AN

ADDRESS,

&c. &c.

HAD I the honor of possessing a seat in the British Senate, when the subject of the Agricultural Petition is brought under consideration, I should thus deliver my sentiments.

The zeal, with which a considerable number of agriculturists of the united kingdom are at this moment urging their claims to our protection, and the daily extension of that zeal, together with the absolute magnitude of the question itself, have induced me to afford the subject considerable attention; not that I think the warmth with which claims are urged by the party interested in the issue of those claims, is any proof whatever of their justice, although sometimes it may entitle them to a patient hearing-there is frequently displayed an enthusiasm in the prosecution of fancied rights, which is unknown to the cool argumentative vindication of those that are real.

Hitherto I have been a silent spectator of the conflict of opinion, with which our periodical publications have been filled, and the conversations of social life have been engrossed; and have listened alike to the sanguine expectations of some, and the gloomy despondency of others; during which I have often witnessed, with surprise, the plasticity of the human mind when about to receive favorable impressions, and have, as often, been struck with the sturdy inflexibility it presents, when pressed under the greatest load of unpalatable evidence. As I feel no personal interest in the determination of the question, more than that which belongs to me as a member of the country, and as one deeply concerned in its well-government and prosperity, so I hope that a few observations, intended to correct some hasty mis-statements, and explain

some false analogies, may not be altogether useless in this preliminary state of the business; at the same time I am fully aware, that to whichever side my conclusions may incline, I cannot fail to provoke the indignation of one party; but, as I am indifferent to both, I shall proceed without deference to either.

Without entering into any historical review of the question, it will be sufficient to state, that they who are favorers of a restricted importation of corn, rest their claims to our protection, either on the parallel which they fancy exists between themselves and the manufacturer, or on the general expediency of the measure itself, as promotive of public good; and which good, they contend, can only be effected by a special act of protection and encouragement afforded to them. With regard to the first, they say, as our manu facturers are protected, so ought our agriculturists: why should we be exposed to a distressing competition, from which they are so well secured? The demand, it must be confessed, appears sufficiently plausible in its enunciation; so much so, that many have gratuitously accepted it as unanswerable, who, without so imposing an analogy, would have been destitute of a solitary reason to support their claims. That one part of the community should enjoy peculiar privileges to the exclusion of the rest, or that any circumstances can arise to justify a discrimination in the political rights of individuals in society, are anomalies in the economy of government which they do not understand; and there is no wonder that they have misled even some ingenious men in their speculations on this subject: but I will endeavour to explain to them in what the difficulty consists, where their analogies are false, and, consequently, how their conclusions are erroneous. The protection which the legislature affords to certain merchants, and manufacturers, is not a partial act, intended, in its consequences, to benefit a part, but, prospectively, to improve the condition of the whole. It arises out of the wisest policy, inasmuch as it gives employment to capital, encouragement to industry, reward to ingenuity, renders a nation self-dependent, creates a vast source of wealth and revenue, and produces the consolatory prospect of our never experiencing the calamities of famine. It is the establishment of chartered companies, and protecting duties, that frequently occasions the investiture of capital in commerce and manufactories; of which we have numerous examples recorded in our history, from the time of Edward the Third to the present day. Protection and encouragement are co-existent with their formation; and to remove them afterwards, except under very particular circumstances, would be to defraud the merchant and manufacturer of their just rights.

As different nations have advanced with various rapidity towards

civilisation, and an acquaintance with the arts of life, even in situations where natural opportunities are the same, so it is wise and politic in the governors of those nations, which have made least progress, to encourage talent, and direct capital to the useful objects in which others excel; and to promote, by every reasonable tempta tion, the improvement of natural advantages. What but such encouragement, protection and temptation, could have raised England to its present envied political greatness, and commercial independence and distinction? It is this protection that promises to enable us to supply ourselves with iron of a quality equal to that of Sweden; an acquisition that would not have been believed to be possible a century ago it is to this protection that we owe the fineness of our fleeces, which bid fair to equal, if not excel, those of Spain: it is this protection and encouragement that naturalised in our country the weaver of Flanders, the glass-maker of Venice, the chemist and dyer of Holland, and the silk-weaver of France,-that made the wool of our flocks, the sand of our shores, and the produce of our fields, contribute to enrich and exalt the character of the kingdom,-that brought the trade of Genoa and Amsterdam, united, to London. But these examples, it may be contended, only confirm the advantages of protection generally, and might be applied with equal justice to the agriculturist, as to the merchant and manufacturer. Let us, therefore, draw the parallel between them a little closer.

The merchant and manufacturer arise out of particular circumstances in society, nor are they ever known, excepting where agriculture, from natural impediments, cannot be practised, or where capital is accumulated, and the cultivation of the land is so completely pre-occupied, as to leave no opportunity for its employment. It is to the advancement of civilisation they owe their being,-civilisation that demands luxuries and elegancies, or feels wants and inconveniencies, unknown to primitive society. The agriculturist is required in every condition of social life, nay, it is even pre-existent to the union of man with man; for individuals must have tilled the ground, or appropriated a part of their labor to assist spontaneous productions. The manufacturer embarked his capital, and employed his labor, in an undertaking where, had he been left destitute of protection, his security was precarious, and his remuneration doubtful; whilst the certainty of demand, and necessity of supply of the objects produced by agriculture, were protections sufficient to justify the employment of capital in the cultivation of the land; the manufacturer is required to sink a large part of his fortune in the erection of buildings and machinery ;—the media and instruments by which his processes can be carried on, and whose value depends on the prosperity of the concern for which they were

erected. He collects his materials from different, and frequently from distant parts of the world, at great risk and expense. The agriculturist finds the land, the great instrument of his operations, if I may so be allowed to express myself, provided for him by nature. It demanded originally but little capital or labor to render it productive, and its products were sure of a market: whereas the products of manufactories might, from the concurrence of particular circumstances, be entirely out of request, or so depreciated in value as to occasion inevitable ruin to those engaged in them. Thus then we see, that nothing less than government protection could ever have induced men to employ their capital in manufactories; whereas the agriculturist needed no such protection, and, consequently, that the analogy, which is maintained to exist between them is not just. There is another particular connected with this point, which, at the same time that it will confirm the preceding reflections and conclusions, will afford a most consolatory pros pect to the manufacturers of this country now, and sanction by au a posteriori evidence, the wise policy of the legislature in discriminating among objects, those entitled to its protection.

It is now nearly one hundred and sixty years since the navigation act was passed, a period when many of the manufactories of this country were in their infancy. It was passed as an encouragement to bring them to maturity; and to that maturity, through its influence, many of them have happily been brought; and if now so much of the act were to be repealed as relates to them only, it would be productive of no mischief whatever. Hence the agricul turist may distinctly see the motive and consequence of protection, as regards our manufactures; that the former is as politic, as the latter is beneficial. To exemplify my assertion, that the act might be repealed in all those particulars where its end has been accomplished, it will only be necessary to consider, how little is a duty needed on foreign cottons, woollens, telescopes, &c. &c. articles which we can now make so much cheaper than all the rest of the world, that we supply almost every market with them. If any country could supply us cheaper than our own manufacturers can afford them, why do they not supply those markets which we supply, and thereby deprive us of our trade? But this is not done, and therefore may be inferred to be incapable of being done.

Hitherto I have confined myself to the manufacturer, but am led, by an easy transition, to consider what circumstances may arise to make the manufacturer a merchant; or, more generally, what circumstances may produce such a character in society as a merchant.

It would be needless to prove, that no country exports any thing but its excess of produce, or its excess of manufactures, or

its excess of capital; and where there is no excess there is no commerce. The excess of some countries is corn; of others bullion, or capital; and of others manufactures. Now whenever it happens, that a country which has an excess of one of these objects, Jabors under a deficiency of the other two, it is willing to exchange that excess for a part of their possession; and if they be similarly circumstanced, a barter results, and the consequence is beneficial to all. Here we are led to discover the relative political importance of these three great branches of trade and industry. The agriculturist, whose means are limited by the extent of laud capable of cultivation, produces the necessaries of life as far as those limited means will enable him. The manufacturer, whose means are, to a certain degree unlimited, affords us the conveniences of life, and furnishes that excess which, in the hands of the merchant, enriches us, employs our population, gives us all our luxuries and elegant enjoyments, and makes us a kingdom at once powerful and refined. The protection, therefore, which is extended to the merchant, is an indirect protection to the manufacturer, and a still more remote, but not less certain protection, to the country. To apply these remarks to the present subject, it will be necessary to consider that we have an excess of manufactures and a deficiency of corn, and that many other countries have an excess of corn, and a deficiency of manufactures. A transfer of these excesses affords to each the object it requires: and thus the manufacturers of England may be regarded as our indirect agriculturists. But as our deficiency of corn produce may be questioned by some who have not taken the trouble to investigate the matter, and as it ought to be understood by all interested in the present inquiry, so I hope the following remarks will satisfactorily prove the truth of that position. If we had a home supply equal to the consumption, it follows, as a necessary unexceptionable consequence, that every grain which is brought into the kingdom must occasion a waste: but as abstract reasonings do not appeal to the understanding with so much force as particular examples, let us suppose the consumption of this country to be one thousand quarters of wheat a year; and let us further suppose, that the quantity produced is also one thousand quarters. If then one hundred quarters should be imported into the country, who is to consume it? Our supply and consumption are, by supposition, equal, independent of these one hundred quarters. To suppose that it is constantly imported for the purpose of being wasted, is ridiculous; but there are other suppositions made, which, though in reality equally ridiculous, are more plausible in appearance. It is said, that as these one hundred quarters imported would have as great a chance of falling into the hands of the consumer as any of the home produce, so if it all met with that chance, it would occasion the growers