, ILLINOIS AND BRITAIN. 467 



roads of communication, and the larger the party and the ex 

 tent of each family s possessions, the greater these and other 

 inconveniences would become. A party may occupy a portion, 

 or the whole, of a prairie in Illinois with the best effects. Each 

 family might settle within sight of the whole party, with good 

 roads of communication, and although the possessions of each 

 might be extensive, circumstances would be the same, with 

 exception of the distance of separation. The skirts of the 

 prairie would afford forest, scattered trees, or lawn for adorning 

 residences, but Upper Canada being an interminable forest, the 

 members of which do not answer to stand when singled out, 

 there is but little choice of natural beauty of situation. 



The agriculturists of Britain, who have long been accustom 

 ed to obtain high prices for produce, and consequently to 

 finger much cash, may be apt to treat with contempt the idea 

 of farming in a country where prices are so low as they are in 

 Illinois. I have already remarked that the British farmer col 

 lects the corn-law tax, the results of nature s assistance, and 

 part of what flows from his own capital, and the operatives 

 labour, all of which he pays in the name of rent and taxes ; so 

 it is only that portion of the cash which sticks to his own 

 pocket that is really valuable to him. When conversing on 

 this subject, a farmer once remarked to me that he paid money 

 away as fast as it was received, and derived no advantage from 

 the cash which resulted from high prices beyond the tempo 

 rary pleasure of looking at it. 



It is far from my intention to undervalue the advantages en 

 joyed by the farmers of Britain, or to ridicule them for dis 

 charging, through the medium of high prices, just debts, which 

 I consider to be one of the most pleasing employments in life. 

 But while sensible of the general benefits of cash, let me ask 

 British farmers what is the use of money to them beyond the 

 means it affords of purchasing things ? The industrious farmer 

 of Illinois may not perhaps be able to accumulate much money, 

 but although not rich in cash, he cannot fail of being rich in 



thillfJS. 



The view which I have ventured to describe of cash and 

 things, as affecting the farmer of Britain and Illinois, is not 

 visionary. Take for illustration a favourable case in Britain. 



