are the exclusively "enlightened ;" they are the only people who have emancipated themselves from "prejudices," and who are infallible; they are the only men who have escaped from the "ignorance and bigotry" of past ages-who have outstripped all in the "march of intellect"-and who have rendered themselves even too wise and knowing for the times they live in; they are the people to laugh to scorn the founders of England's free dom, prosperity, happiness, and greatness; and to be entrusted with the subversion or alteration of everything valuable in the empire. Ye "thinking people" of England, what opinion must be entertained of you by posterity?

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

this country, when not called from it by public service.

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

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

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 established 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 landed 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 diffe

rent.

:

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 be fore 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 agriculturists, 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 au 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, absentecism is still the great cause. We 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 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 topics 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

tion, and even Mr M'Culloch himself. The perfect heartlessness, and the gross ignorance of the influence of the more powerful and ennobling feelings of the human heart, which Mr McCulloch manifests throughout his evidence, are alike surprising and repulsive. He places the Noble on a level with the Agent; he ascribes the effects of nature to the want of instruction; and he speaks as though human conduct could never be influenced by any other principle than that of pecuniary profit and loss. If philosophy consist in stoicism he is no doubt a philosopher; and yet his stoicism has nothing stern, daring, and magnificent about it, to save it from being despicable.

If schools be established at all, let them be established to implant in the breasts of the children, not avaricious selfishness, but the kindness and benevolence of the New Testament the distinctions between moral right and wrong the fear of the vengeance of Heaven for misconduct-the conviction that they must at last be accountable for the deeds of their whole lives, not to a human priest, but to an omniscient and unerring Deity.

Mr M'Culloch asserts that the morality of towns is to the full as good as the morality of the country, meaning by the term morals-honesty, and the intercourse between the sexes.

What the case may be in Scotland, we know not, but so far as this regards England, it is totally at variance with truth, and a gross libel upon the village popula

tion.

In our villages, the doors of the stable, cow-house, and hog-sty, are rarely locked during the night, the poultry is left at large, the barn is very slenderly secured, quantities of valuable property are scattered about the farmstead wholly unprotected, the dwellings of the cottagers are protected in the slightest manner, there is no watchman or police officer of any description, the whole of the villagers go to bed about the same hour, and are buried in the deepest sleep during the night, and yet a serious theft is sel dom heard of. If horse-stealing have now reached a great height, be it remembered that it is chiefly carried on by the inhabitants of towns, or those who have been taught their villainy in towns. When this is contrasted with the state of things in towns, what

credit is due to Mr M'Culloch? If towns were not filled during the night with watchmen and police officers, and if property were not made as secure as bolts and bars can make it, what would then be town honesty? As matters are, weigh the knavery of towns against that of the country, and the latter will kick the beam.

So much for honesty; and now for the intercourse between the sexes. Do our villages contain common prostitutes? Do the unmarried men, and part of the married ones, of these villages, constantly cohabit with such prostitutes, like those of towns ? Certainly not. In our villages there is very little intercourse between the sexes, save that which is lawful; in each, there are perhaps a couple of married women of light character; these are constrained to be very circumspect in their conduct, and as to their acting like common women, it is out of the question. What the conduct is in towns of the greater part of the single men, of no small part of the married ones, of a large portion of the wives of the lower orders, and of far too large a portion of the female servants, touching this point, we need not say. It must be already known to those who need information on the matter-to wit, our legislators.

We are aware that what has been said by parishes, with regard to illegitimate children, has caused certain ignorant people to maintain that our village females are generally unchaste. The fact is, that in almost every case in which an illegitimate child is born in a village, the mother is the victim of seduction. In some cases, perhaps, the seducer has no great difficulty in triumphing, but we believe that in all he is compelled to give a solemn promise of marriage. He prevails by professing honourable love. Virtue is never sold for money. The girl has intercourse with none but the seducer, and after the child is born she goes again to service, and is generally very virtuous in her conduct afterwards. We defend not such women, but they are not to be confounded with those of towns, who, for the sake of money, or from sheer depravity, are common strumpets.

In speaking of morals, drunkenness must not be forgotten. Do our husbandry labourers spend nearly every evening, and the chief part of