30 years, it was 46s. in England. At present, the average price of wheat in France was 45s.; and he would take it in England at 80s. It was obvious, therefore, that the proportion between the prices of the two countries had not increased; and if the difference for merly did not prevent the success of our manufactures, he did not see why it ought to produce that effect now." Mr Western went on to quote some remarks on this subject of M. de Montesquieu, who said, that "the manufacturer, if he pays a little more to his workmen, can lay it on his goods, and he ought therefore to be indifferent to a slight augmentation. The internal consumers being the proprietor who has sold his wheat to advantage, and the workman who has received better wages, they are all enabled to augment their enjoyments, and consume more manufactured goods. If grain were to fall so low as some manufacturers would wish, who would purchase their goods? Certainly neither the proprietor, the farmer, nor the labourer.""These observations," said Mr Wes tern," are certainly deserving of the most serious attention."-" My honourable friend, (Mr Philips,)" continued Mr Western," seems to have contemplated with great composure, the absolute destruction of the agriculture of a great part of the country. According to him, certain poor districts of this country ought to give way to certain rich districts of France and Flanders. I, for one, confess that I do not well understand this policy. Do not, I would ask, these poor districts afford a market to our manufacturers? Does not Ireland, for example, take our manufactures in return for her produce? Is it not safer to rely on such a market, than on one in other countries? Of the one we may be deprived, but of the other we cannot. We ought therefore, in fairness, to give way something in extent of

market, in consideration of the great advantage of security."

On the subject of the injury, which it was alleged that our manufactures would suffer from the high price of labour, which would be a consequence of the high price of corn, Mr Elliot said, that "he was far from denying the influence of the price of corn on that of labour; but it must be admitted, that the degree of this influence might be very much varied by circumstances. In Ireland, for example, it would have very little effect, because corn was not the general subsistence of the country. In countries where subsistence formed the principal part of the expenditure of the labourer, the effect would, of course, be much more considerable. In England, much of the expence of the labourer consisted in articles of luxury, which, however, were become essential to his comfort, and were, therefore, to be reckoned among the necessaries of life. Now, the opera tion of the price of corn must be chiefly confined to that part of the price of labour which belonged to subsistence. It might, to be sure, affect, in a slight degree, some other articles, but several it could not affect at all, and in these articles consisted the difference between the prices of this and other countries." He continued to say, that "the real source of the dearness of England was the weight of its taxation; and that the operation of this cause cannot be expected speedily to cease."-Lord Liverpool contended, that "the success of our manufac tures did not depend upon cheapness of labour, but upon capital, credit, and fuel. The superior advantages we derived from capital and credit were well known; and our abundance of fuel was an inestimable advantage. The importance of this latter article was clearly shewn by the thriving, es tablishments of manufactories in those counties where coal was plentiful. Our

great excellence in machinery gave us likewise a decided superiority. Cheapness of labour was, therefore, a secondary consideration, and they had the evidence of the manufacturers themselves at the bar of the House with regard to the Orders in Council, that they considered cheapness of labour as comparatively of little importance. As to the labourers themselves who were employed in manufactures, he had no doubt, that, if they had to chuse between cheapness of bread and a reduction of wages, and bread at its present price with the present wages, they would not hesitate to prefer the latter. With regard to the effect in the rise of the price of grain compared with that of wages, there was no doubt that though wages, particularly of labourers by the day or week, had risen in proportion to the rise in the price of grain, the wages of those who worked by the piece had not risen in the same proportion."-His lordship, however, contended, upon the authority of a report made to the French legislative body by a member of the executive government, that for a long period the price of corn had risen in France in the same proportion as in England.

It was strenuously contended by several of the supporters of the bill, that no advantage would be derived from a reduction of rents, but that, on the contrary, it would produce very serious evils. It was contended, that the consequence of the diminished incomes of the landholders would be a diminished expenditure, and consequently a great diminution in the home market for manufactures and commodities of every kind. Manufacturers and tradesmen, it was said, would find themselves in a much worse situation, with cheap bread, and a want of demand for their goods, than with a high price of bread and a brisk trade. But it was further ar

gued, that any diminution of rent which was at all practicable, would have a very trifling effect on the price of corn. On this subject Mr Western stated, that he had made some calculations. He calculated, that every 10s. which were added to the rent or expences of land, made an addition of 3s. to a quarter of wheat, and vice versa. Taking, then, the whole rental of the country at 30s. per acre, (and this, he said, he was satisfied was above the rate at which it ought to be taken,) it would be seen, that the annihilation of the entire rent would only diminish corn 10s. per quarter. Even after this reduction of his expence, therefore, by an entire annihi lation of his rent, the English farmer could not compete with the foreign grower. If a reduction of 10s. per acre were made in the rent of land, this would only diminish the price of the quarter of corn 3s. 4d., and this would only make a difference of hardly three-farthings in the loaf. Mr Western, therefore, held the consideration of rent to be a very immaterial part of the subject.—Mr Whitbread (in a very ingenious speech, which contained a statement of his difficulties on the question, without coming to any definite conclusion,) contended, that "the clamour which had been raised against high rents was a most unfounded, and a most unwise clamour, and always excited his indignation. Taking the country through, the rents had not been raised beyond what they ought to be, according to existing circumstances; and it should never be forgotten, that the landed interests were inseparable from our commercial prosperity. The rise of rents had been a fair increase, resulting from the depreciation of money, and the rise of prices. A considerable part of the capital of landlords had been expended on inclosures, on roads, on draining; and an increase of rent had generally

stimulated the industry of the farmer, so as to make his land more productive than before."

It was further maintained, that, if the reduction of rent, the principal article of the farmer's expence, would be productive of so little effect, still less could be expected from the reduction of other articles of expence. A very heavy article of the farmer's expence consists in the amount of his taxes, not merely direct, but indirect. Of this article of expence no reduction could be expected. It was shewn by Lord Binning, that the taking off the property tax would produce a very inconsiderable effect on the expence of cultivation. He stated the tenant's property tax at 2s. 6d. per acre at the very highest; and, as the average of a wheat crop was at least three quar ters to the acre, it followed, that 10d. per quarter was as much as the property tax affected the price of wheat. Besides, he remarked, the removal of the property tax could not be considered as clear gain to the farmer; as other taxes would be imposed in its place. Lord Binning took occasion to remark on the observations which had been made by Mr Baring on the mode of living of farmers and their families. "It appeared to him," he said, "surprising that Mr Baring should have forgotten the growth of the wealth and magnificence of the tradespeople within the same time. They, too, occasionally indulged themselves with wine as well as the farmers; but he was so far from being displeased at this, that he was happy to see the increasing wealth of the mercantile part of the community." Mr Baring's remarks also called forth the animadversions of Mr Huskisson, who contrasted that gentleman's picture of the present mode of living of the farmers, by a picture of the luxury of our merchants, "who have exchanged their snug dwellings in the city for magnificent mansions in the squares at the west

end of the town; and who, instead of dining at one o'clock, along with their clerks, as their forefathers did, were now to be seen sitting down to a table profuse in its variety of dishes, at six and seven o'clock." Mr Huskisson very properly added, that "he did not complain that it was so; he honoured the industry, and gloried in the success which occasioned it; and, though the comparison might appear invidious, he was driven into it by the equally invidious comparison made by the hon. gentleman.""

On the last branch of the question, the amount of the importation price, it was contended that the grounds for fixing on 80s. were perfectly sufficient. Mr Western maintained, that " 80s. a quarter was not a price that ought to give any uneasiness, or that looked like a scarcity price. The average price of wheat during the last twenty years was 83s. During the first ten of these years, it was 73s. If the price of wheat ten years ago was 73s., could 80s. now be considered more than a fair price? During the first ten of the last twenty years, what was our taxa tion? In 1792, the whole of our taxes amounted only to 16 millions. When wheat was at 73s., the taxes were 34 millions; and at present our taxes exceeded 60 millions. In taking 80s., therefore, he was taking the very lowest rate at which the import price could be fixed." The Earl of Liverpool contended, that " it was erroneous to say, that there was no evidence to justify the price of 80s. The fact was, that the evidence on this point varied from 72s. to 96s. The medium of these prices, according to the weight of the evidence, might perhaps have been calculated at 85s., but under the circumstances of a diminution of taxation and of other burdens upon agriculture, the price of 80s. had been fixed upon; and that, he maintained, was a fair protecting price."

wealth, and extension of agriculture, were necessarily accompanied by a progressive rise in the price of corn, and in the rent of land. It is a pecu liar quality of the produce of the ground, contrasted with the other products of industry, that its price, besides replacing the capital employed to raise it, with the usual profit of stock, and paying the expence of labour, affords a surplus, or rent, to the proprietor of the ground. This excess in the price of raw produce above the cost of its production, from which it yields a tent, has been noticed by almost all our writers on political economy, none of whom, however, before Mr Malthus, appear to have viewed it in its true light. Most of them, and even Smith himself, in speaking of the high price of produce, which is the cause of rent, treat this as a kind of monopoly price, beneficial to those who receive it, but proportionally injurious to the community, who pay it. But Mr Malthus has demonstrated, that the rent of land has no resemblance whatever to a monopoly, and that its existence is not only inseparable from the cultivation of the ground, but essen tial to the wealth and improvement of every country. In the earlier stages of society, the cultivation of land would, at first, like any other kind of industry, yield only wages and profit; for, where good land was in abundance, nobody would pay any rent for it. In such a state of society there is neither tenant nor landlord. The proprietor occupies as much ground as he can cultivate by the aid of his family and his servants, which last are usually slaves or bondsmen. The profit of the capital, and the wages of the labour employed upon it, however, must be high. But as capital accumulated beyond the means of employing it on the most fertile lands, profits

would be diminished, and, as population increased, the wages of labour would fall. But the demand for corn would go on increasing. Part of the accumulated capital would be employed on the more expensive cultivation of inferior soils; and, if the cultivation of these soils could afford the usual profit on capital at the time, the cultivation of the more fertile soils would now afford an excess above this rate of profit, the price of the produce being the same, whether raised on the richer or poorer soils. It is this excess which constitutes rent; and its nature is the same, whether it is received by the occupier of the ground, or by another person to whom he has let it. For a time the occupiers of land might themselves receive this excess above the usual rate of profit, or, in other words,, might unite the character of landlord and tenant; but it is easy to see, that, in the progress of society, a separation of these characters would take place; and that, when this excess became sufficiently large, the proprietors would be satisfied to subsist upon it without trouble, leaving it to others to make the usual profits of capital by the actual cultivation of the ground.

Such being the nature of rent, it is plain, that it must continue to rise along with the progressive improvement of a country in wealth, population, and agriculture. As wealth and population increase, the demand for subsistence increases in the same proportion; to supply this demand, not only the better soils must be rendered more productive by expensive improve. ments, but also more land of inferior quality must be brought into cultivation. When these poorer soils are progressively brought into tillage, they at first yield little or no rent, but they are cultivated if they can be made to pay the expences of cultivation; and,