in those only who possess a certain amount of realised property. Notwithstanding the existing prevalence of long leases, it is at present, in most parts of Scotland, quite enough to know the politics of a landlord to learn those of his tenants. Some few are, no doubt, occasionally found, bold enough and honest enough to assert their independence; but these, wherever the landlords take an active part in politics, form an inconsiderable minority, not 5 per cent probably, aud certainly not 10 per cent of the entire number. So complete is their dependence, that instances have occurred of the event of an election having been changed within a few days of its taking place, by the mere purchase of an estate! Hence, if that be, as it undoubtedly is, the best system of voting that brings the greatest number of independent electors to the poll, and keeps back the greatest number of those that are dependent, the giving the franchise to the tenants and occupiers of land must be about the very worst system; for they are, of all classes, that which is most dependent, and most under the command of others. There can be no doubt, taking every thing into account, that the profits of farmers are upon a level with those of the parties engaged in other businesses. It is generally believed, however, that when estimated in money, they are about the lowest of any. This arises from a variety of circumstances. The healthy and agreeable nature of the business, and the prevalence among the other classes of the unfounded notion, that every man may become a farmer without any previous learning or education, occasion a very keen competition for land; while the uncertainty of the seasons, the multiplicity of operations and details to which the farmer has to attend, and the difficulty of giving that attention to each which is so very essential, conspire powerfully to increase the hazard, and to lessen the profit of farming. In many places, indeed, the business is carried on according to a system of routine. But wherever an improved plan of agriculture is practised, or where it is carried on by persons of considerable capital farming for a profit, skill and attention are alike indispensable. The farmer has to decide upon the rotation of crops, and the species of stock best fitted for the soil and situation which he occupies; he has to fix the number of horses and labourers that he will employ, so that there may neither be too many nor too few; he has to seize upon the proper moment for performing the various operations of the farm, and to arrange them in such a manner that none may be neglected or cause the neglect of others; and he has to make himself acquainted with the state of the markets, and decide as well upon the most advantageous period for selling his produce, as upon the quantities he should sell. No business, in short, requires greater sagacity or more constant application. The best-laid combinations and plans of the farmer are always liable to be overturned by changes of weather, or by prices proving different from what he anticipated; and he should be able to act with promptitude and decision in the altered circumstances under which he may, on such occasions, be placed. To suppose that a successful farmer can be unskilful, indolent, or inattentive, argues an entire ignorance of the practice of agriculture. There is, in fact, no employment where intelligence, industry, and that vigilant activity, "which has no such day as to-morrow in its calendar," can be less dispensed with. Those who enter on this business in the view of making it profitable, must be ready to say with the poet, "Steriles transmissimus annos, Hæc ævi mihi prima dies, hæc limina vitæ." And even with the greatest sagacity, attention, and industry, it is but rarely that farmers make a fortune. The great majority merely manage to live respectably, and to bring up their family. "The few," says the ablest agricultural writer of the present day, "who do more than this, will be found to have had leases at low rents; indulgent landlords; to have profited by accidental rises in the market or depreciation of currency, or to have become dealers in corn or cattle; and rarely, indeed, to have realised aught by the mere good culture of a farm at the market price." The opinion of Mr Burke, who, in the estimation of those most capable of judging, stood high both as a scientific and practical farmer, is to the same effect. "The farmer's trade," says he, "is a very poor trade; it is subject to great risks and losses. In most parts of England which have fallen within my observation, I have rarely known a farmer (I speak of those who occupy from 150 to 300 or 400 acres) who to his own trade has not added some other employment or traffic, that, after a course of the most unremitting parsimony and labour, (such for the greater part is theirs,) and persevering in his business for a long course of years, died worth more than paid his debts, leaving his posterity to continue in nearly the same equal conflict between industry and want, in which the last predecessor, and a long line of predecessors before him, lived and died."? 1 Loudon's "Encyclopædia of Agriculture," p. 719. CHAPTER VII. Division of the Produce of Industry, under Deduction of Rent, between Capitalists and Labourers-Definition of Profits-Mr Ricardo's Theory of Profits; Sense in which it is true-Causes which occasion a Rise or Fall of Profits-Accumulation not the Cause of a Fall of Profits-Influence of the decreasing Fertility of the Soil, and of Taxation on Profits-Influence of Loans to Government, and of Changes in the Value of Money on Profits. BEFORE attempting to investigate the circumstances which determine the rate of profit, it is necessary to be aware of those which determine the proportions in which the whole produce of industry, under deduction of rent, is divided between labourers and capitalists. This preliminary inquiry may be disposed of in a few words. We have seen that the whole produce of the land and labour of every civilised society is always divided, in the first instance, into three, and not more than three, portions; the first of which goes to the labourers, the second to the capitalists or proprietors of stock, and the third to the landlords and we have also seen, that the portion of the produce of industry received by the landlords, as proprietors of the soil, or as rent properly so called, is altogether extrinsic to the cost of production; and that their giving it up would not occasion any change in the productiveness of industry, or any reduction in the price of produce. Supposing, then, that rent is deducted or set aside, it is obvious that all the remaining produce of the land and labour of every country must be primarily divided between the two great classes of labourers and capitalists. And it is further obvious, that were there no taxes in a country, or were the rate of taxation stationary, the proportion of the whole produce of industry, under deduction of rent, falling to the share of the labourers could not be increased except by an equivalent reduction in the proportion falling to the share of the capitalists, and rice versa. Suppose, still better to illustrate this proposition, that the whole produce of industry in Great Britain is represented by the number 1000: suppose, farther, that the landlords get 200 of this produce as rent, or as the amount paid them for the use of the natural and inherent powers of the soil, and that the remaining 800 is divided, in equal portions, between labourers and capitalists. Under these circumstances, it is obvious that nothing could be added to the share of the produce, or to the 400 falling to the labourers, except at the expense of the capitalists; nor to the share, or 400 falling to the latter, except at the expense of the former. Whether the 800 were increased to 1600 or reduced to 400, so long as those between whom it must be divided receive each a half, their relative condition must continue the same. And hence the propriety of the distinction between proportional and real wages, or between wages estimated in parts of the produce raised by the labourer, and in definite. quantities of money or produce. If the productiveness of industry diminish, proportional wages may rise, notwithstanding that real wages, or the absolute quantity of produce received by the labourer, may be diminished; and if, on the other hand, the productiveness of industry increase, proportional wages may be diminished, while real wages may, at the same time, be increased. It is plain, therefore, that were taxation unknown or stationary, the whole produce of industry, under deduction of rent, would be divided between capitalists and labourers; and that the portion falling to either party, would vary inversely as the portion falling to the other- that is, the portion falling to the capitalists would be increased when that falling to the labourers was diminished, and diminished when it was increased. Profits must not, however, be confounded with the pro |