Jonnès says of his countrymen, in the year of grace, 1850, "A large part of the population of our rural districts continue, from habit and from necessity, to feed upon a detestable bread, an indigestible mixture of rye, barley, bran, beans, and potatoes, which is neither leavened nor cooked sufficiently;" and Blanqui, who, under a com mission of the Institute, has for two years past been journeying through the provinces, to examine into and report upon their condition, declares that they alone who have seen it, can conceive the degree in which the clothing, furniture, and food of the rural population are slender and sorry.* * An official report for 1845, of the number of houses in France subject to the door and window tax, shows that there are, in all, 7,519,310 houses-of which, 500,000 have only one aperture, 2,000,000 with only two, and 1,500,000 with from four to five. Two-sevenths only of the whole have six or more openings. Thus are the French people lodged.

We can obtain, however, a more complete idea of the general destitution of France, from the estimate of Michel Chevalier, that the sum-total of value annually produced in that country, if equally divided among its inhabitants, would give an average of less than

in 1843, 20,000,000 lived on wheat and corn, and the remainder were much better nourished than in the former period.

* Blanqui sums up his account in these terms:→

"Whatever diversity exists in the soil occupied by the people, in their customs, aptitudes, dispositions, the salient, characteristic fact of their situation is, wretchedness- a general insufficiency of the means of satisfying even the first necessities of life. One is surprised how small is the consumption of these myriads of human beings. They constitute, however, the majority of the taxpayers; and the slightest difference in their favour, of income, would not merely benefit them, but vastly advance all fortunes and the prosperity of the State. Those alone who have seen it can believe the degree in which the clothing, furniture, and food of the rural population are slender and sorry. There are entire cantons in which particular articles of clothing are transmitted from father to son; in which the domestic utensils are simply wooden spoons, and the furniture a bench and a crazy table. You may count by thousands men who have never known bed-sheets; others who have never worn shoes; and, by millions, those who drink only water, who never eat meat, or very rarely-nor even white bread."

63 centimes (about 12 cents) to each. Such is the fruit of tyrannous misgovernment: that it was greatly worse than this previous to the Revolution of 1793, may serve to show how much that Revolution was needed, and how cheap a price it was, with all its crimes and horrors, for the improvement that has followed.

We were led to this digression, because the thought would naturally rise, in the mind of an American reader, that the agricultural labourers must have had bread every day, at a period when, according to the statistics of De Jonnès, their wages would only furnish it for half the time. The objection is obviated, when we see that they fed on something far different from wheaten bread, which is taken as the measure of the capacity of their wages to supply food.

Recurring now to the tables, for the purpose for which they were adduced, we see that they prove a great advance, both in the absolute amount of wages, and in the proportion which they bear to the entire product, and to the share of the capitalist. The proportion to the entire product has almost doubled in one hundred and fifty years, having risen from thirty-five per cent. to sixty. As between the labourers and the capitalists it was, in 1700, 35 per cent. to the former, and 65 to the latter. It is now 60 per cent. to the former, and 40 to the latter, who, instead of getting two-thirds of the product, twice as much as the labourers, now get but two-fifths, leaving the labourers three-fifths, or 50 per cent. more than the capitalists. But, although the latter get a diminished proportion, the increased efficiency of labour and capital has made the crop so much greater, that this diminished proportion yields an amount, not only absolutely greater, but greater relatively to the increased population. This is readily shown by a few figures, deduced from the tables of M. Jonnès. Taking for comparison the two extremes, we find the following results:

From this it appears that, notwithstanding the labourers are so much better paid-three and two-third times more than in 1700

(or, rather, because they are so much better paid,) the remainder, left to be divided among the capitalists and non-agricultural classes, is larger than before, and they fare better also. The entire population of France lacks three millions of having doubled, while the crop has nearly quadrupled; so, that on an equal distribution, there is now twice as much for each mouth, as in 1700. But looking to the actual distribution now, and then, we see, that while the nonagricultural population has increased 100 per cent., the surplus left, after paying the agricultural labourers their increased wages and enlarged proportion, has increased 127 per cent. This is the state of the case, the comparison being made in money. If it is desired to estimate it in food, we have the necessary elements of calculation, when we know that the mean price of wheat, at the first epoch, was 18 francs 85 centimes per hectolitre, while at the latter it was 19 francs 3 centimes a difference of less than two cents a bushel. If it should be objected, that these figures do not show how much goes to the landlord, in his quality of owner of the soil, and how much to the man who advances capital in the shape of seed, tools, &c., for its cultivation, the answer is, that the proportion of the crop which pays both is less than formerly; if the landlord took the whole, it would be a less share than both obtained in 1700; and if he now gets nothing in his quality of proprietor of land, leaving the whole to remunerate himself or third persons for the use of capital other than land, it is less in ratio than he originally received for the use of the land, and all the other capital employed in tilling it.

66

The operation of the law is indicated by a comparison of different portions of France. "It is," says Passy, country of contrasts. There are Departments which seem to have made no agricultural progress for a century; there are others, whose agriculture is not behind that of the most advanced countries of Europe. In the Departments most backward, the expenses of cultivation do not exceed an average of 30 francs to the hectare (2,4% acres), and the gross revenue is about 70 francs. In the advanced Departments, on the contrary, the expenditure amounts to 200 francs and over to the hectare, and at this cost a gross product is realized of at least 320 francs, leaving the farmers, as well to pay the rent as for their own profits, about 120 francs. In the latter the excess of the pro

duce above the cost of production, is three times that of the former; but it requires nearly seven times the amount of advances of capital."* The capitalists who obtain for rent and profits four-sevenths of the value of the crop, have but one-third the amount received by those whose proportion is but three-eighths. The remaining five-eighths, which the latter expend in the wages of labourers and the improvement of the soil, is five times as much in amount, as is furnished for those objects in the poorer Departments. Decreasing proportion for the capitalists, with increasing quantity, is thus exhibited, as well by the comparison between different districts of the same country, as by that of the country at large, in different stages of its progress. The converse of the proposition must clearly hold in respect to the wages of labour; and, after better wages have been provided for the existing labourers, there is still three times the amount to be added to the capital of the advanced Departments, and to furnish wages for new labourers in the advanced Departments, that the more backward could supply. Instead of population encroaching upon the limits of subsistence, those limits recede before the advance of population.

We might multiply proofs of the same character, and extend the comparison over wider periods. The only difficulty is, that as we recede in time, the information which we are able to obtain becomes indefinite in character, and can seldom be exhibited with the precision of figures in a tabular form. It sometimes occurs that the rent of ancient times is given by the proportion to the whole produce. Thus Cato, in his agricultural treatise, has informed us that in his day the lands of Italy, not cultivated by the owner himself, nor by his superintendent, usually a freedman or slave, were farmed out to what was styled a Politor, who retained for his personal services and those of his family, from one-ninth to one-fifth of the crop. The proprietor in this case furnished everything-the slaves, beasts, seed, and tools. Where lands in Italy are now let upon the Metairie system, or on shares, the Metayer usually has half of the crops, furnishing half of the live stock and seed; the highest pro

* Article Agriculture, Dictionnaire de l'Economie Politique, vol. 1, p. 38. † Chap. 136, 137, quoted by Dureau de La Malle, Economie Politique des Romains, vol. 2, page 60.

portion known is upon some of the volcanic lands of the Kingdom of Naples, where the landlord takes two-thirds.

But the great conclusive fact is, that in those countries which have attained to civilization and wealth, history shows us that at the early periods, while they were yet poor and barbarous, the actual cultivators of the land were in a condition of slavery, incapable of acquiring any property, and obtaining a bare subsistence, like the oxen that worked with them. If we look at contemporary nations, in different stages of social progress and wealth, we see the lowest in the scale are marked by the slavery of the actual tillers of the soil. The Serfs in Russia, the Fellahs in Egypt, the Peons in Mexico, the slaves of our Southern States, are ready examples. We shall necessarily recur to this point when treating of Wages.

But it is needless to multiply evidences. A single case, fairly put and fully authenticated, is decisive; for the laws of Nature admit of no exceptions, and operate equally at all times and in all places.

We have now examined all that is distinctive and consistent in Mr. Ricardo's theory of Rent, and shown that it will not bear the test either of speculative reasoning or historical experience. He has almost casually referred to "advantages of situation as equivalent to natural fertility, in determining value and rent. By advantages of situation is meant either actual proximity to markets for its produce, or that virtual proximity which is occasioned by rapid and cheap modes of transportation. In whichever way produced, the advantage is the result of the expenditure of capital in building up towns near the farm, or in constructing roads, canals, railways, and the machines for running upon them, which, for all economical purposes, annihilate distance in the same proportion as they annihilate the cost of overcoming it. Advantages which are the product of capital must necessarily be governed, as to the value of their ownership and use, by the same laws which regulate the value of other products of capital. The cost of obtaining them diminishes. with the growth of population, and that growth at the same time diminishes the necessity for them; as the number of inhabitants in a district cannot be increased without bringing them nearer to each other, and thus facilitating their exchanges. Such advantages,