89 



stipplies of next season from the continent ? It is the genera! sup- 

 ply of subsistence that is here in question, not the relative amount 

 of so immaterial a produce as barley. The increase or decrease 

 of barley, as a peculiar crop, supposing the general supply of 

 corn to continue the same, is alike immaterial to the general farm- 

 ing interest, and to the public. In short, it is quite obvious, that 

 as far as regards the temporary supply of the public, and the in- 

 jury to the farmer, the two modes of proceeding, by forcing pro- 

 duction, or suspending the distillery, supposing them equally 

 practicable, would be precisely similar in their effects *. 



* I here insert that part of Mr Young's evidence before the Committee, 

 above alluded to. 



" Do you consider that the present state of the country, and the doubt- 

 " ful reliance that is to be placed on foreign markets, call for a prompt 

 " adoption of the remedy against scarcity, which you have proposed, 

 " namely, the encouragement of potatoes, and the cultivation of waste 

 " lands ? I certainly do, I think every hour that is lost is much to be re- 

 " gretted. 



" You have stated that the exclusion of grain from the distillery would 

 *' injure by lowering the price of grain ; do you mean that this effect would 

 " be produced by the additional quantity that would be thus thrown into 

 " the market ? Net by the additional quantity thrown into the market, 

 " but by the demand for the quantity already in the market being with- 

 " drawn," Which it is to be observed, in the present view, is exactly the 

 same thing. 



" Do you mean that the proportion of demand would thereby become 

 " less than the proportion of supply ? Certainly ; as far as the quantity 

 " amounts to that consumed by the distillery. 



" Would not the same effect upon this proportion be occasioned, if, tlie 

 " consumption remaining the same, an additional supply of equal amount 

 " were to be brought into the market ? Certainly I conceive it would, 



" In what respect then will the effect on the market, which is pro- 

 " duced by saving the consumption of a given quantity of corn, differ from 

 " that which is produced by introducing into the market an equal quan- 

 " tity, in addition to the former supply, by cultivating the waste lands ? 

 *' The culture of the waste lands would not have a great effect on the im- 

 " mediate production of barley. The great effect would be on the pota- 

 " toes, and on the food of cattle, and on the production of other grain ; 

 " but probably least of all on barley. If the culture was principally to in- 

 " crease the production of barley, it would operate exactly in the manner 

 " alluded to, saving the consumption of the people employed in such cul- 

 " tivation." Which last exception, by the way, is without foundation, as 

 the people employed on the wastes would just consume as much, were they 

 left at their old occupations. App. to ^ e P- P- 107,-8. 



I may here mention a fact stated by Mr Young, in his evidence, (p. 105), 

 which he justly considers as hardly credible, namely, that the consumption 

 of malt, in Britain, is now less than it was ninety years ago, when the po- 

 pulation has increased in the proportion of 9 to J. The rate of increase in 



