The Sun.
London, England, 1827-10-20 00:00:00

Of the days, when, under the guidance of Mr.
Gifford, all innovations in Church and State
were stoutly and rancorously opposed in it. It
would appear that the neutral system has not an-
swered as a speculation ; and that, upon the
whole,- it has been deemed. advisable to .throw
the liberal Ministers overboard, and to pay court
to the Bench of Bishops and the Country Squires.
The present number contains an article on Agri-
culture and Rent, which lays down principles
directly opposed to principles laid down in some
former articles, and particularly in a Review of
the first elaborate - Report of the ' Agricultural
Committee, drawn up by Mr. Huskisson ; and
more than hints that Ministers have mistaken
their way. The writer does not understand very
well either his own principles or the principles
which he attacks, -and his zeal very much outruns
his judgment. The author of this article, which
extends to nearly three sheets, commences with
an attack •on the periodical press, for having,
during the last five years, perseveringly endea-
voured to persuade the public that the prosperity
and wealth of this Empire owe their origin and
increase principally, if not exclusively, to our
manufacturing and commercial industry ; and as-
serts that this partiality arises from the writers
being chiefly denizens of great towns, and their
constantly associating with merchants and manu-
facturers, and also from the necessity of sacri-.
ficing . to the prejudices of readers, in which
those who may entertain more correct views are
placed. The Reviewer must pardon us for be-
lieving that he has very loose notions respecting
agriculture and manufactures, and that the par-
tiality with which he reproaches others is very
fairly chargeable against himself.- 4' From 'the
way," he says, " in which these matters are some•
times treated, it might be imagined that manufac-
tures are in themselves productive, that they make
an addition to the quantity of the food required
for the support of the population of any country.
We should have thought that even a child might
perceive the absurdity of such a notion.—
The application of the most ingenious ma-
chinery. ever invented by the art of man to the
fabrication of cotton or cloth, never .can, by any
possibility, add -one-grain to the quantity of COM
grown upon an acre of land ; its effect is merely
to enable the owner of agricultural produce to fa-
bricate a given quantity of wrought commodities
with a smaller consumption of corn and beef."
Now, with all deference to the Reviewer, his
distinction is absurd. The correct way of view-
ing the matter is to consider the raising the corn
and the making the cloth as parts of one manu-
facture.. Originally, the same man cultivates his
field, Makes all the instruments he uses, and
clothes himself. - By degrees different operations
are assigned to different individuals. It is found
that by the division of labour, confining one man
to making cloth, another man to working iron,
another man to the preparation of leather, an-
other man to ploughing, more corn, . cloth, and
iron can be produced than if there were no sepa-
ration. A greater net produce is thus obtained ;
each operator feels the benefit of the improve-
ment effected in any other branch ; and thus the
general
fund of society is increased. The Re-
Viewer has perplexed himself with some of the
Motions of the Economists, who considered the
manufacturers as merely working up the surplus
produce of the agriculturist, but not affecting it.
If a farmer, in consequenCe of the improvements
in machinery, can obtain the same quantity of
cloth, iron, IPel, and whatever is necessary to his
existence, for one-half less corn than heti:ire, he.
can employ more ploughmen ;. and thus, by more
careful cultivation, draw more grain from the
acre. The Reviewer has referred to Sir John
Cullum's HistOry of lierest(W. If he had read
that invaluable wwk attentively, he would have
found a confirmation of what we have been stat-
ing. " Agriculture, therefore," he says, " has
been conducted here for some years, in the spi-
rited manner of modern times. The farms have,
in general, been occupied by men of substance,
Who employ at least -twice the number, of
labourers that formerly wrought on the same
spots." It is not therefore more true to
say that the manufacturer works up the corn
of the agriculturist, than that the agricultu-
rist works up the cloth of the manufacturer..
Raiment ,and shelter are as necessary as food,
and , the separation of -the producers does not
affect their equal dependence on each other.
Before the assignment of different branches of
labour to distinct classes, it is uniformly found
that the inhabitants of a country are unable to
make any savings. A country in which every
occupier of the soil is cultivator, weaver, tailor,
carpenter, and shoemaker at the same time, is
always the abode of poverty and the most de-
grading superstition. The history of the change
is a complicated matter, and very different from
what the Reviewer supposes. He gives us a
history of the agricultural improvements effected
in the last century, with a view, we suppose, to
show that an improved agriculture led to the
extension of manufactures. Without entering
on the wide field of the history of arts and im-
provement in general, we believe we may safely
observe, that in this country the first stimulus
was given by the Flemings, who first repaired to
our eastern coast with their manufactured articles,
and tempted the husbandman to exchange his
corn, and skins, and wool, &c. for what he nei-
ther made so well, nor at so small an expence
of labour as he employed in producing the com-
modity given by him in return ; and this gra-
dually drew over artisans,,who, for convernency,
settled among us and formed towns. In flarri-
sop's time, the uplands were distinguished from
the coasts as the abodes of barbarism. The -di-
`vision once begini soon extends itself, but agri-
culture is not more a producing cause of manu-
factures than manufacture of agriculture ; each
branch of production acts and re-acts. In the
historical account of agricultural . improvement,
the RevieWer is in error with respect to the in-
troduction of turnips, which lie attributes to
I.Lord Townsend, in the reign of George I.
" That Nobleman," says the Reviewer, " accom-
panying George the First into Hanover, first
saw fields; of turnips in apt country." Sir John
Cullum states, that " Michael Houghton, about
the. year 1700, sowed the first two acres ever
sown in the parish of Hawsted (Suffolk)."—
The turnip husbandry originated in the Nether-
lands long before the time of George. the First,
and it is much more likely that the intercourse
:between the eastern counties and the opposite
coast led our farmers to the adoption of the im-
provement, than that it should have been bor-
oaved from Hanover. Besides, not to mention
that in Lawrence's " Land Steward," published
in the reign of George the First, it is observed,
That " the farmers in some parts of. the North
are not yet become so dextrous in sowing turnip
Iseeds and grass seeds as they are in the South,
twhere constant practice makes it more familiar,"
;we have precise data in the work of Lisle, a
Hampshire Agriculturist, as to the extensive use
!of turnips in many parts of the country before
the beginning of last century. . " Observing that
t-the turnips which one 9f Illy tenants was cutting