your country, in profound peace, enjoying all nature has to bestow; (physically at least,) a country, according to your own account," the fertility of whose soil is boundless, and the industry of whose people is interminable." The solution of the great question is variously given by different people; and it must be admitted that in general it is sufficiently childish, and in nearly all cases arrived at through the passions and the prejudices. Amongst these solutions, head and foremost comes ❝ transition from war to peace;" but we have been nearly six years at peace and are etting worse. The clergy attribute our calamities to the wide pread of blasphemy. The loyal and the timid to the Radical press; and the agricultural community to the importation of a little food. If the reverend politicians are right, the great, the noble, the ancient institutions of these realms are at the mercy of Mr. and Mrs. Carlile. If the loyal are right, we are in the power of Messrs. Hone, Wooler, and Dolby. And if you are right, we have more to fear from smugglers than from armies. Now, Sir, if you will travel onwards with me, and will exercise a little patience, we shall presently see a cause more adequate to the effect. But I ask you to look again at the picture of distress we have drawn, and then at the causes set forth; and then say, whether it be possible for such a gigantic effect to be produced by so pigmy a cause. But before we go into the real cause, (for you know that from the days of Newton, all effects are known to have causes,) let us inquire a little into that so zealously urged by you and your Com mittee. Your doctrine is this: "The admission of foreign commodities, (grain,) duty free, tends to paralyse every effort of body and mind, and it is a thing with which no human frame can compete." You also observe," Wheat can be bought in foreign countries, on an average, for less than 40s. a quarter; in this country it cannot be grown for less than 80s. a quarter." Indeed! I should like to have been at hand when you wrote this last quoted sentence, merely to have asked the cause of the difference; depend upon it, Sir, the answer to this short sentence is of more importance to our country, than any thing that has occurred to it. You proceed: "A duty of 40s. a quarter is necessary to countervail this difference in wheat, and so in proportion for every other production of our soil." Bravo! a request, certainly modest enough; a duty of cent. per cent. on an 'P. 23. 2 P. 23. 3 P. 22. 4 P. 22. article of import, and that article no other than food!! And yet a little earlier, all you have to ask is, the same protection against the dreaded imports as is enjoyed by merchants and manufacturers.' Unfor tunately for your argument, the archetype you are so anxious to copy, is defective in theory, and ruinous in practice; the restrictions" enjoyed," by manufacturers are a very great evil, and will, I have no doubt, by and by, be gradually removed; truth must in time prevail, and mankind will discover that the reciprocity of their wants are the only proper restrictions for commerce. You write, that in 1813, and previous, the soil produced yearly a gross value of 216,000,000l. and upwards; that subsequently it fell off, and whilst you were writing, the produce was only the above !2 Now, Sir, evidently in ignorance of the real cause of this, you quietly express your astonishment that the taxes are as well paid as they are; and then, really and in earnest, assert, that the opening the ports to a little corn has diminished the productions of our soil one half, besides reducing and degrading the commerce and manufactures! With regard to paying the taxes, those who understand the matter, and have looked a little deeper than "the General Committee," and their worthy Chairman, know full well, that without some material change, the taxes must continue to fall off; to decrease progressively. But, Sir, let us look a little closer at this terrible thing, which has, in your opinion, diminished the productions of our soil one half, besides inflicting divers and other calamities. By the returns laid before Parliament we learn, that for one year ending on the 5th January, 1819, (fiscal years never begin, nor end, at the right time,) 26,799,367 bushels of grain were imported into this country. Suppose of the quantity were wheat; this will enable us to compare it as an importation of food, with the consumption of the country; we shall thus find an importation for the said year of about 2,233,280 quarters of wheat; it is esti mated that the average consumption in one year for each person, is one quarter of corn, this gives us a consumption of about 15 millions of quarters for one year; so that in this said year, so terrible to the farmers, the importation of food was little more than of our annual consumption; that is, a little more than 7 weeks consumption; if it be objected that the population is taken too high, it must be admitted that the consumption is taken much too low; the remaining of the whole importation bore, no doubt, the same proportion to its kindred grain; but these figures, in reality, are not of much importance, as the stronger part of the argu 'P. 8. 3 P. 20. ment is behind. Your opinions are so decidedly formed, your assertions so strong, your lamentations so loud, your call upon the minister so urgent, that really one would imagine the plague came with the corn, and I was certainly led to expect a little argument, in support of so much display; I expected to see it shown, at least in appearance, that there was some connexion between the importation of grain and the depression of agriculture, but I look for it in vain. I expected to see that the periods of the greatest importation, were corresponded to by the greatest depression; but nothing of the sort is even attempted. We see that about 7 weeks consumption of food was imported in the year ending January the 5th, 1819. You imagine a quantity, in the same ratio, was imported from that period to the 15th of February following,' when the ports were shut, and no more wheat came from without. Subsequent to which period the ports have not been open to the reception of grain. Your letter to the minister is dated November the 28th, 1820, and I am writing in February, 1821; and how stand agricultural concerns at present? Why as an Irishman translated semper idem, worse and worse." We want no evidence to confirm this, other than the evidence of our senses, when we walk abroad. Up to the very period at which you write, the picture you draw, and truly draw, of agriculture, is really heart-breaking; and, almost in the same page, you represent the cause of this increasing and overwhelming distress, to have ceased these two years! I, Sir, was taught in a different school-I was taught to believe that cessante causa, cessabit effectus; but according to the showing of the General Committee, we have the cause ceasing, but the effect progressing with accelerated motion. That you have good reason to lament, to be alarmed, to call out, I fully admit; our difference is, as to the cause of all your distress. On the futility of that cause which is set forth, and pressed upon the consideration of the Minister and Parliament, by 100,000 petitioners," enough, it appears to me, has already been said. Nevertheless, I will detain you a few minutes longer upon a subject so near your heart. Can you not, Sir, discover some mitigation for the evils of the importation of grain, though it be "duty free?" Do you really imagine it all to be actual loss? How do you think those who bring it hither are paid? Do you think they take back bank-notes to be made into tinder for the use of French housemaids? No, no, Sir, they are much wiser; they return with such wares as their countrymen want; the wares of Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield, &c. The corn alluded to as imported, must have sold for about 5,500,000l. Now, Sir, reflect a little upon the effect of this sum being laid out amongst our manufacturers, would not the effect be to better their condition? The manufacturer being more prosperous, could afford to dress better; hence his tailor would gain, which would promote the interest of the draper; the wives and daughters would assuredly have their share of the fathers' gains, in the way of smart things; hence jewellers, milliners, &c. would gain. The immediate effects of the prosperity of all these people, would be the employment of more hands, and the better living of all parties; this would tend to keep down the poor's rates, and to consume your beef, mutton, and grain, in greater quantities. Now, Sir, do you really see nothing but loss in the importation of grain? There appears throughout your letter, a great anxiety to rouse the minister to a strong feeling in your favor; the passage, of all others, I should select, as displaying the greatest sagacity, is the following after speaking of the horrid gulph into which we are fallen by the terrible imports, you write, "That on the landing, &c.. it (the imported corn) formed part and parcel of our own corn and grain; and could be as freely sold in any of our own markets, as any of our own productions; which, on their growth and production, contributed to all the taxes levied in this country."" I am persuaded you could not have touched a string that would vibrate with greater sensibility through the Treasury than this; but unfortunately for your cause, the fact is not so. The grain that is brought hither, is doubtless the production of the countries from whence it comes; it is exchanged here with the produce of our own country-manufacturing produce most probably; it is this produce with which we purchase the corn from the French, Poles, &c. Money may, and no doubt does, assist in the transaction. The produce these foreigners would probably require, is the wares before alluded to; and as we know of nothing in this country that escapes the touch of the taxgatherer, and as these articles, exchanged against the imported grain, must share the common lot, that is, must be taxed; it seems clear that the growers of corn in Poland, France, &c. who send it to our markets, do in truth pay a portion of our taxes, which is about one of the last things you were thinking of, when you addressed your letter to the Minister of Trade. You quote several passages from Adam Smith to assist your arguments, amongst these is the following: "Food not only constitutes the principal part of the riches of the world, but it is the abundance of food which gives the principal part of their value 1 ' P. 18. Professor Say, "Treatise on Political Economy." to many other sorts of riches." To quote this passage against the importation of food seems sufficiently whimsical. But, Sir, it is time to quit this part of the subject, and to discourse a little upon the more rational causes for the calamities that have fallen, and will continue to fall, upon the poor old Country. I shall perhaps feel some difficulty in compressing the subject, so as to bring it within reasonable limits; but I will endeavour, and, at all events, I promise not to be prolix. I believe it often happens that the shortest and clearest mode of illustrating a system, or subject, is to put it hypothetically; and thus, if you please, we will at present proceed. But before we do proceed, I must beg to state a few axioms, which are well known and understood by political economists. 1st. Money, or currency, or circulating medium, is not wealth, but the representative of wealth. 2nd. The prices of all things may rise or fall, whilst the real wealth of a nation remains stationary. 3rd. The nominal prices of the commodities of a country, will be in the ratio of its currency to those commodities, at any period. 4th. The Income of a country is compounded of the united incomes of all its inhabitants. The Revenue of a country is a portion taken from all these incomes for the public service. 5th. Every tax is an income tax income being the basis of all taxation. The thing nominally taxed, is fixed on as a measure, or criterion, to ascertain the portion of the owner's income to be taken. With these five axioms as a text we may safely proceed. Suppose a community to consist of 100 persons, some of these to be owners of land, some farmers, others tradesmen, artisans, laborers, &c.; and further, suppose them to have for their currency 1000 one pound notes, and no other. Now so long as their affairs continue in this state, there will be no perceptible rise or fall in prices, because the proportion between the real wealth, and that which is to measure or represent it, remains steady. Suppose also 10 persons to fall from some other planet; amongst them-persons, who like the lilies of the field, neither toil nor spin. The community therefore consent to maintain them, each individual bearing his proportion; persons are appointed to collect these portions for the use of the strangers. We have here a society, not drawn from fancy, like Utopia, but from life. We have here those who both consume and contribute to national wealth, either by capital, or skill, or labor; those who consume without contributing, and those who collect the taxes. ! P. 15. |