ceive, that, though the destruction of commerce might be a good to the nation, it would infallibly be what he would think ruin to himself. As if he had said, "What! "would you, at this time, when Buonaparté is attacking our commerce; would Jook upon such destruction as ruiuous to our power; will not his terms of peace be made accordingly? Will he not treat with us as with a town besieged, which, sooner or later, must yield? Will not the peace be what the peace of Amiens was, a capitulation And will it not be a capitulation upon still harder terms? But, if, on the contrary; the enemy be convinced, or, if he find that we be convinced, that his war against our commerce, though it may produce partial individual distress, will, in the end render our country more powerful against her enemies and more prosperous at home; will he not be inclined to listen to terms of peace such as a powerful nation has a right to propose? Such as a nation that fears him not, and that has no reason to fear him, ought alone to submit to? The French politicians say, that we derive from the East-Indies the means of subsidizing the kings and princes of Europe; that is to say, the means of carrying on war against France upon the Continent; and, they are not much to blame for saying so, seeing that we ourselves have taught them the creed. But, if Mr. Spence and I have proved, as I think we have, that we derive no national wealth from the East Indies; that our means of carrying on war, of granting subsidies, and the like, are all derived from our land and our labour; then the French politicians will entertain no hope of conquering us by the destruction of our Indian domination; and we shall entertain no fear upon the subject. The East India Company, with their locustIke swarm of unfledged nabobs, may, indeed, derive little consolation from the conviction that England would be happier and more powerful without commerce than with it; but, it certainly will not be so with the nation at large, which must derive satisfac-perity of the fox implies the destruction of tion at being convinced, that the means, by which the enemy is endeavouring to bring us to his feet, will do us good instead of harm, will raise us instead of sinking us. Either our opinions will be adopted, or they will not. If the latter, then they will do no harm, and the time of their promulgation is of no consequence: if the former, then, they will tend to abate the hopes, which our enemy entertains from his present attacks upon our commerce, and also to abate our fears upon that score; and, therefore, this time is better than any other, at which to promulgate such opinions. This is so obviously true, that I cannot help thinking, that my correspondent B. whose letter will be found below, must have a feeling here of a private nature; that, like the East India Company, he must per you avail yourselves of this favourable "time, to convince the people that our pro"fitable trade is injurious to them?" I cannot say, that I much blame him. It is perfectly natural for every man to think of himself; but, being myself convinced of the truth of the opinions promulgated by me, it behoves me to point out the probable motives which lead to the opposing of those opinions.The IInd. objection, namely, that we have drawn invidious distinctions between persons employed in agriculture and those employed in manufactures and commerce, is not founded in fact. My correspondent A, whose letter will be found be low, says, you will not deny, that the la"bourer of the plough and the loom are "brethren of the same family." When have I said any thing, whence such a denial could be inferred? When have I attempted to ascribe exclusive merit to persons employed in agriculture? When have I said, or insiruated, that persons employed in arts, manufactures and commerce were less to be esteemed? There are, indeed, certain descriptions of men, who have grown out of commerce as weeds grow out of a rank soil, of whom I have spoken with every mark of disrespect; but, this has been, because, from their public acts, it was manifest, that they were actuated by motives hostile to the happiness and honour of the country; and, in other cases, because their prosperity as necessarily implied the decline and the approaching fall of the country, as the pros the sheep. When I reflect, I cannot say that I blame the fox; but, I would get rid of him if I could; and, in the meanwhile, it is not reasonable to expect me to speak of him in those terms, wherein I speak of the sheep. Let us suppose two men, Tom and DICK, both in the same circumstances, and each having a son. Tom destines his to follow the plough, as his fathers have done before him; but, Dick, hearing that for tunes are made in India, without care, labour, talents, or virtue of any sort, packs off his son to Bengal. Now, it is impossible for me not to speak of Tom with more res pect than I do of Dick; and, it is equally impossible for me to like the son of Dick, with all his wealth, half so well as I do the son of Tom; especially when I reflect, that the latter, by his labour, or care, or talents, has contributed towards the real wealth of the nation, while the former has been doing nothing but enriching himself out of the labour of others, those others, too, being his own countrymen, aud, amongst the rest the son of Tom, who, all the while, has perceived nothing of the operation, by which a part of his earnings have been converted into parks and coaches for his old playmate.-These distinctions I cannot help making. They are naturally made in the mind of every man; and, if I am at all singular, in this respect, the singularity consists in this, that, while, from various causes, others do not utter their sentiments, I freely utter mine. But, never have I, upon any occasion, claimed exclusive merit for those who are employed in the cultivation of land, knowing, as I do, that they form not one fourth part of the nation, and knowing also, that their Occupation is not less necessary than the occupations of others; that the coat is as necessary to me as the loaf, and that, once out of a state of mere nature, the weaver is as useful as the cultivator of the land.-- Aş to Mr Spence, he has expressed himself very explicitly upon this point. "Let it not be imagined," says he, "from any thing which has been observed, that it is meant to be inferred, that the character-of "merchant, individually considered, is not as estimable and as honourable as of any "other member of society. Though it is the farmer who brings into existence all "wealth, and the land proprietor who dispenses the greatest share of it; yet, as the "views of both are private advantage, not the public good, neither the one nor the "other, is on this score entitled to any me rit. Self interest is the impulse which "directs the industry of every branch of "the community, and, in general, bonest "obedience to this guide, will most effectually promote the advantage of society." One of my correspondents, remonstrated with me, some time ago, as with a far mer; it may, therefore, be of use to observe here, that I am not one; that, in all likeli. hood, I never shall be one; and, that, of course, I am perfectly disinterested upon that score.-—————— -The IIIrd. objection, that is to say, respecting the relative importance of the value, in a national point of view, of agriculture and manufactures, seems to me to have originated in a misconception of what has been said by myself, and by the author from whom I have, in former articles upon this subject, so liberally quoted. My correspondent A. asks, in his 4th paragraph: "Will any rational inquirer say, that riches, greatness, and happiness depend upon | 66 venue, raised from the manufacture of "cotton?" My correspondent B. says, in his 2d paragraph, that "agriculture itself is only a species of manufacture; that the "manufacture of the spade and the plough must even precede agriculture; that nothing is more absurd, than to give one species of manufacture a preference be"fore another; that it is evidently more "advantageous to society to employ part of "the people exclusively in manufactures," In his 3d paragraph, he says, that "tools are as necessary to the husbandman as "bread to the smith." In his 5th paragraph he says, "that did we exercise every other "species of manufacture, the total loss of "agriculture would be of little conse quence." This last proposition is so monstrous, that I cannot bring myself to give it a serious answer; and, shall only bestow a remark or two upon the examples, quoted by B. of the Syriaus, who lived in plenty upon a barren rock, and the Italians, who, if Smollet may be believed (which is not always the case), were starving amidst fields, which, to produce plentiful crops, required merely to be scratched. B. need not have gone to Tyre; he might have stopped at Gibraltar, where, upon a rock of sand stone, the people live in great abundance and even luxury, through the medium of commerce. But, is it commerce that creates what they live upon? No: it is the land and the labour of England. Some of their provisions go directly from England and Ireland in kind; others are brought from the states of Barbary, purchased there with the amount of goods made by persons who have lived upon food raised here; and, if these persons had been employed in raising food to send to Gibraltar, instead of making goods to send to Barbary, the only difference would have been, that we should have bad here so many more agriculturalists and so many less manu facturers, which, as the former would have been a more hale and stout scrt of men than the latter, and also less exposed to those vi ces, which the congregating of men nevet fails to produce, would have been a desirable thing, would have rendered the nation better and more powerful than it now is.—— Now, to take the other propositions in their due order, when have I said, that all riches and greatness and happiness depend solely upon agriculture? Nowhere. I have only said, that agriculture is the only source of national wealth; and, I think, it is pretty myself have written upon the subject. Therefore, previous to the making, in answer to us, of assertions like those last quo evident, that, if we had nothing to eat, we should soon have nothing else, in this world, at any rate.No, agriculture, alone, would not have made such a place as Man-ted, B. should have made an attempt, at chester; but, supposing such a place to be a national good (which, however, I deny), it could not have been made, unless people had first eaten.I do say again," that taxes are the fruit of the land and labour of the nation But, did any one, except A, imagine, that I meant agricultural labour only I never said so; and, the coupling of the land along with the labour as a source of revenue arose from this circumstance, that the land, of itself, without any labour at all, produces many things for the subsistence of man.-There certainly is fruit, or revenue, arising from the manufacture of cotton; but, this is answered in the preceding sentence.--As to B's saying, that the manufacture of the spade and the plough must precede agriculture, I may say, that the smith must eat; before he can make the spade and the plough. But, indeed, this is mere trifling; and I have given no provocation for any of these rather petulant remarks; for, I have no where given a preference to one species of labour over another; nothing so absurd ever fell from my pen, as that a part of the people ought not to be exclusively employed in manufactures; nothing so intolerably foolish, as that tools and cloths and houses were not as necessary to the husbandman as bread to the smith and the weaver and the carpenter. Nothing was ever said by me, that could have been tortured into such a meaning. The object contended for by me, was, that we stood in no need of commerce; and, special care has always been ⚫ taken to define what I mean by that word, namely, a trade with foreign nations; and, in order to make this position clear, it was necessary to show, that our resources were within ourselves, and, in order to do that, it was necessary to trace back every species of wealth to this land, which we inhabit, and which will lose none of its qualities by the loss of commerce. But, B, after having insisted upon what nobody denied, that manufactures and agriculture were necessary to each other, drops down upon us, all at once, with these propositions, to wit: "the rela . tions between nations and individuals are "the same: the more extensive the ex change the greater the advantage." I should not deny the sequel, perhaps, if confined to individuals; but, I flatly deny the first proposition, opposed to which, as conneandmid the previous undeniable asser ever sentence and word, that Mr. Spence, and that I least, to refute our doctrine, and which attempt he has not made. The exchange between individuals is absolutely necessary to their existence; for the farmer must have cloths and tools and buildings, or he ceases to farm, and to live. But, is there this absolute necessity with respect to wine, tobacco, coffee, sugar, cotton, brandy, or any other thing, which we import? It is evident, that there is not; and, that, therefore, the relations between individuals and nations are not the same.What B. says, in his 6th paragraph, except as far as relates to the navy, requires no answer, consisting, as it does, of mere assertions, unsupported by any shew of argument, and which assertions, if our reasoning be sound, are, of course, erroneous. I am of opinion, that, greatly to diminish our commerce, would give new life to useful industry and would cause many to labour who now live in idleness; that it must tend to elevate agriculture and every species of useful manufacture; and that it would exalt human nature itself, by banishing from amongst us a part, at least, of that effeminacy, and of those corruptions, which now issue from the metropolis and other trading places, as from another Pandora's box, to vitiate the country. These my opinions, if unsupported by reasons, are full as good as B's assertions; but, I have given my reasons, and of those reasons he has not attempted to show the erroneousness,—— We now come to the IVth objection, to wit; respecting the basis of Mr. Spence's doctrine, that agriculture is the real and only source of national wealth. This was attacked by my correspondent, WROC, whose letter will be found in page, 760. He has been answered, as to this point by my correspondent C, whose letter is contained in the present sheet, where, in the 1st and 2nd paragraph, I think, the reader will find quite enough to satisfy him upon this part of the subject.-V. Respecting the wealth which a nation derives from foreign commerce--But C, who clearly enough perceives and shows, that, in the making of the coach to be used by the land-owner (See Mr. Spence, in Register, page 709), no creation of wealth would take place, yet imagines, and endeavours to prove, in his 3d, 4th, and 5th paragraphs, that, if exported by C. (who supposes himself a merchant for the purpose), and producing a profit to him, in consequence of his bringing back tea, sugar, and wine in exchange, a creation of national wealth would take place. upon a level with him, enable you to vie with him, and even surpass him, in riches and, in time, with the aid of taxation, make you the owner of his estate, I allow. Whether this be a good or an evil shall hereafter be discussed; but, I think, it must be evident, that neither of you can, by any of your operations, produce, in a country, whose soil affords a sufficiency of subsistence, any addition to the national wealth, seeing that whatever you gain, the Landowner (to keep up the illustration we started with) must lose.---B. says, in his 6th, paragraph, that nations cannot now be powerful without riches. I do not very well comprehend the object of this remark; and, it appears to me to have been useless, until it was shown, that our doctrine, respecting national wealth, was not sound. Nations never could be powerful without riches; but, power is a relative quality; and we contend, that commerce does not add to our national riches." What great sums," exclaims A. in his 4th paragraph, "have "been raised from the market of América "and Africa! And who will say, that the "foreign consumer does not contribute. to The case supposed is this. There is no coin nor any other representative of valuable things in the country. All is done by barter. The Coachmaker makes a coach for the Landowner, and receives 60 quarters of wheat for it. He barters another for 60 quarters to the Merchant, who sends it abroad and bar. ters it for 80 quarters; and, bringing home -the proceeds in wine (let us take only ope article for the sake of clearness), is, of course, the richer for the operation. But, is this the case with the nation? Has its wealth been increased? C, the merchant, says, that it has; because there are clearly 20 quarters, in property of some sort, no matter what, brought into the country, 10 of which he expends, and 10 he has in clear profits to lay out upon objects of permanent national wealth. Observe, that it has required 10 quarters to keep himself, family, mariners, and so forth; but, he has still his ten quarters in clear profit, and thus, he says, he has caused, by his mercantile transactions, an addition to the national wealth to that amount, But, has he not stopped rather too soon in his researches? From whom does this profit come? Suppose he barters his wine with the Landowner, does not the Landowner give him the profit? And, that which he gains does not the Landowner fose just the same as in the case of the Coachmaker and the Landowner? Yes, just the same, with this exception, that the Landowner gets from him a perishable, not to say pernicious commodity, instead of a commodity, which, though not contributing much to national strength, is not nearly so perishable.But, says C., the merchant, I have clearly effected a creation of national wealth, because the Landowner would have given 80 quarters to any foreigner for the wine. Very well, but what would that foreigner do? Why, take away a coach to the amount of 80 quarters, leaving, in the former proportion, a profit of something more than 13 quarters to the Coachmaker, and carrying the rest away. Well, then, says the merchant, those seventeen quarters, after keep-haps, that he does not mean woollens, which ing himself and family and paying his mercantile expences, will go to the making of honses and other objects of national wealth in his country, instead of remaining here, in my hands, to make an addition to the wealth of this. Yes, Sir, but what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. You would do the same with respect to his country. What one country got the other would lose. That you and your brother merchant would grow rich by this trathc, that your profits, drawn from the Landowner, would put you our taxes." I have shown, page 821 and. 822 of the present volume, that it is but a trifle comparatively speaking, that is raised, upon the whole, through the custom house, and that that is raised upon ourselves. To! make this matter a little plainer, suppose woollen cloth to the amount of a hundred pounds, prime cost, to be exported to Ame.. rica, and a return to be made in tobacco. › The exporter gets, for his hundred poundsworth of cloth, as much tobacco as he sells › in England for three hundred pounds; but, of this three hundred. one hundred and eighty is paid at the custom house in duty. And do not we, who consume the tobacco pay, in the end, the whole of the three hundred pounds? This is a pretty way of making foreigners contribute to our taxes! This is the way of raising taxes from the American market," and this answer will, I hope, serve for all the rest. But, A will say, per are not taxed here, but cottons, which are taxed here, and which are exported, after they have paid the tax in England. This would be a very ingenious way of raising taxes upon foreigners; but, besides, that, if carried to any length, competition must very soon render it abortive, the exporter must bring back goods surpassing in amount the cottons exported, which goods are taxed at the custom-house; so that, in the end, we pay all the taxes imposed, upon the exported as well as the imported goods.--The VI. der the head above-mentioned, though in scarcely any one of these villages is there a single person whose employment arises from commerce, by which I always mean, trade with foreign nations. I have made an average of ten villages and two towns of this description, and, I find, that the numbers, thus returned, make a sixth part of their whole population. Sup-posing this to be the case all over the kingdom; and, I dare say it is, for it is the invariable custom to call shop-keepers tradespeople, the fact will appear to be, that, out of a population of nearly eleven millions, there are not above 1,400,000, including the wives and children, employed in manufac tures and merchandize; subtract from these five sevenths, at least, employed in manu objection, which is suggested by W. F. S. in page 855, relates to the throwing out of em ployment, a great number of persons, who now find employment through the means of commerce. An answer to this objection will, I think, be found, in the preceding number of the Register, from page 835 to page 839 inclusive; and, I am not without some hope, that, if W. F. S. had read those pages (indeed he could not, for they appeared in the same sheet with his excellent letter), he would have been nearly satisfied upon this point. But, there is one error of his, which I am certain he will thank me for correcting, and the correcting of which will, I am disposed to think, remove all bis apprehensions upon this score. He thinks it probable, that the number of persons, thrown out of employment by a stoppage to all ex-facturing for home consumption, and there port of manufactures, would be four or five millions, and that all these would be added to the present lamentable list of mendicants, Were this the case; were there any such probability. I should not, I hope, ever have uttered, with satisfaction, the words " perish commerce!" The fact is this, that of the 10,942,646 persons of which the population of Great Britain consists, there are only 2,136,726, employed in trade, manufactures, and handicraft, including observe, not only the actual workers, but their wives and children also. Now, then, go into any village or town, look about you, see how many persons there are employed as smiths, carpenters, bricklayers, masons, tailors, shoemakers, wheel-wrights, mill-wrights, and so forth; then deduct these, together with all the persons employed in trade for home consumption; do this, and you will find, that the poputation employed in manufactures for exportation is a mere trifle compared with the whole population. Observe, that all the grocers, all the linen and woollen drapers, all the shop keepers, in short of every description are included. I could prove this from the returns given of twenty inland towns and villages that I am iutimately acquainted with. The population of the village of Botley, for instance, is stated at a total of 614, and the number of persons chiefly employed in trade, manufactures and handicraft is stated at 420, when there is not one man, woman, or child employed in any thing relating to manufactures. nor to foreign trade, except, perhaps, about a dozen men, who make, in the coppice-cutting season, hoops for the West Indies, there to be used in making su-. gar and rum casks. This is a strong instance to be sure; but, in looking at the returns of all the villages that I am well acquainted with, there are many persons put down un are, including merchants and their wives and children, 400,000 persons subsisting through the medium of commerce, instead of the four or five millions, supposed by W. F. S. so to be subsisting. Indeed, one has but to think for a moment to be convinced, that this must be the case; for, how numerous are our mutual wants; how vast this field of employment amongst ourselves; and, what could become of goods if millions were employed in making them to be put into ships? How seldom, comparatively speaking, do we see a manufactory, if we travel through the whole of England? - The truth is, that manufacturers, like merchants, congregate, those who congregate always appear the most numerous, while those who estimate are too often, indeed almost always, guided by that appearance. We hear, too, of Sir Robert Peele with his thousands of spinners; of some other great manufacturer with his thousands; then we are told of Manchester and Birmingham; and then, totally forgetting home consumption, we cry out, such is the effect of commerce, " and, if commerce go, all these persons are "starved." But, above all, we forget how long it is before thousands amount to millions, and how trifling every single description of persons is, compared to that mass which constitutes a nation.Pitt, whose glory it was to extend our commerce, added more than 400,000 to the list of our paupers: but, I cannot cooly look forward to such an addition; and, I have endeavoured to shew, in the pages above referred to, that there would not, upon a general scale, be any considerable addition to the paupers, or, at least, to the poor-rates. Commerce can not go all at once. One branch would die at a time. Manufacturers would first cease to increase; those who were but in their be |