do submit (to the capture by France of their ships bound to England), for nei<<ther of them make any public remon"❝stance or protest against the decree of France,' he observes, "6 you say, this "in the face of the immediate explanation " of the French decree given by the minis❝ter of marine, Decrès, to the American envoy at Paris." This appears at the first glance a formidable rebuke; but, Mr. American Merchant, have you never heard of the questions that were in the month of September put to Buonaparté himself, by the chief judge of the court of prize causes, and of the answers that were given? Perhaps not, and therefore that you may no longer remain in ignorance of them I will here give a copy of the document: Questions put by the President of the Court of Prize Causes to the Emperor of France. 1st. Whether there shall be any excep tions to the decree of the 21st Nov. 1806 in favour of such neutrals, as, by their treaty, were allowed a fair trade on the priviledge of neutralizing property; that is to say, vessels going or coming from England with cargoes? 1 ! then occurred even of capture, both of which were afterwards restored, Now, can cite an instance of actual condemnation, and which is explained in the following Extract of a Letter received from the Continent, viz: You may depend on it that my information with regard to the French "Decree concerning neutrals trading with "England is correct; and as a proof of it, "I can inform you that an American, load"ed in England for a Spanish colony, was cast away upon the French coast, in the "Channel; and both ship and cargo have "been condemned, notwithstanding, the property was admitted to be American.' -This, then, is an instance of which I will suppose your correspondent was not aware, and I have no doubt there are still more. Yes, I say, I have no doubt there are still more, and I think every impartial man will echo my opinion, after reading the following two additional Extracts from Letters from the Continent; also written,) and received in England previous to the promul gation of our Orders in Council, viz. “The French Emperor has revived the Decree "" of the 21st of Nov. 1806, in its fall force, " and it has been acted upon at Antwerp." Again; "A private advice has been given 22d. Whether neutral vessels in ballast should also be made liable to confiscation upon the only plea of their having, even by" within these few days past, by the Amestress of weather or capture, entered a British port?! 3d Whether half of the confiscated property should in all cases be appropriated to wards indemnifying French sufferers by British spoliations ? Answers. 1 3dly. Answered in the affirmative. Now, Mr. Cobbett, does not Buonaparte's answer to the first question flatly contradict the explanation given by Decres? Your correspondent has facetiously observed, that doubting Decres' explanation" is really pretending to know better than the doc"tor" Positively I do conceive, from the document I have just copied, that the doctor's man pretended to know better than his master, or else the master (Buonaparté) subsequently thought proper to no longer permit the Americans to be exempted from the sweeping clauses of his decree.-The next assertion produced by your correspondent is, that down to the date of the Orders in Council no vessel had been condemned either in France or Spain for trading with England, and that only two instances had ❝rican minister at Paris, through the me“dium of the American : consuls, to the * consigners and others concerned in Ame"rican vessels now in this quarter, to deཧ་ part for America without delay. I have seen the minister's letter who gives as the "reason for advising such a step, bis fear "of England letting loose her cruizers up"on the American trade, when she learns that France is acting upon the Decree of the 21st Nov. Jast-I really think it unnecessary to say lone word in the way of comment on this part of my letter.I shall now proceed to the arguments and facts aðduced by your correspondent, relative to Premiums of Insurances You :'(he says) have made a gross mistatement of a plain matter of fact; and he then asserts, that the premiums of insurance throughout the year 1807 up to the news of the affair of the Chesapeake, were at peace rates, being only from 3 guineas down to 2 guineas per cent. &c. and that his own house, from April to July, only paid 2, and 24 guineas per cent. Sir, the latter end of January (about the period we just heard of the famous Berlin Decree of 11th Nov. 1806) a policy of insurance was effected on an American vessel from Alexandria to Liverpool, at 5 guineas per cent. and in February, from Liverpool to Boston, and from Liverpool to Philadel phia, at 6 guineas per cent. I could state many other instances, but they would only unnecessarily increase the length of my letter, and I know the fact cannot be contradicted, for, independent of my own individual knowledge, I could produce several of the leading underwriters in Lloyd's Coffee House as evidences to the truth of my assertion. Thus, then, premiums did advance from 150 to 200 per cent. in conse quence of the Berlin Decree; and I can also tell you, Mr. Cobbett, that from the same cause, they advanced 100 per cent. in America, without (bear in mind) any public remonstrance or protest whatever on the part of the American government --I have seen a ile of New York prices current, in which a table of the rates of insurances are printed, and it there appears, that when the Berlin Decree was known in America, the premium on a voyage to England, which was previously 24 per cent. immediately advanced to 5 per cent. Premiums continued at these advanced rates up to April, when I admit they again found nearly their former level, under the presumption that Buonaparte's Decree had not, to that period, been acted upon. But, Sir, if my information is cor rect, as stated in this letter, and which solemnly I believe it is, it unquestionably was subsequently acted upon (and that, too, previous to the promulgation of the British Orders in Council) when premiums of insurance again in consequence advanced.How miserable a subterfuge has the American Merchant been obliged to resort to in order to prove his assertions with respect to premiums. of insurance, (which he tells us is the best criterion from which to judge "of the practical import of the famous "Berlin Decree of Buonaparté") when in order to make out his case, he has been compelled to confine himself, as relates to the premiums paid by his house, to that immediate period, when the public apprehension was lulled as to the execution of the said Berlin Decree; and, by the bye, Mr. Cobbett, what a curious bundle of policies must that have been from which, he says, he at random, took his proof; this random collection, it would appear, threw not a single policy in his way, effected from the latter eud of Jauvaay to the month of March.I shall here, Sir, recapitulate your corres¡pondent's facts, and assertions, and at the same time place mine against them-1stHe reminds us of the explanation given by the French minister of marine to the Ame rican envoy at Paris, relative to the Berlin Decree, and I place against it, the questions subsequently put to Buonaparté himself, by the president of the court of prize causes, and the answers that were returned -2dly. He asserts that, previous to the issuing of our Orders in Council, no American vessels had been condemned under the Berlin Decree for trading with England, and that only two had been captured, which were afterwards restored, and I place against these assertions, the extracts of letters I have given, speaking generally as to the actual strict execution of the Berlin Decree, and stating one vessel had positively been copdemned.-3dly. He roundly declares that the premiums of insurance throughout the year 1807, up to the news of the affair of the Chesapeake, were at peace rates, being only from 3 guineas down to 2 guineas per cent., and I prove, that when the Berlin Decree was known in England, premiums advanced from 150 to 200 per cent,, and ́ when it was known in America, they there. also advanced 100 per cent. I mean direct to England and Ireland.-Here, Sir, I close with your correspondent. His personal at> tack on yourself, and his observations rela tive to the title of the King of France formerly maintained by our monarchs, having been already so very successfully answered by yourself; but before I conclude my letter, allow me to assure you, that I am actuated by no other motive in writing it, than an ardent wish to assist in rendering justice to my own country, in preference to standing forward the prejudiced advocate of America and France.I am, &c. I.London, 30th March, 1808. GENERAL ENCLOSURE. SIR,- -The observations which you' have made in your present volume, p. 365, on my proposing a general enclosure act, seem to flow from the rapid conceptions of an ardent mind, when viewing a few prominent points of a great-political question, and pronouncing a decision without sufficiently considering the various relations of the subject: if you would give the ne-. cessary attention to such a question, nobody would discuss it more powerfully, and I must esteem it a misfortune,, to:the public, that the editor of a paper, the circulation of which is so considerable, should have declared himself explicitly against a measure, which I must esteem as essential to the public welfare. I beg leave to examine your objections, in the orderyou have proposed them.-First, you-are alarmed lest such a measure should produce much confusion and litigation amongst the rights and tenures by which unenclosed. lauds are at present held; but this is an objection rather to the injudicious clauses supposed to form part of such a bill, if absurdly framed rather, than of necessity flowing from the measure itself; such might be the effect of a badly framed bill; but I would no more be the advocate for such an act, than any other man: it is an objection founded on a possible abuse, and were it listened to would justify every violent opposition that has been made to abundance of measures which experience has proved to be decisively beneficial.-During the first 40 years of his present majesty above 1800 enclosure acts passed, operating upon between two and three millions of acres, these acts have not proved the teeth of a paper mill, but have without doubt put an end to a multitude of litigations and have given a clear definition and much additional security to the rights and tenures by which these lands were held. Every one knows the perplexed, disputed, and litigated claims in the commonage of wastes, I would as soon assign them to the teeth of a paper mill, as leave them to the fangs of attornies. While those in Lincolnshire who had the pasture of a great common, quarreled for the light, a Scotch drover from the highlands swept off the food. The drivers for lords of manors may profit by parochial disputes, but it would be an odd argument against a general enclosure to apprehend the aunibilation of such rural amusements. That 2.000,000 acres of land could by the authority of commissioners be arranged enclosed and settled without injury or inconvenience, would be too much to assert, but there is great reason to believe that the rights of those concerned have, on the balance, been greatly ameliorated.--Should it be pleaded that these results have been produced by special acts, and not a general one, I reply, that due provision may be made for the security of all rights; and such an act having passed the house of commons, (though thrown out by the lords) is a proof that, that house was of the same opinion. In fact, the objections which have been made to bear on this part of the argument, are beside the mark upon the general question: they would form the business of the committee when employed upon the clauses of the bill. Your second objection, asks this question, "What good would it produce? Would it cause more corn to be raised? If it would, it would be a calamity; for it is now too cheap; at least, so have said the parliament, in the acts for exportation." But pray, Mr. Cobbett, what makes corn too cheap? The importation in the last seven years of 9,198,924 quarters, being on an average 1,314,132 quarters per annum, and your declaration is, in fact, saying that this is a right state and order of things, thus to depend on foreign commerce instead of raising the corn at home, which would be a calamity. You are too clear headed thus to state your position; but, I appeal to your candour, whether the conclusion is not fairly drawn. To me I confess that such an inportation seems to be an enormous evil, and which calls for more attention than all the sugar colonies and distilleries that ever existed. And if such an importation does not imperiously call for a general enclosure of our wastes, the voice of reason can no longer be heard; and we shall be governed by the policy of card table dowagers, who, pinched on the fixed annuities of past periods, remark that they hear of nothing but improve. ments, and feel nothing but poverty.-We execrate improvements.--George, Earl of Orford, many years ago urged to me the same argument: what can you mean, "Mr. Young, living as you do in Suffolk, "and being a good friend to Norfolk, by proposing to cultivate waste lands? Do not you see it would make corn cheap? "And whatever benefit it might be to some "it would certainly be mischievous to us." That conversation was followed by the importation of millions upon millions of quarters of foreign corn; and as the present government of this country is of your opinion upon the question of a general enclosure, we have no prospect in future but to import corn if we can get it, or of famine if we cannot. Go from Bourn Bridge to Newmarket you will find 10 miles of heath inclosed, and converted to corn, with several new farms built and established; but scarcely any other sign of increased population-none to be found further than the merely agricultural class; but, if you examine the nearest towns and villages, you will find the old blacksmiths, carpenters, wheelers, collar makers, &c. more animated in their business; but the new demands so divided through an extent of 30 surrounding miles, as to render the effects imperceptible to the eye. Mr. Burton, a practical farmer of great experience, and a much esteemed commissioner of enclosures, gave me the following detail of what had actually resulted from the enclosure and cultivation of 10,800 acres of waste land. PRODUCE. 1000 acres of wheat 2,500 qrs. at 48s. per gr. 1000 acres of barley 4000 qrs. at 24s. per qr. 1000 acres of oats 4000 grs. at 20s per qr. L 6,000 4,800 4,000 1973 N Produce sold 10,000 acresto. *800 remaining. £ 2,500 a bold projector who should advise us, upon the question of food only, to throw open our enclosures and revert to the barbarism of our ancestors, instead of straining every nervel and exerting every means to do away, by cultivation at home, the enormous import of twelve hundred thousand quarters from a 3,000 grainery, the key of which, is in the pocket of Buonaparté. Prevent the want of this importation before we hear one word of the 1,500 calamity of producing too much corn. →→→→ Your third reason for objecting to a general enclosure act is thus expressed 2,000 1,200 £25,000 -5000 acres of arable demand 200 horses, wanting each 4 acres-arable and pasture 400 acres for corn give 5 qrs. per horse for 30 weeks, or 1000 qrs. at 4 qr. per acre; 250 acres for the 1000 qrs. ; 250 acres of hay 200 tons with the barns maintain them in win ter: the 400 acres of pasture support them with mares and colts in summer. The improved rent £7,725. Tithe £1,500 a year. Labour £5000. Wear and tear £700. Seed £2,500. Rates £1,031: Interest of capital and small sundries £1,800, making a total of £20,256 and leaving an annual profit of £4,740.--You will see, Sir, by these particulars that these improvements were made under a very low price of corn, and a system of husbandry which, though good, is not quite correct. Labour amounting to one-fifth of the produce is pretty exactly in proportion to that of the agriculturists, and free hands in the population returns for the whole kingdom.I have notes of many such cases, but to recite them would occupy too many of your pages. No politician could examine aby instance of this kind, without being convinced that the increage of human food free in the market had been immense.- That inclosing increases the culture of corn, appears from the returns of above. 1,300 parishes, this was the case with wheat, barley, and oats, and nothing decreased but pease and beans: the increase in cattle, dairies, sheep, turnips, clover and potatoes was very great and if such have been the effects on enclosing two millions of acres, it surpasses my comprehension, how any valid argument can be produced against the utmost extension of similar exertions: but it is easy to conceive that had not these wise measures been embraced through those forty years, we should at present, have been ip a situation much the reverse of what we experiences and that man would be deemed Would it cause more persons to be born and raised up? Why, then, increase of consumption would go hand in hand with increase of pro duction; and no increase of abundance would take place." There is certainly some truth here, but not, I apprehend, to the ex tent stated. You have repeatedly refered to the population returns, by which it appears that 1,713,289 persons employed in agricul ture feed the total of 9,343,578, or in the proportion of every person in agriculture feeding himself and more than four others in different employments: and you will note that this is besides supporting all the live stock employed in the cultivation. Should it be contended that such new establishments would have the effect of creating a propor tional increase in those other classes not in cluded in the agricultural enumeration; I reply, that this is contrary to all experience! and more especially, at a moment when the manufacturing classes are under the least de pression in the demand for their fabrics. The waste lands are scattered through every county, and almost through every district of every county in the king dom. A great number of the farmers who would undertake the cultivation may already live in the vicinity of the wastes artizans for the supply of the farmers.un. questionably live in such vicinity. As to clothing, furniture, &c. &c. the warehouses and shops of the neighbouring towns would supply a far greater demand immediately: the industry of many existing traders would be animated without the necessary supposia tion of an increase, or, at least, of a very small one. The mere agriculturists would certainly increase, but as they contribute sol largely to feed others the more they in creased the better. Hence then, it is plain to a demonstration, that the increase of consumption would not go hand in hand with the increase of cultivation; and that the cul ture of the wastes must be considered as a great resource by which to compensate for the importation of foreign corn. In this respect improvement upon the extended scale of some millions of acres in England I will not pay your talents so bad a compli only, would be a direct confirmation of what ment as to call him the Cobbett of that day, I have seen so often exemplified in the par- and yet the remark which you make was liamentary enclosures of great commons, just as applicable then as it is now; the old which have added so considerably to the pro- enclosures were vilely cultivated; but the ductions of the kingdom; yet with a very politicians of that day did not successfully small corresponding augmentation in the urge (fortunately for us at present) that, as a numbers of the people: in some cases, par- reason against the new speculations.-The ticularly in Lincolnshire, with too small an fact is, that the state of the old enclosures augmentation, the result of not building cot- cannot, in argument, be connected with the tages sufficient even for the cultivators of the smallest degree of propriety with the expesoil. But a remark may be made here on diency of new undertakings, and for this cultivating wastes, when instigated by the plain reason, such old enclosures are in the expectation of scarcity the law that gives occupation of men who pay the rent their the power of enclosure, might require that landlords demand and the proprietors of every man in proportion to the quantity of the farms who may have known the fathers wastes broken up, should cultivate annually and grand fathers of these tenants would not a certain quantity of potatoes: such a re- be very likely to listen to advice the object quisition would at once do away every posof which would be to distress aud ruin hanmble apprehension of an increasing culture dreds of families turned adrift in favour of without a diminished importation. The men of more skill and greater capitals. more deeply we consider this subject the Speaking generally land already occupied is more clearly will it appear, that it must be, no more at our disposition than land in the byunicans of this root that any effective steps moon. And the question is, whether fap canbe taken to provide a preventative mers having skill and capital› but wanting against expected scarcity.. Nor should it be business shall not be employed on waste forgotten, that there is no crop more proper because certainold farms are badly cultivatede for commencing these operations on wastes. Such reasons and such motives appear to me I have seen 400 bushels per acre gained in to verge upon absurdity.I am very ready October, from lands which in February were to agree with you, Sir, that a better caltivacovered with heath whins and fern. tion of old enclosed lands is greatly to be have dwelt the longer on this point, because desired, and there are some circumstances I know some very able men, who from what and cases in which it would be even mores they call principles, are of opinion that an advantageous than improving the wastes,” extension of culture is only an extension of as it would be done at a far less expense, but the kingdom as it is and leaving the defi- such exertions must depend on the general ciencies of food the same as before. That policy of the kingdom: on a commutation they are in an error I have not the smallest for tithe: on leases being universally given doubt. Sitting by their fire sides will do for to tenants manifesting a dispositions or a talking of reason and principles, but it is not power to improve: and above all, on secur-3 sufficient for the attainment of that convic-ing to them a higher price of corn than they tion which results from examination on the spot, in the villages, farms, and cottages of the country. Your last objection, Sir, is founded upon the insufficient cultivation of old lands long since enclosed; which you say ought to be improved to the utmost before wastes are taken in, but I am strangely mistaken if the past facts of the last forty years do not afford something like a refutation of this remark. A large proportion of the two millions of acres enclosed in the first forty years of the present reign are now under a very capital cultivations above half a million of those acres were absolutely waste, now co vered with the waving ears of ample harvest, or grazed by great, herds of cattle and sheep where geese and ponies were once the only stock: D. Price was as famous for paradoxes as for calculation; he declared as violently against enclosures as you can do: I have received for the last seven years remains, Sir, for your readers to judge whe ther the measure of a general inclosure act would indeed be a monument of folly; or the basis of wealth of power and prosperi ty. I think it might be so framed us to prove a decided means of public security ;-10 an irrefragable proof of attention to grea and important interests. That it would im prove the morals and animate the industryi of the people! encrease the revenue of the public and prove in the event a MONEMENTÍ OF NATIONAL WISDOM.I have the honour to be, &c. &c.-ARTHUR YOUNG.-March 26, 1808. OFFICIAL PAPERS. |