495

TO THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL,

ON MR. HEATHFIELD'S PLAN FOR PAYING OFF THE NATIONAL

DEBT.

(Political Register, April, 1820.)

London, 18th April, 1820.

MY LORD,

Rather more than sixteen years ago, I, in a letter addressed to Mr. ADDINGTON, who then filled the office which you now fill, observed, that the " Fund-Monster would, if not arrested in his course in time, totally destroy the liberties of this country, and, in the end, level all ranks "in society." Whether any part of this prediction has been fulfilled already, I shall leave others to say, that being, "under existing circumstances," the safest course to pursue. Nor shall I say, whether the other part is in a fair way of fulfilment. But a plan having been published for paying off the debt, and this plan being very popular, and being likely to be acted upon, I beg leave to offer to your Lordship some remarks upon that plan.

The principle upon which Mr. HEATHFIELD proceeds is this: that the fundholder is to be viewed, in all respects, as a creditor in private life is viewed; that he has lent his money on mortgage; that he has a real lien, or tie, or hold, in the nature of a mortgage, which runs over all the property, real and personal, that is to be found in any and every part of the king's European dominions; and that, consequently, when a gentleman of this class rides from London to York, on the top of a stage-coach, he, in looking over parks, manors and chases, consistently and truly says, "I am part owner of all these, and my title is as good, and, perhaps, more clear, than the title of those who call these estates their own." And, further, that the mortgage of the fundholder is better than that of any other person; that it has a claim prior to all other mortgages upon the same estate; that it is good against life-holds, as well as against possession in fee-simple; and that, in short, no man can, in strict propriety of language, call any thing his own, not even the shirt on his back, until this mortgage be paid off. Some have doubted whether "public faith" would compel the people to give up their wearing apparel; but as to house and land, and stock in trade, and household furniture, and cattle of all sorts, there appears to be no doubt at all; and, by common consent, the fundholder seems to have a real mortgage on all these.

As to the correctness of these principles, I must confess, that I have always doubted, and my doubts still remain. But, this has nothing to do with the matter. It does not signify what I think, or wish. It is what is likely to be done that is now the interesting question; and, in order to come at something like a correct opinion as to what is likely to be done, it seems to me necessary to inquire a little into what can be done in the way of paying off the debt.

Mr. Heathfield, not appearing to doubt of the ready admission of the

fundholders' claim, proceeds to inquire, whether it be proper and convenient to pay it off, and, having settled the question in the affirmative, he next looks into the nature, extent, and value of things mortgaged. And, with the greatest fairness, and with a coolness which is quite admirable, he settles the rate or portion at which men's estates are to be taken from them, and sold for the benefit of the mortgagees.

I beg leave, here, to observe, that I am far from disapproving of this "general contribution," as Mr. Heathfield calls it. For, how does the case stand? It is well known that the late wars were undertaken and carried on for the preservation of rank, property, and religion. We are the most cheated nation on earth, if that was not the case. We know that the wars never could have been carried on but by the means of borrowed money. Therefore, those who lent that money have a right to say, that it was they who, in fact, preserved the rank, property, and religion of the country. Certainly, then, it would be injustice in the extreme, for the nobility, gentry, and clergy, and other people of property, to refuse to pay those who thus lent their money. This is so clear, that there can, I think, be no doubt upon the subject. I am aware that I may be told, that I formerly held opinions different from this. But, my lord, if time have not taught me wisdom, it has (as to this matter, at least) taught me something else, quite as useful, "in existing circumstances," as any wisdom in the world. I, therefore, admit the freeholders' claim on the lands, at least; because, whatever else might be said about the matter, I do not see that the people would receive any injury at all from a part (and a large part it must be) of the land being placed in the hands of the fundholders.

But, though I agree with Mr. Heathfield in the justice of the claim, and though I wish him success, with all my heart, in obtaining full satisfaction of the Debt due to the fundholders, I must be allowed to say, that I think him greatly deceived as to the amount of the means. And yet this is a capital point; for, if the nation's property be mortgaged for more than the worth, what is then to become of a part of the claim? Indeed the fundholders may take all the lands, houses, mines and canals, and that ought to satisfy them; but I am not sure that it would. However, imprisonment on the mortgage lands would be out of the question. The mortgagees must take the estates, and there would be an end of the

matter.

Mr. Heathfield, in his estimate of the means, or assets, follows, or rather takes, that of 'Mr. (now Doctor) COLQUHOUN. How this great and able Thief-detecting Justice came at his grounds of estimate, your Lordship may possibly know. But whether he found them in the Bowstreet Police-office, or in that of the Thames, I am quite sure that his estimate is as false as any of the thieves he ever had to deal with. His thief-estimate, which represented every third soul met in the streets of London as a criminal in the eye of the law, was a bold adventure enough; but, nothing compared with his estimate of the property of the kingdom. If the writing of two such books did not make a man worthy of having the title of Doctor, I do not know what would.

Upon the authority of this Police-Doctor, Mr. Heathfield supposes the property of the kingdom to be worth 2500 millions! The Doctor, indeed, says 2740 millions; but Mr. Heathfield likes round numbers, and very liberally throws off 240 millions. In this estimate all property is included, and the estimate was made in 1812, when, as every one well

knows, property was worth nearly, if not quite, twice as much, nominally, as it is now. Wheat was almost double its present price, and almost all other things were in the same proportion. So that, in this respect, Mr. Heathfield has not dealt fairly either by the Police-Doctor or by the public. When the Doctor made his estimate the pound-note was worth about 15s., and it is now (as long as people will take it) worth nearly 20s. Rents have greatly fallen since the Doctor's estimate was made. So that, on this view of the matter, we cannot, even if we look upon the Doctor as having been correct, look upon the value of the things mortgaged as exceeding 1800 millions.

But, I dispute and disclaim and reject the Doctor's estimate altogether, while I thank him for getting made a Doctor, as it spares me the trouble of writing his long and ugly name. He has no grounds for his estimate even of the value of the houses and the lands; and how is any man in his senses to believe it possible for any human being to make any thing like a correct estimate of the value of stock in trade, household goods, cattle, sheep, pigs, rabbits, and all other manifold things which constitute the property of a whole people? I shall offer no such whimsical estimate; but shall produce some rational grounds for te estimate that I have to present upon the subject.

In 1804 an account of the annual rental of England and Wales was printed by order of the House of Commons. That rental, including all real property, houses, buildings of all kinds, lands of all kinds, mines and canals, amounted to thirty-eight millions. Taking Scotland and Ireland, according to the sum total of taxes that they yielded, the whole kingdom, at that time, would have yielded a rental of forty-nine millions. Now, looking at the average price of wheat for seven years previous to 1803, when the facts for making out this account were collected, and, comparing that average with the average of the seven years which have just now passed, we shall be able to form something like a judgment of what the real property of the whole kingdom is now worth.

It

The rental, as all the world knows, is the true criterion of value. is not what an owner fancies a farm to be worth; nor what he thinks it worth; nor what value he puts upon it, but what it will bring. Tithes, of course, are included in the rental of the nation; that is to say, their annual worth. So that, when we know the real annual rack-rent of all the houses, buildings, lands, mines, canals, and tithes, we can easily say what they are worth in the fee-simple.

The rental of all these, in the whole kingdom, in 1804, or, rather, in 1803, amounted to forty-nine millions. But, in order to know what that rental is now, we must see what had, for seven years previous to 1803, been the average price of wheat, and what that average has been for the last seven years. During the seven years previous to 1803, the average price of wheat had been fourteen shillings a bushel. During the seven years which have just now passed, the average price of wheat has been nine shillings. So that, if the rental amounted to forty-nine millions in 1803, it now amounts to thirty-one millions. And, indeed, can any one believe, that it amounts to more, when we hear it declared, from various parts of England, that the poor-rates exceed in amount the rack-rent of the property assessed? The fact is notorious, that the rents have, in reality, fallen nearly one-half in many parts; and we estimate, therefore, very highly, if we take the whole rental at thirty-one millions.

Now, then, as to the worth of this property, that yields such a rental, what can it be? Houses and buildings are not worth twelve years purchase. Mines and canals may be worth as many years purchase as the houses. The land may be worth 26 years, supposing perfect confidence to exist; but it is not worth that at present. And, taking the whole together, it cannot be worth more than about seventeen or eighteen years purchase. However, allow it to be worth 18 years purchase, then the capital, or fee-simple, is worth five hundred and fifty-eight millions.

This is a result very different indeed from that on which Mr. Heathfield proceeds. He supposes the real property to be worth 1,250 millions, and he does not include the tithes that I can perceive! But, he really has no foundation on which to go; his is mere guess-work; and the roughest guess it is, that ever was made by mortal man. As to the other property; I mean property other than real property, how is it possible to come at it? We shall, by-and-by see, what would be the difficulties in getting at the real property; but, as to the personals, who can invent a scheme of seizing hold of them, or even of ascertaining their value, were it only in one single parish?

Mr. Heathfield proposes first to make his assessment; then to tell each man how much he has to give up; then to take the amount from him by instalments; and, with the money, pay off the fundholders. However, is it, my Lord, worth while to proceed? We will; but first let us take a large view of the thing. Here is a nation with all its property mortgaged. No matter who are the mortgagees, though we are constantly told, that the mortgage is no inconvenience to us, because some of us are the mortgagees; that we owe the debt to each other, and that, therefore, the nation, upon the whole, is neither richer nor poorer on account of the debt. These were very pretty notions for about ten years ago; but, they are now grown out of vogue. We do now find, that somehow, or other, the debt is a great inconvenience; and that, unless it can be lessened, we cannot get on.

Here, then, we are inventing schemes to pay off a mortgage. And, why are we so eager to pay off this mortgage now? We went on contracting the mortgage; adding to its weight; increasing it, in all sorts of ways; and, what is more, those who expressed their alarm at this, were either laughed at as fools, or punished (in some way or other) as disaffected and disloyal persons. But, now, all of a sudden, we are frightened at the amount of the mortgage, and wish to pay it off? And why? Because we are reduced to misery by the payment of the interest! We cannot pay the interest any longer, without total ruin, and without real starvation to millions. And, therefore, we propose to pay off the principal! What makes us unable to pay the interest? Why, our want of a sufficient income; our want of a sufficiency of means; our poverty, in short. And yet it is presumed, that we are rich enough to pay off the principal!

Suppose me (I wish it were nothing other than supposition) to have a mortgage upon my estate, which, owing to the diminution of the quantity of paper-money, and the consequent fall in prices, will not let for enough to pay the interest in full, and that the mortgagee wants his interest duly paid up. What would any man think of me, if I were to talk of getting rid of my incumbrance by paying off the principal of the mortgage? He would think me mad, to be sure. He would seize the estate, and let me get on as I could.

Now, it is very certain, that, upon the principle of Mr. Heathfield; namely, that the fundholders have a mortgage upon all the land and houses, and from which principle I by no means venture to dissent; upon this principle, my above supposed situation, is the situation of every owner (or supposed owner) of real property in this kingdom; seeing that the whole of the real property is worth only about five or six hundred millions, and that the amount of the mortgage which the fundholders have on that property, is about nine hundred millions.

Your Lordship may possibly, and Mr. Heathfield will certainly, say: "How can this be: how can the real property be worth so little, when "we see, that the interest of the nine hundred millions is now duly paid, "though with difficulty; and we see, that the landholders live very "well besides ?" Aye, but this interest is not now paid by them, who pay indeed, but a very, very small part of it. It is paid chiefly, now, out of the earnings of labour ! But, if we come to pay off, the assessors will find, that they have, in labour, nothing to seize. Labour lies in the bones, muscles, blood, and flesh and brains; and they cannot take part of these away. They cannot put these up to sale. They cannot exchange these for stock, either threes or fives or threes and a half. Labour is the golden eggs, not yet laid. We know very well, that the present revenue, saved for eighteen years, would pay off the whole of the Debt; but this revenue is wanted yearly; and besides, it comes out of the earnings of labour, which are the true riches of a nation, and the sum of which is daily diminishing in this country.

Your Lordship will, therefore, dismiss, at once, all that tribe of projectors, who calculate the worth of the nation's real property upon the basis of the revenue, which has nothing at all to do with the worth of that property; or, at least, it is no basis, whereon to found a valuation of that property.

The case of a man, whose estate is mortgaged for more than it will now sell for, is little different from that of a man, in trade, who stands upon borrowed capital, and who cannot any longer pay the interest on the money that he has borrowed. The lender complains that the interest is not duly paid. And what would be thought of the borrower, if he were to talk of getting rid of this difficulty by paying off the principal? It may be said, that he may sell off his stock in trade to pay the moneylender with. But, what nonsense is this? He has no stock in hand. His stock does not belong to him. He must owe some one for it. may, indeed, give up his stock; and the landholder may give up his land; but this is the only way in which they can possibly pay off any part of their debts.

He

With this general view in our recollection, we will proceed to ask Mr. Heathfield how he would go to work to get at the personal property. In this is included every thing moveable. Household goods, stock in trade, ships, tools, machines, plate, jewels, books, and all other things inanimate; horses, mules, asses, cattle, sheep, hogs, dogs, poultry, rabbits, and, perhaps, hares, pheasants, and partridges. All these are included

in the Police-doctor's estimate, and this estimate is the basis of Mr. Heathfield's plan. Now, in the first place, who is to make the assessment? Who is to put a value on the various things in a chandler's shop? Who is to go and value the rags and kettles in the labourer's cottage? And yet, all these come into the estimate of the nation's property? Who is to go to a haberdasher's shop, or an ironmonger's, or any other shop,