of this country to hold in hand one hundred quarters which would be perfectly unsaleable. Admitting this really to happen, and such an accumulation to proceed for several years, however absurd such an admission may appear, what then? Why surely they who held a large quantity of corn, which from year to year had been increasing, would be glad to sell it ultimately at such a price, and in such a quantity, as would completely supersede the possibi lity of further importation, at least until their stock should be con sumed. But such we have never found to be the case; and therefore, reasoning from effects to causes, we are warranted in conclud ing, that no such accumulation ever happened, and consequently that our home supply is not equal to our consumption. When driven from this point, the agriculturist only shifts his ground; for he says, that when he found a quantity of unsaleable stock in hand, he resolved the next year to grow less, so that no accumulation took place; and the only consequence was, to repress the indus try of the British agriculturist by an ungenerous and impolitic transfer of our purchases from, him to the foreign grower. But here an unfortunate difficulty occurs, which, as it is not easy to explain, so it will prove, that no such discouragement, no such transfer, ever took place; for if he grew less corn, what became of the land? If he did not grow corn he would have reared cattle; but we have no proof of this excess of grazing; at least it is not to be found in the prices of animal food. They have still remaining another subterfuge, so tenacious are they of this point. That which a man is interested to conceal, he will almost endeavour to hide in the sunshine itself. Many of them say, We left the land uncultivated when we found its produce not in demand. What! leave a rented estate without any cultivation? Who can have the impudence to say so; and who, if it be said, can have the weakness to believe it? That some farms may be unoccupied, affords no proof of neglect, as depending on a depreciated value of the productions of the soil; it only demonstrates the avariciousness of some landlords, or ignorance of tenants; either the one asks more than they are worth, or the other is not sufficiently acquainted with their value. Thus far I have endeavoured to overthrow two of the principal bulwarks which the petitioners have erected for the defence of their claims, viz. the analogy between themselves and the merchant and manufacturer; and, secondly, the adequacy of our own growth of corn to our consumption. Perhaps the establishment, and I think it is here satisfactorily established, of the last conclusion, may render further arguments unnecessary; but when prejudices are to be removed, and self-interest to be overcome, every point must be combated, every subterfuge laid open therefore, with these preliminary particulars settled, I shall proceed to show, that the agriculturist has no claim to a government protection, either on the principle of its promoting the general good of the country, or his own in particular; and, secondly, that whatever evil he suffers, it has resulted from his own voluntary conduct and engagements; in which I shall take an opportunity of proving, that his distresses are more imaginary than real, and that his present petition is rather calculated to increase, than diminish them. : - The first position, which is indeed the principal one, viz. that the object of the present petition is designed, and calculated to promote the good of the country, cannot be admitted until it be shown, how it will increase our riches, or diminish our wants; and in order to satisfy us respecting these important points, it is incumbent on them to prove, that the consequence of granting it will be to furnish the necessaries of life at a price considerably less than that at which they can now be obtained. This would certainly diminish our wants; but it will require something stronger than mere specious promises or vaunting declarations, to convince the country, that the granting of this petition will create an abundance; and, without an abundance, it will require more than English credulity to believe, that any reduction can take place in price. Is not every acre, I mean every cultivated acre of land, managed in the best possible way that the present prices of its production will allow? It certainly must be confessed to be so. It is the interest of every tenant to make it so therefore, although it may be possible to force the growth of grain by factitious manures, and expensive processes, yet such a system can only be carried on under the anticipation of better prices and better prices for the necessaries of life will be a paradoxical mode of extending national prosperity. They may render the business of the agriculturist more simple and profitable, but will be quite incompatible with that economy which it is the interest of a country to possess, and the policy of a legislature to promote. Next let us inquire, where are their schemes and projects to be found that are so magically to enrich the nation? Why have they not been promulgated? An appeal made to the people, which promises to render them wealthy and happy, would be sure of a willing acceptance. Instead of encountering difficulties on every side in the execution of so laudable and benevolent a design, they would have met with a universality of co-operation and applause. This is a circumstance not easily explained, and throws a suspicious doubt over their boasted views. The people believe, and believe truly, that if they be deprived of a foreign supply, their subsistence will depend on the precariousness of a season; and they may justly dread the possibility of suffering all the horrors of a famine. In order to smooth the opposition of M trade to their views, they declare, that it is out of the abundant wealth of the agriculturist that it is supported: that the more you let the farmer have, the more you will conduct into the channels of trade. Were this admitted, it would be an argument drawn from intemperance and prodigality only alike at variance with moral virtue, and the wealth of a kingdom. It is accumulation, not waste, that produces wealth. But let us allow this metamorphosis of themselves into the gutters of a nation, along which run the extorted riches of a country, whence, let us ask, were those riches obtained? The answer must be; part from the labouring poor, part from the little tradesman, part from those who blindly calculate what they receive only, without comparing it with what the new order of things obliges them to pay for the maintenance of their families, their rent, and their labor. Nor is this all ; as every man must live by his exertions, so every luxury, as well as every necessary, demanded to gratify the indulgence, or satisfy the wants of the agriculturist, would rise in value with the products of the land, and he would find his increase of income more nominal than real. Hitherto then we have found no proof whatever that any benefit would result to the country if this pe- . tition were granted; and hence we must dismiss their claims to our protection, as far as they rest them on the promotion of public good. Indeed it is much more reasonable to refer human conduct to individual interest, than to suppose it to arise out of overenlarged and generous principles. I shall now enter on the question, under a conviction that it owes its origin and support to the dictates of self-love only; the great mover and director of mankind. The agriculturist complains that he shall inevitably be ruined if no restriction be passed on the importation of grain. He complains that the amount of taxes and tythes, and the expenses of labour, prevent his meeting the competition of the foreign grower. In the first place, it may reasonably be asked, how it is to be explained, that this destructive evil has so suddenly arisen ? or rather, perhaps, why the disastrous calamity has been procrastinated to the present hour, and now, all at once, threatens to overwhelmi the cultivators of the land with undistinguished ruin? Taxes and tythes have not taken an instantaneous rise, although some oppression may be felt from the increase of pauperism: but I 'shall attempt to prove on another occasion, that that increase is independent of the price of grain, and that it springs from causes which, neither this petition, nor an act of the legislature, can much influence. As however the agriculturist has referred his grievances to taxes, and tythes, and labour, it will tend much to elucidate the subject, if we descend from broad, general statements, to the ex amination of a few particulars. The deductions to be made from the returns of the farmer, are interest of capital employed, rent of land, tythe, labor, rates, taxes, living, and contingencies. Let us inquire how many of these expenses and outgoings gradate with the price of his productions, and then we shall discover what proportion the fixed expenses and outgoings bear to the sum total of his return. In doing this numerical calculations would not only be impracticable, but also unnecessary: impracticable, inasmuch as no two farms of the same magnitude are liable to the same expenditure; and unnecessary, as the proportion may be arrived at without them. It is obvious, that the interest of his capital will vary with his rent, his labor, his tythe, and his living; and that all these will vary with the price of the productions of the soil; that is, when he sells his grain dear, (I mean permanently) his rent must be high, because his landlord values his estate by that standard: the labourer will demand more wages; for more money will be wanted to obtain the necessaries of life when corn is at a high price, than when it is cheap. The clergyman will exact a higher commutation for his tythe, or take it in kind; and as the tythe is constantly one-tenth of the produce, it is obvious, that when the whole is worth more money, that the one-tenth must be worth more money also; and lastly, the expenses of his family will be increased in the direct rates of the increase of the value of the products of the land, for every item of his clothing, his furniture, and his luxuries, will rise with the rise of corn; so that in all these respects, the farmer is not benefited by the high price of grain, nor consequently, reasoning conversely, would he be injured if the price were low; for then all his expenses would be low likewise. These considerations clearly demonstrate the futility of the claims of agriculturists to a protecting price, as far as it is intended to counteract the preceding expenses attached to a farm, viz., interest of money, rent, tythe, labour and living. There therefore remains the amount of taxes only as a constant deduction from his return, and which does not vary with the price of grain; but the amount of taxes, although considerable when regarded by itself, forms no important part of his expenditure, when it is compared with the sum of his interest of capital, rent, tythe, labour and living. I speak now of direct taxes, for he is no otherwise affected by indirect taxation, than every other member of the community. If I might freely explain a few circumstances which are vastly more influential over the prosperity of agriculture than every species of taxation, I should direct our attention to the character and establishment of the modern English farmer. This will develope the true cause of this enthusiasm for petitioning, and protecting prices; it will show, that it is not a "falling off" of agricultural profit, but an increase of expenditure, that urges him to this proceeding. He now assumes the manners, and demands the equipage of a gentleman, in all its extravagance; keeps a table like his landlord, anticipates seasons in their productions, is as choice in his wines, in his horses, and his furniture; until playing the pageant for a time, without an income to support it, he wishes for means, and thus he seeks them, to resolve the shadow of a great man into the substance itself. His annual expenses are now greatly more than double what they were a century ago;—I mean double in the value of the currency of that period. The exercise of a proper economy and retrenchment would secure to him now an ample remuneration for his employment of capital. Let him not grasp at an extent of occupation beyond his means and personal attendance; for farms, like empires, may be too extensive to be well managed; and delegated power is subject to abuse. Let him therefore dismiss his steward, a character that a few years back was only known to the great land-owner; and if he will again resume that office himself, he will not only find his expenditure reduced, but his concern more profitably conducted; and instead of degrading the English farmer into a synonyme for prodigality, he will raise him to that respectable place in the rank of society which is at once honorable and becoming. Let him, in the place of asking government to break through every principle of policy, to meet the wishes and expectations of men, who prescribe to themselves no other limits than the unrestrained indulgence of every excess, turn to the imitable picture of the farmer of the last century, "heu ! quantum mutatus ab illo." He knew none of those vain aspirations after greatness. He was his own steward, and his family were useful to him. His daughters, if they knew less of embroidery, or music, or the etiquette of a drawing-room, which was a room not to be found in the dwellings of our frugal agricultural forefathers, yet they were better skilled in the management of a dairy; and his sons could hold a plough, or drive a team, although perhaps they were less acquainted with rearing greyhound puppies, and training pointers, or deciding on the propriety of a toast at a public dinner. The profitable part of this picture distinguishes the family of the continental farmer of the present day, and enables him to appear in our markets under advantages which our half-bred gentlemen agriculturists are incapable" of meeting. These considerations operate more powerfully to the prejudice of the latter than either taxes or tythes; and consume more money than both together. Let us now turn from this parallel, which, in itself, cannot fail to explain much of the motive for demanding protecting duties, and consider the consequences that would follow were their pe |