and wane together. It cannot be ill with trade but land will fall, nor ill with land but trade will feel it."

So far is it from fact, that agriculture is the employment by which the public welfare is most advanced, and to which, consequently, an excited and factitious direction of industry ought to be given, that under present circumstances reasons exist for coming to the opposite conclusion, and for inducing the opposite course. In modern times, the cultivation of the soil is that occupation in which both the labourers and farmers have been, if not the worst, yet nearly the worst, paid. This is the case, not only in our own country, but all over Europe. What the causes may be of this poor remuneration of the husbandman, it is not necessary here to discuss: the fact is incontrovertible. Now the public interest is most promoted, by an especial direction of industry to those employments which return the highest rewards to the labour and capital embarked in them. And, hence, as long as a low remuneration of agricultural industry exists, it must be unwise to present any extraneous inducements to cultivation. If it could ever be permitted to give a factitious direction to industry, it would be allowable in this case to draw from agriculture, and direct it into occupations in which a higher reward is procured.

Equally hurtful with a factitious direction of industry to agriculture in general, is a factitious direction to any particular branch of it. In some countries, laws have been enacted against converting corn lands into pasturage: in other countries, regulations have existed against breaking up pasture lands for tillage. But both these opposite enactments, so far as they have been acted on, must have proved equally detrimental to the interest of the public and of individuals. No man would either convert corn land into pasture, or the reverse, unless he expected thereby to get a more valuable produce. Neither does it seem clear how any person could desire that the cultivator, and through him the community, should not either turn the land to that sort of culture to which it is best adapted, or should not acquire from it that kind of produce which possesses the highest value, and is consequently most adapted to satisfy the wants of the consumers.

The produce of agricultural industry depends very much on the quantity of labour and capital that has been expended upon the land in previous years, in improvements, and bringing it into a state of cultivation. It is plain, that, without the labour which has at some time or other been bestowed in clearing the land from the forests and useless or noxious plants that once encumbered it, or perhaps in draining some parts of it from the waters which once made it a morass; as well as in enclosing, ameliorating, manuring, constructing suitable farm-buildings, and roads; the produce that could be drawn from it would be very small. Indeed these preliminaries to cultivation must first be carried to a certain extent, before the proper cultivation of the soil can commence; while its produce is augmented in proportion as such improvements have been made.

In the progress of population, and the necessity for larger quantities of food, horticulture becomes added to agriculture, to which indeed it may perhaps be found at last to be but the precursor; and thus enlarged employment is obtained for the people, with an increased supply of the means of their subsistence.

There is a distinction between agricultural and the other kinds of industry, which is worthy of notice; in that, unlike them, the outlay of greater quantities of labour and capital in cultivation, does not yield, under the application of the same degree of skill, a return proportionate to the outlay, but in a proportion continually lessening as that outlay is increased: the return is larger on a larger outlay, but the proportion to the outlay is smaller.

In manufactures, the employment of more labour in working ap rude produce to a state fit for use and consumption, always yields a quantity of finished goods at least equal to the additional number of workmen employed. It usually does even more than this. The employment of more workmen commonly leads to a greater subdivision of labour amongst them, which, through the numerous advantages it confers, enables them to work up goods in a greater proportion than the additional number of men employed.

In agriculture, the reverse of this is the case.

The powers

of the soil are limited, as well as the extent of the land fit for cultivation. From the nature of agriculture, in the application of more labour, its subdivision cannot be carried to the extent to which it may be pushed in manufactures; and but small advantages can accrue from this cause, to compensate for the falling off in the productive properties of the soil. At first, the best soils only are cultivated; afterwards, such as are of inferior quality; and, as an increased population gives the power of extending cultivation, as well as calls for a larger quantity of produce to subsist it, soils of still worse quality must be brought under tillage.

It is self-evident, that, as cultivation is extended over inferior land, the application of any given quantity of labour and capital must yield a smaller quantity of produce; and that, in such ungrateful soils, there is a limit beyond which cultivation cannot be carried, except through greater powers of labour; since the produce raised would be inadequate to the maintenance of the cultivator, and to afford seed and the renewal of capital for continuing cultivation.

That which takes place with respect to the cultivation of inferior land, takes place also in applying additional labour and capital to superior soils. The very fact that, in the progress of an increasing want of agricultural produce, lands are taken into cultivation which yield a proportionally less return on the labour and capital expended, demonstrates that land of superior quality would have yielded a diminishing proportional return on any additional expenditure which should be applied to heighten its cultivation. For if it were otherwise, inferior soils would never be taken in. Capital, ever seeking its most beneficial occupation, and thereby constantly tending to a certain level, so distributes itself upon the soil, that the last increased portion of it employed upon the best lands, yields an equal rate of return with the first portions of it employed on the worst lands newly brought under tillage. When the inferior lands can no longer be taken in, those of better quality can no longer be improved.

Hence, in the progress of population, while the products of manufacturing and commercial industry, through the greater subdivision of labour, and successive improvements, are pro

duced at a less and less cost, and consequently experiencing a continual fall in price; the products of agriculture, on the contrary, unless improvements take place in the implements and methods of husbandry, must in this progress be procured with a constantly increasing expense; and therefore undergoing a gradual rise in value. The frequent improvements of these kinds which have hitherto taken place have counteracted, in a great measure, the tendency to an increase in the cost of agricultural produce. This has especially been the case with the great improvements that have been made in husbandry within the last half-century. In 1801, nearly onehalf of the entire population of England was engaged in agriculture. In 1830, the proportion had fallen to about one-third. But we must still rely on further improvements of the like kind for the means of supporting an enlarging population with the same degree of ease. Without them, the limited powers of the soil, and the inferior qualities which must necessarily be from time to time had recourse to, would continually increase the difficulty of procuring food, and raise its price.

The condition of mankind being at all times dependent on the productiveness of their industry, and a large portion of their industry being applied to the raising of agricultural produce, it follows that this condition is greatly dependent on the fertility of the soil from which its subsistence must be acquired. Had the land been so sterile as to yield no more than the food and necessaries of the cultivators, every man must have been doomed to a life of unremitting toil for his bodily support, and no time could have been afforded either for idleness, or for other employments. than those of husbandry, and such coarser manufactures as provide the necessaries of existence. We should have had but an agrarian population, consisting of husbandmen and a few rustic artificers, thinly scattered over the land; and the species would have risen but a few degrees, whether physical or moral, above the condition of mere savages. It is because of the fertility of the ground, or the power which industry possesses to raise from it a surplus over and above the food and necessaries of the cultivators, that we obtain leisure to devote to the cultivation of literature, the sciences and arts, and to the production of articles

of comfort and elegance. Works of taste, and the productions of all the arts which distinguish and adorn civilized life, acquire a sale and derive their costliness from the abundance of the products of agriculture. Without this, neither could time be devoted to their production, nor if produced, could a market be found for them amongst so poor a people at a price adequate to their cost; and consequently their value would fall almost to nothing." To this surplus we stand indebted for our crowded cities, our thousand manufactories for the supply of comforts and refinements to society, our wide and diversified commerce, our armies of protection, our schools and colleges of education, our halls of legislation and justice, even our altars of piety and temple services."*

The quantity and natural fertility of the land of any country, and the abundance and variety of productions of the mines, fisheries, and other sources whence food and the materials of the arts are procured, which have so powerful an influence on the condition of its population, are, however, circumstances that are usually beyond the power of human agency to augment. But though the land of a country cannot be increased, yet the quantity of the produce of land, which through the intervention of commerce may be brought within the command of the people of that country, does admit of increase and diminution. And, as regards the circumstances of the people, it is matter of small moment whether the land from which that produce is raised be comprised within its territorial boundaries, or lie beyond them.

On this subject we may notice the injurious effects on the supply of our wants, which arise from prohibitions or duties on the importation of corn, and raw produce or materials of any kind, from foreign countries. These are equivalent to abstracting from the extent of our country the number of acres that would be required to raise the produce thus kept out; they chain down the people to a life of unnecessary toil, and check the progress of manufacture, art, science, and everything which adds to the enjoyment of life.

The most desirable size of farms has formed a subject of * Dr. Chalmers, Polit. Econ. P. 45.