to return no more-to be expended in employing the labour and promoting the commerce and manufactures of these countries, instead of thy own, it will increase thy wealth and prosperity. What pension wilt thou award, and how many statues of gold wilt thou decree, to the astonishing Philosopher? Seriously does it not surpass all comprehension, that a man who seems not to have been stark-mad-who is evidently as destitute of passion and enthusiasm as a flint should have uttered such absurdities? They not only outrage common sense, but they fly in the teeth of the most decisive demonstration. A single glance from Ireland to England is sufficient to cover them with derision. We thank those who put questions to Mr M'Culloch like that touching the seven-eighths of the landed proprietors. They spurred him up to the very climax of nonsense; they made him stretch the cobweb of his philosophy, until he tore it to tatters; they constrained him to hold up his own doctrines to the ridicule of the most ignorant.

After what we have said, we need not enter into any long refutation of the Economist's doctrine, that, if the English absentees who now dwell in France, were to dwell at home, it would make no difference to England. Here again we have practically the assumption that we send to these absentees their incomes in precisely the commodities which they consume; and, moreover, that we send them taxed commodities-our taxed wine, tea, &c. &c. From the prohibitory system of France, these absentees scarcely add a shilling's worth to our exports of commodities; their incomes are sent them in money, and this constantly does more or less injury to the trade of this country, looking only at the exchanges. Many of them draw their incomes from our taxes; these incomes are raised in precisely the same way in their absence that they would be raised in should they dwell at home; and they are exclusively expended in employing French tradesmen, mechanics, and labourers, and contributing to the French revenue. Many of these incomes are practically paid in this manner. A sum of money is taken from our exchequer, and sent to France in bills; immediately afterwards gold has to be sent to, in effect, take up the bills. If the incomes of these absentees were regu

larly sent them by coach and packet in hard sovereigns, it would be much the same to this country as their present mode of transmission.

We will assume that there are two officers who receive annually from the taxes of this country three hundred pounds each. The one dwells in England, the other in France. Every one knows, that when their incomes are paid, that of the one has operated in its raising, exactly like that of the other, on the industry, &c. of the country. Well, these incomes are paid in sovereigns; the one takes his sovereigns to his dwelling in England; those of the other are in effect sent him by coach and boat to France, for he consumes, by his residence in France, scarcely any of the few commodities which it imports from England. The one who dwells in England immediately expends his sovereigns in employing the English farmer, ploughman, miller, merchant, sailor, grocer, tailor, weaver, &c. &c. He consumes many commodities that are heavily taxed; he occupies a house which pays house and window duty, and of course no small part of his income returns back to the exchequer; he pays poor's rates, and thus contributes to support the poor of his country. But the one who dwells in France, employs only the farmer, &c. &c. of France; he contributes only to the revenue of France; his expenditure, compared with that of the other, is so much clear gain to France, and dead loss to England. Yet in the face of this, Mr M'Culloch asserts that it makes no difference to England whether its absentees dwell at home or in France. Many of the Economists make a great uproar in favour of consumption; they maintain that everything possible should be done to promote it; but here is this wonderful Philosopher confounding production with consumption, and declaring, that if ninetenths of the consumption of this country were annihilated it would produce no public evil.

Such stuff is not worthy the name of paradox; it is silly nonsense, that would disgrace the most ignorant hind in the country. We blush to think that it needs refutation-our cheeks burn with shame when we reflect that it has been listened to by the Parliament of England. The present is called an enlightened age, and this is a portion of the light. Men like Mr M'Culloch

We must now turn to the Philosopher's doctrine, that "almost all great improvements in every country have originated among merchants and manufacturers."

We are not quite so much infatuated with "economics" as Mr M'Culloch, and therefore we must say something more touching these English absentees, before we take our leave of them. When men, merely for the sake of pleasure or some trifling pecuniary saving, abandon their country to dwell constantly in a foreign one, we think the abandonment should be mutual. We think their country should cast them off, when they cast off their country. These mongrels, who are neither fish nor flesh, who are neither English nor French, who, instead of sympathizing with, and benefiting their country, rob and injure it, and who proclaim by their conduct that they prefer another to it, these persons certainly ought not to be placed on a level with the resident population. Some brand should be fixed upon them, by deprivation of privileges, or other means, to hold up their want of English feeling to the scorn of the nation. Many of them, we believe, hold commissions in the army and navy. Now we ask if a man, who has from choice dwelt many years in France, or any other foreign country; who has from choice been for these years cut off from all personal intercourse with his countrymen, be a fit and proper person to hold authority in a ship of war or in the army? We ask if such a man can be expected to have that love of country-those genuine British feelings which are essential in all who wear the British uniform? It ought to be a condition with all who draw their incomes from the public purse, that they should dwell constantly in

Mr M'Culloch and his economic brethren are people who cannot possibly see the whole of anything. Question them touching a watch, and they will tell you that the interior works are useless, and that the dial is alone valuable. Ask them respecting a horse, and they will say that the legs and back are alone useful, and that the bowels are a positive nuisance. To improve machinery, they would destroy the moving power; to coin a farthing they would waste a guinea; to build a jolly-boat, they would pull to pieces a seventy-four; to make some paltry canal, that would scarcely float a washing-tub, they would fill up the ocean. They cannot see that agriculture forms part of a whole along with manufactures and commerce. Oh, no! agriculture is the nuisance-agriculture is the pestilence by which manufactures and commerce are blasted. Ruin the agriculturists, ye merchants and manufacturers-deprive them of the means of buying your goods-and then you will flourish! Glorious times will ye have, ye importers, when the chief part of consumption shall be annihilated a prodigious increase of trade ye will gain, ye manufacturers, by selling one hundred thousand pounds' worth of goods less at home, in order to sell ten thousand pounds' worth more abroad.

The antipathy of the Economists to the landed interest does not, however, proceed altogether from a wish to benefit manufactures and commerce.The country gentlemen keep the magistracy from the hands of philosophic lawyers; the farmers and husbandry labourers cannot well be reached to be filled with "liberal ideas." The landed interest weighs very heavily in Parliament against the new philosophy; it forms a mighty impediment to the liberalizing," or, in other words, to the subverting of our laws and institutions. Its consent is necessary, and it will not give it, to enable the Philosophers to pull to pieces the monarchy. Here is the sore. Here is the cause why it is so desirable for the land

66

holders to dwell out of the country, and why agriculture is so worthless, compared with commerce and manufactures.

With regard to improvements, let us glance at the history of this country. We apprehend that in respect to wealth, as well as other things, it is very necessary for a nation to have a good constitution, and good laws. Now with whom did our constitution and laws originate with the landed interest, or the merchants and manufacturers? Who shed their blood like water to found the glorious structure under which we live? The owners and cultivators of the soil, or history is only fable. We read of the worthy traders of London and other parts being in former times amazingly obsequious to the government, but not of their sacrificing life and property for law and freedom. Once indeed the trading interests of this country did in a great degree get up a revolution in opposition to the landed interest; they triumphed, and what then? They esta blished a military despotism. We are indebted principally to the landed interest for our constitution and laws.

When we look at other nations, we cannot see that any of them has been indebted to its traders for a good system of government. The revolutions of France, Spain, &c., got up as they chiefly were by the inhabitants of towns, were neither wise in principle, nor fruitful of benefit. In the Americas, the brunt of the struggle seems to have been borne by the men of the soil.

Commerce and manufactures owe their origin to the landed interest, and they cannot exist without it. Whatever wealth they may accumulate, they draw from it the chief portion. Why do not the agriculturists accumulate large fortunes like the merchants and manufacturers? Are they less industrious, less frugal, or less able in business? No such thing. The merchant and manufacturer are allowed to obtain the highest profit in their power, while the agriculturist is bound down to the lowest possible. If accident raise him to a level with them, laws are instantly resorted to, to bring him down again. They may charge him what they please, but he must charge them only what the government may suffer. The greatest additions that were ever made to the wealth of this

country were made to it during the war by the agriculturists, when nothing could be employed to prevent the latter from equalling the trading classes in profits. Neither this country, nor any other, was ever rich, when its landed interest was regularly poor; and, in spite of the merchants and manufacturers, if our lauded interest be plunged into poverty, we shall soon cease to be a rich nation. It is ridiculous to ascribe the chief part of public wealth to those things which cannot exist without a landed interest, and which can scarcely contribute a shilling to this wealth without its assistance.

Let us now look at other matters. Who have always been the chief patrons of literature and the arts? The great landholders. Who have always marched at the head of civilization and refinement? The great landholders. Who, by their profuse expenditure, have given the greatest stimulants to inventions and discoveries of every description? The great landholders.

Reasoning on the question seems to be very useless when we look at Ireland. Here is a country, a large part of which has not in reality what is understood by the term, a landed interest. The landlords dwell abroad, and a very few of the cultivators are worthy of being called farmers. This part of Ireland is, to a very great extent, without commerce and manufactures, and it is poor, barbarous, and depraved had it practically possessed a landed interest, the case would undoubtedly have been perfectly different.

:

We say this in favour of the agriculturists, merely on the defensive : far be it from us to undervalue the merchants and manufacturers. When we defend the former we likewise defend the latter. The three form a whole; their joint exertions as a whole, and not the separate ones of any of the parts, have rendered the country what it is. One of the parts may, however, be more valuable than the others; as a man's head, although it forms a part of his body, may be of more worth than his legs or arms. Valuable as commerce and manufactures unquestionably are, agriculture is still more valuable. That is no new doctrine; for it has hitherto been held by all the first authorities of the country. To ruin agriculture for the

benefit of commerce and manufactures would be the same, in our judgment, as to cut off a man's head for the benefit of his legs and arms. And yet nothing less in these days is spoken of. If commerce and manufactures suffer such men as Mr M'Culloch to divide them from, and array them against their parent, they will soon bitterly lament it!

We will now proceed to the question touching the revenue of Ireland.

Why is the land of Ireland exempted from direct taxation? It has two or three distinct landlords to support, and then it is overloaded in the most fearful manner with cultivators. It has so many mouths and purses to provide for, that it cannot contribute anything to the Exchequer. Why is it in this condition? It is placed in it by absenteeism--by the very thing that the Philosopher asserts produces no evil to Ireland. If it had only its owners, and the number of cultivators requisite for its proper culture to support, it could then pay taxes like that of England. This might have been the case with it, had it been under the management of its owners during the war. The high prices would have given capital to the tenant, and the great demand for labour, and high wages in this country, would have taken off the surplus hands.

Let us now turn to indirect taxation. A vast portion of the Irish cultivators, from the extortions of their various landlords, and the smallness of their allotments of land, can neither consume taxed commodities, nor employ those who do consume them. Let any man place before him two English farmers-the one paying a rackrent, and the other a very moderate one-and mark the difference between them in consumption. The consumption of the one in utensils is almost double that of the other. The one keeps his family well and respectably clothed; the other expends nothing in the clothing of his family beyond what is wrung from him by necessity. The one often has friends to visit him; he consumes much taxed liquor, tea, sugar, currants, spices, &c.: the other rarely has visitors; he lives principally on the plainest produce of his farm, and he expends the least possible in taxed commodities. The one employs more labourers than the other, and he geVOL. XIX.

nerally pays higher wages. The farmer, who is a great consumer, benefits the revenue infinitely beyond the amount of duty which is paid by what he consumes. He employs the village blacksmith, carpenter, tailor, &c.; he employs the producers and distributors of the commodities, and he thereby enables them to consume.

In the examination, Scotland was brought into contrast with Ireland. Now, how stands the case with Scotland? Its land is not overrented, or overloaded with occupiers. The farmers are good consumers of taxed commodities, and by this they create a vast number of other consumers.

Ireland, unlike England and Scotland, exports a large portion of its agricultural produce; its exports, to a great extent, consist of such produce which, as we have shown, causes the most trifling consumption of taxed commodities in its raising and shipment. The exports of Scotland consist chiefly of manufactured goods. These exports employ the agriculturists, who are in proportion far greater consumers of taxed commodities than the Irish agriculturists, and in addition they employ the manufacturers, traders, &c. who are very great consumers of such commodities. The exports of Ireland, to a large extent, employ the agriculturists alone. Now, if Ireland were like Scotland-if its land were not over-rented, and had no more than the requisite number of cultivators to maintain-and if it had a sufficient number of manufacturers, traders, &c. to consume the whole, or nearly the whole of its agricultural produce-how would this operate on the matter before us? The agricul turists, though greatly diminished in number, would consume about as many taxed commodities as they consume at present, and there would be an immense host of manufacturers, traders, &c. created to join them in such consumption. Ireland might then stand on a par with Scotland in its contributions to the revenue.

If the Irish peasantry should dwell in decent houses built by the regular builders should have these houses decently furnished by the regular makers of furniture-should keep themselves decently clad, in clothing supplied by the regular manufacturers and makers-should regularly burn coals should regularly consume tea, su

K

gar, dried fruit, spices, &c. &c. would not this employ a mighty number of manufacturers, tradesmen, mechanics, &c. who cannot now exist in Ireland? Why cannot this peasantry do this in an equal degree with the peasantry of Britain? Look for an answer to the per centage agents and middlemen -or other words to absenteeism.

It is said that the depravity and turbulence of the Irish peasantry prevent British capital from establishing manufactures, &c. in some of the most distressed parts of Ireland. This depravity and turbulence must be ascribed in a great degree to the per centage agents and middlemen. The latter divest the cultivators of capital, the land must then of necessity be divided into the smallest portions, and, the cultivators must be poor, ignorant, idle, and without control. Look at an English estate. The conduct of the farmers is constantly under the eye and control of the landlord, or the agent who acts under his directions: the farmers are men of property and respectability, and the conduct of the remainder of the inhabitants is under their eye and control. What is the consequence? Our village population is kept in the very best order without a single salaried peace-officer without a single individual's being regularly employed in preserving the peace. Look at the Irish estate of the Duke of Devonshire, which appears to be managed to a great extent after the English fashion. Upon it turbulence and outrage are said to be unknown. On this point, and with regard to the employment of so great a number of troops, absenteeism is still the great cause. grant the tremendous authority of the Catholic Priests, but nevertheless, a landlord can let his land to whom he pleases; he can let it wholly to Protestants, or to such Catholics ONLY as will be peaceable and orderly.

We

We will here offer no comment on Mr M'Culloch's opinions touching the Poor Laws. We promised a Paper on these Laws some time since, and our promise is yet unperformed, solely because we think such topies possess the greatest interest when Parliament is assembled; it will not long remain unperformed.

We have only space to touch very briefly on two other parts of the Philosopher's evidence. He states that

government ought to establish schools in Ireland, to teach what-the leading principles of religion and morals? No! To teach children between seven and thirteen "the elementary principles which show how wages are determined, or on what the condition of the poor must depend!" Now, let Parliament look at the Combinations in Britain and Ireland, and it will discover that in both countries the labouring classes are perfectly familiar with these principles already. The weavers of England, the colliers of Scotland, and the gas-men of Ireland, -the most uncultivated "operatives," know perfectly, that if there be too many of them in their calling, it makes wages bad and work scarce. Several of the Combinations have made and enforced laws expressly to keep apprentices and others out of their callings-or, in other words, to prevent labour from becoming superabundant in these callings. The teaching of such principles to the labouring population can have no other practical effect than Combination. What effect have the doctrines touching capital and labour had among the labouring classes? They have caused labour to make war upon capital. Every labouring man, we believe, always knows that, if his wages be bad, or if he cannot procure employment, there are too many labourers in his vocation; but whether he knows this or not, it is a matter of no consequence to him unless the knowledge lead him to Combination. If he do not resort to this, he can apply no remedy to the evil so far as it affects his own occupation. We really think there is no necessity whatever for Parliament to establish schools to teach the working classes to form themselves into Combinations.

With regard to teaching children at school, that if they marry too soon, they will do themselves great injury -this we think is equally unnecessary. Almost all our young people throughout our labouring population have this continually rung in their ears, from their infancy to the time of their marriage, by parents and every one else and they profit from it very little. People are impelled to marry at too early an age, by a passion which Political Economy can neither extinguish nor regulate-by a passion which laughs to scorn reason, instruc