quoted; he is sensible that for all scientific purposes, consumption and distribution are identical, and he leaves consumption to the cook and the moralist. We cannot equally approve of separating Exchange from Distribution. In latter times, Exchange has undoubtedly occupied a great share of the attention of economists, too much we think; and the subject is swelled in Mr. Mill's book to a very disproportionate magnitude. It occupies twenty-six chapters, and in it money credit, and international trade, (an epithet, be it observed in passing, full of error,) are treated of. The consequence of this division of the subject, is, that some of the most important circumstances influencing distribution, and influencing production are not treated of, nor referred to under those heads; and the most important of all exchanges, those between the labourer and the capitalist, and the labourer and the landowner, are twice referred to, but treated of chiefly under distribution. It would have been more logical to treat of value and cost, on the principles which determine exchange as a part of, and preliminary to distribution; exchange or the higgling of the market, of which foreign exchanges are only a part, being in fact the means by which, after division of labour begins, the share of each in the product which results from the labour of all, is determined. Mr. Mill has added neither to the simplicity nor to the clearness of the science, by this new arrangement.

It is worth while to notice the temporary influence and the permanent error which has led to this aberration from logical precision. Within the last few years, owing to the agitation for the repeal of the corn laws, and the rapid extension of commercial intercourse, questions connected with foreign trade have occupied a paramount share of public attention. The diffusion of the precious metals through different communities, the price of commodities in different countries, have had a great charm for men of subtle and minute minds, and have made them discuss, at a wearisome length, both in parliament and in the public journals, numerous subjects that properly form part of the business of the merchant. It is the especial business of a philosopher to distinguish between evanescent and permanent interests, and in a work like this to assign to each its due share of importance. Mr. Mill, however, carried away, we think, by the popular sentiment, has treated of exchange at undue length, though it is palpable that the business of the merchant, of which as he treats it, it forms a part, is not of more importance than any other branch of production. Besides being misplaced, the subject is improperly exalted.

The permanent error which lies at the bottom of the whole, and to which Mr. Mill is evidently yet a victim, or he would not

speak of international trade, is that of supposing, because politicians have interfered much more latterly with foreign than domestic trade, that there is a trade between nations, and that the trade carried on between Messrs. Baring and a house in New York, is different in principle from that carried on between the Messrs. Baring and a house in Manchester or Glasgow. Trade is altogether a business of individuals, and not of nations. There is a trade which grows from division of labour amongst individuals, whether they live under the same or different governments, as the merchant who imports cotton is the trader between the cotton-grower in the United States and the spinner and weaver in England, and as the merchant who buys hops in Kent, and sells them to the brewer in Lincoln, is the trader between the hop grower and the brewer; and there is the trade which grows from territorial division of labour, of which the growth of hops and cotton in different places, and the exchanges made of them for wheat and cloth, may also serve as examples; and these distinctions founded on great natural differences, are known by the incorrect names of home and foreign trade. In the strictly natural science of political economy, we distinguish a trade arising from diversities in individuals, and from diversities of climates and soil, from diversities in men, and from diversities in the external and material world, but these have no connexion whatever with the political distinctions which usually constitute nations. They both exist within our own empire and country, and they both exist in our own and other countries. It has pleased statesmen, to attempt to regulate the trade which takes place between an individual at New York and an individual in London, while they have not attempted to interfere with that carried on between an individual at Lincoln and one in London; but both trades are carried on by individuals, for their own advantage. There is nothing national in them, and international is a misleading and unscientific term.

When exchange is treated of in the larger sense of term, as the whole body of rules which determine how much of one commodity, or one species of labour, shall be given for another, it cannot be too much exalted, but then it ought to have a different place in Mr. Mill's treatise. It is not as a rule, determining all distribution amongst all the individuals engaged in production, that Mr. Mill treats it, and the place he assigns it is the condemnation of the length at which he treats it.

Nor has he conferred any benefit on the science by separately considering, in his fourth book, the influence of the progress of society on production and distribution. The progress of society means only the increase of population, which depends on pro

duction. The subject really worthy of consideration is the mutual relations of population and production, which belongs to Mr. Mill's first book. This is a most important subject, for all the improvement in production is connected with the progress of population, but of this Mr. Mills is not aware. We believe, too, that the influence of the progress of society on distribution, depends exclusively on its influence over production. But by his method, Mr. Mill is driven to treat of the most important element both of production and distribution, namely, the effects of population, which both adds to productive power, and forces the cultivation of inferior soils, enhancing cost, after he has apparently disposed of those subjects.

Nor can we approve of the introduction of the influence of government, as part of the natural science of wealth. It is wholly extraneous to it, and whatever may be its influence on society by taxation or otherwise, the laws which determine the production and distribution of wealth are no more under its influence, than they are under the influence of spendthrifts and gamblers. Both must feel the effects of those laws; both, but particularly Governments, are bound to observe, but cannot alter them. Mr. Mill has needlessly complicated and confused the science by his new arrangements, which is the more to be regretted, as it requires, to make it clear and comprehensible, to be separated from all matters which do not properly belong to it. So much we say, as objecting to his arrangement of the parts of the science; we now pass to his manner of dealing with its details.

The titles, quoted above, of the chapter on the means of abolishing cottier tenantcy, will at a glance inform the reader, that Mr. Mill really carries out his intention of applying the principles of the science to practice. He treats the occupation of land, unquestionably a subject of great importance, at great length, disproportioned,' as he admits, 'to the dimensions of this work; and far from confining himself to our own country and times, he goes back, and abroad, for illustrations. He discusses the question of slavery economially, of great proprietors and peasant proprietors, of metayers and cottiers, and daylabourers. To some extent he is a defender of the metayer system, and a warm advocate for peasant proprietorship, the advantages of which he expounds, and largely illustrates. We miss, however, in this, as in other parts of his work, the influence of a great and guiding principle. It is scarcely necessary that we should refer to the examples of New South Wales, where a successful farmer requires a run of several square miles for his cattle; or to Belgium, where six acres may be the average size of a farm, to illustrate the fact, that the occupation of land in large

or small quantities, is at all times beneficially determined by the amount of population in a given space. The appropriation of the soil of Ireland and of England by Norman Barons, in vast masses-whole counties or many parishes, being comprised in single estates-was, eight or ten centuries ago, a bearable evil; but to continue such a species of appropriation now, when the land carries about six times as many people, though that has been one of the objects of our legislation, causing much misery both in England and Ireland, is absolutely ruinous. For one man to hold with a view of cultivating one thousand, or two thousand acres of land in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, would be out of the question, but in Northumberland, or parts of Scotland, many farms are met with of that size. A beneficial occupation of the soil, therefore, is at all times, and in all countries, contingent on the amount of population. Circumstances connected with the same principle, and contingent on the progress of industry, determine economically the advantages and disadvantages of slavery, of the metayer system, and every other system of occupation, with a view to cultivation; and Mr. Mill would have discussed these important subjects with greater advantage to his readers, had he kept continually in view the over-ruling effects on the occupation of the soil of a dense or dispersed population.

The term proprietor, Mr. Mill connects with the term peasantry, and so makes out an excellent case for small divisions of the soil, which should be referred to the independent ownership. A market gardener, in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, owning and using only a few acres of ground, is on a par with the many acred boors of Holland, or farmers of the north of England. Each has the advantage of security and ownership, and the quantity of acres that he uses is of minor importance. It is the same with peasant proprietors; the independent ownership is the source of the benefit, and the size of the farm occupied by each man might, according to the amount of population, be very different, with equal advantages. There can be no doubt of the consequences of the soil being owned by those who cultivate it, but that subject is totally distinct from the size of the portion which each man should own and occupy. In Mr. Mill's book, as in many other writings, however, these distinct matters, which ought to be kept separate, are confounded, and advantages which belong exclusively to the owners of the soil, being free from all restrictions, are attributed to the division of the soil into small pieces.

This part of Mr. Mill's book is written with much animation, and is particularly rich in knowledge and illustrations. After examining the occupation of land in all the countries of Europe,

and pointing out the evils of the cottier system of Ireland, he comes to the conclusion, that this is the most urgent of practical questions. The very foundation of the economical evils of Ireland, is the cottier system.' 'Cottiers must, therefore, cease to be. Nothing can be done for Ireland without transforming her rural population from cottier tenants into something else,' into landed proprietors.' The principle he adopts is that of 'fixing the amount of rent,' as between peasant and landlord, in perpetuity, thus changing the rent into a quit rent, and the farmer into a peasant proprietor. He thus describes how this important change may be brought about, and briefly adverts to its consequences :

----

'The mode which first suggests itself is the obvious and direct one, of doing the thing outright by Act of Parliament; making the whole land of Ireland the property of the tenants, subject to the rents now really paid, (not the nominal rents), as a fixed rent charge. This under the name of fixity of tenure, was one of the demands of the Repeal Association during the most successful period of their agitation.

'But though this measure is not beyond the competence of a just legislature, and would be no infringement of property if the landlords had the option allowed them of giving up their lands at the full value, reckoned at the ordinary number of years' purchase, it is only fit to be adopted if the nature of the case admitted of no milder remedy. In the first place, it is a complete expropriation of the higher classes of Ireland; which, if there is any truth in the principles we have laid down, would be perfectly warrantable, but only if it were the sole means of effecting a great public good. In the second place, that there should be none but peasant proprietors, is in itself far from desirable. Large farms, cultivated by large capitals, and owned by persons of the best education the country can give, persons qualified by instruction to appreciate scientific discoveries, and able to bear the delay and risk of costly experiments, are an important part of a good agricultural system.

There are, then, strong objections, as well as great difficulties, opposed to the attempt to make peasant properties universal. But, fortunately, that they should be universal is not necessary to their usefulness. There is no need to extend them to all the population, or all the land. It is enough, if there be land available, on which to locate so great a portion of the population, that the remaining area of the country shall not be required to maintain greater numbers than are compatible with large farming and hired labour. For this purpose there is an obvious resource in the waste lands; which are happily so extensive, and a large proportion of them so improveable, as to afford a means by which, without making the present tenants proprietors, nearly the whole surplus population might be converted into peasant proprietors elsewhere.

'It would be desirable, and in most cases necessary, that the tracts of land should be prepared for the labours of the peasant, by being drained and intersected with roads at the expense of government; the interest