al and permanent convenience and comfort in their dwellings; or to make him a sinecure placeman or a singer, in either of which capacities he would be a mere annihilator of corn, at the same time, that, in case of emergency, he would not be half so able to defend the community-Suppose two of the cultivators become sinecure placemen, then you kill the carpenter or some one else, or, what is more likely, all the labouring part of the community, that is to say, all but the sinecure peeren, live more mi serably, in cress, in dwellings, and in food.

-This real ang applied to tens, applies equally well to milions, the causes and effects being a the latter case, only a little more diffic.t 1

tance; and, therefore,

though lux y be an nevitable law (it we mean by that cord the possession or enjoyment of every thing beyond absolute necessaries), the exisctice of that sort of luxury, which arises from a misapplication of the surplus produce of a country, is an evil that admits of an effectual remedy; and. for -the reasons, which I have before given, I am satisfied, that, with us, a remedy would be found in a great diminution of commerce, which has been, and is, the main moral and political corruption, of a wasteful expenditure of the public money, and, of course, of that system of taxation which is without an example in the annals of Europe, and hardly surpassed under the Aumils of Hindostan.—The VIIIth objection, to wit, respecting the effects of commerce upon the civil and political liberties of England, I have not left myself room to answer, in a manner proportioned either to the importance of the matter (to which my motto applies), or to the respect which I wish to show my correspondent, W. F. S. who so urgently requests me to give him a convincing answer as to this point, and which answer, I shall, I flatter myself, be able to give him. in my next.

RUSSIA.If the "magnanimous Alex ander" had not declared war against us, I should have been greatly surprised.-We shall now see what these "no-popery" men are made of Will they resist the out-cries of commerce? Or will they make peace upon any terms, rather than risk their places?They are certainly in an "unsatisfactory state."--I had almost made a vow, that I never would see St. Stephen's again; but, curiosity will, I am afraid, take me up to have one more look at them.- -It will be curions to hear them asserting, that we can do very well without commerce; for, to that thy must now come, or they must admit the necessity of peace, or, rather, of a

capitulation; for, in this state of things, it cannot be a peace, in the usual sense of that word. But, it is no matter; war or peace, we have now, before it is over, to change our character; and the choice lies between real freedom at home, or subjugation from abroad. There will be a desperate struggle to prevent any change at all, but it must and will come.

TYTHES.In my next I will endeavour to give an answer to my correspondent, in page 851, upon this interesting subject, which answer, as well from respect to my correspondent as from my desire to see main. tained all the just rights of the church, I shail render as satisfactory as I am able, regretting, however, that the task had not fallen into more capable hands.

Botley, 3 Dec. 1807.

A. ON " PERISH COMMERCE."

SIR, I. As I have for a long time taken in your Register, which I have done for public information; and, as I conceive your reason for the publication is to inform every class of the community their political duties, and, what you consider to be for the public good; such a person as myself ought more particularly to benefit from its doctrines, since you mean to convey to the plainest understandings, public occurrences, public rights, and public reformation in the clearest and most convincing lights --II. With this view of your patriotism, I venture to send you a letter, to ask, if your approbation of Mr. Spence's commercial pamphlet be not ironical, and done merely to exercise the humour and "funny"way of writing, your peculiar genius has adopted in your political lucubrations.-What I know of Mr.Spence's pamphlet is only from your quotation in your last Register, but the result stated, professed to be highly approved by you, is, that "agriculture is the only source of wealth." This position is attempted to be proved by a supposed state of society, wherein the landholder, the farmer, and the manufacturer, in bartering their property and labour for coin, exclude the necessity of the circulating mediums of gold, silver, or paper. That our internal intercourse might be regulated by this theory, no one will deny; but, who will doubt, that our riches, greatness, and our happiness, would not be diminished by such adoption, confining it as it must be, only to an internal intercourse?--III. But if we are under a necessity of having foreign connections as commercial ones, the visionary fabric of Mr. Spence leaves not a " wreck" behind.. I suppose he will not deny aur navy is necessary for us, as a protecting bul

wark, "and from whence is its numerous stores to be furnished? Its cordage, sails, and timber? Will a country not wanting your grain or agricultural produce, take it in barter? Or, must not commercial operations be adopted to procure those articles? Let commerce be extinguished and seo from what source you will man your navy; who ever doubted but the mercantile shipping was the nursery for your seamen? These are a few of the many questions to be answered before Mr. Spence can expect the rational world to be his disciples; and until he can find out substitutes for these things, every one must admit the necessity of commerce. -IV. To continue. Will any rational inquirer, Mr. Cobbett, seriously say, that the "riches, greatness, and happiness" of a people depend upon agriculture only? Would agriculture ever have brought forward such a place as Manchester? Even you, Mr.Cobbett, I think will not again assert, that the taxes are the fruit of land or labour. Is there no fruit or revenue raised from the manufacture of cotton at Manchester, paid by the foreign consumer. What immense sums have been raised from the European, American, and African markets, from the manufactures of that single place alone! More instances are not necessary, but what article is there sent abroad that the foreign consumer does not contribute towards our revenue? If these be facts, the utility of commerce must be admitted, as well as its necessity, unless a sweeping clause comes in in the shape of commercial wars, which has been urged to overbalance commercial benefits. Is there no good from commercial wars? Is such a navy as we have, more than is necessary for our protection? Had commercial wars never existed, would the navy ever have arrived to its present magnitude, and, even in its present powerfal state, is it too much to keep our enemies from our shores? Would you not have been a conquered people years ago, had you been confined merely to your

riches and greatness" arising from agriculture?——V. I am sure that Mr. Cobbett will not very readily determine that the "holders of the plough," and the “workers in the loom," are not brethren of the same family; and the habits of commerce, and the labours of manufactory have not inaterially contributed to the "riches, greatness, and happiness" of this country.-I beg to assure you that I am with high re gard, Sir, yours, &c.-A.NOV. 10, 1807.

"B. ON" PERISH COMMERCE."

Sık,I. In your Register of last week,

you loudly praise a Mr. William Spence, who has published a pamphlet, endeavouring to prove that the wealth of Britain is independent of commerce, that no part of it is derived from manufactures, but the whole from agriculture. To promulgate such doc-. trines at such a period, when our commerce is attacked by a person who well knows its importance, must be of the most pernicious tendency if they are erroneous. At least you will agree with me, that the subject is one of the greatest importance, that our commerce is not hastily to be abandoned, and that as the opinions you profess are calculated for extensive influence they ought not to be adopted without due deliberation. These considerations, I hope your candour will admit as a sufficient apology, for my stating a few arguments in opposition to them.-II. In the first place then, I must contend that agriculture is itself only a species of manufacture, which could not for a moment thrive, or even exist, without other manufactures. There are even some manufactures prior to agriculture; the spade and the plough must be made before the ground is tilled. Nothing can indeed be more ab- : surd than to give one species of manufacture a pre-eminence over another. All human arts are linked and interwoven together; and the improvement of one always keeps pace with that of another. Suppose a certain number of persons to resolve to employ themselves in agriculture, or the manufac ture of grain, these persons must either scratch the ground with their nails and go naked, or employ themselves occasionally in other arts. If we conceive them however to have the sagacity to discover, that by em ploying a certain part of their community exclusively in fabricating clothes, and the instruments of agriculture for the rest, they will derive the advantage of having these necessaries manufactured with greater expedition and skill, than by those who are engaged in different avocations; this will immediately lead us to the division of labour and exchange, which are the origin of commerce.III. Commerce is merely a reciprocation of industry, by which one person gives that portion of the produce of his labour which he does not need, for the superfluity of another person. The cultivator of the ground exchanges with the artisan that quantity of grain which he may have raised. more than necessary for the consumption of his own family, for the tools and clothes which he requires. Both are equally depen dant upon each other. It is as impossible for the Cultivator to do without the implements of agriculture, as for the artisan to

continue his labour without a supply of food. -IV. The industry of the one is always limited by the demands of the other; or, in other words, by the extent of the market, The way to encourage the manufacture of any commodity is to consume it; because nothing is given on one side without an equivalent upon the other. Now, where human talents are not restrained by oppression, the wants of men soon increase, and a compact is formed between the followers of different arts to produce articles of conveniency to be exchanged among each other. Industry and necessities increase together, desires and arts are multiplied in exact proportion, and enjoyments, luxury, and wealth, become united and extended. The relations between nations and individuals are the same. Commerce is, in all cases, merely to exchange the productions of industry; and the more extensive the exchange the greater the advantage V. So far from agriculture being the sole cause of wealth, it matters little though we did not fill a feld in Britain. It is industry alone which renders any nation opulent; and did we exercise every other species of manufacture excepting this, the loss of it would be of little importance. National wealth is independent of almost all local advantages; for those who possess commerce can' command the productions of every climate and soil, and those who want it are poor in the otherwise most favourable circumstances. The Tyrians were rich on a barren rock, and Smollet informs us, that in his time the peasants of Italy were starving on fields which required only to be scratched to produce crops more than twofold superior to any in Europe, such is the importance of industry, and such are the magical charms of commerce.-VI. To deprive us of commerce, would be to deprive us of the arts, to extinguish industry, to debase agriculture and every species of manufacture, to degrade human nature, and reduce mankind again to the savage state. This is not, however, the age in which nations can be powerful without riches. Since the invention of gun-powder, warfare has become an expensive employment; and, if naval power and independence are to be preserved, something more must be done than merely to till the ground. I fear much, Mr. Cobbett, were we to renounce our commerce, and exercise no art but agriculture, we would soon have Buonaparté to superintend our farms. This, however, I am sure you did not propose as the result of those speculations which I now oppose; and having already trespassed so long upon your time, I shall conclude by saying that, whatever I

may think of some of your opinions, I believe them, in every case, to be dictated by a sincere regard for the interests of your country, and that your heart is truly English.-B. Νου. 12, 1807. .

C. ON " PERISH COMMERCE." SIRI. The doctrine of Mr. Spence has been attacked by a correspondent under the name of WROC, in your Register of last week, only to darken the obscurity which formerly surrounded the subject. This writer asks," how happened it that Mr. Spence overlooked the consideration 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?" I answer, if they had done so for one year, they would not have done it for two, for want of encouragement, the produce of the land would, very soon, be reduced, exhibiting in the appearance of the country, evident signs of decay, and the "drone" would soon be found to have starved. To have eaten without producing something in return, would have been attended with a diminution of the wealth of the country; as on the contrary, the conversion of the corn into the coach, by means of the manufacturer, cannot be called a creation, but a transfer. But this transfer is made from a perishable to a less perishable commodity; and like the produce of the labour of the builder, the carpenter, and the smith, certainly forms one of the objects, by the presence or absence of which the wealth and prosperity, or the poverty of a nation is ascertained.--II. The argument, drawn from Wroc's assumption of the po-,., pulation of a country consisting of 100,000 persons, partly employed in agriculture, and partly not so employed, is equally liable to objection; for, if on his supposition, the produce of the soil should be so much greater than the consumption of the inhabitants, as to enable them to export a part, it is evident that the specie or whatever else the return may consist of, is nothing other than a direct transfer from such corn, and what is gained in specie is lost in corn .His two other arguments, from a deficiency of corn, and just as much of the necessary article as is sufficient for the maintenance of the population, require no answer after what has above been said.-III. Now, Mr. Cobbett, although these observations go entirely against Mr. Wroc, it does not follow, that I am perfectly satisfied with all that Mr. Spence, has advanced with regard to the effect of commerce on the wealth of a

through its manufacturers and merchants, who reap a profit, and add to that stock. which has always been considered a proof of prosperity-VII. I purposely avoid mentioning the other advantages of commerce in the view of national security, from its affording employment for ships, and keeping up the necessary supplies for that navy, which is considered the safeguard of our independence and happiness. The security of nations, being different from their wealth, I shall not imitate Mr. Wroc in his patriotic conclusion, but reserve a word or two, with your permission, for some future opportunity, when I may furnish you with some reflections upon certain subjects, which you, yourself, have brought to the attention of the public,

Meanwhile, I remain, your constant reader,-C.—Nov. 18, 1807.

IRISH TYTHES.

66

SIR;-I have seldom seen so much calm mistatement, and so large a portion of bad logic as pervades the whole of your observations upon the article which you have quoted from the Morning Chronicle respecting county meetings in Ireland, in your Register of the 14th instant-You say I admire the patriotism which the sage of the Morn ing Chronicle has discovered in the Irish Protestant gentlemen." Now the word patriotism, does not occur in the whole article, nor is the idea of it applied to the Irish Protestant gentlemen. If the words "liberality and good sense of the Protestant gentlemen of Ireland," were construed by you into patriotism, you were mistaken, these words were applied because the Irish Protestant gentlemen are with very few exceptions friends to the claims of the Catholics, and have adopted these Petitions for a Commutation of Tythes, as the most agreeable measure to the Catholics which there is a chance of pressing with success.-If" praise unleserved is satire in disguise," to attribute patriotism to the Irish Protestant gentlemen would be almost as good a joke as to talk of your suavity, Mr. Cobbett.-You next say, in the same strain of error, that these Irish Protestant gentlemen are endeavouring to take a part of the amount of the tythes out of the pockets of the parsons to put it in their own. How you, Mr. Cobbett, who are attentive to the meaning of words, could have made this charge, after having stated in the first sentence of your observations, that the article in the Morning Chronicle * announces to us the fact, that the Protestant gentlemen of Ireland, are for a commutation of tythes," and commutation in italics too, I am at a loss to discover. For, i the word commutation means any thing, it

means such a measure as will give the par sons the whole benefit of tythes, but in a less vexatious and exceptionable manner. If any thing is produced by the change, if by the removal of moral oppression, land will acquire an encrease of produce over aud above the fair and customary profits of the farmer, it will and ought to belong to the landlord. It is not taken from the pocket of the parsons, because it never could have been raised under the system of tythes. You take from the parsons only their power of oppressing and you convert it into good substantial corn and hay. So much for your mistatements, Mr. Cobbett, let us now examine your logic. You ask this question: " will the poor man who cultivates five acres of ground, yield less in tythes than he does now?" and you answer it by saying," that if he does give less to the parson, it is to me at least quite. certain, that he will give more to the landowner or land jobber, so that this commu tation, whatever may be the effect of it to the landowner and the parson, will, in no degree whatever, lighten the burdens of the potatoe planter." The fallacy of this reasoning, like that of your friend Pitt on the sinking fund, lies just beneath the surface. Let the landlord, year after year, valne his rent after the crop of potatoes is grown as the parson does his tythes, and then your reasoning would be correct. But so long as it continues to be the practice of landlords, to settle with their tenants for the rent of land before they take possession, and (as is particularly the case in Ireland) to give such leases as leaves the tenants to the increased produce that may arise from an incerased: industry; while the parseus value their tythes after the tenant has tilled, manured, and sown his land, and the crop is come to maturity; so long will the circumstances on which rent. is calculated be so very different' from those on which tythes are taken, that the tenant will always prefer and find his advantages in commuting tythes for rent.

"But, did I myself not propose to do. something respecting the tythes in Ireland?' This ejaculation of yours is very explanatory. So, Mr. Cobbett, all your anger against the Irish Protestant gentlemen is excited by their presumption in recommending a simple. comniutation of tythes, in neglect of a da vourite plan of your own. I have now, Sir, said enough to put both your candour and your talents to the test-Your candour by giving you an opportunity of publishing this letter, and your talents, by making it no easy matter to answer it.AN IRISH PROTESTANT GENTLEMAN - Dublin, Nov. 20, 1807.