much discussion. By some persons it has been urged that great evils have arisen from the consolidation of the small farms into large ones; while, by others, it has been maintained that advantages accrue therefrom.

On one side, the consolidation of farms has been said to have deprived the industrious and respectable class of small capitalists of the means of obtaining a livelihood by the cultivation of the soil; to have reduced them to the condition of labourers ; and by allowing no room for any but the great capitalists and the labourer, to have dissolved the connecting link which joined the labourer with his employer, and which established a mutual sympathy and community of interest between the farmer and the peasant.

On the other side it must be admitted, that large farms present advantages in some respects over small ones. They must be occupied by persons possessing a large capital. Such persons are usually men of superior education and attainments; they possess facilities for acquiring that information which leads to agricultural improvements. The opulent farmer is enabled to conduct his business to more advantage, through the employment of superior instruments and an ample capital, as well as through those economical arrangements which an extensive farm admits of; besides that a large farm requires relatively less labour than a small one in superintendence and management.

But if it were shown that farms of any particular number of acres present superior advantages over any other, it should be recollected that the persons capable and desirous of cultivating the soil have very different amounts of capital at their disposal; and to distribute the whole country into farms of any one uniform size, would drive from the land all those individuals whose capitals should be either too large or too small for farms of the established extent. If the size were large, there are but few persons capable of occupying such farms, and the whole country could not be so cultivated. A variety and gradation in the sizes of farms, corresponding with the means of the occupiers of land, seems most conducive to the convenience of individuals and to the general interest.

But if any given arrangement or gradation in the size of

farms were conceived to be most conducive to the public interest, it seems impossible that that interest could be promoted by such arrangement, unless the private interest of individuals should also be promoted thereby. If private interests can be advanced in this way, the arrangement will eventually become established of itself, without external interference; but if not, the arrangement can only be brought about either through motives of patriotism in individuals, or the forcible interference of law. With regard to the management of private concerns, so as to be in accordance with extended views of public good, the patriotic landlord need make no further inquiry than, how best to promote the interests of himself and of his tenants. Any arrangement by which these interests are advanced must, so far as they form part of the public interest, advance the public interest likewise. Any arrangement by which these interests may be compromised would seem a very unsatisfactory method of promoting the public welfare: the loss on one side would be apparent; the advantage on the other would be more than problematical. There are evident advantages in allowing private interests to follow their natural course; there are evident mischiefs in opposing them; and whoever would prove that their following the natural course is inconsistent with the public good, must show that the sum of the private advantage is more than counterbalanced by the sum of the mischief thereby occasioned to the public. Even if the question were decided adverse to private interests, the doubtful conclusion which an estimate of these opposing advantages and mischiefs might afford, would be insufficient to warrant so violent an interference in private affairs as to regulate by law between landlord and tenant in what manner the soil shall be cultivated. No such interference takes place in business of other kinds, which may be carried on to the largest or smallest extent that the means of the party admit of; and there is nothing in the nature of agriculture so different from other concerns, as to call for legislative regulation in its management on principles different from those which obtain in other employments.

Examples are common of the successful cultivation of land of very inferior quality by cottagers occupying small portions,

of

which could not be tilled without loss in the ordinary way farming. Amongst a multitude of instances of this kind, one may be mentioned which is given in a letter addressed to the Marquis of Salisbury by the Rev. Dr. Demainbray, and published in the year 1831. A farm of eighty acres at Broad Somerford in Wiltshire, was let to a tenant at a rent of £60, but which, from the poverty of the land, he was unable to continue to occupy unless a reduction had been made of one-half the rent. It had originally formed part of a common, and although it had been full twenty years enclosed and under the plough, yet it had never in any one year borne a good crop. On the tenant giving it up, the land was divided into small allotments of from one to two acres each, and let to the poor; through whose industry and attention it was covered with a luxuriant crop, in the very first year of their occupation, which enabled them to pay with punctuality a rent on the whole of £80.

To resolve the question as to the propriety or impropriety of the occupation of land in this way, does not seem to call for any further inquiry than as to the magnitude of the crop which the occupants of small portions would raise from it, and their ability to pay the rent. If the crop raised by them would in some instances exceed what it would be in the ordinary mode of cultivation, it must be to the public interest that the larger crop should be raised. On the other hand, if they would be unable to raise so good a crop, the public interest must suffer from the degree of scarcity of produce which their occupation would oc

casion.

A peasant working on his own account puts to his labour much more exertion than a hired labourer. His wife and children, too, assist, and every vacant hour is devoted to his work. Hence consists the superiority in the cultivation of a cottier peasantry; the inferiority consists in the want of skill and of efficient capital. In small patches of ground, where the spade husbandry, or where only cheap and simple implements are employed, the hearty, patient, and persevering industry of a peasant and his family, working for themselves, is so much more effectual than the sluggish exertions of the hired labourer, that

a much larger crop can be raised by them than can be gained in any other way. The cultivation of very poor land, in small pieces, or the reduction of waste land to tillage, is best effected in this way. But the whole of our soil could not be cultivated by the spade: there would not be labourers sufficient to raise all our produce by this method, and hence it is applicable only to a limited extent. Were the same hearty exertions made in conjunction with the large and efficient capital which the opulent farmer employs-his labouring cattle, ploughs, and powerful implements of the most improved kinds, the produce would be incomparably greater than that which the poor cultivator can raise with his simple but inefficient implements. But to transfer the cultivation of the whole soil of our country to a cottier peasantry, would be to go backwards instead of onwards in the march of improvement; and would be attended with lamentable results. To know what these would be, it is only necessary to look back to those ages when it was so cultivated, or to those countries where the soil is still cultivated in a similar manner.

CHAPTER XIII.

MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY.

MANUFACTURING industry is essential, not only to the gratification of the artificial cravings of man, but to the supply of his most urgent wants. Without it, he would be reduced to a more destitute and helpless state than any in which he has ever yet been found. He would possess neither tools nor clothing; his only shelter from the weather would be the hollows of trees and caverns of the earth; and his only food would be fruits, roots, and the flesh of such of the smaller animals as he might, in his naked and helpless state, be able to outrun and overcome. In order to form a just estimate of the importance of this branch of industry, we must not confine our view to its direct and simple

operation of preparing rude produce for consumption; we must also take into consideration its indirect and secondary operation of supplying the working implements to all the other departments of labour. In every branch, we require the aid of appropriate tools, implements, and machines, and these are furnished by manufacturing industry. Hence, without the co-operation of the manufacturer, no other kind of industry than his could be effectually carried on. He not only prepares, but also co-operates in appropriating, the spontaneous productions of nature; he assists in cultivating the earth and navigating the waters.

In the early stages of society, the manufacturing, as a separate interest, was small in comparison with the rest of the community. The scanty acquaintance with the arts then existing afforded little room for the exertion of labour in working up raw produce; while the inefficiency of industry proceeding in great part from a want of knowing how to apply it with advantage, allowed of little cessation from the work of procuring food, or fabricating articles of convenience and luxury.

In the progress of improvement, the accumulation of capital, and the concentration of population, the productive powers of manufacturing industry are continually increasing; and a perpetually decreasing number of workmen are able to work up the same quantity of raw materials. With this continually decreasing labour in working up goods, their value in relation to raw produce declines. The value of the goods, however, being made up of raw material and labour, will not decline in the measure of their whole value, but only in that of the labour bestowed upon them.

Manufacturing industry is peculiarly exposed to fluctuations and reverses through a falling off of demand, or the loss of particular branches of trade, occasioned by the capricious influence of fashion, political measures, the combinations and violent conduct of workmen, or other contingencies. The demand for the produce of agriculture is in great measure exempt from such influence. Food, as an indispensable requisite to existence, must continue in demand under all circumstances. But with manufactures, the demand for any particular article is dependent not only on the wants, but on the tastes and caprice of the pur