curate is allowed to make from the Bishop to the Archbishop, is it not a mockery to talk seriously of such a provision, especially when he is exposed to costs, if he fail in his appeal? In fact, the bill will place at the mere mercy of the Bishops, not only the property of the incumbent, but also that of the patron. In this shape the bill must be an evil in place of a good; but, if the law were imperative upon the bishops, it appears to me, that it would be atteuded with exceeding good effects.

AMERICAN MONIES. The reader wil remember, that I predicted, that the monies of the holders of American funds would come to England in protested bills of exchange; or, rather, in bills that would meet with a protest instead of payment. I have now before me a letter from a merchant, subscribed with his name and place of abode, informing me, that a bill, being, perhaps, the first remittance of the monics of a great and notorious fund holder, the sum upwards of seven thousand pounds, has come to hand, and has actually been protested. I shall not publish names, and I need not; but, I will expres my hearty wish, that every succeeding bill may meet with the same fate; and, that, of all the vast sum of monies; not as much as would purchase the insertion of a single puff paragraph in the Morning Chropicle may ever reach the hands of the greedy owner, who, were he begging his bread, would not merit a crust from an English hand. The excuse, I hear, is, in these cases, that the embargo prevents ships from coming to bring the worth of the bills drawn upon England. But, who made the enbargo? Who but the Americans themselves? What an impudent excuse! I, however, have no ground of complaint against the Americans, upon this score; for, if, from any supernatural cause, they should prove to be honest men, my readers may be led to doubt of my veracity- -What an impudent excuse! "I have barred up my shop door, and,

therefore, cannot send you any goods in "return for your monies." What an impudent thing! But, it is good; very good, thus to see their flatterers and defenders pupished by them.

MR. SCOTT'S LETTER- -This letter, which, in answer to A. B. C. (page 378 of the present volume) was to have been published last week, was, at the joint request of Lord Oxford and a common friend of the parties, withheld from publication. Mr. Scott has, as will be seen below, consented to withdraw the letter altogether; but, I think it a dull to him to say, that the letter contained as far as am able to judge,

a full refutation of all the assertions and insinuations, contained in the letter of A. B. C. unaccompanied with an injurious r.fc ion upon any person whatever. Panton Square, April 21, 1808.

MR. SCOTT'S LETTER.

SIR, AS I understand my letter, announced for publication in your last paper, in answer to the anonymous letter of A. B. C., was suspended at the particular request of the Earl of Oxford, it is but justice to myself to observe, that the public being made any party to this business was not 'begun by me, and that, if I abstain from urging any further publication upon the subject, af'ter all the means of injuring me have been exhausted, it must depend upon the conduct of other persons; and, if in vindicating myself, I may wound the feelings of those persons, which it is not in my nature wantonly to do, and which I can never do without wounding my own, they ought to consider a little the precept we have been all taught, "Do unto others, as you would have them

"do unto you.". I am, &c.--JAMES

SCOTT.

Norfolk Street, April 20, 1808,

MR. WAKEFIELD'S 3D. LETTER. SIR, Having in my last endeavoured to point out the only available resource left to the country, at the immediate moment of a scarcity, I am anxious to now call your attention to the causes which have made Great Britain an importing corn country. That we are so, I consider as an indisputable fact; a correspondent of yours however, quarrels with this assertion, because I have not brought my account of import and export down to the close of last year. After the holidays I will furnish you with the accounts of import and export for 1806 and 1807, 25 I am desirous to remove every doubt, which can be raised of the existence of these facts, upon which he justly says "my arguments depend." But, whatever may be the ac counts for the two last years, I wish it to be distinctly understood, that my fears, my anxieties, do not arise from a review of what has occurred in any one or two years, they arise from observing that for seventy years at one period, we were an exporting corn country, that we have not only ceased to export, but that we now actually import, and have imported for more than the last thirty years; not only so, but that the proportion of import has increased in an astonishing de gree. This alteration is the fact upon which I rest every argument, every opinion which I have upon the subject; and whether (as your correspondent suggests) it has or has

not occurred in the course of a single year, the last if he pleases it, has nothing I think to do with the question. Before entering upon the subject of my present address, I will answer the other points relied upon in the letter which you have inserted in Saturday's Register. Your correspondent states a certain breadth of wheat grown every year in the kingdom, and an average produce upon this quantity of land, if this data are true, the whole produce is justly stated, and it would most amply feed all those who depend upon wheaten bread for subsistence, but it is necessary he should establish his data with as much precision as the Custom House books do the entries of corn inwards and outwards. It is very easy to suppose "fifty millions of acres to be in a state of cultivation," and to suppose one half of them, are under the plough," but I want more than vague supposition. Especially as without taking up the pages of your Register in replying minutely to all parts of this calculation, its fallacy may be shewn by asking what has been done with the corn which has been imported in the course of the last thirty-five years. It has not been exported. This the Custom-house books prove. Has it been burnt? Has it been thrown into the sea? Or, has it in some shape or other been consumed by the people of England? If it has been consumed by the people, as beyond all doubt is the fact, then it is impossible for us to have been yearly growing more than we consume, and of course the supposititious account of land under the plough, and an annual surplus produce of wheat is erroneous. -The more I consider the principles of political economy, the more am I convinced of the truth of the statement of Sir James Stewart, that every man, every body of men, every nation is impelled to active exertion by the feelings of self interest. Now, has or has not, the interest of the British farmer been sufficiently attended to? Has the money price of his produce been allowed to keep pace with that of his expences? Has he been as well paid for investing his property in agriculture, as he would have been by investing it in any undertaking of manufactures or commerce. I have not myself any doubt, but that he has not been rewarded; I have not any doubt but that the price of grain does not pay the farmer, the use of his capital, his labour, and risk. Can any one doubt, but that if agriculture would have yielded equal or greater interest to the owner of a capital, than West Indian adventure, or foreign commerce, capitalists would have invested their property in the manufacture of corn; for a farmer is in truth, no other than

a manufacturer, and that also of the staple commodity of the country. Is this the case? Do we see large capitalists employing their money, devoting their time and attention to the growth of corn. No! Then what is the reason why they do not? It is because such undertakings do not answer their purpose, if they did there are no men who would be more eager to engage in farming speculations. It is however necessary before I proceed further, that I should establish this important and ruinous fact beyond all kind of dispute, for upon it the whole of my subsequent reasoning will be built, and depend a comparison of the laws of 1670, 1688, and 1706, and those of 1773 and 1791 will be nearly sufficient to convince you of this fact. By those of the first period a bounty was given upon the export of wheat till the price equalled 48s. per quarter. By those of the last period bounty ceased when wheat was 44s. the quarter!!! The money price of every article of manufacture and commerce has increased in price; in other words, the value of money has fallen. Yet, in the face of this acknowledged fact, it is expected that the money price of corn is to be stationary!! worse than stationary! decreasing!! But this is only a part of the evil, this is only some of these facts, which from the evidence I have to offer in support of the melancholy proposition which I laid down in the early part of my letter, for in addition to all the foregoing facts, it is necessary to take into full and serious consideration, the augmented and augmenting expences of the farmer, the money price of his produce has stood still, while every machine, every barn, every article of his dead stock, has advanced in proportion to the fall in the value of money. Rent has in the same proportion advanced upon him; so have the poor rates, so have taxes. At the suggestion of a committee of the House of Commons, the Board of Agriculture in the year 1804, sent circular letters throughout the kingdom, to ascertain the then expences of cultivation, and amount of produce. A similar inquiry had been made fourteen years before, and the result of a comparison between them is, that while the expences of the farmer have augmented in this short period, in the enormous proportion of thirtyone per cent. his produce has only increased six and half per cent. The two last items of his increased expenditure claim particular consideration, for as the poor rates are now levied they fall almost entirely upon the farmer. For rents or annual value being almost exclusively rated, every other species of capit.. escapes from contribution. And in the last

century this barthen has more than quintupled. As to taxes, that on horses employed in agriculture, is a direct tax upon the farmer, and upon him only; and as the income tax is now levied, that also is a direct tax upon him; for it is not a rate upon his income, but bears a fixed proportion to his rental, whether he gains or loses by his farm. Yet this is called a tax upon his income? The mercantile interest take better care of themselves, they have their averages and their allowances for bad debts, not so with the farmer, he has no allowances for bad seasons, no average is allowed him for variation of profit, from the fluctuation of price. Hence it appears to me, that it is but too certain the employment of capital and enterprise in farming, pays an infinitely less profit than their employment in any other pursuit or undertaking whatever. It remains then, to consider the best means of adding to the profits of the farmer, and thus by the certain, though gradual operation of the principle of self interest, to prompt him to a more perfect and extended cultivation. Tythes have often been urged as damping the ardour of farming enterprise, but some facts are on record, which warrant the conclusion, that at the most tythes have but a feeble and partial operation, they have been gathered in every period of our agricultural history during which a long course of farming prosperity has enriched the nation; and wherever a supposed cause has equally existed in two periods, the one prosperous, and the other calamitous, it does not seem the soundest reasoning to recur to it as the source of the change. I therefore, feel inclined to dismiss tythe from my consideration of the subject, as it tends to draw away the mind from that great and efficient cause, to which only the alteration can with any truth be attributed. I have already alluded to the poor rates and taxes, and concerning them I shail merely observe in addition, that their injurious operation has been within these thirty or forty years, for during the existence of the revolution corn laws, the poor rates scarcely doubled; but during the modern period, they have more than trebled, and the taxes I have named have been imposed within the last fifteen years. Inclosures merit particular consideration, if they should be forced upon the farmer, it will augment the evil of which I am complaining; but if only encouraged by means of facilitating the obtainment of inclosure bills, the bringing the waste lands into cultivation will not proceed faster than the joint prosperity of the farmer, and the country will warrant. Inclosures, however will rather be the effect of such

prosperity, than its positive parent, though afterwards they will have the effect of upholding and perpetuating it. I shall, therefore, postpone the further observations I propose to offer you upon them, until I have fully considered the difference between the revolution corn laws, and those of 1773 and 1791. In doing which I shall endeavour to convince you, that to this difference, and to this almost alone, should be attributed the danger to which the country is exposed, by not producing provisions equal to its consumption; but to avoid trespassing too much upon the pages of your Register, I will defer this subject to my next letter.And am, Sir, yours, &c.-EDWARD WAKEFIELD. -Duke Street, Westminster, April 18, 1808.

ENCLOSURE BILL.

SIR,I observed in your last Register, that you stated your objections to a general Enclosure Bill. It cannot but. be admitted that the lands now enclosed might be cultivated so as to produce more than they now do. Farms might be better fenced, and better planted, and fallows altogether exploded. But, Mr. Cobbett, I beg you to consider that there are certain things necessary before a farm can be improved, viz. capital, knowledge, and industry. Numberless people now in possession of land, and likely to continue so, have not even one of these requisites. If an Enclosure Bill was passed, I presume that many master manufacturers, and those who have hitherto employed their capitals in foreign commerce, would turn their attention to the cultivation of land, which would surely be more beneficial to the country, than were they to live in idleness upon the interest of their money. It need not be said that they have not a sufficient knowledge of agriculture, as with the assistances now to be obtained, a man with capital and industry may soon become a tolerable good farmer. But, Sir, if the legislature was to go no farther, than to pass an act to enclose open field lands, what an immense difference this would soon make in the food and other articles brought to market; for these lands are from necessity cultivated in the very worst way. 1 ought to leave the discussion of this important subject to more able writers, I trust that Mr. Arthur Young and others will not let the matter rest. But I cannot help making one or two more remarks. You ask, "would a general enclosure cause more persons to be born and raised up?" Without doubt it would; but the tilling of more land would shortly create great abundance, and years would

elapse before the population could advance so as to occasion distress, from numbers bearing hard upon the necessaries of life. You also say," that it would cause no increase in the quantity of food raised." I cannot think you will continue to hold this opinion, when you consider that the lands now waste, by good management, would yield in the course of a few years, acre for acre nearly as much as the best lands in the country. Before you make up your mind completely upon this subject, I recommend it to you, Sir, to take a tour amongst the Mendip hills in Somersetshire, where I doubt not, if you inquire as to the state of that county previous to its enclosure, you will be satisfied of the advantages to be derived from the culture of wastes. But not to take up more of your time, I shall only add, that were a General Enclosure Bill to be passed, little advantage I think would accrue from the division of wastes into small

portions; but, on the other hand, if divided into farms of from one to three hundred acres, the benefit to the nation would be beyond all calculation.I am, Sir, &c.M. H.-March 14, 1808.

WOODCOCKS AND SNIPES.

SIR,However I may differ from you on certain political measures, I have ever considered you, as a true champion for the just rights and liberties of the people; and, under this impression, venture to offer you my sentiments, on the intention of ministers to comprehend in the list of game, woodcocks and snipes As a measure of revenue, it appears to me extremely absurd; for, as both woodcocks and snipes, are birds difficult to shoot, it cannot be supposed that a qualified person, who is a good shot, would restrict himself solely to those birds, when by taking a licence, he would have a much greater scope of amusement; and might easily repay himself the expence of it, by killing other game. As a proof of this, I know several gentlemen in my neighbourhood, whose servants in the space of one month, sell more hare skins alone, than would pay for a licence-Was this boasted country (always depicted as overflowing with resources) in so desperate a situation, as to require the paltry augmentation which this measure could effect; would it not be better, to allow unqualified persons the liberty they have hitherto enjoyed, on paying a certain annual sum for this permission; say 2s. 6d. or even 5s. per annum; that this tax would be more productive, there cannot be a doubt; and it would also give more general satisfaction; the penalties for killing game would remain

in full force, and those found trespassing against them, could be equally punished. The markets would as usual be supplied with those birds, so that those persons, who had not leisure, or skill to procure them, might occasionally enjoy little dainties. But, it now appears, Mr. Cobbett, that such delicate morsels are not fitting for the middle and lower classes of Englishmen; yet those are the people who are to fight our battles; those are the people, who ground almost to dust by the tax gatherer, are called on in the same breath, to relinquish one of their few and innocent amusements, and to shed their last drop of blood in preserving inviolate, our free and most excellent constitution. It may be asserted, that many persons under pretence of shooting these birds destroy other game; and, it is therefore, necessary to put a stop to such practice by the law in question. To such persons I beg to answer, that in spite of this intended regulation, an unqualified free Englishman, will still be permitted to shoot sparrows; nay, more, ducks, &c. Therefore the same pretence will exist in full vigour, notwithstanding this new act of the legislature.-Where then, Mr. Cobbett, are we to look for the reasons of its adoption. Is it that our nobility, and rich commoners, are alone worthy of slaying and eating woodcocks and snipes; is it that at a late route of my Lady Pentweazles, there was a deficiency of those delicacies. Or, is it intended as a measure to reimburse the Treasury, for the grant so lately bestowed on the family of poor Lord Lake?---Not being an adept in the learned languages, many of your learned readers, may doubtless, criticise the subject, language, and style of this letter; should you, Sir, however, think it intelligible to the plainer part of your readers, and not altogether unworthy of your notice; you will oblige me by inserting it in your valuable Register.-I am, Sir, &c.—AN ENEMY TO OPPRESSION.

WOODCOCKS AND SNIPES.

SIR; -I beg leave to return you my sincere thanks for the very great pleasure I have often received from the reading your useful and entertaining paper, of which I am a pretty constant reader, and, in general, an admirer. I confess, that, esteeming you a man of great penetration and sound judgment, I felt some apprehension for the fate of my dear country, from your state. ment of its situation and circumstances; but, I am happy to inform you, my fears and apprehensions are all entirely done away by the circumstance of the chancellor of the exchequer having just now brought in a bill

to prevent the shooting of woodcocks and snipes as game. If some little Nimrod of a lordship had brought in such a bill at this time, it might have lessened my fears, but would not have removed them; but, when I see one so high in office amusing himself in a thing of such very little consequence, I feel perfectly at ease as to any danger of an invasion. Mr. Cobbett, I am not ambitious of appearing in print, and yet I could wish this letter to be published, to convince this upstart, self-created emperor, with what contempt we look upon his menaces; and that, whilst he is threatening us with invasion, subjugation, and all the horrors of extermination, we are smilingly contemplating the additional pleasure our sportsmen will enjoy in the next shooting season.-As I am not a man of learning, perhaps I may not know the true meaning of the word “ patriot: if I do, I can, with great truth, subscribe myself. -A TRUE PATRIOT.

OFFICIAL PAPERS. SWEDEN. Answer of Sweden to the Danish Declaration of War. Dated Stockholm, March 21, 1808.

The court of Denmark had made an alliance with France, was prepared to receive French troops in its country, collected transport vessels in its port, fitted out all its ships in the road of Copenhagen, to cover a French expedition against Sweden, and then issued a declaration of war. Denmark accused Sweden of being the cause of this rupture, because she did not make her compliments of condolence on the loss of her fleet, because she would not co-operate to avenge that humiliation, and especially because she sought aid from England against such an aggression.-The relations of the king with his neighbouring power were those of a simple peace. There was neither alliance, nor any convention whatever which traced out for the two courts any common course for their political conduct; therefore when Sweden, Russia, and Prussia fought in conjunction against France, Denmark, under the shade of her neutrality, appeared the friend of all. The king witnessing this system, and convinced by some explanations, demanded in the course of the year 1905, of the impossibility of ob taining a change favourable to Sweden, could not entertain a hope that the naval force of Denmark could ever be useful to him; on the contrary, after the peace of Tilsit, he had every reason to fear that, by the suggestions of Russia and France, it might be one day turned against him. His majesty, therefore, though it proper to observe a

profound silence relative to the events which passed in his vicinity last autumn, leaving to England and faturity to justify them.-It is due to truth, however, to declare, that the court of London did not invite Sweden to take part in this expedition, nor confided it to her till the moment of its being carried into execution. Therefore, not the least movement was made in Sweden on this occasion. The English fleet' arrived and departed without entering into any port of Sweden, and the auxiliary troops, embarked in Pomerania, were restored in virtue of a separate article in the convention concluded at London, relative to this object, on the 17th of June, 1807, when certainly there was as yet no reference to this expedition. The following is the article:" It is fully

understood, that, in case that unforeseen "circumstances should render impracticable "the object of this convention, or that his "Britannic majesty should find it necessary "to withdraw the said troops (the German legion) from Swedish Pomerania, the stipulation of this convention shall in no manner prevent his Britannic majesty from giving such orders as he may judge "proper with respect to the ulterior dispo"sition of these troops which are now

66

66

66

placed under the orders of his Swedish majesty." The court of London has since fully justified this enterprize, and the experience of every day justiñes it. Numerous French armies remained in lower Saxony and over-awed the north. There were still nations to subjugate, ports to shut, and forces to direct against England. They were to penetrate at any rate: they would have acted in any case and under any pretence that might have offered. At present it is the expedition against the Danish fleet which is the rallying word of the whole league. What is remarkable is, that the Danish government, already beset by French troops, overpowered, impelled, and even paid by France, issues a declaration of war against Sweden, without daring even to name the power which forces it to act. It seeks with embarrassment, grievances and reasons to appear to have had in this determination a will of its own. It cites the remonstrances of Sweden against the arrest of the Swedish mails as vexatious, while in its severity against English correspondence, it would not suffer it to pass according to treaty, and declares that it is imperiously obliged to take these measures. It pretends to know the thoughts of the king, and imagines them hostile, though for some months it had concerted an aggression upon Sweden. It pretends to reason on the in