صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

something in the case which would do away the essence and effect of the offence. He Iraped this matter would be fully inquired intoy and thoroughly sifted, that the House might be enabled to judge upon a complete view of all the circumstances. Mr. SHERIDAN fully agreed with the hon. captain, that after the attack which had been made upon him, the matter ought not to rest there. It was dae both to the house and hias, that the matter should be investigered. He also agreed, that his hon. friend behind him might have given some notice of his intention; but then it was to be observed that he had only read the papers that morning, and had stated the facts upon an occasian which had suddenly arisen. But if it was necessary to have this affair inquired to, upon the statement of his hon. friend, it was much more so after the defence of the hon. captain. He said, he had, like other officers, entered, in time of peace, on board a foreign vessel, to acquire additional skill in his profession. But how did other officers engage in these services? They were employed entirely in their own profession but who ever heard of their taking advantage ot a foreign flag to trade to the East Indies, and land teas at Dungeness?--The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER rose to order. It was not consistent with any rules of order or justice, that a conversation should be carried on so long that had only arisen collatesally; and that personal attacks should thus be made on an individual, without giving him any notice, or allowing him time to prepare his defence. To what purpose was this carried on? There was no motion on that particular question before the house; and it was impossible that such a statement, unauthorised as it was, could be a sufficient ground for calling, in the first instance, for an account of the application of the sums arising from captured property belonging to the crown. He hoped the right honourable gentleman himself would thank him for interrupting him and he also hoped that an opportunity would be afforded of fully considering the case which had occasioned this deviation from the main object.-Mr. SHERIDAN rose again, but not, he said, to complain of the Chancellor of the Exchequer baving interrupted him; on the contrary, he should now abstain from any further comment on the hon. captain's (Sir Home Popham) defence at the same time, Mr. Sheridan shewed, that he had been perfectly in order, and now only deferted his argument from a principle of delicacy, understanding the Chafieellor of the Exchequer to agree with the Rous. Captain, that a further ailed sibdi inodors

and full investigation was absolutely necessary. After what bad passed, after the charge so distinctly and forcibly made, and urged by a member in his place, it was absolutely necessary to the character and honour of the hon. captain, but what was of more importance, it was essential to the character and honour of the House that such an investigation should take place.Mr. Sheridan then said, he should add only a few words on that part of the question which related to the application of the money arising from these Droits of Admiralty. He had no hesitation in saying that he not only did not censure, but he cordially concurred in, and approved of that part of the application this day avowed by his Majesty's Judge Advocate, namely, his majesty's gra-. cious gifts to the younger branches of his Illustrious Family. No meraber but must feel that their incomes never had, under the pressure of the times, been adequate to the expenditure imposed upon them by thei rank and situation, and he had never heard any charge of wanton extravagance preferred against any one of the illustrious individuals alluded to. So far was he, therefore, from objecting to these acts of his majesty's pater-. nalgenerosity, he only lamented that his majesty's royal munificence had been confined to the younger branches of his angust family. Had the heir apparent participated in it, he believed the house and the country would have not merely been satisfied, but gratified; [hear! hear!] for never must it be forgote ten, that the Prince had an unliquidated claim, which, greatly to his honour, feeling for the public burthen, and the difficultof the times,, had been, by his royal highy ness's express desire, suspended, but noabandoned, (he meant the arrears of the Duchy of Cornwall); that debt still remained indisputably due, either from the sovereign or the public; and, towards the discharge of that debt, he could not conceive an application of the funds now under discussion, more grateful to the people, than in part directing them towards that object.. His majesty's munificence towards the younger branches of his august family, was an act of bounty, in the latter case it would be an act, not of bounty merely, but of justice THE ADVOCATE GENERAL said, that this property was not property condemned to the crown, but came by a forfeiture, which on good grounds might justly be remitted... The ground on which he recommended the grant to the hon. captain, was this. He had gone to Ostend, and from that sailed under a foreign flag to India. If he was restrained as a British subject from doing so

by the law of his country, unquestionably this was a violation of it. But it was perfectly well known to the Indian government, that he was there, and it was the policy at that time to encourage exportation from India in foreign vessels. Whatever offence had been committed, was against the East India Company, and as they had by implication remitted it, he thought himself justified in recommending the remission of the forfeiture.-MR. TIERNEY called the right hon. gent. to order, as he was entering upon a defence of the hon. captain, instead of confining himself to the facts for his own justification. Some discussion arose heré about the question under discussion, whether it was the original motion or the amendment suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in some measure assented to ? -SIR FRANCIS BURDETT however, now refused to withdraw his motion. The apparent fairness of the right hon. gent. opposite, had led him rather to assent to his amendment at first, because his object was to get an account of the large sum at the disposal of the crown, without the controul of Parliament, thinking this a sufficient ground for an enquiry. But since the gross and flagrant instance of misapplication, stated by the hon. gent. behind, had come to his knowledge, he considered the application as the most important part of the subject, and must persevere in his original intention. He should abandon his duty if he withdrew his motion, and he doubted, if the house would allow him were he so inclined.-The discussion thus of course proceeded on the original motion.-THE ADVOCATE GENERAL proceeded to state the grounds on which he had recommended the remission of the forfeiture. It amounted to this, that the company themselves had, by employing the hon. captain in making soundings, and by giving him presents, &c. recognized his right of going to India, as much as if they had given him a licence. The only question was, whether, under these circumstances, the forfeiture ought not to be restored, and it had been determined that it ought.-MR. LUSHINGTON disclaimed all idea of reflecting upon the right hen. gent., who, he was well informed, had acted in this business reluctantly. In his own justification, he stated, that he had heard the facts long ago, but doubting whether they had been accurately stated, he had from hearing the notice of yesterday, applied at the proper place this morning, and seen the documents. He thought himself in duty called upon to make the statement, in opposition to the assertions on the other side, that there had been no

misapplication of the Admiralty Droits.-MR. BRAND said, that the opposition to the account of application convinced him, that it ought not to be dropped. The misapplication had been proved in one instance, at least in a statement that had arisen out of the partial communications on the other side of the manner in which these sums were applied. They appeared to have a consciousness that all was not right on that score.MR. HUSKISSON then moved the Amendment proposed by his right hon. friend, That an Account be produced of the Net Proceeds of the captures, &c. since 1793, together with the Balances in hand.-THE CHANCEL LOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that the only difference between himself and the hon. baronet was as to the production of an account of the application. He contended that this was not necessary, till a misapplication was stated. One instance had been mentioned, -but it had not been proved; and came rather under the description of a forfeiture which had been remitted-a thing that was very common. MR. ADAM said that it would be wiser to call only for the amount of the sum in the first instance; neither of the motions would include the case which had been adverted to. This ought to be investigated, but in order to get at it, a motion must be made for an account of the forfeitures remitted.-SIR CHARLES POLE ob served, that neither of the motions were so full as he could wish. He stated that it often happened that ten years elapsed between the capture and the time the captors could get their prize money. In such cases prize money was of no use.-SIR FRANCIS BURDETT said, that his motion was sufficiently comprehensive to include all that was material at present.--The house then divided. For the original Motion 57. For the Amend

ment 82.

MR. ARTHUR YOUNG

ON

AGRICULTURE, MANUFACTURES, AND COMMERCE.

SIR,I have read with much attention the several papers which have appeared in your Journal, upon the subject of trade and manufacture, under the title of Perish Com merce; and, I have considered with equal attention the essay recommended by you, and written with great ingenuity by Mr. Spence; but, I must confess myself to be very far removed from that sort of conviction, which you seem to think should flow from his reasoning: the same doctrines were warmly debated about forty years ago, in France, and in my opinion sufficiently re

fated by various writers both in England and ou the Continent. The controversy lasted a considerable time; but it has slept for above thirty years; the Economists gave the name of Physiocratic to their science, which engaged the pens of many extremely able men whose works abound with observations equally luminous and important, but involved in such a cloud of verbiage, and perplexed with such a jargon of terms, techuical in their science, that the large measure of liberality and truth is to be separated from much error, and many mistakes: the leading points which those writer, laboured to prove,

were

1. That agriculture is the only source of national wealth.

II. That manufactures and commerce add nothing to national riches.

III. That as agriculture pays all taxes, let them be imposed in whatever manner they may, all should be laid, in the first instance, on land.

These are the doctrines which Mr. Spence and you, Sir, have undertaken to re-establish, with some variations, in a series of papers which manifest great powers of intellect, and vigour of expression. I have waited in earnest expectation of seeing some of your numerous correspondents examine the doctrine as a question of fact and experience, rather than one of theory and reasoning; but, as I do not perceive that any one is inclined thus to treat the subject, I am induced to send you some doubts upon it, and beg leave to refer you for more particular objections to my Political Arithmetic printed in 1774.

There is a measure of truth in the first of the above maxims, for a nation may exist without commerce or manufacture, but not for a moment without agriculture; but such truths are about as valuable as the ink that traces them; they are rendered interesting not from being true, but by the conclusions that are drawn from them; and the grand conclusion drawn by the Economists and agreed to, illustrated, and applied to the state of this country by yourself and Mr. Spence, forms the subject of the second of these maxims. Mr. Spence has however some observations, that apparently deviate so widely, that I must beg leave to trouble you with two or three quotations. In the following he allows nothing to commerce.

"Having thus stated the grounds of my Conviction, that we derive no national wealth whatever, from our commerce, I proseed, &c. p. 64."

In another place he considers it as unnecessary.

"There can be no doubt then, if such be the painful nature of those opinions, which resolve our greatness into our commerce, that all those who hold such opinions, would be highly gratified to have their fallacy proved to them. They would doubtless be rejoiced to have it convincingly made out, that our greatness is independent of our commerce; and that our glory and our prosperity need not suffer diminution, even though we had infinitely less trade than we have, p. 9."

But, from the utmost attention I can give to the chain of Mr. Spence's reasoning, I cannot see the consistency of such opinions with other passages in his work, which apparently militate directly against them. Thus he says,

"The value obtained in foreign markets for the manufactures which a nation exports, resolves itself into the value of the food which has been expended in manufacturing them, and the profit of the master manufac turer, and the exporting merchant. These profits are undoubtedly national profit. Thus, when a lace manufacturer has been so long employed in the manufacturing a pound of flax into lace, that his subsistence during that period, has cost £30, this sum is the real worth of the lace; and if it be sold at home, whether for £30 or £60, the nation is, as has been shown, no richer for this manufacture. But if this lace be exportedto another country, and there sold for £60, it is undeniable that the exporting nation has added £30 to its wealth by its sale, since the cost to it was only £30, p. 48."

And again more decisively,

"An attention to facts will prove in opposition to the opinion of the Economistes, that in Britain agriculture has thriven only in consequence of the influence of manufac tures; and that the increase of this influence, is requisite to its further extension, p. 22."

That manufactures are nothing more than a transmutation of food into fabrics, was started and amplified by the Economistes; Mr. Spence thus adopts it,

"None of this wealth, however, could with truth be said to have been brought into existence by the manufacturer, for as the land proprietor had given in exchange for the produce of the manufacturers labour, an equal value in food, which no longer remained in existence, all the merit which could justly be conceded to the latter, would be his having transmuted wealth of so pe

Supplement to No. 8, Vol. XIII.-Price 10d.

K

vishable a nature as food, into the more du- tion then, will not agree with the general rable wealth of inanufactures. p. 18"

Now, Sir, it seems to me only necessary to oppose some of these passages to each other, in order to shew, I will not say a direct contradiction, but at least ground sufficient for a suspicion that there must be some degree of uncertainty in the combinations whence such conclusions are drawn; and that the subject has not been examined with that attention which its importance demands. The error may perhaps be found in the transmutation idea; the food is admitted to he wealth, wealth flowing from agriculture, the fabrics are wealth, but still agricultural wealth; as it has been no more than a transmutation: but, I contend that it is a creation; and not by the farmer who cultivates, but by the manufacturer who demands. Without the demand the food would have never been produced; the cause of producing is in the consumer, much more than in the cultivator; who is a machine employed to make a commodity demanded, and be comes a machine that has lost its wheels if that demand ceases. A machine that would not, as to present importance, have had any existence had not such demand arisen. If Funderstand Mr. Spence in the passage quoted from p. 22, he will not deny it, inconsistent as it may seem with the general train of liis reasoning:

The habits of my life for forty years, have given me a decided preference for agricul ture; buf, Sir, it is for an agriculture animated by a great demand; and, when I hear the sister enplayments depreciated which constitate that demand, I must readily confess that I am alarmed, lest the first and great basis of our national prosperity should suffer as much from its friends, as ever it did from enemies.no 15

Mr. Spence gives the following definition of wealth; Wealth is defined to consist in abundance of capital, of cultivated and productive land, and of those things which men usually esteem valuable. p. 11,"

¿ That abundance of cultivated and productive land is wealth, will not be easily controverted but, let me be more explicit and affix to the word abundance, the idea of that abundance which we possess in England. Then, I presume, Mr. Spence will admit that this abundance has been created by the demand formed by manufactures and commerce, as forming two of the great parents of national consumption. This fact does away the peculiarity of one article in this definition. The other two, capital and

clue of the reasoning that depreciates commerce and manufacture.

The same gentleman says, "Gold and silver are undoubtedly wealth, yet they are but a small portion of what has properly a claim to that title; and a nation which has abundance of gold and silver, is in fact, not richer than if it had none. It has paid an equal value of some other wealth for them. p. 20." There is much truth here, but it should be well discriminated. Gold and silver are expressly admitted to be wealth; but then, it is added, that a nation is not the richer for them. Is a man richer for having a grainery full of corn, far exceeding his own consumption? Why is he richer? Because he has that which will purchase every thing else. Then money is wealth for the sanie reason; and still more so with a nation, for foreigners will take your money, though not

your paper, or corn.

The great importance of money would, perhaps, in no other circumstance be better understood, than by clearly analysing another observation of this writer, wherein he attributes all our wealth and greatness to the establishment of manufacturers as a distinct class. p. 24.

It would, however, lead me too far to give this, but if you reflect upon it, you will pre sently convince yourself that this step in the national progress depended absolutely on money, and could not have been taken with out it.

But, Sir, it is time to come to facts, and experience; are there no facts to which we can refer? Has the progress of our com merce been so regular as not to afford some better data, than reasoning and supposition? I think a period may be found, in which a great decline in the exports and the imports. of the kingdom did occur; and it seems more satisfactory to examine what were the consequences, than by any train of logical reasoning, to justify so enormous a para dox as the idea that we could now lose all our exports and imports with so small an inconvenience as you and Mr. Spence seem, in a measure, to suppose. Such a period did occur; and it has occurred but once, from 1698 to 1806. Through that long period the rise of export, and import, was gradual and almost regular, except during the Ame

rican war.

The exports then fell about one fourth, and it well deserves Mr. Spence's at tention (for it is the circumstance to whicht he attaches the cure of the malady) that the imports fell nearly in an equal degree. Here | things usually esteemed, belong equally to then was a great experiment, and we have Manufactures and commerce. This defint-only to examine the result, in order to un

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

from 30 to 40 per cent. lower than for 40 years preceding. Many farmers had 3, 4, and some even 5 years wool on hand-and the stock became so great as to keep down the prices several years after the cause had ceased to operate, thanks to the abominable police of our wool laws. The difficulty of getting rid of any live stock was great. The farmers were in such distress that labourers could find but a very partial employment, aud numbers fell a burthen to the parishes. All lands not underlet before, sunk in rent considerably: an intimate friend of mine was obliged either to reduce a farm from £500 a year to £350, or suffer arrears to that amount; he preferred the former. Every species of improvement was arrested; not a shilling spent that could possibly be saved. No wonder that the price of the soil itself should be equally affected. Land fell from 30 to 20 years purchase: some was to my knowledge sold at 19.

If it be asked what occasioned so many circumstances marking distress, that admitted not of a doubt; I can only reply, that every well informed man at that time in the kingdom, attributed it to the decline of manufactures and foreign commerce. Our export trade did not sink more than onefourth of the total; and this was attended by a corresponding fall in the imports, which satt

***Annals Vol. IV. p. 391. † Annais Vol. IXup 332. m

+ Ib. p. 456.

should according to Mr. Spence's principles have proved an immediate remedy; but no such matter; not the smallest effect to lessen the distress so universal in the agriculture of the kingdom. The decline in commerce and manufactures had an immediate effect in lowering prices, which could not be felt 6 months by any class in the state without lessening the consumption of fabrics—a reaction which again played back on the farmer, till the effect became a system of vibrations of saving from incapacity to consume. There was no visible or known transfer in consump tion stated by Mr. Spence: the money or value before emploved on foreign superfluities, was not transferred to different objects made at home; but the power, the meaus of consuming fell. Corn, cattle, and wool sunk in price, and the landlord instead of rent from many tenants, saw entries of arrears; the labourer idle, or working for low. pay; the farmer with his products unsold, and the landlord with tax bills and arrears, were all people who would have spurned at the visions of comfort, had they been held forth in advice to transfer consumption from one object to another; Mr. Politician, we spend all we receive; what would you have,, more?

If the decline of one-fourth of our export trade (though accompanied by Mr. Spence's remedy of a decline in the imports also) trad such an effect as every old man now living experienced in the American war, what should we have to expect at present from the loss of the whole! Far am I from asserting that ruin must be the consequence; but, thus much I may venture to assert, that it is not a speculation to be treated lightly, er.. contemplated with the complacence of poli tical apathy; erroneous hope may be as mischievous as undue fear,

An observation is however necessary here. 1 do not conceive that the facts stated amount.

« السابقةمتابعة »