things do excellently well when left to themselves, but become vitiated when touched by an Act of Parliament, as may be exemplified by the 31 Eliz. c. 7., which prohibited the erection of any cottage, unless there should be assigned "to the same cottage or building four acres of ground at the least, to be constantly occupied "and manured therewith, so long as the same "cottage shall be inhabited ;" an enactment which has been as little regarded in practice as the 43d Eliz. c. 2.

66

A general Inclosure Act, which has been recommended by the Committee of the House of Commons on the Poor Laws of 1828, and for which purpose a Bill was introduced in the Session about to close, and is still pending, is a good thing in itself; but there are so many local interests to reconcile, that, in order to remove their opposition, provisions will be introduced, which, operating in the way of restraint, may do more harm than good. Though it is of great importance that the remaining commons and commonable lands of England should be brought under cultivation, it is of more importance that the lands already in cultivation should be well cultivated; and if land in severalty is not or cannot be improved, by reason of the injurious operation of our Corn Laws, still less can land yet in common; so that a general Inclosure

Act will remain a dead letter, in so far as relates to its main purpose, until the Corn Laws shall be altered; and in regard to the poor, it can only carve out of the inclosure a pauper farm; and this is incompatible with Mr. Whateley's system, which renders any such farm unnecessary, and would prevent its cultivation as a pauper farm.

A bill to enable the majority of rate-payers to come to an agreement as to the mode of employing the poor, is unobjectionable, in so far as it gives only enabling powers; but the danger is, that these powers will be abused. This is not said lightly, seeing all the powers given by the statute of Elizabeth have been perverted as well as abused. But the bill introduced for this purpose in the House of Commons in the session about to close and now passed, as first brought in, proposed to enable the majority of rate-payers not only to send a pauper for employment to any rate-payer they pleased, but to compel such rate-payer to employ the pauper; as if a master was to be obliged to take a servant, whether he wanted him or no; and to take a servant, not of his own choice, but of his neighbours, to say nothing about treating the pauper as a slave. I, therefore, cannot be without apprehension that any such enabling bill may be perverted to this purpose, or to establish

a labour rate, which is a favourite object with many country gentlemen, but would only increase the evils it meant to remove. As a mere means of enabling a parish to adopt Mr. Whateley's system, such a bill may be harmless; but no bill whatever is necessary for the adoption of his system by any parish.

Emigration, upon which so much time and money have been spent, is the worst experiment of all, because it deprives us of our able-bodied workmen. Emigration should neither be encouraged nor discouraged. There will always be stirring spirits desirous of going abroad; these may be left to their own impulse: but, if industry be set free from restraint, all our able-bodied workmen will be required at home.

I have noticed these things, in order that I may not seem negligent of any matter which has relation to this important subject. But, at the best, they are only mitigants, and not remedies.

119

PART V.

REVENUE RESTRAINTS.

CHAP. I.

PUBLIC REVENUE.

WE had duties of customs in England long before we had duties of excise; the first of which ever imposed was in the time of Charles II., when a duty on beer and ale was granted to that monarch during his life*; but tonnage and poundage composed the earliest subsidies of the crown, and formed the first grant made after the Restoration.t

These duties of tonnage and poundage, which form the foundation of our duties of customs to this day, were granted upon goods exported, as well as upon goods imported; the effect of which was to restrain and limit home industry. Particular interests, which are always allowed to have too much influence in our legislation, ob+ Ibid. c. 4.

12 Car. 2. c. 23.

tained, in 1700, the removal of these duties on the export of woollen, corn, meal, and bread.* But it was not until 1721 that the duties of export upon other articles of home produce or manufacture were repealed†: and still, under a mistaken notion of preventing other countries from having raw materials for the purposes of manufacture, alum, lead, lead-ore, tin, leather tanned, copperas, coals, wool-cords, white woollen cloths, lapis calaminaris, skins of all sorts, glue, cony-hair or wool, hares' wool, hair of all sorts, horses, and litharge of lead were excepted ‡; and export duties since imposed on British sheep and lambs, wool and woollen yarn, are still levied, as well as upon most of the above articles. With notions alike adverse to industry, custom-house duties are also still levied on coals and culm, and slates carried coastwise.

To the amount of the rates of tonnage and poundage, (that is, duties of customs first granted in the time of Charles II.,) thirds and two thirds of subsidies and per centages have been added by various acts of parliament in subsequent reigns. These have been consolidated by late acts; but the whole present a mass of incongruities which require revision.

* 11 & 16 G. 3. c. 20.

+ 8 G. 1. c. 15. § 7.

Ibid. § 8.