human nature to be reconciled to such, an inequality of exaction and consideration. The wretched peasant, therefore, does not feel scrupulous of withholding some portion of his full and competent services, under a firm conviction, that, how low soever he may reduce the amount of his labour, it will still be far more than an equivalent for the remuneration, which he is to receive. It is not the peasant, then, that is lazy, but his employer, that is oppressive; and the reason why the former always is supposed, when the latter ought to be the impression, is, because the characters of both are uniformly taken from the representations of those, who think they have an interest in concealing the real state of the case, because they would otherwise become self-accusers.-The advocates of the abolition of the slave trade constantly argued, that the indolence, imputed to slaves, was a consequence of their unhappy condition. If these very humane gentlemen had given themselves the trouble to examine, but superficially, into the state and circumstances of the Irish peasantry, who are accused of the same inertness, they would have found room for the exercise of their philanthropy amongst a population, nominally free, but actually subjected to all the miseries of bondage. They would have perceived, that the imputed quality was but a consequence of the reaction of a reasoning principle against outrageous oppression, and they would have been encouraged to engage in the laudable work of redress, by the animating prospect of procuring comfort for so many millions of their fellow freemen and subjects. In truth and in fact, the condition of the slaves in the West Indies; except in the sentimental consciousness of freedom, is paradise, compared with the situation of the unfortunate peasants of Ireland. For though debarred of the actual enjoyment of that first blessing of man in his civil state, liberty, they possess all the substantial comforts, that can be procured from its exercise, in their sphere. Well clad, well fed, well lodged, and amply provided with every necessary care and attendance, they, unhappy as a condition of slavery must be, are yet exempted from those anxieties and afflictions, which the vicissitudes of seasons and the revolutions of property ordinarily bring upon their owners. Whatever may be the circumstances of the planter, his slaves, as a most valuable part of his property, must be properly attendelto. The contrast between their situation and that of the peasants of Ireland, may be amply, though summarily, described, in the negative enumeration of negro comforts and accommodations. Badly, or rather scarcely

clad, il fed, and worse lodged, dependant upon his own means alone for every necessary to restore health or sustain life, and ex. posed to all the hardships of a state of slavery without any of the advantages of a state of freedom, the Irish peasant drags on a miserable existence, embittered by intolerable practical burthens, and incapable of allevia tion by the communication of any political rights.-What has been stated above renders it scarcely necessary to pursue this subject further; yet it will not be amiss to add another illustration of the amount of the sufferings of the mass of the people of Ireland. The population of that country is now ascer tained to be about five millions. Protestant bigots will state it to be less, as Catholic bigots will perhaps represent it greater; but, however it may suit the former to extenuate, or the latter to exaggerate the fact, for the purpose of decrying or enhancing the Catholic claims, public documents and political calculation, prove the population of Ireland to exceed five millions of souls. Upon these grounds therefore, I take its population at five millions; and, as in this inquity we have nothing to do with sects or factions, I shall, according to my former grand distinction, consider that population as composed of two descriptions of persons, the oppres sors, and those, that are oppressed. In the former are included all the land proprietors both absentees and residents, and all the various denominations and classes of popular scourges, the middlemen; in the latter the whole mass of the labouring poor; and I have reason to assume the number of the former at one million, and that of the latter at four. Now, however accident, or good fortune, or unusual means from rare success, may enable some out of this vast number occasionally to vary their regular course of diet, the great staple of their support consists of potatoes. The average consumption of potatoes in a family of six persons amounts to twenty stones in six days, or twelve hundred and twenty stones in the year. The average produce of an acre of land in culture for potatoes is eighty-two barrels of twenty stones each. From these averages of produce and consumption we shall find the consumption of the whole four millions of people to be forty millions and six hundred thousand barrels, and the quantity of land necessary to raise that produce to be about five hundred thousand acres. It will, no doubt, be objected, that some portion of this description of persons consume other kinds of food, and consequently less of that, which is assumed, as the great staple of their support. But, though that fact be admitted, it

hoarded up our woollens and our hardware, or exchanged them for Italian marble, or for American bars of gold, that in a short time we should have none of our own goods, or more marble or gold bars, than we should know what to do with, or that they would be of no value, because nobody would buy them. Mr. Spence says, that the land proprietors ought to spend their rents for the good of the nation, that luxuries offer, and ought to offer inducements to them to spend these rents; but, that he means home made luxuries: now, is it not the same thing, Sir, with respect to encouragement to the manufacturer, whether the rents of the nation be spent in tobacco, and paid from Ame rica to our manufacturers for their goods, or whether the money be paid by the landholders for goods immediately to the manufacturers? But, here Mr. Spence and you turn upon me and say, then the commerce is useless, cut it off, or let the landholders buy the goods of the manufacturers: and, I agree, that this would answer exactly every pur pose, if the landholders could be induced to purchase the manufactures; but, unluckily they are already supplied with as much woollen and hardware as they want: let the manufacturers then, say you, be employed about something that the landholders do want. Now, it lies upon you and Mr. Spence to show what these articles are which the consumers will want, and which the manufacturers can supply for my own part, I believe, it will be found, that no such articles can be supplied at home to the same extent that commerce can supply them; and, if so, it being necessary, that the land proprietors should spend their rents, that luxuries should offer inducements to them to do so; that the more luxuries are offered, the greater the inducement; that home manufacturers cannot offer so many or great inducements, as manufactures and foreign commerce together can offer, it follows that foreign commerce is necessary to the prosperity of the country; the conclusion is inevitable; and it must not be forgotten that, ast Mr. Spence states, for the constantly progressive maintenance of the prosperity of the community, it is absolutely requisite that the class of land proprietors should go on progressively increasing their expenditure.' It lies therefore, upon you and Mr. Spence to show, how the fortunes of £10,000 and of £20,000 a year in this country, can be spent in home manufactures.

-At page 58, Mr. Spence supposes an objection to be started, that although com

merce does not increase the wealth of the nation directly, it may do it indirectly;

but the direct creation of wealth by com

merce is the opinion here controverted,' says Mr. Spence. But, here, Sir, I should think, that Mr. Spence must have forgotten the title of his book, because Britain is no more independent of commerce, if com merce increase her wealth indirectly, than if it did so directly; and, in order to prove that Britain is independent of commerce, it must be shewn that commerce does neither the one nor the other; or, at least, that Britain can do equally well without it: which, I apprehend has not yet been proved. Mr. Spence says, that it is in consequence of the consumption of so great an amount of foreign commodities in this country, that there is so great a consumption of our manufactures by foreign nations; and, who ever doubted this fact? But if this consump tion of our manufactures by foreign nations, in consequence of our consumption of foreign commodities, adds as much to the wealth of the nation by stimulating agricul ture, as if that wealth had been created by commerce, where lies the difference, and what does it signify, whence the wealth is derived? If (according to Mr. S.) the land of the country produce £120 millions a year, and a sixth part of the population be en ployed in producing it, that sixth part of the population will consume 20 millions, and there will remain one hundred millions, one half of which is exported in some shape or other, and the remaining half is expended by the manufacturers for home consumption: on this state of the case, I cannot perceive why the nation is not indebted for its prosperity, as much to the 50 millions exported by commerce, as to the 50 millions consumed by our home manufacturers; and, it appears to me, that the nation is more prosperous, not by 4 or 10 millions at most, as Mr. S. states it, which may be gained by trade (and which, I believe, is not gained at ally but by the whole 50 millions exported in our produce, or manufactures.-But, say you, the nation can do without commerce, because commerce is only an exchange: here the money is, and it may be applied directly to the maintenance of the manufacturers, if the land proprietors chuse it. The manner in which this money is to be so applied is the case in point. Supposing any great check to the export of our manufactures, you do not suppose, that the land proprietors (or rather the home consumers whoever they be) will immediately buy the produce of the manufacture. No; for I remember in one number of your Register, that you suppose the manufacturers to be thrown out of employment, and propose that, they shall be

employed in agriculture: but, here Mr. Spence stops you, by saying, that the produce of the land must be always in proportion to the consumers, and that not one acre more can be cultivated, until the number of manufacturers shall increase.' Mr. Spence, in obviating this difficulty says, that, we have the remedy against any great check to our manufactures in our own f: hands, and that it is only for us to spend the money, which we before vested in to'bacco, in a new coat or two a piece, to the ⚫ encouragement of our own home manu factures, and all is well again. Mr. Spence, Sir, is I dare say a very sensible man, and of your understanding, Mr. Cobbett, no one, I believe doubts; it is lamentable then to see how far sensible men may be driven aside by a favourite system. It is an obvious question to ask Mr. Spence, and it is wonderful he should not have asked himself the question, who is to oblige, or what motive is to induce the consumers of this country to purchase a coat or two a year, or any other sort of our manufactures more than they want. Mr. Spence says, man is naturally selfish, and we well know, that lfish persons are to be acted upon only by selfish considerations. Mr. S. must know, that it is not bis profusely saying, if we are such slaves to our appetite, we prove ourselves unworthy of existence as a nation,' that will make men in general spend their money in two coats, when one is sufficient, instead of in those luxuries, to which, they have been accustomed most as if Mr. S. was conscious that this plan would not succeed, he adds in the next page, that government should interfere, and employ the idle manufacturer in making roads and new canals; upon which then, you observe, that they 4 might just as well be employed in throw

ing stones at the moon; in which sentiment I fully agree with you. But, besides that their work would be useless, alas! Mr. Cobbett, I believe, you and I shall think them hard times, whenever our manufacturers shall apply for assistance to government. But, Mr. Spence, perhaps, putting this conLideration out of the question, (for I am not acquainted with his political sentiments) may say, still here the money is; it is not *sent abroad for wine or for tobacco, and if our manufacturers cannot be employed by it, at least they may be maintained; and the money may be raised, as all money for government is raised, by taxes. Upon the supposition then, and this is the fair suppo sition, that Buonaparté succeeds in annihilating our commerce, all our manufacturers employed on goods for foreign consumption;

all our seamen employed in their export, and in importing what we purchase with them, must be maintained by government, or by their parishes. Now, Sir, I ask Mr. Spence and you, or any other men of understanding, whether in their opinion, in such a state of things, manufactures and agriculture would flourish; or, whether, on the contrary, mas nufactures would not diminish, agriculture would not decline, rents would not fail, and such a scene of distress and misery ensue in this country, as the stoutest heart in it would fear to look upon? Desiring you, or Mr. Spence's answer to this question, I take my leave of you for the present, and subscribe myself, your obedient servant,—F.——Jan. 22, 1808.

PERISH COMMERCE."

SIR,When I first perused the extracts from Mr. Spence's Britain Independent of Commerce," which were inserted in your Register, and the remarks made by you thereon, I entertained the same opinion as yourselves that national wealth is neither created by manufactures, nor is derived from foreign commerce; but, having read the work itself, and having given the subject more mature reflection, my opinion is very much altered; and though I now think that agriculture is by far the most productive of the three branches, yet I do not agree with you that there is not any national wealth created by manufactures, nor that there is not any addition to the national wealth de rived from foreign commerce. The doctrine you contend for, appears to me to be sup ported by erroneous positions, fallacious reasoning, and unwarrantable deductions, which as far as they relate to the position that ne wealth is derived from manufactures, it is my intention by the present communication to attempt to controvert. It is stated that the rent which the tepant pays to his landlord out of the proceeds arising from the cultivation of his estate, and the surplus profits which remain to himself are wealth added to the national stock; but that no such wealth is produced by the profit of the master manufacturer, nor by the wages of the common manufacturer, (which it is truly stated do not amount to more than is sufficient for his bare subsistence.) The reasoning in support of this position that no national wealth is produced by the profit of the master manufacturer «is this." The "master manufacturer, may acquire riches, "but the whole of his gains would be at "the expence of the land proprietors, and "no addition would be made to the nations "al wealth." And the following case is

proprietor for 60 quarters of corn, it is "evident that the coachmaker would be ten "quarters of corn richer than if he had sold "it for 50 quarters, its original cost. But it "is equally clear that the land proprietor "would be 10 quarters of corn poorer than "if he had bought his coach at the prime "cost." This being the case, the following remark is added. A transfer then, not a "creation of wealth has taken place, what

ever one gains the other loses, and the "national wealth is just the same." Mr. Spence, in the passage which I have just quoted, supposes that the master manufacturer derives his profit at the expence of the land proprietor, and that what the former gains the latter loses; but, this I entirely dissent from, and do contend that the latter has sustained no loss in parting with his corn, for he has got an equivalent in the coach in exchange for it. I say, Sir, an equivalent, for if the coach can be sold for 60 quarters of wheat, I maintain that it is worth that quantity. An article is worth just as much as it will sell for and no more. What other criterion is there to judge by Can you, Mr. Cobbett, or can Mr. Spence point out any other? The labour of the workman, and the cost of the materials then amount to 50 quarters of wheat, and the coach is sold for 60 quarters of wheat, then there must obviously be a clear gain of 10 quarters. It was stated by Mr. Spence, that the surplus profit arising from the cultivation. of land, is clear gain after the expences attending the cultivation and the maintenance of the cultivator are deducted. Then why is not the surplus produce of the coach equally clear gain. There does not appear to me to be the least difference between the two cases. In the one the value of the corn, horses, cows, sheep, and other articles on the land depends on the price they will sell for. In the other, the value of the coach depends on a similar contingency. I do, therefore, think it is quite clear that the profit which the master manufacturer derives from the manufacture of the coach is clear gain to the nation. And, I think it will presently appear that the wages of the common workman are equally so. Your correspondent Wroc, and my old antagonist (The Game Cock as he modestly called himself in his communication on the dominion of the sea, but who has proved to

be a downright dunghill on this subject, as he termned me in that) has observed that the master and journeymen manufacturers if they had not been employed in building the coach, must notwithstanding have eaten, and would in point of fact, have consumed the same quantity of food. In answer to this, your correspondent says, to have eaten without producing something in return, would have been attended with a diminution of the wealth of the country. Now, I think it is clear that to eat upon any event, whether upon the event of producing something in return, or upon any other, will be productive of a diminution of wealth. And, I think it is equally clear, that if the manufacturer must have eaten at all events, and have thereby occasioned a diminution of national wealth, the coach which he produces must be an addition to that wealth. It is to him as manufacturer tlie public is indebted for the coach, but it is not to him as manufacturer that the public loses the food which he consumes, for he would eat that food whether he were a manufacturer or not. If the diminution of food were owing to the manufacture of the coach, it might be then with reason contended that no accession of wealth was produced by means of the manufacture, not more so than if by entering a shop and taking away 21s. in silver, and leaving 1 guinea in gold in exchange, I should add to the wealth of the shopkeeper. But as the diminution of the food is entirely distinct and independent of the manufacture of the coach, this manufacture must obviously be a source of wealth, as much so as if I take the 21s. from the shopkeeper in taxes, and pay him one guinea as a remune. ration for vending in his shop certain articles of my property, this one guinea would be an accession to his wealth. To ascend to a much higher subject, but which I cannot forbear noticing on account of its striking analogy. The ocean loses its waters by evaporation, and is supplied by rivers, now as this evaporation is wholly uncon nected with, and not occasioned by the ri vers, those rivers are undoubtedly the source of the sea; and so as the consumption of the manufacturers food is not occasioned by the manufacture of the coach, the manufac ture of the coach is indisputably a source of wealth to the nation. Those are the obser vations which have presented themselves to my mind, in opposition to your doctrine that manufactures are not a source of wealth to the nation. I shall at present confine myself to this subject; and will on some future occasion enter into the consideration of, and attempt to answer the exceedingly ob