"Will you have the goodness to explain that a little further?" which he does thus:

"When a landlord becomes an absentee, his rent must be remitted to him in one way or another; it must be remitted to him either in money or in commodities. I suppose it will be conceded that it cannot continue to be remitted to him from Ireland in money, there being no money to make the remittance; for if the rents of two or three estates were remitted in money, it would make a scarcity of money, and raise its value, so that its remittance would inevitably cease. It is clear, then, that the rents of absentees can only be remitted in commodities. And this, I think, would be the nature of the operation. When a landlord has an estate in Ireland, and goes to live in London or Paris, his agent gets his rent, and goes and buys a bill of exchange with it now this bill of exchange is a draft drawn against equivalent commodities that are to be exported from Ireland; it is nothing more than an order to receive an equivalent amount in commodities which must be sent from Ireland. The merchants who get 10,000l., or any other sum from the agent of an absentee landlord, go into the Irish market, and buy exactly the same amount of commodities as the landlord would have bought, had he been at home; the only difference being, that the landlord would eat and wear them in London or Paris, and not in Dublin, or in his house in Ireland."

The reason why "the income of a landlord, when he is an absentee, is really as much expended in Ireland as if he were living in it," is here distinctly stated to be, because "rents can only be remitted in commodities."-" His agent gets his rent, and goes and buys a bill of exchange with it: now this bill of exchange,' Mr. McCulloch says, "is a draft drawn against equivalent commodities that are to be exported from Ireland."

It is surprising that it did not occur to Mr. McCulloch that this transaction is simply an exchange of capital. The agent gives the property of the landlord which is in Ireland, for the property of the merchant which is in England or France; and after the bill is remitted to an absentee, there is exactly as much property in England or France, as there was before; but if the landlord had staid at home, the English or the French merchant must have remitted the amount to Ireland, and then there would have been the whole amount of the bill more in Ireland, and the whole amount of it less in England or in France.

Let Mr. McCulloch choose his own mode of remittance to absentees, and whichever he chooses, the result will be, an export without an import; that is, an expenditure of Irish revenue in London, or in Paris, for which nothing ever comes to Ireland.

There appears to be a vague, undefined notion, afloat in the

minds of the advocates for absenteeism, about the expenditure of absentees, of which they are exceedingly tenacious, but which they have not had the good fortune to explain to the satisfaction of others: they assume that there must of necessity be an equivalent amount of commodities exported, without considering that the commodities have already been exported, for which the bills they receive were drawn, and consequently would have been exported if they had staid at home.

Does Mr. McCulloch suppose that the "commodities that are to be exported," could not be exported, unless a bill of exchange for an equivalent amount were previously sold to the agent of an absentee? It would seem that he does think so, for he says that this bill "is nothing more than an order to receive an equivalent amount in commodities that must be sent from Ireland." Now, the only reason that I know of why they must be sent from Ireland is, because the people of Ireland produce more beef, and pork, and potatoes, than they can consume; that the people of England produce less of these commodities than they consume; and that, luckily for them, the Irish are near at hand to supply the deficiency.

We are told that " the merchants who get 10,000l., or any other sum from the agent of an absentee landlord, go into the Irish market, and buy exactly the same amount of commodities as the landlord would have bought had he been at home." All that I can see in this is, that the merchants having disposed of their bills, continue their business as before, and never trouble themselves about the absentee, or his agent, or care one straw whether they buy their next bills, or not; knowing that, if they do not, somebody else will, and a much more useful person too than an absentee; I mean, one who sends them to England, or to France, not to be expended there, but to pay for commodities imported by him into Ireland.

The next question is a fair, and indeed the only inference that can be drawn from Mr. McCulloch's premises; viz.

"Then in proportion to the amount of rent remitted, will be the correspondent export of Irish commodities?"

"Precisely," said Mr. McCulloch,-" if the remittances to absentee landlords amount to three millions a year, were the absentee landlords to return home to Ireland, the foreign trade of Ireland would be diminished to that amount."

This most monstrous assertion I pronounce to be totally unsupportable. It is utterly impossible for absentees to increase the exports of Ireland one grain beyond their own consumption of Irish commodities, or an equivalent amount of English commodities. Would the English men and the English horses leave off eating? Why, if all the Irish landlords were to go

back again, and all the English landlords accompany them, there would be exactly as much corn exported from Ireland to England as there is now, less their particular consumption.

If the foreign trade of Ireland is increased by exports to the extent of the particular consumption of absentees, it is evidently diminished by decrease of imports, in consequence of their absence, to the same extent. I will leave the advocates for absenteeism to strike a balance, in this case, in their favor, if they can: they will find that there is just as much decrease of imports as increase of exports; for the value of the exports being consumed abroad by the absentee, nothing can be sent to Ireland for them.

Mr. McCulloch speaks generally of exports from Ireland as foreign trade. Surely if the trade between England and Ireland is foreign trade, the trade between England and Scotland is also foreign trade: but it was necessary for Mr. McCulloch so to consider it, having assumed that it is of no importance whether Irish revenue be expended in Dublin, or in London, or in Paris.

Now I rather think that when an absentee goes to France, he does not consume one single article either of Irish or of English produce, and few, if any, of British colonial produce. He eats French meat, and French bread, drinks French coffee, wears French clothes, French linens, French silks, French hats, French shoes, and, I dare say, carefully avoids every thing which he could get at home: the ladies, to be sure, do sometimes buy some very fine English lace, but I am afraid we cannot give the dear creatures much credit for patriotism in mistaking it for French.

Foreign trade is an exchange of the capital, or productions of one country, for the productions, or capital of another country; but no such exchange takes place here. When it is shown in what way any thing is received in Ireland for the expenditure of absentees, I will then admit that it is foreign trade. But I do not call the expenditure of British revenue in a foreign country, foreign trade; or admit that it can in any way increase foreign trade: it is not trade at all. The thing lies in a short compass. I want to know what Ireland receives for what is sent from Ireland.

If foreign trade consists of an interchange of commodities, as I think must be granted, it follows that, without an interchange of commodities there can be no foreign trade: now, it is evident, that, in the case of absenteeism, the only thing that constitutes foreign trade is wanting; there is no interchange of commodities. It is an export without an import. Nothing is received by Ireland for what is sent from Ireland. If you export the consumer as well as the revenue, how is the foreign trade to be produced? If the landlord stays at home, there will, indeed, be a foreign trade; he will want wines, spirits, teas, spices, and

various kinds of colonial produce, which will be sent to him in return for the produce of his estates; but, if he goes to London, or to Paris, to procure and consume those things there, instead of increasing, he diminishes the foreign trade of Ireland.

It makes a vast difference to the people of Ireland, to the whole mass of shopkeepers, and other tradesmen, with their families and dependants, down to the very porters in the streets, whether three millions of Irish revenue be expended in Ireland, or elsewhere. It makes also some difference to the shipping interest, whether, after having carried the produce of the absentee landlords' estates to England, the vessels shall return to Ireland in ballast, or with teas, sugar, coffee, and other kinds of merchandise, for the consumption of resident landlords; and this I call diminishing instead of increasing, the foreign trade of Ireland.

Some Irish landlords receive their rents in produce, which their agents consign to factors in Liverpool or London, for sale for the landlords' account, to whom the factors remit the proceeds; other Irish landlords, who receive their rents in produce, sell it to merchants in Ireland, and those merchants export it to Liverpool, or London.

There is a certain quantity of Irish produce consumed annually in England; it seems almost superfluous to say, that, if any part thereof is exported by absentees, there must be so much less exported by merchants. If every Irish landlord were to export his own rents in produce, the merchants could not export much: an absentee cannot take commodities with him, or have them sent to him, without clashing with the merchant.

The consumption of every market for every article having its limits, it can take no more of any than its regular wants require; and with whatever portion it is supplied by one, it must be supplied with so much less by another.

I suppose it will be granted that there is a certain annual consumption of linen in all European countries; and that this consumption does not vary very much, but is in one year much about the same as in another year. Now we will suppose that the Irish merchants are in the habit of exporting annually to a particular country, linens to the amount of 100,000/., and that absentees also take over with them, or have sent to them, linens to the same amount. There will then be 200,000/. worth of linens in a country, whose regular annual consumption is only 100,000l. worth; so that, unless the people of that country can be persuaded to wear two shirts instead of one, I am afraid the absentee gentlemen would find it a very dull market. The idea, therefore, that absentees increase the foreign trade of a country beyond the amount of their own consumption of its commodities, is quite

erroneous.

Mr. McCulloch being asked:

"Would there not be a local effect created by the residence of Irish gentry now absent that would be very beneficial ?”

Replied:

"If the question be confined to particular spots, the expenditure of considerable sums of money in them may perhaps be productive of some advantage to their inhabitants; but when a landlord goes abroad, the expenditure of his income, though not probably productive of advantage to that particular parish, or that particular part of the country where his estate lies, will certainly be proportionally advantageous to some other part of the country; inasmuch as the income must be all laid out, in the first instance, in Irish commodities."

Mr. McCulloch consoles himself with the consideration, that what is lost by one place is gained by another: cold comfort this to the losers, though. Doubtless, the expenditure of the landlord's revenue in a particular place, will benefit that place, and collaterally other places; but his absence cannot benefit any place but that in which his revenue is expended. He may be a very useful member of society while he resides at home, but if he goes abroad, and spends his income in France, or in Italy, he is of no more use to his country than a Frenchman, or an Italian.

It is really conceding a great deal to admit that the expenditure of the landlord's income abroad may not probably be advantageous to that part of the country where his estate lies. It is some

Mr.

consolation to learn from Mr. McCulloch himself, that absentees may probably not benefit their own estates by their absence. How it "will certainly be proportionally advantageous to some other part of the country," is what I have still to learn. McCulloch says, it is because "the income must all be laid out, in the first instance in Irish commodities;" but how, and why, is what I do not understand, and what Mr. McCulloch has not explained.

I will here take occasion to notice the remarks of another gentleman, who professes to "agree in almost every particular with Mr. McCulloch." He says,

"If the landlord remained in Ireland, he would (we shall suppose) eat Irish bread and beef, wear Irish shirts and breeches, sit on Irish chairs, and drink his wine off an Irish table. Now then, I will put a case:-suppose that he goes to London, leaving die rections behind him that all the bread and beef which he would have eaten, all the shirts and breeches which he would have worn, all the chairs which he would have sat on, and all the tables off which he would have drank his wine, should be regularly sent to him in

'Morning Chronicle, Sept. 16th, 1825. Letter signed J. S.