ON THE PRICE OF CORN, AND MANAGEMENT OF THE POOR.' TO MESSIEURS THE PUBLIC. I am one of that class of people that feeds you all, and at present is abused by you all ;-in short, I am a farmer. By your newspapers we are told, that God had sent a very short harvest to some other countries of Europe. I thought this might be in favor of Old England; and that now we should get a good price for our grain, which would bring millions among us, and make us flow in money: that, to be sure, is scarce enough. But the wisdom of government forbad the exportation.* Well, says I, then we must be content with the market-price at home. No, say my lords the mob, you sha'n't have that. Bring your corn to market if you dare;—we'll sell it for you, for less money, or take it for nothing. Being thus attacked by both ends of the constitution, the head and the tail of government, what am I to do? Must I keep my corn in the barn to feed, and increase the breed of rats?—be it so; they cannot be less thankful than those I have been used to feed. • The following extracts of a letter, signed Columella, and addressed to the editors of the Repository for select Papers on Agriculture, Arts, and Manufactures, (see Vol. I. p. 352,) will again serve the purpose of preparing those who read it, for entering upon this paper, "GENTLEMEN, "There is now publishing in France a periodical work, called Ephemerides du Citoyen, in which several points interesting to those concerned in agriculture, are from time to time discussed by some able hands. In looking over one of the volumes of this work a few days ago, I found a little piece written by one of our countrymen, and which our vigilant neighbors had taken from the London Chronicle in 1766. The author is a gentleman well known to every man of letters in Europe; and perhaps there is none, in this age, to whom mankind in general are more indebted. "That this piece may not be lost to our own country, I beg you will give it a place in your Repository it was written in favor of the farmers, when they suffered so much abuse in our public papers, and were also plundered by the mob in many places." The principles on which this piece is grounded, are given more at large in the Political Fragments, art. 2. B. V. "It is not necessary to repeat in what degree Dr. Franklin respected the ministers, to whom he alludes.-The embargo upon corn was but a single measure: which, it is enough to say, a host of politicians thought well advised, but ill defended.-Of the great and honorable services of the Earl of Chatham to his country, Dr. Franklin has borne the amplest testimony. B. V, Are we farmers the only people to be grudged the profits of our honest labor? -And why? One of the late scribblers against us, gives a bill of fare of the provisions at my daughter's wedding, and proclaims to all the world, that we had the insolence to eat beef and pudding!—Has he not read the precept in the good book, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn; or does he think us less worthy of good living than our oxen? O, but the manufacturers! the manufacturers! they are to be favored, and they must have bread at a cheap rate! Hark ye, Mr. Oaf;-the farmers live splendidly, you say. And pray, would you have them hoard the money they get? Their fine clothes and furniture, do they make them themselves or for one another, and so keep the money among them? Or, do they employ these your darling manufacturers, and so scatter it again all over the nation? The wool would produce me a better price, if it were suffered to go to foreign markets; but that, Messieurs the Public, your laws will not permit. It must be kept all at home, that our dear manufacturers may have it the cheaper. And then, having yourselves thus lessened our encouragement for raising sheep, you curse us for the scarcity of mutton! I have heard my grandfather say, that the farmers submitted to the prohibition on the exportation of wool, being made to expect and believe that when the manufacturer bought his wool cheaper, they should also have their cloth cheaper. But the deuce a bit. It has been growing dearer and dearer from that day to this. How so? Why, truly, the cloth is exported; and that keeps up the price. Now, if it be a good principle, that the exportation of a commodity is to be restrained, that so our people at home may have it the cheaper; stick to that principle, and go thorough stitch with it. Prohibit the exportation of your cloth, your leather, and shoes, your iron ware, and your manufactures of all sorts, to make them all cheaper at home. And cheap enough they will be, I will warrant you-till people leave off making them. Some folks seem to think they ought never to be easy till England becomes another Lubberland, where it is fancied the streets are paved with penny rolls, the houses tiled with pancakes, and chickens, ready roasted, cry, Come eat me. I say, when you are sure you have got a good principle, stick to it, and carry it thorough. I hear it is said, that though it was necessary and right for the my to advise a prohibition of the exportation of corn, yet it was contrary to law; and also, that though it was contrary to law for the mob to obstruct waggons, yet was necessary and right. Just the same thing to a tittle. Now they tell me, an act of indemnity ought to pass in favor of the my, to secure them from the consequences of having acted illegally. If so, pass another in favor of the mob. Others say, some of the mob ought to be hanged, by way of example. If so, but I say no more than I have said before, when you are sure that you have got a good principle, go through with it. You say, poor laborers cannot afford to buy bread at a high price, unless they had higher wages. Possibly. But how shall we farmers be able to afford our laborers higher wages, if you will not allow us to get, when we might have it, a higher price for our corn? By all that I can learn, we should at least have had a guinea a quarter more, if the exportation had been allowed. And this money England would have got from foreigners. But, it seems, we farmers must take so much less, that the poor may have it so much cheaper. This operates then as a tax for the maintenance of the poor. A very good thing, you will say. But I ask, why a partial tax? Why laid on us farmers only? If it be a good thing, pray, Messieurs the Public, take your share of it, by indemnifying us a little out of your public treasury. In doing a good thing, there is both honor and pleasure ;—you are welcome to your share of both. For my own part, I am not so well satisfied of the goodness of this thing. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion about the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many almshouses for the aged of both sexes; together with a solemn general law, made by the rich, to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful? and do they use their best endeavors to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty. Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners-Saint Monday and Saint Tuesday will soon cease to be holidays. Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them. Excuse me, Messieurs the Public, if upon this interesting subject I put you to the trouble of reading a little of my nonsense; I am sure I have lately read a great deal of yours; and therefore from you (at least from those of you who are writers) I deserve a little indulgence. I am yours, &c. ARATOR.' 'The late Mr. Owen Ruffhead being some time ago employed in preparing a Digest of our Poor Laws, communicated a copy of it to Dr. Franklin, for his advice. Dr. Franklin recommended that provision should be made therein, for the printing on a sheet of paper and dispersing, in each parish in the kingdom, annual accounts of every disbursement and receipt of its officers. It is obvious to remark how greatly this must tend to check both the officers and the poor, and to inform and interest the parishioners with respect to parish concerns. Some of the American colonies actually practise this measure with a success which might justify its adoption here. [England.] Later improvements, however, in the English poor laws, have not only been meditated, but attempted. In particular, in 1773, an act of parliament was proposed, in order to invite the poor to set apart money for the purchase of annuities, in all parishes and townships managing the poor'srate, that could admit of, and would formally consent to the regulation. Some of the particulars of this scheme were as follows. The annuities, which to accommodate the poor were payable quarterly, were in no case to exceed 201. and no principal purchase-money was to be received of less amount than 57. at a time; the parties might choose any age for the purchase between 15 and 75, but they could not receive the annuity before 50 if men, and 35 if women, the annuity in the mean time increasing in proportion as they had waited; the annuities also could not knowingly be granted to any but those entitled to legal parish settlements, nor for any other lives than those of the grantees; though they were saleable, provided the first refusal of them was offered to the grantors. The proper officers of the parish or township (who were constituted the grantors) in order to effect sessions. these purposes, were to be erected into a corporation with a seal; the grants (which were framed according to a prescribed and cheap form, and protected from frauds) were to be in several ways authenticated and preserved; the annuities were to be taken up in some parliamentary fund, after the rate of 3 per cent. interest, negociable at the bank of England; and the accounts, after being properly kept and signed, were to be annually audited and recorded with the justices at the quarterThe relief to the poor in case of delay of payment was summary and almost instant; but in return, the corporation might receive gifts and legacies, and have the benefit of all neglected annuities, to the easing of the poor's-rate; besides other advantages given them by the calculations, particularly that arising from a low standard of interest, which necessarily rendered the terms of the annuity in proportion dearer to the poor. It was thought that domestic use and economy were concerned, in thus rescuing somewhat from profligacy and unhealthy debauchery, in applying the surplus of health and of strength to the relief of the penury and infirmities of age, and in promoting good habits; yet without depriving the state on the whole of effectual labor, or leaving it incumbered with the charge of individuals, who might assist themselves. But this scheme, which was proposed by Baron Maseres, regulated and superintended as to the calculations by Dr. Price, and supported by Sir George Savile and Mr. Dowdeswell, only passed the commons: it was rejected by the lords; chiefly because the landed interest there was alarmed at the poor's-rate being made the security for the annuities, in case of deficiency in the funds. However, the burthen of the poor's-rate was still felt too considerable not to demand inquiry; and an act soon passed, calling for a general abstract of the returns made by the overseers of the poor. It appeared in consequence, that there were Of which there was expended 1,556,8051. The remainder of the sum raised was applied to county uses, except about 26,000l. which seems not to have been brought into the year's account. Nearly one-twentieth of the enormous sum expended on the poor, was for the single article of rent; and the litigations concerning settlements and the removal of paupers made another article of nearly half the same amount. In Davenant we find an estimate of the poor's-rate, made towards the latter end of Charles the Second's reign, by a reasonable medium, as he states, of several years: So that while the poor's-rate of Wales has remained in a manner stationary for this period, that of England does not fall much short of being trebled. Since the year 1776, no farther public measures seem to have been taken respecting the regulation of the poor. (Written in 1779.) (See, on the above subjects, the proposed act of parliament, with the annexed tables and instructions, printed for Eyre and Strahan; also the Abstract of the Returns of the Poor's-rate, printed for ditto; Dr. Price on Payments, 3d. edit. p. 115; and Whitworth's Davenant, vol. i. p. 39.) B.V. |