must live, and the farmer is unable to pay him. Every rector or vicar ought to be independent of his parishioners, nor should any institution be suffered to exist which is calculated to create between them dissension and animosity. It matters surely nothing either to the landholder or to the farmer, whether the tithes are paid by the farmers individually to the clergyman, or are added to the rent, and paid by the landholder. In Scotland the clergymen's stipends are paid by the landholders directly; here, through the medium of the farmer, though ultimately by the land proprietor. In Scotland a dispute between a clergyman and his parishioners is rarely known, their interests never appear to clash; here altercations are numberless. Again, the inequality of the poor-rates is in many cases grievously oppressive: while in some parishes, fortunately situated, they are low, in others they exceed the rent paid to the landlord. Nothing can be more unjust. A farmer undertakes a farm on a lease of twenty-one years, agreeing to pay twenty shillings an acre, and calculates his poor rate at four shillings per pound. A manufactory is introduced into the parish; the poor-rate rises to ten or fifteen shillings, and he is ruined. It is rumored that Government intend to equalize the rate, and to make the maintenance of the aggregate of the poor the duty of the whole community. Under a constitution like ours, it is impossible to be too watchful in guarding against any measure which is calculated to extend the prerogative of the Crown, or to increase ministerial influence.That this effect would follow from the adoption of such plan, there is certainly reason to apprehend. It is to be feared also, that the vigilance which every parish is now compelled to exercise, in order to protect itself against the frauds and encroachments of paupers, would be greatly relaxed, if it did not wholly cease; and that the entire system might ultimately become a mere ministerial job. The value of property also, to the detriment of some proprietors, would necessarily be affected. Where the rate is now high, the value would rise; where the rate is low, the value would fall. No pure good, however, is attainable; and if any scheme could be devised by which these evils might be mitigated, if not prevented, great benefit would accrue to the community.

It might also materially contribute towards alleviating the present distress, not only of the agriculturist, but also of the

manufacturer, if the existing statute against usury were either amended or repealed. This statute is impolitic in its views, unjust in its principle, inefficient in its purpose, and detrimental in its effect. While it aims at restraining the rapacity of individuals, it obstructs the free circulation of floating capital. It is iniquitous; because the owner of money has as just a right to fix a price on the use of his commodity, as the landholder, or the manufacturer. It is inefficient, because the statute is easily, and daily evaded; and it is detrimental not only to the community, but also to the very individuals, whom it aims at protecting, by compelling them to resort to unprincipled and rapacious usurers for pecuniary accommodation. Few capitalists will be inclined to lend money on any mortgage, much less on precarious security, who can obtain, as at present they may do, a larger per centage in the public funds. The amendment, or the total abolition of this statute, would, it is conceived, be highly beneficial. Money, like every other commodity, should be allowed a free and open market. Si quid novisti rectius istis,

Candidus imperti; si non, his utere mecum.

I have the honor to be, with great respect, Sir,

Your most obedient,

ALEX. CROMBIE.

BY WHICH THE RECURRENCE OF

Famines may be prevented,

AND

THE PRESSURE

OF THE

POOR LAWS GREATLY ABATED,

BY

A SLIGHT AND PARTIAL CHANGE

IN OUR COMMON AGRICULTURAL PRACTICE.

BY W. RICHARDSON, D. D.

LATE FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN.

TO

RICHARD PRESTON, ESQ. M. P.

Ir is now more than five years since the success of some agricultural practices of mine, induced me to think, that an extension of them in the common course of cropping our lands, might operate very powerfully in abating the pressure of two evils; by preventing the return of the one (famine) under which we had so lately suffered, and by relieving us from the greater part of the weight of the other, (the poor-laws,) under which we still labor.

The state of the country is now materially altered, the dread of famine has vanished for the present, and its recurrence, though in the common course of nature, is now little speculated upon; our distress at this time arises from a very different cause, an unsaleable redundance.

In these contradictory circumstances, the pressure of the poor laws operates with the same force, and is probably now a still greater grievance than formerly, from our inability to pay a tax which seems steadily on the increase.

What an unhappy system does this code of poor laws form, subjecting us to a grievance greatly aggravated by scarcity, and made more intolerable by abundance!

This calamitous state of our country has induced many to hazard their speculations on the means of relieving us; and even you, who by your professional labors have attained so much celebrity, have not been prevented from dedicating a part of your

valuable time to the service of the public, and I have no doubt that your Review of the distresses of the Landed and Agricultural Interests, (which I am very anxious to see,) will suggest the most judicious and effectual measures for relieving those distresses, while your high respectability will secure an attention to them, that will enable them to operate still more powerfully.

An obscure individual may not be able to rouse the public attention, but he is justified on this pressing occasion, for attempting to come forward, by the consideration that he recommends nothing but what he himself has tried and practised for many years, what is equally in the reach of every other agriculturist, and what, if pretty generally adopted, must immediately reduce the pressure of the poor laws nearly to nothing, without altering an iota of that code, as it now stands.

It is necessary to be watchful that the measures I suggest, intended for the removal of two evils, may not, when only one of them is in action, operate injuriously; and as our present calamities are immediately occasioned by superfluity of grain, let us see that the measures held out as likely to produce a more extended cultivation, may not, by increasing the redundance of corn, and lowering the prices still farther, aggravate our present distress.

No; for the slightest attention to these measures will show that their effect in increasing our agricultural field, is but ́secondary; that their direct and immediate operation is to increase the food of our domestic animals, to enable us to keep more stock, and to go more largely into the feeding business. But whatever grievances we may labor under at present, the retrospect of our situation for the last thirty or forty years, will probably show us that we have little reason to apprehend that we shall again be oppressed by redundance, and of course that we may with prudence adopt any measures useful in another point of view, though likely to extend our agricultural practice, and to increase our grain crops.