Another controversy which was being carried on at intervals indicates the line of cleavage between the capitalist and the landed interest.James Mil's early pamphlet,Commerce Defended (1808),and Torrens's pamphlet,Economists Refuted ,were suggested by this discussion.Although the war was partly in defence of British trade,its vicissitudes produced various commercial crises;and the patriotic Tories were anxious to show that we could thrive even if our trade was shut out from the Continent.The trading classes maintained that they really supplied the sinews of war,and had a right to some control of the policy.The controversy about the orders in council and Berlin decrees emphasised these disputes,and called some attention to the questions involved in the old controversy between the 'mercantile'and the 'agricultural'systems.A grotesque exaggeration of one theory was given by Mill's opponent,William Spence 4(1783-1860),in his Britain Independent of Commerce,which went through several editions in 1808,and refurbished or perverted the doctrine of the French economists.The argument,at least,shows what fallacies then needed confutation by the orthodox,in the preface to his collected tracts,Spence observes that the high price of corn was the cause of 'all our wealth and prosperity during the war.'The Causes of the high price ('assisted,'he admits,'by occasional bad seasons')were the 'national debt,in other words,taxation,'which raised the price,first,of necessaries,and then of luxuries (thus,he says,'neutralising its otherwise injurious effects'),and the virtual monopoly by the agriculturist of the home market.5All our wealth,that is,was produced by taxation aided by famine,or,in brief,by the landowner's power of squeezing more out of the poor.Foreign trade,according to Spence,is altogether superfluous.Its effect is summed up by the statement that we give hardware to America,and,in return,get only 'the vile weed,tobacco.'6Spence's writings only show the effect of strong prejudices on a weak brain.
A similar sentiment dictated a more noteworthy argument to a much abler writer,whose relation to Malthus is significant --Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847),7probably best remembered at present for his leadership of the great disruption of 1843.He had a reputation for eloquence and philosophic ability not fully intelligible at the present day.His appearance was uncouth,and his written style is often clumsy.He gave an impression at times of indolence and of timidity.Yet his superficial qualities concealed an ardent temperament and cordial affections.Under a sufficient stimulus he could blaze out in stirring speech and vigorous action.His intellectual training was limited.
He had,we are told,been much influenced in his youth by the French philosophers of the time,and had appeared on the side of the more freethinking party in the famous Leslie controversy,Soon afterwards,however,he was converted to 'evangelical'views.He still accepted Thomas Brown as a great metaphysician,8but thought that moral questions Brown's deistical optimism required to be corrected by an infusion of Butler's theory of conscience.He could adapt Butler's Analogy ,and write edifying Bridgewater treatise.
I need only say,however,that,though his philosophy was not very profound he had an enthusiasm which enables him at time to write forcibly and impressively.
Chalmers was from 1803to 1815minister of Kilmany,Fifeshire,and his attention had already drawn to the question of pauperism.He took part in the Spence controversy,by an essay upon the Extent of Stability of National Resources.9In this he expounded doctrine which is afterwards given in his Political Economy in Connection with the Moral State and Moral of Aspects Society .10The main purpose of his early book is thus patriotic.It is meant,like Spence's pamphlet,to prove that Napoleon could do us no vital injury.
Should he succeed,he would only lop off superfluous branches,not hew down the main trunk.Chalmers's argument to show the ease with which a country may recover the effects of a disastrous war is highly praised by J.S.Mill 11as the first sound explanation of the facts.Chalmers's position,however,is radically different from the position of either James or J.S.Mill,Essentially it is the development of the French economists'theory,though Chalmers is rather unwilling to admit his affinity to a discredited school.12He has reached some of their conclusions,he admits,but by a different path.13He coincides,in this respect,with Malthus,who was equally impressed by the importance of 'subsistence,'or of the food-supply of the labourer.The great bulk of the food required must be raised within our own borders.As Chalmers says,in 1832,the total importation of corn,even in the two famine years,1800and 1801,taken together,had only provided food for five weeks,14and could normally represent a mere fringe or superfluous addition to our resources.
His main argument is simple.The economists have fallen into a fatal error.