Appendix: poor laws, 15 February 1831

Die Martis, 15° Februarii 1831.

[155]

The Marquess of Salisbury in the Chair.

Richard Mackenzie Bacon Esq. is called in, and examined as follows:

Have you turned your Attention to the Subject of the Distress of Agricultural Labourers, and the Poor in general?

I have.

How long is it since you took up the Subject?

About the Year 1816; the Question of the Distress then called my Attention, and I took it up generally.

Did you then consider that Distress temporary or permanent?

Permanent.

To what Causes did you attribute it?

I attributed it to Increase of Population and to Scientific Power, which must, at every Step, throw more Labourers, by shortening Processes, out of Employment.

You considered that we had a redundant Population?

I consider the Word redundant to be merely relative. I look upon Population to be redundant only as it is confined; redundant Population appears to me of the same Nature as redundant Produce. I will state a Case. Suppose a Village to contain a certain Number of Labourers and a certain Number of Persons engaged in Trade, so long as the relative Proportions of each remain, and as the Quantity of Food raised is equal to the Subsistence of the Parties, so long they will interchange their Labour; but if Labourers in Agriculture produce a certain Number of Children, there will be no Demand for their Labour; the Consequence will be, that the Population, in so far as that Space is concerned, will be found redundant; but that is a mere artificial Arrangement; because, if you enlarge the Space, the same Opportunity as previously existed for the Employment of the People will re-appear.

How would you propose to remedy the Evil?

I should propose to remedy it by increasing the Field for Labour; for instance, I consider the Process of Barter to begin by Exchange of an Article produced, and that it goes on subsequently by Exchange of the Surplus, so that, in point of fact, Demand is made by Supply. No Man thinks of demanding an Article 'till he has something to give in Exchange. When a Man in the Beginning of Society raises more than he can consume, he offers that Surplus in Exchange for something else that he wants; and therefore, in point of fact, Supply and Demand are reciprocal Agents.

Do you conceive that in this Country the Supply of Production, as well as of Capital and Labour, is so abundant as to reduce the Price below the Cost of producing it?

That never can permanently be the Case, for Capital and Labour would both go out of Employment in any particular Branch which did not repay the Cost of Production; but amongst Agriculturists it has been particularly and expressly stated that Production does not remunerate the Farmer; that has been the great Complaint at various Periods since the Year 1816; therefore it is to be assumed perhaps, to a certain Degree, as a Fact, that Agriculture has not given that Remuneration to the Employment of Capital which other Professions have given.

How would your Theory operate in a Case like our own, where the Supply of Production, as well as the Capital and Labour, is so abundant as to reduce the Price below the Cost of producing it?

I conceive this to be founded upon an Error. If you keep a great Quantity of the Population at the Minimum of Subsistence, and if at the same Time you keep them idle, you prevent their producing any Article which they can exchange for other Productions, and at the same Time you abstract just so much as their Subsistence costs from the Earnings of others, and by that Means you saddle the real Production of the Country with the Food of the idle Labourers, so that all the Poor Rate, in point of fact, is a total Abstraction from the Production of others; at the same Time that you reduce all those who subsist as Paupers to the very Minimum of Subsistence, and prevent them at the same Time from producing that which would give Employment to the Labours of others.

You assume that the Employment of the idle on the Soil would add to Production, and decrease Wages; how has it happened that Owners and Occupiers of Land have not done that?

I must extend the Terms of the first Proposition, namely, to the Employment of the idle on Waste Land. I apprehend from the Practice, that it is a universal Admission no more Labourers can be profitably employed on Land under Cultivation; then it follows, that if a Farmer having all the great Expences as they now stand, that is to say, if he pays Rent, Tithes, Manure, and Tradesmen's Bills, and if the fair Employment of Labour would add to his Production, of course if that Production exceeded in any Degree the Sum beyond the mere Payment of Labour, all the other Expences being the same, it would profit him to employ that Labour. But it seems to go against the universal Judgment to state that Labour can be profitably employed, when One single Article should forbid its Employment to any considerable Extent. Another Reason now generally assigned is, that the Farmers want Capital, and therefore are not able to employ the Labourers; but when we consider the mere Difference between his Sustenance as a Pauper, and employing him, is the whole Difference, this is so inconsiderable that any Man who saw a Profit in employing Labour would hardly fail in procuring so small an Addition to his Capital. To go a little further into Particulars, the Labour of the whole Farm is rated at about the Rent; that is, One Man to Twenty-five Acres of Land or Thirty Acres of Land is about a Quantum sufficit; if you add One Man to a Farm, that is so very inconsiderable a Portion that it is hardly to be conceived a Farmer would feel the Change if he could add even a Bushel to the Produce beyond that Change; now when we see that such is universally not the Case, it affords a legitimate Presumption that no such Profit can be made.

Supposing the Country were relieved from its Taxation, would not the Fund, if left in the Hands of the Farmer, be laid out in Labour?

[157]

I think not; I think that the new Circumstance of Society, that those individual Interests which were supposed by the old Political Economists to be able to absorb all the Labour, have not that supposed Force; for instance, Adam Smith contended, that to leave the Employment to Individuals, that is, to individual Interest, would be sure to carry on every thing to the best possible Advantage; but we see that such is not the Case. There is a perpetually increasing Addition to the Quantum of Labour which individual Interests do not absorb. All Sums, however they accrue, must be laid out in Labour, because all Accumulations are laid out in Labour; but it would not now benefit the Labourer, because the Competition is so great that when Two Labourers appear, if a Farmer wants only One, he necessarily takes the Man who offers his Labour for the lowest Price; therefore, if any Quantity of Capital were put into the Hands of Farmers, there would be no Benefit to the Labourer. The great Object is to decrease the Competition of the Labourer, and to make the Labourer earn his own Subsistence. Another Circumstance is, that Wages decline with the Price of Commodities. I apprehend the Effect of taking off the Taxes on Candles, and on all the Articles which are consumed by Labourers, will merely give the Farmer an Opportunity of saying, "You can buy your Subsistence for so much less, and therefore I shall pay you so much less Wages." It has uniformly been the Case. The Moment a Decline takes place in the Price of Corn, the Farmer says, "You can now buy your Wheat for so much less; I shall give you so much less Wages." There is no instance within my Knowledge where a Decline in the Price of Provisions to a considerable Extent has happened, that the Price of Wages has not gone with it.

Are the Wages of Labour regulated by the Prices of other Commodities, or are they regulated by the Demand and Supply?

By the Operation of both. If the Competition is so great as to produce what we see at present - an enormous Disproportion, then it is regulated by the Disproportion; in other Instances, by the Price of Commodities. Perhaps neither Cause is equal to the Effect we witness; but both Causes together produce the Effect.

Would not the Increase of Capital produce Increase of Employment, of Trade and Profit?

Capital must always be employed; the Idea that Capital is unemployed must be a Fallacy. Suppose the Capitalist has a certain Quantity of Money which he does not know how to employ to better Advantage than by buying into the Funds, he in effect lends the Money to somebody else, who employs it in some other Way; therefore there can be no such Thing as unemployed Capital, unless it is laid up in the Strong Box, and that would not be done now. All the Capital belonging to the Country must find Employment in some Way or other, or be locked up, and that never happens now on any great Scale.

What Remedy do you propose for this Difficulty?

[158]

I some Time ago published a small Tract, in which I recommended the Employment of the Poor on the Waste Lands. The important Problem is, either to make that Land now under Cultivation more productive, or to raise new Production from fresh Soils; to recur, in short, to the first Principles of Society. You build up a Demand by building up a Supply in the first instance. The Plan I proposed was "to pass an Act of General Inclosure. Second, to vest a Power in the Government, to be exercised at Discretion, to purchase, at a Valuation to be made in the Manner customary when private Property is needed for public Purposes, any Portion of Land now waste; and to enable Government to raise, by Exchequer Bills or Loan, the Means, as Occasion shall arise. Third, to enable or compel"- and I beg to explain that I think that is very important, for in all the Schemes for Foreign Emigration an admitted Difficulty is, that you cannot compel a Man to emigrate-" compel Parishes, where the Amount of Poor's Rate paid to able-bodied Labourers exceeds per Annum, to locate a given Number of all such Labourers above the Proportion of to Acres of Land in the Parish. Fourth, to enable Government to advance a Sum, according to the Circumstances, for the Location of such unemployed Labourers, on the Security of the Poor's Rates; and Parishes to borrow from the Government on such Security. Fifth, to enable Parishes to erect Cottages, Buildings, &c., and to furnish Seed, Utensils, and Subsistence to the located Man for a given Time, after which such Allowances shall cease. Sixth, to enable Parishes to contract with the Man located to pay, by certain Instalments, the Sum laid out in settling him; which, when paid, shall be considered as the Purchase Money of the Land and Buildings: these shall thenceforth be the Property of the Locatee, who shall, at the Time of his Settlement, surrender all further Claims upon the Parish for himself and Family, except in case of Sickness or Infirmity within a given Period after his Location." I beg to explain to the Committee, that I have inserted that Clause as mere Matter of Option; it must be always very questionable whether it is possible absolutely to abrogate Poor's Rates; or whether any specific Clause, enabling a Man to be relieved under such Circumstances, can be substituted, is a Matter which demands great Consideration; but as all the Writers on Political Economy, and Mr. Ricardo especially, have stated that no Plan which does not contemplate the Abrogation of the Poor Laws would meet the Case, I have made it optional. "When Parishes possess Waste Land, the Location shall be thereon; but in case of not possessing such Waste, the most convenient Place shall be selected by the Government. Eighth, that Land so purchased and inclosed shall be made, if necessary, extra-parochial, free from Tithes, or subjected only to a small Modus, to be imposed at a distant Period. Ninth, that such Land shall never, under any future Contingencies, be either laid to any other Estate, or subdivided, but shall always continue a single separate Occupation, to be, bonâ fide, inhabited by the Proprietors." If I may be permitted to read a small Extract from the Work of a French Economist, it will explain why I adopt this Principle. M. Sismondi, in his "Principes d'Economic Politique," says, "In the German Provinces of the Austrian Monarchy the Contract between the Lord and the Peasant has been declared by the Law to be irrevocable, and at the same Time the greater Part of the Corvèes have been changed into Acquittances, either by a Money Rent, or by Payments of Produce which have been made perpetual. The Peasant has by this Means acquired the effective Property of his House and Land, which are only charged with a Rent and with some feudal Services. Moreover, in order that this Class may not be ultimately oppressed or dispossessed by the rich Lords who should reside amongst them, the Law does not permit a Gentleman to purchase any of these Peasant Occupations, or if he does purchase one, he is obliged to restore it on the same Conditions to some other Family of Peasants, so that the Proprietorship of the Nobles does not increase, nor the Agricultural Population diminish. This Population, in the Enjoyment of Abundance and Security, early attained, in these Provinces, the Limits marked out by their comfortable Conditions and a good Method of Cultivation, but it has not overstepped them." I think that is an important Circumstance to remark, because it proves that Persons having a certain Quantity of Goods and Land are more careful than those who have none; the most reckless Members of Society are those who care only for the Day. "The Parents, acquainted with their Resources, have been careful not to reduce themselves to Indigence, or to marry more of their Children than they could provide for. Men may be trusted to maintain themselves in their Condition when they are able to judge of it, and depend only on themselves. The Class which is always prompt to burden the State with a miserable Population consist of those who depend only on their Labour and the Will of others, and who have not the Means of judging of the Chances to which their Children will be exposed. The Austrian Government, by thus interposing in behalf of an Order which, if left to itself, would necessarily be oppressed, has compensated to the Happiness of its Subjects and its own Stability the greater Part of the Vices of its System. In a Country without Liberty, where the Finances have at all Times been badly administered, where the Wars have been perpetual and disastrous, because that Obstinacy has always been accompanied with Incapacity, the great Mass of the Population, composed almost entirely of Peasants, Proprietors living in Comfort, has been rendered happy; and this Mass of Subjects, feeling their own Happiness and dreading every Change, frustrated all the Projects of Revolution and Conquest which have been directed against that Empire." "Tenth, That Government shall retain a Power to let or sell Portions of the Waste, with or without Buildings, to Proprietors or Occupants, who shall themselves reside upon the Soil; such Portions not to exceed Fifty Acres. Eleventh, That when Extra-parochial Pauper Settlements are made, they shall be so placed as to add no Burdens hereafter to the Parish in which they shall be situated; but any future Charges to be incurred by any located Person or Family shall be referable to the Parish from which that Family originally came. To this End it will be necessary to select the most extensive, open and detached Range of Ground for the first Settlements, and in some Instances, perhaps, to create new Boundaries and new isolated Parishes. Lastly, to limit the Application of Land to a certain Annual Amount in Money, or to one entire Sum."

Are you aware of the Objection which has been made that Waste Land could not be cultivated to a Profit?

[159]

That Objection, I conceive, arises from the Expences now attendant upon its Inclosure. The Proprietor must first apply for a Bill, and undergo Law Expences; he must then pare, burn, and lay out Capital on this Waste Land, as if it were an ordinary Occupation: but my Proposition goes to this, you have a Pauper whom you must and do now maintain; you have Land which produces nothing, but put him upon that Land, place a Spade and a Bushel of Seed by his Side, and in a certain Time he will produce his own Subsistence. Thus you free the Land from all other Expences, and you deliver it from the Difficulty which environs the Enclosure of Waste Land at present.

What Reason have you to believe that such Land can be made productive at all?

The general Establishment of the Fact, and particular Instances. All the Waste Land, and there has been an enormous Quantity, inclosed since 1797, has been made productive; very little has gone out of Cultivation; and there is the particular Instance of Mr. Coke's Estate in Norfolk, for which I may quote Doctor Rigby, who was on very intimate Terms with Mr. Coke. In the Year 1818 the Doctor published a Book, called "Holkham, and its Agriculture." He then stated, from Documents, I believe, in the Possession of the Family, that upon Mr. Coke's Accession to the Estate, one of the largest Farms was offered at 5s. per Acre, Tithe-free, and refused. At the Time he wrote, he saw the very same Land bearing Twelve Coombs of Wheat per Acre; and Mr. Coke assured him that it had borne Twenty Coombs of Barley; and he stated the general Rise of Mr. Coke's Property to be from 2,300£. to 20,000£. per Annum, and that in the Course of Mr. Coke's Agricultural Life, which was then about Forty Years. It is impossible to conceive that the mere Expenditure of Capital could have produced such an Advance of Value, for if he had applied a sufficient Quantity of Capital to compensate the Difference between the Rent of 3s. and 3£., it will be apparent, that, taking the mean Term, 210 Years Rent must have been sunk.

You do this upon the Authority of Dr. Rigby, not upon your own personal Knowledge?

I know the Fact, as I have heard it from the Doctor himself. His Book went through Three Editions, and has been circulated for Twelve Years without Contradiction. I was intimate with the Doctor when he published his Book; and I have every Reason to believe he derived his Information either from Mr. Coke or his Steward.

Are you prepared to state what Quantity of cultivable Waste Land there may be in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Cowling, a Civil Engineer, has stated before the Emigration Committee, and delivered in a Table, in which he shews that there are about Fifteen Millions of Acres cultivable, but not cultivated.

Are you prepared with any Details as to the Expence of locating a Pauper?

Of course I have considered the Subject, and I have understood that in about Twelve Years a Man will be able to repay the Cost of Location. The Expence varies, according to different Opinions, from 40£. to 60£.; that is, providing him with a Habitation, with Seed, with Utensils, and with Living for such Portion of One Year as might be required. Some compute 20£. for building a Cottage, and others 30£.

Do you refer to single Men or married?

A married Man. I think Mr. Cowling's Computation is 52£., and that he gives him One or Two Cows into the Bargain.

Do you include in that Computation the supposed Wages of the Man for a Twelvemonth?

I conceive Six Months of his Provision is included, and from 40£. to 60£. would provide a Habitation for a Man and his Family; and Six Months Maintenance. A Gentleman told me a few Days ago, that he had built Cottages on an Estate in Norfolk for 20£. each.

Do you think a Cottage that was built for 20£. would last for Twelve Years?

I am a practical Judge of that. I built Six Cottages more than Twenty Years ago for 120£., which are still standing.

What do you conceive to be the Produce fairly to be expected?

[160]

The Average Produce of Norfolk is Five Coombs and a Half per Acre of Wheat; but that of course would depend upon the Quantity of Manure the Locator might employ, and other Circumstances. Mr. Owen, in the Year 1822, was called upon by the Grand Jury of the County of Lanark to state the best Means of employing the Poor; and he published his Report, in which was introduced the Statement of Mr. Falla, a Nursery Gardener in the Neighbourhood of Newcastle, who had for many Years carried on Experiments in planting of Wheat by Spade Husbandary; he found in all Cases the Production to be from Sixty to Seventy Bushels per Acre. I think, therefore, that after a certain Time, when the Opportunities of raising the Manure, and so forth, were ripened, you might fairly expect the Average Produce of Norfolk from the Land so located.

What Proportion of Land would you apportion to each Family?

From the Inquiries I have made amongst Labourers I find that they are satisfied, perfectly, with from Two to Four Acres, as affording the entire Means of Maintenance for a Family. I have never asked a Man who would take less than Two; I have never found a Man who would ask more than Four: but I think in this Case a certain Allowance should be given for Increase, and enough should be apportioned to a Man. Land would be very inconsequential as compared with the after Circumstances, and therefore I think enough should be given fairly to satisfy the Man. My Feeling is, that as far as possible, the Country should be guarded against that Increase which must naturally be expected under the Circumstances.

Has your Plan any regard to Class?

I should generally take the best Men from the Village; it would give them an Opportunity of Location; and then the idle would be compelled to active Employment, because they would derive none of the Assistance they have been accustomed to receive from the Rates: as a Man would be employed, he would have no Title to Relief, and he must depend upon his Labour for his Subsistence.

Has any other Suggestion occurred to your Mind upon this Subject?

My Impression is, that the Principle, if I may so call it, of the whole Scheme depends upon diminishing Competition and upon increasing Production, and by that Means occasioning fresh Demand to the Extent of that Production, while all that is now paid in Rates will be left as a Fund for the Employment of Labour in some Way or other. In the present Times the great Object is to make a Man earn his own Subsistence; if not, whether he takes it in Charity, whether he takes it in Plunder or in Poor's Rate, it must come out of the Production, which is now obtained by other Labours than his own.

You differ from the Doctrines of Mr. Malthus in some of those Respects?

I differ from him in this Respect: I think that the Professor's Data are taken up on an extreme Case, and never can apply, unless they apply artificially, 'till the whole Surface of the Land is cultivated; because, if the Progression is that which he states, arithmetical as to Production, geometrical as to Population, the Ratio can obtain only where there is not sufficient Room for the Exercise of Labour. We know that One Man will produce more than he can consume if you give him sufficient Space and Means of Action; consequently, the geometrical Proportion of Population, and the arithmetical Proportion of Food, can never arise 'till the Field is lessened. This is, however, what the Country is at this Moment suffering; I imagine the Field for Labour is too contracted.

You are aware that an Example has been drawn from Ireland, which, proceeding exactly on your System, has reduced it to a State of the most abject Misery?

On the contrary, Ireland has not enlarged its Area in proportion to its Population; Ireland, instead of proceeding on the same Plan, is now confining an increasing Population to a limited Area.

Is it probable, or even possible, that there may come a Time when Population shall exceed the Power of the Soil to produce Subsistence; and ought we to take any Course which may lead to such an Effect?

[161]

I conceive that the Event contemplated is, comparatively speaking, what we are now actually suffering; but if it were supposed that the Evil imagined will positively arise, we should then still only suffer Destitution. It is true, we have at this Moment not quite arrived at that extreme Point, but we are yet witnessing great Destitution and great Evil; and the Question is, are we not to remove the Evil, lest a greater Evil, at an indefinite and incomprehensible Period, shall arrive?

Have you at all compared the Advantages of Emigration with Home Colonization?

The first Question is, whether either can be accomplished? We have no Power to compel a Man to emigrate; that must be a voluntary Act on the Part of the Individual, and can never be an Act of the State. In the next place, it is a fiscal Question, whether the Expence of one is greater than the other, and whether the Return will be made more easily from the one than the other? Amplitude of Space is of great Importance, which is certainly in favour of Foreign Emigration. On the contrary Side, there is the Separation of Connections, and the Chance of the Separation of the Colony eventually; but I think one of the capital Circumstances in the Comparison is, the Circulation that is produced by the one, and which cannot be produced by the other. For instance, suppose a Man makes a Return in Produce from Abroad, and accepts Manufactures from this Country, there the Transaction ends; but if a Man in this Country employ the Produce he first raises, which is subsequently converted by the common Process into any staple Article, whatever is so produced through the infinite Ramifications of Society remains the national Wealth of this Country. On the contrary, after the Manufactures have been sent Abroad in Return for the Produce, the Produce of that State remains the Wealth of that Country, not of this.

Have you any Documents which will shew the Relation between employed and unemployed Labourers in any District in Norfolk?

Mr. Richardson, a Person of considerable Property and Experience, and the Agent of Mr. Bulwer of Heyden, has published the Accounts of Eight Parishes, and from these it appears that 5,824£. 10s. had been the Expence for the Poor in those Eight Parishes; and that to able-bodied Labourers, for Want of Work on the Roads, there has been paid 3,354£. 1s. 9d., namely, about Three Fifths of the whole Sum for the mere Support of Idleness. I am not aware that any other Document of the same kind so accurate as this exists. Mr. Richardson's Proposition is for District Farms, and to absorb the Labour by individual Employment.

Was any Part of the Wages of Labour paid out of the Poor's Rate?

I apprehend that a certain Rate was paid; and that whenever large Families were included, their Maintenance was made up out of the Rate; but Mr. Richardson makes a Statement of every Disbursement in every Parish.

Will you read the Detail as given by him?

The Witness reads the same, which is as follows:

PARISH of D.

948 Acres. £714 Valuation. £366 13s. 3d. Amount of Rate.

40 married Men, with 102 Children, 40 of which are able to maintain themselves by Employment.

9 of these are Trades; had occasionally Meal Money; not employed on the Lands.

31

8 single Men.

39 Labourers; Six of those only Half Men; which leaves

3

36 full-bodied Labourers, and

40 Children, to be employed.

8 Widows and old Men, not able to work.

£8 a Year sufficient for Labour to keep the Roads in Repair.

Rate of Wages, 9s. a Week, for Man, Wife, and Three Children.

Six extra Children to be supported, after putting Three to a married Man and his Wife.

[162]

What are the Reasons which would induce you to think the Non-employment of Labour does not arise from insufficient Capital?

The Universality of the Fact, I conceive, that the Difference between the Sum that must be paid to maintain the Pauper, and the Sum paid to him for his Labour, is so small, that if his Labour could be made productive, the Farmer would necessarily find the Means. It is the Case in all other Concerns. Suppose the Wages of Labour are 12s. per Week, that is 31£. 4s. a Year; they would allow him from 6s. to 8s. a Week, and more if he had a Family; therefore the only Difference in the Capital to be found by the Farmer is between the 8s. and the 12s., namely, 4s.; that is about 10£. a Year, and that to be paid in small weekly Sums. Now I do conceive that a Farmer, having all the Rent, Tithe, and every Outgoing besides to pay, if he can produce One Bushel above this Cost, will not fail to employ the Labourer; the Universality of the Fact appears to me to answer the Question; and besides, we know that where there are very large Farmers who are possessed of great Capital, they do not extend the Quantity of Labour far beyond the smaller ones. That is another Proof that as much Capital has been expended on Land as is profitable.

Have you made any Computation relative to the unemployed in Agriculture and in Manufactures?

In 1812, by looking at Mr. Colquhoun's Book on the Resources of Great Britain, and as far as I have been able to examine his Statement, which I have done in many instances where I could prove whether they were false or true, I found him correct. I find he states the Number of Paupers (Four in a Family) were then 4,548,400; the Number of Labourers in Agriculture and Mines, 3,154,142. To those Families he reckons Four and a Half; therefore he imagines a Failure of One Half a Person in each Family, owing to the Difference of their Condition; that Pauperism would produce a Loss, that is to say, of One Ninth of the Population. He reckons the Artizans at 4,343,339. He estimated the Poor's Rate at that Time at Six Millions; it now amounts to about Seven Millions and a Half; therefore we may suppose the pauper Population has increased about One Seventh from that Period; but the Computation would be affected by the high Prices of Provisions at that Time, and the Allowances to the Poor, which have been since carried into effect; therefore the Relations may stand pretty nearly the same as these Numbers, though the Numbers will not remain the same.

Did you mean to state that you do not approve of Reduction of Taxation?

No; I merely said, that although Reduction of Taxation left a greater Sum in the Hands of the Farmer, it would not affect the Labourer's Condition, because the Competition would prevent his taking advantage of that Reduction in the Way in which, if there was only a sufficient Number of Labourers, he would be able to enjoy it. I speak simply of the Effect of Taxation on the Condition of the Labourer, cramped and fettered as he is at this Moment by Competition; that Competition would abate any Effect he might, in common with others, under other Circumstances, expect to derive from the undoubted general Benefit of a Decrease of Taxation.

[163]

You stated that one of your Objections to Emigration is, that you cannot make it compulsory. If People are willing to go Abroad in sufficient Numbers, would not this be a much better Thing than compelling them to go there?

Undoubtedly; but you cannot compel them. My Objection to Emigration is, that, being left optional, suppose the Irish say, "We will not emigrate," or a Parish say, "We will not emigrate;" the Evil would be then continued, simply owing to the Obstinacy of the Individuals.

Did you allude to the United States when you stated that it will be better that the Labourers should be settled at Home than sent Abroad?

No, certainly.

What Objection would there be to Labourers in this Country going to Van Dieman's Land?

I stated, that if the Growth and Circulation of the new Production, in short, if the new accumulated Wealth, were kept at Home, it would appear to be most beneficial; whereas, on the contrary, if Capital and Labour departed, you will expose it to the Risk of Employment there, while there was none at Home, and to the Chance of the final Separation of the Colony.

Suppose a Labourer earns at this Moment in Van Dieman's Land 5s. a Day for his Labour, would it not be a great Advantage to that Colony if other Labourers should go there to reduce that Price of Labour to the usual Amount?

That is a Question which involves many Considerations, and that I should be loath to answer without further Reflection.

Are you aware that the Colonies are a great Expence at this Moment to England?

I am.

Are you aware that large Sums are Annually voted for the maintaining and securing our Foreign Possessions?

I am.

Do not you think that by facilitating the Settlement of Labourers from this Country in those Colonies, thereby reducing the Price of Labour, which is now exorbitant in those Colonies, and by increasing the Number of Persons to consume the Agricultural Produce of these Countries, a very large Sum of Money might within a certain Portion of Time be saved to England?

That is too wide a Question for me to answer off hand. I am not an Enemy to Foreign Emigration; I think they should both go on together.

Those Paupers whom you propose to place on the Waste Lands will become small Farmers?

Yes.

Do you consider that a small Farmer, with no Capital but his Labour, can compete with a large Farmer who has a Capital?

I think in this Case that is not precisely the Object; the Object is to make a Man raise enough for his own Subsistence; and if he does that, the remoter Consideration which the Question proposes must be left to the Event. One Man's Frugality and one Man's Labour will accumulate as well as produce a great deal more than those of another. I think that the Competition between the great Farmer and the small one is out of the Question. My Proposal is merely to enable a Man to earn his own Subsistence, and to maintain him upon his own Ground. If he produces any thing more, so much the better; if not, he leaves the whole Amount of what is now paid for the Maintenance of the Poor in the Hands of the Classes who are deprived of this Sum.

You mean that he should provide Clothing for himself?

Every thing. My Proposition is, that the Man would be satisfied to exchange for Four Acres of Land all his Hopes of Parochial Allowance, past, present, and to come. Give a Man from Two to Four Acres, and provide him with Subsistence for a certain Number of Months, and he would be perfectly satisfied to give up his present Claims.

Suppose he breaks his Leg within Seven Months of his getting the Land, how would you propose to relieve him?

[164]

I have proposed that in all Cases of Sickness and Infirmity the Man shall have Relief from the Parish from which he has been drawn, in order to avoid burdening the Parish where the Location is made; and that such Location should be Extra-parochial.

Do not you think that the erecting of Houses to a considerable Extent, with Home Colonization, would tend to that which has very much increased the Burden under which the Farmers are labouring, - Increase of Population beyond the Means, in an Agricultural point of view, of Employment?

I think that the Question loses sight of the Step in the Proposition that those Persons would be settled on Land that would maintain them. If a Man buys just as much Land as will hold the Base of a Cottage upon it, in comes a Man with Eight or Ten Children from a neighbouring Town, and he brings no Means of Maintenance; but in the Case of a Colonist, wherever a Man settles, he draws the Means of living from his Land.

Supposing the Quantity of Land you would give to a Colonization on its first Establishment to be sufficient for the Support of 2,000 Persons; in the Course of Fifteen or Twenty Years those 2,000 Persons increase to 6,000; in what State, then, would this Colony be with that Quantity of Land which you deemed sufficient for the Support of 2,000?

The Principle must be extended; the Size of the Area must be extended in proportion to the Increase of the Population: the Case supposed is the very Evil we are now suffering. There would be, I apprehend, considerable Difference as there is a reckless Population or a moral Population. The Question arises, which of the Two Circumstances is likely to be most beneficial or injurious to the Country. If a Man comes To-day to a Justice, and says, "I am a single Man," he gets no Relief; he returns the next Week a married Man, and obtains Relief. The Question lies between the Policy of immediately providing for the Destitution we now suffer, and of perhaps finally increasing that Destitution hereafter. The next Branch of the Proposition appears to be, whether giving those Persons a Stake in Society will not induce them to act more prudentially than giving them no Stake; whether, by placing Persons in a Situation of Comfort, they will go on more advantageously. The Opinion of Mr. M'Culloch is, I believe, that prudent Habits would be engendered by making Persons more comfortable; and he has quoted other Authorities to the same Effect.

The Period must arrive, if this Plan was generally acted on, when Ground could not be found sufficient in this Country for the Increase of Population?

Still it is a Question between a present and a future Evil.

You have stated that you think it was not for Want of Capital the Occupier of Land did not employ the superfluous Labouring Classes, and that the small Difference between the Demand upon him in employing additional Labourers, and the present Amount which he pays to the Support and Maintenance of that Man's Family out of the Poor's Rate, is so trifling, it does not arise from that Circumstance. In your Opinion are the Poor's Rates generally borne by the Occupier or by the Owner of the Soil?

They must be borne eventually by the Owner of the Soil, for it is quite clear it will enter into the Value of the Land; and the Occupier, before engaging a Farm, would consider how much Poor Rate he would have to pay, and would add that to the Rent; and of course the less the Amount of Poor's Rate, the more Rent he would be able to give. This constitutes the Difference between the Rents of Parishes where the Poor's Rates are high and where they are low.

Therefore the Difference in the Poor's Rates would be borne by the Owner and not the Occupier?

Distinctly so.

You stated that there is no Means of enforcing Emigration. There is no Law by which you can enforce Home Colonization?

I think in one Case it might be made a Matter of Relief; in the other, not. I do not apprehend it is consistent with the Principles of Civil Liberty to send a Man out of the Country; but you can make the Option of Relief as to providing him in the Country.

Do you not feel that there is a very great Willingness in the common People of this Country to go Abroad?

I think there has been, from extreme Destitution; not from any other Feeling.

[165]

Are you aware of the Number who emigrated last Year?

I am not accurately informed as to the Number, but there was a very small Proportion to the Necessity of the Case.

You have acknowledged that the present Agricultural State of the Population among the Poor might be practically remedied or improved. Will you mention what you consider would tend to the Amelioration of that State of Things?

The settling the Poor on Waste Lands, and enabling them to produce sufficient for their Subsistence from that Land.

Is that the only Plan you would recommend?

I think there are many other Expedients that would be subsidiary.

Are there any you can state to the Committee?

The giving small Portions of Land to Individuals, I consider to be extremely beneficial, but I look rather to the general Question, and seek to meet the Whole rather than a Portion of the Case. Where, for instance, it may be found that there is a great Redundance of Labourers in a Parish, no possible Remedy of that sort could avail, for if a Man has Half an Acre for his Garden, it is presumed he is to earn a certain Amount by his daily Labour. I consider it therefore only in the Light of a subsidiary Plan where the Proportion is not so extremely great as to require the Application of a general Plan.

Are there any other Plans which occur to you by which you think an Improvement might be effected in the present System?

A Question has been raised whether the Employment of Labour on a District Farm would not answer the same Purpose; but I consider that to be merely a Change of Terms; whether you hire Land, or place Men on Waste Land, appears to me to be the same Thing under another Form, with this Distinction, that if you hire 300 Acres of Land which is now in Cultivation, and employ the Poor upon it, you take so much out of the present Production of the Country, and merely change the Possession from One Individual to a Number of Labourers. You add nothing, in fact, to the Aggregate of Production. But if you take the same Number of Labourers, and place them on fresh Soil, they produce fresh Production; they earn their Subsistence without decreasing the present Stock.

Are there any other Modes which you would recommend by which the Agricultural Poor might be benefited?

There is no other Circumstance occurs to me.

You mentioned Emigration. Has it not been proved by Experience that very soon after a Void is made by sending People away, it is filled up?

Unquestionably; but I apprehend that would follow under any Circumstances. If we depart a certain Number, the Population would still go on to fill the Void, but in a slower Degree. If we colonize here, the Population would go on in this Country; but still so long as there is sufficient Space to extend the Parallels of the Two Progressions, there is no Danger. The Evil can only arise when there is no longer any Foundation on which you can build fresh Production.

It appears to you to be a temporary but not a permanent Scale in any degree meeting the Case?

I conceive there can be no permanent Scale, but extending the Field according to the Extent of Population, whether at Home or Abroad. The Question I have been examined to is, whether the Two Plans may not he subsidiary to each other? It appears to me that both have great Advantages, both fiscally and morally.

How can you account for the Fact, that where there is such an immensely larger Population, as in China and the East Indies, there does not appear to be that Distress which at present exists in this Kingdom?

I apprehend that Question is answered by the low State, perhaps I may call it, of Civilization in China. Their Families go on in the same Rank; a Shoemaker begets a Shoemaker, and he can be nothing else; he is content with the Minimum of Subsistence; and Infanticide prevails to a great Extent; therefore the Increase of Population does not go on to the same Degree.

[166]

You have stated that Land which would not be productive to the Farmer might be rendered productive to the Colonist. Do you mean to state, that, the Minimum of Subsistence to Paupers being already paid for, any Produce from the Cultivation under the Location you propose beyond that Minimum of Subsistence would be a remunerating Price; or do you mean to say, that the Produce from that Location would be remunerating, without taking that previous Expenditure into account?

My Impression is very decidedly that every Endeavour they make, which increases Production, and diminishes the Payment of Poor Rates, is, in so far, an Addition to the National Wealth. I can but believe, that after a certain Time those small Farms would become as effectually productive as any Land now under Cultivation. Cæteris paribus, large Farms must always have a great Advantage, from the Division of Labour, over small ones; but I think, taking it generally, the Produce upon those small Farms would be at a fair Average compared with the larger ones, and I have no doubt would be as effectively productive as any Land in the Country.

How do you then account for large Farmers not being able to cultivate those Tracts at present?

I have already stated that the Expence of Enclosure, and the bringing them into Cultivation by paid Labour, constitutes the Difference. Here is no Expence; here is a general Enclosure; the Land is purchased of the Parish at its Value; it depastures a few Cattle; it is bought at the Rate of 5s. an Acre perhaps. But the Lord of a Manor enclosing, pays a heavy Law Bill, and is then obliged to pay the Labourers, and to incur the paring, burning, and all the general Expence of Cultivation. He thus lays out a large Capital on the Land, which my Plan does not contemplate. It merely contemplates the changing the Residence of maintained Paupers from this Place to that, 'till they raise by that Labour, which they are not now suffered to employ, the Food which will sustain them.

How does the Supposition, that no Capital expended can be profitably incurred upon Land at present in Cultivation, agree with Mr. Owen's Assertions of the immense Produce to be obtained by Spade Cultivation?

That is a Question of practical Experience. If Mr. Falla's Theory is borne out, it is quite clear that Spade Cultivation would be the best Mode; but it is a singular Circumstance, that there is an enormous Difficulty in bringing Gentlemen to the Experiment. So soon as Mr. Owen published his Report, he sent it to me; I republished the Spade Experiments, and wrote or spoke to every Gentleman with whom I was acquainted of the Facts. I republished them at Three different Periods, and I insisted upon the Benefit of dispersing his Experiments as strongly as I could through my own Journal, which I consider to be read every Week by Sixty thousand Persons; and I never could, privately or publicly, persuade any one to the Cultivation of a single Acre by the Spade, and that in a County more devoted to Agriculture than any other County in the Kingdom.

Have you considered what Alteration can be made in the Poor Laws when the surplus Population has been absorbed by the Means you propose?

The Poor Laws would then be virtually abrogated; they would be a dead Letter, if we can conceive a Time when every Man may be made to earn his own Subsistence.

You have been obliged to make an Exception in your Plan for Sickness and Infirmity; are there any Alterations in the Poor Laws which you would suggest, if that Plan was adopted?

[167]

I think the Law of Settlement, in the first instance, should be reduced to more simple Heads; whether to the Head of Birth, to Settlement by hiring of Land or House, or to both, is a Question of some Difficulty. But in its present State, there is no doubt, one of the greatest Grievances is the Uncertainty of the Law of Settlement. The nearer it is reduced to one simple Rule, the more easily it would be accomplished, and the better. It has been proposed to extend the Settlement to the County, that is, to make a County Rate instead of a Parish Rate; but there are very great Objections. One is, that a Gentleman who would exercise great Care over his own Estate would be injured by the Want of Care of another. Representations have been made to a Nobleman who has an Estate, which is known to me, that his Estate in Three Generations will not be worth Sixpence, in consequence of small Proprietorships; he has, in fact, lost the Controul over his own Estate. It would be a great Hardship to the Gentleman owning the next Parish to mingle their Estates together. I think that would be a very serious Evil arising from a County Rate. The reducing the Settlement to Birth appears the simplest and easiest Plan. There is One Inconvenience attached, namely, that the great Towns would continue to be burdened in an increasing Ratio.

Ought not it to be so, as they get the Profit of their Labour?

Not always. So many of them get out of the Town and seek Employment elsewhere.

Do not many come from the Villages into the Towns in search of Employment, and after having lived there for a Number of Years go back in their old Age, and throw themselves on their Country Parishes for Support?

I think it very much depends upon the State of Employment. If the Country Parish could afford the general Means of Employment to the new-born, I have no doubt they would stay there. Some, no doubt, have wandering Propensities, and like to see the World; but I think the Population of Country Villages is not generally inclined to move. The Population of great Towns is more inclined to wander.

Do you not, in point of fact, know that the Country round Norwich, upon Trade being slack in the City, is sometimes inundated with Weavers who cannot find Employment?

The Trade in Norwich, a very few Years ago, was exceedingly flourishing; so much so, that the Hands in Norwich could not do the Work. The Introduction of the Fly Shuttle enables a Weaver to be taught his Art in the Course of a very short Time; therefore the Moment it was found there was Employment in Norwich, the Country Parishes adopted the Trade; but when the Trade became slack, all the Country Parishes lost their Trade; and in the Village in which I live, where there were Ten Looms that were at work Four Years ago, there is not One now. The Consequence was, that the Operation was reciprocal; that Norwich was at one Time inundated with the Country Weavers; and now the Country Weavers are deprived of the Employment they received from Norwich. This gave rise to the Idea that the Norwich Weavers had emigrated to the Country; whereas Country Weavers had gone to Norwich for Employment, and now are compelled or have returned to throw themselves on the Parish Rates.

Do you intend that the located Persons in Home Colonization should be entitled to claim from the Rates of other Subjects, or that they should claim no Poor Rates?

I put that as an optional Question to the Committee, whether it would be advisable that a Man should stipulate to give up all his Claims upon being located?

Suppose he does give them up, and that he is located on some of those Wastes; do you imagine that the usual Law of Increase of Population would go on, or that there would be a Check in those new Districts to the Increase of Population?

None but a prudential Check. But I apprehend that would be far stronger than it is in the present reckless State of Population, and in the present State of the Law, which gives Encouragement to a married Man, and refuses it to a single one.

The Irish Occupier, on the new Location, has not any claim on the Poor Rates; the Irish Occupier at present has no Poor Rates: where do you consider the Difference to exist which would operate on the English, which does not influence the Irish?

[168]

I think, in the first place, the Irish and English Character differ essentially. I think that the Irishman has been corrupted by very long Habit; I think he has lost all Taste for Comfort. The English Labourer, on the contrary, is a much more prudential Man; he is benefited by Education; the very Discussion of this Question has made those reflective who would not have been so otherwise; and I entertain no doubt that the mere lifting a Man into a Situation in which it becomes a Matter of greater Prudence for him to take care of himself and Family than it was before, raises a legitimate Presumption that he will do so: and the Testimony of Sismondi, in respect to the Population of Austria, goes to a great degree to decide the Question. The same Reasoning is to be found in Mr. M'Culloch's Treatise on Political Economy. He takes up the Objection of Malthus, and answers it, I think, very completely. Mr. Malthus lays down as a Rule to be generally assumed, that Population proceeds in a geometrical, the Production of Food in an arithmetical Series, and that, consequently, when Population presses against Subsistence, it must receive its natural Check. The Consequence would be true if the Premises were true. Mr. M'Culloch goes further even than this, for he admits the Fact, while he controverts its Consequence. He says, "It sometimes no doubt happens, that, notwithstanding this Resource, and the most strenuous Efforts on the Part of the industrious Classes, Population so far outruns Production that the Condition of Society is changed for the worse; but the Evils thence arising bring with them a Provision for their Cure; they make all Classes better acquainted with the Circumstances which determine their Situation in Life; and while they call forth fresh Displays of Invention and Economy, they at the same Time dignify and exalt the Character by teaching us to exercise the prudential Virtues, and to subject the Passions to the Controul of Reason. It does, therefore, seem reasonable to conclude, that the Law of Increase, as previously explained, is in every respect consistent with the beneficent Arrangements of Providence; and that, instead of being subversive of Human Happiness, it has increased it in no ordinary Degree. Happiness is not to be found in Apathy and Idleness, but in Zeal and Activity. It depends far more on the Intensity of the Pursuits than on the Attainment of the End. The 'progressive State' is justly characterized by Dr. Smith 'as being in reality the cheerful and hearty State to all the different Orders of Society; the stationary is dull, the declining melancholy.' But had the Principle of Increase been less strong, the Progress of Society would have been less rapid. While, however, its Energy is on the one hand sufficient to bring every Faculty of the Mind and Body into Action, it is on the other so far subject to Control, that, speaking generally, its beneficial far outweigh its pernicious Consequences. It is, therefore, to the Principle of Moral Restraint, or to the Exercise of the prudential Virtues, that we should exclusively trust for the Regulation of the Principle of Population. In an instructed Society, where there are no Institutions favourable to Improvidence, this Check is sufficiently powerful to confine the Progress of Population within due Limits, at the same Time that it is not so powerful as to hinder it from operating in all Cases as the strongest Incentive to Industry and Economy."

You think that the mere removing of those Persons to a new Location will raise the prudential Principle into such Vigour, that they will not be to be assimilated to the Irish Population?

A new Character is given to a Man by new Circumstances.

Do you not think that the present Depression is greatly owing to the Amount of Taxation?

Not of the Agricultural Labourers. It is not owing to this Cause in the degree to which we see it often assumed. I beg to refer to my former Answer at Page 12. I think that the new Circumstance of Society is, the Non-absorption of the Labour by Individuals giving Employment; that the Population cannot be employed without the Intervention of the State.

You think it must influence in some Degree?

I should not state Taxation to be the Cause.

Do you not conceive that the Uncultivation of Land is one Cause of the Agricultural Distress?

[169]

Unquestionably. At the same Time there was a Period when, unless every Stimulus had been applied to Agriculture, the Country would not have been fed. During the Period when the Berlin and Milan Decrees prevailed, unless the greatest possible Stimulus had been applied by this Country, and Scientific Power made to bear on the great Object of increasing Production, it would have been impossible to have subsisted the Population of this Country; and the Necessity, therefore, justified the Means. I am quite satisfied that the Moral Character of the People of England has been very much injured by the Aggregation of small into large Farms.

And that that has occasioned a Want of Employment?

Yes, it has assisted in producing that Effect.

Do you mean to state that from the putting a Labourer and his Family into Possession of Four Acres, the prudential Check would act as much in that Class of Society as we now find in the higher Classes?

I think it would act more so. The Labourers are particularly sensitive to their own Interests; and in whatever Way their Minds are directed to their own Interests they will follow it. There will always be reckless Characters; but wherever the Mind of a Labourer is instructed as to the best Mode of promoting his own Interest, he will follow it with greater Instinct, so to speak, than those who have higher Objects in Life. I consider that the Moral Consequences are by far the most important; the pecuniary Consequences are sufficiently important; but the Moral Consequences more so. The Population of England is now going, and must gradually go, from bad to worse. Unless some efficient Step be taken, and soon taken, the Country cannot be saved from Convulsion. Such is the Opinion I have drawn from long Observation, from having seen what has passed in our own District, and from the general Information I have obtained in my Capacity of Editor of a Newspaper.

If it is worth the while of the Farmer, as you conceive it is, to pay the Men 12s. a Week for Work actually performed, rather than 8s. a Week while they remain idle; how do you account. for the Fact that there are many Farms on which the Sheep are dying in consequence of the Want of Drainage, and yet that that is not performed while there are so many Men remaining unemployed?

I think that resolves itself into the Exception. This is a Case of great Calamity, that has deprived a great Class of Farmers of their Capital; but it does not appear to me it is a general Case, where there is a Redundancy of Labourers; and the Difference lies between the Payment of a Man as a Labourer and as a Pauper. I proceed on the general Presumption, that if, all the Expences of the Farm remaining the same, the additional Labour on the Land would add to its Production, and consequently to the Remuneration, such Labour would infallibly be employed. Now it is not so; and I think, therefore, it goes far to establish the Fact, that the Application of much more Labour to Land now under Cultivation is not likely to be profitable. There are, however, various Opinions. I have conversed with many Persons who say that all the Labour of England could be so absorbed, and with Advantage. Mr. Owen, in his Comparison of Spade Husbandry, went so far as to say that Sixty Millions might be employed.

Has any other Improvement in the Poor Laws, than those you have mentioned, occurred to your Notice?

That of Settlement is the great Question. More might be done if we could overcome the excruciating Question, whether an Allowance is to be given to a Man with a large Family? Suppose Two Men, one single, and the other married, with from Five to Seven Children, come into the Labour Market. With the same Wages the single Man will have a comfortable Subsistence, while the Man with a large Family must have Relief; and it is not to be expected that a Farmer should pay the one more than the other. Then comes the Question, how the Maintenance of their Families is to be gotten rid of? I think the only Aid is the Assistance of small Portions of Land, under such Conditions as may enable the married Labourer to earn the Subsistence for himself and Family. The Manufacturing Population would be much benefited by Cooperative Societies, if they could be generally established, and include as a Principle the Production of Food. Such a Plan would most unquestionably tend to annihilate the Poor's Rate in Cities. It would, indeed, tend to throw Trade into new Channels, but then it would also tend to the Annihilation of the Poor's Rates.

[170]

By Co-operative Societies, do you mean Societies on Mr. Owen's Plan?

No, not absolutely; but a Shop established at which Labour could be exchanged at its Price. Suppose a Shoemaker were to make Eight Pairs of Shoes, and the Labour to be equal to that employed in making a Coat; he should be able to go and receive that Coat in exchange. In France it has been proposed to do the same Thing by the Use of Labour Notes. A Man takes his Commodity, and receives a Note, and has a Right to exchange that for other Commodities of the same Value. By this Means the Men would be enabled to consume the Produce of each others Labour, which now they are not. They are obliged to go to an intermediate Person, and, failing of a Purchaser, they have nothing to do. If A. carried a Pair of Shoes, and received a Labour Note for Four Hours, he would be able to exchange that for another Note which has the Value of Four Hours Labour. The Principle is an Interchange of Barter, which has been proved to be beneficial by the Establishment of the many Societies that exist in various Parts of the Kingdom.

Do you think any Remedy can be applied, by the Alteration of the Laws, so that after a certain Number of Years we shall not return to the same State in which we are at present?

There appears to be no Remedy but by extending Produce relatively with Population. If one be increased, and the other be not, there must be Evil; but supposing them both to be tolerably equalized, it is an Error in the Distribution, not in the Production, which creates the Evil. So long as they continue parallel there ought to be no Want.

The Witness is directed to withdraw.

Ordered, That this Committee be adjourned 'till To-morrow, Twelve o'Clock.