1807.] 
mutt therefore rank him with the “ en- 
lightened” multitude whom I have al- 
ready found to be wonderfully editied by 
that performance, merely becanfe they 
had not found leifure to inveitigate its 
merits. 
The direét object of “ Common Senfe,” 
ifl underftand hin right, is to prove that 
the diftreifes of the country arife princi- 
pally from the occupation of extenfive, 
inttead of fmall, farms; and this 1s an opi- 
nion fo prevalent, that if it be not-true, 
it may be attended with coutequences 
not leis fatal to our future welfare, than 
our former errors have been deftructive 
of our future comforts. Itisimportantly 
true, that no folly can be greater than 
“ to create and continue an evil, for the 
pleafure of attempting to cure it;” and 
the public will be greatly indebted to 
your correfpondent for commencing this 
difcufiion, if it fhould lead to fuch an ex- 
amination of the fubjeét, as will make it 
underfiood. ‘Till it fhall be taken up by 
fome abler inquirer, I beg leave to fug- 
geft three reafons for bel.eving, that no 
part of our diftreties arife out of the en- 
grofling of farms.’ 
Firit, becaufe we have no fatisfactory 
data to determine the proportion that 
the number of agricultural poor of the 
prefent day, bears to the faine clafs of 
poor at the time when farms were not fo 
eugrofied; and without fuch data, there is 
vreat reafon to bélieve that the increafe 
of paupers: is principally among the de- 
pendents upon cominerce and manufac- 
tures, 
Secondly, becaufe the occupation of 
extenfive farms, has tended to improve 
agriculture, and to increafe the produce 
of the foil. 
Thirdly, becaufe fince the period when 
the prattice of engroffing farms com- 
inenced, the manufactures and commerce 
of the country hate encreafed to an ex- 
tent that has found employment for a 
much greater number of perfons, than 
thoie who have been difcharged from 
agricultural employments. 
There is one omiffion that moft perfons 
feem to be guilty of, who form opinions 
relative to the, poor; they do not diftin- 
guith real, from artificial poverty; and 
until that diftinétion become the bafis of 
the inquiry, itis of little confequence whe- 
ther we compliment ourifelves as “ wife 
itatefman,” “ profound philoiophers,” or 
“patriotic fenators;” we fhall oaly ape 
the “ wifdom of our ancettors,” whit we 
create as much confulion for pofterity, as 
their “ wifdom” has prepared for us, 
Monruty Mac, No. 156. 
On the Caufes of the Increafe of Paupers. 
333 
I take it that there is no real poverty, 
but that which arifes out of the fterility 
of the foil, or the imperfections of nature, 
Artificial poverty is of two kinds, one 
aries out of the imjudicious arrangements 
of government, the other out of the vices 
of the people. It would be an intult to 
the underftanding of your readers, to at- 
tempt proving that we have no complaint 
to make on account of fterility, or even 
for any temporary fearcity connetted 
with bad feafons: We have abundant 
proofs of the liberality of our refources; 
and the increaling extent of. our grana- 
ries and our flocks, ferves to fhew.that 
the value of our land does not diminith 
with the number of thofe who farm them, 
The poverty of which we complain then 
is wholly artificial, and our attention 
fhould principally be directed to afcer- 
tain what portion of it is to be attributed 
to the government, and what part of it 
the people create for themfelves. 
I have in a Traét lately publifhed, en- 
titled “The Wants of the People, and 
the Means of the Government,” offered a 
few defultory hints upon this fubject; 
but it would be improper in chis paper to 
wander from the immediate inquiry as to 
the effects of engroffing farms. Your 
correfpondent has exprefled himfelf very 
clearly,when he fays, that, inconfequence 
of one hundred and twenty farms being 
reduced to fixty, fixty families bave been 
reduced to depend on the parifh-rates; 
but is there any man of reflection-in the 
kingdom, who does not fee that this isa 
mere fophitm? If fixty perfons out of a 
hundred and twenty become dependent 
upon their parifhes,-it is becaufe the 
other fixty have found means to do the 
work of a hundred and twenty; and itis 
to the dexterity and {kill which contrives 
to cultivate the foil with half the number 
of hands, that they muft attribute their 
poverty. This isthe only rational mode 
of accounting for it; for it the difpoflef- 
fion of their farms were the only change 
in all the relative circumftances, the fim- 
ple amount of the mifchicf would be, that 
one man poffeffed of fixty farms, with his 
family, would be added to the population 
of a {pot in addition to the former inha- 
bitants, whilft the fixty occupants of his 
farm would be reduced to live as la- 
bourers, inftead of farmers. Now fup- 
pofing the condition of the labourers of 
the diftriét to have been precifely fuch as 
it ought to have been prior to the change, 
the ejected farmers being in no worfe 
fituation than their own labourers had 
been in, when they worked with them as 
Da fuperiors 
