Now it hath been long asserted, that many Farmers, in several Parts of the Kingdom, from the Cheapness of the Produce of the Ground, and from the Dearness of Labour have been obliged to throw up their Farms to their Landlords. And of late this is grown so generally the Case, that the News-Papers(33*) have assured us, that most of the Farmers all over the Kingdom must inevitably have been ruin'd, had not Corn, etc. taken a sudden considerable and unexpected Rise, which the War now broke out in Italy hath occasion'd. And this seems to be allow'd to be Fact, even by the most sanguine of those that contend for the present most flourishing State of our Trade, whilst they content themselves with assigning this Cause for it, viz. That the Gentry truly do not now live, and spend their Money in the Country, as formerly. Now this, if it be true, seems to me a very inadequate Cause, either of the late Cheapness of the Produce, or present Dearness of Labour; to which Causes the Farmers justly attribute the unhappy Dilemma they have for some Time labour'd under.
But however; Fact it seems it is, that the Farmers, generally, were so near inevitable Ruin as is above asserted: Now I would fain know what the State of Trade must be in the Country, when the Farmers in general were in so dreadful a Condition: For the Trade in the country, I think, turns chiefly, if not entirely, upon the general Prosperity of the Farmers; for Ibelieve the Country People would be able to raise but few Manufactures, if the Farmers in general were so reduced, as to be unable to raise the Principles out of the Ground, for them to work on; and yet this must be the Case, if the Farmers were generally ruin'd. For the Gentlemens employing their Farmers themselves, would not mend the Matter; since they find by Experience, those Farms always bring them in Debt, on which the Farmers find they can't get a Livelihood; which therefore in the End, must ruin the Gentlemen as well as the Farmers. And therefore it follows, that, allowing the above Fact to be true, the Trade in the Country, as well as the Trade in London, is in a much worse Condition than it was formerly, when the Prosperity of the Farmers, and other Circumstances, enabled the Gentlemen almost universally to raise their Rents, as it's well known they have done very considerably, within the Space of 30 or 40 years last past.
But I shall now proceed to obviate an Objection, which, as Things are now circumstanced, may seem to lie against this Proposal, viz. 'Tis objected, that the Plenty is now so great, as to reduce the Price of the Produce so low, that the Farmers can pay no Rent; and therefore it follows, that we have already broke up and improv'd too much Land; since such Plenty can arise only from having too much Land in Use.
In answer to which, I shall first observe, that the Price of Things may be reduced too low to answer and turn to Account, not only from the Plenty of those Things consider'd in themselves, but from the Inability of the People in general to purchase them, in such Quantities as their Wants may require; since a consideration Abatement of the Consumption of any Thing, will operate to the Reduction of its Price, more than even Plenty of any Thing, consider'd with due Regard to the Wants of the People, will do;(34*) and whoever considers the two Estimates I have produced, which shew how much greater the Wants of the People are, than they can in general be supposed to get, must ascribe the present low Rates of the Produce, at least as much to an Abatement of the Consumption, as to the Plenty consider'd as aforesaid; since by those Estimates it plainly appears, the Wants of the People are mightily abridged.
Again, this Objection is contrary to the Nature of the Thing itself; since it suggests that Plenty is so enormous an Evil, as in general to ruin the Farmers and Gentlemen. For if the Farmers can't pay their Rent, they will certainly one time or other be seized on, and torn to Pieces; and the Gentlemen must also be ruin'd, if they can get no Rent for their Lands, as this Objection suggests. Now since Plenty is in its own nature a general Good, and a universal Blessing, always promoting and increasing the Consumption thereof, nor can possibly ever be otherwise; this objection, which suggests that Plenty is an Evil, and so great a one too, must be contrary to the Nature of the Thing itself.