334 
fuperiors inftead of equals, can be under 
no neceffity for becoming burdenfome 
to parifhes. 
The fuppofition of “Common Senfe,” 
that of uniting two farms into one, in- 
ftead of a hundred and twenty into two, 
renders the evil ftill lefs; for if each far- 
mer was fully occupied before in attend- 
ing his one hundred and ten acres, he 
cannot now attend his two hundred and 
twenty, without availing himfelf in fome 
fhape or other of the fervice of his ejected 
neighbour; and then upon what pretence 
can that neighbour become burdenfome 
to the parifh? It is evident that the fim- 
ple engrofiment of farms has no tendency 
to encreafe paupers, and that the. dif- 
trefles of the people are to be attributed 
to fome other caute. 
This caufe may be faintly traced in the 
Narrative of “Common Sente’s,” “ In- 
telligent Farmer,” where he reprefents 
one man “who already manages five 
hundred acres by means of a fingie fhep- 
herd,” and another man “ already pof- 
feffed-.of nine farms, yet taking fix other 
farms,” to divide between them; for, if 
thefe five hundredacres had continued di- 
vided into four farms, there muit have 
been four fhepherds employed, as one 
fhepherd could not have ferved. four 
mafters; and therefore, four men would 
have found employment inftead of one. 
Now, with fubmiffion to “ Common 
Senfe,” I beg leave to fuggeft, that the 
real caufe of his complaint is not againft 
the engroffment of farms, but againit the 
fkill and improvements which have de- 
vifed the means of diminifhing labour. 
To regard this change as an evil, would, 
however, evince a want of diligence 
highly culpable in any perfon defirous of 
forming a correct opinion upon the fub- 
-jeét. Labour is in itfelf an evil, and the 
very firft article in the Chriftian religion 
teaches us to regard it as fuch; “‘ Becaufe 
thou haft done this, in the fweat of thy 
brow fhalt thoueat bread.” To diminifh 
labour, therefore, 1s a pofitive good; and , 
if it be made produétive of mifchievous 
confeguences, it is becaufe we have 
adopted an erroneous mode of appropri- 
ating the advantages we acquire. 
_ Suppofe the pofition of “ Common 
Senfe,” were incontrovertibly proved, 
that ‘our definite extenfion of foil fur- 
nifhes employment and independence to 
not more than half the number of perfons, 
which it did twenty years ago, and that 
this number is annually diminifhing,” it 
gives no rational caufe for the increafe of 
poverty, unlefs it be proved at the fame 
Effects of the Confolidation of Farms. 
| {May 1, 
time, that the foil cultivated, has been 
lefs productive in confequence. If fuch 
a polition fhould be advanced, I fhould be 
glad to learn the grounds upon which it 
might be maintained ; but if it fhould ap- 
pear that there is no reafon for fuch an 
opinion, it will be proved beyond all kind 
of doubt, that the confolidation of farms 
is advantageous, rather than injurious, by 
raifing an equal qnantity of produce with 
half the labour, and confequently at much 
lefs expence. : 
The evil arifing from the diminution of 
agricultural labourers, is again met by the 
increafed quantity of labour, demanded 
for manufacturing and commercial pur- 
pofes, which has-engaged a number equal 
to that of the cultivators difcharged ; and 
this circumftance peremptorily calls wpon 
every perfon, to inquire whether the ma- 
hufacturing and commercial paupers be 
not much more numerous than the agri- 
cultural paupers, before he gives a deci- 
five opiion upon this fubject. . : 
To the inquiry tuggefted by your cor- 
refpondent, there can be no objeétion ; 
the Houfe of Commons would be as in- 
nocently employed in catering for the 
faéts, that he is defirous of knowing, as 
it moft likely will be in any other way ; 
but I cannot fee the neceflity for it, be- 
caufe, it is already notorious enough, that 
the number of farmers has very greatly 
decreafed within thefe twenty years, and 
we have not only an admiflion of the fatt, 
but an illuftration of its confequences, in 
the improvement of Sir. John Sinclair’s 
eftate in the north of Scotland. That 
eminent agriculturift, to whom the coun- 
try is under inexpreffible obligations, 
ftates, that he was defirous of increafing 
a flock of five hundred ewes, by various 
annual augmentations, until it fhould 
amount to ten thoufand; and for this, 
and other purpofes, he found it neceflary 
to enlarge the farm» he already held, to 
twenty-five thoufand acres. ‘This defign 
was oppofed by the circumftance of the 
land being occupied by eighty farmers, 
whom it became neceflary to difpeffefs. 
They were however ejected, and with 
their famihes, to the number of five hun- 
dred, were obliged to fubmit to’quit their 
habitations, Flere then is an inconve- 
nience to eighty families, but what are 
the effects upon the public? Why, that, 
inftead of an “ inconfiderable number of 
cattle and a few red deer,” that were 
rated by thefe fmall farmers, and which 
fupplied them with a bare fubfittence, 
the proprietor was enabled to produce 
food fora population fo great, that, to in- 
eh “duce 
