expected, but almost instantaneously, developed themselves. The Bank of England not very slowly limited its discounts, and diminished its issues of paper about three millions. At one period, indeed, the amount of notes in circulation had exceeded that to which they were now reduced by six millions; but the average had been for some time about three millions higher. The country banks, acting less upon system, and more under the influence of alarm, lessened their discounts in a much greater degree. A single failure would stop all such transactions over a whole district; and I could mention one large stoppage, which made it difficult for a length of time to discount a bill anywhere in three or four counties. The persons who felt this change most severely were of course those who had been speculating in any way, but above all others, speculators in land: those who had either purchased or improved beyond their actual means upon the expectation of that credit and accommodation being continued, which had enabled them to commence these operations. Ordinary traders have much greater facilities in the money-market; and their speculations are much more speedily terminated. The improver of land has to deal with property not easily convertible into money, and his adventures extend necessarily over a long course of years. Persons in this situation soon found their borrowed capital withdrawn. When the fall of produce made it difficult for them to pay the interest, they were suddenly called upon for the principal: they had gotten into a situation which no prudence could have enabled them to avoid, because it was the result of events which no sagacity could have foreseen. They had for many years been tempted to speculate by a facility of obtaining capital or credit, which in a month or two was utterly withdrawn; and before the least warning had been given, either by the course of events, or by the dealers in money and accommodation, a support was removed which the most cautious of men might well have expected to be continued indefinitely, or at any rate, to be gradually removed.

House of Commons, April 9, 1816..

The Farmer suffers exclusively from Taxation.

It must be remembered that part of the taxes fall directly and exclusively upon the landed interest. Some of the assessed taxes, and the enormous malt, beer, and spirit duties are clearly of this description. But next, observe how differently the farmer is situated in these times from the other parts of the community, with respect to the rise in wages, produced partly by the taxes.

The commodity in which he deals is on the decline in point of price from over-cultivation; he cannot therefore throw the tax upon the consumer. If manufactured goods are in high demand, the customer pays the duties to which the manufacturer may be subject, either directly or indirectly, by the rise of wages caused by those taxes. If those goods are falling in price, the tax presses upon the manufacturer himself. Now this is, and for some time

past has been, in a peculiar manner, the state of the farmer, who indeed never has the means of suddenly accommodating the supply of his commodity to the demand with the nicety and dispatch observable in the operations of trade.

House of Commons, Agricultural Distress, April 9, 1816.

Abuse of Poor-Laws.

But a still more material circumstance distinguishes the situation of the farmer from that of the manufacturer, relieving the latter at the expense of the former: I allude to the state of the law, which throws upon the land the whole burden of maintaining the poor, and reduces the price of all labour below its natural level, at the sole expense of the cultivator. It is well known to the Committee, that, whatever may have been the intention of the legislature (and the meaning of the statute of Elizabeth is sufficiently plain), yet, from a defect in the powers of the Act, the money raised for the support of the poor is paid entirely by the land.

Persons in trade only pay in so far as they are also owners of real property. Thus a manufacturer who is deriving ten or twelve thousand a-year from his trade is rated as if he only had a large building worth four or five hundred a-year beside his dwellinghouse, while his neighbour, who possesses a farm of the same yearly value, pays as much—that is, the man of ten thousand a-year in trade pays no more than the man of five hundred a-year in land. Yet, only observe the difference between the two in relation to labour and to the poor. The farmer employs a few hands; the manufacturer a whole colony: the farmer causes no material augmentation in the number of paupers; the manufacturer multiplies paupers by wholesale: the one supports; the other makes paupers -manufactures them just as certainly, and in something of the same proportion, as he manufactures goods.

The inequality of this distribution is plain enough, but I am_now speaking of it in its relation chiefly to the subject of wages. From the abuse of the poor-laws, it has become the prevailing practice to support, by parish relief, not merely persons who are disabled from working by disease or age, but those who, though in health, cannot earn enough to maintain them; and, by a short-sighted policy wholly unaccountable, the custom has spread very widely of keeping down the wages of labour by the application of poor-rates, as if anything could equal the folly of paying rates rather than hire; of parting with the distribution of your own money, and of paying for labour not in proportion to your own demand for that labour, but in proportion to some general average of the district you chance to live in.

I pass over the inevitable effect of this arrangement in raising the total amount of the sums paid for labour, and in throwing upon one farm the expenses of cultivating another less favourably circumstanced; it is enough for my present purpose to remark, that

the whole effect of the system is to make the land pay a sum yearly, levied in the most unequal manner, applied in the least economical way, for the purpose of lowering the wages generally, and of lowering the wages of manufacturing as well as agricultural labour. From this unquestionable position I draw two inferences, I think equally undeniable, and bearing directly upon the subject of our present inquiry; the one is, that the effects of taxation in raising the price of labour are not distributed equally over all classes of the community, but fall exclusively upon the land, the land paying for the rise which the taxes have occasioned, both in agricultural labour and in all other kinds of work. The other is, that, even if the fall in the prices of provisions should apparently restore wages permanently to their former level, the real state of wages would still be raised, and the real costs of cultivation be augmented, unless the poor-rates also had been brought back to their former amount.

Speech on Agr. Distress, House of Com., April 9, 1816.

Pernicious Influence of Poor-Laws.-Early Marriages.

I confess that I see but one radical cure for the state into which this last abuse has thrown the country (alluding to the poor-rate), and which is daily growing worse, deranging its whole economy, debasing its national character. The inequality of the system may be remedied; at least I would fain hope that some method might be devised, without having recourse to the odious machinery of an income-tax, for making the other property bear its share with the land in defraying the expense which should fall equally on all income, if it is to be compulsory upon any. But though great relief may thus be obtained, the worst vices of the system are deeper seated, and admit, I fear, but one cure. As the law is now administered, under the influence of the habits which have unfortunately grown up with the abuse of it, the lower orders look to parish relief no longer with dread or shame, but they regard it as a fund out of which their wants may at all times be supplied. To say nothing of the effects of this feeling upon their habits of industry and economy, -to pass over its fatal influence on their character, and especially on their spirit of independence,-only observe how it removes all check upon imprudent marriages, and tends to multiply the number of the people beyond the means of subsistence-that is, to multiply the numbers of the poor.

A young couple who feel inclined to marry never think, now-adays, of waiting until they can afford it,-until they have a prospect of being able to support a family. They hardly consider whether they are able to support themselves. They know, whatever deficits may arise in their means, the parish must make up, and they take into their account the relief derivable from this source as confidently, and with as little repugnance, as if it were a part of their inheritance. It is truly painful to reflect that our peasantry, who, some time ago, used to regard such a supply with dread,-used to

couple every notion of ruin, misery, and even degradation, with the thought of coming upon the parish,-should now be accustoming themselves to receiving relief almost as if it were a regular part of their wages. I can see but one effectual remedy for this great and growing evil; it is the one which follows so immediately from the principles unfolded in Mr. Malthus's celebrated work.

Speech on Agricultural Distress, April 9, 1816.

Liberty of the Press.-Is Truth a Libel?

As the law of libel now stands, the chief evil felt by persons accused of offences of this nature is this-that, if prosecuted for libel, it is of no manner of consequence to the trial of their cause-it is a weight which enters not at all into the scale-whether the matter of the alleged libel is consistent with truth, or totally false. I will suppose that a statement, not one item of which is overcharged, containing reflections on Government, or on an individual, is published, and that the author is prosecuted by Government, or the individual: let the statement be ever so true, I am willing to admit that the prosecution should be criminal; but I contend that the question, whether the matter is true or false, ought to be taken into consideration by the jury. To say that the measures of Government are bad, and that the Minister who prepares them ought to be impeached, or that A. B., a given individual, is guilty of felony, though never so true, might frequently be highly criminal; because there are cases in which nothing but malice could have originated such charges, and other circumstances, besides the allegations being true or not true, might account for the publication, and from them a malicious motive might be inferred. Nevertheless, no one can deny, first, that the crime would be greater if the allegations be false; and that will be considered in estimating the amount of the punishment; but, secondly, though on trial truth is no absolute justification, yet it ought to enter into the consideration of the cause, because in many cases it would be decisive for or against the defendant.

I will first put the case of a private libel, because it is more likely malice would enter into the composition of this, as it is difficult to conceive a person guilty of intentional malice on subjects of public concern. I will suppose that a person has published, that A. B. has been guilty of felony; it does not follow, because he may have been guilty, that the publisher was not also guilty of a libel; but what I maintain is, that the truth or falsehood ought to be considered by the jury, in order that they might ascertain if the motives of the party accused of the libel were innocent or not. There is no case in which the falsehood of the charge would not be decisive against him, though there might be many in which it would not be decisive for him. If I say A. B. is guilty of felony, and it turns out to be false, I am a libeller; though it does not follow that the truth being so would always exculpate me. But, then, is the truth always to be

excluded? Unless those who take a different view of the question are prepared to say, that in no possible case can the truth or falsehood of the fact be material as to the malice or purity of motives, then they must agree with my conclusion, that the court should have the truth of the facts before them, not as conclusive for or against the defendant, but as going to show the purity or malice of his

motives.

Motion on the Liberty of the Press, May 8, 1816.

Evidence which the Defendant may put in, in Trial for a Libel.

If a party be prosecuted for a libel, it is competent for the defendant to show on what occasion he was induced to publish it; and if it were in answer to any fomer attack, he has a right to bring this forward in evidence. But to what does this lead? If I libel a party, it is no justification that he libelled me before, as I ought to have prosecuted him for his libel, instead of adding offence to offence. But, although the courts say that this is no justification, yet they allow it to be given in evidence, in order to cast a better light on the conduct of the defendant; the malice or purity of his motives being the point to which the attention of the jury is really directed. Again, all circumstances attending the manner of publication are allowed to be given in in evidence, not as any justification, but because they tended to show the motives of the publication. If a member of the House of Commons published his speech, or a private person an account of what transpired in a court of justice, and that publication contained a libel, it would be no justification that the speech had been spoken or the matter had passed in court. In cases of this kind, the courts said, it was no justification to prove that you were only the reporter, but they allowed it to be given in evidence, and to go to the jury, because they were sifting only the purity or malice of motives: they inquire, "Did he invent and defame, or did he only give a defamatory speech, which might be spoken, but not published with a view to dissemination ?"

Evidence in cases of High Treason.

Ibid.

It is well known, in the celebrated case of Lord Russel, the evidence of Dr. Tillotson was admitted to prove that his Lordship's habits of life were moral: even against the imputation of high treason was this evidence allowed, to show the improbability of such guilt being compatible with opposite habits of life. In the case of Horne Tooke, also, who was tried for high treason in the year 1794, a book which he had written in 1782 was permitted to be put in as evidence of his loyalty.

I allude to his celebrated letter, addressed to Mr. Dunning, upon the subject of parliamentary reform; and, fortunately for Mr. Tooke,